Nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)

1. nitrification inhibitorPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. AzotobacterPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
3. zinc atomResults agree12 papers: 12 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. sulfur atomResults agree7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. diammonium hydrogen phosphateResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. Azospirillum brasilenseResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. Oryza sativaResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. ammonium nitrateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
9. crown compoundResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
10. phosphoric acidResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
11. silicon atomResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. sulfuric acidResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. zinc sulfateResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
14. nitrogenResults differ174 papers: 127 positive, 47 negative or no effect · 1 pair of papers confirmed to differ
15. fertilizationPositive and negative results176 papers: 142 positive, 34 negative or no effect
16. tillagePositive and negative results35 papers: 29 positive, 6 negative or no effect
17. irrigationPositive and negative results33 papers: 31 positive, 2 negative or no effect
18. phosphorusPositive and negative results33 papers: 27 positive, 6 negative or no effect
19. applicationPositive and negative results22 papers: 21 positive, 1 negative or no effect
20. organicPositive and negative results15 papers: 13 positive, 2 negative or no effect
21. inoculationPositive and negative results14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect
22. potassiumPositive and negative results12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect
23. otherPositive and negative results10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect
24. co2Positive and negative results7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect
25. droughtPositive and negative results7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect
26. rotationPositive and negative results7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect
27. sowing timePositive and negative results6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect
28. intercroppingPositive and negative results5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect
29. transplantingPositive and negative results4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect
30. climate sitePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
31. transgenicPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
32. nanoparticleResults agree15 papers: 15 positive, 0 negative or no effect
33. biocharResults agree9 papers: 9 positive, 0 negative or no effect
34. densityResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
35. cultivation systemResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
36. mulchingResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
37. mycorrhizaResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
38. floodingResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
39. limeResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
40. micronutrientResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
41. seed treatmentResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
42. stageResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.