Yield · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)

1. Medicago sativaPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
2. diuronPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
3. silicon atomPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
4. Trifolium pratenseResults agree4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. Lolium perenneResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. trinexapac-ethylResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. droughtResults differ14 papers: 1 positive, 13 negative or no effect · 6 pairs of papers confirmed to differ
8. nitrogenPositive and negative results31 papers: 26 positive, 5 negative or no effect
9. fertilizationPositive and negative results30 papers: 27 positive, 3 negative or no effect
10. pruningPositive and negative results12 papers: 1 positive, 11 negative or no effect
11. densityPositive and negative results9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect
12. grazingPositive and negative results7 papers: 2 positive, 5 negative or no effect
13. irrigationPositive and negative results7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect
14. phosphorusPositive and negative results7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect
15. inoculationPositive and negative results6 papers: 2 positive, 4 negative or no effect
16. herbicidePositive and negative results5 papers: 2 positive, 3 negative or no effect
17. potassiumPositive and negative results5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect
18. competitionPositive and negative results4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect
19. firePositive and negative results4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect
20. insecticidePositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
21. organicPositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
22. shadePositive and negative results3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect
23. sowing timePositive and negative results3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect
24. tillagePositive and negative results3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect
25. applicationPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
26. climate sitePositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
27. limeResults agree7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect
28. infectionResults agree3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect
29. lightResults agree3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect
30. salinityResults agree3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect
31. transplantingResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
32. coldResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
33. floodingResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
34. heatResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
35. ozoneResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect
36. rotationResults 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.