Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense · Musa

1. Bacillus subtilisResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
2. TrichodermaResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
3. Pseudomonas fluorescensResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
4. Trichoderma virideResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
5. carbendazimResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
6. tebuconazoleResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
7. trifloxystrobinResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
8. loss of functionPositive and negative results8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect
9. inoculationPositive and negative results6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect
10. phPositive and negative results2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect
11. botanicalResults agree5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect
12. applicationResults agree3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect
13. fertilizationResults agree2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect
14. infectionResults agree2 papers: 0 positive, 2 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.