Companion Dataset and Provenance

The data behind the site is published as validated JSON so that anyone can check a claim, reuse the records or build on them.

Last updated August 24, 2026

Downloads

  • relationships.json — 119 directional relationship records.
  • catalog.json — lightweight plant index (63 plants), regions and families.
  • sources.json — 33 sources with claim paraphrases.
  • Per-plant records: /data/plants/<slug>.json; per-plant companion shards: /data/companions/<slug>.json.
  • Full records with history: the repository (src/data/).

Licence

Data: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0). Cite as "Garden Planner companion relationship dataset" with the URL and the access date. Each record's sources retain their own copyright; paraphrases are ours.

Relationship record fields

plant_a, plant_b, directionPlant ids and direction (a_to_b, b_to_a, mutual).
statussupported, conditional, traditional, avoid, conflicting, unknown.
effect_type, polarity, target_pest_or_diseaseNamed effect, whether it helps or harms, and the named organisms.
claim, mechanism, outcome_measuresLimited claim matching the evidence; proposed mechanism; what was measured.
evidence_tier, evidence_type, source_idsA–D or unknown; study type; links into sources.json.
study_context, production_context, spatial_arrangement, distance_or_density, relative_planting_time, overlap_requirement, management_requirementsContext needed for the relationship to apply.
applicability_notes, limitations, contradicting_record_idsHome-garden interpretation, limits, and links to opposing records.
hard_constraintTrue only for serious, applicable, well-supported harm.
reviewer, reviewed_at, versionProvenance.

Provenance and validation

Records are authored by hand following the methodology and the editorial protocol in the repository. A build-time validator rejects records with missing plants or sources, status/tier mismatches, unlinked contradictions, malformed DOIs or thin content. Reviewer status at launch: editorial team, pending independent horticultural review.

Our Methodology & Sources

We synthesize peer-reviewed research, university extension publications, and trusted horticulture resources. Our evidence levels help you understand how strong the science is behind the guidance.

Evidence tiers

Supported evidenceConsistent results from multiple robust studies
Traditional claimHistorical use reported, limited scientific support
Context dependentMixed or variable results across conditions
No verified relationshipNo reliable evidence identified

Primary source types

  • Peer-reviewed journal articles
  • University extension publications
  • Government & research institute reports
  • Systematic reviews & meta-analyses

Last updated

August 24, 2026

Learn more about our approach