Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32995102›Full record

ReviewApplications in plant sciences2020

Field-based mechanical phenotyping of cereal crops to assess lodging resistance.

Lindsay Erndwein, Douglas D Cook, Daniel J Robertson, Erin E Sparks

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applications in plant sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Knockdown of microRNA390 Enhances Maize Brace Root Growth.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsay ErndweinDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences and the Delaware Biotechnology Institute University of Delaware Newark Delaware 19711 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4778-7440
Douglas D CookDepartment of Mechanical Engineering Brigham Young University Provo Utah 84602 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1731-1978
Daniel J RobertsonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering University of Idaho Moscow Idaho 83844 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1089-0249
Erin E SparksDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences and the Delaware Biotechnology Institute University of Delaware Newark Delaware 19711 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1543-6950
University of Delaware · USBrigham Young University · USUniversity of Idaho · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant mechanical failure, also known as lodging, is the cause of significant and unpredictable yield losses in cereal crops. Lodging occurs in two distinct failure modes-stalk lodging and root lodging. Despite the prevalence and detrimental impact of lodging on crop yields, there is little consensus on how to phenotype plants in the field for lodging resistance and thus breed for mechanically resilient plants. This review provides an overview of field-based mechanical testing approaches to assess stalk and root lodging resistance. These approaches are placed in the context of future perspectives. Best practices and recommendations for acquiring field-based mechanical phenotypes of plants are also presented.

Indexed as

anchoragebendinglodgingphenotypingrind penetrationrootstalk

Identifiers

PMID32995102
PMCPMC7507486
OpenAlexW2993225888

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.