Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36377770›Full record

ReviewThe Plant cell2023

Potential abiotic stress targets for modern genetic manipulation.

Andrew F Bowerman, Caitlin S Byrt, Stuart John Roy, Spencer M Whitney, Jenny C Mortimer, Rachel A Ankeny, Matthew Gilliham, Dabing Zhang, Anthony A Millar, Greg J Rebetzke and 1 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Plant cell, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. CRISPR-Cas applications in agriculture and plant research.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Seven plant capacities to adapt to abiotic stress.Journal of experimental botany · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

11 authors.

Andrew F BowermanARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1729-7843
Caitlin S ByrtARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8549-2873
Stuart John RoyARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0411-9431
Spencer M WhitneyARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2954-2359
Jenny C MortimerARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6624-636X
Rachel A AnkenyARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1547-6031
Matthew GillihamARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0666-3078
Dabing ZhangARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3181-9812
Anthony A MillarARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6668-1326
Greg J RebetzkeCSIRO Agriculture & Food, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7404-0046
Barry J PogsonARC Training Centre for Accelerated Future Crops Development, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1869-2423

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research into crop yield and resilience has underpinned global food security, evident in yields tripling in the past 5 decades. The challenges that global agriculture now faces are not just to feed 10+ billion people within a generation, but to do so under a harsher, more variable, and less predictable climate, and in many cases with less water, more expensive inputs, and declining soil quality. The challenges of climate change are not simply to breed for a "hotter drier climate," but to enable resilience to floods and droughts and frosts and heat waves, possibly even within a single growing season. How well we prepare for the coming decades of climate variability will depend on our ability to modify current practices, innovate with novel breeding methods, and communicate and work with farming communities to ensure viability and profitability. Here we define how future climates will impact farming systems and growing seasons, thereby identifying the traits and practices needed and including exemplars being implemented and developed. Critically, this review will also consider societal perspectives and public engagement about emerging technologies for climate resilience, with participatory approaches presented as the best approach.

Indexed as

AgricultureSoilPhenotypeSeasonsStress, PhysiologicalSoil

Identifiers

PMID36377770
PMCPMC9806601

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.