Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17582535›Full record

ReviewMycorrhiza2007

Further advances in orchid mycorrhizal research.

John D W Dearnaley

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Mycorrhiza, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed
29.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 347 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Telomere-to-Telomere Genome Assembly ofJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Seedling Establishment ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

John D W DearnaleyFaculty of Sciences and Australian Centre for Sustainable Catchments, The University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, 4350, Australia. dearns@usq.edu.au.
University of Southern Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Orchid mycorrhizas are mutualistic interactions between fungi and members of the Orchidaceae, the world's largest plant family. The majority of the world's orchids are photosynthetic, a small number of species are myco-heterotrophic throughout their lifetime, and recent research indicates a third mode (mixotrophy) whereby green orchids supplement their photosynthetically fixed carbon with carbon derived from their mycorrhizal fungus. Molecular identification studies of orchid-associated fungi indicate a wide range of fungi might be orchid mycobionts, show common fungal taxa across the globe and support the view that some orchids have specific fungal interactions. Confirmation of mycorrhizal status requires isolation of the fungi and restoration of functional mycorrhizas. New methods may now be used to store orchid-associated fungi and store and germinate seed, leading to more efficient culture of orchid species. However, many orchid mycorrhizas must be synthesised before conservation of these associations can be attempted in the field. Further gene expression studies of orchid mycorrhizas are needed to better understand the establishment and maintenance of the interaction. These data will add to efforts to conserve this diverse and valuable association.

Indexed as

AscomycotaBasidiomycotaMycorrhizaeOrchidaceaePlant RootsResearchSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID17582535
OpenAlexW2142567414

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.