Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23188175›Full record

ReviewHeredity2013

The red queen in the corn: agricultural weeds as models of rapid adaptive evolution.

C C Vigueira, K M Olsen, A L Caicedo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Heredity, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing 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

52 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Seeking consensus on the domestication concept.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Evolution of weedy giant ragweed (Ecology and evolution · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Different Responses of Invasive WeedLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

C C VigueiraDepartment of Biology, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.
K M Olsen
A L Caicedo

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Weeds are among the greatest pests of agriculture, causing billions of dollars in crop losses each year. As crop field management practices have changed over the past 12 000 years, weeds have adapted in turn to evade human removal. This evolutionary change can be startlingly rapid, making weeds an appealing system to study evolutionary processes that occur over short periods of time. An understanding of how weeds originate and adapt is needed for successful management; however, relatively little emphasis has been placed on genetically characterizing these systems. Here, we review the current literature on agricultural weed origins and their mechanisms of adaptation. Where possible, we have included examples that have been genetically well characterized. Evidence for three possible, non-mutually exclusive weed origins (from wild species, crop-wild hybrids or directly from crops) is discussed with respect to what is known about the microevolutionary signatures that result from these processes. We also discuss what is known about the genetic basis of adaptive traits in weeds and the range of genetic mechanisms that are responsible. With a better understanding of genetic mechanisms underlying adaptation in weedy species, we can address the more general process of adaptive evolution and what can be expected as we continue to apply selective pressures in agroecosystems around the world.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionAdaptation, BiologicalCrops, AgriculturalHerbicidesHumansPlant WeedsZea maysHerbicides

Identifiers

PMID23188175
PMCPMC3607111

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.