Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23818892›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2013

Resistance to sap-sucking insects in modern-day agriculture.

Arjen Vandoorn, Martin de Vos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Perspectives for integrated insect pest protection in oilseed rape breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Changes in Gene Expression and Metabolite Profiles inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Induced plant responses to microbes and insects.Frontiers in plant science · 2013
    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

2 authors.

Arjen VandoornKeygene NV, Wageningen Netherlands ; Department of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute of Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Martin de Vos

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants and herbivores have co-evolved in their natural habitats for about 350 million years, but since the domestication of crops, plant resistance against insects has taken a different turn. With the onset of monoculture-driven modern agriculture, selective pressure on insects to overcome resistances has dramatically increased. Therefore plant breeders have resorted to high-tech tools to continuously create new insect-resistant crops. Efforts in the past 30 years have resulted in elucidation of mechanisms of many effective plant defenses against insect herbivores. Here, we critically appraise these efforts and - with a focus on sap-sucking insects - discuss how these findings have contributed to herbivore-resistant crops. Moreover, in this review we try to assess where future challenges and opportunities lay ahead. Of particular importance will be a mandatory reduction in systemic pesticide usage and thus a greater reliance on alternative methods, such as improved plant genetics for plant resistance to insect herbivores.

Indexed as

breedingcrop pestsgenetically modified cropsnatural insecticidesphloem-feeding insects

Identifiers

PMID23818892
PMCPMC3694213

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.