Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23915092›Full record

ReviewPlant biotechnology journal2013

Genetically engineered trees for plantation forests: key considerations for environmental risk assessment.

Hely Häggman, Alan Raybould, Aluizio Borem, Thomas Fox, Levis Handley, Magnus Hertzberg, Meng-Zu Lu, Philip Macdonald, Taichi Oguchi, Giancarlo Pasquali and 8 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant biotechnology journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Environmental risk assessment of impacts of transgenicPlant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors at 17 institutions in 10 countries.

Hely HäggmanDepartment of Biology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Alan Raybould
Aluizio Borem
Thomas Fox
Levis Handley
Magnus Hertzberg
Meng-Zu Lu
Philip Macdonald
Taichi Oguchi
Giancarlo Pasquali
Les Pearson
Gary Peter
Hector Quemada
Armand Séguin
Kylie Tattersall
Eugênio Ulian
Christian Walter
Morven McLean
Canadian Food Inspection Agency · CAChinese Academy of Forestry · CNDonald Danforth Plant Science Center · USMaineGeneral Medical Center · USNational Center for Environmental Assessment (EPA) · USNatural Resources Canada · CAScion · NZSweTree Technologies (Sweden) · SESyngenta (United Kingdom) · GBUnited States Nuclear Regulatory Commission · USUniversidade Federal de Viçosa · BRUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul · BRUniversity of Canberra · AUUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Oulu · FIUniversity of Tsukuba · JPVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Forests are vital to the world's ecological, social, cultural and economic well-being yet sustainable provision of goods and services from forests is increasingly challenged by pressures such as growing demand for wood and other forest products, land conversion and degradation, and climate change. Intensively managed, highly productive forestry incorporating the most advanced methods for tree breeding, including the application of genetic engineering (GE), has tremendous potential for producing more wood on less land. However, the deployment of GE trees in plantation forests is a controversial topic and concerns have been particularly expressed about potential harms to the environment. This paper, prepared by an international group of experts in silviculture, forest tree breeding, forest biotechnology and environmental risk assessment (ERA) that met in April 2012, examines how the ERA paradigm used for GE crop plants may be applied to GE trees for use in plantation forests. It emphasizes the importance of differentiating between ERA for confined field trials of GE trees, and ERA for unconfined or commercial-scale releases. In the case of the latter, particular attention is paid to characteristics of forest trees that distinguish them from shorter-lived plant species, the temporal and spatial scale of forests, and the biodiversity of the plantation forest as a receiving environment.

Indexed as

Plants, Genetically ModifiedTreesBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmentRisk Assessmentenvironmentforestsgenetic engineeringrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID23915092
PMCPMC3823068
OpenAlexW2166558811

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.