Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26697895›Full record

ReviewPlant physiology2016

The Physiology of Adventitious Roots.

Bianka Steffens, Amanda Rasmussen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant physiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 210 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
210citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Fructan 6-Exohydrolase fromPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Analysis of Marijuana (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  16. Rooting Ability ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

150 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

2 authors.

Bianka SteffensPlant Physiology, Philipps University, 35043 Marburg, Germany (B.S.); andDivision of Plant and Crop Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington LE12 5RD, United Kingdom (A.R.).
Amanda RasmussenPlant Physiology, Philipps University, 35043 Marburg, Germany (B.S.); andDivision of Plant and Crop Science, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington LE12 5RD, United Kingdom (A.R.) a.rasmussen@nottingham.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adventitious roots are plant roots that form from any nonroot tissue and are produced both during normal development (crown roots on cereals and nodal roots on strawberry [Fragaria spp.]) and in response to stress conditions, such as flooding, nutrient deprivation, and wounding. They are important economically (for cuttings and food production), ecologically (environmental stress response), and for human existence (food production). To improve sustainable food production under environmentally extreme conditions, it is important to understand the adventitious root development of crops both in normal and stressed conditions. Therefore, understanding the regulation and physiology of adventitious root formation is critical for breeding programs. Recent work shows that different adventitious root types are regulated differently, and here, we propose clear definitions of these classes. We use three case studies to summarize the physiology of adventitious root development in response to flooding (case study 1), nutrient deficiency (case study 2), and wounding (case study 3).

Indexed as

Stress, PhysiologicalFloodsPlant RootsPlantsWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID26697895
PMCPMC4734560

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.