ReviewFrontiers in plant science2016
Enhancing Integrated Pest Management in GM Cotton Systems Using Host Plant Resistance.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insect-Resistant VarietyInsects · 2026Article
- Genetically modified crops and sustainable development: navigating challenges and opportunities.Food science and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- Managers' attitudes toward gene-editing technology and companies' R&D investment in gene-editing: the case of Chinese seed companies.GM crops & food · 2022Article
- Cotton Breeding in Australia: Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Core Collections: Is There Any Value for Cotton Breeding?Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- The Past, Present, and Future of Host Plant Resistance in Cotton: An Australian Perspective.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Bacterial Microbiota of Field-CollectedMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Pyramiding ofGM crops & food · 2021Article
- Distinct defensive activity of phenolics and phenylpropanoid pathway genes in different cotton varieties toward chewing pests.Plant signaling & behavior · 2020Article
- Induced Plant Defenses Against Herbivory in Cultivated and Wild Tomato.Journal of chemical ecology · 2019Article
- Constitutive and induced insect resistance in RNAi-mediated ultra-low gossypol cottonseed cotton.BMC plant biology · 2019Article
- Laccase GhLac1 Modulates Broad-Spectrum Biotic Stress Tolerance via Manipulating Phenylpropanoid Pathway and Jasmonic Acid Synthesis.Plant physiology · 2018Article
- The impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in modern agriculture: A review.GM crops & food · 2017Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cotton has lost many ancestral defensive traits against key invertebrate pests. This is suggested by the levels of resistance to some pests found in wild cotton genotypes as well as in cultivated landraces and is a result of domestication and a long history of targeted breeding for yield and fiber quality, along with the capacity to control pests with pesticides. Genetic modification (GM) allowed integration of toxins from a bacteria into cotton to control key Lepidopteran pests. Since the mid-1990s, use of GM cotton cultivars has greatly reduced the amount of pesticides used in many cotton systems. However, pests not controlled by the GM traits have usually emerged as problems, especially the sucking bug complex. Control of this complex with pesticides often causes a reduction in beneficial invertebrate populations, allowing other secondary pests to increase rapidly and require control. Control of both sucking bug complex and secondary pests is problematic due to the cost of pesticides and/or high risk of selecting for pesticide resistance. Deployment of host plant resistance (HPR) provides an opportunity to manage these issues in GM cotton systems. Cotton cultivars resistant to the sucking bug complex and/or secondary pests would require fewer pesticide applications, reducing costs and risks to beneficial invertebrate populations and pesticide resistance. Incorporation of HPR traits into elite cotton cultivars with high yield and fiber quality offers the potential to further reduce pesticide use and increase the durability of pest management in GM cotton systems. We review the challenges that the identification and use of HPR against invertebrate pests brings to cotton breeding. We explore sources of resistance to the sucking bug complex and secondary pests, the mechanisms that control them and the approaches to incorporate these defense traits to commercial cultivars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.