Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28665020›Full record

SynthesisThe New phytologist2018

Green leaf volatile production by plants: a meta-analysis.

Maarten Ameye, Silke Allmann, Jan Verwaeren, Guy Smagghe, Geert Haesaert, Robert C Schuurink, Kris Audenaert

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The New phytologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

133 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Volatile Organic Compounds ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maarten AmeyeDepartment of Applied Bioscience, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Silke AllmannDepartment of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94215, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jan VerwaerenDepartment of Applied Bioscience, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Guy SmaggheDepartment of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Geert HaesaertDepartment of Applied Bioscience, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Robert C SchuurinkDepartment of Plant Physiology, Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam, PO Box 94215, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Kris AudenaertDepartment of Applied Bioscience, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Valentin Vaerwyckweg 1, B-9000, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

NWO-ALW 863.14.011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

666 I. Introduction 667 II. Biosynthesis 667 III. Meta-analysis 669 IV. The type of stress influences the total amount of GLVs released 669 V. Herbivores can modulate the wound-induced release of GLVs 669 VI. Fungal infection greatly induces GLV production 672 VII. Monocots and eudicots respond differentially to different types of stress 673 VIII. The type of stress does not influence the proportion of GLVs per chemical class 673 IX. The type of stress does influence the isomeric ratio within each chemical class 674 X. GLVs: from signal perception to signal transduction 676 XI. GLVs influence the C/N metabolism 677 XII. Interaction with plant hormones 678 XIII. General conclusions and unanswered questions 678 Acknowledgements 679 References 679 SUMMARY: Plants respond to stress by releasing biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs). Green leaf volatiles (GLVs), which are abundantly produced across the plant kingdom, comprise an important group within the BVOCs. They can repel or attract herbivores and their natural enemies; and they can induce plant defences or prime plants for enhanced defence against herbivores and pathogens and can have direct toxic effects on bacteria and fungi. Unlike other volatiles, GLVs are released almost instantly upon mechanical damage and (a)biotic stress and could thus function as an immediate and informative signal for many organisms in the plant's environment. We used a meta-analysis approach in which data from the literature on GLV production during biotic stress responses were compiled and interpreted. We identified that different types of attackers and feeding styles add a degree of complexity to the amount of emitted GLVs, compared with wounding alone. This meta-analysis illustrates that there is less variation in the GLV profile than we presumed, that pathogens induce more GLVs than insects and wounding, and that there are clear differences in GLV emission between monocots and dicots. Besides the meta-analysis, this review provides an update on recent insights into the perception and signalling of GLVs in plants.

Indexed as

HerbivoryPlant LeavesPlantsSignal TransductionStress, PhysiologicalVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic Compoundsdicotfungusgreen leaf volatile (GLV)herbivoremeta-analysismonocotpathogen

Identifiers

PMID28665020

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.