ArticleAnnals of botany2018
A reassessment of the genome size-invasiveness relationship in reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea).
Article in Annals of botany, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome size variation and evolution during invasive range expansion in an introduced plant.Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Epigenetics and the success of invasive plants.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021Review
- Competition among native and invasiveEcology and evolution · 2020Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Genome size is hypothesized to affect invasiveness in plants. Key evidence comes from a previous study of invasive eastern North American populations of the grass Phalaris arundinacea: invasive genotypes with smaller genomes had higher growth rates, and genome sizes were smaller in the invasive vs. native range. This study aimed to re-investigate those patterns by examining a broader range of North American populations and by employing the modern best-practice protocol for plant genome size estimation in addition to the previously used protocol. Methods: Genome sizes were measured using both internal and pseudo-internal standardization protocols for 20 invasive and nine native range accessions of P. arundinacea. After a round of vegetative propagation to reduce maternal environmental effects, growth (stem elongation) rates of these accessions were measured in the greenhouse. Key Results: Using the best-practice protocol, there was no evidence of a correlation between genome size and growth rates (P = 0.704), and no evidence for differences in genome sizes of invasive and native range accessions (P > 0.353). However, using the older genome size estimation protocol, both relationships were significant (reproducing the results of the previous study). Conclusions: Genome size reduction has not driven increased invasiveness in a broad sample of North American P. arundinacea. Further, inappropriate genome size estimation techniques can create spurious correlations between genome size and plant traits such as growth rate. Valid estimation is vital to progress in understanding the potentially widespread effects of genome size on biological processes and patterns.
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.