Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31101844›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Accounting for soil moisture improves prediction of flowering time in chickpea and wheat.

Yashvir S Chauhan, Merrill Ryan, Subhash Chandra, Victor O Sadras

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The reduced growth due to elevated COFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Yashvir S ChauhanDepartment of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), Kingaroy, Queensland, 4610, Australia. yash.chauhan@daf.qld.gov.au.
Merrill RyanDAF, Hermitage Research Station, 604 Yangan Road, Warwick, Queensland, 4370, Australia.
Subhash ChandraAgriculture Research Division, Agriculture Victoria, 255 Ferguson Road, Tatura, 3616, Victoria, Australia.
Victor O SadrasSouth Australian Research and Development Institute and School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adealide, Adelaide, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Matching crop phenology to environment is essential to improve yield and reduce risk of losses due to extreme temperatures, hence the importance of accurate prediction of flowering time. Empirical evidence suggests that soil water can influence flowering time in chickpea and wheat, but simulation models rarely account for this effect. Adjusting daily thermal time accumulation with fractional available soil water in the 0-60 cm soil layer improved the prediction of flowering time for both chickpea and wheat in comparison to the model simulating flowering time with only temperature and photoperiod. The number of post-flowering frost events accounted for 24% of the variation in observed chickpea yield using a temperature-photoperiod model, and 66% of the variation in yield with a model accounting for top-soil water content. Integrating the effect of soil water content in crop simulation models could improve prediction of flowering time and abiotic stress risk assessment.

Indexed as

AgricultureCicerComputer SimulationEdible GrainFlowersModels, BiologicalPhotoperiodQueenslandSoilTemperatureTime FactorsTriticumWaterSoilWater

Identifiers

PMID31101844
PMCPMC6525173

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.