Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31748269›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2019

Defense of Scots pine against sawfly eggs (

Norbert Bittner, Janik Hundacker, Ander Achotegui-Castells, Olle Anderbrant, Monika Hilker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Oviposition byFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Norbert BittnerDahlem Centre of Plant Sciences, Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, 12163 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8588-185X
Janik HundackerDahlem Centre of Plant Sciences, Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, 12163 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4212-3266
Ander Achotegui-CastellsCentre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals (CREAF), Barcelona, 08193 Catalonia, Spain.
Olle AnderbrantDepartment of Biology, Lund University, 223 62 Lund, Sweden.
Monika HilkerDahlem Centre of Plant Sciences, Institute of Biology, Freie Universität Berlin, 12163 Berlin, Germany; monika.hilker@fu-berlin.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants respond to insect infestation with defenses targeting insect eggs on their leaves and the feeding insects. Upon perceiving cues indicating imminent herbivory, such as damage-induced leaf odors emitted by neighboring plants, they are able to prime their defenses against feeding insects. Yet it remains unknown whether plants can amplify their defenses against insect eggs by responding to cues indicating imminent egg deposition. Here, we tested the hypothesis that a plant strengthens its defenses against insect eggs by responding to insect sex pheromones. Our study shows that preexposure of

Indexed as

AnimalsFemaleHerbivoryHost-Parasite InteractionsHydrogen PeroxideHymenopteraMaleOdorantsOvipositionOvumPinus sylvestrisPlant LeavesPlant ProteinsSex AttractantsHydrogen PeroxidePlant ProteinsSex AttractantsDiprion pinihydrogen peroxideinduced plant defenseinsect ovipositionpriming

Identifiers

PMID31748269
PMCPMC6900732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.