Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32010171›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2019

The Effect of Rhizoboxes on Plant Growth and Root: Shoot Biomass Partitioning.

Tereza Mašková, Adam Klimeš

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. A bench-top Dark-Root device built with LEGOFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tereza MaškováDepartment of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Adam KlimešDepartment of Botany, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Charles University · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various types of flat rhizoboxes aid in root visualization and tracking in experiments where the focus is upon root system growth and development. While size of the pot is known to affect experiments, nothing is known about the impact of rhizoboxes-not only their volume, but also their shape might affect root and shoot growth. Therefore, we investigated how rhizoboxes change plant biomass and root:shoot biomass partitioning. We compared biomass and root:shoot ratio of plants growing in the pots with different geometry-usual three-dimensional, cuboid plant pots and flat two-dimensional rhizoboxes about the same volume. We used two different nutritional treatments (deionized water and additional nutrients) for investigating whether the nutrient availability in the substrate changed the impact of rhizoboxes on plant growth. We used 15 species for the generalizability of our results across the phylogenetic tree. Proportional investment of plants into roots was similar in usual pots and in rhizoboxes. This pattern was stable across nutrition treatments and across species. Further, we found no differences in total biomass of plants between pot type within nutrient treatments. With added nutrients, the plants had a higher biomass and lower root:shoot ratio compared to treatments without nutrient addition. Thus, species can be safely compared when grown in the rhizoboxes; rhizoboxes did not affect root system growth comparisons among species and nutrient levels. Also, they did not affect plant growth in terms of total biomass.

Indexed as

2D pot shapeexperimental containernutrient supplyplant growthrhizoboxroot:shoot biomass partitioning

Identifiers

PMID32010171
PMCPMC6978282
OpenAlexW2999251786

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.