Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33173596›Full record

ArticleActa naturae

Infectious Plant Diseases: Etiology, Current Status, Problems and Prospects in Plant Protection.

P A Nazarov, D N Baleev, M I Ivanova, L M Sokolova, M V Karakozova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta naturae. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing 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

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Antimicrobial Potential of Defensin-DerivedInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A Novel NeotropicalMicroorganisms · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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.

P A NazarovBelozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, 119991 Russia.
D N BaleevAll-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Moscow, 117216 Russia.
M I IvanovaAll-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Vegetable Growing, Branch of the Federal Scientific Vegetable Center, Vereya, Moscow region, 140153 Russia.
L M SokolovaAll-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Vegetable Growing, Branch of the Federal Scientific Vegetable Center, Vereya, Moscow region, 140153 Russia.
M V KarakozovaCenter of Life Sciences, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, 121205 Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of diseases caused by bacterial, fungal, and viral infections. Infections affect plants at different stages of agricultural production. Depending on weather conditions and the phytosanitary condition of crops, the prevalence of diseases can reach 70-80% of the total plant population, and the yield can decrease in some cases down to 80-98%. Plants have innate cellular immunity, but specific phytopathogens have an ability to evade that immunity. This article examined phytopathogens of viral, fungal, and bacterial nature and explored the concepts of modern plant protection, methods of chemical, biological, and agrotechnical control, as well as modern methods used for identifying phytopathogens.

Indexed as

agrotechnical controlbacteriabiological controldisease resistancefungiintegrated pest managementpesticidesphytopathogenplant immunityselectionviruses

Identifiers

PMID33173596
PMCPMC7604890

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.