ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Turfgrass Disease Diagnosis: Past, Present, and Future.
Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Plant-Parasitic Nematode Genera Associated with Turfgrass in Maryland Golf Courses and Athletic Fields.The plant pathology journal · 2024Article
- Distribution and Prevalence of Plant-Parasitic Nematodes of Turfgrass at Golf Courses in China.Biology · 2022Article
- Enhancement of Disease Control Efficacy of Chemical Fungicides Combined with Plant Resistance Inducer 2,3-Butanediol against Turfgrass Fungal Diseases.The plant pathology journal · 2022Article
- The influence of the grass mixture composition on the quality and suitability for football pitches.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Turfgrass is a multibillion-dollar industry severely affected by plant pathogens including fungi, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes. Many of the diseases in turfgrass have similar signs and symptoms, making it difficult to diagnose the specific problem pathogen. Incorrect diagnosis leads to the delay of treatment and excessive use of chemicals. To effectively control these diseases, it is important to have rapid and accurate detection systems in the early stages of infection that harbor relatively low pathogen populations. There are many methods for diagnosing pathogens on turfgrass. Traditional methods include symptoms, morphology, and microscopy identification. These have been followed by nucleic acid detection and onsite detection techniques. Many of these methods allow for rapid diagnosis, some even within the field without much expertise. There are several methods that have great potential, such as high-throughput sequencing and remote sensing. Utilization of these techniques for disease diagnosis allows for faster and accurate disease diagnosis and a reduction in damage and cost of control. Understanding of each of these techniques can allow researchers to select which method is best suited for their pathogen of interest. The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the turfgrass diagnostics efforts used and highlight prospects for disease detection.
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.