Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33187303›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Turfgrass Disease Diagnosis: Past, Present, and Future.

Tammy Stackhouse, Alfredo D Martinez-Espinoza, Md Emran Ali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Tammy StackhouseDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793, USA.
Alfredo D Martinez-EspinozaDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223, USA.
Md Emran AliDepartment of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1957-4392

Funding

Georgia Department of Agriculture FP00017755
6 · The paper itself

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

biotechnologydisease detectiondisease monitoringhistorymolecular detectionplant pathology

Identifiers

PMID33187303
PMCPMC7697262

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.