Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33765070›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Gene flow in commercial alfalfa (Medicago sativa subsp. sativa L.) seed production fields: Distance is the primary but not the sole influence on adventitious presence.

Sandya R Kesoju, Matthew Kramer, Johanne Brunet, Stephanie L Greene, Amelia Jordan, Ruth C Martin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. 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. Transgene Bioconfinement: Don't Flow There.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  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

6 authors.

Sandya R KesojuDepartment of Agriculture, Columbia Basin College, Pasco, Washington, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8926-9468
Matthew KramerStatistics Group, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, Maryland, United States of America.
Johanne BrunetVegetable Crops Research Unit, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4555-7411
Stephanie L GreeneAgricultural Genetic Resources Preservation Research Unit, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Amelia JordanIrrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Prosser, Washington, United States of America.
Ruth C MartinForage Seed and Cereal Research, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In insect-pollinated crops, gene flow is affected by numerous factors including crop characteristics, mating system, life history, pollinators, and planting management practices. Previous studies have concentrated on the impact of distance between genetically engineered (GE) and conventional fields on adventitious presence (AP) which represents the unwanted presence of a GE gene. Variables other than distance, however, may affect AP. In addition, some AP is often present in the parent seed lots used to establish conventional fields. To identify variables that influence the proportion of AP in conventional alfalfa fields, we performed variable selection regression analyses. Analyses based on a sample-level and a field-level analysis gave similar, though not identical results. For the sample-level model, distance from the GE field explained 66% of the variance in AP, confirming its importance in affecting AP. The area of GE fields within the pollinator foraging range explained an additional 30% of the variation in AP in the model. The density of alfalfa leafcutting bee domiciles influenced AP in both models. To minimize AP in conventional alfalfa seed fields, management practices should focus on optimizing isolation distances while also considering the size of the GE pollen pool within the pollinator foraging range, and the foraging behavior of pollinators.

Indexed as

AnimalsCrops, AgriculturalGene FlowInsectaMedicago sativaPlants, Genetically ModifiedPollinationWashington

Identifiers

PMID33765070
PMCPMC7993763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.