Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35185957›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in plant science2021

Practice in Nursery Weed Control-Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ping Yu, Stephen Christopher Marble

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Ping YuDepartment of Environmental Horticulture, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Apopka, FL, United States.
Stephen Christopher MarbleDepartment of Environmental Horticulture, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Apopka, FL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Weeds, as one of the biggest challenges in the nursery industry, have been controlled by various methods, such as chemical and non-chemical practices. Although these practices have been widely established and tested to control weeds, there is no systematic or meta-analysis review to provide quantitative weed control efficacy information of these practices. To provide a systematic understanding of weed control practices in nursery production, a visualization research trend, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis were conducted. A total of 267 relevant studies were included for the research trend and 83 were included in the meta-analysis. The results in this study showed that interests in nursery weed control have switched dramatically in the past 2-3 decades (1995-2021) from chemical dominant weed control to chemical coexistent with non-chemical techniques. Developing new management tactics and implementing diverse combinations of integrated weed management present the future trend for weed control. The systematic review results showed that chemical methods had the highest weed control efficacy, while non-chemical had the lowest on average, nonetheless, all three weed control practices (chemical, non-chemical, and combined) reduced the weed biomass and density significantly compared with when no strategy was employed. Weed control challenges could be the catalyst for the development of new non-chemical and integrated weed control techniques.

Indexed as

citespacecontainerherbicideintegrated controlnon-chemicalweed efficacy

Identifiers

PMID35185957
PMCPMC8847678

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.