Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35956501›Full record

ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Growth Responses of Three European Weeds on Different AMF Species during Early Development.

Verena Säle, Ewald Sieverding, Fritz Oehl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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. Review
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.

Verena SäleAgroscope, Plant Protection Products-Impact and Assessment, Müller-Thurgau-Strasse 29, CH-8820 Wädenswil, Switzerland.
Ewald SieverdingInstitute of Agricultural Sciences in the Tropics (Hans-Ruthenberg Institute), University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 13, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany.
Fritz OehlAgroscope, Plant Protection Products-Impact and Assessment, Müller-Thurgau-Strasse 29, CH-8820 Wädenswil, Switzerland.

Funding

Swiss National Science Foundation 130764
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) have multiple functions in agroecosystems and affect many processes below- and aboveground, including plant productivity. Mycorrhizal symbiosis is not necessarily beneficial for the host plant and the growth response can be not only positive but also neutral or negative. Among other factors, the responsiveness of plants to AMF depends on the plant-fungus combination. To find out whether the AMF species or isolate is a decisive factor for growth responses of weeds, 44 AMF isolates were tested in a pot experiment for their effects on three agricultural weeds:

Indexed as

arbuscular mycorrhizal fungigrowth inhibitiongrowth responsemycorrhizal dependencyweed research

Identifiers

PMID35956501
PMCPMC9370437

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.