Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36204050›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2022

Multi-location evaluation of mungbean (

Ashok K Parihar, Sanjeev Gupta, Kali K Hazra, Amrit Lamichaney, Debjyoti Sen Gupta, Deepak Singh, Raju Kumar, Anil K Singh, Rakesh Vaishnavi, M Samuel Jaberson and 37 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

47 authors.

Ashok K PariharICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India.
Sanjeev GuptaIndian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, India.
Kali K HazraICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India.
Amrit LamichaneyICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India.
Debjyoti Sen GuptaICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India.
Deepak SinghICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Raju KumarICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
Anil K SinghICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India.
Rakesh VaishnaviSher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology (SKUAST), Srinagar, India.
M Samuel JabersonCentral Agricultural University, Imphal, India.
Sankar P DasICAR Research Complex for North Eastern Hilly Region, Agartala, India.
Jai DevChaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, India.
Rajesh K YadavChaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India.
B S JamwalPulses Research Sub-Station, SKUAST-Jammu, Srinagar, India.
B R ChoudharyAgriculture University, Jodhpur, India.
O P KhedarRajasthan Agricultural Research Institute, Jaipur, India.
Vijay PrakashAgricultural Research Station, Sriganganagar, India.
Harsh K DikshitIndian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India.
R K PanwarGovind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India.
Manoj KatiyarChandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, India.
Pankaj KumarAcharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Ayodhya, India.
C S MahtoBirsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, India.
H K BorahRegional Agricultural Research Station, Shillongani, India.
M N SinghInstitute of Agricultural Science, BHU, Varanasi, India.
Arpita DasBidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, India.
A N PatilDr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Pulses Research Unit, Akola, India.
H C NandaIndira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, India.
Vinod KumarJawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Sagar, India.
Sumer D RajputMahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, India.
D A ChauhanNavsari Agricultural University, Navsari, India.
M H PatelSardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University, Sardarkrushi Nagar, India.
Raja R KanwarS.G. College of Agriculture and Research Station, Jagdalpur, India.
Jitendra KumarRajmohni Devi College of Agriculture and Research Station, Ambikapur, India.
S P MishraMahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya, Chitrakoot, India.
Hitesh KumarBanda University of Agriculture and Technology, Banda, India.
Indu SwarupRegional Research Centre on Pulses, College of Agriculture, Indore, India.
Suma MogaliUniversity of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad, India.
D KumaresanTamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, India.
Narayana ManivannanNational Pulse Research Centre (TNAU), Vamban Colony, India.
M Byre GowdaUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Gandhi Krishi Vigyana Kendra (GKVK), Bangalore, India.
Muthaiyan PandiyanAgriculture Research Station, Virinjipuram, India.
Polneni J RaoRegional Agricultural Research Station (PJTSAU), Warangal, India.
D ShivaniPJTSA-Agricultural Research Station, Madhira, India.
A M PrustiOdisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, India.
P MahadevuCollege of Agriculture, UAS, GKVK, Mandya, India.
K IyanarTamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, India.
Sujata DasOdisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Crop yield varies considerably within agroecology depending on the genetic potential of crop cultivars and various edaphic and climatic variables. Understanding site-specific changes in crop yield and genotype × environment interaction are crucial and needs exceptional consideration in strategic breeding programs. Further, genotypic response to diverse agro-ecologies offers identification of strategic locations for evaluating traits of interest to strengthen and accelerate the national variety release program. In this study, multi-location field trial data have been used to investigate the impact of environmental conditions on crop phenological dynamics and their influence on the yield of mungbean in different agroecological regions of the Indian subcontinent. The present attempt is also intended to identify the strategic location(s) favoring higher yield and distinctiveness within mungbean genotypes. In the field trial, a total of 34 different mungbean genotypes were grown in 39 locations covering the north hill zone (

Indexed as

adaptabilitycrop phenologygenotype × environment (G × E) interactionHA-GGE biplotmega-environment analysis

Identifiers

PMID36204050
PMCPMC9530336

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.