Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36875565›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2023

Nanotechnological approaches for management of soil-borne plant pathogens.

Pranab Dutta, Arti Kumari, Madhusmita Mahanta, Gunadhya Kr Upamanya, Punabati Heisnam, Sarodee Borua, Pranjal K Kaman, A K Mishra, Meenakshi Mallik, Gomathy Muthukrishnan and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
38.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Pranab DuttaSchool of Crop Protection, College of Post Graduate Studies in Agricultural Sciences, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Imphal, India.
Arti KumariSchool of Crop Protection, College of Post Graduate Studies in Agricultural Sciences, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Imphal, India.
Madhusmita MahantaSchool of Crop Protection, College of Post Graduate Studies in Agricultural Sciences, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Imphal, India.
Gunadhya Kr UpamanyaSarat Chandra Singha (SCS) College of Agriculture, Assam Agricultural University, Dhubri, India.
Punabati HeisnamCollege of Horticulture and Forestry, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Pasighat, India.
Sarodee BoruaKrishi Vigya Kendra (KVK)-Tinsukia, Assam Agricultural University, Tinsukia, India.
Pranjal K KamanDepartment of Plant Pathology, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India.
A K MishraDepartment of Plant Pathology, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Muzaffarpur, India.
Meenakshi MallikIndian Council of Agricultural Research-National Centre for Integrated Pest management (ICAR-NCIPM), Pusa, New Delhi, India.
Gomathy MuthukrishnanAgricultural College and Research Institute, Killikulam, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Tuticorin, India.
Kuttalingam G SabarinathanAgricultural College and Research Institute, Killikulam, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Tuticorin, India.
Krishti Rekha PuzariSchool of Crop Protection, College of Post Graduate Studies in Agricultural Sciences, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Imphal, India.
Dumpapenchala VijayreddySchool of Crop Protection, College of Post Graduate Studies in Agricultural Sciences, Central Agricultural University (Imphal), Imphal, India.
Central Agricultural University · INAssam Agricultural University · INTamil Nadu Agricultural University · INIndian Council of Agricultural Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Soil borne pathogens are significant contributor of plant yield loss globally. The constraints in early diagnosis, wide host range, longer persistence in soil makes their management cumbersome and difficult. Therefore, it is crucial to devise innovative and effective management strategy to combat the losses caused by soil borne diseases. The use of chemical pesticides is the mainstay of current plant disease management practices that potentially cause ecological imbalance. Nanotechnology presents a suitable alternative to overcome the challenges associated with diagnosis and management of soil-borne plant pathogens. This review explores the use of nanotechnology for the management of soil-borne diseases using a variety of strategies, such as nanoparticles acting as a protectant, as carriers of actives like pesticides, fertilizers, antimicrobials, and microbes or by promoting plant growth and development. Nanotechnology can also be used for precise and accurate detection of soil-borne pathogens for devising efficient management strategy. The unique physico-chemical properties of nanoparticles allow greater penetration and interaction with biological membrane thereby increasing its efficacy and releasability. However, the nanoscience specifically agricultural nanotechnology is still in its toddler stage and to realize its full potential, extensive field trials, utilization of pest crop host system and toxicological studies are essential to tackle the fundamental queries associated with development of commercial nano-formulations.

Indexed as

mode of actionnanoformulationnanotechnologyplant health managementplant pathogen

Identifiers

PMID36875565
PMCPMC9981975
OpenAlexW4321248150

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.