ReviewPeerJ2023
Spatial weed distribution models under climate change: a short review.
Review in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Precision management of the pernicious weed Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth in maize: an anchor-point calibration framework integrating economic thresholds and species distribution models.Pest management science · 2026Article
- Variation in the Acceptability of Cereal Grasses byInsects · 2026Article
- Not Just a Matter of Space: Integrating Ecological Niche Modeling With Genotype-Environment Associations Suggests High Maladaptation Risks Under Climate Change for a Microendemic Malagasy Frog.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Climate Change Drives Divergent Potential Habitat Dynamics of Invasive and Native Noxious Asteraceae Weeds in Yunnan Grasslands.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Editorial: Mechanistic insights into plant biomechanical and biochemical adaptation to climate change.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Assessing the Potential Distribution ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate change is a concern worldwide that could trigger many changes with severe consequences. Since human demography is steadily increasing, agriculture has to be constantly investigated to aim at improving its efficiency. Weeds play a key role in this task, especially in the recent past and at present, when new introductions have been favoured by a rise in tourism and international trade. To obtain knowledge relating weeds and their behaviour to climate change, species distribution models (SDMs) have also increased recently. In this work, we have reviewed some articles published since 2017 on modelled weeds, aiming to give a response to, among other things, the species most studied, the scale and location of the studies, the algorithms used and validation parameters, global change scenarios, types of variables, and the sources from which the data were collected. Fifty-nine articles were selected to be reviewed, with maximum entropy (MaxEnt) and area under the curve (AUC) being the most popular software and validation processes. Environmental and topographic variables were considered above pedological and anthropogenic ones. Europe was the continent and China, the USA, and India the countries most studied. In this review, it was found that the number of published articles between developed and developing countries is unbalanced and comes out in favour of the former. The current knowledge on this topic can be considered to be good not enough, especially in developing countries with high population densities. The more knowledge we can obtain, the better our understanding is of how to deal with this issue, which is a worldwide preoccupation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.