ReviewFrontiers in fungal biology2022
Plant pathogens as introduced weed biological control agents: Could antagonistic fungi be important factors determining agent success or failure?
Review in Frontiers in fungal biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shaping Fungal Communities in Cenchrus setaceus: Host Condition and Habitat Filtering.Microbial ecology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mycoparasitic interactions are common in nature, form part of the microbiota of plants, and are considered significant contributors to fungus-fungus antagonism. Mycoparasites kill plant pathogens, protect the plant from abiotic and biotic stressors, and reduce disease incidence and severity at the plant population level. Their exploitation as biocontrol agents in agriculture is well documented. However, mycoparasites may potentially affect classical fungal biocontrol agents of invasive weed species. Classical biological control, or biocontrol, of invasive weeds involves the intentional introduction of exotic, usually co-evolved plant pathogens and insects, for permanent establishment and long-term control of the target plant. Agent establishment, effectiveness, and safety are the critical elements for a successful weed biocontrol programme. Establishment and effectiveness of agents on the invasive plant often vary throughout the invaded range with about two-thirds of weed biocontrol agents failing to suppress their target weed. There are many documented reasons why weed biocontrol agents do not establish or are ineffective when they do, and the presence and accumulation of natural enemies in the invaded range is one of them. Endophyte-enriched, invasive weeds and those forming mutualistic associations with indigenous, native endophytes could explain the lack of consistency of some classical biological control introductions. However, another variable could be factored into the mix: mycoparasitism, where one fungus parasitises another, the natural enemies of the plant's natural enemies. In this review article, we introduce the concept of invasive weed biocontrol and the history of using plant pathogens as biocontrol agents. We discuss the success and failure of fungal agent programmes and delve into the patterns of success or failure, with a focus on the potential antagonistic role of endophytes and mycoparasites.
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.