Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38293625›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2023

Testing plant growth promoting microorganisms in the field - a proposal for standards.

Daniel Neuhoff, Günter Neumann, Markus Weinmann

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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
20.4field-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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Chickpea seed endophyteFrontiers in nutrition · 2024
    Article
  15. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel NeuhoffDepartment Agroecology & Organic Farming, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Günter NeumannDepartment of Nutritional Crop Physiology (340h), Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Markus WeinmannDepartment of Nutritional Crop Physiology (340h), Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
University of Hohenheim · DEUniversity of Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the European Union and worldwide there are a burgeoning markets for plant growth promoting microorganisms (PGPM) and other biological agents as soil improvers, bio-fertilizers, plant bio-stimulants, and biological control agents or bio-pesticides. Microbial agents have a major share in this development. The use of such products is often advertised with the promise of contributing to sustainable agricultural practices by increasing crop growth and yield and offering an alternative or substitute to decrease the dependency of agriculture on hazardeous agrochemicals. In contrast to registered microbial plant protection products, PGPM that are marketed in the EU as soil improvers or plant biostimulants, are not strictly required to have proven minimum efficacy levels under field conditions. Manufacturers only have to ensure that these products do not pose unacceptable risks to human, animal or plant health, safety or the environment. Uniform guidelines comparable to the EPPO - standards (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation) to test the efficacy in field trials are not available. This paper attempts to fill the gap. It proposes guidelines for PGPM field trial design and implementation, as well as recommendations for the type and scope of data collection and evaluation. Selected research papers from literature were evaluated to analyze, whether and to what extent the requirements are already met. The majority of the papers had a clear experimental design followed by proper data evaluation. Frequent deficiencies were the low number of tested environments and crop species, insufficient site and agronomic management description and missing data on soil humidity and temperature. Using the suggested standards is assumed to increase the expressive power of tested microbial products.

Indexed as

biostimulantscrop yield and qualityexperimental designmode of actionsustainable agriculture

Identifiers

PMID38293625
PMCPMC10824932
OpenAlexW4390917765

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.