SynthesisEnvironmental evidence2022
Strategies for managing spring frost risks in orchards: effectiveness and conditionality-a systematic review.
Synthesis in Environmental evidence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies for managing spring frost risks in orchards: effectiveness and conditionality-a systematic review.Environmental evidence · 2022Pooled it
- Thresholds for spring freeze: measuring risk to improve predictions in a warming world.The New phytologist · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Automation in Evidence Synthesis: An Investigation of Methods Employed in Cochrane, Campbell Collaboration, and Environmental Evidence Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Article
- Characterization of frost-tolerant plum genotypes (Prunus domestica L.) in Nishabur region, Iran: a morphological and phenological assessment following natural spring frost event.BMC plant biology · 2024Article
- Frost Damage Mitigation in Flowers and Fruitlets of Peach and Almond from the Application of a Multi-Attribute Approach Biostimulant.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Selecting the superior late-leafing genotypes of Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) using morphological and pomological evaluations.BMC plant biology · 2023Article
- Quantitative Traits of Interest in Apple Breeding and Their Implications for Selection.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Frost formation through super-cooled water within micron gap of galvanic coupled arrays.RSC advances · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpring frosts pose an important threat to orchard productivity in temperate zones and projections do not exclude damaging events in the future. However, there is no up-to-date and systematic comparison of the effectiveness and conditionality of the existing passive and active damage prevention strategies. This systematic review seeks to answer the questions "How do the performances of spring frost damage reduction strategies in temperate fruit orchards compare?" and "How do environmental conditions affect the effectiveness of frost damage reduction strategies in temperate fruit orchards?".
methodsThis review covers a large range of on-field strategies for the protection of flowering orchards against damage inflicted by late spring frost. All major temperate fruit tree crops and grapevines were included, provided that the performance of frost damage reduction was compared against a control in terms of bud and flower survival, yield and delays in flowering time, or ambient temperature change. Articles and reports were collected between June and October 2021 from the Web of Science Core Collection and regional indexes and from the databases Scopus, FAO AGRIS, USDA Agricola, CAB Abstracts and the Groenekennis database of the University of Wageningen, the Netherlands, as well as from relevant institutional websites and the Chinese scholarly search engine 'Baidu'. Biases resulting from inadequate randomisation, incomplete reporting or deficient study designs were reported. Temporal and spatial research trends and gaps were mapped based on 104 selected studies (from 8970 identified studies). Data was extracted for every experiment that an article reported on, leading to 971 data points. Groups of frost protection methods were compared in terms of effectiveness whereby environmental factors were examined to explain the variation of the effectiveness by means of mixed linear models. REVIEW
findingsMost included studies originate from the United States and Europe more than from the temperate fruit production regions in Asia. An increase over time in the research on foliar applications, including growth regulation hormones was observed. Apple, peach and more recently grapevine were the most researched fruit types, followed by cherry and pear. The validity of the selected studies was generally low as measures of variability were reported only occasionally. Therefore, only descriptive comparisons of effectiveness were undertaken between intervention classes by fruit types. Sprinkler systems were found to perform best for most studied outcomes, while the emerging biochemical solutions revealed mixed results. The performances of resource-intensive heating systems did not outperform low-resource techniques such as tunnels or coverings of individual buds. The lack of reporting standards did not allow extensive correlations with ambient factors and reduced the transferability of the review's findings. A need for standard protocols for experiments and reporting is therefore apparent.
conclusionsIn this field, strong shortcomings in the documentation of experimental setups and reporting standards were exposed. Implications for policy making are limited while for research recommendations to reduce bias and increase comparability are put forward.
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.