ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Climbing behavior and growth response of
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Grade-specific biomass allocation and allometric growth strategies in Pinus yunnanensis seedlings.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: With rapidly expanding urban environments, green space is becoming increasingly limited. Vertical greening serves as a viable solution to this challenge, with climbing plants playing a crucial role in creating functional and aesthetic green structures. However, current research on support structures for lianas remains scarce. This study therefore investigates the impact of various support forms on the growth of Methods: One-year-old Mansoa alliacea seedlings were exposed to eight types of support systems: bamboo poles and PVC pipes with diameters of 8 mm and 24 mm; and climbing nets made of nylon and hemp with mesh sizes of 5×5 cm and 10×10 cm. This study evaluated the effects of these supports on plant morphology, photosynthetic parameters, and biomass allocation. Results and discussion: The results showed that climbing nets promoted better above-ground growth, measured as number of leaves, leaf area, stem length, and internode length, while poles more effectively enhanced root branching. Various supports forms influenced biomass distribution. Climbing nets tended to allocate more biomass to aboveground parts, while support poles tended to allocate more biomass to underground parts. Bamboo poles (8 mm diameter) and hemp nets (10×10 cm mesh size) were found to be the most effective. These results suggest prioritizing rough climbing nets like hemp nets as structural supports for
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.