Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41560404›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2026

Cold hardiness mechanisms and modeling: existing approaches and future avenues.

Guillaume Charrier, Al P Kovaleski, Bénédicte Wenden, Heikki Hänninen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Guillaume CharrierUniv. Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, PIAF, Clermont-Ferrand, 63000, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8722-8822
Al P KovaleskiDepartment of Plant and Agroecosystem Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3287-4963
Bénédicte WendenINRAE, Univ. Bordeaux, UMR Biologie du Fruit et Pathologie 1332, Villenave d'Ornon, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3064-5446
Heikki HänninenState Key Laboratory for Development and Utilization of Forest Food Resources, Zhejiang A&F University, 666 Wusu Street, Hangzhou, 31 1300, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3555-2297

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cold hardiness models are useful tools to predict cold damage in plants, such as those produced by unseasonal temperature cycles or by increased cold exposure. Although development of these models started about five decades ago, their applications remain limited. We describe the main paradigms driving the different types of cold hardiness models (empirical to process-based), their similarities and differences. Among the existing paradigms, process-based models are built to translate physiological mechanisms into mathematical functions over a broad range of climatic conditions, thus making them more accurate for studying the effect of climate change. Different approaches have been developed in predicting cold hardiness: (1) empirical relationships between temperature and cold hardiness; (2) phenological processes controlling acclimation and deacclimation rates; (3) phenological and physiological processes predicting cold hardiness through the osmo-hydric approach; and (4) molecular regulation driving the metabolic drivers of cold hardiness. For the first three approaches, we describe the context, the experimental and field observations that defined their frameworks as well as their limitations. To increase the realism of cold hardiness models, we describe the potential of a fourth approach, based on the perception of environmental signals, how it translates into cold acclimation/deacclimation and provide recommendations to develop this framework.

Indexed as

AcclimatizationCold TemperatureModels, Biologicalcold hardinessdormancyempirical modelphenological stageprocess‐based model

Identifiers

PMID41560404
PMCPMC12917462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.