The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systemic Acquired Resistance and Induced Systemic Resistance in Conventional Agriculture
Abstract
Plants possess a range of defenses that can be actively expressed in response to pathogens and parasites of various scales, ranging from microscopic viruses to insect herbivores. The timing of these defense responses is critical and can be the difference between being able to cope or succumbing to the challenge of a pathogen or parasite. Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) and induced systemic resistance (ISR) are two forms of induced resistance; in both SAR and ISR, plant defenses are preconditioned by prior infection or treatment that results in resistance (or tolerance) against subsequent challenge by a pathogen or parasite. Great strides have been made over the past 20 yr in understanding the physiological and biochemical basis of SAR and ISR. Much of this knowledge is due to the identification of a number of chemical and biological elicitors, some of which are commercially available for use in conventional agriculture. However, the effectiveness of these elicitors to induce SAR and ISR as a practical means to control various plant diseases is just being realized. In this review, we first briefly summarize the fundamentals of ISR and SAR, for which a number of critical reviews already exist. We then examine the efficacy of SAR and ISR in published field‐based studies. We place special emphasis on the benefits, drawbacks, and future considerations for the improved use of chemical and biological elicitors of induced resistance in conventional agriculture; this includes the potential to exploit genetic variability within populations of crop species to improve the utility of SAR and ISR in the field.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Dilemma of Plants: To Grow or Defend
Herms, D. A., & Mattson, W. J. (1992) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/417659 · Cited by 4,262
Resource Availability and Plant Antiherbivore Defense
Coley, P. D., Bryant, J. P., & Chapin, F. S. (1985) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.230.4728.895 · Cited by 3,967
SYSTEMIC RESISTANCE INDUCED BY RHIZOSPHERE BACTERIA
van Loon, L. C., Bakker, P. A. H. M., & Pieterse, C. M. J. (1998) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.36.1.453 · Cited by 2,361
P ATHOGEN P OPULATION G ENETICS, E VOLUTIONARY P OTENTIAL, AND D URABLE R ESISTANCE
McDonald, B. A., & Linde, C. (2002) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120501.101443 · Cited by 2,128
Requirement of Salicylic Acid for the Induction of Systemic Acquired Resistance
Gaffney, T., Friedrich, L., Vernooij, B., Negrotto, D., Nye, G., Uknes, S., Ward, E., Kessmann, H., & Ryals, J. (1993) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.261.5122.754 · Cited by 1,853
P LANT R ESPONSES TO I NSECT H ERBIVORY: The Emerging Molecular Analysis
Kessler, A., & Baldwin, I. T. (2002) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135207 · Cited by 1,482
Sticher, L., Mauch-Mani, B., & Métraux, A. J. (1997) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.35.1.235 · Cited by 1,433
The Myriad Plant Responses to Herbivores
Walling, L. L. (2000) · Journal of Plant Growth Regulation · doi:10.1007/s003440000026 · Cited by 1,386
Coordinated plant defense responses in Arabidopsis revealed by microarray analysis
Schenk, P. M., Kazan, K., Wilson, I., Anderson, J. P., Richmond, T., Somerville, S. C., & Manners, J. M. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.21.11655 · Cited by 1,370
Coordinate Gene Activity in Response to Agents That Induce Systemic Acquired Resistance.
Ward, E. R., Uknes, S. J., Williams, S. C., Dincher, S. S., Wiederhold, D. L., Alexander, D. C., Ahl-Goy, P., Metraux, J. P., & Ryals, J. A. (1991) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1105/tpc.3.10.1085 · Cited by 1,272
Cited by
Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-05035-170440 · Cited by 1,126
Thirteen decades of antimicrobial copper compounds applied in agriculture. A review
Lamichhane, J. R., Osdaghi, E., Behlau, F., Köhl, J., Jones, J. B., & Aubertot, J.-N. (2018) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-018-0503-9 · Cited by 601
Biochar for crop production: potential benefits and risks
Hussain, M., Farooq, M., Nawaz, A., Al-Sadi, A. M., Solaiman, Z. M., Alghamdi, S. S., Ammara, U., Ok, Y. S., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2017) · Journal of Soils and Sediments · doi:10.1007/s11368-016-1360-2 · Cited by 532
Understanding and enhancing soil biological health: the solution for reversing soil degradation
Lehman, R., Cambardella, C., Stott, D., Acosta-Martinez, V., Manter, D., Buyer, J., Maul, J., Smith, J., Collins, H., Halvorson, J., et al. (2015) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su7010988 · Cited by 449
Induced Resistance for Plant Disease Control: Maximizing the Efficacy of Resistance Elicitors
Walters, D., Walsh, D., Newton, A., & Lyon, G. (2005) · Phytopathology® · doi:10.1094/phyto-95-1368 · Cited by 448
Metadata
- Authors
- Vallad, G. E., & Goodman, R. M.
- Venue
- Crop Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1920-1934
- ISSN
- 0011-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0653
- OpenAlex
- W2034941720
- Cited by
- 819
- References
- 80
- FWCI
- 15.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systemic Acquired Resistance and Induced Systemic Resistance in Conventional Agriculture. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2135/cropsci2004.1920
- The paper
- Vallad, G. E., & Goodman, R. M. (2004). Systemic Acquired Resistance and Induced Systemic Resistance in Conventional Agriculture. Crop Science. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.1920
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
