ArticleAoB PLANTS2012
Regression analysis of growth responses to water depth in three wetland plant species.
Article in AoB PLANTS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated biomarker responses of the submerged macrophyteRoyal Society open science · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPlant species composition in wetlands and on lakeshores often shows dramatic zonation, which is frequently ascribed to differences in flooding tolerance. This study compared the growth responses to water depth of three species (Phormium tenax, Carex secta and Typha orientalis) differing in depth preferences in wetlands, using non-linear and quantile regression analyses to establish how flooding tolerance can explain field zonation. METHODOLOGY: Plants were established for 8 months in outdoor cultures in waterlogged soil without standing water, and then randomly allocated to water depths from 0 to 0.5 m. Morphological and growth responses to depth were followed for 54 days before harvest, and then analysed by repeated-measures analysis of covariance, and non-linear and quantile regression analysis (QRA), to compare flooding tolerances. PRINCIPAL
resultsGrowth responses to depth differed between the three species, and were non-linear. Phormium tenax growth decreased rapidly in standing water >0.25 m depth, C. secta growth increased initially with depth but then decreased at depths >0.30 m, accompanied by increased shoot height and decreased shoot density, and T. orientalis was unaffected by the 0- to 0.50-m depth range. In P. tenax the decrease in growth was associated with a decrease in the number of leaves produced per ramet and in C. secta the effect of water depth was greatest for the tallest shoots. Allocation patterns were unaffected by depth.
conclusionsThe responses are consistent with the principle that zonation in the field is primarily structured by competition in shallow water and by physiological flooding tolerance in deep water. Regression analyses, especially QRA, proved to be powerful tools in distinguishing genuine phenotypic responses to water depth from non-phenotypic variation due to size and developmental differences.
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.