Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25547915›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental botany2015

Increasing leaf hydraulic conductance with transpiration rate minimizes the water potential drawdown from stem to leaf.

Kevin A Simonin, Emily Burns, Brendan Choat, Margaret M Barbour, Todd E Dawson, Peter J Franks

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CThe New phytologist · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Elevated COFrontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin A SimoninDepartment of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA 94132, USA simonin@sfsu.edu.
Emily BurnsSave The Redwoods League, 111 Sutter Street, 11th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA.
Brendan ChoatUniversity of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith 2751, NSW, Australia.
Margaret M BarbourFaculty of Agriculture and Environment, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Todd E DawsonDepartment of Integrative Biology, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
Peter J FranksFaculty of Agriculture and Environment, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUSan Francisco State University · USSave the Redwoods League · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USWestern Sydney University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leaf hydraulic conductance (k leaf) is a central element in the regulation of leaf water balance but the properties of k leaf remain uncertain. Here, the evidence for the following two models for k leaf in well-hydrated plants is evaluated: (i) k leaf is constant or (ii) k leaf increases as transpiration rate (E) increases. The difference between stem and leaf water potential (ΔΨstem-leaf), stomatal conductance (g s), k leaf, and E over a diurnal cycle for three angiosperm and gymnosperm tree species growing in a common garden, and for Helianthus annuus plants grown under sub-ambient, ambient, and elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentration were evaluated. Results show that for well-watered plants k leaf is positively dependent on E. Here, this property is termed the dynamic conductance, k leaf(E), which incorporates the inherent k leaf at zero E, which is distinguished as the static conductance, k leaf(0). Growth under different CO₂ concentrations maintained the same relationship between k leaf and E, resulting in similar k leaf(0), while operating along different regions of the curve owing to the influence of CO₂ on g s. The positive relationship between k leaf and E minimized variation in ΔΨstem-leaf. This enables leaves to minimize variation in Ψleaf and maximize g s and CO₂ assimilation rate over the diurnal course of evaporative demand.

Indexed as

Plant TranspirationBiological TransportHelianthusKineticsPlant LeavesPlant StemsWaterWaterLeaf hydraulic conductanceleaf water potentialstem water potentialstomatal conductancetranspirationwater relations.

Identifiers

PMID25547915
PMCPMC4339593
OpenAlexW2126115817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.