Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31295811›Full record

ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Clothing the Emperor: Dynamic Root-Shoot Allocation Trajectories in Relation to Whole-Plant Growth Rate and in Response to Temperature.

David Robinson, John Henry Peterkin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Deciphering the Genetic Basis of Root and Biomass Traits in Rapeseed (International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    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

2 authors.

David RobinsonSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UU, UK. david.robinson@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3504-5981
John Henry PeterkinSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 2DY, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We quantified how root-shoot biomass allocation and whole-plant growth rate co-varied ontogenetically in contrasting species in response to cooling. Seven grass and four forb species were grown for 56 days in hydroponics. Growth was measured repeatedly before and after day/night temperatures were reduced at 28 days from 20 °C/15 °C to 10 °C/5 °C; controls remained unchanged. Sigmoid trajectories of root and shoot growth were reconstructed from the experimental data to derive continuous whole-plant relative growth rates (RGRs) and root mass fractions (RMFs). Root mass fractions in cooled plants generally increased, but this originated from unexpected and previously uncharacterised differences in response among species. Root mass fraction and RGR co-trajectories were idiosyncratic in controls and cooled plants. The RGR-RMF co-trajectories responded to cooling in grasses, but not forbs. The RMF responses of stress-tolerant grasses were predictably weak but projected to eventually out-respond faster-growing species. Sigmoid growth constrains biomass allocation. Only when neither root nor shoot biomass is near-maximal can biomass allocation respond to environmental drivers. Near maximum size, plants cannot adjust RMF, which then reflects net above- and belowground productivities. Ontogenetic biomass allocations are not equivalent to those based on interspecific surveys, especially in mature vegetation. This reinforces the importance of measuring temporal growth dynamics, and not relying on "snapshot" comparisons to infer the functional significance of root-shoot allocation.

Indexed as

allocationbiomassforbgrassrelative growth rateroot mass fractionroot–shoottemperature

Identifiers

PMID31295811
PMCPMC6681223

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.