ArticlePloS one2019
Growth responses of eight wetland species to water level fluctuation with different ranges and frequencies.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fluctuation range and frequency are two important components of water level fluctuation, but their effects on wetland plants have not been evaluated separately. We subjected eight wetland species to a control treatment with static water level and fluctuation treatments with different ranges or frequencies to examine their effects on plant growth. Acorus calamus, Butomus umbellatus and Iris wilsonii showed high survival rates in all treatments with various fluctuation ranges and frequencies. Their survival rates were higher at the medium fluctuation frequency than at the low and high frequencies, suggesting beneficial effects of the medium frequency. In the experiment comparing the fluctuation ranges, A. calamus and I. wilsonii could maintain the capacity for asexual propagation and accumulate higher biomass compared with the control plants, while biomass of the other six species dramatically decreased. In the experiment comparing fluctuation frequency, species with relatively high survival rates (≥ 50%) maintained or increased the capacity of asexual propagation, and A. calamus and I. wilsonii allocated relatively more biomass to roots, which may enhance plant growth and survival. In contrast, these species did not show increased biomass allocation to shoots in response to both fluctuation range and frequency, presumably because shoots are prone to mechanical damage caused by streaming floodwater. Taken together, biomass accumulation in roots rather than in shoots and the ability to asexually propagate are important for the survival of these species during water fluctuation.
Indexed as
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.