ArticleFrontiers in plant science2019
Modeling Stem Water Potential by Separating the Effects of Soil Water Availability and Climatic Conditions on Water Status in Grapevine (
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Outbreak Risk ofInsects · 2026Article
- Can Grapevine Leaf Water Potential Be Modelled from Physiological and Meteorological Variables? A Machine Learning Approach.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- GrapevineXL reliably predicts multi-annual dynamics of vine water status, berry growth, and sugar accumulation in vineyards.Horticulture research · 2023Article
- Sustainable Soil Management: Effects of Clinoptilolite and Organic Compost Soil Application on Eco-Physiology, Quercitin, and Hydroxylated, Methoxylated Anthocyanins onPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- From comfort zone to mortality: Sequence of physiological stress thresholds inFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance active ingredients of medicinal plants: a quantitative analysis.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Apple rootstocks affect functional leaf traits with consequential effects on carbon isotope composition and vegetative vigour.AoB PLANTS · 2022Article
- Physiological and Transcriptional Responses to Saline Irrigation of Young 'Tempranillo' Vines Grafted Onto Different Rootstocks.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Microtensiometers Accurately Measure Stem Water Potential in Woody Perennials.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Prevalence and Management of Alkyl-Methoxypyrazines in a Changing Climate: Viticultural and Oenological Considerations.Biomolecules · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Measuring seasonal plant water status is critical in choosing appropriate management strategies to ensure yields and quality of agricultural products, particularly in a context of climate change. Water status of grapevines is known to be a key factor for yield, grape composition, and wine quality. Predawn leaf water potential (PLWP) and stem water potential (SWP) proved to be simple and precise indicators for assessing grapevine water status and subsequent same-day spatial comparisons. A drawback of SWP is that it does not allow for temporal comparisons, because the measured value is impacted both by soil water availability and climatic conditions on the day of measurement. The objectives of this study are i) to provide a model that separates the effect of soil water content from the effect of climatic conditions on the SWP value and ii) to standardize the SWP value to a value under predefined reference climatic conditions in order to compare SWP values collected under different climatic conditions. SWP and PLWP were temporally assessed on three soil types in Saint-Émilion (Bordeaux, France) in 2015 and on five soil types in Margaux (Bordeaux, France) in 2018 using a pressure chamber. SWP measurements on two consecutive days with contrasting climatic conditions allowed to assess the impact of these conditions on SWP values. A large portion of the variability in SWP values was explained by PLWP. Model selection further showed that the addition of maximum air temperature and seasonality explained a significant amount of the remaining variability in SWP values. SWP values could be successfully standardized to a theoretical value under reference climatic conditions, which allows for temporal comparisons of SWP values. A plant-based measurement, such as the water potential, can be considered as the most straightforward indicator of plant water status as it integrates the effects of soil, plant, and atmospheric conditions. More precise interpretation of SWP values provides winegrowers with a tool to more adequately implement short- and long-term management strategies to adapt to drought in order to ensure yield and grape quality.
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.