Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33693867›Full record

ArticlePlant physiology2021

The impact of slow stomatal kinetics on photosynthesis and water use efficiency under fluctuating light.

David Eyland, Jelle van Wesemael, Tracy Lawson, Sebastien Carpentier

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant physiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Needs and opportunities to future-proof crops and the use of crop systems to mitigate atmospheric change.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Review
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

David EylandDivision of Crop Biotechnics, Laboratory of Tropical Crop Improvement, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9176-609X
Jelle van WesemaelDivision of Crop Biotechnics, Laboratory of Tropical Crop Improvement, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Tracy LawsonSchool of Life Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, Essex, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4073-7221
Sebastien CarpentierDivision of Crop Biotechnics, Laboratory of Tropical Crop Improvement, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7389-6405
KU Leuven · BEUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S005080/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/T004274/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dynamic light conditions require continuous adjustments of stomatal aperture. The kinetics of stomatal conductance (gs) is hypothesized to be key to plant productivity and water use efficiency (WUE). Using step-changes in light intensity, we studied the diversity of light-induced gs kinetics in relation to stomatal anatomy in five banana genotypes (Musa spp.) and modeled the impact of both diffusional and biochemical limitations on photosynthesis (A). The dominant A limiting factor was the diffusional limitation associated with gs kinetics. All genotypes exhibited a strong limitation of A by gs, indicating a priority for water saving. Moreover, significant genotypic differences in gs kinetics and gs limitations of A were observed. For two contrasting genotypes, the impact of differential gs kinetics was further investigated under realistic diurnally fluctuating light conditions and at the whole-plant level. Genotype-specific stomatal kinetics observed at the leaf level was corroborated at whole-plant level by transpiration dynamics, validating that genotype-specific responses are still maintained despite differences in gs control at different locations in the leaf and across leaves. However, under diurnally fluctuating light conditions the impact of gs speediness on A and intrinsic (iWUE) depended on time of day. During the afternoon there was a setback in kinetics: absolute gs and gs responses to light were damped, strongly limiting A and impacting diurnal iWUE. We conclude the impact of differential gs kinetics depended on target light intensity, magnitude of change, gs prior to the change in light intensity, and particularly time of day.

Indexed as

PhotosynthesisKineticsMusaPlant LeavesPlant StomataPlant TranspirationWaterWater

Identifiers

PMID33693867
PMCPMC8195518
OpenAlexW3134068368

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.