Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33873572›Full record

ReviewThe New phytologist2002

Poikilohydry and homoihydry: antithesis or spectrum of possibilities?

Michael C F Proctor, Zoltán Tuba

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The New phytologist, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing 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

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Range Dynamics of the MossPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. In situ cavitation bubble manometry reveals a lack of light-activated guard cell turgor modulation in bryophytes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Michael C F ProctorSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Exeter, Washington Singer Laboratories, Perry Road, Exeter EX4 4PS, UK.
Zoltán TubaDepartment of Botany and Plant Physiology and Departmental Research Group of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Szent István University, H-2103 Gödöllõ, Páter K. u. 1., Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plants have followed two principal (and contrasting) strategies of adaptation to the irregular supply of water on land, which are closely bound up with scale. Vascular plants evolved internal transport from the soil to the leafy canopy (but their 'homoihydry' is far from absolute, and some are desiccation tolerant (DT)). Bryophytes depended on desiccation tolerance, suspending metabolism when water was not available; their cells are generally either fully turgid or desiccated. Desiccation tolerance requires preservation intact through drying-re-wetting cycles of essential cell components and their functional relationships, and controlled cessation and restarting of metabolism. In many bryophytes and some vascular plants tolerance is essentially constitutive. In other vascular plants (particularly poikilochlorophyllous species) and some bryophytes tolerance is induced by water stress. Desiccation tolerance is adaptively optimal on hard substrates impenetrable to roots, and on poor dry soils in seasonally dry climates. DT vascular plants are commonest in warm semiarid climates; DT mosses and lichens occur from tropical to polar regions. DT plants vary widely in their inertia to changing water content. Some mosses and lichens dry out and recover within an hour or less; vascular species typically respond on a time scale of one to a few days. Contents Summary 327 I. Introduction 328 II. The soil-plant-atmosphere continuum 329 III. Desiccation-tolerant plants: taxonomic distribution and functional characteristics 331 IV. Anatomical and physiological requirements and implications of desiccation tolerance 333 V. Time-scale considerations and ecological adaptation 340 VI. Conclusion 344 Acknowledgements 344 References 344.

Indexed as

adaptive strategiesbryophytesdesiccation toleranceectohydry and endohydrypoikilochlorophyllypteridophytesresurrection plantswater stress

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.