ArticleJournal of experimental botany2021
Transpiration efficiency: insights from comparisons of C4 cereal species.
Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transpiration responds linearly to Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration and varies genetically, both in individual plants and canopies, in large sorghum and pearl millet panels.Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Water use efficiency across scales: from genes to landscapes.Journal of experimental botany · 2023Review
- Understanding the Relationship between Water Availability and Biosilica Accumulation in SelectedPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Optimizing Crop Water Use for Drought and Climate Change Adaptation Requires a Multi-Scale Approach.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Symbiosis Enhances Water Status and Soil-Plant Hydraulic Conductance Under Drought.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We have previously reported that there is a tight link between high transpiration efficiency (TE; shoot biomass per unit water transpired) and restriction of transpiration under high vapor pressure deficit (VPD). In this study, we examine other factors affecting TE among major C4 cereals, namely species' differences, soil type, and source-sink relationships. We found that TE in maize (10 genotypes) was higher overall than in pearl millet (10 genotypes), and somewhat higher than in sorghum (16 genotypes). Overall, transpiration efficiency was higher in high-clay than in sandy soil under high VPD, but the effect was species-dependent with maize showing large variations in TE and yield across different soil types whilst pearl millet showed no variation in TE. This suggested that species fitness was specific to soil type. Removal of cobs drastically decreased TE in maize under high VPD, but removal of panicles did not have the same effect in pearl millet, suggesting that source-sink balance also drove variations in TE. We interpret the differences in TE between species as being accounted for by differences in the capacity to restrict transpiration under high VPD, with breeding history possibly having favored the source-sink balance in maize. This suggests that there is also scope to increase TE in pearl millet and sorghum through breeding. With regards to soil conditions, our results indicate that it appears to be critical to consider hydraulic characteristics and the root system together in order to better understand stomatal regulation and restriction of transpiration under high VPD. Finally, our results highlight the importance of sink strength in regulating transpiration/photosynthesis, and hence in influencing TE.
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.