ReviewFrontiers in plant science2022
Challenges and advances in measuring sap flow in agriculture and agroforestry: A review with focus on nuclear magnetic resonance.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differential Responses and Temporal Lags of Heterotrophic and Autotrophic Respiration to Plant Activity in a Forest Ecosystem.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sap Flow Variability inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Integrating Load-Cell Lysimetry and Machine Learning for Prediction of Daily Plant Transpiration.Plant, cell & environment · 2026Article
- A transition from enemies to allies: how viruses improve drought resilience in plants.Stress biology · 2024Review
- Relating microtensiometer-based trunk water potential with sap flow, canopy temperature, and trunk and fruit diameter variations for irrigated 'Honeycrisp' apple.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
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
Sap flow measurement is one of the most effective methods for quantifying plant water use.A better understanding of sap flow dynamics can aid in more efficient water and crop management, particularly under unpredictable rainfall patterns and water scarcity resulting from climate change. In addition to detecting infected plants, sap flow measurement helps select plant species that could better cope with hotter and drier conditions. There exist multiple methods to measure sap flow including heat balance, dyes and radiolabeled tracers. Heat sensor-based techniques are the most popular and commercially available to study plant hydraulics, even though most of them are invasive and associated with multiple kinds of errors. Heat-based methods are prone to errors due to misalignment of probes and wounding, despite all the advances in this technology. Among existing methods for measuring sap flow, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is an appropriate non-invasive approach. However, there are challenges associated with applications of NMR to measure sap flow in trees or field crops, such as producing homogeneous magnetic field, bulkiness and poor portable nature of the instruments, and operational complexity. Nonetheless, various advances have been recently made that allow the manufacture of portable NMR tools for measuring sap flow in plants. The basic concept of the portal NMR tool is based on an external magnetic field to measure the sap flow and hence advances in magnet types and magnet arrangements (e.g., C-type, U-type, and Halbach magnets) are critical components of NMR-based sap flow measuring tools. Developing a non-invasive, portable and inexpensive NMR tool that can be easily used under field conditions would significantly improve our ability to monitor vegetation responses to environmental change.
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.