Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36790514›Full record

ArticlePlanta2023

Comparison between the stem and leaf photosynthetic productivity in Eucalyptus urophylla plantations with different age.

Xia Chen, Mingyu Luo, Yulin Kang, Ping Zhao, Zhiyao Tang, Yuanyuan Meng, Li Huang, Yanpei Guo, Xiancheng Lu, Lei Ouyang and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Planta, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xia ChenInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China. chenxia@pku.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0274-5036
Mingyu LuoInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yulin KangChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, China.
Ping ZhaoKey Laboratory of Vegetation Restoration and Management of Degraded Ecosystems, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Zhiyao TangInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yuanyuan MengInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Li HuangInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yanpei GuoInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Xiancheng LuInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Lei OuyangKey Laboratory of Vegetation Restoration and Management of Degraded Ecosystems, South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Markku LarjavaaraInstitute of Ecology and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNSouth China Botanical Garden · CNChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences · CN

Funding

National Nature Science Foundation of China 32171539National Nature Science United Foundation of China U21A2003Provincial Nature Science Foundation of Guangdong 2019A1515011993
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

MAIN

conclusionWe developed a more realistic modeling framework by integrating stem photosynthesis into the canopy carbon assimilation model to compare the photosynthetic productivity between the stem and leaf of Eucalyptus urophylla plantations. Stems of Eucalyptus species with smooth outer bark have photosynthetic green tissue that can recycle internal stem CO

Indexed as

EucalyptusCarbonPhotosynthesisPlant LeavesTreesCarbonCarbon assimilation modelEucalyptus urophyllaLeaf photosynthesisStem light absorption areaStem photosynthesis

Identifiers

PMID36790514
OpenAlexW4320855919

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.