ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Can Grapevine Leaf Water Potential Be Modelled from Physiological and Meteorological Variables? A Machine Learning Approach.
Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Correction: Damásio et al. Can Grapevine Leaf Water Potential Be Modelled from Physiological and Meteorological Variables? A Machine Learning Approach.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A deep learning architecture for leaf water potential prediction inFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Climate change is affecting global viticulture, increasing heatwaves and drought. Precision irrigation, supported by robust water status indicators (WSIs), is inevitable in most of the Mediterranean basin. One of the most reliable WSIs is the leaf water potential (Ψleaf), which is determined via an intrusive and time-consuming method. The aim of this work is to discern the most effective variables that are correlated with plants' water status and identify the variables that better predict Ψleaf. Five grapevine varieties grown in the Alentejo region (Portugal) were selected and subjected to three irrigation treatments, starting in 2018: full irrigation (FI), deficit irrigation (DI), and no irrigation (NI). Plant monitoring was performed in 2023. Measurements included stomatal conductance (gs), predawn water potential Ψpd, stem water potential (Ψstem), thermal imaging, and meteorological data. The WSIs, namely Ψpd and gs, responded differently according to the irrigation treatment. Ψstem measured at mid-morning (MM) and mid-day (MD) proved unable to discern between treatments. MM measurements presented the best correlations between WSIs. gs showed the best correlations between the other WSIs, and consequently the best predictive capability to estimate Ψpd. Machine learning regression models were trained on meteorological, thermal, and gs data to predict Ψpd, with ensemble models showing a great performance (ExtraTrees: R2=0.833, MAE=0.072; Gradient Boosting: R2=0.830; MAE=0.073).
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.