Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39211292›Full record

ArticlePlant phenomics (Washington, D.C.)2024

What to Choose for Estimating Leaf Water Status-Spectral Reflectance or In vivo Chlorophyll Fluorescence?

Martina Špundová, Zuzana Kučerová, Vladimíra Nožková, Monika Opatíková, Lucie Procházková, Pavel Klimeš, Jan Nauš

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plant phenomics (Washington, D.C.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors.

Martina ŠpundováDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2260-4302
Zuzana KučerováDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.
Vladimíra NožkováDepartment of Chemical Biology, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.
Monika OpatíkováDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.
Lucie ProcházkováDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.
Pavel KlimešCzech Advanced Technology and Research Institute (CATRIN), Palacký University Olomouc, Šlechtitelů 27, Olomouc, 783 71, Czech Republic.
Jan NaušDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Šlechtitelů 27, Olomouc 783 71, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of global climate change and the increasing need to study plant response to drought, there is a demand for easily, rapidly, and remotely measurable parameters that sensitively reflect leaf water status. Parameters with this potential include those derived from leaf spectral reflectance (R) and chlorophyll fluorescence. As each of these methods probes completely different leaf characteristics, their sensitivity to water loss may differ in different plant species and/or under different circumstances, making it difficult to choose the most appropriate method for estimating water status in a given situation. Here, we present a simple comparative analysis to facilitate this choice for leaf-level measurements. Using desiccation of tobacco (

Identifiers

PMID39211292
PMCPMC11358408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.