ArticleApplications in plant sciences
Guidelines for quantifying leaf chlorophyll content via non-destructive spectrometry.
Article in Applications in plant sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Guidelines for quantifying leaf chlorophyll content via non-destructive spectrometry.Applications in plant sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Premise: Leaf chlorophyll is a fundamental bioindicator used in several fields; however, we lack clear guidelines for optimizing sampling efforts and producing comparable studies. Methods: We estimated the leaf chlorophyll content of 10 plant species using nondestructive spectrometry methods. We stored half of the leaves at 4°C and half at room temperature under similar light levels to assess the role of storage in the chlorophyll degradation rate. Results: The chilled mature leaves maintained a chlorophyll content within 5% of the original value for ~1.5 d, while the chlorophyll content of unrefrigerated mature leaves decreased rapidly, indicating that their chlorophyll content should be measured within 4 h. When refrigerated, the chlorophyll content of the expanding leaves remained within 5% of the original level for at least 5 d, but we suggest analyzing them within 3 d. In mature leaves, 73% of the variation in chlorophyll content is at the species level, 15% is between individuals, and the variation within leaves is negligible (<1%). Measuring one mature leaf from eight individuals was sufficient to provide a species chlorophyll estimate within 5% of the true value at least 80% of the time. Discussion: We advise researchers to prioritize sampling more individuals rather than repeating measures within leaves or individuals. Our findings will help researchers to optimize their time and research efforts, and to obtain more robust ecological data.
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.