ArticlePhysiologia plantarum
Comparison of different methods to evaluate tissue damage in response to leaf dehydration in Quercus ilex L. and Q. faginea Lam.
Article in Physiologia plantarum. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Determination of the point of critical damage in plant organs is crucial to elucidate the causes of plant mortality, but the different methodologies to quantify such damage have not been previously compared under the same experimental conditions. Here, we tested different indicators to evaluate damage in leaves of Quercus faginea and Q. ilex; in the latter case, 1- and 2-year-old leaves were included. The damage indicators were relative electrolyte leakage (REL), rehydration capacity (evaluated as the percentage loss of rehydration capacity; PLRC), chlorophyll fluorescence (maximum quantum yield of PSII; F
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.