ArticleBMC plant biology2026
Conserved stomatal regulation across winegrape cultivars challenges conclusions regarding hydraulic strategies.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlants are often classified on a spectrum from isohydric to anisohydric depending on the extent of stomatal regulation of plant water status, but this concept remains controversial. We examined the stomatal behavior of 30 winegrape cultivars with diverse geographic origins and fivefold differences in canopy size. Using controlled irrigation in an arid climate, we imposed soil drydown cycles in each of two years, measured changes in soil moisture, leaf water potential (Ψleaf), and gas exchange, and calculated derived traits that are commonly used to describe plant hydraulic strategies.
resultsWhen measured against relative extractable soil water (θe), all cultivars maintained constant stomatal conductance (gs) as the soil dried from θe > 1 to 0.33, and decreased gs at θe < 0.33. When measured against predawn leaf water potential (Ψpd) as a proxy for soil water potential (Ψsoil), all cultivars began lowering gs at Ψpd ≈ -0.3 MPa (corresponding to θe ≈ 0.33 and Ψsoil ≈ -0.2 MPa) until the stomata were essentially closed at Ψpd < -0.7 MPa. As residual transpiration continued, leaf wilting began at Ψpd < -1.5 MPa. Thus, while the rate of soil drying varied depending on canopy size, stomatal regulation of Ψleaf was broadly conserved across cultivars, with common thresholds for stomatal closure and turgor loss. Leaf area-specific whole-plant hydraulic conductance followed the same patterns as gs but increased further as gs reached a plateau. Cultivar rankings differed for distinct traits used to assess and describe plant hydraulic strategy, and the 30 cultivars did not fall on a continuum from isohydric to anisohydric behavior for any measured trait.
conclusionIn winegrapes, stomatal regulation of Ψleaf is similar across cultivars, but cultivars might variously be classified as isohydric or anisohydric depending on the extent of water stress and the choice of driving variables. The similarity of stomatal behavior across 30 cultivars indicates limited potential for using cultivar choice or targeting gs in breeding as adaptation strategies to drought.
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.