ArticleOecologia2026
A synthesis of stomatal sensitivity to ABA across species and experiments.
Article in Oecologia, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Significant effort has been put into understanding the role of abscisic acid (ABA) on stomatal response to water stress. However, the parametrization of ABA controls in current models of stomatal conductance ([Formula: see text]) remains challenging. Here, we synthesized current literature that quantifies ABA relation with [Formula: see text], water potential (Ψ), or both, across various experimental settings. We compiled a total of 242 datasets covering 60 plant species, with 193 observation sets linking [Formula: see text] and ABA and 138 observation sets linking Ψ and ABA. Ψ was measured in either the leaf, stem, or root, as reported in the corresponding studies. We examined different fitting functions to approximate the relation between Ψ and ABA, and [Formula: see text] and ABA. Statistical correlations were used to determine the best fit of [Formula: see text] vs ABA and Ψ vs ABA relationships, and to exclude datasets with poor correlations. No statistically significant differences were found between stomatal sensitivity to ABA (β, unitless) and biome type or the source of ABA (Kruskal-Wallis, P > 0.05). Statistical differences were found between β and experimental conditions (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.05), likely due to observational uncertainties. The overall distribution of β in all classifications suggests a typical sensitivity range (β) of 0.21 - 21.59 (median 1.87). These findings can be used to guide the development and evaluation of mechanistic models of [Formula: see text], providing realistic parameterizations of the links between ABA and stomatal closure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42470566What 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.