Reliability of leaf relative water content (RWC) measurements after storage: consequences for in situ measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative water content (RWC) is widely used to describe plant water status, and is commonly measured gravimetrically. The ephemeral nature of leaf fresh mass poses severe constraints for such measurements in field-grown plants. These constraints can be overcome by transporting the leaves in waterproof containers into the lab. However, even then, leaves lose water, and other changes may happen. The effects of a delay on the measurement of RWC have not been quantified so far. In this study, the influence of duration of storage up to 96 h and storage temperature on RWC and its components was investigated for four species. Alnus incana subsp. rugosa (Du Roi) R.T. Clausen, Impatiens capensis Meerb., and Scirpus microcarpus J.Presl & C.Presl leaves were stored in plastic bags, whereas those of Comptonia peregrina (L.) J.M.Coult. were stored in plastic vials. RWC remained within 5% of the initial value during 24 h cool storage, but after that, larger changes were observed. The effects of storage were species specific, being most pronounced in species poorly protected against desiccation, and under warm conditions. The effects of storage were not only limited to water loss, but also included cellular degradation. In general, storage at 10 °C for 24 h enables measurement of RWC for field-grown plants with accuracy of a few percent, but care has to be taken with species vulnerable to desiccation, possibly requiring faster measurement and a cooler storage temperature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".