MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597290300 · doi:10.1111/jipb.12534

Plant xylem hydraulics: What we understand, current research, and future challenges

2017· review· en· W2597290300 on OpenAlexaff
Martín Venturas, John S. Sperry, Uwe G. Hacke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrative Plant Biology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsXylemContext (archaeology)Current (fluid)Water transportHydraulicsElectrical conduitBiologyEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiochemical engineeringWater flowEngineeringBotanySoil scienceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Herein we review the current state-of-the-art of plant hydraulics in the context of plant physiology, ecology, and evolution, focusing on current and future research opportunities. We explain the physics of water transport in plants and the limits of this transport system, highlighting the relationships between xylem structure and function. We describe the great variety of techniques existing for evaluating xylem resistance to cavitation. We address several methodological issues and their connection with current debates on conduit refilling and exponentially shaped vulnerability curves. We analyze the trade-offs existing between water transport safety and efficiency. We also stress how little information is available on molecular biology of cavitation and the potential role of aquaporins in conduit refilling. Finally, we draw attention to how plant hydraulic traits can be used for modeling stomatal responses to environmental variables and climate change, including drought mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations477
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrative Plant BiologySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207