MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093978116 · doi:10.1111/pce.13923

Nighttime transpiration represents a negligible part of water loss and does not increase the risk of water stress in grapevine

2020· article· en· W3093978116 on OpenAlexaff
Silvina Dayer, José Herrera, Zhanwu Dai, Régis Burlett, Laurent J. Lamarque, Sylvain Delzon, Giovanni Bortolami, Hervé Cochard, Gregory A. Gambetta

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Cell & Environment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersUniversité de BordeauxCHIST-ERAInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'EnvironnementComité National des Interprofessions des Vins à Appellation d'OrigineAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsTranspirationDaytimeEnvironmental scienceStomatal conductanceSoil waterWater stressWater useAgronomyHorticulturePhotosynthesisAtmospheric sciencesBotanyBiologySoil scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nighttime transpiration has been previously reported as a significant source of water loss in many species; however, there is a need to determine if this trait plays a key role in the response to drought. This study aimed to determine the magnitude, regulation and relative contribution to whole plant water‐use, of nighttime stomatal conductance (gnight) and transpiration (Enight) in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Our results showed that nighttime water loss was relatively low compared to daytime transpiration, and that decreases in soil and plant water potentials were mainly explained by daytime stomatal conductance (gday) and transpiration (Eday). Contrary to Eday, Enight did not respond to VPD and possible effects of an innate circadian regulation were observed. Plants with higher gnight also exhibited higher daytime transpiration and carbon assimilation at midday, and total leaf area, suggesting that increased gnight may be linked with daytime behaviors that promote productivity. Modeling simulations indicated that gnight was not a significant factor in reaching critical hydraulic thresholds under scenarios of either extreme drought, or time to 20% of soil relative water content. Overall, this study suggests that gnight is not significant in exacerbating the risk of water stress and hydraulic failure in grapevine.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlant Cell & EnvironmentSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207