Root pressure–volume curve traits capture rootstock drought tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Living root tissues significantly constrain plant water uptake under drought, but we lack functional traits to feasibly screen diverse plants for variation in the drought responses of these tissues. Water stress causes roots to lose volume and turgor, which are crucial to root structure, hydraulics and growth. Thus, we hypothesized that root pressure–volume (p–v) curve traits, which quantify the effects of water potential on bulk root turgor and volume, would capture differences in rootstock drought tolerance. Methods We used a greenhouse experiment to evaluate relationships between root p–v curve traits and gas exchange, whole-plant hydraulic conductance and biomass under drought for eight grapevine rootstocks that varied widely in drought performance in field trials (101-14, 110R, 420A, 5C, 140-Ru, 1103P, Ramsey and Riparia Gloire), grafted to the same scion variety (Vitis vinifera ‘Chardonnay’). Key Results The traits varied significantly across rootstocks, and droughted vines significantly reduced root turgor loss point (πtlp), osmotic potential at full hydration (πo) and capacitance (C), indicating that roots became less susceptible to turgor loss and volumetric shrinkage. Rootstocks that retained a greater root volume (i.e. a lower C) also maintained more gas exchange under drought. The rootstocks that previous field trials have classified as drought tolerant exhibited significantly lower πtlp, πo and C values in well-watered conditions, but significantly higher πo and πtlp values under water stress, than the varieties classified as drought sensitive. Conclusions These findings suggest that acclimation in root p–v curve traits improves gas exchange in persistently dry conditions, potentially through impacts on root hydraulics or root to shoot chemical signalling. However, retaining turgor and volume in previously unstressed roots, as these roots deplete wet soil to moderately negative water potentials, could be more important to drought performance in the deep, highly heterogenous rooting zones which grapevines develop under field conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".