Claim · model-written summary
Increasing the rehydration time beyond 1-3 h significantly underpredicted RWC.
- Taxon
- 14 different plant speciese0
- Treatment
- increasing the rehydration timee2
- Outcome
- RWCe2
- Direction
- underpredictione2
- Comparator
- 1-3 h of rehydratione2
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“in 14 different plant species from trees, grasses and herbs”
e2“Leaves from all species were fully turgid after 1-3 h of rehydration and increasing the rehydration time resulted in a significant underprediction of RWC”
Title
Stefan K. Arndt; Andi Irawan; Gregor J. Sanders Physiologia Plantarum 2015. doi:10.1111/ppl.12380
Other claims from this paper (7)
- Method / resource Rehydration technique and length of rehydration introduce significant errors in RWC and osmotic potential.
- Intervention effect Standing rehydration via the petiole introduced the least errors.
- Intervention effect Floating disks and submerging leaves for rehydration led to a greater underprediction of RWC than standing rehydration.
- Intervention effect Floating disks and submerging leaves for rehydration also led to a greater underprediction of osmotic potential than standing rehydration.
- Method / resource Osmotic potential after standing rehydration could be corrected by an osmometric dilution factor but not by the apoplastic water fraction.
- Method / resource The apoplastic water dilution error was between 5 and 18%, much smaller than the errors of the other two rehydration methods.
- Recommendation The authors recommend standing rehydration for leaf RWC and osmotic potential measurements.