Claim · model-written summary
Sugarbeet water potential fell much more rapidly.
- Taxon
- sugarbeet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Outcome
- water potentiale0
- Direction
- fell much more rapidlye0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the water potential fell much more rapidly in the sugarbeet plants”
Title
Stomatal Closure vs. Osmotic Adjustment: a Comparison of Stress Response1
Keith J. McCree; Steven G. Richardson Crop Science 1987. doi:10.2135/cropsci1987.0011183x002700030024xa
Other claims from this paper (9)
- Observation Under frequent irrigation, cowpea and sugarbeet had almost identical carbon gain and water-loss rates.
- Observation With irrigation withheld, sugarbeet adjusted osmotically by 0.8 kJ kg −1 and reached −2.6 kJ kg −1 minimum leaf water potential.
- Observation Sugarbeet reached a daytime minimum leaf water potential of −2.6 kJ kg −1.
- Observation Cowpea adjusted osmotically by half as much as sugarbeet.
- Mechanism Cowpea maintained higher water potential of −1.2 kJ kg −1 by stomatal closure.
- Association At a given water potential, cowpea water-loss rates were much smaller.
- Observation On a given day, cowpea and sugarbeet water-loss rates were very similar.
- Observation Carbon gain rates were similar in cowpea and sugarbeet.
- Observation Osmotic adjustment showed little or no carbon gain advantage over stomatal closure.