Abstract
A rapid water stress (RWS) and recovery treatment and two levels of a slow water stress (SWS) treatment (rewatering at 50 and 25% of control water use) were applied to one-year-old peach trees ( Prunus persica, L., Batsch, cv. ‘Redhaven’/‘Halford’) under greenhouse conditions. Growth, growth rates, leaf water potential components, and stomatal conductance were observed. Occurrence of statistical differences between treatments was used to determine sensitivity to stress. Total leaf water potential was 0.18MPa less than control for the stress trees after one week of RWS. Leaf emergence was more sensitive than leaf or shoot growth; however, leaf growth rates recovered first after rewatering. Leaf emergence, leaf length, and shoot length were reduced by 80, 77, and 65% respectively. Available soil water declined to 40 and 20% of the control for the 50 and 25% SWS treatments. Leaf emergence, leaf growth, shoot extension, and trunk diameter were reduced by 58, 82, 56, 76, and 64% for the 50% treatment, and 50, 75, 36, 57, and 39% for the 25% treatment, respectively. Significant reductions in stomatal conductance followed with the reductions in growth within 2-7 days for the SWS experiment.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Rapid water stress lowered total leaf water potential by 0.18 MPa relative to control after one week.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicae0 - Treatment
- RWSe1
- Outcome
- Total leaf water potentiale1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 0.18MPae1
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e1“Total leaf water potential was 0.18MPa less than control for the stress trees after one week of RWS”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf emergence was more sensitive to water stress than leaf or shoot growth.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Outcome
- Leaf emergencee2
- Direction
- more sensitivee2
- Comparator
- leaf or shoot growthe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e2“Leaf emergence was more sensitive than leaf or shoot growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf growth rates recovered first after rewatering.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Treatment
- rewateringe3
- Outcome
- leaf growth ratese3
- Direction
- recovered firste3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e3“leaf growth rates recovered first after rewatering”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf emergence was reduced by 80% under the stress treatments relative to control.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Outcome
- Leaf emergencee4
- Direction
- reducede4
- Value
- 80e4
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e4“Leaf emergence, leaf length, and shoot length were reduced by 80, 77, and 65% respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf length was reduced by 77% under the stress treatments relative to control.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Outcome
- leaf lengthe4
- Direction
- reducede4
- Value
- 77e4
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e4“Leaf emergence, leaf length, and shoot length were reduced by 80, 77, and 65% respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot length was reduced by 65% under the stress treatments relative to control.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Outcome
- shoot lengthe4
- Direction
- reducede4
- Value
- 65%e4
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e4“Leaf emergence, leaf length, and shoot length were reduced by 80, 77, and 65% respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Available soil water declined to 40% of control under the 50% SWS treatment.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Treatment
- SWSe5
- Outcome
- Available soil watere5
- Direction
- declinede5
- Value
- 40e5
- Qualifier
- 50 and 25% SWS treatmentse5
- Comparator
- controle5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e5“Available soil water declined to 40 and 20% of the control for the 50 and 25% SWS treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Available soil water declined to 20% of control under the 25% SWS treatment.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Treatment
- SWSe5
- Outcome
- Available soil watere5
- Direction
- declinede5
- Value
- 20%e5
- Qualifier
- 50 and 25% SWS treatmentse5
- Comparator
- controle5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e5“Available soil water declined to 40 and 20% of the control for the 50 and 25% SWS treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf emergence, leaf growth, shoot extension and trunk diameter were reduced by 58, 82, 56, 76 and 64% under the 50% treatment.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Treatment
- 50% treatmente6
- Outcome
- Leaf emergence, leaf growth, shoot extension, and trunk diametere6
- Direction
- reducede6
- Value
- 58, 82, 56, 76, and 64%e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: five values listed for four outcomes; the item-to-value mapping is not stated
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e6“Leaf emergence, leaf growth, shoot extension, and trunk diameter were reduced by 58, 82, 56, 76, and 64% for the 50% treatment, and 50, 75, 36, 57, and 39% for the 25% treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf emergence, leaf growth, shoot extension and trunk diameter were reduced by 50, 75, 36, 57 and 39% under the 25% treatment.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Treatment
- 25% treatmente6
- Outcome
- Leaf emergence, leaf growth, shoot extension, and trunk diametere6
- Direction
- reducede6
- Value
- 50, 75, 36, 57, and 39%e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: five values listed for four outcomes; the item-to-value mapping is not stated
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e6“Leaf emergence, leaf growth, shoot extension, and trunk diameter were reduced by 58, 82, 56, 76, and 64% for the 50% treatment, and 50, 75, 36, 57, and 39% for the 25% treatment, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Significant reductions in stomatal conductance followed reductions in growth within 2-7 days in the SWS experiment.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Treatment
- SWS experimente7
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee7
- Direction
- reductionse7
- Qualifier
- within 2-7 dayse7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“one-year-old peach trees”
e7“Significant reductions in stomatal conductance followed with the reductions in growth within 2-7 days for the SWS experiment”
The same questions in other papers
drought · soil: physics · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
drought · physiology: water · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →drought · physiology: gas exchange · Prunus persica (peach)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.