A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Apoplastic water fraction and rehydration techniques introduce significant errors in measurements of relative water content and osmotic potential in plant leaves. | LitMetric

Relative water content (RWC) and the osmotic potential (π) of plant leaves are important plant traits that can be used to assess drought tolerance or adaptation of plants. We estimated the magnitude of errors that are introduced by dilution of π from apoplastic water in osmometry methods and the errors that occur during rehydration of leaves for RWC and π in 14 different plant species from trees, grasses and herbs. Our data indicate that rehydration technique and length of rehydration can introduce significant errors in both RWC and π. 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. Standing rehydration via the petiole introduced the least errors while rehydration via floating disks and submerging leaves for rehydration led to a greater underprediction of RWC. The same effect was also observed for π. The π values following standing rehydration could be corrected by applying a dilution factor from apoplastic water dilution using an osmometric method but not by using apoplastic water fraction (AWF) from pressure volume (PV) curves. The apoplastic water dilution error was between 5 and 18%, while the two other rehydration methods introduced much greater errors. We recommend the use of the standing rehydration method because (1) the correct rehydration time can be evaluated by measuring water potential, (2) overhydration effects were smallest, and (3) π can be accurately corrected by using osmometric methods to estimate apoplastic water dilution.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12380DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

apoplastic water
24
rehydration
13
standing rehydration
12
water dilution
12
water fraction
8
introduce errors
8
water
8
relative water
8
water content
8
osmotic potential
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!