| Title |
The importance of nutritional regulation of plant water flux
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, May 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-009-1364-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael D. Cramer, Heidi-Jayne Hawkins, G. Anthony Verboom |
| Abstract |
Transpiration is generally considered a wasteful but unavoidable consequence of photosynthesis, occurring because water is lost when stomata open for CO(2) uptake. Additionally, transpiration has been ascribed the functions of cooling leaves, driving root to shoot xylem transport and mass flow of nutrients through the soil to the rhizosphere. As a consequence of the link between nutrient mass flow and transpiration, nutrient availability, particularly that of NO(3)(-), partially regulates plant water flux. Nutrient regulation of transpiration may function through the concerted regulation of: (1) root hydraulic conductance through control of aquaporins by NO(3)(-), (2) shoot stomatal conductance (g(s)) through NO production, and (3) pH and phytohormone regulation of g(s). These mechanisms result in biphasic responses of water flux to NO(3)(-) availability. The consequent trade-off between water and nutrient flux has important implications for understanding plant distributions, for production of water use-efficient crops and for understanding the consequences of global-change-linked CO(2) suppression of transpiration for plant nutrient acquisition. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 353 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 2% |
| South Africa | 4 | 1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Austria | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 332 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 64 | 18% |
| Researcher | 61 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 24 | 7% |
| Other | 74 | 21% |
| Unknown | 50 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 178 | 50% |
| Environmental Science | 67 | 19% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 14 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 10 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 3% |
| Unknown | 62 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2009.
All research outputs
#15,238,442
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#3,249
of 4,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,042
of 92,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,201 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 92,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.