Abstract
Root hydraulic conductivity in plants (Lp(r)) exhibits large variations in response to abiotic stimuli. In this study, we investigated the impact of dynamic, aquaporin-mediated changes of Lp(r) on leaf growth, water potential, and water flux throughout the plant. For this, we manipulated Lp(r) by subjecting roots to four independent treatments, with aquaporin inhibitors applied either to transpiring maize (Zea mays) plants grown in hydroponics or to detopped root systems for estimation of Lp(r). The treatments were acid load at pH 6.0 and 5.0 and hydrogen peroxide and anoxia applied for 1 to 2 h and subsequently reversed. First, we established that acid load affected cell hydraulic conductivity in maize root cortex. Lp(r) was reduced by all treatments by 31% to 63%, with half-times of about 15 min, and partly recovered when treatments were reversed. Cell turgor measured in the elongating zone of leaves decreased synchronously with Lp(r), and leaf elongation rate closely followed these changes across all treatments in a dose-dependent manner. Leaf and xylem water potentials also followed changes in Lp(r). Stomatal conductance and rates of transpiration and water uptake were not affected by Lp(r) reduction under low evaporative demand. Increased evaporative demand, when combined with acid load at pH 6.0, induced stomatal closure and amplified all other responses without altering their synchrony. Root pressurization reversed the impact of acid load or anoxia on leaf elongation rate and water potential, further indicating that changes in turgor mediated the response of leaf growth to reductions in Lp(r).
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Acid load altered hydraulic conductivity of maize root cortex cells.
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“acid load affected cell hydraulic conductivity in maize root cortex”
Claim · model-written summary
Each of four treatments reduced maize root hydraulic conductivity by 31% to 63%.
- Treatment
- all treatmentse1
- Outcome
- Lp(r)e1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 31% to 63%e1
- Qualifier
- half-times of about 15 mine1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“The treatments were acid load at pH 6.0 and 5.0 and hydrogen peroxide and anoxia applied for 1 to 2 h and subsequently reversed.”
e1“Lp(r) was reduced by all treatments by 31% to 63%, with half-times of about 15 min”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize root hydraulic conductivity partly recovered after treatments were reversed.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Lp(r) was reduced by all treatments by 31% to 63%, with half-times of about 15 min, and partly recovered when treatments were reversed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize leaf elongation-zone cell turgor decreased synchronously with root hydraulic conductivity.
- Organ / stage
- elongating zone of leavese0
- Outcome
- Cell turgore0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- synchronously with Lp(r)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Cell turgor measured in the elongating zone of leaves decreased synchronously with Lp(r)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf elongation rate followed root hydraulic conductivity changes across treatments in a dose-dependent manner.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“leaf elongation rate closely followed these changes across all treatments in a dose-dependent manner”
e1“Cell turgor measured in the elongating zone of leaves decreased synchronously with Lp(r)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf water potential followed changes in root hydraulic conductivity.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Leaf and xylem water potentials also followed changes in Lp(r).”
Claim · model-written summary
Xylem water potential followed changes in root hydraulic conductivity.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Leaf and xylem water potentials also followed changes in Lp(r).”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced root hydraulic conductivity did not affect stomatal conductance under low evaporative demand.
- Treatment
- Lp(r) reductione0
- Outcome
- Stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Qualifier
- low evaporative demande0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Stomatal conductance and rates of transpiration and water uptake were not affected by Lp(r) reduction under low evaporative demand.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced root hydraulic conductivity did not affect transpiration or water uptake rates under low evaporative demand.
- Treatment
- Lp(r) reductione0
- Outcome
- rates of transpiration and water uptakee0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Qualifier
- low evaporative demande0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Stomatal conductance and rates of transpiration and water uptake were not affected by Lp(r) reduction under low evaporative demand.”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased evaporative demand with acid load at pH 6.0 induced stomatal closure.
- Treatment
- Increased evaporative demand, when combined with acid load at pH 6.0e0
- Outcome
- stomatal closuree0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Increased evaporative demand, when combined with acid load at pH 6.0, induced stomatal closure”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased evaporative demand with acid load amplified other plant responses without changing their synchrony.
- Treatment
- Increased evaporative demand, when combined with acid load at pH 6.0e0
- Outcome
- all other responsese0
- Direction
- amplifiede0
- Qualifier
- without altering their synchronye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Increased evaporative demand, when combined with acid load at pH 6.0, induced stomatal closure and amplified all other responses without altering their synchrony.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pressurization reversed the effect of acid load or anoxia on leaf elongation rate and water potential.
- Treatment
- Root pressurizatione0
- Outcome
- leaf elongation rate and water potentiale0
- Direction
- reversede0
- Comparator
- acid load or anoxiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“Root pressurization reversed the impact of acid load or anoxia on leaf elongation rate and water potential”
Claim · model-written summary
The reversal by root pressurization supports turgor change as the mediator of leaf growth responses to reduced root conductivity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e0“changes in turgor mediated the response of leaf growth to reductions in Lp(r)”
The same questions in other papers
ph · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
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.