Abstract
Nighttime transpirational water loss from C(3) trees occurs without carbon gain and is both common and substantial. However, the magnitude of this water loss varies and a better understanding of the environmental factors driving this variation is needed. We investigated the response of nighttime conductance (g(night)) and transpiration (E(night)) to soil nitrogen limitation. We used instantaneous gas exchange measurements in greenhouse studies of Populus angustifolia James (narrowleaf cottonwood) and Populus balsamifera L. spp. trichocarpa (Torr. & A. Gray ex Hook.) Brayshaw (black cottonwood). g(night) for sufficiently watered plants ranged from 0.045 to 0.308 mol m(-2) s(-1) for P. balsamifera and 0.037 to 0.188 mol m(-2) s(-1) for P. angustifolia, which was much larger than minimum leaf conductance (g(min); up to 0.005 mol m(-2) s(-1) in the dark). Long-term nitrogen limitation sufficient to substantially reduce biomass did not affect g(night) or E(night) when potentially confounding water stress effects were eliminated. We conclude that nighttime water loss from two Populus species is large and although it is under stomatal control is not regulated at night in response to soil nitrogen availability.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Night conductance in well-watered P. balsamifera ranged from 0.045 to 0.308 mol m(-2) s(-1).
- Taxon
- P. balsamifera
Populus balsamiferae0 - Outcome
- g(night)e0
- Value
- 0.045 to 0.308 mol m(-2) s(-1)e0
- Qualifier
- sufficiently watered plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“g(night) for sufficiently watered plants ranged from 0.045 to 0.308 mol m(-2) s(-1) for P. balsamifera”
Claim · model-written summary
Night conductance in well-watered P. angustifolia ranged from 0.037 to 0.188 mol m(-2) s(-1).
- Taxon
- P. angustifolia
Populus angustifoliae0 - Outcome
- g(night)t0
- Value
- 0.037 to 0.188 mol m(-2) s(-1)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“0.037 to 0.188 mol m(-2) s(-1) for P. angustifolia”
t0“response of nighttime conductance (g(night))”
Claim · model-written summary
Night conductance was much larger than minimum leaf conductance, which reached 0.005 mol m(-2) s(-1).
- Outcome
- g(night)t1
- Direction
- much largere0
- Qualifier
- up to 0.005 mol m(-2) s(-1)e0
- Comparator
- minimum leaf conductancee0
PopulusOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which was much larger than minimum leaf conductance (g(min); up to 0.005 mol m(-2) s(-1) in the dark)”
t0“Populus”
t1“nighttime conductance (g(night))”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term nitrogen limitation substantially reduced Populus biomass.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Long-term nitrogen limitation sufficient to substantially reduce biomass”
t0“Populus”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term nitrogen limitation did not alter night conductance when water stress was eliminated.
- Treatment
- Long-term nitrogen limitatione0
- Outcome
- g(night)e0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- when potentially confounding water stress effects were eliminatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Long-term nitrogen limitation sufficient to substantially reduce biomass did not affect g(night) or E(night) when potentially confounding water stress effects were eliminated”
t0“Populus”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-term nitrogen limitation did not alter nighttime transpiration when water stress was eliminated.
- Treatment
- Long-term nitrogen limitatione0
- Outcome
- E(night)e0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- when potentially confounding water stress effects were eliminatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Long-term nitrogen limitation sufficient to substantially reduce biomass did not affect g(night) or E(night) when potentially confounding water stress effects were eliminated”
t0“Populus”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that Populus nighttime water loss is large and under stomatal control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nighttime water loss from two Populus species is large and although it is under stomatal control”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that nighttime water loss is not regulated by soil nitrogen availability.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“is not regulated at night in response to soil nitrogen availability”
t0“Populus”
e1“nighttime water loss from two Populus species is large and although it is under stomatal control”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · growth · Populus (poplar)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
This paper is about lacking the nutrient, so it counts the other way round here.
- negative
- no effect
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.