Paper · 1990 · Journal of Experimental Botany

A Positive Root-sourced Signal as an Indicator of Soil Drying in Apple,Malus x domesticaBorkh.

D J G GOWING; W J DAVIES; H G JONES

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
362
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Plants raised from shoot-tip cultures of apple (Malus x domestica Borkh ) were grown in divided pots so that approximately half the root system could be exposed to soil drying whilst the remainder was well watered. Water was withheld from half the root system in this way for 24 d. During this time, the daily increment in leaf area declined to 65% of that of control plants, which had all their roots in well watered soil Both leaf expansion and, more particularly, leaf initiation were inhibited. Water loss per plant also fell to 70%% of the rate exhibited by control plants. No significant differences were detected between the leaf water status of the partially dried plants and that of the well watered ones After this drying period, the half-dried plants were treated during the night of the 24th day as follows; one group had its roots in dry soil rewatered, another had them excised, and a third continued half dry Both the rewatered group and the group with roots excised showed significant recoveries in leaf growth rates compared with the group kept half dry. The inhibition of leaf growth by drying soil is discussed with regard to root-to-shoot signalling The alleviation of this inhibition by the excision of roots in dry soil, is taken as evidence of a positive inhibitor, produced by drying roots, influencing shoot growth.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Partial root drying reduced daily leaf-area increment to 65% of control plants.

Treatment
Soil Dryingt0
Outcome
daily increment in leaf areae0
Direction
declinede0
Value
65%e0
Comparator
control plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the daily increment in leaf area declined to 65% of that of control plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 300–374 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil Drying in Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Partial root drying inhibited leaf expansion and especially leaf initiation.

Treatment
Soil Dryingt0
Outcome
leaf expansion and, more particularly, leaf initiatione0
Direction
inhibitede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both leaf expansion and, more particularly, leaf initiation were inhibited.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 423–498 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil Drying in Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water loss per plant fell to 70% of the control rate.

Treatment
Soil Dryingt0
Outcome
Water loss per plante0
Direction
felle0
Value
70%%e0
Comparator
control plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Water loss per plant also fell to 70%% of the rate exhibited by control plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 499–578 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil Drying in Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 50–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf water status did not significantly differ between partially dried and watered plants.

Treatment
partially dried plantse0
Outcome
leaf water statuse0
Direction
No significant differencese0
Comparator
well watered onese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No significant differences were detected between the leaf water status of the partially dried plants and that of the well watered ones”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 579–713 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 65–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Rewatering dry roots significantly recovered leaf growth relative to continued half drying.

Treatment
rewatered groupe0
Outcome
leaf growth ratese0
Direction
recoveriese0
Comparator
group kept half drye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both the rewatered group and the group with roots excised showed significant recoveries in leaf growth rates compared with the group kept half dry.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–1071 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 65–70 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Excising dry roots significantly recovered leaf growth relative to continued half drying.

Treatment
group with roots excisede0
Outcome
leaf growth ratese0
Direction
recoveriese0
Comparator
group kept half drye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Both the rewatered group and the group with roots excised showed significant recoveries in leaf growth rates compared with the group kept half dry.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–1071 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 65–70 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors interpret recovery after root excision as evidence of a root-produced inhibitor of shoot growth.

Outcome
shoot growthe0
Qualifier
a positive inhibitor, produced by drying rootse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The alleviation of this inhibition by the excision of roots in dry soil, is taken as evidence of a positive inhibitor, produced by drying roots, influencing shoot growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1170–1340 · show in text ↑
t0

“apple”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · title, characters 65–70 · show in text ↑

processing · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 13 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.