2011
DOI: 10.4067/s0718-34292011000200023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparación de la cámara de presión tipo Scholander modelo Pump-up respecto a la cámara de presión tradicional en vides de mesa

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 7 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several techniques are available to assess the water status of plants via physiological indicators [17,18]. Leaf water potential is recognized as one of the most important indexes to evaluate the water status of plants, providing high theoretical value and important information for multiple applications to quantify critical physiological processes, including drought responses [19][20][21]. Predawn leaf water potential (PLWP) and stem water potential (SWP) were found to be simple and precise indicators for assessing the grapevine water status [22][23][24][25].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several techniques are available to assess the water status of plants via physiological indicators [17,18]. Leaf water potential is recognized as one of the most important indexes to evaluate the water status of plants, providing high theoretical value and important information for multiple applications to quantify critical physiological processes, including drought responses [19][20][21]. Predawn leaf water potential (PLWP) and stem water potential (SWP) were found to be simple and precise indicators for assessing the grapevine water status [22][23][24][25].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%