The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The control of stomata by water balance
Abstract
Summary: It is clear that stomata play a critical role in regulating water loss from terrestrial vegetation. What is not clear is how this regulation is achieved. Stomata appear to respond to perturbations of many aspects of the soil–plant–atmosphere hydraulic continuum, but there is little agreement regarding the mechanism (or mechanisms) by which stomata sense such perturbations. This review discusses feedback and feedforward mechanisms by which hydraulic perturbations are putatively transduced into stomatal movements, in relation to generic empirical features of those responses. It is argued that a metabolically mediated feedback response of stomatal guard cells to the water status in their immediate vicinity (‘hydro‐active local feedback’) remains the best explanation for many well‐known features of hydraulically related stomatal behaviour, such as transient ‘wrong‐way’ responses and the equivalence of hydraulic supply and demand as stomatal effectors. Furthermore, many curious phenomena that appear inconsistent with feedback, such as ‘apparent feedforward’ humidity responses and ‘isohydric’ behaviour (water potential homeostasis), are in fact expected to emerge from the juxtaposition of hydro‐active local feedback and the well‐known hysteretic and threshold‐like effect of water potential on xylem hydraulic resistance. Contents Summary 1 I. Introduction 2 II. Background: stomatal hydromechanics 2 III. The parsimony of hydro‐active local feedback 4 IV. Feedforward, or feedback plus? Emergent properties of marginally stable feedback control 8 V. Conclusions 14 Acknowledgements 14 References 14 Appendix 17
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species
Farquhar, G. D., von Caemmerer, S., & Berry, J. A. (1980) · Planta · doi:10.1007/bf00386231 · Cited by 8,796
Cited by
Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit
Grossiord, C., Buckley, T. N., Cernusak, L. A., Novick, K. A., Poulter, B., Siegwolf, R. T. W., Sperry, J. S., & McDowell, N. G. (2020) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.16485 · Cited by 2,302
Self-citationXu, Z., & Zhou, G. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/ern185 · Cited by 891
Lawlor, D. W., & Tezara, W. (2009) · Annals of Botany · doi:10.1093/aob/mcn244 · Cited by 852
Plant resistance to drought depends on timely stomatal closure
Martin‐StPaul, N., Delzon, S., & Cochard, H. (2017) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12851 · Cited by 820
An overview of models of stomatal conductance at the leaf level
DAMOUR, G., SIMONNEAU, T., COCHARD, H., & URBAN, L. (2010) · Plant, Cell & Environment · doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02181.x · Cited by 710
Metadata
- Authors
- Buckley, T. N.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-08-31
- Volume
- 168
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 275-292
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2149279250
- Cited by
- 737
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The control of stomata by water balance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01543.x
- The paper
- Buckley, T. N. (2005). The control of stomata by water balance. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01543.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.