ABA and stomatal closure

 

 

Abscisic acid and stomatal closure: a hydraulic conductance conundrum?

by Dodd I. C. (2013)

in New Phytol, 197: 6–8. doi:10.1111/nph.12052 –

This article is corrected by: Errata: Corrigendum – Volume 198, Issue 4, 1290, Article first published online: 4 April 2013 – DOI: 10.1111/nph.12279(2013), Corrigendum. New Phytol, 198: 1290. doi:10.1111/nph.12279

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12052/abstract 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12279/full

New Phytologist 197 (2013), 6–8.

Since its publication, it has been brought to our attention that some information presented in the commentary by Dodd (2013) is misleading and the work of Shatil-Cohen et al. (2011) was not appropriately acknowledged. The author has amended the text to clarify this.

In the third paragraph the text should read:

In contrast to previous reports where incubation of WT leaf mesophyll protoplasts in 1 μM ABA for 1–4 h had no significant effect on osmotic water permeability (Morillon & Chrispeels, 2001; Shatil-Cohen et al., 2011), incubating bundle sheath protoplasts in 1 μM ABA for 1 h decreased osmotic water permeability by c. 40% (Shatil-Cohen et al., 2011). This demonstrates that ionic regulation of different cell types is differentially responsive to ABA (Shatil-Cohen et al., 2011), which would interact with spatial differences in ABA concentration observed in different cell types (Christmann et al., 2007) in regulating hydraulic responses to ABA.

In the fifth paragraph the text should read:

See: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.12279/full