4.6 Article

Hierarchical statistical modeling of xylem vulnerability to cavitation

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 182, Issue 2, Pages 541-554

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02760.x

Keywords

Bayesian statistics; cavitation; embolism; Juniperus scopulorum (Rocky Mountain juniper); hierarchical Bayes; hydraulic conductivity; vulnerability curve

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) [0630119]
  2. Duke University Department of Biology Keever Award
  3. Duke University Department of Biology One-Semester Fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cavitation of xylem elements diminishes the water transport capacity of plants, and quantifying xylem vulnerability to cavitation is important to understanding plant function. Current approaches to analyzing hydraulic conductivity (K) data to infer vulnerability to cavitation suffer from problems such as the use of potentially unrealistic vulnerability curves, difficulty interpreting parameters in these curves, a statistical framework that ignores sampling design, and an overly simplistic view of uncertainty. This study illustrates how two common curves (exponential-sigmoid and Weibull) can be reparameterized in terms of meaningful parameters: maximum conductivity (k(sat)), water potential (-P) at which percentage loss of conductivity (PLC) = X% (P(X)), and the slope of the PLC curve at P(X) (S(X)), a 'sensitivity' index. We provide a hierarchical Bayesian method for fitting the reparameterized curves to K(H) data. We illustrate the method using data for roots and stems of two populations of Juniperus scopulorum and test for differences in k(sat), P(X), and S(X) between different groups. Two important results emerge from this study. First, the Weibull model is preferred because it produces biologically realistic estimates of PLC near P = 0 MPa. Second, stochastic embolisms contribute an important source of uncertainty that should be included in such analyses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available