4.6 Article

No evidence for an open vessel effect in centrifuge-based vulnerability curves of a long-vesselled liana (Vitis vinifera)

Journal

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
Volume 194, Issue 4, Pages 982-990

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04118.x

Keywords

cavitation; centrifuge; embolism; grapevine (Vitis vinifera); vulnerability curve; water relations; xylem

Categories

Funding

  1. Andrew Mellon Foundation
  2. NSF [IOS-0845125]
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [0845125] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vulnerability to cavitation curves are used to estimate xylem cavitation resistance and can be constructed using multiple techniques. It was recently suggested that a technique that relies on centrifugal force to generate negative xylem pressures may be susceptible to an open vessel artifact in long-vesselled species. Here, we used custom centrifuge rotors to measure different sample lengths of 1-yr-old stems of grapevine to examine the influence of open vessels on vulnerability curves, thus testing the hypothesized open vessel artifact. These curves were compared with a dehydration-based vulnerability curve. Although samples differed significantly in the number of open vessels, there was no difference in the vulnerability to cavitation measured on 0.14- and 0.271-m-long samples of Vitis vinifera. Dehydration and centrifuge-based curves showed a similar pattern of declining xylem-specific hydraulic conductivity (Ks) with declining water potential. The percentage loss in hydraulic conductivity (PLC) differed between dehydration and centrifuge curves and it was determined that grapevine is susceptible to errors in estimating maximum Ks during dehydration because of the development of vessel blockages. Our results from a long-vesselled liana do not support the open vessel artifact hypothesis.

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