4.7 Article

The rapid light response of leaf hydraulic conductance: new evidence from two experimental methods

Journal

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 31, Issue 12, Pages 1803-1812

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01884.x

Keywords

bundle sheath extensions; evaporative flux method; heterobaric; homobaric; irradiance; leaf traits; rehydration kinetics method

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [0546784]
  2. Estonian Science Foundation [6823]
  3. Estonian Ministry of Science and Education [0170021s08]
  4. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [0546784] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous studies have shown a rapid enhancement in leaf hydraulic conductance (K-leaf) from low to high irradiance (from < 10 to > 1000 mu mol photons m(-2) s(-1)), using the high-pressure flow meter (HPFM), for 7 of 14 tested woody species. However, theoretical suggestions have been made that this response might arise as an artifact of the HPFM. We tested the K-leaf light response for six evergreen species using refined versions of the rehydration kinetics method (RKM) and the evaporative flux method (EFM). We found new evidence for a rapid, 60% to 100% increase in K-leaf from low to high irradiance for three species. In the RKM, the leaf rehydration time constant declined by up to 70% under high irradiance relative to darkness. In the EFM, under higher irradiance, the flow rate increased disproportionately to the water potential gradient. Combining our data with those of previous studies, we found that heterobaric species, i.e. those with bundle sheath extensions (BSEs) showed a twofold greater K-leaf light response on average than homobaric species, i.e. those without BSEs. We suggest further research to characterize this substantial dynamic at the nexus of plant light- and water-relations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available