4.7 Article

The hydraulic conductance of the angiosperm leaf lamina: a comparison of three measurement methods

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 53, Issue 378, Pages 2177-2184

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erf069

Keywords

angiosperms; evaporative flux method; high-pressure method; hydraulic conductance; leaves; vacuum pump method

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparison was made of three methods for measuring the leaf lamina hydraulic conductance (K-lamina) for detached mature leaves of six woody temperate angiosperm species. The high-pressure method, the evaporative flux method and the vacuum pump method involve, respectively, pushing, evaporating and pulling water out of the lamina while determining the flow rate into the petiole and the water potential drop across the leaf. Tests were made of whether the high-pressure method and vacuum pump method measurements of K-lamina on single leaves were affected by irradiance. In Ouercus rubra, the high pressure method was sensitive to irradiance; K-lamina measured under high irradiance (>1200 mumol m(-2) s(-1) photosynthetically active radiation) was 4.6-8.8 times larger than under ambient laboratory lighting (similar to6 mumol m(-2) s-1 photosynthetically active radiation). By constrast, the vacuum pump method was theoretically expected to be insensitive to irradiance, and this expectation was confirmed in experiments on Hedera helix. When used in the ways recommended here, the three methods produced measurements that agreed typically within 10%. There were significant differences in species' K-lamina; values ranged from 1.24x10(-4) kg s(-1) m(-2) MPa-1 for Acer saccharum to 2.89x10(-4) kg s(-1) m(-2) MPa-1 for Vitis labrusca. Accurate, rapid determination of K-lamina will allow testing of the links between K-lamina water-use, drought tolerance, and the enormous diversity of leaf form, structure and composition.

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