4.7 Article

Is xylem of angiosperm leaves less resistant to embolism than branches? Insights from microCT, hydraulics, and anatomy

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 69, 期 22, 页码 5611-5623

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ery321

关键词

Bordered pit; branch; embolism; hydraulic segmentation; leaf; microCT; pit membrane; xylem

资金

  1. Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. IdEx Bordeaux International Post-doctoral program fellowship [UB101 CR1024-R s/CR1024-6M]
  3. Humboldt Research Fellowship
  4. International Synchrotron Access Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

According to the hydraulic vulnerability segmentation hypothesis, leaves are more vulnerable to decline of hydraulic conductivity than branches, but whether stem xylem is more embolism resistant than leaves remains unclear. Drought induced embolism resistance of leaf xylem was investigated based on X-ray microcomputed tomography (microCT) for Betula pendula, Laurus nobilis, and Liriodendron tulipifera, excluding outside-xylem, and compared with hydraulic vulnerability curves for branch xylem. Moreover, bordered pit characters related to embolism resistance were investigated for both organs. Theoretical P-50 values (i.e. the xylem pressure corresponding to 50% loss of hydraulic conductance) of leaves were generally within the same range as hydraulic P-50 values of branches. P-50 values of leaves were similar to branches for L. tulipifera (-2.01 versus -2.10 MPa, respectively), more negative for B. pendula (-2.87 versus -1.80 MPa), and less negative for L. nobilis (-6.4 versus -9.2 MPa). Despite more narrow conduits in leaves than branches, mean interconduit pit membrane thickness was similar in both organs, but significantly higher in leaves of B. pendula than in branches. This case study indicates that xylem shows a largely similar embolism resistance across leaves and branches, although differences both within and across organs may occur, suggesting interspecific variation with regard to the hydraulic vulnerability segmentation hypothesis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据