4.7 Article

Shoot hydraulic characteristics, plant water status and stomatal response in olive trees under different soil water conditions

期刊

PLANT AND SOIL
卷 373, 期 1-2, 页码 77-87

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-013-1774-1

关键词

Cavitation; Olive; Irrigation; Vulnerability to drought-induced embolism; Water stress; Xylem anatomy

资金

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation [AGL2006-04666/AGR]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20852-B16]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCINN) [BES-2007-17149]
  4. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P20852] Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund (FWF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the impact of the amount and distribution of soil water on xylem anatomy and xylem hydraulics of current-year shoots, plant water status and stomatal conductance of mature 'Manzanilla' olive trees. Measurements of water potential, stomatal conductance, hydraulic conductivity, vulnerability to embolism, vessel diameter distribution and vessel density were made in trees under full irrigation with non-limiting soil water conditions, localized irrigation, and rain-fed conditions. All trees showed lower stomatal conductance values in the afternoon than in the morning. The irrigated trees showed water potential values around -1.4 and -1.6 MPa whereas the rain-fed trees reached lower values. All trees showed similar specific hydraulic conductivity (K (s)) and loss of conductivity values during the morning. In the afternoon, K (s) of rain-fed trees tended to be lower than of irrigated trees. No differences in vulnerability to embolism, vessel-diameter distribution and vessel density were observed between treatments. A tight control of stomatal conductance was observed in olive which allowed irrigated trees to avoid critical water potential values and keep them in a safe range to avoid embolism. The applied water treatments did not influence the xylem anatomy and vulnerability to embolism of current-year shoots of mature olive trees.

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