4.7 Article

Hydraulic conductance of Acacia phyllodes (foliage) is driven by primary nerve (vein) conductance and density

期刊

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 158-168

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02425.x

关键词

density; phyllode; water

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Award
  2. Australian National University
  3. Australian Research Council [DP0881009]
  4. US National Science Foundation [0546784]
  5. Australian Research Council [DP0881009] Funding Source: Australian Research Council
  6. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [0546784] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We determined effects of venation traits on hydraulic conductance of phyllodes (foliage), using an array of Acacia s.str. species with diverse phyllode morphologies as the source of variation. Measurements were made on phyllodes from 44 species, grown in common gardens but originating from different positions along a precipitation gradient. Kphyllode varied 18-fold and was positively correlated with primary nerve hydraulic conductance, and with primary nerve (vein) density but not with minor nerve density, in contrast with previous studies of true leaves in other dicotyledons. Phyllodes with higher primary nerve density also had greater mass per area (PMA) and larger bundle sheath extensions (BSEs) from their minor nerves. We suggest that higher primary nerve conductivity and density may decrease the distance travelled in the high-resistance extra-xylem pathways of the phyllode. Further, larger BSEs may increase the area available for dispersion of water from the xylem to the extra-xylem tissue. High PMA phyllodes were more common in acacias from areas receiving lower annual precipitation. Maximizing efficient water movement through phyllodes may be more important where rainfall is meagre and infrequent, explaining relationships between nerve patterns and the climates of origin in Australian phyllodinous Acacia.

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