4.6 Article

Linking Xylem Hydraulic Conductivity and Vulnerability to the Leaf Economics Spectrum-A Cross-Species Study of 39 Evergreen and Deciduous Broadleaved Subtropical Tree Species

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109211

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [DFG FOR 891/1, 891/2, DFG BR 1698/9-2]
  2. Sino-German Centre for Research Promotion in Beijing [GZ 524, 592, 698, 699, 785, 970, 1020]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31170457]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While the fundamental trade-off in leaf traits related to carbon capture as described by the leaf economics spectrum is well-established among plant species, the relationship of the leaf economics spectrum to stem hydraulics is much less known. Since carbon capture and transpiration are coupled, a close connection between leaf traits and stem hydraulics should be expected. We thus asked whether xylem traits that describe drought tolerance and vulnerability to cavitation are linked to particular leaf traits. We assessed xylem vulnerability, using the pressure sleeve technique, and anatomical xylem characteristics in 39 subtropical tree species grown under common garden conditions in the BEF-China experiment and tested for correlations with traits related to the leaf economics spectrum as well as to stomatal control, including maximum stomatal conductance, vapor pressure deficit at maximum stomatal conductance and vapor pressure deficit at which stomatal conductance is down-regulated. Our results revealed that specific xylem hydraulic conductivity and cavitation resistance were closely linked to traits represented in the leaf economic spectrum, in particular to leaf nitrogen concentration, as well as to log leaf area and leaf carbon to nitrogen ratio but not to any parameter of stomatal conductance. The study highlights the potential use of well-known leaf traits from the leaf economics spectrum to predict plant species' drought resistance.

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

4.6
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