4.7 Article

Xylem embolism in leaves does not occur with open stomata: evidence from direct observations using the optical visualization technique

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 71, 期 3, 页码 1151-1159

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erz474

关键词

Drought; embolism; hydraulics; optical visualization; stomatal closure; water stress; xylem

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate award
  2. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment Research Exchange Program
  3. IdEx Bordeaux International Post-doctoral Program [UB101 CR1024-Rs/CR1024-6M]
  4. 'Investments for the Future' programme of the French National Agency for Research [ANR-10-EQPX-16]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drought represents a major abiotic constraint to plant growth and survival. On the one hand, plants keep stomata open for efficient carbon assimilation while, on the other hand, they close them to prevent permanent hydraulic impairment from xylem embolism. The order of occurrence of these two processes (stomatal closure and the onset of leaf embolism) during plant dehydration has remained controversial, largely due to methodological limitations. However, the newly developed optical visualization method now allows concurrent monitoring of stomatal behaviour and leaf embolism formation in intact plants. We used this new approach directly by dehydrating intact saplings of three contrasting tree species and indirectly by conducting a literature survey across a greater range of plant taxa. Our results indicate that increasing water stress generates the onset of leaf embolism consistently after stomatal closure, and that the lag time between these processes (i.e. the safety margin) rises with increasing embolism resistance. This suggests that during water stress, embolism-mediated declines in leaf hydraulic conductivity are unlikely to act as a signal for stomatal down-regulation. Instead, these species converge towards a strategy of closing stomata early to prevent water loss and delay catastrophic xylem dysfunction.

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