4.6 Article

Xylem form and function under extreme nutrient limitation: an example from California's pygmy forest

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 226, 期 3, 页码 760-769

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.16405

关键词

cavitation resistance; conduit diameter; embolism; hydraulic conductivity; pygmy forest; Sequoia sempervirens (redwood); vulnerability curve; wood anatomy

资金

  1. 2014-2015 Mildred E. Mathias Graduate Student Research Grant (University of California Natural Reserves System) - National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF DGE) [1339067]
  2. NSF [IOS-1258186]
  3. Save the Redwood League

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Xylem anatomy and function have large implications for plant growth as well as survival during drought, but the impact of nutrient limitation on xylem is not fully understood. This study examines the pygmy forest in California, a plant community that experiences negligible water stress but is severely stunted by low-nutrient and acidic soil, to investigate how nutrient limitation affects xylem function. Thirteen key anatomical and hydraulic traits of stems of four species were compared between pygmy forest plants and nearby conspecifics growing on richer soil. Resistance to cavitation (P-50), a critical trait for predicting survival during drought, had highly species-specific responses: in one species, pygmy plants had a 26% decrease in cavitation resistance compared to higher-nutrient conspecifics, while in another species, pygmy plants had a 56% increase in cavitation resistance. Other traits responded to nutrient limitation more consistently: pygmy plants had smaller xylem conduits and higher leaf-specific conductivity (K-L) than conspecific controls. Edaphic stress, even in the absence of water stress, altered xylem structure and thus had substantial impacts on water transport. Importantly, nutrient limitation shifted cavitation resistance in a species-specific and unpredictable manner; this finding has implications for the assessment of cavitation resistance in other natural systems.

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