Using the Pneumatic method to estimate embolism resistance in species with long vessels: A commentary on the article A comparison of five methods to assess embolism resistance in trees

Comparisons among methods are essential to validate plant traits measured across studies. However, a rigorous analysis is a complex task that needs to take into account not only the principle of the method and its correct use, but also inherent intraspecific trait variability, something we feel is not fully considered by Sergent et al. (2020). They compared the Bench dehydration, MicroCT, and Pneumatic methods using three long-vesseled species and found divergence among these methods. As a key finding, Sergent and colleagues reported unreliable estimates of Psi(50) for Olea europaea when using the Pneumatic method in a such long-vesseled species. Here, we tested this finding by measuring independently vulnerability curves for O. europaea. Our results reinforce the viability of the Pneumatic method to estimate embolism vulnerability in long-vesseled species, as already found by others. Briefly, we also discuss important procedures when using the Pneumatic method and encourage further experiments, as the only way to know better the limitations of available methods and improve our understanding about plant water relations.

Automated summary

Comparing methods for measuring plant traits is important for validation across studies. Some studies have found reliability issues with the Pneumatic method in estimating embolism vulnerability in long-vesseled species, while others support its viability. Further experiments are encouraged to improve our understanding of plant water relations.