4.6 Article

Foliar water uptake in Pinus species depends on needle age and stomatal wax structures

期刊

ANNALS OF BOTANY
卷 131, 期 2, 页码 287-300

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcac141

关键词

Conifers; Pinus; foliar water uptake; needle age; leaf surface; cryo-scanning electron microscopy; electron microscopy; surfactants; stomatal wax plug; stomata; wax degradation; wax crystals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides evidence for widespread foliar water uptake (FWU) in various Pinus species. The FWU is higher in old needles compared to young needles, and there is substantial erosion of stomatal wax plugs in old needles. Pinus canariensis, which has a thin stomatal wax plug, exhibits the highest FWU. Furthermore, the use of the surfactant Triton X-100 enhances FWU.
Background and aims Foliar water uptake (FWU) has been documented in many species and is increasingly recognized as a non-trivial factor in plant-water relationships. However, it remains unknown whether FWU is a widespread phenomenon in Pinus species, and how it may relate to needle traits such as the form and structure of stomatal wax plugs. In this contribution, these questions were addressed by studying FWU in current-year and 1-year-old needles of seven Pinus species. Methods We monitored FWU gravimetrically and analysed the needle surface via cryo-scanning electron microscopy. Additionally, we considered the effect of artificial wax erosion by application of the surfactant Triton X-100, which is able to alter wax crystals. Key results The results show for all species that (1) FWU occurred, (2) FWU is higher in old needles compared to young needles and (3) there is substantial erosion of stomatal wax plugs in old needles. FWU was highest in Pinus canariensis, which has a thin stomatal wax plug. Surfactant treatment enhanced FWU. Conclusions The results of this study provide evidence for (1) widespread FWU in Pinus, (2) the influence of stomatal wax plugs on FWU and (3) age-related needle surface erosion.

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