4.7 Article

Seasonal variation in xylem pressure of walnut trees:: root and stem pressures

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 15, 页码 1123-1132

出版社

HERON PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/21.15.1123

关键词

fructose; glucose; Juglans regia; nutrient uptake; sucrose; temperature; xylem sap

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Measurements of air and soil temperatures and xylem pressure were made on 17-year-old orchard trees and on 5-year-old potted trees of walnut (Juglans regia L.). Cooling chambers were used to determine the relationships between temperature and sugar concentration ([glucose] + [fructose] + [sucrose], GFS) and seasonal changes in xylem pressure development. Pressure transducers were attached to twigs of intact plants, root stumps and excised shoots while the potted trees were subjected to various temperature regimes in autumn, winter and spring. Osmolarity and GFS of the xylem sap (apoplast) were measured before and after cooling or warming treatments. In autumn and spring, xylem pressures of up to 160 kPa were closely correlated with soil temperature but were not correlated with GFS in xylem sap. High root pressures were associated with uptake of mineral nutrients from soil, especially nitrate. In autumn and spring, xylem pressures were detected in root stumps as well as in intact plants, but not in excised stems. In contrast, in winter, 83 % of the xylem sap osmolarity in both excised stems and intact plants could be accounted for by GFS, and both GFS and osmolarity were inversely proportional to temperature. Plants kept at 1.5 degreesC developed positive xylem pressures up to 35 kPa, xylem sap osmolarities up to 260 mosmol l(-1) and GFS concentrations up to 70 g l(-1). Autumn and spring xylem pressures, which appeared to be of root origin, were about 55% of the theoretical pressures predicted by osmolarity of the xylem sap. In contrast, winter pressures appeared to be of stem origin and were only 7% of the theoretical pressures, perhaps because of a lower stem water content during winter.

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