4.7 Article

Effects of reduced irradiance on hydraulic architecture and water relations of two olive clones with different growth potentials

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 66, 期 2, 页码 249-256

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.03.022

关键词

Olive; Shading; Hydraulic architecture; Xylem features; Transpiration rate; Water potential

资金

  1. Italian Ministry for Education, University and Research [PRIN 2005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydraulic architecture and water relations of two olive genotypes,'Leccino Dwarf' (LD) and 'Leccino Minerva'(LM) growing at two irradiance levels i.e. full sunlight irradiance (HI) and 50% sunlight irradiance (LI) were studied. The two clones showed similar plant hydraulic conductances (K-plant) and similar conductance of roots and leaves (K-root and K-leaf) when growing at equal irradiance levels. However, both K-plant and K-root were significantly lower in LI plants than in HI ones. Oil the contrary, K-leaf was unaffected by the light regime. One-year-old twigs of LI plants produced longer xylem conduits but lower average diameter of conduits and less conduits per unit xylem cross-sectional area compared to HI plants. As a consequence total conductive cross-sectional area of twigs was computed to be about 16% smaller in LI individuals than in HI ones. The LM genotype resulted potentially more vulnerable to cavitation than the LD one, although shading did not influence this variable. Shading influenced root biomass negatively with stronger reduction in LM genotype than in LD one. Although transpiration rates were substantially lower in shaded than in HI plants minimum diurnal leaf water potential was about -1.2 MPa for both clones regardless the irradiance regime. Our conclusion is that the hydraulic efficiency of both olive clones was adjusted to meet the evaporative demand imposed by the irradiance regime with consequently similar equal hydraulic sufficiency. (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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