Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30184113›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental botany2018

Is xylem of angiosperm leaves less resistant to embolism than branches? Insights from microCT, hydraulics, and anatomy.

Matthias Klepsch, Ya Zhang, Martyna M Kotowska, Laurent J Lamarque, Markus Nolf, Bernhard Schuldt, José M Torres-Ruiz, De-Wen Qin, Brendan Choat, Sylvain Delzon and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Matthias KlepschInstitute of Systematic Botany and Ecology, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Ya ZhangInstitute of Systematic Botany and Ecology, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Martyna M KotowskaDepartment of Biological Sciences Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia.
Laurent J LamarqueBIOGECO, INRA, University of Bordeaux, Pessac, France.
Markus NolfHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, New South Wales, Australia.
Bernhard SchuldtPlant Ecology, Albrecht von Haller Institute for Plant Sciences, University of Göttingen, Untere Karspüle, Göttingen, Germany.
José M Torres-RuizBIOGECO, INRA, University of Bordeaux, Pessac, France.
De-Wen QinGuangxi Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Conservation, College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Daxuedonglu, Nanning, Guangxi, PR China.
Brendan ChoatHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, New South Wales, Australia.
Sylvain DelzonBIOGECO, INRA, University of Bordeaux, Pessac, France.
Christine ScoffoniDepartment of Biological Sciences, California State University, Los Angeles, State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kun-Fang CaoGuangxi Key Laboratory of Forest Ecology and Conservation, College of Forestry, Guangxi University, Daxuedonglu, Nanning, Guangxi, PR China.
Steven JansenInstitute of Systematic Botany and Ecology, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Universität Ulm · DEUniversité de Bordeaux · FRGuangxi University · CNUniversity of Göttingen · DEWestern Sydney University · AUCalifornia State University Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the hydraulic vulnerability segmentation hypothesis, leaves are more vulnerable to decline of hydraulic conductivity than branches, but whether stem xylem is more embolism resistant than leaves remains unclear. Drought-induced embolism resistance of leaf xylem was investigated based on X-ray microcomputed tomography (microCT) for Betula pendula, Laurus nobilis, and Liriodendron tulipifera, excluding outside-xylem, and compared with hydraulic vulnerability curves for branch xylem. Moreover, bordered pit characters related to embolism resistance were investigated for both organs. Theoretical P50 values (i.e. the xylem pressure corresponding to 50% loss of hydraulic conductance) of leaves were generally within the same range as hydraulic P50 values of branches. P50 values of leaves were similar to branches for L. tulipifera (-2.01 versus -2.10 MPa, respectively), more negative for B. pendula (-2.87 versus -1.80 MPa), and less negative for L. nobilis (-6.4 versus -9.2 MPa). Despite more narrow conduits in leaves than branches, mean interconduit pit membrane thickness was similar in both organs, but significantly higher in leaves of B. pendula than in branches. This case study indicates that xylem shows a largely similar embolism resistance across leaves and branches, although differences both within and across organs may occur, suggesting interspecific variation with regard to the hydraulic vulnerability segmentation hypothesis.

Indexed as

DroughtsBetulaLaurusLiriodendronPlant LeavesPlant ShootsTreesX-Ray MicrotomographyXylem

Identifiers

PMID30184113
PMCPMC6255699
OpenAlexW2889368704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.