Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32822502›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental botany2020

Non-invasive imaging reveals convergence in root and stem vulnerability to cavitation across five tree species.

Jennifer M R Peters, Alice Gauthey, Rosana Lopez, Madeline R Carins-Murphy, Timothy J Brodribb, Brendan Choat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Detecting and Quantifying Xylem Embolism by Synchrotron-Based X-Ray Micro-CT.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

6 authors.

Jennifer M R PetersHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, Australia.
Alice GautheyHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, Australia.
Rosana LopezHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, Australia.
Madeline R Carins-MurphySchool of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Timothy J BrodribbSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Brendan ChoatHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Root vulnerability to cavitation is challenging to measure and under-represented in current datasets. This gap limits the precision of models used to predict plant responses to drought because roots comprise the critical interface between plant and soil. In this study, we measured vulnerability to drought-induced cavitation in woody roots and stems of five tree species (Acacia aneura, Cedrus deodara, Eucalyptus crebra, Eucalytus saligna, and Quercus palustris) with a wide range of xylem anatomies. X-ray microtomography was used to visualize the accumulation of xylem embolism in stems and roots of intact plants that were naturally dehydrated to varying levels of water stress. Vulnerability to cavitation, defined as the water potential causing a 50% loss of hydraulic function (P50), varied broadly among the species (-4.51 MPa to -11.93 MPa in stems and -3.13 MPa to -9.64 MPa in roots). The P50 of roots and stems was significantly related across species, with species that had more vulnerable stems also having more vulnerable roots. While there was strong convergence in root and stem vulnerability to cavitation, the P50 of roots was significantly higher than the P50 of stems in three species. However, the difference in root and stem vulnerability for these species was small; between 1% and 31% of stem P50. Thus, while some differences existed between organs, roots were not dramatically more vulnerable to embolism than stems, and the differences observed were less than those reported in previous studies. Further study is required to evaluate the vulnerability across root orders and to extend these conclusions to a greater number of species and xylem functional types.

Indexed as

QuercusTreesDroughtsPlant LeavesPlant StemsWaterXylemWaterCavitationdroughtembolismmicroCTrootsxylem

Identifiers

PMID32822502
PMCPMC7586747

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.