ArticleAmerican journal of botany2024
Within-leaf variation in embolism resistance is not a rule for compound-leaved angiosperms.
Article in American journal of botany, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unraveling the hydraulic vulnerability of tree seedlings using optical and acoustic techniques.Journal of experimental botany · 2026Article
- Temporally disjunct herbaceous species differ in leaf embolism resistance.The New phytologist · 2025Article
- Within-leaf variation in embolism resistance is not a rule for compound-leaved angiosperms.American journal of botany · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
premiseHydraulic segmentation, caused by the difference in embolism resistance across plant organs, provides a sacrificial layer of cheaper plant organs, like leaves, to protect more costly organs, such as stems, during drought. Within-leaf hydraulic segmentation has been observed in two compound-leaved tree species, with leaflets being more vulnerable than the rachis or petiole. Many herbaceous species have compound leaves, and some species have leaflets that are associated with pulvini at the base of the lamina, which could provide an anatomical means of preventing embolism from spreading within a leaf because of the higher number of vessel endings in the pulvinus.
methodsWe used the optical vulnerability method to investigate whether differences in embolism resistance were observed across the leaf tissues of six herbaceous species and one deciduous tree species with compound leaves. Our species selection included both palmately and pinnately-compound leaved species, one of each with a pulvinus at the base of the leaflets.
resultsWe found considerable variation in embolism resistance across the species measured, but no evidence of variation in embolism resistance within the leaf. In two species with pulvini, we observed major embolism events crossing the pulvinus, spreading from the rachis or petiole into the lamina, and embolizing both tissues at the same water potential.
conclusionsWe conclude that within-leaf hydraulic segmentation, caused by variation in embolism resistance, is not a universal phenomenon to compound-leaved species and that the presence of a pulvinus does not provide a barrier to embolism spread in compound leaves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.