ArticleJournal of experimental botany2025
Optical observations of embolism in three conifers overestimate the vulnerability of stem xylem to hydraulic dysfunction.
Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Unraveling the hydraulic vulnerability of tree seedlings using optical and acoustic techniques.Journal of experimental botany · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Hydraulic failure due to drought stress is a major cause of forest decline. Many techniques have been developed to test the vulnerability of trees to drought-induced xylem embolism, each with advantages and limitations. We quantified drought vulnerability using optical vulnerability and ultrasonic acoustic emission (UAE) techniques by performing simultaneous measurements on branches of three conifers (Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris, and Pinus cembra). Results were compared with vulnerability curves obtained using the flow-centrifuge (FC) technique. With respect to the optical vulnerability method, the light transmission properties of the samples were analyzed to determine the xylem fraction observed. Optical vulnerability thresholds were 0.3-1.4 MPa higher than those obtained with UAE and FC techniques, which were similar overall. Xylem depths observed by optical vulnerability were limited to the peripheral 0.15-0.20 mm, as no light transmission was detected at greater depth. Light transmission was higher in saturated xylem than in dry. The results indicatet that xylem embolism detection by optical vulnerability is limited to thin, peripheral xylem layers, and that vulnerability thresholds may differ from those of thicker samples (>0.4 mm) measured with UAE and FC techniques. Therefore, optical vulnerability may not accurately reflect the general vulnerability of thick branches, as only peripheral xylem layers are analyzed. Changes in light transmission during dehydration must be considered.
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.