ArticlePeerJ2025
A new theory of tree sap flow.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Trunk Injection for Arthropod Pest Management in Woody Plants: A Comparative Perspective Under Greenhouse and Field Conditions.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The theory of water transport in trees, according to which the main driving force of water movement is the suction created by the evaporation of water by the meniscus (the curved surface of the capillary liquid column) on the evaporating elements, supported from below by root pressure, is controversial. The main physics argument against it is that the capillary effect in nature is around 1 m. In the case of open-air gaps, the leaf cannot suck in the water against gravity because, in this case, the plant would not be sucking in water, but air through the open-air gap. Aim: To present a new theory of three-sap flow and to support it with practical observations, previous data from decades of experimental measurements, and direct measurement data obtained by the authors. New theory: When evaporation occurs, there is no suction towards the canopy, but pressure is due to a reduction in the cross-section of the water pipe caused by heat loss through evaporation. At night, when evaporation stops, a thermal equilibration process is triggered, restoring the pipe's original cross-section. This generates suction and draws water from the soil. As the hydrostatic pressure in the pipe is high for tall trees, the pipe is segmented. Materials and Methods: To study the change in the wood's cross-section, a mechanical pressure-sensing transmitter-amplifier instrument was used. The instrument is designed to convert changes in the diameter of a millimeter-sized tree into easily detectable data by increasing the diameter by an order of magnitude. We also used high-resolution computer tomography (CT) to measure the cross-sectional image of oak trees to explore areas rich in water. Results: The experimental results show that the tree diameter increases during the night (suction phase) and decreases during the day (pressure phase). Many measurements in the literature show a similar phenomenon. The CT scan results showed that the outer, living one-ring area of the tree is rich in water, from which passages lead to the passive water storage inside the tree. Conclusions: Several examples have been given to prove this theory. Water transport is not based on physical mechanical laws alone. Complex physiological, biochemical, and biophysical processes may be behind the operation of the pipe system.
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.