Cargando…

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

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 d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peters, Jennifer M R, Gauthey, Alice, Lopez, Rosana, Carins-Murphy, Madeline R, Brodribb, Timothy J, Choat, Brendan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7586747/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32822502
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa381
Descripción
Sumario: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 (P(50)), 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 P(50) 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 P(50) of roots was significantly higher than the P(50) of stems in three species. However, the difference in root and stem vulnerability for these species was small; between 1% and 31% of stem P(50). 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.