Weize Tang, Xiaorong Liu, Xingyun Liang, Hui Liu, Kailiang Yu, Pengcheng He, Scott McAdam, Han Zhao, Qing Ye
{"title":"Hydraulic vulnerability difference between branches and roots increases with environmental aridity.","authors":"Weize Tang, Xiaorong Liu, Xingyun Liang, Hui Liu, Kailiang Yu, Pengcheng He, Scott McAdam, Han Zhao, Qing Ye","doi":"10.1007/s00442-024-05562-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The vulnerability of plant xylem to embolism can be described as the water potential at which xylem conductivity is lost by 50% (P<sub>50</sub>). According to the traditional hypothesis of hydraulic vulnerability segmentation, the difference in vulnerability to embolism between branches and roots is positive (P<sub>50 root-branch</sub> > 0). It is not clear whether this occurs broadly across species or how segmentation might vary across aridity gradients. We compiled hydraulic and anatomical datasets from branches and roots across 104 woody species (including new measurements from 10 species) in four biomes to investigate the relationships between P<sub>50 root-branch</sub> and environmental factors associated with aridity. We found a positive P<sub>50 root-branch</sub> relationship across species, and evidence that P<sub>50 root-branch</sub> increases with aridity. Branch xylem hydraulic conductivity transitioned from more efficient (e.g., wider conduit, higher hydraulic conductivity) to safer (e.g., narrower conduit, more negative P<sub>50</sub>) in response to the increase of aridity, while root xylem hydraulic conductivity remained unchanged across aridity gradients. Our results demonstrate that the hydraulic vulnerability difference between branches and roots is more positive in species from arid regions, largely driven by modifications to branch traits.</p>","PeriodicalId":19473,"journal":{"name":"Oecologia","volume":" ","pages":"177-190"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oecologia","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-024-05562-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The vulnerability of plant xylem to embolism can be described as the water potential at which xylem conductivity is lost by 50% (P50). According to the traditional hypothesis of hydraulic vulnerability segmentation, the difference in vulnerability to embolism between branches and roots is positive (P50 root-branch > 0). It is not clear whether this occurs broadly across species or how segmentation might vary across aridity gradients. We compiled hydraulic and anatomical datasets from branches and roots across 104 woody species (including new measurements from 10 species) in four biomes to investigate the relationships between P50 root-branch and environmental factors associated with aridity. We found a positive P50 root-branch relationship across species, and evidence that P50 root-branch increases with aridity. Branch xylem hydraulic conductivity transitioned from more efficient (e.g., wider conduit, higher hydraulic conductivity) to safer (e.g., narrower conduit, more negative P50) in response to the increase of aridity, while root xylem hydraulic conductivity remained unchanged across aridity gradients. Our results demonstrate that the hydraulic vulnerability difference between branches and roots is more positive in species from arid regions, largely driven by modifications to branch traits.
期刊介绍:
Oecologia publishes innovative ecological research of international interest. We seek reviews, advances in methodology, and original contributions, emphasizing the following areas:
Population ecology, Plant-microbe-animal interactions, Ecosystem ecology, Community ecology, Global change ecology, Conservation ecology,
Behavioral ecology and Physiological Ecology.
In general, studies that are purely descriptive, mathematical, documentary, and/or natural history will not be considered.