Vulnerability to cavitation of leaf minor veins and stems of Laurus nobilis L. was quanti?ed together with that of leaf- lets, rachides and stems of Ceratonia siliqua L. during air- dehydration of 3-year-old branches. Embolism was esti- mated by counting ultrasound acoustic emissions (UAE) and relating them to leaf water potential (YL). The thresh- old YL for cavitation was less negative in L. nobilis than in C. siliqua according to the known higher drought resis- tance of the latter species. Leaf minor vein cavitation was also quanti?ed by in?ltrating leaves with ?uorescein at dif- ferent dehydration levels and observing them under micro- scope. Distinct decreases in the functional integrity of minor veins were observed during leaf dehydration, with high correlation between the two variables. The relation- ship between leaf conductance to water vapour (gL) and YL showed that stomata of L. nobilis closed in response to stem and not to leaf cavitation. However, in C. siliqua, gL decreased in coincidence to the leaf cavitation threshold, which was, nevertheless, very close to that of the stem. The hypothesis that stem cavitation acts as a signal for stomatal closure was con?rmed, while the same role for leaf cavita- tion remains an open problem.
(private-note)one of the few papers that reports cavitation in the leaf BLADE. (Milburn 1973; West & Gaff 1976; Kikuta et al. 1997; canny 2001 also) uptake experiment using fluorescein infiltrated into the leaves at 0.02 Mpa: Fewer veins fluoresced in the really dehydrated leaves, meaning they were non-conductive. It was mainly the minor veins that didn't fluoresce at higher dehydration levels. Maybe they're the ones that cavitate. Canny 2001 saw the opposite, with the larger veins cavitating READ HIM. Still, if it were some but not all of the vessels in a major vein, they wouldn't have been able to tell... so they can't conclude that it was only the minor veins. No reaction to leaf cavitation with stomatal closure. Stem cavitation occurred at leaf water potentials at which stomatal conductance dropped, however. But the water potential at which leaf cavitation occurred had a large standard error, so couldn't say for sure about that.
%0 Journal Article
%1 Salleoetal_01
%A Salleo, S.
%A Lo Gullo, M. A.
%A Raimondo, F.
%A Nardini, A.
%D 2001
%J Plant, Cell and Environment
%K anatomy, bibtex-import, citeulikeExport droughtbolism, gas\_exchange, hydraulics, leaf, snowgumpapermaybe, techniques
%P 851--859
%T Vulnerability to cavitation of leaf minor veins: any impact on leaf gas exchange?
%U http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00734.x/full/
%V 24
%X Vulnerability to cavitation of leaf minor veins and stems of Laurus nobilis L. was quanti?ed together with that of leaf- lets, rachides and stems of Ceratonia siliqua L. during air- dehydration of 3-year-old branches. Embolism was esti- mated by counting ultrasound acoustic emissions (UAE) and relating them to leaf water potential (YL). The thresh- old YL for cavitation was less negative in L. nobilis than in C. siliqua according to the known higher drought resis- tance of the latter species. Leaf minor vein cavitation was also quanti?ed by in?ltrating leaves with ?uorescein at dif- ferent dehydration levels and observing them under micro- scope. Distinct decreases in the functional integrity of minor veins were observed during leaf dehydration, with high correlation between the two variables. The relation- ship between leaf conductance to water vapour (gL) and YL showed that stomata of L. nobilis closed in response to stem and not to leaf cavitation. However, in C. siliqua, gL decreased in coincidence to the leaf cavitation threshold, which was, nevertheless, very close to that of the stem. The hypothesis that stem cavitation acts as a signal for stomatal closure was con?rmed, while the same role for leaf cavita- tion remains an open problem.
@article{Salleoetal_01,
abstract = {{Vulnerability to cavitation of leaf minor veins and stems of Laurus nobilis L. was quanti?ed together with that of leaf- lets, rachides and stems of Ceratonia siliqua L. during air- dehydration of 3-year-old branches. Embolism was esti- mated by counting ultrasound acoustic emissions (UAE) and relating them to leaf water potential (YL). The thresh- old YL for cavitation was less negative in L. nobilis than in C. siliqua according to the known higher drought resis- tance of the latter species. Leaf minor vein cavitation was also quanti?ed by in?ltrating leaves with ?uorescein at dif- ferent dehydration levels and observing them under micro- scope. Distinct decreases in the functional integrity of minor veins were observed during leaf dehydration, with high correlation between the two variables. The relation- ship between leaf conductance to water vapour (gL) and YL showed that stomata of L. nobilis closed in response to stem and not to leaf cavitation. However, in C. siliqua, gL decreased in coincidence to the leaf cavitation threshold, which was, nevertheless, very close to that of the stem. The hypothesis that stem cavitation acts as a signal for stomatal closure was con?rmed, while the same role for leaf cavita- tion remains an open problem.}},
added-at = {2019-03-31T01:14:40.000+0100},
author = {Salleo, S. and Lo Gullo, M. A. and Raimondo, F. and Nardini, A.},
biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2c4f6a9a2e8376517512a4cb2c0071fb4/dianella},
citeulike-article-id = {1524010},
citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00734.x/full/},
comment = {(private-note)one of the few papers that reports cavitation in the leaf BLADE. (Milburn 1973; West \& Gaff 1976; Kikuta et al. 1997; canny 2001 also) uptake experiment using fluorescein infiltrated into the leaves at 0.02 Mpa: Fewer veins fluoresced in the really dehydrated leaves, meaning they were non-conductive. It was mainly the minor veins that didn't fluoresce at higher dehydration levels. Maybe they're the ones that cavitate. Canny 2001 saw the opposite, with the larger veins cavitating READ HIM. Still, if it were some but not all of the vessels in a major vein, they wouldn't have been able to tell... so they can't conclude that it was only the minor veins. No reaction to leaf cavitation with stomatal closure. Stem cavitation occurred at leaf water potentials at which stomatal conductance dropped, however. But the water potential at which leaf cavitation occurred had a large standard error, so couldn't say for sure about that.},
interhash = {d4d843e1974532cbacfd00e41ae9b2d4},
intrahash = {c4f6a9a2e8376517512a4cb2c0071fb4},
journal = {Plant, Cell and Environment},
keywords = {anatomy, bibtex-import, citeulikeExport droughtbolism, gas\_exchange, hydraulics, leaf, snowgumpapermaybe, techniques},
pages = {851--859},
posted-at = {2007-07-31 07:03:58},
priority = {2},
timestamp = {2019-03-31T01:16:26.000+0100},
title = {{Vulnerability to cavitation of leaf minor veins: any impact on leaf gas exchange?}},
url = {http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00734.x/full/},
volume = 24,
year = 2001
}