%0 Journal Article %1 citeulike:6649068 %A Tyree, M. T. %A Cochard, H. %D 1996 %J Annales des Sciences Forestières %K anatomy, citeulikeExport diameter, droughtbolism, freezebolism %N 2-3 %P 173--180 %R 10.1051/forest:19960201 %T Summer and winter embolism in oak: impact on water relations %U http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/forest:19960201 %V 53

@article{citeulike:6649068, added-at = {2019-03-31T01:14:40.000+0100}, author = {Tyree, M. T. and Cochard, H.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2eed24f82a1f023ff3e5d01356980ab2a/dianella}, citeulike-article-id = {6649068}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/forest:19960201}, comment = {(private-note)OK, so would embolism really have no impact on drought tolerance if the critical water potential for embolism is lower than that an oak experiences? Is this a fair conclusion or not? What DOES cause drought injury then? Leaf drought-induced embolism? "Decreased leaf water potential will correspond to decreased growth, stomatal conductance and net assimilation (Vivin et al, 1993)." ok, and The relationship between plant conductance and leaf water potential is complex, and dependent on: nonvascular conductances of roots and leaves and the vascular conductance from minor roots to minor veins in the leaf. They're measuring the least resistant part of this. A common assumption is that most of the vascular conductance is confined to the apex (zimmermann 1983)*i.e. leaves??*, where water potentials are more severe "Exactly how the stem segment is dehydrated does not seem to affect the vulnerability curve." Could it be that under other circumstances, the critical water potential is higher? Vulnerability curves aren't very natural. "Most of the change in soil-to-leaf conductance during drought is thought to be confined to the root and/or soil part of the pathway." "There is growing reason to believe that roots are more vulnerable than shoots to cavitation" (Sperry and Saliendra, 1994) "The level of prior xylem water potential doesn't influence the amount of air coming out of solution upon freezing" then later they say that the amount of tension required on a bubble for it to expand and fill the conduit is rather small. (Are they suggesting that therefore there'd be no relationship between water pot and freezebolism?) They suggest that large volume conduits would have bubbles slower to redissolve before the onset of critical tension. (But I suspect the onset is rapid and subzero... still, interesting) Analysis of the kinetics of bubble dissolution -> time taken for a bubble to dissolve increases with the square of its initial diameter. Ewers (1985) observed that bigger bubbles formed in bigger tubes. That's what this WHOLE theory is based on. I wonder, however. Maybe the critical point occurs later.... once the bubble has hit the side walls of the vessel... resistance to lateral expansion....?}, doi = {10.1051/forest:19960201}, interhash = {14cadc60ec4b6b80237e758c9c9d42e1}, intrahash = {eed24f82a1f023ff3e5d01356980ab2a}, issn = {0003-4312}, journal = {Annales des Sciences Foresti\`{e}res}, keywords = {anatomy, citeulikeExport diameter, droughtbolism, freezebolism}, number = {2-3}, pages = {173--180}, posted-at = {2010-02-10 06:17:59}, priority = {2}, timestamp = {2019-03-31T01:16:26.000+0100}, title = {{Summer and winter embolism in oak: impact on water relations}}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/forest:19960201}, volume = 53, year = 1996 }