Cavitation induced by a surfactant leads to a transient release of water stress and subsequent 'run away' embolism in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) seedlings

21Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Cavitation decreases the hydraulic conductance of the xylem and has, therefore, detrimental effects on plant water balance. However, cavitation is also hypothesized to relieve water stress temporarily by releasing water from embolizing conduits to the transpiration stream. Stomatal closure in response to decreasing water potentials in order to avoid excessive cavitation has been well documented in numerous previous studies. However, it has remained unclear whether the stomata sense cavitation events themselves or whether they act in response to a decrease in leaf water potential to a level at which cavitation is initiated. The effects of massive cavitation on leaf water potential, transpiration, and stomatal behaviour were studied by feeding a surfactant into the transpiration stream of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) seedlings. The stomatal response to cavitation in connection with the capacitive effect was also studied. A major transient increase in leaf water potential was found due to cavitation in the seedlings. As cavitation was induced by lowering the surface tension, the two mechanisms could be uncoupled, as the usual relation between xylem water potential and the onset of cavitation did not hold. Our results indicate that the seedlings responded more to leaf water potential and less to cavitation itself, as stomatal closure was insufficient to prevent the seedlings from being driven to 'run-away' cavitation in a manner of hours. © 2011 The Author.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hölttä, T., Juurola, E., Lindfors, L., & Porcar-Castell, A. (2012). Cavitation induced by a surfactant leads to a transient release of water stress and subsequent “run away” embolism in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) seedlings. Journal of Experimental Botany, 63(2), 1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err349

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free