2015
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpv035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of hydraulic architecture in three similarly sized woody species differing in their maximum potential height

Abstract: The physiological mechanisms underlying the short maximum height of shrubs are not understood. One possible explanation is that differences in the hydraulic architecture of shrubs compared with co-occurring taller trees prevent the shrubs from growing taller. To explore this hypothesis, we examined various hydraulic parameters, including vessel lumen diameter, hydraulic conductivity and vulnerability to drought-induced embolism, of three co-occurring species that differed in their maximum potential height. We … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
1
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The consequences of these anatomical differences coupled with stem diameter differences would be a lower potential for water transport through the annual ring in understory trees compared to overstory trees. As stated in previous studies (McCulloh et al 2010;McCulloh et al 2015), a small stem diameter induces reduced potential specific conductivity and potential ring conductivity, although xylem structure adjustments that resulted in smaller D HP (through vessel diameter and vessel frequency) also contributed. Furthermore, the differences in xylem anatomy of understory vs overstory trees may be also related to the longer water path length from roots to canopies of overstory trees (Preston et al 2006;Fan et al 2012).…”
Section: Effect Of Tree Position Within the Canopy On Xylem Traits Insupporting
confidence: 64%
“…The consequences of these anatomical differences coupled with stem diameter differences would be a lower potential for water transport through the annual ring in understory trees compared to overstory trees. As stated in previous studies (McCulloh et al 2010;McCulloh et al 2015), a small stem diameter induces reduced potential specific conductivity and potential ring conductivity, although xylem structure adjustments that resulted in smaller D HP (through vessel diameter and vessel frequency) also contributed. Furthermore, the differences in xylem anatomy of understory vs overstory trees may be also related to the longer water path length from roots to canopies of overstory trees (Preston et al 2006;Fan et al 2012).…”
Section: Effect Of Tree Position Within the Canopy On Xylem Traits Insupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Contrastingly, understorey shrubs had high wood densities, and the smallest vessels and conductivities, which could be related to small plant stature and slow‐growing habit in the forest understorey (Falster & Westoby ; McCulloh et al . ). Mature‐phase trees, pioneer trees and pioneer shrubs were similar in most wood traits except for lower wood densities in the latter two groups, reflecting a well‐documented strategy in pioneer species for maximizing growth at the expense of structural support (McCulloh et al .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The majority of studies examining plant functional anatomy have focused on trees (Poorter et al 2010;Zach et al 2010) and usually only on a limited sample of the flora in an ecosystem. The few comparative studies to date have mostly compared trees and vines (Zhu & Cao 2009), trees and shrubs (Mart ınez-Cabrera et al 2011;Gleason et al 2012;McCulloh et al 2015), or life-forms within the same genus or family (Baas et al 2004). Some comparisons have been made between mature-phase species and pioneers (McCulloh et al 2011) but with limited species coverage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Water flow in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum is determined by the whole-plant hydraulic conductance from soil through plant tissues (K plant ), characterizing the structural capacity of the plant for water flow (Zimmermann 1983). Changes in K plant related to changes in size (McCulloh et al 2015), drought , Brodribb and Holbrook 2003, Addington et al 2004, Domec and Pruyn 2008, fertilization (Bucci et al 2006), elevated CO 2 (CO 2 e ) concentration (Domec et al 2010) have been linked to variation in gas exchange, carbon uptake and growth. For the last fifteen years, plant physiologists have come to appreciate the influence that leaves make to K plant , and their importance to understanding scaling physiological processes within plants (Brodribb and Holbrook 2004, Sacks and Holbrook 2006, Johnson et al 2011, McCulloh et al 2015.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%