1970
DOI: 10.2307/1295130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Water Potential Measurements in Trees

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
27
0

Year Published

1970
1970
1989
1989

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
2
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Boyer attributed such a lack of agreement to the effect of refilling tissues different from the xylem with xylem sap during measurements. Conversely, Wiebe et al (1970) compared the results obtained using an in situ pressure chamber and a laboratory dewpoint TCP, and obtained good agreement between in situ and laboratory results.…”
Section: Comparison Of Psychrometry With Other Methodologiesmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Boyer attributed such a lack of agreement to the effect of refilling tissues different from the xylem with xylem sap during measurements. Conversely, Wiebe et al (1970) compared the results obtained using an in situ pressure chamber and a laboratory dewpoint TCP, and obtained good agreement between in situ and laboratory results.…”
Section: Comparison Of Psychrometry With Other Methodologiesmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…Immediately after irrigation, the value at 180 em had to be omitted because of water in the bottom of the access tube. Soil water potential was determined daily at 8 a.m. between July 7 and August 2 at 30-cm depth increments beginning at 23 cm, with commercially available ceramic-covered thermocouple psychrometers (Wiebe et al 1970) individually calibrated (E. L. FiscusandM. G. Huck, personal communication) for determining water potential at the ambient temperature.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in the case of glasshouse nutrition studies, caution must be exercised in extrapolating growth chamber results to predict plant water potentials under field conditions. It should also be noted that potentials measured on crop plants in the field with the pressure bomb may be higher than potentials measured with the psychrometer or freezing point methods (3,22). The pressure bomb tends to measure pressure potentials in the conductive tissue, while the psychrometer and freezing point meter tend to measure total potentials in and around the cellular tissue.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%