Xylem embolism spread is largely prevented by interconduit pit membranes
until the majority of conduits are gas-filled
- Rodrigo Avila,
- Xinyi Guan,
- Cade Kane,
- Amanda Cardoso,
- Timothy Batz,
- Fabio DaMatta,
- Steven Jansen,
- Scott McAdam
Rodrigo Avila
Universidade Federal de Viçosa
Corresponding Author:rodtavila@gmail.com
Author ProfileXinyi Guan
University of Ulm Institute for Systematic Botany and Ecology
Author ProfileAbstract
Xylem embolism resistance varies across species influencing drought
tolerance, yet little is known about the determinants of the embolism
resistance of an individual conduit. Here we conducted an experiment
using the optical vulnerability method to test whether individual
conduits have a specific water potential threshold for embolism
formation and whether pre-existing embolism in neighbouring conduits
alters this threshold. Observations were made on a diverse sample of
angiosperm and conifer species through a cycle of dehydration,
rehydration and subsequent dehydration to death. Upon rehydration after
the formation of embolism, no refilling was observed. When little
pre-existing embolism was present, xylem conduits had a conserved,
individual, embolism resistance threshold that varied across the
population of conduits. The consequence of a variable conduit-specific
embolism threshold is that a small degree of pre-existing embolism in
the xylem results in an apparently more resistant xylem in a subsequent
dehydration, particularly in angiosperms with vessels. While our results
suggest that pit membranes separating xylem conduits are critical for
maintaining a conserved individual embolism threshold for given conduit
when little pre-exisiting embolism is present, as the percentage of
embolized conduits increases, gas movement, local pressure differences,
and connectivity between conduits increasingly contribute to embolism
spread.01 Aug 2021Submitted to Plant, Cell & Environment 02 Aug 2021Submission Checks Completed
02 Aug 2021Assigned to Editor
11 Aug 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
16 Sep 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
16 Sep 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
14 Oct 20211st Revision Received
15 Oct 2021Submission Checks Completed
15 Oct 2021Assigned to Editor
17 Oct 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
15 Nov 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
16 Nov 2021Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
29 Nov 20212nd Revision Received
30 Nov 2021Submission Checks Completed
30 Nov 2021Assigned to Editor
11 Dec 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
11 Dec 2021Editorial Decision: Accept
Apr 2022Published in Plant, Cell & Environment volume 45 issue 4 on pages 1204-1215. 10.1111/pce.14253