The hydraulic architecture of Juniperus communis L. ssp. communis: shrubs and trees compared

Juniperus communis ssp. communis can grow like a shrub or it can develop a tree-like habit. In this study, the hydraulic architecture of these contrasting growth forms was compared. We analysed the hydraulic efficiency (leaf-specific conductivity, k(l); specific conductivity, k(s); Huber value, HV) and the vulnerability to cavitation (the water potential corresponding to a 50% loss of conductivity, Psi(50)), as well as anatomical parameters [mean tracheid diameter, d; mean hydraulic diameter, d(h); cell wall reinforcement (t/b)(h)(2)] of shrub shoots, tree stems and tree branches. Shrub shoots were similar to tree branches (especially to lower branches) in growth form and conductivity (k(l) = 1.93 +/- 0.11 m(2) s(-1) MPa(-1) 10(-7), k(s) = 5.71 +/- 0.19 m(2) s(-1) MPa(-1) 10(-4)), but were similar to tree stems in their vulnerability to cavitation (Psi(50) = -5.81 +/- 0.08 MPa). Tree stems showed extraordinarily high k(l) and k(s) values, and HV increased from the base up. Stem xylem was more vulnerable to cavitation than branch xylem, where Psi(50) increased from lower (Psi(50) = -6.44 +/- 0.19 MPa) to upper branches (Psi(50) = -5.98 +/- 0.13 MPa). Conduit diameters were correlated with k(l) and k(s). Data indicate that differences in hydraulic architecture correspond to changes in growth form. In some aspects, the xylem hydraulics of tree-like Juniperus communis differs from that of other coniferous tree species.     

Inter-vessel pitting and cavitation in woody Rosaceae and other vesselled plants: a basis for a safety versus efficiency trade-off in xylem transport

The hypothesis that greater safety from cavitation by air-seeding through inter-vessel pits comes at the cost of less porous pit membranes with greater flow resistance was tested . Sixteen vessel-bearing species were compared: 11 from the Rosaceae, four from other angiosperm families, and one fern. Unexpectedly, there was no relationship between pit resistance (and hence the prevailing membrane porosity) and cavitation pressure. There was, however, an inverse relationship between pit area per vessel and vulnerability to cavitation (r² = 0.75). This suggests that cavitation is caused by the rare largest membrane pore per vessel, the average size of which increases with total pit area per vessel. If safety from cavitation constrains pit membrane surface area, it also limits vessel surface area and the minimum vessel resistivity. This trade-off was consistent with an approximately three-fold increase in vessel resistivity with cavitation pressure dropping from −0.8 to −6.6 MPa. The trade-off was compensated for by a reduction in the percentage of vessel wall pitted: from 10–16% in vulnerable species to 2–4% in resistant species. Across species, end-wall pitting accounted for 53 ± 3% of the total xylem resistivity. This corresponded to vessels achieving on average 94 ± 2% of their maximum possible conductivity if vessel surface area is constrained.