气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): A comparison of five methods to assess embolism resistance in trees

CCPortal

DOI	10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118175
	A comparison of five methods to assess embolism resistance in trees
	Sergent A.S.; Varela S.A.; Barigah T.S.; Badel E.; Cochard H.; Dalla-Salda G.; Delzon S.; Fernández M.E.; Guillemot J.; Gyenge J.; Lamarque L.J.; Martinez-Meier A.; Rozenberg P.; Torres-Ruiz J.M.; Martin-StPaul N.K.
发表日期	2020
ISSN	0378-1127
卷号	468
英文摘要	Vulnerability to drought-induced embolism is a key trait that shapes drought resistance and that could be increasingly used to design climate-smart forest management guidelines and to anticipate the outcome of climate change on populations dynamics and ecosystems functioning. A panel of methods is currently available to measure embolism resistance. This makes crucial a proper identification of which methods are the most accurate for determining this trait. However, the measurement of embolism resistance is sensitive to numerous artifacts that may lead to large errors for a given species. In addition, not all methods are easily accessible because of the cost of some large equipment and/or certain lab facilities. The emergence of the easy and low cost Pneumatic method allows to perform vulnerability curves at high throughput. However, only few studies have evaluated the reliability of this method compared to others. In this study, we proposed a comparison of five methods that allowed to assess embolism resistance in eleven tree species with contrasting xylem anatomy and vessels length (six short vessel angiosperms, two tracheid bearing conifers and three long-vessel angiosperms), covering a large part of the range of embolism resistance observed in trees. Consistent results were obtained among all the methods for short-vessel angiosperm species. In tracheid-bearing conifers, the Pneumatic method overestimated vulnerability to embolism. In long-vessel species, the Pneumatic method led to inconsistent results with accurate vulnerability to cavitation curves (VCs) for one species but led to r-shaped VCs with a underestimation of incipient embolism for the two other ones. The comparison of VC parameters with turgor loss point is proposed as an indicator of the validity of the VCs. The conditions of validity, the advantages and pitfalls of the five methods are discussed. Our results warned against the widespread usages of some methods before rigorous validation tests have been performed. © 2020 Elsevier B.V.
英文关键词	Drought tolerance traits; Methods comparison; Vulnerability curve; Xylem embolism
语种	英语
scopus关键词	Bearings (machine parts); Climate change; Drought; Forestry; Pneumatic control; Advantages and pitfalls; Angiosperm species; Drought induced embolism; Drought resistance; Forest management guidelines; Large equipments; Pneumatic methods; Rigorous validation; Diseases; anatomy; angiosperm; artifact; comparative study; coniferous tree; design; drought stress; ecosystem function; forest management; guideline; induced response; population dynamics; vulnerability; xylem; Control Equipment; Diseases; Drought; Forestry; Methods; Pneumatic Equipment; Resistance; Trees; Vulnerability; Coniferophyta; Magnoliophyta
来源期刊	Forest Ecology and Management
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/155242
作者单位	IFAB (INTA-CONICET), Grupo de Ecología Forestal - LEEMA (Laboratorio de Ecología, Ecofisiología y Madera), INTA EEA Bariloche, Argentina; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Argentina; Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, PIAF, Clermont-Ferrand, 63000, France; Université Bordeaux, INRAE, BIOGECO, Pessac, 33615, France; Grupo de Ecología Forestal, INTA EEA Balcarce – Oficina Tandil, Argentina; Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA, IRD, Montpellier SupAgro, Eco&Sols, Montpellier, 34060, France; Universidade de São Paulo-ESALQ, Piracicaba, SP 13418-900, Brazil; Département des Sciences de l'Environnement, UQTR, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada; INRAE, ONF, UMR 0588 BioForA, Orléans, 45000, France; INRAE, URFM, Avignon, 84000, France
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Sergent A.S.,Varela S.A.,Barigah T.S.,et al. A comparison of five methods to assess embolism resistance in trees[J],2020,468.
APA	Sergent A.S..,Varela S.A..,Barigah T.S..,Badel E..,Cochard H..,...&Martin-StPaul N.K..(2020).A comparison of five methods to assess embolism resistance in trees.Forest Ecology and Management,468.
MLA	Sergent A.S.,et al."A comparison of five methods to assess embolism resistance in trees".Forest Ecology and Management 468(2020).