Persisting soil drought reduces leaf specific conductivity in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens)

Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (KP) to leaf area (AL)), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results wer...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inTree physiology Vol. 28; no. 4; pp. 529 - 536
Main Authors Sterck, F.J, Zweifel, R, Sass-Klaassen, U, Chowdhury, Q
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Canada 01.04.2008
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (KP) to leaf area (AL)), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results were subject to many confounding factors. We tested how LSC of similar-sized trees of the same population, under similar climatic conditions, responds to persistently wet or dry soil. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens Willd.) trees were compared between a dry site and a wet site in the Valais, an inner alpine valley in Switzerland. Soil water strongly influenced AL and KP and the plant components affecting KP, such as conduit radius, conduit density and functional sapwood area. Trees at the dry site had lower LSC than trees with the same stem diameter at the wet site. Low LSC in trees at the dry site was associated with a smaller functional sapwood area and narrower conduits, resulting in a stronger reduction in KP than in AL. These observations support the hypothesis that trees maintain a homeostatic water pressure gradient. An alternative hypothesis is that relatively high investments in leaves compared with sapwood contribute to carbon gain over an entire season by enabling rapid whole-plant photosynthesis during periods of high water availability (e.g., in spring, after rain events and during morning hours when leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit is small). Dynamic data and a hydraulic plant growth model are needed to test how investments in leaves versus sapwood and roots contribute to transpiration and to maximizing carbon gain throughout entire growth seasons.
AbstractList Summary Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (KP) to leaf area (AL)), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results were subject to many confounding factors.We tested howLSC of similar-sized trees of the same population, under similar climatic conditions, responds to persistently wet or dry soil. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescensWilld.) trees were compared between a dry site and a wet site in theValais, an inner alpine valley in Switzerland. Soilwater strongly influenced AL and KP and the plant components affecting KP, such as conduit radius, conduit density and functional sapwood area. Trees at the dry site had lower LSC than trees with the same stem diameter at the wet site. Low LSC in trees at the dry site was associated with a smaller functional sapwood area and narrower conduits, resulting in a stronger reduction in KP than in AL. These observations support the hypothesis that trees maintain a homeostatic water pressure gradient. An alternative hypothesis is that relatively high investments in leaves compared with sapwood contribute to carbon gain over an entire season by enabling rapid whole-plant photosynthesis during periods of high water availability (e.g., in spring, after rain events and during morning hours when leafto- air vapor pressure deficit is small). Dynamic data and a hydraulic plant growth model are needed to test how investments in leaves versus sapwood and roots contribute to transpiration and to maximizing carbon gain throughout entire growth seasons. Keywords: Huber value, leaf area, soil water potential, stem conductivity.
Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (KP) to leaf area (AL)), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results were subject to many confounding factors. We tested how LSC of similar-sized trees of the same population, under similar climatic conditions, responds to persistently wet or dry soil. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens Willd.) trees were compared between a dry site and a wet site in the Valais, an inner alpine valley in Switzerland. Soil water strongly influenced AL and KP and the plant components affecting KP, such as conduit radius, conduit density and functional sapwood area. Trees at the dry site had lower LSC than trees with the same stem diameter at the wet site. Low LSC in trees at the dry site was associated with a smaller functional sapwood area and narrower conduits, resulting in a stronger reduction in KP than in AL. These observations support the hypothesis that trees maintain a homeostatic water pressure gradient. An alternative hypothesis is that relatively high investments in leaves compared with sapwood contribute to carbon gain over an entire season by enabling rapid whole-plant photosynthesis during periods of high water availability (e.g., in spring, after rain events and during morning hours when leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit is small). Dynamic data and a hydraulic plant growth model are needed to test how investments in leaves versus sapwood and roots contribute to transpiration and to maximizing carbon gain throughout entire growth seasons.
Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (K(P)) to leaf area (A(L))), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results were subject to many confounding factors. We tested how LSC of similar-sized trees of the same population, under similar climatic conditions, responds to persistently wet or dry soil. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens Willd.) trees were compared between a dry site and a wet site in the Valais, an inner alpine valley in Switzerland. Soil water strongly influenced A(L) and K(P) and the plant components affecting K(P), such as conduit radius, conduit density and functional sapwood area. Trees at the dry site had lower LSC than trees with the same stem diameter at the wet site. Low LSC in trees at the dry site was associated with a smaller functional sapwood area and narrower conduits, resulting in a stronger reduction in K(P) than in A(L). These observations support the hypothesis that trees maintain a homeostatic water pressure gradient. An alternative hypothesis is that relatively high investments in leaves compared with sapwood contribute to carbon gain over an entire season by enabling rapid whole-plant photosynthesis during periods of high water availability (e.g., in spring, after rain events and during morning hours when leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit is small). Dynamic data and a hydraulic plant growth model are needed to test how investments in leaves versus sapwood and roots contribute to transpiration and to maximizing carbon gain throughout entire growth seasons.Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (K(P)) to leaf area (A(L))), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results were subject to many confounding factors. We tested how LSC of similar-sized trees of the same population, under similar climatic conditions, responds to persistently wet or dry soil. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens Willd.) trees were compared between a dry site and a wet site in the Valais, an inner alpine valley in Switzerland. Soil water strongly influenced A(L) and K(P) and the plant components affecting K(P), such as conduit radius, conduit density and functional sapwood area. Trees at the dry site had lower LSC than trees with the same stem diameter at the wet site. Low LSC in trees at the dry site was associated with a smaller functional sapwood area and narrower conduits, resulting in a stronger reduction in K(P) than in A(L). These observations support the hypothesis that trees maintain a homeostatic water pressure gradient. An alternative hypothesis is that relatively high investments in leaves compared with sapwood contribute to carbon gain over an entire season by enabling rapid whole-plant photosynthesis during periods of high water availability (e.g., in spring, after rain events and during morning hours when leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit is small). Dynamic data and a hydraulic plant growth model are needed to test how investments in leaves versus sapwood and roots contribute to transpiration and to maximizing carbon gain throughout entire growth seasons.
Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (K(P)) to leaf area (A(L))), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results were subject to many confounding factors. We tested how LSC of similar-sized trees of the same population, under similar climatic conditions, responds to persistently wet or dry soil. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens Willd.) trees were compared between a dry site and a wet site in the Valais, an inner alpine valley in Switzerland. Soil water strongly influenced A(L) and K(P) and the plant components affecting K(P), such as conduit radius, conduit density and functional sapwood area. Trees at the dry site had lower LSC than trees with the same stem diameter at the wet site. Low LSC in trees at the dry site was associated with a smaller functional sapwood area and narrower conduits, resulting in a stronger reduction in K(P) than in A(L). These observations support the hypothesis that trees maintain a homeostatic water pressure gradient. An alternative hypothesis is that relatively high investments in leaves compared with sapwood contribute to carbon gain over an entire season by enabling rapid whole-plant photosynthesis during periods of high water availability (e.g., in spring, after rain events and during morning hours when leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit is small). Dynamic data and a hydraulic plant growth model are needed to test how investments in leaves versus sapwood and roots contribute to transpiration and to maximizing carbon gain throughout entire growth seasons.
Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (K sub(P)) to leaf area (A sub(L))), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with water, varies with soil water content. Empirical evidence for LSC responses to drought is ambiguous, because previously published results were subject to many confounding factors. We tested how LSC of similar-sized trees of the same population, under similar climatic conditions, responds to persistently wet or dry soil. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens Willd.) trees were compared between a dry site and a wet site in the Valais, an inner alpine valley in Switzerland. Soil water strongly influenced A sub(L) and K sub(P) and the plant components affecting K sub(P), such as conduit radius, conduit density and functional sapwood area. Trees at the dry site had lower LSC than trees with the same stem diameter at the wet site. Low LSC in trees at the dry site was associated with a smaller functional sapwood area and narrower conduits, resulting in a stronger reduction in K sub(P) than in A sub(L). These observations support the hypothesis that trees maintain a homeostatic water pressure gradient. An alternative hypothesis is that relatively high investments in leaves compared with sapwood contribute to carbon gain over an entire season by enabling rapid whole-plant photosynthesis during periods of high water availability (e.g., in spring, after rain events and during morning hours when leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit is small). Dynamic data and a hydraulic plant growth model are needed to test how investments in leaves versus sapwood and roots contribute to transpiration and to maximizing carbon gain throughout entire growth seasons.
Author Chowdhury, Q
Sass-Klaassen, U
Sterck, F.J
Zweifel, R
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  fullname: Sterck, F.J
– sequence: 2
  fullname: Zweifel, R
– sequence: 3
  fullname: Sass-Klaassen, U
– sequence: 4
  fullname: Chowdhury, Q
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18244940$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNqFkj1vFDEQhi0URC6BH0ADrlBS3MX2er02HYr4kiIRFCLRWbZ39mLY2IvtTXQl_xyfLkdBQaqRRs8zekczR-ggxAAIvaRkRYlqzkoCmG42-YzJFV-1TD1BC9q1csm5UAdoQSRTy4bK74foKOcfhNBWSvUMHVLJOFecLNDvS0jZ5-LDGufoR9ynOK9vCk7Qzw4yHsEMOE_g_OAddjHUdvF3vmywD_jKxZLx5APgk0sf5ozzZryDXJLPp9iEHk-zhewgFBzNT3zydYbkKrZv59Pn6OlgxgwvHuoxuv7w_tv5p-XFl4-fz99dLF1LWFk2wKxQvOutHfqOD4JZ1orGMmo7w4UTwkoYiLKWg1KtbDihlWYGwJG-l80xerube2_WEOq-EHQwyfmso_F69DaZtNH3c9Jh3JYaMetGMELaKr_ZyVOKv-a6n771Nf44mgBxzrojTFDOHgd51zHZ0cdBRoTgpGMVfPUAzvYWej0lf7sNur9hBbod4FLMOcGgnS-m-BhKMn7UlOjtt-j9t2gmNdf1W6pJ_zH_Dv-P83rnDCZqs6531tdXjNCGEEUaSVnzB4Gt0wQ
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_018_1772_2
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10342_014_0801_y
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpab106
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2017_00598
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2023_1127292
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_010_0471_4
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1469_8137_2009_03092_x
crossref_primary_10_3390_f8090332
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpv104
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpq054
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1469_8137_2009_02954_x
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpn046
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1600_0706_2012_00056_x
crossref_primary_10_3390_f14050950
crossref_primary_10_1111_pce_13109
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpy101
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1365_2435_2012_01962_x
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2022_159334
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1469_8137_2008_02521_x
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00442_011_1922_3
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fecs_2022_100073
crossref_primary_10_3390_f11010035
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fecs_2024_100274
crossref_primary_10_1093_jxb_ers241
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sajb_2024_09_014
crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2435_12970
crossref_primary_10_1007_s13595_014_0439_4
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13717_024_00486_9
crossref_primary_10_1093_jxb_err432
crossref_primary_10_3390_f7110280
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foreco_2015_05_013
crossref_primary_10_3390_f11050523
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1365_3040_2011_02377_x
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sajb_2022_05_040
crossref_primary_10_1590_1809_4392201800961
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_012_0717_4
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_024_02494_w
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpt027
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1654_1103_2009_05701_x
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2022_769551
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpaa046
crossref_primary_10_1007_s10725_023_01049_2
crossref_primary_10_3390_f11010042
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpz135
crossref_primary_10_3390_f13010091
crossref_primary_10_1139_x2012_095
crossref_primary_10_1093_aob_mcaa060
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpp076
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envexpbot_2023_105434
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolind_2025_113115
crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2435_13203
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00442_015_3220_y
crossref_primary_10_1134_S1067413618030013
crossref_primary_10_3390_f15010024
crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2745_12056
crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_012_0313_2
crossref_primary_10_1080_11263504_2020_1762782
crossref_primary_10_1093_jxb_erab449
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foreco_2013_07_007
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_016_1447_9
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_aquatox_2018_04_019
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpac125
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2021_674438
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_84322_6
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_021_02090_2
crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2435_13571
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpt012
crossref_primary_10_1111_nph_18177
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_015_1206_3
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpad107
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_020_02022_6
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agrformet_2023_109710
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1469_8137_2009_03030_x
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_foreco_2008_02_014
crossref_primary_10_31857_S000681362306008X
crossref_primary_10_1186_s13717_024_00519_3
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2019_00519
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envexpbot_2019_06_010
crossref_primary_10_3390_f14091868
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00300_016_2021_z
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sjbs_2023_103647
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpr049
crossref_primary_10_1111_gcb_15153
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_023_02475_5
crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph192315873
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jia_2024_11_012
crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2745_13557
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2021_709510
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dendro_2016_02_006
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpw100
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2015_00297
crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2016_01014
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00468_012_0787_3
crossref_primary_10_1111_nph_13798
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agrformet_2025_110479
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_tpw069
crossref_primary_10_1111_j_1365_2435_2012_01963_x
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2017_06_135
crossref_primary_10_3390_f15020346
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Wageningen University & Research
Copyright_xml – notice: Wageningen University & Research
DBID FBQ
AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7SN
7UA
C1K
7S9
L.6
7X8
QVL
DOI 10.1093/treephys/28.4.529
DatabaseName AGRIS
CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
Ecology Abstracts
Water Resources Abstracts
Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
AGRICOLA
AGRICOLA - Academic
MEDLINE - Academic
NARCIS:Publications
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
Ecology Abstracts
Water Resources Abstracts
Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
AGRICOLA
AGRICOLA - Academic
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList

MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
Ecology Abstracts
AGRICOLA
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 3
  dbid: FBQ
  name: AGRIS
  url: http://www.fao.org/agris/Centre.asp?Menu_1ID=DB&Menu_2ID=DB1&Language=EN&Content=http://www.fao.org/agris/search?Language=EN
  sourceTypes: Publisher
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Forestry
Botany
EISSN 1758-4469
EndPage 536
ExternalDocumentID oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_362005
18244940
10_1093_treephys_28_4_529
US201300903812
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
GeographicLocations Switzerland
GeographicLocations_xml – name: Switzerland
GroupedDBID ---
.2P
.I3
0R~
123
1TH
4.4
48X
53G
5VS
5WD
70D
AABJS
AABMN
AAESY
AAIMJ
AAIYJ
AAJKP
AAJQQ
AAMDB
AAMVS
AANRK
AAOGV
AAPQZ
AAPXW
AAUQX
AAVAP
AAVLN
AAWDT
ABDBF
ABEUO
ABIXL
ABJNI
ABNKS
ABPTD
ABPTK
ABQLI
ABSAR
ABSMQ
ABTAH
ABWST
ABXZS
ABZBJ
ACFRR
ACGFS
ACUFI
ACUTJ
ADBBV
ADEIU
ADEYI
ADFTL
ADGKP
ADGZP
ADHKW
ADHZD
ADIPN
ADOCK
ADORX
ADQLU
ADRIX
ADRTK
ADVEK
ADYVW
ADZTZ
ADZXQ
AEGPL
AEJOX
AEKSI
AELWJ
AEMDU
AENEX
AENZO
AEPUE
AETBJ
AEWNT
AFFZL
AFGWE
AFIYH
AFMIJ
AFOFC
AFXEN
AFYAG
AGINJ
AGKEF
AGQXC
AGSYK
AHXPO
AIJHB
AIKOY
AJEEA
AKHUL
AKWXX
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALUQC
ALXQX
ANFBD
APIBT
APJGH
APWMN
AQDSO
ARIXL
ASAOO
ATDFG
AXUDD
AYOIW
AZQFJ
BAWUL
BAYMD
BCRHZ
BEYMZ
BHONS
BQDIO
BSWAC
BYORX
C45
CASEJ
CDBKE
CXTWN
CZ4
DAKXR
DFGAJ
DIK
DILTD
DPORF
DPPUQ
D~K
E3Z
EBD
EBS
EDH
EE~
EJD
ELUNK
EMOBN
ESX
F5P
F9B
FBQ
FHSFR
FLUFQ
FOEOM
FQBLK
GAUVT
GJXCC
H5~
HAR
HW0
HZ~
IOX
J21
KBUDW
KOP
KSI
KSN
M49
MBTAY
N9A
NGC
NLBLG
NOMLY
NU-
NVLIB
O0~
O9-
OAWHX
OBOKY
ODMLO
OJQWA
OJZSN
OK1
OVD
O~Y
PAFKI
PEELM
Q1.
Q5Y
RD5
ROX
ROZ
RSU
RUSNO
RW1
RXO
SJN
SV3
TCN
TEORI
TLC
TR2
TUS
W8F
WHG
X7H
Y6R
YAYTL
YKOAZ
YXANX
ZY4
~91
~KM
AAHBH
AARHZ
AAUAY
AAYXX
ABDFA
ABEJV
ABGNP
ABMNT
ABPQP
ABVGC
ABXVV
ACUHS
ADNBA
ADQBN
AGORE
AJBYB
AJNCP
ATGXG
CITATION
H13
JXSIZ
OWPYF
ACZBC
AGKRT
AGMDO
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7SN
7UA
C1K
7S9
L.6
7X8
-
08R
0R
2P
91
AAPBV
ADACO
AELNO
EE
H5
HZ
I3
KM
O0
QVL
RIG
UNR
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c502t-3e2b6947dbbfd74f62b2563b21b7a46c66b8ef09bb4e9958340147d2aeec0dd83
ISSN 0829-318X
IngestDate Tue Jan 05 18:06:49 EST 2021
Thu Jul 10 19:31:23 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 11 00:11:46 EDT 2025
Fri Jul 11 08:03:14 EDT 2025
Wed Feb 19 02:34:55 EST 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:55:19 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 03:58:28 EDT 2025
Wed Dec 27 19:07:27 EST 2023
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 4
Language English
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c502t-3e2b6947dbbfd74f62b2563b21b7a46c66b8ef09bb4e9958340147d2aeec0dd83
Notes ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
PMID 18244940
PQID 20664072
PQPubID 23462
PageCount 8
ParticipantIDs wageningen_narcis_oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_362005
proquest_miscellaneous_70261425
proquest_miscellaneous_47728715
proquest_miscellaneous_20664072
pubmed_primary_18244940
crossref_citationtrail_10_1093_treephys_28_4_529
crossref_primary_10_1093_treephys_28_4_529
fao_agris_US201300903812
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
QVL
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2008-04-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2008-04-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 04
  year: 2008
  text: 2008-04-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2000
PublicationPlace Canada
PublicationPlace_xml – name: Canada
PublicationTitle Tree physiology
PublicationTitleAlternate Tree Physiol
PublicationYear 2008
SSID ssj0015889
Score 2.2364767
Snippet Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (KP) to leaf area (AL)), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves with...
Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (K(P)) to leaf area (A(L))), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply leaves...
Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (K sub(P)) to leaf area (A sub(L))), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply...
Summary Leaf specific conductivity (LSC; the ratio of stem conductivity (KP) to leaf area (AL)), a measure of the hydraulic capacity of the stem to supply...
SourceID wageningen
proquest
pubmed
crossref
fao
SourceType Open Access Repository
Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
Publisher
StartPage 529
SubjectTerms Disasters
drought
drought tolerance
dry environmental conditions
earlywood
equations
forest trees
Huber value
hydraulic architecture
latewood
leaf area
Models, Biological
physiology
Pinus sylvestris
Pinus sylvestris - physiology
Plant Leaves
Plant Leaves - physiology
plant response
Plant Stems
Plant Stems - physiology
plant-water relations
Quantitative Trait, Heritable
Quercus
Quercus - physiology
Quercus pubescens
radial growth
Regression Analysis
resistance
sap flow
sapwood
sessile oak
Soil
soil water potential
stand
stem conductivity
stem wood
Switzerland
transpiration
tree
Water
Water - physiology
water relations
wood anatomy
xylem
Title Persisting soil drought reduces leaf specific conductivity in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens)
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18244940
https://www.proquest.com/docview/20664072
https://www.proquest.com/docview/47728715
https://www.proquest.com/docview/70261425
http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F362005
Volume 28
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Jb9NAFB61BaFyQFCWhnUOHFosp8l4vB1ZGhVaClUTKepl5LFnIBDZVRwrKhfEP-e9jLeIlu1iW_bYHvt98-Zt8x4hzwOduFozZfuqr2yuQUEBKCubBVGkXUw41cf1zu-PvYMRfzd2x2tr31tRS8VcduNvl64r-R-qwjmgK66S_QfK1g-FE3AM9IUtUBi2f0VjDF_HMYomgWwytZJlzZ25NcN8rCrHkhDawrWUGA-EAeaY3NVUi5jgsM7muXVeipkfJ2mRW_nFFPNuzDDzQGiSCBTSZHyysugrNjwp1CyGptWFvDImfKlmP6WMwWTFYn8KBDSsd9C4os4WaqJNnEDtcToFcd4-nEawMyxx1IQgZIvkc-n4P1mxVwStMJeSrbEQ12yP2zyYBS2sceu860Ij12mzVrf8GDNLl9d-mQBMcix06OOH4nKXoMu79b3tdNvHH8RgdHQkhvvj4Tq5xkDPwBIYb94e1m4oN1jWUKy7XLnFQ2evesVe9YIVwWZdR9llOstNsrmA7qfLhXMtQWZ4m9wqNRD60sDpDllT6Ra5_ioDLeFii9zAWq1YAPAu-dHAiyK8aAkvWsKLIrxoBS_ahhedpHQJL4rwojtLcNEGXLsUoEVraFGAFt0pgVWfznfvkdFgf_j6wC4rdtix22Nz21FMeiH3Eyl14nPtMQkitSNZX_oR92LPk4HSvVBKrsIQWAFo99CaRUrFvSQJnPtkI81StU2ow0Az8ZgGfcPhcejL2JNRP3YdqUOue6pDetXvFnGZzh6rqkyFCatwREUhwQLBBVCoQ17Ut5ybXC6_a7wNNBTRJ_gpYnTK0MOPNk0QiDvkWUVYAcwYPWxRqrICbgYBHjMOXt2CA8oCv-9e3cJHqwjMpB3ywGCm6WsAsnjIex3iNCASKdYcywWmiS8Nv2JRzEQ6xR08IRcgo8Jc-_CPfXpENpsB-5hszGeFegIi91w-XQ6Ln1tt3mA
linkProvider Flying Publisher
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Persisting+soil+drought+reduces+leaf+specific+conductivity+in+Scots+pine+%28Pinus+sylvestris%29+and+pubescent+oak+%28Quercus+pubescens%29&rft.jtitle=Tree+physiology&rft.au=Sterck%2C+F+J&rft.au=Zweifel%2C+R&rft.au=Sass-Klaassen%2C+U&rft.au=Chowdhury%2C+Q&rft.date=2008-04-01&rft.issn=0829-318X&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4+p.529-536&rft.spage=529&rft.epage=536&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093%2Ftreephys%2F28.4.529&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0829-318X&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0829-318X&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0829-318X&client=summon