Plant Physiol.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Plant Physiology Preview
Published on January 23, 2003; 10.1104/pp.011452

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Plant Physiology Preview (PDF))
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
131/2/780    most recent
pp.011452v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mayr, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bauer, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mayr, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bauer, H.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Mayr, S.
Right arrow Articles by Bauer, H.

Received July 18, 2002
Returned for revision September 17, 2002
Accepted November 15, 2002

Winter at the Alpine Timberline. Why Does Embolism Occur in Norway Spruce But Not in Stone Pine?

Stefan Mayr *, Franziska Schwienbacher , and Helmut Bauer

Institut für Botanik, Universität Innsbruck, Sternwartestrasse 15, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

* Corresponding author; email: stefan.mayr{at}uibk.ac.at.

Conifers growing at the alpine timberline are exposed to frost drought and freeze-thaw cycles during winter--stress factors known to induce embolism in tree xylem. The two dominant species of the European Central Alps timberline were studied: Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst) and stone pine (Pinus cembra), which usually reaches higher altitudes. We hypothesized to find embolism only at the timberline and to observe less embolism in stone pine than in Norway spruce due to avoidance mechanisms. Seasonal courses of embolism and water potential were studied at 1,700 and 2,100 m during two winter seasons and correlated to vulnerability (to drought-induced embolism), leaf conductance, and micrometeorological data. Embolism was observed only at the timberline and only in Norway spruce (up to 49.2% loss of conductivity). Conductivity losses corresponded to low water potentials (down to -3.5 MPa) but also to the number of freeze-thaw events indicating both stress factors to contribute to embolism induction. Decreasing embolism rates--probably due to refilling--were observed already in winter. Stone pine did not exhibit an adapted vulnerability (50% loss of conductivity at -3.5 MPa) but avoided critical potentials (minimum -2.3 MPa): Cuticulare conductance was 3.5-fold lower than in Norway spruce, and angles between needles and axes were found to decrease in dehydrating branches. The extent of conductivity losses in Norway spruce and the spectrum of avoidance and recovery mechanisms in both species indicates winter embolism to be relevant for tree line formation.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
S. Mayr, H. Cochard, T. Ameglio, and S. B. Kikuta
Embolism Formation during Freezing in the Wood of Picea abies
Plant Physiology, January 1, 2007; 143(1): 60 - 67.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
J. Pittermann and J. S. Sperry
Analysis of Freeze-Thaw Embolism in Conifers. The Interaction between Cavitation Pressure and Tracheid Size
Plant Physiology, January 1, 2006; 140(1): 374 - 382.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Bot.Home page
R. B. Pratt, F. W. Ewers, M. C. Lawson, A. L. Jacobsen, M. M. Brediger, and S. D. Davis
Mechanisms for tolerating freeze-thaw stress of two evergreen chaparral species: Rhus ovata and Malosma laurina (Anacardiaceae)
Am. J. Botany, July 1, 2005; 92(7): 1102 - 1113.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
H. Cochard, F. Froux, S. Mayr, and C. Coutand
Xylem Wall Collapse in Water-Stressed Pine Needles
Plant Physiology, January 1, 2004; 134(1): 401 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 2003 by the American Society of Plant Biologists