Abstract Comparisons among methods are essential to validate plant traits measured across studies. However, a rigorous analysis is a complex task that needs to take into account not only the principle of the method and its correct use, but also inherent intraspecific trait variability, something we feel is not fully considered by Sergent et al. (2020). They compared the Bench dehydration, MicroCT, and Pneumatic methods using three long-vesseled species and found divergence among these methods. As a key finding, Sergent and colleagues reported unreliable estimates of Ψ50 for Olea europaea when using the Pneumatic method in a such long-vesseled species. Here, we tested this finding by measuring independently vulnerability curves for O. europaea. Our results reinforce the viability of the Pneumatic method to estimate embolism vulnerability in long-vesseled species, as already found by others. Briefly, we also discuss important procedures when using the Pneumatic method and encourage further experiments, as the only way to know better the limitations of available methods and improve our understanding about plant water relations.
Using the Pneumatic method to estimate embolism resistance in species with long vessels: A commentary on the article “A comparison of five methods to assess embolism resistance in trees”
L. Pereira,P.R.L. Bittencourt,L. Rowland,M. Brum,M. T. Miranda,V. Pacheco,R. Oliveira,E. Machado,S. Jansen,R. V. Ribeiro
Published 2021 in Forest Ecology and Management
ABSTRACT
PUBLICATION RECORD
- Publication year
2021
- Venue
Forest Ecology and Management
- Publication date
2021-01-01
- Fields of study
Computer Science, Environmental Science
- Identifiers
- External record
- Source metadata
Semantic Scholar
CITATION MAP
EXTRACTION MAP
CLAIMS
- No claims are published for this paper.
CONCEPTS
- No concepts are published for this paper.
REFERENCES
Showing 1-17 of 17 references · Page 1 of 1
CITED BY
Showing 1-9 of 9 citing papers · Page 1 of 1