| Literature DB >> 23596446 |
Gretchen B North1, Frank H Lynch, Franklin D R Maharaj, Carly A Phillips, Walter T Woodside.
Abstract
Epiphytic plants in the Bromeliaceae known as tank bromeliads essentially lack stems and absorptive roots and instead take up water from reservoirs formed by their overlapping leaf bases. For such plants, leaf hydraulic conductance is plant hydraulic conductance. Their simple strap-shaped leaves and parallel venation make them suitable for modeling leaf hydraulic conductance based on vasculature and other anatomical and morphological traits. Plants of the tank bromeliad Guzmania lingulata were investigated in a lowland tropical forest in Costa Rica and a shaded glasshouse in Los Angeles, CA, USA. Stomatal conductance to water vapor and leaf anatomical variables related to hydraulic conductance were measured for both groups. Tracheid diameters and numbers of vascular bundles (veins) were used with the Hagen-Poiseuille equation to calculate axial hydraulic conductance. Measurements of leaf hydraulic conductance using the evaporative flux method were also made for glasshouse plants. Values for axial conductance and leaf hydraulic conductance were used in a model based on leaky cable theory to estimate the conductance of the radial pathway from the vein to the leaf surface and to assess the relative contributions of both axial and radial pathways. In keeping with low stomatal conductance, low stomatal density, low vein density, and narrow tracheid diameters, leaf hydraulic conductance for G. lingulata was quite low in comparison with most other angiosperms. Using the predicted axial conductance in the leaky cable model, the radial resistance across the leaf mesophyll was predicted to predominate; lower, more realistic values of axial conductance resulted in predicted radial resistances that were closer to axial resistance in their impact on total leaf resistance. Tracer dyes suggested that water uptake through the tank region of the leaf was not limiting. Both dye movement and the leaky cable model indicated that the leaf blade of G. lingulata was structurally and hydraulically well-suited to conserve water.Entities:
Keywords: epiphyte; leaky cable model; mesophyll conductance; monocot leaf; water relations; xylem
Year: 2013 PMID: 23596446 PMCID: PMC3622035 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1(A) Plants of Guzmania lingulata in the field at La Selva biological Station, Costa Rica, and (B) a single leaf of G. lingulata labeled with the two leaf regions examined.
Figure 2Sections of leaves of . Leaf clearings of the leaf blade (A) and tank region (B) used to determine interveinal distance (Div; black arrow); scale bars in (A) and (B) = 500 μm. Cross-sections of the leaf blade (C) and tank region (D); red lines indicate pathways for water between vein and abaxial surface (red line in (C) used to calculate Dmes; black arrow indicates distance between vein and epidermis Depi); scale bars in (C) and (D) = 50 μm. Abbreviations: bundle sheath cells (bs), hydrenchyma (hyd), mesophyll (mes), stomate (sto), and trichome (tri).
Stomatal conductance (.
| Site | PAR mean midday; (μmol m−2 s−1) | % Transmitted light (of total) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| La Selva | 24.7 ± 1.6 | 253 ± 143 | 29.3 ± 3.1 |
| Glasshouse, Los Angeles | 23.3 ± 3.5 | 159 ± 12 | – |
Data are means ± 1 SE; .
Stomatal and trichome densities for leaves of .
| Site, leaf region and surface | Stomatal density (mm−2) | Trichome density (mm−2) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blade | Abaxial | 23.7 ± 1.5 | 12.3 + 1.3 |
| Adaxial | 0 | 9.1 ± 1.2 | |
| Tank | Abaxial | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 42.8 ± 1.9 |
| Adaxial | 0 | 49.8 ± 2.8 | |
| Blade | Abaxial | 25.9 ± 1.4 | 32.4 ± 0.7 |
| Adaxial | 0 | 14.4 ± 2.3 | |
| Tank | Abaxial | 17.6 ± 1.6 | 40.1 ± 2.0 |
| Adaxial | 0 | 43.1 ± 2.2 | |
Data are means ± 1 SE.; .
Anatomical traits for leaves of .
| Site leaf region | Tracheid diameter (μm) | Max. tracheid diameter (μm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blade | 6.57 ± 0.11 | 11.72 ± 0.34 | 4.99 ± 0.17 | 250.8 ± 10.6 | 126.2 ± 6.37 | 180.9 ± 7.5 |
| Tank | 8.02 ± 0.11 | 13.19 ± 0.13 | 3.66 ± 0.06 | 333.2 ± 14.8 | 192.0 ± 2.92 | 206.4 ± 18.1 |
| Blade | 6.38 ± 0.30 | 11.79 ± 0.67 | 4.73 ± 0.04 | 247.4 ± 6.9 | 117.0 ± 3.23 | 181.7 ± 6.3 |
Data are means ± 1 SE.; .
Figure 3Cross-sections of leaves of . (A) Leaf blade after cut end was immersed in 0.1% basic fuchsin dye for 1 h. (B) Tank region, after leaf was cut, sealed at the cut end, and immersed in 0.1% sulforhodamine G for 1 h; scale bars in (A) and (B) = 50 μm.
Figure 4Leaf hydraulic conductances for . Data are means ± 1 SE; N = 7 plants.
Figure 5Results of using the leaky cable model to calculate radial conductance (. (A) changes in axial conductance as a percent of leaf hydraulic conductance; (B) changes in the ratio of axial to radial resistance; (C) changes in the ratio of radial resistance to total leaf resistance; and (D) changes in the ratio of the effective length for leaf water uptake (l′) to the actual leaf length (l). Data are means ± 1 SE; N = 7 plants.