Letter | Published:

Sustained and significant negative water pressure in xylem

Nature volume 378, pages 715716 (14 December 1995) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

DESPITE two centuries of research, the mechanism of water transport in plants is still debated1–8.The prevailing cohesion–tension theory2,3, which states that water is pulled upwards by capillarity in cell-wall pores, remains vulnerable to challenge because its corollary is difficult to prove: that large negative pressures exist in xylem conduits4–7. Recent xylem pressure-probe and z-tube experiments suggest that cavitation limits xylem pressures to above −0.5 MPa, despite the much more negative pressures predicted by the cohesion–tension theory and measured with the standard pressure-chamber method4,5,9,10. Here we show, using centrifugal force to induce negative pressure between −0.5 and −3.5 MPa in intact stems, that xylem conduits remained water-filled and conductive to species-specific pressures ranging from −1.2 to below −3.5 MPa. Results were consistent when stems were air-dried or injected with air. Agreement among these techniques demonstrates that xylem can support large negative pressures, that the pressure chamber reliably measures these pressures, and that cavitation is nucleated by air entry through conduit wall pores.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Vegetable Staticks (W. & J. Inneys and T. Woodward, London, 1727).

  2. 2.

    & Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 186, 563–576 (1895).

  3. 3.

    Prog. Biophys. molec. Biol. 37, 181–229 (1981).

  4. 4.

    et al. Pl. Cell. Envir. 17, 1169–1181 (1994).

  5. 5.

    Ann. Bot. 74, 647–651 (1994).

  6. 6.

    Ann. Bot. 75, 343–357 (1995).

  7. 7.

    A. Rev. Pl. Physiol. molec. Biol. 46, 215–236 (1995).

  8. 8.

    et al. Pl. Cell. Envir. (in the press).

  9. 9.

    et al. in Water Deficits: Plant Responses from Cell to Community (eds Smith, J. A. C. & Griffiths, H.) 87–108 (Bios, Oxford, 1993).

  10. 10.

    , , & Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 341, 19–31 (1993).

  11. 11.

    Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 65, 195–209 (1971).

  12. 12.

    Scient. Am. 227, 58–71 (1972).

  13. 13.

    et al. Science 249, 649–652 (1990).

  14. 14.

    Proc. phys. Soc. 59, 199–208 (1946).

  15. 15.

    J. appl. Phys. 19, 1062–1067 (1948).

  16. 16.

    The Liquid Phase (Wykeham, London, 1975).

  17. 17.

    Am. J. Phys. 47, 341–345 (1979).

  18. 18.

    , & Int. Ass. Wood Anat. J. 14, 335–360 (1994).

  19. 19.

    J. appl. Phys. 21, 721–722 (1950).

  20. 20.

    J. exp. Biol. 157, 257–271 (1991).

  21. 21.

    & Pl. Cell Envir. 15, 633–643 (1992).

  22. 22.

    & Pl. Physiol. 88, 581–587 (1988).

  23. 23.

    , , & Science 148, 339–346 (1965).

  24. 24.

    Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap (Springer, Berlin, 1983).

  25. 25.

    & Pl. Cell Envir. 17, 1233–1241 (1994).

  26. 26.

    , & Science (in the press).

  27. 27.

    & Pl. Cell. Envir. 17, 15–29 (1994).

  28. 28.

    & Pl. Cell Envir. 13, 427–436 (1990).

  29. 29.

    , & Pl. Cell Envir. 17, 695–705 (1994).

  30. 30.

    , & Pl. Cell Envir. 11, 35–40 (1987).

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    • James W. O'Leary

    Plant Sciences Department, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA

    • William T. Pockman
    • , John S. Sperry
    •  & James W. O'Leary

Authors

  1. Search for William T. Pockman in:

  2. Search for John S. Sperry in:

  3. Search for James W. O'Leary in:

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/378715a0

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.