Am. J. Bot. Cross-Journal Searching
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
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 ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Canny, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Canny, M. J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Canny, M. J.
(American Journal of Botany. 2001;88:43-46.)
© 2001 Botanical Society of America, Inc.

Contributions to the debate on water transport1

Martin J. Canny0

0 Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, PO Box 475, Canberra 2601, Australia

The useful criticisms of my theory of water transport by Comstock (American Journal of Botany 86: 1077–1081) and by Stiller and Sperry (American Journal of Botany 86: 1082–1086) are acknowledged and reviewed. I make the following responses. (1) Tensile stresses to contain tissue pressure are kept within modest limits by the organization of vascular tissues into cylindrical bundles with small ratios of radius/boundary thickness. (2) The balance of pressures within tissues of a nontranspiring leaf is best understood by treating it as a single compartment containing several pressure-generating engines whose resultant is the pressure throughout the compartment. An error in the published notional balances for a transpiring leaf is corrected. (3) The argument against a valve in the transpiring leaf, which allows water out but not in, is not convincing. (4) The "robust and extremely consistent" cohesion theory gains this status by neglecting large bodies of experimental fact, once well known to plant physiologists. (5) The demonstration that living cells are not involved in the refilling of embolisms in birch stems is welcomed as an important advance. However, the major questions remain unresolved. (6) Proof is still needed that embolisms in vessels are not refilled by the collapse of gas bubbles under small positive pressures during conductance measurement. (7) The survival of unbroken water threads in vessels under centrifugal stress has still not been demonstrated. (8) Both questions 6 and 7 can be easily answered by direct observation of gas/liquid volumes in frozen stems in the cryo-scanning electron microscope.

Key Words: cavitation • cohesion theory • compensating pressure theory • embolism • tissue pressure • water transport




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
S. E. SCHECKLER and J. GALTIER
Tyloses and Ecophysiology of the Early Carboniferous Progymnosperm Tree Protopitys buchiana
Ann. Bot., May 1, 2003; 91(6): 739 - 747.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the Botanical Society of America, Inc.