The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The hydraulic conductance of the angiosperm leaf lamina: a comparison of three measurement methods
Open accessAbstract
A comparison was made of three methods for measuring the leaf lamina hydraulic conductance (K(lamina)) for detached mature leaves of six woody temperate angiosperm species. The high-pressure method, the evaporative flux method and the vacuum pump method involve, respectively, pushing, evaporating and pulling water out of the lamina while determining the flow rate into the petiole and the water potential drop across the leaf. Tests were made of whether the high-pressure method and vacuum pump method measurements of K(lamina) on single leaves were affected by irradiance. In Quercus rubra, the high pressure method was sensitive to irradiance; K(lamina) measured under high irradiance (>1200 micro mol m(-2) s(-1 )photosynthetically active radiation) was 4.6-8.8 times larger than under ambient laboratory lighting (approximately 6 micro mol m(-2) s(-1 )photosynthetically active radiation). By constrast, the vacuum pump method was theoretically expected to be insensitive to irradiance, and this expectation was confirmed in experiments on Hedera helix. When used in the ways recommended here, the three methods produced measurements that agreed typically within 10%. There were significant differences in species' K(lamina); values ranged from 1.24x10(-4) kg s(-1) m(-2) MPa(-1) for Acer saccharum to 2.89x10(-4) kg s(-1) m(-2) MPa(-1) for Vitis labrusca. Accurate, rapid determination of K(lamina) will allow testing of the links between K(lamina), water-use, drought tolerance, and the enormous diversity of leaf form, structure and composition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sack, L., & Holbrook, N. M. (2006) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144141 · Cited by 932
Self-citationSack, L., & Scoffoni, C. (2013) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.12253 · Cited by 830
Self-citationPlant xylem hydraulics: What we understand, current research, and future challenges
Venturas, M. D., Sperry, J. S., & Hacke, U. G. (2017) · Journal of Integrative Plant Biology · doi:10.1111/jipb.12534 · Cited by 487
Implementing Plant Hydraulics in the Community Land Model, Version 5
Kennedy, D., Swenson, S., Oleson, K. W., Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R., Lola da Costa, A. C., & Gentine, P. (2019) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2018ms001500 · Cited by 432
LEAF STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY IS RELATED TO HYDRAULIC CAPACITY IN TROPICAL RAIN FOREST TREES
Sack, L., & Frole, K. (2006) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/05-0710 · Cited by 403
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sack, L.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-11-01
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 378
- Pages
- 2177-2184
- ISSN
- 0022-0957 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2431
- OpenAlex
- W2120920811
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The hydraulic conductance of the angiosperm leaf lamina: a comparison of three measurement methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jxb/erf069
- The paper
- Sack, L. (2002). The hydraulic conductance of the angiosperm leaf lamina: a comparison of three measurement methods. Journal of Experimental Botany. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erf069
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.