The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Methods for measuring plant vulnerability to cavitation: a critical review
Open accessAbstract
Xylem cavitation resistance has profound implications for plant physiology and ecology. This process is characterized by a 'vulnerability curve' (VC) showing the variation of the percentage of cavitation as a function of xylem pressure potential. The shape of this VC varies from 'sigmoidal' to 'exponential'. This review provides a panorama of the techniques that have been used to generate such a curve. The techniques differ by (i) the way cavitation is induced (e.g. bench dehydration, centrifugation, or air injection), and (ii) the way cavitation is measured (e.g. percentage loss of conductivity (PLC) or acoustic emission), and a nomenclature is proposed based on these two methods. A survey of the literature of more than 1200 VCs was used to draw statistics on the usage of these methods and on their reliability and validity. Four methods accounted for more than 96% of all curves produced so far: bench dehydration-PLC, centrifugation-PLC, pressure sleeve-PLC, and Cavitron. How the shape of VCs varies across techniques and species xylem anatomy was also analysed. Strikingly, it was found that the vast majority of curves obtained with the reference bench dehydration-PLC method are 'sigmoidal'. 'Exponential' curves were more typical of the three other methods and were remarkably frequent for species having large xylem conduits (ring-porous), leading to a substantial overestimation of the vulnerability of cavitation for this functional group. We suspect that 'exponential' curves may reflect an open-vessel artefact and call for more precautions with the usage of the pressure sleeve and centrifugation techniques.
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
Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought
Brodribb, T. J., Powers, J., Cochard, H., & Choat, B. (2020) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aat7631 · Cited by 847
Self-citationPlant resistance to drought depends on timely stomatal closure
Martin‐StPaul, N., Delzon, S., & Cochard, H. (2017) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12851 · Cited by 820
Self-citationGleason, S. M., Westoby, M., Jansen, S., Choat, B., Hacke, U. G., Pratt, R. B., Bhaskar, R., Brodribb, T. J., Bucci, S. J., Cao, K., et al. (2016) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.13646 · Cited by 730
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
Roselló-Soto, E., Galanakis, C. M., Brnčić, M., Orlien, V., Trujillo, F. J., Mawson, R., Knoerzer, K., Tiwari, B. K., & Barba, F. J. (2015) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.01.002 · Cited by 356
Metadata
- Authors
- Cochard, H., Badel, E., Herbette, S., Delzon, S., Choat, B., & Jansen, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-07-25
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 4779-4791
- ISSN
- 0022-0957 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2431
- OpenAlex
- W2166454462
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.69
- 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: Methods for measuring plant vulnerability to cavitation: a critical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jxb/ert193
- The paper
- Cochard, H., Badel, E., Herbette, S., Delzon, S., Choat, B., & Jansen, S. (2013). Methods for measuring plant vulnerability to cavitation: a critical review. Journal of Experimental Botany. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert193
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.