The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cryo-Scanning Electron Microscopy Observations of Vessel Content during Transpiration in Walnut Petioles. Facts or Artifacts?
Open accessAbstract
The current controversy about the “cohesion-tension” of water ascent in plants arises from the recent cryo-scanning electron microscopy (cryo-SEM) observations of xylem vessels content by Canny and coworkers (1995). On the basis of these observations it has been claimed that vessels were emptying and refilling during active transpiration in direct contradiction to the previous theory. In this study we compared the cryo-SEM data with the standard hydraulic approach on walnut (Juglans regia) petioles. The results of the two techniques were in clear conflict and could not both be right. Cryo-SEM observations of walnut petioles frozen intact on the tree in a bath of liquid nitrogen (LN2) suggested that vessel cavitation was occurring and reversing itself on a diurnal basis. Up to 30% of the vessels were embolized at midday. In contrast, the percentage of loss of hydraulic conductance (PLC) of excised petiole segments remained close to 0% throughout the day. To find out which technique was erroneous we first analyzed the possibility that PLC values were rapidly returned to zero when the xylem pressures were released. We used the centrifugal force to measure the xylem conductance of petiole segments exposed to very negative pressures and established the relevance of this technique. We then analyzed the possibility that vessels were becoming partially air-filled when exposed to LN2. Cryo-SEM observations of petiole segments frozen shortly after their xylem pressure was returned to atmospheric values agreed entirely with the PLC values. We confirmed, with water-filled capillary tubes exposed to a large centrifugal force, that it was not possible to freeze intact their content with LN2. We concluded that partially air-filled conduits were artifacts of the cryo-SEM technique in our study. We believe that the cryo-SEM observations published recently should probably be reconsidered in the light of our results before they may be used as arguments against the cohesion-tension theory.
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
Plant 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
Water transport in trees: current perspectives, new insights and some controversies
Meinzer, F. C., Clearwater, M. J., & Goldstein, G. (2001) · Environmental and Experimental Botany · doi:10.1016/s0098-8472(01)00074-0 · Cited by 293
Outside-Xylem Vulnerability, Not Xylem Embolism, Controls Leaf Hydraulic Decline during Dehydration
Scoffoni, C., Albuquerque, C., Brodersen, C. R., Townes, S. V., John, G. P., Bartlett, M. K., Buckley, T. N., McElrone, A. J., & Sack, L. (2017) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.16.01643 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Cochard, H., Bodet, C., Améglio, T., & Cruiziat, P.
- Venue
- Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-11-01
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1191-1202
- ISSN
- 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-2548
- OpenAlex
- W2082285986
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.33
- 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: Cryo-Scanning Electron Microscopy Observations of Vessel Content during Transpiration in Walnut Petioles. Facts or Artifacts? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1104/pp.124.3.1191
- The paper
- Cochard, H., Bodet, C., Améglio, T., & Cruiziat, P. (2000). Cryo-Scanning Electron Microscopy Observations of Vessel Content during Transpiration in Walnut Petioles. Facts or Artifacts? Plant Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.124.3.1191
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.