Abstract: New PhytologistVolume 163, Issue 3 p. 451-452 Free Access The Cohesion-Tension Theory First published: 23 June 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01142.xCitations: 55AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat In the June 2004 (162: 3) issue of New Phytologist, U. Zimmermann et al. published a Tansley review that criticizes the work of many scientists involved in the study of long-distance water transport in plants (Zimmermann et al., 2004). Specifically, the review attempts to ‘show that the arguments of the proponents of the Cohesion Theory are completely misleading’. We, the undersigned, believe that this review is misleading in its discussion of the many recent papers which demonstrate that the fundamentals of the Cohesion-Tension theory remain valid (Holbrook et al., 1995; Pockman et al., 1995; Steudle, 1995; Milburn, 1996; Sperry et al., 1996; Tyree, 1997; Melcher et al., 1998; Comstock, 1999; Stiller & Sperry, 1999; Tyree, 1999; Wei et al., 1999a; Wei et al., 1999b; Cochard et al., 2000; Cochard et al., 2001a; Cochard et al., 2001b; Richter, 2001; Steudle, 2001; Cochard, 2002; Tyree & Zimmermann, 2002; Tyree, 2003; Tyree & Cochard, 2003; Tyree et al., 2003). We wish the readers of New Phytologist to know that the Cohesion-Tension theory is widely supported as the only theory consistent with the preponderance of data on water transport in plants. Guillermo Angeles,Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Mexico Barbara Bond, Oregon State University, USA John S. Boyer, University of Delaware, USA Tim Brodribb, Harvard University, USA J. Renée Brooks*, U.S. EPA, Oregon, USA Michael J. Burns, formerly Harvard University, USA Jeannine Cavender-Bares, University of Minnesota, USA Mike Clearwater, HortResearch, New Zealand Hervé Cochard, INRA, Clermont-Ferrand, France Jonathan Comstock, Cornell University, USA Stephen D. Davis, Pepperdine University, USA Jean-Christophe Domec, Oregon State University, USA Lisa Donovan, University of Georgia, USA Frank Ewers, Michigan State University, USA Barbara Gartner, Oregon State University, USA Uwe Hacke, University of Utah, USA Tom Hinckley, University of Washington, USA N. Michelle Holbrook, Harvard University, USA Hamlyn G. Jones, University of Dundee, UK Kathleen Kavanagh, University of Idaho, USA Bev Law, Oregon State University, USA Jorge López-Portillo, Instituto de Ecología, A.C., Mexico Claudio Lovisolo, University of Turin, Italy Tim Martin, University of Florida, USA Jordi Martínez-Vilalta, University of Edinburgh, UK Stefan Mayr,University Innsbruck, Austria Fredrick C. Meinzer, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon, USA Peter Melcher, Ithaca College, USA Maurizio Mencuccini, University of Edinburgh, UK Stephen Mulkey, University of Florida, USA Andrea Nardini, University of Trieste, Italy Howard S. Neufeld, Appalachian State University, USA John Passioura, CSIRO Plant Industry, Australia William T. Pockman, University of New Mexico, USA R. Brandon Pratt, Pepperdine University, USA Serge Rambal, CNRS, Montpellier, France Hanno Richter, Institute of Botany, Austria Lawren Sack, University of Hawaii, USA Sebastiano Salleo, University of Trieste, Italy Andrea Schubert, University of Turin, Italy Paul Schulte, University of Nevada, USA Jed P. Sparks, Cornell University, USA John Sperry, University of Utah, USA Robert Teskey, University of Georgia, USA Melvin Tyree, U.S. Forest Service, Vermont, US (*Author for correspondence: tel +1 541 7544684; fax +1 541 7544799; email [email protected]) References Cochard H. 2002. A technique for measuring xylem hydraulic conductance under high negative pressures. Plant, Cell & Environment 25: 815– 819. Cochard H, Ameglio T, Cruiziat P. 2001a. The cohesion theory debate continues. Trends in Plant Science 6: 456. Cochard H, Bodet C, Ameglio T, Cruiziat P. 2000. Cryo-scanning electron microscopy observations of vessel content during transpiration in walnut petioles. Facts or artifacts? Plant Physiology 124: 1191– 1202. Cochard H, Forestier S, Ameglio T. 2001b. A new validation of Scholander pressure chamber technique based on stem diameter variations. Journal of Experimental Botany. 52: 1361– 1365. Comstock JP. 1999. Why Canny's theory doesn't hold water. American Journal of Botany 86: 1077– 1081. Holbrook NM, Burns MJ, Field CB. 1995. Negative xylem pressures in plants: a test of the balancing pressure technique. Science 270: 1193– 1194. Melcher PJ, Meinzer FC, Yount DE, Goldstein GH, Zimmermann U. 1998. Comparative measurements of xylem pressure in transpiring and non-transpiring leaves by means of the pressure chamber and the xylem pressure probe. Journal of Experimental Botany 49: 1757– 1760. Milburn JA. 1996. Sap ascent in vascular plants: Challengers to the Cohesion Theory ignore the significance of immature xylem and the recycling of Munch water. Annals of Botany 78: 399– 407. Pockman WT, Sperry JS, O'Leary JW. 1995. Sustained and significant negative water pressure in xylem. Nature 378: 715– 716. Richter H. 2001. The cohesion theory debate continues: the pitfalls of cryobiology. Trends in Plant Science 6: 456– 457. Sperry JS, Saliendra NZ, Pockman WT, Cochard H, Cruiziat P, Davis SD, Ewers FW, Tyree MT. 1996. New evidence for large negative xylem pressures and their measurement by the pressure chamber method. Plant, Cell & Environment 19: 427– 436. Steudle E. 1995. Trees under tension. Nature 378: 663– 664. Steudle E. 2001. The cohesion-tension mechanism and the acquisition of water by plant roots. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology 52: 847– 875. Stiller V, Sperry JS. 1999. Canny's Compensating Pressure Theory fails a test. American Journal of Botany 86: 1082– 1086. Tyree MT. 1997. The Cohesion-Tension theory of sap ascent: current controversies. Journal of Experimental Botany 48: 1753– 1765. Tyree MT. 1999. The forgotten component of plant water potential: a reply. Tissue pressures are not additive in the way M.J. Canny suggests. Plant Biology 1: 598– 601. Tyree MT. 2003. The ascent of water. Nature 423: 923. Tyree MT, Cochard H. 2003. Vessel content of leaves after excision: a test of the Scholander assumption. Journal of Experimental Botany 54: 2133– 2139. Tyree MT, Cochard H, Cruiziat P. 2003. The water-filled versus air-filled status of vessels cut open in air: The ‘Scholander assumption’ revisited. Plant, Cell & Environment 26: 613– 621. Tyree MT, Zimmermann MH. 2002. Xylem structure and the ascent of sap. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. Wei C, Steudle E, Tyree MT. 1999a. Water ascent in plants: do ongoing controversies have a sound basis? Trends in Plant Science 4: 372– 375. Wei C, Tyree MT, Steudle E. 1999b. Direct measurement of xylem pressure in leaves of intact maize plants. A test of the Cohesion-Tension theory taking hydraulic architecture into consideration. Plant Physiology 121: 1191– 1205. Zimmermann U, Schneider H, Wegner LH, Haase A. 2004. Water ascent in tall trees: does evolution of land plants rely on a highly metastable state? New Phytologist 162: 575– 615. Citing Literature Volume163, Issue3September 2004Pages 451-452 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Publication Year: 2004
Publication Date: 2004-06-23
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 85
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot