Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (8)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BANNISTER, P.
Right arrow Articles by STRONG, G. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by BANNISTER, P.
Right arrow Articles by STRONG, G. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by BANNISTER, P.
Right arrow Articles by STRONG, G. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Botany 84: 79-86, 1999
© 1999 Annals of Botany Company

Aspects of the Water Relations of Ileostylus micranthus (Hook. f.) Tieghem, a New Zealand Mistletoe

PETER BANNISTER, WARREN M. KING+ and GRAHAM L. STRONG

Department of Botany, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand

August 10, 1998 ; October 14, 1998 . March 30, 1999

Leaf water potentials in the mistletoe, Ileostylus micranthus growing outdoors decreased rapidly during the early part of the day but remained relatively steady in the early afternoon despite increases in atmospheric vapour pressure deficit (vpd). Minimum water potentials of the mistletoe were relatively constant. They were held at values lower than those of hosts when the latter maintained high water potentials but approached or even exceeded those of hosts when they developed low water potentials. In contrast, cut shoots of Ileostylus usually maintained higher water contents and leaf water potentials than those of its hosts when both were desiccated separately in the laboratory. Pressure-volume analyses indicated that Ileostylus had lower water potential at full turgor, a lower water potential but higher relative water content at turgor loss, and a higher bulk modulus of elasticity than the following four hosts: the native Kunzea ericoides andCoprosma propinqua, and the introduced Ribes sanguineum and Teline monspessulana. Water potential at turgor loss ({psi}tlp) was strongly correlated with the minimum field water potential of both mistletoes and hosts. When {psi}tlpof mistletoe and host is similar (as on Kunzea and Ribes) field water potentials are also similar, but when {psi}tlpis lower in the mistletoe (as on Coprosma and Teline), the field water potential of the mistletoe is lower than that of its host. Consequently, I. micranthus is likely to be more frequent on hosts that maintain high field water potentials than on hosts that develop low water potentials. Copyright 1999 Annals of Botany Company

Water relations, water potential, osmotic potential, pressure-volume, Ileostylus micranthus , mistletoe, New Zealand.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.