1990
DOI: 10.1080/00382167.1990.9629065
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determining Transpiration fromPinus patulaShoots—A Comparative Evaluation of the Cut-Shoot Method and Two Null-Balance Diffusion Porometers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies have shown that this instrument provides estimates of water volume fluxes consistent with those obtained using independent methods (e.g. Dye et al 1990;Ansley et al 1994). However, it should be noted that in some cases porometric estimates of leaf transpiration rates might substantially deviate from in situ plant transpiration, because of presence of substantial boundary layer resistances.…”
Section: Leaf Transpiration Rate (E L ) Leaf Water Potential (Y Lesupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Previous studies have shown that this instrument provides estimates of water volume fluxes consistent with those obtained using independent methods (e.g. Dye et al 1990;Ansley et al 1994). However, it should be noted that in some cases porometric estimates of leaf transpiration rates might substantially deviate from in situ plant transpiration, because of presence of substantial boundary layer resistances.…”
Section: Leaf Transpiration Rate (E L ) Leaf Water Potential (Y Lesupporting
confidence: 61%
“…Recently Dye et al (1990) compared results from the cut-shoot method with two null-balance diffusion porometers. The first assumption is the applicability of the cut-shoot method for transpiration estimations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%