Abstract Comparisons among methods are essential to validate plant traits measured across studies. However, a rigorous analysis is a complex task that needs to take into account not only the principle of the method and its correct use, but also inherent intraspecific trait variability, something we feel is not fully considered by Sergent et al. (2020). They compared the Bench dehydration, MicroCT, and Pneumatic methods using three long-vesseled species and found divergence among these methods. As a key finding, Sergent and colleagues reported unreliable estimates of Ψ50 for Olea europaea when using the Pneumatic method in a such long-vesseled species. Here, we tested this finding by measuring independently vulnerability curves for O. europaea. Our results reinforce the viability of the Pneumatic method to estimate embolism vulnerability in long-vesseled species, as already found by others. Briefly, we also discuss important procedures when using the Pneumatic method and encourage further experiments, as the only way to know better the limitations of available methods and improve our understanding about plant water relations.

中文翻译：

---

使用气动方法估计长血管物种的栓塞抵抗力：对“评估树木栓塞抵抗力的五种方法的比较”一文的评论

摘要 方法之间的比较对于验证跨研究测量的植物性状至关重要。然而，严格的分析是一项复杂的任务，不仅需要考虑方法的原理及其正确使用，还需要考虑固有的种内性状变异性，我们认为 Sergent 等人并未充分考虑这一点。(2020)。他们使用三种长容器物种比较了 Bench 脱水、MicroCT 和气动方法，发现这些方法之间存在差异。作为一项重要发现，Sergent 及其同事报告了在这种长容器物种中使用气动方法时对 Olea europaea Ψ50 的不可靠估计。在这里，我们通过独立测量 O. europaea 的脆弱性曲线来测试这一发现。正如其他人已经发现的那样，我们的结果加强了气动方法用于估计长血管物种栓塞脆弱性的可行性。简而言之，我们还讨论了使用气动方法时的重要程序并鼓励进一步实验，这是更好地了解可用方法的局限性并提高我们对植物水分关系的理解的唯一途径。