Talk:Transpirational pull

[Untitled]
I have tried to read the article several times and I must say I do not understand at all. How can evaporation drive the water transport. This must be explaioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.156.87 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Something important is missing here. According to the article -"Water movement within the xylem conduits is driven by a pressure gradient, not by capillary action." A pressure gradient can only account for ~34 feet of suction lift. For anything higher then that the water column has to support tensile stress. Alternatively there could be a large positive gauge pressure in the roots.

The article also seems to imply that the water in the xylem can be under negative absolute pressure. Negative absolute pressure is a bogus concept - seems like there's been a confusion of stress and pressure. Toiyabe 20:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is almost correct. It seems that many people think that capillary forces are a misconception. They fail to realize that there needs to be some very very strong force to hold the water coloumn against gravity. What the author wrote about pressure gradient is correct, and it is responsible for the movement of water, but it is certainly NOT responsible for holding the column. The ~34 feet you are reffering to is assuming the only pressure in town is atmospheric pressure in which case,

rho g h = 1atm therefore h = 1atm/ rho g = 1atm / 1 gm/cm^2 10 m/s^2 = 10 m ~ 34 feet

But, there are other forces present in water which are due to surface tension. By the way, when people say negative pressure they really mean tension. If you take a rubber band and pull on it, it streches it and you are effectively providing negative pressure (yes, this is a stupid way of saying, there is tension in the rubber).

Mmm, I'm confused by all this too. See "Negative pressure" here and particularly the sub-section on negative absolute pressure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_pressure#Negative_absolute_pressure Blows my mind! Any more help out there?

LookingGlass (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A small correction
I am not a specialist on this area but I have been trying to make sense by reading this page and the linked pages. I realy had trouble understanding the principle of operation of transpirational pull because of two wrong words used in the following paragraph. I capitalized these words and I believe they must be replaced by the parenthesised words. This way, what this article and the related ones claim makes sense.

"A common misconception is that water moves in PLANTS(XYLEM) by capillary action, the movement of water along a small-diameter conduit (such as a capillary) as a result of surface tension in the meniscus at the leading surface of the moving water. Surface tension does play a critical role in water movement in PLANTS(XYLEM), as described above, but the relevant surface occurs at the site of evaporation within leaves, not within the xylem conduits, and that surface does not typically proceed along any conduit. Water movement within the xylem conduits is driven by a pressure gradient, not by capillary action."


 * Good point. I fixed it.--Curtis Clark 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
Since the obvious

"A common misconception is that water moves in xylem by capillary action"

has been highlighted above, below there is what seems so be contradictory statement

"This attractive force between molecules allows plants to draw water from the root (via osmosis) and then through the xylem (via capillary action)"

Saying that water moves through the xylem via capillary action is both true and a misconception. Which is correct?

172.203.171.56 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

transpiration
transpiration pull in the main phenomena during the flow of water in xylem tissues of large plants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.61.173 (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)