Advertisement

Mechanisms: Comparative Behaviour

  • E. A. C. MacRobbie
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 4)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to consider the relations between the different hypotheses, the problems of trying to distinguish between them by critical experiments, and the aspects of phloem behaviour, or of the characteristics of the sieve elements, which remain unresolved or unexplained on each of these hypotheses. In particular I would like to examine the relation between any form of activated mass flow and the inevitable Münch flow in the conduits.

Keywords

Sieve Tube Sieve Element Solute Flux Sieve Plate Phloem Transport 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AMIR, S. and REINHOLD, L. 1911. Physiol. Plant. 24: 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ANDERSON, R. and CRONSHAW, J. 1910. Planta 91: 113Google Scholar
  3. CHRISTRY, A.L. and FERRIER, J.M. 1913. Pl. Physiol. 52: 531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. HARTT, C.E. 1910. Pl. Physiol. 45: 183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. HODDINOTT, J. and GORHAM, P.R. 1914. Can. J. Bot. 52: 349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. KOMOR, E. 1913. F.E.B.S. Letters 38: 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. KOMOR, E. and TANNER, W. 1974a. Eur. J. Bioch. 44:219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. KOMOR, E. and TANNER, W. 1914b. A. Pflanzenphysiol. 71: 115Google Scholar
  9. MACROBBIE, E.A.C. 1971. BioI. Rev. 46: 429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. MILBURN, J. 1911. Planta 95: 212Google Scholar
  11. PICKARD, B.G. 1913. Bot. Rev. 39: 112Google Scholar
  12. SCHULTZ, S.G. and CURRAN, P.F. 1910. Physiol. Rev. 50: 631Google Scholar
  13. SIBAOKA, R. 1962. Science 131: 226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. SINYUKHIN, A.M. and GORCHAKOV, V.V. 1968. Soviet Pl. Physiol. 15: 400Google Scholar
  15. STEIN, W.D. 1967. The Movement of Molecules across Membranes. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. WEBER, C., FRANKE, W.W. and KARTENBECK, J. 1974. Exp. Cell Res. 87: 79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. WEST, I.C. and MITCHELL, P.F. 1972. J. Bioenergetics 3: 445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Discussion

  1. DAINTY, J., CROGHAN, P.C. and FENSOM, D.S. 1963. Can. J. Bot. 41: 953–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. FENSOM, D.S. 1957. Can. J. Bot. 35: 573–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. HEJNOWICZ, Z. 1970. Protoplasma 71: 343–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. MACROBBIE, E.A.C. 1971. BioI. Rev. 46: 429–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. SPANNER, D.C. 1958. J. Exp. Bot. 9: 332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. WEATHERLEY, P.E. and JOHNSON, R.P.C. 1968. Int. Rev. Cytol. 24: 149–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. A. C. MacRobbie
    • 1
  1. 1.Botany SchoolUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations