upvote
Not that it really matters, but the article also refers to it as “drawing water to the top”. That seems more representative of reality than “pumping water from the bottom”.
reply
If you think of it that way, you have a real problem. It only takes about 10 meters for the weight of a column of water to create enough downward force that it starts vaporizing, at which point no pumping action works. This is why any deep well has a submerged pump. You simply can't pull water upward further than that with negative pressure in the Earth's atmosphere. It must be pushed with positive pressure instead.

This is why the question is interesting. You can't just suck water to the top of a 60 meter tree. There must be some kind of positive-pressure pumping involved.

reply
The trick for trees is capillaries, which change the equation. The 10 meter limit only applies to larger columns. With capillaries there's a high negative tension that allows evaporation from leaves to pull the xylem sap up 100 meters or more.

There's no free lunch here. The Sun drives the evaporation, and if the tree were in a closed system with no solar input, the humidity would eventually get high enough to stop it.

reply
One of the things Susan Simard proved was that deep rooted trees that had found subterranean water continue pulling that water at full speed at night when transpiration is low, and that water finds its way into the fungal networks in the soil and into nearby plants.

Simard attributes intention to this, but osmosis is “fair”. It seeks to move water to where sugars are and sugars to where water is. So a plant giving up sugars will receive water, and one low on water will give up sugars in the process of equalization.

Do fungi contain pumps to maintain disequilibrium in this work? I could not say. But even when they first learned the trick of tapping roots the basic premise would have worked in a rudimentary fashion woth no further optimization.

reply
I don't understand how osmosis enters into this? Capillary action is sufficient to explain water traveling up the roots to a point where it was removed. Evaporation from leaves is sufficient to explain removal during the day. You'd need some other explanation for extraction by fungi or etc at night.

As a largely unrelated aside, there will still be a chemical potential across a membrane that doesn't permit a solute to cross. So water can diffuse into a concentrated solution without the solute flowing backwards into the reservoir. Alternatively, small solutes can leave while larger solutes are retained. This is the basis of dialysis.

reply
The 10 metre thing assumes you have a suction side which is 10 metres lower than the pump, or at least a suction that is long/low enough that it can’t meet the pump’s NPSHr (Net Positive Suction Head required).

In a tree the inlet to the “pump” is at the base of the tree. It’s not like there’s a pump sitting in the tree at 80 metres trying to suck water up from the ground, that would obviously fail. It’s more like a very long pump.

reply
>if the tree were in a closed system with no solar input

... that would be the least of the tree's problems.

reply
This line of reasoning has always cracked me up. The internal dialog acidentally out loud at the least flattering moment. I believe the correct response to be:

The tree is a perpetual motion machine hooked up directly to the wheelworks of nature! It PUMPS 500 liters per day usibg Wind, solar, capilar action and evaporation! How do i charge my car with this?

reply
Well, if you chop it down and burn it to boil water, then Use it to spin up a turbine…
reply
It’s like the pop sci fact that if you took all your blood vessels and laid them end to end… you would die.
reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
That analysis only applies to a single discreet pump. A line of pumps in series does not suffer from that problem and that is roughly what a biological system would be expected to consist of.
reply
There are no pumps in a tree, in series or not. There’s nothing between the roots and leaves that actively drives water upward in any way. The xylem is literally dead tissue.
reply
Please notice that the comment I was responding to there made claims of physical infeasibility that I was responding to. I was not expressing any claims regarding actual concrete trees that you could go and visit.

More generally you seem to be dismissing out of hand the primary topic of discussion which is neither constructive nor enlightening.

reply
Yeah, that "extreme low pressure" part of the article had me scratching my head. Even a complete vacuum at the top will not suck water up more than 10 meters! The author was probably oversimplifying for a lay audience.
reply
Yeah it's the difference between creating low vs high pressure.
reply
The low pressure is up there already, for free.

Or the high pressure is down here, whichever way you want to look at it.

reply
There seems to be a lot of things that come together to make it work, but it's basically sucking not pumping. The term to google is Transpiration.

It's a bit like a siphon effect with water evaporating from the leaves creating low pressure internally which draws more water up, and the reason it's able to pull a whole column of water up is because water molecules stick together to some extent via hydrogen bonds.

Given that evaporation is what is driving it, I wonder how that works with evergreens with low evaporation - I guess it's basically a replacement system, so you only need to pull what you evaporate.

reply
reply
Capillary action is subject to the same limits as suction at the top. Capillary action can't increase the water pressure at the bottom of the tree.

If you put a straight thin capillary tube upright in water so it sucks up water from the bottom, no matter how thin, it can't draw water up above ~10m of water level.

reply
you have an incorrect model, transpiration is capillary action and evaporation from mesenchyme

xylem is not a straw, is no where near the diameter of a straw, and its[transpiration] is not about increased pressure its about decrease.

psi values at the apical mesenchyme are around -100 to -150 megapascals dependent on species and relative humidity at the stoma.

physics and biology although intertrined are not the same catechisms, heres a link toward most of m.j. canny's work.

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/M-J-Ca...

here is is a basic scheme of things

Water Movement in Xylem:

https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/87595/student-old/?...

Xylem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylem

Hydrogen bond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bond

reply
Oh, so we don't really know how it works. Fun.
reply
the research is relevant to the issue of transpiration column hieght as a postulated limitation to overall hieght of any tree.

a column of water is pulled by hydrogen bonding between molecules in a tug of war fashion, the top of the column is where water is dissociated from the column at such a rate as to maintain low pressure with respect to the column[xylem]

in summary water moves from bottom to top in a transpiration stream, that ultimately ejects water vapour from the leaves, resulting in a low efficiency mechanism, that loses a lot of the water but occurs at such a rate that the low efficiency is "good enough" for whats needed.

reply
> a transpiration stream, that ultimately ejects water vapour from the leaves

I don't believe this is correct, or rather is not a required component of the system but rather incidental. The chemical system within the leaf removes water via chemical reaction. There is a respiration process to dispose of waste gasses. Water vapor happens to be lost to this process not of necessity but rather because keeping it separate is quite difficult (ie requires significant complexity and additional energy expenditure). I expect that many desert adapted species approach perfection (but have not bothered to verify).

reply
> I expect that many desert adapted species approach perfection (but have not bothered to verify).

No they have different strategies to minimize water loss that comes with exhanging CO2 & O2 to the atmosphere. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crassulacean_acid_metabolism

Portulacaria Afra (elephant bush) is a nice example. It can switch between C3 and CAM photosynthesis pathways as needed.

reply
Capillary action and mechanical pumping by wind.
reply
They do wave in the wind, and evolution is likely capturing some of that motion for work.
reply
Not sure if you’ve ever visited the groves in California where these huge trees grow but they seem to find the place where the wind doesn’t really seem to bother them, among other reasons (fog staying and little creeks terminating are others). And when the wind comes along it’s surprising how little they actually wave. Such tiny radii change I reckon cannot move much water like you’d need for a pumping notion. So I’d say it has barely if any an influence
reply
I have seen trees before too, anecdotally, my random naysayer.
reply
“Trees contain lots of thin, hollow vessels and they suck water upwards by creating low pressure at the top,”

So sucking / pulling?

reply
So a suction pump?
reply
Same principle as chimneys. But I also noticed this line:

> leaves which have adapted to withstand greater water stress before wilting.

That must be one of the "adjustments to water transport" mentioned. So I suggest that they do, in fact, have trouble pumping water to top branches.

reply
Maybe it's not more trouble pumping, eh, sucking water up. But that the top branches are the last ones to get water in periods of draught, and have therefore more resilience?
reply
Or, it’s simply a rate to variably adjust to, so the tree is neither flooding nor parching the leaf.
reply
My recollection is that capillary action is a little from column a and a little from column b.
reply