This DATSETNAMEreadme.txt file was generated on 2021-02-13 by Hao Li GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Title of Dataset: Developmental and water deficit-induced changes in hydraulic properties and xylem anatomy of tomato fruit and pedicels 2. Author Information A. Principal Investigator Contact Information Name: Hao Li Institution: Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, China Agricultural University Address:China Agricultural University, 17 Qinghua East Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China Email: caulihao@alu.cau.edu.cn B. Associate or Co-investigator Contact Information Name: Xuemin Hou Institution: Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, China Agricultural University Address: China Agricultural University, 17 Qinghua East Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China Email: xuemin_hou@126.com C. Alternate Contact Information Name: Taisheng Du Institution: Center for Agricultural Water Research in China, China Agricultural University Address: China Agricultural University, 17 Qinghua East Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China Email: dutaisheng@cau.edu.cn 3. Date of data collection (single date, range, approximate date) : 2019-01-01 to 2019-03-20 4. Geographic location of data collection <latitude, longiute, or city/region, State, Country, as appropriate>: 37.87°N,102.85°E,WuWei city,Gansu Province,China 5. Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: This work was supported by research grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51725904, 51790534, 51909263, and 51861125103) and the Discipline Innovative Engineering Plan (111 Program, B14002). SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION 1. Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: Creative Commons Zero (CC0) 2. Links to publications that cite or use the data:Li H, Zhang X, Hou X, Du T. 2021. Data from: Developmental and water deficit-induced changes in hydraulic properties and xylem anatomy of tomato fruit and pedicels. Dryad Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.z612jm69m. 3. Links to other publicly accessible locations of the data: no 4. Links/relationships to ancillary data sets: no 5. Was data derived from another source? no 6. Recommended citation for this dataset: Li H, Zhang X, Hou X, Du T. 2021. Data from: Developmental and water deficit-induced changes in hydraulic properties and xylem anatomy of tomato fruit and pedicels. Dryad Digital Repository. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.z612jm69m. DATA & FILE OVERVIEW 1. File List: [Table 1 & Fig.S5]: Effects of water deficit on developmental changes in various parameters in tomato fruit.The parameters include horizontal diameter, longitudinal diameter, water content, dry matter content, osmotic potential, total soluble solids. [Fig.2]: Stem water potentials (Ψstem) of tomato plants under control and water deficit conditions as measured pre-dawn and at midday. [Fig.3]: Kinetics of water uptake of detached tomato fruit from plants subject to control and water deficit treatments.Accumulative water uptake on a per fruit basis and on a per fresh weight basis . Rate of water uptake on a per fruit basis and on a per fresh weight basis. [Fig.4]: Hydraulic resistance of the pedicel and calyx of tomato fruit from plants subject to control and water deficit treatments. [Fig.8 & Table S4]:Daily xylem flow in tomato fruit modelled over a range of hydraulic resistances under different scenarios of stem-to-fruit differences in water potential.The water potential differences were calculated based on data in Johnson et al. (1992, Fig. 2), data in Guichard et al. (2001, Fig. 3A), and data in Lee et al. (1989, Fig. 1, before irrigation). [Fig.S1]: Volumetric soil water content measured by the 5TE sensor. [Fig.S2]: Determination of the equilibration time for the measurement of stem water potential. [Fig.S3]: Relationships between flow rates and pressure gradients in the pedicel, and in the pedicel plus calyx. [Fig.S4]: Daily vapour pressure deficits in the greenhouse and the laboratory. [Fig.S6]: Variations in pedicel diameter and length over the course of development in the control and water deficit treatments. [Fig.S7]: Comparison between species of data for hydraulic resistance. 2. Relationship between files, if important: Independent 3. Additional related data collected that was not included in the current data package: no 4. Are there multiple versions of the dataset? no METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION 1. Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: [Table 1 & Fig.S5]: Fruit fresh weight was measured using an analytical balance.For dry weight, fruit samples were dried at 75 °C in an oven to a constant weight. Longitudinal and horizontal diameters were measured on fresh fruit using a digital caliper. Total soluble solids (Brix scale) of sap expressed from the fruit pericarp was measured using a handheld saccharometer (ATAGO, Japan). The osmotic potential of sap expressed from freeze–thawed pericarp discs was determined using a vapour pressure osmometer (Vapro5600; Wescor, Inc.), which was calibrated using standard KCl solutions with known osmotic potentials. [Fig.2]: Pre-dawn and midday stem water potentials were measured to indicate the water status of the plants using a SKPM 1400 pressure chamber (Skye Instruments Ltd., UK)Shaded leaves close to the tomato trusses were wrapped with bags made of aluminum foil for at least 10 min before each measurement. [Fig.3]: Tomato fruits with their pedicels attached were excised from the rachis. The pedicel was placed in a small vial containing water with only the cut surface exposed for water uptake while the rest of the pedicel area was wrapped with parafilm (Bemis Company, Inc., USA) to prevent water uptake from the surface. The fruits and vials were then placed in a chamber in the laboratory maintained at 100% relative humidity (RH) (Bondada et al., 2005) to effectively prevent transpiration (Knoche et al., 2015), allowing fruit water uptake via the xylem flow driven by the osmotic potential of the fruit cells (Knoche et al.,2015).Fruit weight was measured using an analytical balance (±0.0001 g) (ML104T/02, Mettler Toledo, Switzerland) after the surface of the pedicel was quickly blotted dry using a piece of Kimwipe tissue (Kimberly-Clark) (Bondada et al., 2005). The water uptake was calculated as the difference in fruit weight between the initial and following measurements and was expressed on a per mass basis according to the initial fruit weight. Rates of uptake between measurements were also calculated. [Fig.4]: The hydraulic resistances of the pedicel and calyx were determined by applying a pressure difference across each and measuring the corresponding flow (van Ieperen et al., 2003; Tyerman et al., 2004; Choat et al., 2009;Mazzeo et al., 2013). The pressure difference was created using a hydraulic head (Romero et al., 2014). The samples were detached from the trusses and the pedicels were trimmed under degassed and deionized water in a beaker using a sharp razor blade. The pedicels were connected to tubing,using parafilm to prevent leaks. A hydraulic head (a flask with the perfusing solution) was placed on the ML104T/02 analytical balance,which was elevated above the sample. The balance was connected to a computer installed with the BalancLink v.4.1.1 software (Mettler Toledo)to record the weight loss of the beaker every 20 s as a measure of the flow rate. The drop of water level in the flask was negligible due to the small amount of water going through the plant material during each measurement; however, the flask was still refilled to the original water level after each run. The evaporative loss of water in the flask was negligible during the measurements. The ambient temperature in the air-conditioned laboratory was maintained at 25°C to avoid effects of changes in viscosity. [Fig.8 & Table S4]: The xylem flow during a diurnal course was modeled based on different diurnal scenarios of stem and fruit water potentials that represented either typical well-watered conditions according to Johnson et al. (1992) (Scenario I) or Guichard et al. (2001) (Scenario II), or soil drying conditions according to Lee et al. (1989) (Scenario III). The stem water potential (Ψstem) ranged between –0.24 MPa and –1.28 MPa in Scenario I and between –0.07 MPa and –0.59MPa in Scenario II. The xylem flow rate (F) was calculated as F = Ψ/Rf+c+p,Ψ = Ψstem–Ψfruit,where values of Ψstem and Ψfruit were obtained from data for in situ psychrometry in the literature (Lee et al., 1989; Johnson et al., 1992; Guichard et al., 2001). Flow rates were calculated over a range of Rf+c+p. The total flow over a day (Q) was calculated by integrating the area under the diurnal curve (Choat et al., 2009). Rf+c+p was calculated based on the hydraulic resistance of the pedicel (Rp) measured here and the ratio of Rf+c+p/Rp obtained from data available in the literature (Tyerman et al., 2004; Choat et al., 2009; Mazzeo et al., 2013). [Fig.S1]: Volumetric soil water content was continuously monitored using 5TE sensors (Meter, Inc., USA) buried in the root zone 0.3 m below the soil surface [Fig.S2]: The equilibration time was tested between 12.00 h and 14.00 h following the method of Fulton et al. (2001) and 10 min was found to be adequate for the non-transpiring leaf and the stem to reach equilibrium [Fig.S3]: In a preliminary experiment, the flow rate was recorded for samples at a hydraulic head of 3 m, followed by 2.2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.0, and 0.6 m, and then the process was reversed by increasing the height of the hydraulic head from 0.6 back to 3.0 m. The approximately equal initial and final flow rates observed at the same hydraulic head value demonstrated the stability and reproducibility of the flow rate during the measurements. The good linear relationship between the pressure difference and the flow rate indicated that the hydraulic resistance was independent of the pressure difference applied and the flow rate (van Ieperen et al., 2003) within the pressure range applied here. The inverse of the slope of the line represented the hydraulic resistance. [Fig.S4]: The calculated vapour pressure deficit (VPD) (Allen et al., 1998) ranged between 0.24–9.49 kPa in the greenhouse and between 1.07–1.52 kPa the lab. [Fig.S6]: Longitudinal and horizontal diameters over the course of development were measured using a digital caliper. [Fig.S7]: Data of the resistance of the pedicel (Rp) in grape (three cultivars) (Tyerman et al., 2004; Choat et al., 2009; Knipfer et al., 2015), cherry (Brüggenwirth and Knoche, 2015), kiwifruit (Mazzeo et al., 2013), and tomato (van Ieperen et al., 2003)and data of the total hydraulic resistance (Rp+c+f) in grape (two cultivars)(Tyerman et al., 2004; Choat et al., 2009), kiwifruit (Mazzeo et al., 2013), and apple(Lang and Ryan, 1994) over fruit development. The average of the reported resistance values was calculated for every species in cherry, kiwifruit, and tomato and for every variety in grape and apple. 2. Methods for processing the data: Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS 13.0. Two-way ANOVA was performed to test for the effects of treatment, developmental stage, and their interaction on fruit physiological and hydraulic parameters. Oneway ANOVA was performed to compare difference between treatments at each developmental stage. Duncan’s test was performed to compare differences between developmental stages within each treatment. 3. Instrument- or software-specific information needed to interpret the data: SPSS 13.0 4. Standards and calibration information, if appropriate: no 5. Environmental/experimental conditions: The plants were grown in the greenhouse in trenches that were 0.8 m deep, 0.5 m wide, and 4.5 m long containing formulated sandy loam soil with a mean bulk density of 1.47 g cm−3. Impermeable film was used to cover the bottom and the walls of the trenches to separate the formulated soil from the adjacent soil. The soil in the trenches was covered with plastic mulch and the plants were irrigated with drippers placed under the mulch.Plants were subjected to full irrigation (control) and water deficit treatments. The latter was imposed from the appearance of the first flower on the plant through to harvest, a period lasting >80 d. All plants were irrigated once the volumetric soil water content in the control decreased to ~75% of field capacity, but the amount of water applied in the deficit treatment was reduced by 40% compared to the control. 6. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: Ψstem: Stem water potentials; Rp+c: Combined resistance of the pedicel and calyx; Rp: resistance of the pedicel; Rc: resistance of the calyx; VPD: vapour pressure deficit; F: xylem flow rate; Q: total flow over a day; 7. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: Hao Li,Xuemin Hou,XianBo Zhang. DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR: [FILENAME] [Table 1 & Fig.S5] 1. Number of variables:7 2. Number of cases/rows: 644 3. Variable List: <list variable name(s), description(s), unit(s)and value labels as appropriate for each> Fruit horizontal diameter (mm); Fruit longitudinal diameter (mm); Fruit fresh weight (g); Fruit water content (g); Fruit dry matter content (g); Osmotic potential (MPa); Total soluble solids (Brix) [Fig.2] 1. Number of variables:2 2. Number of cases/rows: 66 3. Variable List: Pre-dawn stem water potentials (Pre-dawn ψstem, MPa); Midday stem water potentials (Midday ψstem, MPa). [Fig.3] 1. Number of variables:4 2. Number of cases/rows: 2811 3. Variable List: Accumulative water uptake of fruit based on a per fruit basis (g fruit-1); Accumulative water uptake of fruit based on a per fresh weight basis (g g-1 fruit-1); Rate of fruit water uptake based on a per fruit basis(g h-1); Rate of fruit water uptake based on a per fresh weight basis (g g-1 h-1) [Fig.4] 1. Number of variables:5 2. Number of cases/rows: 465 3. Variable List: The rate of water flowing of the pedicel and calyx (Rp+c, MPa h cm-3); The rate of water flowing of the pedicel (Rp, MPa h cm-3); Combined resistance of the pedicel and calyx (Rp+c, MPa h cm-3); Resistance of the pedicel (Rp, MPa h cm-3); Resistance of the calyx (Rc, MPa h cm-3) [Fig.8 & Table S4] 1. Number of variables:4 2. Number of cases/rows: 419+780+571 3. Variable List: Stem-Fruit water potential(Δψ, MPa); Total hydraulic resistance of the fruit, calyx, and pedicel (Rf+c+p, Mpa h cm-3); Xylem flow rate (F, cm3 h-1); Daily xylem water flow (Q, cm3 d-1) [Fig.S1] 1. Number of variables:1 2. Number of cases/rows: 168 3. Variable List: Volumetric soil water content [Fig.S2] 1. Number of variables:1 2. Number of cases/rows: 27 3. Variable List: Stem water potentials (ψstem, MPa) [Fig.S3] 1. Number of variables:2 2. Number of cases/rows: 52 3. Variable List: Hydrostatic pressure gradient (ΔP, kPa); Volume flow rate (F, g h-1) [Fig.S4] 1. Number of variables:2 2. Number of cases/rows: 98 3. Variable List: Vapour Pressure Deficits (Greenhouse VPD ,kPa); Vapour Pressure Deficits (Laboratory VPD,kPa). [Fig.S6] 1. Number of variables:2 2. Number of cases/rows: 280 3. Variable List: Pedicel diameter (mm); Pedicel length (mm) [Fig.S7] 1. Number of variables:3 2. Number of cases/rows: 110 3. Variable List: Resistance of the pedicel (Rp, MPa h cm-3); Total hydraulic resistance of the fruit, calyx, and pedicel (Rf+c+p, Mpa h cm-3); The ratio of the total hydraulic resistance of the fruit, calyx, and pedicel and the resistance of the pedicel (Rf+c+p/Rp).