. 2011 Oct 20;63(2):643–658. doi: 10.1093/jxb/err270

Table 3.

Results from the tests of the recovery of leaf hydraulic conductance (K_leaf) during the evaporative flux method (EFM), and during 1 h rehydration in the dark. In the residual test for recovery during the EFM, significance indicates that K_leaf did not fully recover. For the indices of K_leaf recovery during the EFM, and during the 1 h rehydration experiments, significance before the comma indicates some degree of significant recovery, and significance after the comma indicates that K_leaf did not recover fully (see the Materials and methods).

Species	Residual test for recovery during EFM, R² (n)	Index of recovery in K_leaf during EFM (% increase)	Index of recovery in K_leaf after 1 h rehydration (% increase)
Camellia sasanqua	0.029^NS (41)	114^NS, **	58.9^NS, ***
Cercocarpus betuloides	0.48*** (70)	119^NS, **	119^NS, **
Comarostaphylos diversifolia	0.33*** (57)	178*^,	259***^{, NS}
Hedera canariensis	0.036^NS (41)	159^,	150^NS, ***
Helianthus annuus	0.017^NS (36)	124^NS, *	230*^,
Heteromeles arbutifolia	0.62*** (58)	66.4^NS, *	79.3^NS, *
Lantana camara	0.61*** (25)	161^NS, **	284^,
Magnolia grandiflora	0.24* (74)	158^, *	218*^{, NS}
Platanus racemosa	0.35*** (38)	104^NS, *	130^NS, *
Quercus agrifolia	0.38*** (46)	72.2^NS, **	113^NS, ***

^*P <0.05; **P <0.01; ***P <0.001. NS, non-significant