Recent advances in tree hydraulics highlight the ecological significance of the hydraulic safety margin.

Drought-induced cavitation resistance varies considerably between tree species and forest ecosystems (Maherali et al., 2004; Delzon et al., 2010) and is closely linked to survival under severe drought in both conifers (Brodribb & Cochard, 2009; Brodribb et al., 2010) and angiosperms (Kursar et al., 2009; Anderegg et al., 2012; Barigah et al., 2013; Urli et al., 2013). Choat et al. (2012) recently reported that most trees operate very close to their threshold of cavitation, leaving them potentially vulnerable to drought-induced mortality in a warmer/drier world (Engelbrecht, 2012). Indeed, species growing in dry environments are more resistant to droughtinduced cavitation (more negative water potential at 50% cavitation,P50) but experience amore negativeminimumwater potential (Pmin) than those growing in wet environments. The so-called hydraulic safety margin, the difference between the level of water stress experienced by a species in the field (Pmin) and the level of water stress leading to hydraulic failure, is, therefore, remarkably narrow, whatever the forest species and biome considered (Choat et al., 2012). This pattern provides clues to the global droughtinduced mortality currently observed, even in very wet environments, such as tropical forests (Allen et al., 2010). Klein et al. (2014) play down the functional significance of the hydraulic safety margin in the vulnerability of forests to drought, pointing out the important role played by additional mechanisms, such as the ability of trees to repair embolism. While it is obvious that drought-induced forest dieback is a complex process involving a number of biotic and abiotic factors, we would like to draw the attention of scientists to the state of evidence for embolism repair, thereby guiding research on tree drought resistance into the most relevant and fruitful directions.