2020
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-020-04673-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Foliar water uptake in arid ecosystems: seasonal variability and ecophysiological consequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
40
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It must be, however, mentioned that in that study leaves were younger (collected in May) than in the present study (collected in September), leading to differences in P. dulcis FWU parameters (e.g., R min of intact leaves was ~660 vs. ~1,000 MPa m 2 s g −1 in May and September, respectively). Such a discrepancy might indicate that FWU is influenced by temporal changes in leaf surface properties, as reported by Cavallaro, Pereyra, Goldstein, Scholz, and Bucci (2020). Even if open stomata facilitate FWU, the rates are still orders of magnitude lower than the hydraulic suction via the petiole, which suggests that a simple flow of liquid water into the leaf via stomata does not occur.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It must be, however, mentioned that in that study leaves were younger (collected in May) than in the present study (collected in September), leading to differences in P. dulcis FWU parameters (e.g., R min of intact leaves was ~660 vs. ~1,000 MPa m 2 s g −1 in May and September, respectively). Such a discrepancy might indicate that FWU is influenced by temporal changes in leaf surface properties, as reported by Cavallaro, Pereyra, Goldstein, Scholz, and Bucci (2020). Even if open stomata facilitate FWU, the rates are still orders of magnitude lower than the hydraulic suction via the petiole, which suggests that a simple flow of liquid water into the leaf via stomata does not occur.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Such a discrepancy might indicate that FWU is influenced by temporal changes in leaf surface properties, as reported by Cavallaro, Pereyra, Goldstein, Scholz, and Bucci (2020). Even if open stomata facilitate FWU, the rates are still orders of magnitude lower than the hydraulic suction via the petiole, which suggests that a simple flow of liquid water into the leaf via stomata does not occur.…”
Section: Ultrastructure Of the Stomata And The Cuticle -Tem Microscopymentioning
confidence: 88%
“…We found comparatively low levels of foliar water uptake inside the tree island communities (CWM of FWU of 15.17%) compared to measurements of grass and shrub species in the Campos de Altitude (mean FWU of 73.6%) by Matos et al (2020). On the one hand, this could be associated with differences in rooting depths, as species with shallow roots, like many grasses and shrubs, show higher capacity for FWU than species with deep roots which have better allyear-around water access (Cavallaro et al, 2020). On the other hand, this could be another proof of facilitation, since in the tree islands drought buffering due to sheltering effects could be at play, resulting in a lower need for alternative mechanisms of water acquisition.…”
Section: The Functional Assembly Inside Versus Outside the Tree Islandmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…R min of intact leaves was 660 vs˜1,000 MPa m 2 s g -1 in May and September, respectively). Such a discrepancy might indicate that FWU is influenced by temporal changes in leaf surface properties, as reported by Cavallaro et al (2020). Even if open stomata facilitate FWU, the rates are still orders of magnitude lower than the hydraulic suction via the petiole, which suggests that a simple flow of liquid water into the leaf via stomata does not occur.…”
Section: Mechanisms Of Fwumentioning
confidence: 88%