4.7 Article

Foggy days and dry nights determine crown-level water balance in a seasonal tropical montane cloud forest

Journal

PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 261-272

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pce.12151

Keywords

Quercus lanceifolia; canopy ecophysiology; canopy microclimate; environmental drivers of transpiration; evaporative demand; fog; heat pulse technique; Mexico; sap flow; seasonality

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [NSF/DEB0746179]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [1156143] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ecophysiology of tropical montane cloud forest (TMCF) trees is influenced by crown-level microclimate factors including regular mist/fog water inputs, and large variations in evaporative demand, which in turn can significantly impact water balance. We investigated the effect of such microclimatic factors on canopy ecophysiology and branch-level water balance in the dry season of a seasonal TMCF in Veracruz, Mexico, by quantifying both water inputs (via foliar uptake, FU) and outputs (day- and night-time transpiration, NT). Measurements of sap flow, stomatal conductance, leaf water potential and pressure-volume relations were obtained in Quercus lanceifolia, a canopy-dominant tree species. Our results indicate that FU occurred 34% of the time and led to the recovery of 9% (249.1L) of all the dry-season water transpired from individual branches. Capacity for FU was independently verified for seven additional common tree species. NT accounted for approximately 17% (46L) of dry-season water loss. There was a strong correlation between FU and the duration of leaf wetness events (fog and/or rain), as well as between NT and the night-time vapour pressure deficit. Our results show the clear importance of fog and NT for the canopy water relations of Q.lanceifolia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available