4.6 Article

Hydraulics and life history of tropical dry forest tree species: coordination of species' drought and shade tolerance

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 191, 期 2, 页码 480-495

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03708.x

关键词

drought tolerance; hydraulic conductivity; juvenile crown exposure; life-history strategies; midday dry season leaf water potential; shade tolerance; trade-offs; tropical dry forest

资金

  1. Wageningen Graduate School, Production Ecology and Resource Conservation (PERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant hydraulic architecture has been studied extensively, yet we know little about how hydraulic properties relate to species' life history strategies, such as drought and shade tolerance. The prevailing theories seem contradictory. We measured the sapwood (K-s) and leaf (K-l) hydraulic conductivities of 40 coexisting tree species in a Bolivian dry forest, and examined associations with functional stem and leaf traits and indices of species' drought (dry-season leaf water potential) and shade (juvenile crown exposure) tolerance. Hydraulic properties varied across species and between life-history groups (pioneers vs shade-tolerant, and deciduous vs evergreen species). In addition to the expected negative correlation of K-l with drought tolerance, we found a strong, negative correlation between K-l and species' shade tolerance. Across species, K-s and K-l were negatively correlated with wood density and positively with maximum vessel length. Consequently, drought and shade tolerance scaled similarly with hydraulic properties, wood density and leaf dry matter content. We found that deciduous species also had traits conferring efficient water transport relative to evergreen species. Hydraulic properties varied across species, corresponding to the classical trade-off between hydraulic efficiency and safety, which for these dry forest trees resulted in coordinated drought and shade tolerance across species rather than the frequently hypothesized trade-off.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据