4.7 Article

The partitioning of water uptake between growth forms in a Neotropical savanna: do herbs exploit a third water source niche?

期刊

PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 84-92

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2012.00618.x

关键词

Niche partitioning; plant diversity; savanna; two-layer soil water model; water potential; water uptake

资金

  1. CNPq [141624/2009-4, 201565/2009-9, 474510/2008-5, 479279/2010-1, 303637/2011-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In addition to trees and grasses, the savannas of central Brazil are characterised by a diverse herbaceous dicot flora. Here we tested whether the coexistence of a highly diversified assemblage of species resulted in stratification or strong overlap in the use of soil water resources. We measured oxygen and hydrogen isotope ratios of stem water from herbs, grasses and trees growing side by side, as well as the isotopic composition of water in soil profile, groundwater and rainfall, and predawn (Psi(pd)) and midday (Psi(md)) leaf water potentials. We used a stable isotope mixing model to estimate vertical partitioning of soil water by the three growth forms. Grasses relied on shallow soil water (550 cm) and were strongly anisohydric. Psi(pd) and Psi(md) decreased significantly from the wet to the dry season. Trees extracted water from deeper regions of the soil profile (60120 cm) and were isohydric. Psi(pd) and Psi(md) did not change from the wet to the dry season. Herbs overlapped with grasses in patterns of water extraction in the dry season (between 10 and 40 cm), but they took up water at soil depths intermediate (70100 cm) to those of trees and grasses during the wet season. They showed seasonal changes in Psi(pd) but not in Psi(md). We conclude that vertical partitioning of soil water may have contributed to coexistence of these three growth forms and resulted in a more complex pattern of soil water extraction than the two-compartment model of soil water uptake currently used to explain the structure and function of tropical savanna ecosystems.

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

4.7
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