4.5 Article

Water sources of urban trees in the Los Angeles metropolitan area

期刊

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS
卷 15, 期 1, 页码 195-214

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11252-011-0196-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. National Science Foundation [0624342]
  2. EPA [RD-83336401-0]
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0624342] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  4. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [0624342] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In semi-arid cities, urban trees are often irrigated, but may also utilize natural water sources such as groundwater. Consequently, the sources of water for urban tree transpiration may be uncertain, complicating efforts to efficiently manage water resources. We used a novel approach based on stable isotopes to determine tree water sources in the Los Angeles basin, where we hypothesized that trees would rely on irrigation water in the soil rather than develop deep roots to tap into groundwater. We evaluated the oxygen (delta O-18) and hydrogen (delta D) isotope ratios of xylem water, irrigation water, soil water, and groundwater in a study of temporal patterns in water sources at two urban sites, and a study of spatial patterns at nine urban sites and one natural riparian forest. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that despite frequent irrigation, some trees tap into groundwater, although in most species this was a small water source. Some trees appeared to be using very shallow soil water at < 30 cm depth, suggesting that these mature urban trees were quite shallowly rooted. In the natural site, trees appeared to be using urban runoff in addition to shallow soil water. We were able to identify tree uptake of precipitation at only 3 sites. The results show that some irrigated trees utilize groundwater and do not rely solely on irrigation water, which may make them able to withstand drought and/or water conservation measures. However, some irrigated trees may develop very shallow root systems, which may make them more susceptible.

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

4.5
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