4.8 Article

Widespread woody plant use of water stored in bedrock

期刊

NATURE
卷 597, 期 7875, 页码 225-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03761-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has shown that woody plants across the continental United States access water from bedrock for transpiration, indicating that rock moisture is a critical component of plant-available water sources. This highlights the need to revise conceptual paradigms regarding water and carbon cycling to incorporate the role of bedrock water storage.
Woody plants across the continental United States make extensive use of water stored in bedrock across diverse climates and biomes. In the past several decades, field studies have shown that woody plants can access substantial volumes of water from the pores and fractures of bedrock(1-3). If, like soil moisture, bedrock water storage serves as an important source of plant-available water, then conceptual paradigms regarding water and carbon cycling may need to be revised to incorporate bedrock properties and processes(4-6). Here we present a lower-bound estimate of the contribution of bedrock water storage to transpiration across the continental United States using distributed, publicly available datasets. Temporal and spatial patterns of bedrock water use across the continental United States indicate that woody plants extensively access bedrock water for transpiration. Plants across diverse climates and biomes access bedrock water routinely and not just during extreme drought conditions. On an annual basis in California, the volumes of bedrock water transpiration exceed the volumes of water stored in human-made reservoirs, and woody vegetation that accesses bedrock water accounts for over 50% of the aboveground carbon stocks in the state. Our findings indicate that plants commonly access rock moisture, as opposed to groundwater, from bedrock and that, like soil moisture, rock moisture is a critical component of terrestrial water and carbon cycling.

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

4.8
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