4.7 Article

Mean Leaf Angles Affect Irrigation Efficiency and Physiological Responses of Tropical Species Seedling

期刊

FORESTS
卷 13, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f13060832

关键词

seedling architecture; leaf water potential; transpiration; stomatal conductance

类别

资金

  1. CAPES (Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the effects of different mean leaf angles on irrigation efficiency and physiological responses of tree seedlings. The results showed that tree species with positive mean leaf angles exhibited improved physiological responses with smaller irrigation depths, while species with negative mean leaf angles required larger irrigation depths to maintain normal physiological responses.
In forest nurseries, irrigation management becomes more complex as different seedlings of tropical species, with different architectures, are grown close to each other. In this context, there are gaps in knowledge about the physiological responses of species with different mean leaf angles when subjected to different irrigation depths. Thus, this work aimed to analyze whether mean leaf angles affect irrigation efficiency and, consequently, physiological responses of tree seedlings. Six species with different mean leaf angles were submitted to three irrigation depths (6, 9, and 12 mm) applied daily by micro-sprinklers in a completely randomized design in a split plot scheme. The following variables were evaluated: leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, relative water content in the leaf, daily transpiration, leaching fraction, and total dry mass. In tree species seedlings with positive mean leaf angles, smaller irrigation depths are already able to increase leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, leaf relative water content, and transpiration efficiency. In contrast, when the mean leaf angles are negative, it is necessary to apply larger irrigation depths so that seedling physiological responses do not reduce the production of total dry mass.

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