4.7 Article

Changes in whole-tree water relations during ontogeny of Pinus flexilis and Pinus ponderosa in a high-elevation meadow

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 10, 页码 675-685

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/22.10.675

关键词

canopy conductance; leaf area/sapwood area ratio; limber pine; ponderosa pine; transpiration; whole-plant hydraulic conductance

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We measured sap flux in Pinus ponderosa Laws. and Pinus flexilis James trees in a high-elevation meadow in northern Arizona that has been invaded by conifers over the last 150 years. Sap flux and environmental data were collected from July 1 to September 1, 2000, and used to estimate leaf specific transpiration rate (E-l), canopy conductance (G(c)) and whole-plant hydraulic conductance (K-h). Leaf area to sapwood area ratio (LA/SA) increased with increasing tree size in P. flexilis, but decreased with increasing tree size in P. ponderosa. Both G(c) and K-h decreased with increasing tree size in P. flexilis, and showed no clear trends with tree size in P. ponderosa. For both species, G(c) was lower in the summer dry season than in the summer rainy season, but E-l did not change between wet and dry summer seasons. Midday water potential (T id) did not change across seasons for either species, whereas predawn water potential (psi(pre)) tracked variation in soil water content across seasons. Pinus flexilis showed greater stomatal response to vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and maintained higher psi(mid) than P. ponderosa. Both species showed greater sensitivity to VPD at high photosynthetically active radiation (PAR; > 2500 mumol m(-2) s(-1)) than at low PAR (< 2500 mumol m(-2) s(-1)). We conclude that the direction of change in G(c) and K-h with increasing tree size differed between co-occurring Pinus species, and was influenced by changes in LA/SA. Whole-tree water use and E-l were similar between wet and dry summer seasons, possibly because of tight stomatal control over water loss.

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