4.7 Article

Fog Water Is Important in Maintaining the Water Budgets of Vascular Epiphytes in an Asian Tropical Karst Forests during the Dry Season

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f9050260

Keywords

fog; stable isotope; water use efficiency; foliar water uptake; climate change

Categories

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province [2014FB184, 2016FB053]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41471050, 31770496, 31670452, 31300333]
  3. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [ZSSD-016]
  4. CAS Light of West China Program
  5. CAS 135 program [2017XTBG-T01, 2017XTBG-F01, 2017XTBG-F03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fog may be an important source of water for forest vascular epiphytes on trees, because they lack direct access to sources of soil water, but little is known about the water use proportions from various sources and potential water uptake pathways in epiphytes. Here, we analyzed leaf carbon isotope ratios as a measure of water use efficiency (WUE), proportions of fog, rain, and soil water use, and foliar water uptake (FWU) in species of epiphyte and their host trees in a tropical karst dwarf forest in China during the dry season. We found that the WUE, as represented by leaf C-13, was generally enriched in the epiphyte species compared to their host trees. Epiphytes used substantial proportions of fog water, whereas water use in the host trees was dominated by soil water. The leaves of epiphytes and host trees absorbed water following immersion in water for 3 h and FWU possibly related to foliar epicuticular structures, such as fungal endophytes. Our results show a divergence of water use strategies between epiphytes and their hosts and highlight the importance of fog water for epiphytes during the dry season and under a climate change scenario with a reduced occurrence of fog events.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available