Abstract
Abstract
Key message
Hygroscopicity is a crucial element of bark water storage and can reach >60% of water holding capacity of bark depending on tree species
Abstract
Bark forms the outer layer of woody plants, and it is directly exposed to wetting during rainfall and reacts to changes in relative humidity, i.e., it may exchange water with the atmosphere through absorption and desorption of water vapor. A current paradigm of bark hydrology suggests that the maximum water storage of bark empties between precipitation events and is principally controlled by bark thickness and roughness. We hypothesize that (1) the ability of bark to absorb water vapor during non-rainfall periods (i.e., hygroscopicity) leads to partial saturation of bark tissues during dry periods that may alter the rate of bark saturation during rainfall, and (2) the degree of bark saturation through hygroscopic water is a function of internal bark structure, including porosity and density, that varies among species. To address these questions, we conducted laboratory experiments to measure interspecific differences in bark physical structure as it relates to water storage mechanisms among common tree species (hickory (Carya spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)) in the southeastern United States. Furthermore, we considered how these properties changed across total bark, outer bark, and inner bark. We found a distinct difference between hickory and oak, whereby hickory had 5.6% lower specific density, 31.1% higher bulk density, and 22.4% lower total porosity of outer bark resulting in higher hygroscopicity compared to oaks. For all species, hygroscopicity increased linearly with bulk density (R2 = 0.65–0.81) and decreased linearly with total porosity (R2 = 0.64–0.88). Overall, bark hygroscopicity may constitute an average of 30% of total bark water storage capacity. Therefore, in humid climates like those of the southeastern USA, the proportion of bark that remains saturated during non-storm conditions should not be considered negligible.
Funder
Narodowe Centrum Nauki
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Plant Science,Ecology,Physiology,Forestry
Reference55 articles.
1. André F, Jonard M, Ponette Q (2008) Influence of species and rain event characteristics on stemflow volume in a temperate mixed oak–beech stand. Hydrol Process 22:4455–4466
2. Arguez A, Durre I, Applequist S, Squires M, Vose R, Yin X, Bilotta R (2010) NOAA’s US climate normals (1981–2010). National Centers for Environmental Information, Asheville, NC, USA
3. Bauer G, Speck T, Blömer J, Bertling J, Speck O (2010) Insulation capability of the bark of trees with different fire adaptation. J Mater Sci 45:5950–5959
4. Biggs AR (1992). Anatomical and physiological responses of bark tissues to mechanical injury. In: Blanchette et al (eds) Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 13–40
5. Bryant ML, Bhat S, Jacobs JM (2005) Measurements and modeling of throughfall variability for five forest communities in the southeastern US. J Hydrol 312(1–4):95–108
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献