2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11099-015-0105-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Leaf water use in heterobaric and homobaric leafed canopy tree species in a Malaysian tropical rain forest

Abstract: Tropical canopy tree species can be classified into two types by their heterobaric and homobaric leaves. We studied the relation between both leaf types and their water use, together with the morphological characteristics of leaves and xylem, in 23 canopy species in a tropical rain forest. The maximum rates of photosynthesis and transpiration were significantly higher in heterobaric leaf species, which also underwent larger diurnal variations of leaf water potential compared to homobaric leaf species. The vess… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 83 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This distribution of homobaric and heterobaric leaves in different strata appears to be due to micro-environmental gradients associated with the various forest strata (Kenzo et al 2007). Such gradients include light availability, temperature, vapor pressure deficit, and wind (Théry 2001;Kitajima & Poorter 2010;Bennett et al 2015;Inoue et al 2015). Of these, light availability is particularly important because it can influence the growth, survival, and subsequent reproduction of young individuals (Chazdon et al 1996;Valladares & Niinemets 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This distribution of homobaric and heterobaric leaves in different strata appears to be due to micro-environmental gradients associated with the various forest strata (Kenzo et al 2007). Such gradients include light availability, temperature, vapor pressure deficit, and wind (Théry 2001;Kitajima & Poorter 2010;Bennett et al 2015;Inoue et al 2015). Of these, light availability is particularly important because it can influence the growth, survival, and subsequent reproduction of young individuals (Chazdon et al 1996;Valladares & Niinemets 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In forests, variation in abiotic features along vertical stratifi cation provokes diff erent adjustments by plants for better use of the environmental conditions of each stratum (Valladares & Niinemets 2008;Niinemets 2010;Inoue et al 2015). Such adjustments can be morphological, physiological, and/or phenological.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The upper canopy environment with high photosynthetic productivity may allow symbiosis with EcM fungi, which may have a higher carbohydrate demand than AM fungi (de Kroon and Visser 2003;Smith and Read 2008). In fact, dominant dipterocarp trees in the emergent layer showed higher photosynthetic ability under upper canopy conditions than most non-dipterocarp trees or lower trees when they were in the emergent layer (Kenzo et al 2015b;Inoue et al 2015). Canopy, sub-canopy, and understory species showed significantly negative leaf d 15 N values, with large variation.…”
Section: Effect Of N Isotope Discrimination By Root Mycorrhizal Fungimentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The traits of stem woody parts, namely wood density and water content, have a strong relationship with their functional traits, such as drought tolerance, crown architecture, growth rate, survival, and photosynthesis, especially in tropical forests (Bucci et al 2004, Hiromi et al 2012, Inoue et al 2015, Ishida et al 2008, Kenzo et al 2011, Markesteijn et al 2011, Martin et al 2013, Santiago et al 2004. For example, trees with low wood density exhibit a faster growth rate compared with trees of high wood density, whereas trees with high wood density usually have a high survival rate due to their stronger resistance to physical stress, pathogens, and pest attacks (Curran et al 2008, King et al 2005, 2006, Kitajima 1994.…”
Section: Comparison Of Wood Density and Water Content Between Dry Evementioning
confidence: 99%