RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The ecohydrological significance of leaf wetting due to atmospheric water in arid and semiarid ecosystems is not well understood. In these environments, the inputs of precipitation or dew formation resulting in leaf wetting have positive effects on plant functioning. However, its impact on plant water relations may depend on the degree of leaf surface wettability. In this study we evaluated leaf wettability and other leaf traits and its effects on foliar water uptake and canopy interception in plant species of a Patagonian steppe. We also studied how leaf traits affecting wettability vary seasonally from growing to dry season. METHODS: Contact angle of a water droplet with the leaf surface, water adhesion, droplet retention angle, stomatal density, cuticular conductance, canopy interception and maximum foliar water uptake were determined in six dominant shrub species. KEY RESULTS: All species increased leaf wettability during the dry season and most species were considered highly wettable. The leaf surface had very high capacity to store and retain water. We found a negative correlation between foliar water uptake and leaf hydrophilia. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the diversity of life forms, including cushion shrubs and tall shrubs, as well as phenological variability, all species converged in similar seasonal changes in leaf traits that favour wettability. Intercepted water by crowns and the extremely high capacity of retention of droplets on leaf surfaces can have a significant impact on eco-hydrological process in water limited ecosystems where most of water sources during the growing and the dry season may be small rainfall events or dew, which do not always increase soil water availability.
Assuntos
Água Subterrânea , Água , Ecossistema , Folhas de Planta , Plantas , Solo , MolhabilidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Leaf wetness is an important characteristic linked to a plant's strategies for water acquisition, use and redistribution. A trade-off between leaf water retention (LWR) and hydrophobicity (LWH) may be expected, since a higher LWH/lower LWR may enhance photosynthesis, while the opposite combination may increase the leaf water uptake (LWU). However, the validation of the ecological meaning of both traits and the influence of droplet volume when measuring them have been largely neglected. METHODS: To address these questions, LWR and LWH of 14 species were measured using droplets of between 5 and 50 µL. Furthermore, the ability of those species to perform LWU was evaluated through leaf submergence in water. The droplet-volume effect on absolute values and on species ranking for LWR and LWH was tested, as well as the influence of water droplet volume on the relationship between leaf wetness traits and LWU. KEY RESULTS: Variations in droplet volume significantly affected the absolute values and the species ranking for both LWR and LWH. The expected negative correlation between leaf wetness traits was not observed, and they were not validated as a proxy for LWU. CONCLUSIONS: The water droplet volume does matter when measuring leaf wetness traits. Therefore, it is necessary to standardize the methodological approach used to measure them. The use of a standard 5 µL droplet for LWH and a 50 µL droplet for LWR is proposed. It is cautioned that the validation of both traits is also needed before using them as proxies to describe responses and effects in functional approaches.