Ilaíne S Matos1, Bruno H P Rosado2. 1. Department of Ecology, IBRAG, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rua São Francisco Xavier, PHLC, sala 220, 20550900, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ilaine.matos@gmail.com. 2. Department of Ecology, IBRAG, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rua São Francisco Xavier, PHLC, sala 220, 20550900, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Victoria Fernández; Domingo Sancho-Knapik; Paula Guzmán; José Javier Peguero-Pina; Luis Gil; George Karabourniotis; Mohamed Khayet; Costas Fasseas; José Alejandro Heredia-Guerrero; Antonio Heredia; Eustaquio Gil-Pelegrín Journal: Plant Physiol Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 8.340
Authors: Gregory R Goldsmith; Lisa Patrick Bentley; Alexander Shenkin; Norma Salinas; Benjamin Blonder; Roberta E Martin; Rosa Castro-Ccossco; Percy Chambi-Porroa; Sandra Diaz; Brian J Enquist; Gregory P Asner; Yadvinder Malhi Journal: New Phytol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 10.151