Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary parameters for the 13 woody karst species from southwestern China examined in this study. Minimum leaf water potential (Ψmin, MPa), photosynthetic rate (Pn, μmol∙m− 2∙s− 1), stomatal conductance (gs, mol∙m− 2∙s− 1), leaf specific conductivity (Kl, kg∙m− 1∙MPa− 1∙s− 1), xylem tension at 50% cavitation (Ψ50, MPa), leaf specific conductivity at noon (Klnoon, kg∙m− 1∙MPa− 1∙s− 1), loss percentage of Kl at noon (Loss, %), maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem II (Fv/Fm), and hydraulic safety margin (Margin, Mpa) were assessed for each species. Standard errors were shown in parentheses

From: Do karst woody plants control xylem tension to avoid substantial xylem cavitation in the wet season?

Species Ψ min P n g s K l Ψ 50 K lnoon a Loss a F v /F m Marginb
Alangium chinense ssp. chinense −1.50 (0.25) 10.55 (1.24) 0.38 (0.10) 6.06 (1.13) −1.08 (0.23) 1.94 67.95 0.75 (0.01) −0.42
Carpinus pubescens − 0.99 (0.32) 6.90 (2.96) 0.23 (0.08) 2.68 (0.88) −1.39 (0.15) 1.77 33.82 0.78 (0.02) 0.4
Daphniphyllum oldhami −1.12 (0.21) 4.05 (0.71) 0.11 (0.03) 0.91 (0.32) −0.62 (0.08) 0.09 89.84 0.79 (0.01) −0.5
Ficus benguetensis −1.15 (0.62) 5.12 (0.23) 0.13 (0.05) 2.17 (1.27) −0.66 (0.09) 0.42 80.68 0.80 (0.01) −0.49
Itea chinensis −0.99 (0.18) 7.46 (1.65) 0.14 (0.02) 1.40 (0.49) −2.54 (0.26) 1.38 1.39 0.76 (0.02) 1.55
Lindera communis −0.98 (0.06) 9.86 (0.53) 0.21 (0.01) 0.51 (0.21) −0.85 (0.12) 0.20 60.13 0.79 (0.02) −0.13
Lithocarpus glaber −1.08 (0.18) 9.71 (3.79) 0.17 (0.12) 1.70 (0.53) −1.57 (0.32) 1.16 31.69 0.81 (0.01) 0.49
Ligustrum lucidum −1.09 (0.16) 11.49 (1.23) 0.32 (0.15) 1.44 (0.19) −3.67 (0.60) 1.13 21.37 0.80 (0.01) 2.58
Mallotus japonicus var. floccosus −1.61 (0.23) 7.03 (0.66) 0.34 (0.12) 3.53 (0.63) −1.12 (0.12) 0.95 73.19 0.77 (0.03) −0.49
Platycarya longipes −1.07 (0.19) 10.71 (0.82) 0.31 (0.05) 2.46 (0.55) −1.50 (0.04) 1.59 35.56 0.76 (0.01) 0.43
Picrasma quassioides −1.38 (0.05) 10.49 (0.66) 0.30 (0.08) 5.60 (0.49) −0.93 (0.13) 0.20 87.84 0.77 (0.01) −0.77
Stachyurus obovatus −0.96 (0.56) 5.42 (2.09) 0.14 (0.03) 0.86 (0.19) −4.31 (0.39) 0.74 14.07 0.80 (0.02) 3.35
Sapium sebiferum −1.42 (0.31) 10.37 (1.71) 0.23 (0.02) 4.52 (0.82) −0.65 (0.08) 0.45 90.07 0.84 (0.02) −0.77
  1. a, calculated using laboratory-generated vulnerability curve and field water potential measurements.b, calculated as the difference between Ψ50 and minimum water potential