English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Key message Hygroscopicity is a crucial element of bark water storage and can reach &gt;60% of water holding capacity of bark depending on tree species 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 ( R  2  = 0.65–0.81) and decreased linearly with total porosity ( R  2  = 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.

Hygroscopic contributions to bark water storage and controls exerted by internal bark structure over water vapor absorption