loading page

Sap flux and stable isotopes of water show contrasting tree water uptake strategies in two co-occurring tropical rainforest tree species
  • Md. Shawkat I. Sohel,
  • John Herbohn,
  • Jeffrey McDonnell
Md. Shawkat I. Sohel
The University of Queensland School of Agriculture and Food Sciences - St Lucia Campus

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
John Herbohn
The University of Queensland School of Agriculture and Food Sciences - St Lucia Campus
Author Profile
Jeffrey McDonnell
University of Saskatchewan Global Institute for Water Security
Author Profile


Little is known about the short‐term dynamics of tree water use strategies particularly for neighbouring co-occurring species. Here, we quantify the high frequency changes in water sources and sap flux patterns of two commonly co-occurring tropical rainforest tree species: Dendrocnide photinophylla (Kunth; Chew) and Argyrodendron peralatum (F.M. Bailey; Edlin ex J.H. Boas). A combination of continuous sap flux measurements and hourly sampling of xylem water stable isotope composition (δDand δ 18O) were used to observe water use strategies through a 24 h transpiration cycle. Sap flux ranged from 2.82-28.50 L d -1 and was 66.67% higher in A. peralatum compare to D. photinophylla. For both tree species, sap flux increased with tree size and diurnal sap flux increase resulted in more isotopically enriched xylem water. A Bayesian Mixing Model analysis using sampled soil water isotopic composition from five soil depths from of 0 to 1 m showed that D. photinophyllaused very shallow or surface layer (0-20 cm) water, while A. peralatum sourced its water mostly from deeper in the soil profile (>20 cm). We hypothesize that these differences in species’ water consumption patterns are reated to plant water storage capacity and, wood anatomical features. Our study shows that combning xylem isotope composition and sap flux measurements can help reveal species level water use strategies—useful for improved process understanding for ecohydrological modeling.
04 Sep 2022Submitted to Ecohydrology
04 Sep 2022Submission Checks Completed
04 Sep 2022Assigned to Editor
07 Sep 2022Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
07 Sep 2022Reviewer(s) Assigned
14 Oct 2022Editorial Decision: Revise Major
28 Jan 20231st Revision Received
28 Jan 2023Submission Checks Completed
28 Jan 2023Assigned to Editor
28 Jan 2023Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
02 Feb 2023Reviewer(s) Assigned
16 Mar 2023Editorial Decision: Revise Major
22 May 20232nd Revision Received
10 Jun 2023Submission Checks Completed
10 Jun 2023Assigned to Editor
10 Jun 2023Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
26 Jun 2023Reviewer(s) Assigned
07 Jul 2023Editorial Decision: Revise Minor
17 Jul 20233rd Revision Received
17 Jul 2023Assigned to Editor
17 Jul 2023Submission Checks Completed
17 Jul 2023Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
28 Aug 2023Editorial Decision: Revise Minor