\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,greek,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{REGULATION OF LEAF WATER POTENTIAL IN TREE SPECIES OF THE
CERRADO-AMAZONIA TRANSITION IN RESPONSE TO CLIMATE SEASONALITY}



\author[1]{Halina Jancoski}%
\author[1]{Beatriz Schwantes Marimon }%
\author[2]{Marina Scalon}%
\author[3]{Fernanda Barros}%
\author[1]{Eder Carvalho}%
\author[1]{Ben Hur Marimon Junior }%
\author[4]{Rafael Oliveira}%
\author[5]{Imma Oliveras}%
\affil[1]{Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso}%
\affil[2]{Universidade Federal do Paraná}%
\affil[3]{University of Exeter}%
\affil[4]{University of Campinas}%
\affil[5]{University of Oxford School of Geography and the Environment}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{June 08, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Leaf water potential is a good indicator of tree species responses to
rainfall seasonality, allowing to better understand water stress effects
on vegetation. We investigated daily and seasonal patterns on leaf water
potentials of 21 dominant species in three distinct vegetation types
from the Cerrado-Amazonia transition to assess how they respond to
seasonal changes in water availability. We found that the variation on
leaf water potential (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}l) across species was higher in the dry compared
to the rainy season, for all vegetation types. Typical cerrado and
cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species showed similar patterns, with higher \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}l regulation
under higher VPD and lower variation in predawn \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}l (\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}pd), indicating
root access to soil water even during intense drought. In contrast,
seasonal forest species showed lower regulation under lower VPD effects
in both seasons, and higher \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}pd, indicating lower access to deep water
in the soil. These differences revealed two main groups of species:
higher \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}l regulators with a strategy isohydric occurring in both typical
cerrado (savannah) and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão (woodland), and lower \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}l regulators with
anisohydric strategy, occurring in seasonal forest. Our results suggest
that seasonal tropical forest species will become very vulnerable to
predicted increases on drought severity in the region.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


Regulation of leaf water potential in tree species of the
Cerrado-Amazonia transition in response to climate seasonality

\textbf{Halina Soares Jancoski\textsuperscript{1*}, Beatriz Schwantes
Marimon\textsuperscript{1}, Marina C. Scalon\textsuperscript{2},
Fernanda V. Barros\textsuperscript{3}, Eder Carvalho\textsuperscript{1},
Ben Hur Marimon-Junior\textsuperscript{1}, Rafael S.
Oliveira\textsuperscript{4}, Imma Oliveras\textsuperscript{5,1*}}

\textsuperscript{1} Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso,
\emph{Campus}de Nova Xavantina, Programa de P\selectlanguage{ngerman}ós-graduação em Ecologia e
Conservação, Nova Xavantina, Mato Grosso, 78690-000, Brazil

\textsuperscript{2}Programa de Pós-graduação em Ecologia e Conservação,
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, PR, 81531-990, Brazil

\textsuperscript{3}Department of Geography, College of Life and
Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, EX4 4RJ, Exeter, UK.

\textsuperscript{4}Departamento de Botânica, Universidade Estadual de
Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.

\textsuperscript{5}Environmetal Change Institute, School of Geography
and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

*Corresponding authors: Halina S. Jancoski - floramarela1@yahoo.com.br,
Imma Oliveras imma.oliveras@ouce.ox.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Leaf water potential is a good indicator of tree species responses to
rainfall seasonality, allowing to better understand water stress effects
on vegetation. We investigated daily and seasonal patterns on leaf water
potentials of 21 dominant species in three distinct vegetation types
from the Cerrado-Amazonia transition to assess how they respond to
seasonal changes in water availability. We found that the variation on
leaf water potential (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}) across species was higher in
the dry compared to the rainy season, for all vegetation types. Typical
cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species showed similar patterns, with higher
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation under higher VPD and lower variation in
predawn \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}), indicating root
access to soil water even during intense drought. In contrast, seasonal
forest species showed lower regulation under lower VPD effects in both
seasons, and higher \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}, indicating lower access to
deep water in the soil. These differences revealed two main groups of
species: higher \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulators with a strategy isohydric
occurring in both typical cerrado (savanna) and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão (woodland), and
lower \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulators with anisohydric strategy, occurring
in seasonal forest. Our results suggest that seasonal tropical forest
species will become very vulnerable to predicted increases on drought
severity in the region.

\textbf{Keywords:} savanna, Neotropics, tropical forest, isohydric,
anisohydric, seasonality, plant hydraulics, vapour pressure deficit,
climate change, plant traits.

Introduction

In the tropics, species distribution occurs along gradients of water
availability, affected by their resistance to drought (Aguirre-Guti\selectlanguage{ngerman}érrez
et al., 2019). Thus, a marked seasonality, with well-defined periods of
drought and rain, will favour plants with traits and ecological
strategies that enhance survival under such circumstances (Franco,
Rossatto, Silva, \& Ferreira, 2014). Hence, plants occurring in highly
seasonal habitats will display specialized mechanisms for water
acquisition, maintenance and use, to guarantee a continuous flow, with
strategies that allow homeostasis in hydraulic functioning (Oliveira et
al., 2014).

The most common explanation of how hydraulic functioning occurs in
plants is the unidirectional movement (i.e., the continuous
soil-plant-atmosphere), where water flow occurs from less to more
negative water potentials, establishing a difference of potentials
through a pressure gradient (Oliveira et al., 2014). The leaf water
potential (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}) reflects the tension in which the xylem
transports water, and it is a crucial variable to check the water status
of the plant at a given time, being influenced by leaf transpiration
processes, which is determined by the atmospheric evaporative demand
(Oliveira, Dawson, Burgess, \& Nepstad, 2005; Palhares, Franco, \&
Zaidan, 2010) and by the water availability in the soil (Jones, 1998).
If there are severe changes in these mechanisms, such as limited water
availability and high evaporative demand, hydraulic failure (i.e.,
cavitation of the xylem vessels) can occur interrupting water transport,
and eventually could lead to the plant death (McDowell, 2011). Thus, a
higher vapour pressure deficit (VPD) during the dry season expose plants
to more stressful conditions (Prado, Wenhui, Cardoza Rojas, \& Souza,
2004), which require effective mechanisms to avoid excessive water loss
and regulate plant water transport, which reflect mainly on stomatal
regulation process (Mart\selectlanguage{ngerman}ínez\selectlanguage{english}-Vilalta, Poyatos, Aguade, Retana, \&
Mencuccini, 2014). Water availability in the soil directly influences
this control; roots access water in the soil, and their hydraulic
conductivity will be a function of the daily transpiration of the plant
(Meinzer et al., 1999). Based on the mechanism of transpiration
regulation over time, there is a continuum of variation between two
extreme strategies: isohydric species that adjust their stomatal opening
to avoid significant drops on \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}, and anisohydric
species with lower stomatal control and higher daily and annual
variation in the \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (Jones, 1998; Mart\selectlanguage{ngerman}ínez\selectlanguage{english}-Vilalta \&
Garcia\selectlanguage{english}-Forner, 2017; Tardieu \& Simonneau, 1998).

Theory suggests that \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} at predawn reflects the water
potential of the soil (Tardieu \& Simonneau, 1998) and therefore, its
variation during different periods of the year can be used as an
estimate (proxy) of root depth, i.e., the range of water acquired by
roots (Brum, Teodoro, Abrah\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão, \& Oliveira, 2017; Scholz, Bucci, Arias,
Meinzer, \& Goldstein, 2012). Thus, plants with shallow roots may show
more negative values of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} in the dry season as the dry
season, while plants with deep roots would maintain less negative
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} values (Scholz et al., 2012).

The Cerrado-Amazonia transition, the world's largest savanna-forest
transition, has a strongly seasonal climate, with a wide variety of
vegetation types, ranging from savannas (e.g., typical cerrado and rocky
cerrado), characterized by open environments with high temperature and
solar radiation, to closed-canopy environments (e.g., cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão, gallery
forest and semi-deciduous seasonal forest), with higher moisture and the
presence of Amazonian species (Marimon, Lima, Duarte, Chieregatto, \&
Ratter, 2006; Marimon et al., 2014). Some studies suggested that, in
Brazilian savannas (Cerrado), water availability in the soil is not a
limiting factor (Franco \& Lüttge, 2002) but the higher VPD imposes a
strong limitation on transpiration (Franco \& Lüttge, 2002; Meinzer et
al., 1999). Some authors suggest that, although several woody species
from Cerrado have deep roots and can access the water table throughout
the year (Bucci et al., 2008; Oliveira et al., 2005), the simple access
to underground water reserves does not ensure they extract enough water
to compensate for the high evaporative demand during prolonged droughts
(Franco, Matsubara, \& Orthen, 2007). On the other hand, in forests
formations, stomata tend to show high sensitivity with the increase in
the atmospheric evaporative demand (Cunningham, 2004). However, forest
plants have other hydraulic mechanisms to deal with high VPD, through
continuous water absorption in the soil (Juárez, Hodnett, Fu, Goulden,
\& Von Randow, 2007; Oliveira et al., 2005). Still, we do not have
enough information on how \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation occurs in trees
along the Cerrado-Amazonia transition.

Hence, savanna and forest formations of the Cerrado-Amazonia transition
provide a good opportunity to investigate how species from different
vegetation types respond to limiting access to water. These species are
under the influence of pronounced climate seasonality, high
temperatures, and marked variations in humidity, which can trigger a
water deficit gradient during the year (Marimon et al., 2020; Peixoto et
al., 2018). In this highly seasonal region, where the rainy and dry
seasons are well defined (INMET, 2018), \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation
may be a distinct trait reflecting ecological strategies from species in
different vegetation types. Based on the premise that physiological
activity of the root system and leaf stomatal control depend on the
balance between the atmospheric evaporative demand and the water
availability in the soil (Oliveira et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2005;
Palhares et al., 2010), we set out to test the following hypotheses: (i)
Different vegetation types will show distinct patterns of
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation, which will depend on daily and seasonal
VPD. Thus, we expect savanna environments (typical cerrado), which occur
under higher variation in temperature, air humidity, and, consequently,
VPD (Prado et al., 2004), species will be more isohydric, as a strategy
to prevent water loss. In contrast, in forest environments, species will
be anisohydric with higher tolerance to environmental changes; (ii)
typical cerrado will show more and forest will show less interspecific
variation in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation. In addition, we expect that,
in all vegetation types, \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} variations will be
associated with the minimum \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} and the variation of
predawn \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (root proxy; \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}).

Material and methods

\subsection*{Study area}

{\label{study-area}}

The studied areas are located in southern Amazonia, in the transition
between Cerrado and Amazonia biomes, state of Mato Grosso, Nova
Xavantina municipality (Fig. 1). The climate is Aw, according to the
K\selectlanguage{ngerman}öppen's classification (Kottek, Grieser, Beck, Rudolf, \& Rubel, 2006),
with well-defined wet (October to March) and dry seasons (April to
September), annual rainfall around 1500 mm, and average annual
temperature of 25 ºC (Marimon et al., 2020). Between 2000 and 2017,
according to data provided by the National Institute of Meteorology
(conventional station of Nova Xavantina), the average annual rainfall
was 1364 mm, with a minimum of 957.1 mm (2007) and the maximum of 1858
mm (2006). The average annual temperature recorded in this period was
26.3 ºC, with the lowest average annual temperature recorded in 2003 and
2007 (18 ºC) and the highest in 2007 (34.5 ºC). Between 1997 and 2019
this region also presented a general trend of markedly increasing
temperature and declining precipitation, with more negative maximum
cumulative water deficits (MCWD) values (Marimon et al., 2020).

Despite the relatively small spatial scale (25 km), there is a huge
difference in vegetation types in the study area, with distinct species
composition and vegetation structure comprising typical savanna and
forest formations (Marimon et al., 2014). We assessed three vegetation
types: savanna (typical cerrado - STC), transitional community (cerradão
- SCF) and forest (semi-deciduous seasonal forest - SSF). According to
Ribeiro and Walter (1998), the typical cerrado is a cerrado\emph{stricto
sensu} subtype with predominantly arboreal-shrubby vegetation, 20 to
50\% of tree cover, and tree heights between 3 and 6 m. The cerradão is
characterized by mostly continuous canopy with xeromorphic aspects,
being considered an ecotonal community (Ratter, Richards, Argent, \&
Gifford, 1973), with species (e.g., \emph{Hirtella glandulosa} and
\emph{Emmotum nitens} ) that characterize the transition between forests
and savannas on the southern Amazonian border (Marimon et al., 2006). At
last, the semi-deciduous seasonal forest (hereafter forest) is
characterized by tall and closed canopy vegetation and well-defined
vertical strata (Askew, Moffatt, Montgomery, \& Searl, 1970; Marimon et
al., 2006). The typical cerrado and cerradão show Red-Yellow Latosols,
dystrophic, acidic, and alic soils (Marimon-Junior \& Haridasan, 2005),
and the semi-deciduous seasonal forest shows Plintosols (Marimon et al.,
2014).

Typical cerrado and cerradão occur in the Bacaba Municipal Park (14°41'
S; 52°20' W), and the forest is located at Vera Cruz Farm (14º49'27.1''
S; 52º10'2.9'' W) 25 km away from the other two (Fig. 1). We carried out
the study in 1-ha permanent plots subdivided into 25 subplots (20 x 20 m
each), which comprise the PELD/CNPq project (\emph{Transição
Cerrado-Amazônia: bases ecológicas e socioambientais para a conservação}
, Proc. \# 403725/2012-7 and 441244/2016-5), which are also part of the
Amazon Network of Forest Inventories (RAINFOR; typical cerrado: NXV-01;
cerradão: NXV-02 and forest: VCR-02).

To assess the hydraulic traits we selected the seven most representative
species in each area, which showed the largest basal area contribution
in the community, comprising a total of 21 species. In the typical
cerrado, we choose adult trees with at least 5 cm in diameter at breast
height (DBH), and in cerradão and forest, we selected trees with \selectlanguage{english}[?]10 cm
of DBH.

\selectlanguage{greek}\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{Measurements of leaf water potential
(Ψ\textsubscript{l})}{Measurements of leaf water potential (Ψl)}}\selectlanguage{english}

{\label{measurements-of-leaf-water-potential-ux3c8l}}

In August 2016 (peak of the dry season) and January, February and March
2017 (rainy season), we measured the \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} in two leaves of
five individuals from each species, using a pressure chamber (PMS
Instruments Co., Albany, USA; model: 1505D- EXP; Scholander, Bradstreet,
Hemmingsen, and Hammel (1965)). Measurements were taken at four
different times during the day: predawn (0400-0600), early-morning
(0700-0900), late-morning (1000-1130), and at midday (1200-1400 hours)
in all vegetation types. We selected healthy and mature leaves, exposed
to the sun. We also measured the temperature and relative humidity with
a portable weather station (Kestrel 3500) in the vicinity of trees and
where the leaves were collected. With these data, we calculated the
Vapour Pressure Deficit (VPD) in each vegetation type (Abtew \& Melesse,
2013).

We determined the relationship between predawn (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}),
and midday (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}) leaf water potential, for all species
and vegetation types, to access \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation. We used
the linear model proposed by (Mart\selectlanguage{ngerman}ínez\selectlanguage{english}-Vilalta et al., 2014),
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md} = \selectlanguage{greek}Δ \selectlanguage{english}+ ? * \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{s}, where
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{s} is the soil water potential, which we considered to
be similar to \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} (Tardieu \& Simonneau, 1998); ?
represents the slope angle and is a measure of the transpiration
sensitivity to changes in water availability. For each species, we
analysed this relationship using the model
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}\textasciitilde{} \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} +
(\selectlanguage{greek}\textsubscript{Ψpd}\selectlanguage{english} \textbar{} individuals).

Individuals of each species were included as random and fixed effects in
the model to estimate the values of slopes (?) and intercepts (\selectlanguage{greek}Λ\selectlanguage{english}) of the
specific relationships between \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md} and
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} for each species. We measured each set of
individuals of a given species under the same environmental conditions.
Next, we classified species as strict isohydric if the ? value and its
confidence interval (CI; defined as ? \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1) included zero (\selectlanguage{english}? = 0), strict
anisohydric if the CI of \selectlanguage{english}? included 1 (\selectlanguage{english}? = 1), partially isohydric if CI
did not include 0 and 1 (0 \textless{} \selectlanguage{english}? \textless{}1), and extreme
anisohydric if CI did not include 1 (\selectlanguage{english}? \textgreater{} 1)
(Martinez\selectlanguage{english}-Vilalta et al., 2014). For each species and communities, we
also inferred the control of water potential through
\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}, which is the difference between the minimum
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} at midday in the rainy season and the minimum
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} in the dry season (Mart\selectlanguage{ngerman}ínez\selectlanguage{english}-Vilalta \& Garcia\selectlanguage{english}-Forner,
2017). We also used the variation in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} (root proxy;
\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}), calculated by the difference between
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} in the rainy season and dry season, to estimate the
root depth of species in relation to the water availability in the soil
(Scholz et al., 2012). For this latter step, we used the modular values
of the deltas.

\subsection*{}

{\label{section}}

\subsection*{Data analysis}

{\label{data-analysis}}

We analysed leaf water potential regulation at two levels: species and
vegetation types. We adopted the terminology of maximum water potential
value (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{max}) for the least negative potentials and the
minimum water potential value (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min}) for the most
negative potentials of the day. We performed all analyses in the R 4.0.1
environment (R Core Team 2020) and considered
\emph{p-value}\textless{}0.05.

We tested whether the dependent variable \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} varied
between species and among the four different periods of the day assessed
in each season (dry and rainy). We also investigated whether
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} and other hydraulic traits (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min},
\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}, and \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}) varied among the
vegetation types (typical cerrado, cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão, and semi-deciduous seasonal
forest) in different seasons (dry and rainy). For the analyses, we used
Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test, followed by the Dunn test as
a\emph{post-hoc} analysis, since data did not follow normality
assumptions for parametric tests. We used \emph{plyr} , \emph{dunn.test}
, and \emph{FSA} packages (Dunn, 1964; Wickham, 2011). The weighted
average for each attribute (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min}, \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd},
\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md} and ?) in the vegetation types was calculated
through weight the relative dominance in the basal area of the species,
i.e., we used the relative dominance - proportion basal area specific of
the species by the sum of the basal areas of all species in the
community (Shepherd, 2010). We used the \emph{weights} , \emph{quantreg}
, and \emph{Hmisc} packages (R Core Team 2020).

We calculated and compared the coefficient of variance of the
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} and other traits (?, \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min},
\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}, and \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}) between vegetation types
in the dry and rainy seasons. We applied the Mood test (non-parametric
data) to compare the \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} variance between vegetation
types and used F-test, from the \emph{stats} package (R Core Team 2020),
for other attributes. We applied a linear regression analysis to relate
the \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} values of species to the vapour pressure deficit
(VPD) in each vegetation type in both seasons. We also compared linear
regression curves for the bi-variate relationship of
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}and VPD between different vegetation types
(\emph{Standardised Major Axis} - SMA), using the \emph{smatr} package
(Warton, Duursma, Falster, \& Taskinen, 2012), for log\textsubscript{10}
transformed variables.

Results

\selectlanguage{greek}\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{Effect of seasonality on
Ψ\textsubscript{l}}{Effect of seasonality on Ψl}}\selectlanguage{english}

{\label{effect-of-seasonality-on-ux3c8l}}

We found a broad variation in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} among species and
vegetation types (Table 1). The \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min} varied from -2.8
MPa (\emph{Qualea parvilfora} ) to -0.9 MPa (\emph{Eriotheca gracilipes}
) in the dry season. In contrast, \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{max} varied from -0.24
MPa (\emph{Guapira graciliflora} ) to -0.1 MPa (\emph{Eriotheca
gracilipes} ), in the rainy season. Regarding communities, on average,
forest vegetation showed the lowest values, both for
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{max} (-0.3 MPa, rainy season) and
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min}(-2.8 MPa, dry season).

The \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} of the 21 species varied according to the dry
(Q\textsuperscript{2} = 179.1, df = 19, \emph{p} \textless{}0.001) and
rainy seasons (Q\textsuperscript{2} = 39.2, df = 19,
\emph{p}\textless{}0.001) and also among the different times of the day
(dry season: Q\textsuperscript{2} = 82.3, df = 3, \emph{p}
\textless{}0.001; rainy season: Q\textsuperscript{2} = 250.7, df = 3,
\emph{p}\textless{}0.001). In the dry season, we recorded a significant
interspecific difference in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} values for all vegetation
types (typical cerrado: Q\textsuperscript{2} = 51.7, df = 6,
\emph{p}\textless{}0.001; cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão: Q\textsuperscript{2} = 56.4, df =
6,\emph{p} \textless{}0.001; and forest: Q\textsuperscript{2} = 3.5, df
= 6, \emph{p} \textless{}0.001). On the other hand, in the rainy season,
only cerradão species differed from each other in relation to
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (Q\textsuperscript{2} = 14.15, df: 6; \emph{p} =
0.02).

In both dry and rainy seasons, \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} values of the typical
cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species were similar and differed from the forest
(\emph{p} \textless{}0.05 for all tests, Fig. 2). In the dry season, the
forest species showed the lowest mean values of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} at
all times of the day, with a continuous decrease from predawn to midday
(Figs. 2, 3). In contrast, in the rainy season, \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}values
in the forest species remained higher compared to those of other
vegetation types (Fig. 2; forest and typical cerrado - dry season: Z =
4.48; \emph{p} = 0.00 and rainy season: Z = -3.94; \emph{p} = 0.00; and
forest and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão - dry season: Z = 1.97; \emph{p} = 0.00 and rainy
season: Z = 3.89; \emph{p} = 0.00). Regarding the
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}variability, we noticed that vegetation types were
more similar in the dry season, whereas, in the rainy season, we
recorded a higher variability for the typical cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão
(Table 2).

We observed a distinct regulation of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} in the forest
species compared to other vegetation types, and species from cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão
and typical cerrado had relatively similar hydraulic strategies (Table 2
and Figs. 2, 3). The \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min} also differed among vegetation
types (Q\textsuperscript{2} = 11.42; df: 2, \emph{p} = 0.003) and the
lowest values were recorded for the forest species. A similar pattern
was recorded for the \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}, which also differed among
vegetation types (Q\textsuperscript{2} = 16.92, df = 2,
\emph{p}\textless{}0.001). Considering \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} as an
estimate of root depth (proxy), we found that forest species showed
higher \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} than those in the typical cerrado
(Q\textsuperscript{2} = 3.35; \emph{p} = 0.00) and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão
(Q\textsuperscript{2} = 3.72; \emph{p} = 0.00) according to the Dunn
test (Fig. 3).

\selectlanguage{greek}\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{Regulation of
Ψ\textsubscript{l}}{Regulation of Ψl}}\selectlanguage{english}

{\label{regulation-of-ux3c8l}}

We observed that 47\% of the species are partially isohydric, and 43\%
are extreme anisohydric (Fig. 4). \emph{Eriotheca gracilipes} was the
only strict isohydric species (10\%), which showed the same pattern in
both typical cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão. When we separated by vegetation
types, we observed that 57\% of typical cerrado and cerradão species are
partially isohydric, whereas most forest species are extreme anisohydric
(71\%). We also found that all deciduous species are partially
isohydric, while evergreen and brevideciduous species vary among
vegetation types (Table 1). The forest species, \emph{Cheiloclinium
cognatum} , and the cerrado and cerradão species, \emph{Eriotheca
gracilipes} , represent the extremes in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation
(Fig. 4).

The \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md} differed in all vegetation types
(Q\textsuperscript{2} = 26.26; \emph{p} \textless{}0.001), being the
forest with less regulation (Table 3). Therefore, almost all species in
the forest showed the same pattern of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation for
? and \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}, as well as the highest variation values,
indicating a lower control of water use and lower variability in the
\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}.

The cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species showed higher coefficients of variance in all
traits (\selectlanguage{english}?, \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min}, and \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}), except for
\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}, that was higher in the typical cerrado. However,
there were no statistical differences in the coefficients of variation
between all vegetation types (Tables 3 and S1).

\selectlanguage{greek}\subsection*{\texorpdfstring{Effect of the vapor pressure deficit (VPD)
on the leaf water potential
(Ψ\textsubscript{l})}{Effect of the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) on the leaf water potential (Ψl)}}\selectlanguage{english}

{\label{effect-of-the-vapor-pressure-deficit-vpd-on-the-leaf-water-potential-ux3c8l}}

The VPD differed among vegetation types but was higher in the dry season
in all areas (Tables 4 and S2), with a significant negative correlation
between VPD and \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (Fig. 5). The forest showed the
lowest \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} values and the lowest VPD amplitude in both
seasons (Fig. 5 and Table 6).

In the dry season, typical cerrado VPD was 20\% higher than that
recorded in the cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão, and approximately 30\% higher than that of the
forest (VPD\textsubscript{typical cerrado} \textgreater{}
VPD\textsubscript{cerradão} \textgreater{} VPD\textsubscript{forest}),
which confirms that species are subject to a higher atmospheric water
demand during this season in the savanna vegetation (Table 4). We also
observed a direct relationship between the decrease in
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} and the increase in VPD; the cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão showed
environmental variations more similar to typical cerrado than to forest,
which showed the lowest \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} in the dry season (Fig. 5 and
S2).

Discussion

Our results showed different strategies for water use and access among
species and vegetation types in the Brazilian Cerrado-Amazonia
transition. We observed differences between the hydraulic functioning of
forest species in relation to typical cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species,
which tended to show stronger leaf water potential regulation (isohydric
strategy) than forest species (anisohydric strategy). We also found that
cerradão, the transitional community, which is considered to be
floristically closer to forests than savannas (Morandi et al., 2016),
showed hydraulic traits and environmental conditions more similar to the
savanna (typical cerrado) than forest.

\subsection*{}

{\label{section-1}}

\subsection*{Hydraulic functioning}

{\label{hydraulic-functioning}}

We found that different intensities in water deficit across vegetation
types determines different community-level patterns in the strategies of
water use and access. We expected that main difference in hydraulic
traits would occur between species from more contrasting vegetation
types, typical cerrado and semi-deciduous seasonal forest, and that
species from cerradão, which in our study area represents transitional
vegetation between cerrado and forest, since ther are no marked
differences in soil fertility (Marimon-Junior \& Haridasan, 2005),would
show intermediate strategies of water use. However, contrary to our
expectations, we found that hydraulic traits of the cerradão species
were generally more similar to typical cerrado than to semi-deciduous
seasonal forest. We also observed that cerradão species showed a higher
amplitude of variation for all hydraulic traits assessed, which reflects
a great diversity of strategies within the species that comprise this
transitional vegetation (Marimon et al., 2006; Marimon et al., 2014;
Ratter, Ribeiro, \& Bridgewater, 1997; Ratter et al., 1973).

Regarding community-level hydraulic traits, we suggest that typical
cerrado in our study area is already in successional stage of
thickening, turning to a dense cerrado (Morandi et al., 2016; Ribeiro \&
Walter, 1998). Both typical cerrado and cerradão are geographically
close (900 m), showing similar soil parameters, topography
(Marimon-Junior \& Haridasan, 2005) and VPD, which reinforces the
similar hydraulic functioning we reported here. Topography and soil
physical characteristics are key factors in the plants hydraulic
patterns as they are related to the level of groundwater and humidity
regime that can affect plant water relations water absorption from the
soil (Villalobos\selectlanguage{english}-Vega et al., 2014).

We could separate species into two very distinct groups: the first,
composed of species from the typical cerrado and cerradao, with
strategies of higher water potential regulation, and the second,
composed of species from the forest, with lower water potential
regulation. The typical cerrado and cerradao species, most of which
characterized as partially isohydric, are exposed to higher VPD and also
better regulate and have higher \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} values. Besides, the
lower variation in the \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} (values did not decrease much
in the dry season) suggests that typical cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species
are growing with access to water in the soil (Palhares et al., 2010).

In addition, the stronger regulation of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} recorded for
typical cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species, which are subject to high
atmospheric evaporative demand (VPD), may be related to more efficient
regulation of stomatal opening, especially in response to changes in
VPD, resulting in higher water use efficiency (Franco \& Lüttge, 2002).
In such conditions, deeper roots are critical to maintain water balance
of Cerrado ecosystems (Oliveira et al., 2005), despite involving higher
maintenance costs or strict control of plant water balance (Franco et
al., 2005). For example, species such as \emph{Eriotheca
gracilipes}showed little seasonal variation in leaf water potential,
suggesting access to deep water sources through root investment. Indeed,
(Durigan, Melo, \& Brewer, 2012) showed that this particular species
invests in a main root, with approximately 2.5 m in length, without many
fine roots.

Forest species showed a lower regulation of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}, with
higher drop in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} and higher \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}, which
might indicate shallower roots and less access to the water in the soil.
Thus, these species might have higher transpiration rates, probably due
to low stomatal control, both in dry and rainy seasons, which might help
explaining the observed steep decrease in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} in this
study, thus having a more acquisitive strategy in terms of carbon gain
and less conservativism on safety strategies. These strategies might
also indicate a mechanism for maintaining leaf temperature and reducing
the negative effect of VPD (Tardieu \& Simonneau, 1998). Regarding water
availability in the soil, even though root depth estimates were
considered shallow and with limited access to deep soil layers, they
might compensate it through a more efficient water absorption capacity
(Butler et al., 2013). According to these authors, the water absorption
by surface root area increases with tree diameter in species that
occurred in our study areas. They showed that typical cerrado species
showed lower values of the root area absorption index (0.03
m\textsuperscript{2} m\textsuperscript{-2}) than cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão (0.07
m\textsuperscript{2} m\textsuperscript{-2}) and forest (0.11
m\textsuperscript{2} m\textsuperscript{-2}), which showed higher
efficiency in the absorption capacity by surface root area.

Thus, forest species showed a less conservative stomatal regulation
behaviour (anisohydric), characterized by open stomata and higher
photosynthetic rates for long periods, even with a decrease in
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (Sade, Gebremedhin, \& Moshelion, 2012). Therefore,
we believe that the lowest VPD values recorded in the forest provide a
mild to moderate environment under abiotic stress that directly
influences plants and their capacity in the face of climate seasonality
(Sade et al., 2012).

\subsection*{Interspecific variability in hydraulic
functioning}

{\label{interspecific-variability-in-hydraulic-functioning}}

The differences in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} among species suggest a
substantial interspecific variation in hydraulic functioning regulation
of the different vegetation types. Species-level variations in hydraulic
traits depend on the access to water in the soil and atmospheric
evaporative demand, which are the main environmental drivers that
influence plant hydraulic functioning, regulating gas exchange (Buckley
\& Mott, 2013). Thus, within the same vegetation type, we found species
displaying different strategies; cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species with higher
(\emph{Eriotheca gracilipes} ) or lower (\emph{Tapirira guianensis} )
regulation of leaf water potential; typical cerrado species with an
estimate of high (\emph{Euplassa inaequalis} ) or limited (\emph{Guapira
graciliflora} ) access to deeper layers of the soil; and forest species
with support of higher (\emph{Chaetocarpus} e\emph{chinocarpus}
,\emph{Ephedranthus parviflorus} ) or lower (\emph{Brosimum pubescens} )
tension in which the xylem transports water.

These different hydraulic strategies also seem to involve other
structural characteristics (e.g., anatomical and morphological; Sperry,
Meinzer, and McCulloh (2008)). In this case, the variability of
morpho-functional traits in plant communities, at a local and global
scale, provides evidence that species efficiently share resources (Brum
et al., 2017; Meinzer et al., 1999). Thus, the variation in water
availability is a dimension of the species niche, which represents a
complex resource condition intrinsically connected to the availability
of other resources (Araya et al., 2011). Our results also indicated that
the differences in hydraulic functioning among species characterize
responses that depend on climate seasonality, since all evaluated
vegetation types are subject to similar seasonality effects, especially
in the dry season, when the greatest VPD amplitude occurs. In this case,
plant and environment water availability and the dynamics of
soil-plant-atmosphere interaction affect the species responses to biotic
and abiotic stress (Sade et al., 2012).

Although we have recorded different water use and acquisition
strategies, forest species displayed a similar pattern for most
hydraulic traits, showing lower \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} values in both dry
and rainy seasons. This strategy allows plants to function in a more
negative \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} range and regulate it according to the VPD,
that is, a typically anisohydric strategy (McDowell et al., 2008). On
the other hand, typical cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species showed more
variability in hydraulic traits, which are in agreement with theoretical
models that predict that a limitation of water resources in arid or
savanna environments would select different strategies for water use and
conservation (Meinzer et al., 1999). Hence, these different hydraulic
strategies may favor a higher species and functional diversity,
especially where strong environmental filters are more evident, such is
the case in the typical cerrado and cerradão (Neyret et al., 2016).

\subsection*{Hydraulic traits among vegetation types in the face of
climate
change}

{\label{hydraulic-traits-among-vegetation-types-in-the-face-of-climate-change}}

Hydraulic characteristics may reflect the evolutionary history of
species that shape their performance over the years under the influence
of environmental conditions (Reich \& Cornelissen, 2014), which was
evidenced in the present study through different responses given by
savanna and forest species. Hence, in case extreme drought events become
more intense and frequent in this zone of ecological tension/stress on
the southern Amazonia, as predicted (Marimon et al., 2014; Rifai et al.,
2018), with deregulation in the mechanism of water demand and supply in
the environment (increase in VPD and decrease in soil moisture), more
resistant species and vegetation types, as well as species more
vulnerable to drought events, can emerge (McDowell, 2011). In any case,
we know that savanna vegetation is mainly composed by species with
higher \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation that preserve water transport and
help preventing hydraulic failures (e.g., \emph{Guapira graciliflora} ),
even at the expense of reduction in the carbon balance and a possible
overheating caused by photosynthetic damage (McDowell et al., 2008). On
the other hand, forest species showed lower regulation of
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (e.g., \emph{Cheiloclinium cognatum} ) and might be
susceptible to hydraulic failures (McDowell, 2011; McDowell et al.,
2008), especially in extreme drought situations, although hydraulic
failaure will also depend on their resistance to xylem embolism. Thus,
this may be an opportunistic and risky behaviour that under conditions
of minimal or moderate stress can be beneficial. Still, it may be
disadvantageous under intense or prolonged stress conditions (Sade et
al., 2012).

Having high or low hydraulic regulation can bring severe implications
for plants. Some studies have shown that, in isohydric species, xylem
vessels embolism is more frequent, since the \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{lmin} is
close to P50 (i.e., \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} value in which the stem hydraulic
conductivity is reduced by half), with a small safety margin (McDowell,
2011). On the other hand, these authors also noted that anisohydric
species have higher safety margins because they maintain xylem tension
above the water potential values that usually cause embolism. In this
case, the safety margin can be an important characteristic with great
interespecific variation. Safety margin variability at the community
level might be favoured by natural selection in environments with
seasonal water restriction, since the duration and intensity of the dry
seasons provide different responses in the functioning of plant
hydraulics and carbon assimilation (McDowell et al., 2008).

Conclusion

The hydraulic functioning of the species within the three studied
vegetation types differed in response to the marked climate seasonality
of the region. Species from the typical cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão showed
relatively similar hydraulic strategies, with higher
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}regulation under more intense VPD effects. On the
other hand, forest species showed lower \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} regulation,
suggesting less access to deep water, and under lower effects of VPD.
These characteristics allowed us to propose two different species
groups: one with higher regulation and isohydric behavior (typical
cerrado and cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão species) and the other with lower regulation and
anisohydric behavior (semi-deciduous seasonal forest species), both
under current climate conditions.

In case drought events become more intense and frequent in this region,
forest species, which have lower hydraulic regulation, may be more
vulnerable. However, to better understand drought resistance conditions
of species we need to consider more drought-resistance traits, such as
the critical xylem water potential and hydraulic safety margins, both
integrated with the regulation attributes of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}. Our
study described key hydraulic traits and how they vary throughout the
year for the major vegetation types that occur in the transition of the
two largest South American biomes. It also advanced the knowledge of the
hydraulic functioning patterns of this unique and vulnerable region, to
better understand species and community-level hydraulic responses in a
future scenario of more frequent and more extreme drought events.

\textbf{ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}

We are thankful to F. Elias for support in figure preparation. This
project was funded by CAPES Science Without Borders grant 223211/2014 to
IO. BHMJ and BSM were supported by the PELD/CNPq project
(\selectlanguage{ngerman}\emph{Transição Cerrado-Amazônia: bases ecológicas e socioambientais
para a conservação} , Proc. \# 403725/2012-7 and 441244/2016-5). MCS was
supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from CAPES.

\textbf{Author contributions}

IO, HJ, RSO, MS, BSM, BHMJ designed idea, IO secured funding and BSM,
BHMJ provided logistical support, HS, EC \& MS collected data, HS
analysed data with support from IO, FB, MS and RSO, HS wrote the first
draft of the manuscript with IO, MS and BSM data and all authors
provided comments in the final draft of the manuscript.

References

Abtew, W., \& Melesse, A. (2013). Vapor pressure calculation
methods\emph{Evaporation and evapotranspiration} (pp. 53-62): Springer.

Aguirre\selectlanguage{english}-Gutierrez, J., Oliveras, I., Rifai, S., Fauset, S., Adu\selectlanguage{english}-Bredu,
S., Affum\selectlanguage{english}-Baffoe, K., . . . Hubau, W. (2019). Drier tropical forests are
susceptible to functional changes in response to a long\selectlanguage{english}-term
drought.\emph{Ecology Letters, 22} (5), 855-865.

Araya, Y. N., Silvertown, J., Gowing, D. J., McConway, K. J., Peter
Linder, H., \& Midgley, G. (2011). A fundamental, eco\selectlanguage{english}-hydrological basis
for niche segregation in plant communities. \emph{New Phytologist, 189}
(1), 253-258.

Askew, G., Moffatt, D., Montgomery, R., \& Searl, P. (1970).
Interrelationships of soils and vegetation in the savanna-forest
boundary zone of North-Eastern Mato Grosso. \emph{The Geographical
Journal, 136} (3), 370-376.

Brum, M., Teodoro, G. S., Abrahao, A., \& Oliveira, R. S. (2017).
Coordination of rooting depth and leaf hydraulic traits defines
drought-related strategies in the campos rupestres, a tropical montane
biodiversity hotspot. \emph{Plant and Soil, 420} (1-2), 467-480.

Bucci, S. J., Scholz, F. G., Goldstein, G., Hoffmann, W. A., Meinzer, F.
C., Franco, A. C., . . . Miralles-Wilhelm, F. (2008). Controls on stand
transpiration and soil water utilization along a tree density gradient
in a Neotropical savanna. \emph{Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
148} (6-7), 839-849.

Buckley, T. N., \& Mott, K. A. (2013). Modelling stomatal conductance in
response to environmental factors. \emph{Plant, Cell \& Environment, 36}
(9), 1691-1699.

Butler, A., Marimon-Junior, B., Maracahipes, L., Marimon, B. S.,
Silverio, D. V., Oliveira, E., . . . Meir, P. (2013). Absorbing roots
areas and transpiring leaf areas at the tropical forest and savanna
boundary in Brazil: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Cunningham, S. C. (2004). Stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure
deficit of temperate and tropical evergreen rainforest trees of
Australia. \emph{Trees, 18} (4), 399-407.

Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank
sums.\emph{Technometrics, 6} (3), 241-252.

Durigan, G., Melo, A. C. G., \& Brewer, J. S. (2012). The root to shoot
ratio of trees from open-and closed-canopy cerrado in south-eastern
Brazil. \emph{Plant Ecology \& Diversity, 5} (3), 333-343.

Franco, A. C., Bustamante, M., Caldas, L. S., Goldstein, G., Meinzer, F.
C., Kozovits, A. R., . . . Coradin, V. T. R. (2005). Leaf functional
traits of Neotropical savanna trees in relation to seasonal water
deficit. \emph{Trees-Structure and Function, 19} (3), 326-335.

Franco, A. C., \& Luttge, U. (2002). Midday depression in savanna trees:
coordinated adjustments in photochemical efficiency, photorespiration,
CO2 assimilation and water use efficiency. \emph{Oecologia, 131} (3),
356-365.

Franco, A. C., Matsubara, S., \& Orthen, B. (2007). Photoinhibition,
carotenoid composition and the co-regulation of photochemical and
non-photochemical quenching in neotropical savanna trees. \emph{Tree
Physiology, 27} (5), 717-725.

Franco, A. C., Rossatto, D. R., Silva, L. C. R., \& Ferreira, C. S.
(2014). Cerrado vegetation and global change: the role of functional
types, resource availability and disturbance in regulating plant
community responses to rising CO2 levels and climate
warming.\emph{Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology, 26} (1),
19-38.

INMET. Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia.
http://www.inmet.gov.br/portal. Retrieved May 10, 2018.

Jones, H. G. (1998). Stomatal control of photosynthesis and
transpiration. \emph{Journal of Experimental Botany} , 387-398.

Juarez, R. I. N., Hodnett, M. G., Fu, R., Goulden, M. L., \& Von Randow,
C. (2007). Control of dry season evapotranspiration over the Amazonian
forest as inferred from observations at a southern Amazon forest
site.\emph{Journal of Climate, 20} (12), 2827-2839.

Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., \& Rubel, F. (2006).
World map of the Koppen-Geiger climate classification
updated.\emph{Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15} (3), 259-263.

Marimon-Junior, B. H., \& Haridasan, M. (2005). Comparacao da vegetacao
arborea e caracteristicas edaficas de um cerradao e um cerrado sensu
strictoem areas adjacentes sobre solo distrofico no leste de Mato
Grosso, Brasil. \emph{Acta Bot. Brasilica, 19} , 913-926.

Marimon, B., Lima, E. D. S., Duarte, T., Chieregatto, L., \& Ratter, J.
(2006). Observations on the vegetation of northeastern Mato Grosso,
Brazil. IV. An analysis of the Cerrado--Amazonian Forest
ecotone.\emph{Edinburgh Journal of Botany, 63} (2-3), 323-341.

Marimon, B., Marimon-Junior, B. H., Feldpausch, T. R., Oliveira-Santos,
C., Mews, H. A., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., . . . Maracahipes, L. (2014).
Disequilibrium and hyperdynamic tree turnover at the forest--cerrado
transition zone in southern Amazonia. \emph{Plant Ecology \& Diversity,
7} (1-2), 281-292.

Marimon, B., Oliveira-Santos, C., Marimon-Junior, B. H., Elias, F., de
Oliveira, E. A., Morandi, P. S., . . . Feldpausch, T. R. (2020). Drought
generates large, long-term changes in tree and liana regeneration in a
monodominant Amazon forest. \emph{Plant Ecology} , 1-15.

Martinez\selectlanguage{english}-Vilalta, J., \& Garcia\selectlanguage{english}-Forner, N. (2017). Water potential
regulation, stomatal behaviour and hydraulic transport under drought:
deconstructing the iso/anisohydric concept. \emph{Plant, Cell \&
Environment, 40} (6), 962-976.

Martinez\selectlanguage{english}-Vilalta, J., Poyatos, R., Aguade, D., Retana, J., \&
Mencuccini, M. (2014). A new look at water transport regulation in
plants. \emph{New Phytologist, 204} (1), 105-115.

McDowell, N. G. (2011). Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, carbon
metabolism, and vegetation mortality. \emph{Plant Physiology, 155} (3),
1051-1059.

McDowell, N. G., Pockman, W. T., Allen, C. D., Breshears, D. D., Cobb,
N., Kolb, T., . . . Williams, D. G. (2008). Mechanisms of plant survival
and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others
succumb to drought? \emph{New Phytologist, 178} (4), 719-739.

Meinzer, F., Goldstein, G., Franco, A., Bustamante, M., Igler, E.,
Jackson, P., . . . Rundel, P. (1999). Atmospheric and hydraulic
limitations on transpiration in Brazilian cerrado woody
species.\emph{Functional Ecology, 13} (2), 273-282.

Morandi, P., Marimon-Junior, B., De Oliveira, E., Reis, S., Valadao, M.
X., Forsthofer, M., . . . Marimon, B. (2016). Vegetation succession in
the Cerrado--Amazonian forest transition zone of Mato Grosso state,
Brazil. \emph{Edinburgh Journal of Botany, 73} (1), 83-93.

Neyret, M., Bentley, L. P., Oliveras, I., Marimon, B. S.,
Marimon\selectlanguage{english}-Junior, B. H., Almeida de Oliveira, E., . . . Matias Reis, S.
(2016). Examining variation in the leaf mass per area of dominant
species across two contrasting tropical gradients in light of community
assembly. \emph{Ecology and Evolution, 6} (16), 5674-5689.

Oliveira, R. S., Christoffersen, B. O., Barros, F. d. V., Teodoro, G.
S., Bittencourt, P., Brum-Jr, M. M., \& Viani, R. A. (2014). Changing
precipitation regimes and the water and carbon economies of
trees.\emph{Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology, 26} (1),
65-82.

Oliveira, R. S., Dawson, T. E., Burgess, S. S., \& Nepstad, D. C.
(2005). Hydraulic redistribution in three Amazonian
trees.\emph{Oecologia, 145} (3), 354-363.

Palhares, D., Franco, A. C., \& Zaidan, L. B. P. (2010). Respostas
fotossinteticas de plantas do cerrado nas estacoes seca e
chuvosa.\emph{Revista Brasileira de Biociencias, 8} (2).

Peixoto, K. d. S., Marimon-Junior, B. H., Cavalheiro, K. A., Silva, N.
A., das Neves, E. C., Freitag, R., . . . Valadao, M. B. X. (2018).
Assessing the effects of rainfall reduction on litterfall and the litter
layer in phytophysiognomies of the Amazonia--Cerrado
transition.\emph{Brazilian Journal of Botany, 41} (3), 589-600.

Prado, C. H. B. d. A., Wenhui, Z., Cardoza Rojas, M. H., \& Souza, G. M.
(2004). Seasonal leaf gas exchange and water potential in a woody
cerrado species community. \emph{Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology,
16} (1), 7-16.

R Core Team. 2020. \emph{R} : A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

RAINFOR. http//www.rainfor.org/pt. Retrieved May 8, 2018.

Ratter, J. A., Ribeiro, J. F., \& Bridgewater, S. (1997). The Brazilian
cerrado vegetation and threats to its biodiversity. \emph{Annals of
Botany, 80} (3), 223-230.

Ratter, J. A., Richards, P., Argent, G., \& Gifford, D. (1973).
Observations on the vegetation of northeastern Mato Grosso: I. The woody
vegetation types of the Xavantina-Cachimbo Expedition
area.\emph{Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B,
Biological Sciences, 266} (880), 449-492.

Reich, P. B., \& Cornelissen, H. (2014). The world-wide `fast-slow'
plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. \emph{Journal of Ecology,
102} (2), 275-301. doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12211

Ribeiro, J. F., \& Walter, B. M. T. (1998). Fitofisionomias do bioma
Cerrado. \emph{Embrapa Cerrados-Capitulo em livro cientifico (ALICE)} .

Rifai, S. W., Girardin, C. A., Berenguer, E., del Aguila-Pasquel, J.,
Dahlsjo, C. A., Doughty, C. E., . . . Riutta, T. (2018). ENSO Drives
interannual variation of forest woody growth across the
tropics.\emph{Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 373} (1760), 20170410.

Sade, N., Gebremedhin, A., \& Moshelion, M. (2012). Risk-taking plants:
anisohydric behavior as a stress-resistance trait. \emph{Plant signaling
\& behavior, 7} (7), 767-770.

Scholander, P. F., Bradstreet, E. D., Hemmingsen, E., \& Hammel, H.
(1965). Sap pressure in vascular plants: negative hydrostatic pressure
can be measured in plants. \emph{Science, 148} (3668), 339-346.

Scholz, F. G., Bucci, S. J., Arias, N., Meinzer, F. C., \& Goldstein, G.
(2012). Osmotic and elastic adjustments in cold desert shrubs differing
in rooting depth: coping with drought and subzero
temperatures.\emph{Oecologia, 170} (4), 885-897.

Shepherd, G. J. 2010. FITOPAC. Versao 2.1. Campinas, SP: Departamento de
Botanica, Universidade Estadual de Campinas-UNICAMP.

Sperry, J. S., Meinzer, F. C., \& McCulloh, K. A. (2008). Safety and
efficiency conflicts in hydraulic architecture: scaling from tissues to
trees. \emph{Plant, Cell \& Environment, 31} (5), 632-645.

Tardieu, F., \& Simonneau, T. (1998). Variability among species of
stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative
demand: modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. \emph{Journal of
Experimental Botany} , 419-432.

Villalobos\selectlanguage{english}-Vega, R., Salazar, A., Miralles\selectlanguage{english}-Wilhelm, F., Haridasan, M.,
Franco, A. C., \& Goldstein, G. (2014). Do groundwater dynamics drive
spatial patterns of tree density and diversity in N eotropical
savannas?\emph{Journal of vegetation science, 25} (6), 1465-1473.

Warton, D. I., Duursma, R. A., Falster, D. S., \& Taskinen, S. (2012).
smatr 3--an R package for estimation and inference about allometric
lines. \emph{Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3} (2), 257-259.

Wickham, H. (2011). The split-apply-combine strategy for data
analysis.\emph{Journal of statistical software, 40} (1), 1-29.

\textbf{Tables}

\textbf{Table 1.} Mean values of hydraulic traits for each species
sampled in typical cerrado (STC), cerradao (SCF), and semi-deciduous
seasonal forest (SSF). Leaf phenology (LP) classified as brevideciduous
(BD), deciduous (DE) or evergreen (EG), and species relative dominance
(RD) in each community. Hydraulic traits: slope angle (\selectlanguage{english}?) between the
ratio of the leaf water potential (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}, MPa) at predawn
(\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}) and midday (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}), minimum
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min}) variation of predawn
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} (\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}), and variation of
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} at midday (\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Species (Families)} & \textbf{LP} & \textbf{RD} & ? &
\selectlanguage{greek}\textbf{Ψ\textsubscript{min}}\selectlanguage{english} & \selectlanguage{greek}\textbf{ΔΨ\textsubscript{pd}}\selectlanguage{english} &
\selectlanguage{greek}\textbf{ΔΨ\textsubscript{md}}\selectlanguage{english}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\textbf{Typical Cerrado} & \textbf{Typical Cerrado} & \textbf{Typical
Cerrado} & \textbf{Typical Cerrado} & \textbf{Typical Cerrado} &
\textbf{Typical Cerrado} & \textbf{Typical Cerrado}\tabularnewline
\emph{Davilla elliptica} A.St.-Hil. (Dilleniaceae) & BD & 4.6 & 1.2 &
-2.0 & -0.8 & -0.5\tabularnewline
\emph{Eriotheca gracilipes} (K.Schum.) A.Robyns (Malvaceae) & BD & 3.5 &
0.2 & -1.1 & -0.6 & -1.4\tabularnewline
\emph{Euplassa inaequalis} (Pohl) Engl. (Proteaceae) & BD & 4.2 & 1.3 &
-2.0 & -0.4 & -1.0\tabularnewline
\emph{Guapira graciliflora} (Mart. ex Shum.) Lundell (Nyctaginaceae) &
DE & 3.7 & 0.5 & -2.3 & -1.9 & -0.3\tabularnewline
\emph{Qualea parviflora} Mart. (Vochysiaceae) & DE & 9.6 & 0.7 & -1.7 &
-0.5 & -1.4\tabularnewline
\emph{Qualea grandiflora} Mart. (Vochysiaceae) & DE & 3.4 & 0.8 & -2.8 &
-1.5 & -1.2\tabularnewline
\emph{Roupala montana} (Klotzsch) K.S.Edwards (Proteaceae) & EG & 5.7 &
0.9 & -2.4 & -0.4 & -0.8\tabularnewline
\selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão} & \selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão} & \selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão} &
\selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão} & \selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão} & \selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão} &
\selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão}\tabularnewline
\emph{Eriotheca gracilipes} (K.Schum.) A.Robyns (Malvaceae) & EG & 4.3 &
0.0 & -0.9 & -1.5 & -0.3\tabularnewline
\emph{Emmotum nitens} (Benth.) Miers. (Metteniusaceae) & EG & 7.5 & 0.6
& -1.8 & -0.9 & -1.4\tabularnewline
\emph{Hirtella glandulosa} Spreng. (Chrysobalanaceae) & EG & 20.5 & 0.8
& -1.6 & -0.4 & -0.3\tabularnewline
\emph{Myrcia splendens} (Sw.) DC (Myrtaceae) & EG & 4.4 & 0.8 & -2.5 &
-0.9 & -0.8\tabularnewline
\emph{Tachigali vulgaris} L.G.Silva \& H.C.Lima (Fabaceae) & EG & 17.4 &
1.4 & -2.4 & -0.5 & -1.2\tabularnewline
\emph{Tapirira guianensis} Aubl. (Anacardiaceae) & BD & 5.2 & 0.4 & -1.4
& -1.1 & -1.6\tabularnewline
\emph{Xylopia aromatica} (Lam.) Mart. (Annonaceae) & EG & 4.8 & 0.6 &
-2.0 & -0.6 & -1.0\tabularnewline
\textbf{Semi-deciduous Seasonal Forest} & \textbf{Semi-deciduous
Seasonal Forest} & \textbf{Semi-deciduous Seasonal Forest} &
\textbf{Semi-deciduous Seasonal Forest} & \textbf{Semi-deciduous
Seasonal Forest} & \textbf{Semi-deciduous Seasonal Forest} &
\textbf{Semi-deciduous Seasonal Forest}\tabularnewline
\emph{Amaioua guianensis} Aubl. (Rubiaceae) & EG & 7.7 & 0.8 & -2.3 &
-2.0 & -2.1\tabularnewline
\emph{Brosimum rubescens} Taub. (Moraceae) & EG & 3.3 & 1.8 & -1.4 &
-1.9 & -3.3\tabularnewline
\emph{Chaetocarpus echinocarpus} (Baill.) Ducke (Peraceae) & EG & 9.4 &
0.8 & -2.4 & -1.8 & -2.3\tabularnewline
\emph{Cheiloclinium cognatum} (Miers.) A.C.Sm. (Celastraceae) & BD & 3.9
& 2.9 & -2.1 & -0.8 & -1.5\tabularnewline
\emph{Ephedranthus parviflorus} S. Moore (Annonaceae) & EG & 10 & 1.34 &
-2.4 & -1.6 & -2.5\tabularnewline
\emph{Mabea fistulifera} Mart. (Euphorbiaceae) & BD & 6.4 & 1.95 & -1.7
& -1.7 & -2.5\tabularnewline
\emph{Protium altissimum} (Aubl.) Marchand (Burseraceae) & EG & 8.6 &
1.16 & -1.7 & -0.9 & -2.2\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\textbf{Table 2.} Mean \selectlanguage{ngerman}± standard deviation (\selectlanguage{greek}μ \selectlanguage{ngerman}± sd), and coefficient of
variation (CV) for leaf water potential (\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}),
considering all periods of the day and species sampled in typical
cerrado (STC), cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão (SCF), and semi-deciduous seasonal forest (SSF).
Trait variances were compared using the Mood test. \emph{P} -values are
shown in bold, when significant (\emph{p} \textless{}0.05).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Vegetation}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Seasons}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}\textbf{µ ± sd}\selectlanguage{ngerman}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{CV}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Typical cerrado}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rainy\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-0.87 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.61\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-70.1\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Dry\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-1.77 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.99\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-55.6\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{ngerman}\textbf{Cerradão}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rainy\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-0.84 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.58\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-68.4\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Dry\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-1.60 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.87\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-54.4\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Semi-deciduous seasonal forest}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rainy\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-0.56 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.33\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-54.3\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Dry\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-2.23 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1.16\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-52.3\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Mood Test}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Mood Test}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Mood Test}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Seasons}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{STC x SCF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{STC x SSF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.22\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{SCF x SSF}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rainy\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Z = 0.83 \emph{p} = 0.40\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Z = 2.91 \emph{p} \textbf{= 0.00}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Z = 1.94 \emph{p} \textbf{= 0.05}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Dry\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Z = 0.69 \emph{p} = 0.48\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Z = -0.39 \emph{p} = 0.68\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.24\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Z = -1.60 \emph{p} = 0.10\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\textbf{Table 3.} Weighted mean \selectlanguage{ngerman}± standard deviation (\selectlanguage{greek}μ \selectlanguage{ngerman}± sd) and
coefficient of variation (CV) of the hydraulic traits analyzed in
species from typical cerrado (STC), cerradão (SCF), and semi-deciduous
seasonal forest (SSF). Weighted means were determined through the
dominance in basal area of the species in each vegetation type. We
compared the variances of the attributes using F-test.
Significant\emph{p} values are shown in bold (\emph{p} \textless{}0.05).
Hydraulic traits: \selectlanguage{english}? = slope angle between the ratio of leaf water
potential at midday and predawn (MPa), \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{min} = minimum
potential, \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} = variation in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd} at
predawn, and \selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md} = variation in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md} at
midday.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Traits\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{STC}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{STC}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{SCF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{SCF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{SSF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{SSF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{STC/SCF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{STC/SSF}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{SCF/SSF}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}µ \selectlanguage{ngerman}± sd\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
CV\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}µ \selectlanguage{ngerman}± sd\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
CV\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}µ \selectlanguage{ngerman}± sd\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
CV\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
F test\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
F test\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.07\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
F test\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
?\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.80 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.45\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
56.4\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.83 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.60\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
70.2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.35 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.85\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
63.3\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.60 \emph{P} = 0.84\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.28 \emph{p} = 0.62\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.12 \emph{p} = 0.76\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}\textbf{Ψ\textsubscript{min}}\selectlanguage{english}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-2.00 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.64\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-32.4\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-1.86 \selectlanguage{ngerman}±0.67\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-36.0\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-2.08 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.50\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-24.3\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.92 \emph{p} = 0.97\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.68 \emph{p} = 0.83\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.82 \emph{p} = 0.81\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}\textbf{ΔΨ\textsubscript{pd}}\selectlanguage{english}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-0.76 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.72\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
93.3\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-0.66 \selectlanguage{ngerman}±0.47\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
70.8\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-1.55 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.59\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-38.3\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.31 \emph{p} = 0.74\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.45 \emph{p} = 0.88\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.63 \emph{p} = 0.85\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\selectlanguage{greek}\textbf{ΔΨ\textsubscript{md}}\selectlanguage{english}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-0.99 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.56\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
56.8\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-0.86 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.71\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-82.1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-2.32 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 0.53\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-22.8\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
0.63 \emph{p} = 0.85\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.13 \emph{p} = 0.95\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1.79 \emph{p} = 0.81\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\textbf{Table 4.} Characterization of the vapor pressure deficit (KPa)
of the vegetation types (STC = typical cerrado, SCF = cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão, and SSF
= semi-deciduous seasonal forest) in dry (r\textsuperscript{2} =
0.14;\emph{p} \textless{}0.001) and rainy seasons (r\textsuperscript{2}
= 0.32; \emph{p} \textless{}0.001).\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
\textbf{Seasons} & \textbf{STC} & \textbf{SCF} &
\textbf{SSF}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\textbf{Dry} & & &\tabularnewline
Maximum & 4.95 & 4.73 & 3.77\tabularnewline
Minimum & 0.43 & 0.18 & 0.3\tabularnewline
Mean \selectlanguage{ngerman}± sd & 2.43 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1.63 & 1.94 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1.59 & 1.69 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1.64\tabularnewline
\textbf{Rainy} & & &\tabularnewline
Maximum & 2.80 & 3.13 & 1.13\tabularnewline
Minimum & 0 & 0 & 0\tabularnewline
Mean \selectlanguage{ngerman}± sd & 0.92 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1.52 & 0.74 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1.53 & 0.2 \selectlanguage{ngerman}± 1.63\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}\selectlanguage{ngerman}

\textbf{Figure legends}

\textbf{Figure 1.} Location of study areas (Cerrado: typical cerrado;
Cerradão; Forest: semi-deciduous seasonal forest). Database: MMA
(Ministry of the Environment; site: mapas.mma.gov.br).

\textbf{Figure 2.} Comparisons of \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} between different
seasons (rainy and dry) and across different periods of the day in the
typical cerrado (orange bars), cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão (light green), and forest (dark
green). Asterisks indicates significant differences
(\emph{p}\textless{}0.05).

\textbf{Figure 3.} Comparison between cerrado (orange bars), cerradão
(light green), and forest (dark green) for the variation in
\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} predawn (\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{pd}, MPa) and the variation
in \selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l} at midday (\selectlanguage{greek}ΔΨ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{md}, MPa). Asterisks
indicates significant differences (\emph{p} \textless{}0.05).

\textbf{Figure 4} . Leaf water potential regulation of 21 species
divided into two groups: forest (comprising cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão and semi-deciduous
seasonal forest) and savanna (typical cerrado). The slope angle (\selectlanguage{english}? +- CI
- confidence interval) estimates the value that allows classifying:
square - the species as strict isohydric (SI), triangle - partially
isohydric (PI), and circle - extreme anisohydric (EA). The line shows
the distance of confidence interval that to differ the types of leaf
water potential regulation. No species was identified as strict
anisohydric. Complete list of species names is shown in Table 1.

\textbf{Figure 5.} Linear regression between the leaf water potential
(\selectlanguage{greek}Ψ\selectlanguage{english}\textsubscript{l}, MPa) and the Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD, KPa) of
the typical cerrado (orange), cerrad\selectlanguage{ngerman}ão (light green), and forest (dark
green), in the Cerrado-Amazonia Transition, Brazil. Circles represent
individuals sampled in each vegetation type. Intercepts between
regression lines differed in both rainy (\emph{p} \textless{}0.001), and
dry seasons (\emph{p} \textless{}0.001) (\emph{Standardised Major Axis}-
SMA).

\textbf{Hosted file}

\verb`Jancoski et al_figures.docx`  available at \url{https://authorea.com/users/470926/articles/562734-regulation-of-leaf-water-potential-in-tree-species-of-the-cerrado-amazonia-transition-in-response-to-climate-seasonality}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

