ArticleTree physiology2022
Foliar water uptake as a source of hydrogen and oxygen in plant biomass.
Article in Tree physiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study on the Mechanism of Eco-Friendly Hydrogel in Enhancing Condensation Water Utilization by Vegetation in Rocky Mountainous Areas.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Water Availability and Leaf Microstructures Jointly Regulate Dew Absorption in Plants with Different Ecotypes.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Tracing the fate of water following foliar uptake in beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) using positron imaging.Annals of botany · 2026Article
- QuantifyingEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Foliar water uptake as a source of hydrogen and oxygen in plant biomass.Tree physiology · 2022Article
- Detecting long-term changes in stomatal conductance: challenges and opportunities of tree-ring δThe New phytologist · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introductory biology lessons around the world typically teach that plants absorb water through their roots, but, unfortunately, absorption of water through leaves and subsequent transport and use of this water for biomass formation remains a field limited mostly to specialists. Recent studies have identified foliar water uptake as a significant net water source for terrestrial plants. The growing interest in the development of a new model that includes both foliar water uptake (in liquid form) and root water uptake to explain hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios in leaf water and tree rings demands a method for distinguishing between these two water sources. Therefore, in this study, I have devised a new labelling method that utilizes two different water sources, one enriched in deuterium (HDO + D2O; δD = 7.0 × 10 4‰, δ18O = 4.1‰) and one enriched in oxygen-18 (H218O; δD = -85‰, δ18O = 1.1 × 104‰), to simultaneously label both foliar-absorbed and root-absorbed water and quantify their relative contributions to plant biomass. Using this new method, I here present evidence that, in the case of well-watered Cryptomeria japonica D. Don, hydrogen and oxygen incorporated into new leaf cellulose in the rainy season derives mostly from foliar-absorbed water (69% from foliar-absorbed water and 31% from root-absorbed water), while that of new root cellulose derives mostly from root-absorbed water (20% from foliar-absorbed water and 80% from root-absorbed water), and new branch xylem is somewhere in between (55% from foliar-absorbed water and 45% from root-absorbed water). The dual-labelling method first implemented in this study enables separate and simultaneous labelling of foliar-absorbed and root-absorbed water and offers a new tool to study the uptake, transport and assimilation processes of these waters in terrestrial plants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.