ArticleTree physiology2026
Delayed uptake and intra-tree distribution of 2H-labeled irrigation water after repeated experimental summer drought in mature spruce compared with beech.
Article in Tree physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Water uptake and distribution are critical for drought recovery, yet previous drought conditions have been shown to impair water transport by affecting soil-root contact and xylem conductivity. In order to investigate these dynamics, the approach of applying δ2H-labeled water as a controlled irrigation was adopted, with this irrigation being administered to a mixed stand of mature European beech (Fagus sylvatica (L.)) and Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst. (L)) trees in control (CO) and throughfall exclusion (TE) plots following 5 years of experimental summer drought. The δ2H concentrations were measured in soil, stem, twig and leaf water before and after rewetting to assess water pool turnover. The labeled water infiltrated the upper 70 cm of soil in both treatments within 48 h. However, a notable delay in water uptake and distribution was exhibited by TE trees in comparison with CO trees, where the label was detected in stems and leaves within 24 h. The TE beech demonstrated water uptake after 4 days, while TE spruce exhibited a more pronounced delay of 7 days. Despite this delay, TE trees exhibited a higher turnover of stem water pools (>75%) compared with CO trees (<50%), while leaf water turnover remained similar between treatments. The delayed uptake in TE trees may be attributed to fine root loss in both species and the suberization of surviving fine roots in spruce, which likely reduced water absorption efficiency. Additionally, the depleted stem water reserves in TE spruce may have delayed internal redistribution. These findings underscore the importance of considering species-specific recovery dynamics and provide valuable insights into the long-term impacts of drought on tree water relations.
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.