The subject of the present research is the water storage capacity of bark of seven forest tree species: Pinus sylvestris L., Larix decidua Mill., Abies alba Mill., Pinus sylvestris L., Quercus robur L., Betula pendula Ehrh. and Fagus sylvatica L. The aim of the research is to demonstrate differences in the formation of bark water storage capacity between species and to identify factors influencing the hydrological properties of bark. The maximum water storage capacity of bark was determined under laboratory conditions by performing a series of experiments simulating rainfall and by immersing bark samples in containers filled with water. After each single experiment, the bark samples were subjected to gravity filtration in a desiccator partially filled with water. The experiments lasted from 1084 to 1389 hours, depending on the bark sample. In all the studied species, bark sampled from the thinnest trees is characterized by the highest water storage capacity expressed in mm H2O · cm-3, while bark sampled from the thickest trees - by the lowest capacity. On the other hand, bark sampled from the thickest trees is characterized by the highest water storage capacity expressed in H2O · cm-2 whereas bark from the thinnest trees - by the lowest capacity. In most species tested, as the tree thickness and thus the bark thickness and the coefficient of development of the interception surface of bark increase, the sorption properties of the bark decrease with bark depth, and the main role in water retention is played by the outer bark surface. The bark of European beech is an exception because of the smallest degree of surface development and because the dominant process is the absorption of water. When examining the hydrological properties of bark and calculating its parameters, one needs to take into account the actual surface of the bark of trees. Disregarding the actual bark surface may lead to significant errors in the interpretation of research results.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Aboal J.R. Morales D. Hernández M. Jiménez M.S. 1999. The measurement and modelling of the variation of stemflow in a laurel forest in Tenerife Canary Islands. Journal of Hydrology 221 (3) 161-175.
Barlow J. Lagan B.O. Reres C.A. 2003. Morphological correlates of fire-induced tree mortality in a central Amazonian forest. Journal of Tropical Ecology 19 291-299.
Bauer G. Speck T. Blömer J. Bertling J. Speck O. 2010. Insulation capability of the bark of trees with different fire adaptation. Journal of Materials Science 45 (21) 5950-5959.
Biggs A.R. 1992. Anatomical and physiological responses of bark tissues to mechanical injury. In: Defense mechanisms of woody plants against fungi (eds.: R. Blanchette A. Biggs). Springer Berlin Heidelberg 13-40.
Blake G.J. 1975. The interception process. In: Predictionin Catchment Hydrology (eds.: T.G. Chapmann R.X. Dunin). Australian Academy of Science Netley 59-81.
Calder I.R. 1999. Dependence of rainfall interception on drop size - a replay to the comment by Uijlenhoet and Sticker. Journal of Hydrology 217 164-165.
Chattaway M.M. 1953. The anatomy of bark. I. The genus Eucalyptus. Australian Journal of Botany 1 (3) 402-433.
Crockford R.H. Richardson D.P. 2000. Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall stemflow and interception: Effect of forest type ground cover and climate. Hydrological Processes 14 2903-2920.
Franceschi V.R. Krokene P. Christiansen E. Krekling T. 2005. Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. New Phytologist 167 (2) 353-376.
Harmon M.E. 1984. Survival of trees after low-intensity surface fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecology 65 796-802.
Hengst G.E. Dawson J.O. 1994. Bark properties and fire resistance of selected tree species from the central hardwood region of North America. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 24 (4) 688-696.
Herwitz S.R. 1985. Interception storage capacities of tropical rainforest canopy trees. Journal of Hydrology 77 237-252.
Hoffmann W.A. Orthen B. do Nascimento P.K.V. 2003. Comparative fire ecology of tropical savanna and forest trees. Funcional Ecology 17 720-726.
Howard E.T. 1977. Bark structure of southern upland oaks. Wood and Fiber Science 9 (3) 172-183.
Ilek A. Kucza J. 2014. Hydrological properties of bark of selected forest tree species. Part I: the coefficient of development of the interception surface of bark. Trees 28 831-839.
Keim R.F. Skaugset A.E. Weiler M. 2006. Storage of water on vegetation under simulated rainfall of varying intensity. Advances in Water Resources 29 974-986.
Lendzian K.J. 2006. Survival strategies of plants during secondary growth: barrier properties of phellems and lenticels towards water oxygen and carbon dioxide. Journal of Experimental Botany 57 2535-2546.
Levia D.F. Herwitz S.R. 2005. Interspecific variation of bark water storage capacity of three deciduous tree species in relation to stemflow yield solute flux to forest soils. Catena 64 117-137.
Levia D.F. Van Stan J.T. Mage S.M. Kelley- Hauske P.W. 2010. Temporal variability of stemflow volume in a beech-yellow poplar forest in relation to tree species and size. Journal of Hydrology 380 (1) 112-120.
Levia D.F. Wubbena N.P. 2006. Vertical variation of bark water storage capacity of Pinus strobus L. (eastern white pine) in Southern Illionois. Northeastern Naturalist 13 (1) 131-137.
Liu S. 1998. Estimation of rainfall storage capacity in the canopies of cypress wetlands and slash pine uplands in North-Central Florida. Journal of Hydrology 207 32-41.
Llorens P. Gallart F. 2000. A simplified method for forest water storage capacity measurement. Journal of Hydrology 240 131-144.
Návar J. 1993. The causes of stemflow variation in three semi-arid growing species of northeastern Mexico. Journal of Hydrology 145 (1) 175-190.
Paine C.E.T. Stahl C. Courtois E.A. Patiño S. Sarmiento C. Baraloto C. 2010. Functional explanations for variation in bark thickness in tropical rain forest trees. Functional Ecology 24 1202-1210.
Pallardy S.G. 2010. Physiology of woody plants. Academic Press.
Pinard M.A. Huffman J. 1997. Fire resistance and bark properties of trees in a seasonally dry forest in eastern Bolivia. Journal of Tropical Ecology 13 (5) 727-740.
Pypker T.G. Levia D.F. Staelens J. Van Stan J.T. 2011. Canopy structure in relation hydrological and biogeochemical fluxes. Forest Hydrology and Biogeochemistry Ecological Studies 216 (4) 371-388.
Quilhó T. Pereira H. Richter H.G. 2000. Within-tree variation in phloem cell dimensions and proportions in Eucalyptus globulus. IAWA Journal 21 (1) 31-40.
StatSoft Inc. 2011. STATISTICA (data analysis software system) version 10. www.statsoft.com
Teskey R. Saveyn A. Steppe K. Mcguire M. 2007. Origin fate and significance of CO2 in tree stems. New Phytologist 177 17-32.
Tsiko C.T. Makurira H. Gerrits A.M.J. Savenije H.H.G. 2012. Measuring forest floor and canopy interception in a savannah ecosystem. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C 47 122-127.
Valovà M. Bieleszovà S. 2008. Interspecific variations of bark’s water storage capacity of chosen types of trees and the dependence on occurrence of epiphytic mosses. GeoScience Engineering 54 (4) 45-51.
Van Stan J.T. Hildebrandt A. Rebmann C. Friesen J. 2016. Impact of interacting bark structure and rainfall conditions on stemflow variability in a temperate beech-oak forest central Germany. Hydrological Sciences Journal 61 (11) 2071-2083.
Van Stan J.T. Levia D.F. 2010. Inter- and intraspecific variation of stemflow production from Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (American beech) and Liriodendron tulipifera L. (yellow poplar) in relation to bark microrelief in the eastern United States. Ecohydrology 3 (1) 11-19.
Webb E.K. 1975. The interception process. In: Prediction in Catchment Hydrology (eds.: T.G. Chapmann R.X. Dunin). Australian Academy of Science Netley 203-236.
Whitmore T.C. 1962. Studies in systematic bark morphology. New Phytologist 61 (2) 191-207.
Yáñez-Espinosa L. Terrazas T. López-Mata L. 2001. Effects of flooding on wood and bark anatomy of four species in a mangrove forest community. Trees 15 91-97.