[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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. ]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Chattaway M.M. 1953. The anatomy of bark. I. The genus Eucalyptus. Australian Journal of Botany, 1 (3), 402-433.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Harmon M.E. 1984. Survival of trees after low-intensity surface fires in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Ecology, 65, 796-802.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Herwitz S.R. 1985. Interception storage capacities of tropical rainforest canopy trees. Journal of Hydrology, 77, 237-252.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Howard E.T. 1977. Bark structure of southern upland oaks. Wood and Fiber Science, 9 (3), 172-183.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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, 32-41.10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00115-2]Search in Google Scholar
[Llorens P., Gallart F. 2000. A simplified method for forest water storage capacity measurement. Journal of Hydrology, 240, 131-144.]Search in Google Scholar
[Návar J. 1993. The causes of stemflow variation in three semi-arid growing species of northeastern Mexico. Journal of Hydrology, 145 (1), 175-190. ]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Pallardy S.G. 2010. Physiology of woody plants. Academic Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[StatSoft, Inc. 2011. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 10. www.statsoft.com]Search in Google Scholar
[Teskey R., Saveyn A., Steppe K., Mcguire M. 2007. Origin, fate and significance of CO2 in tree stems. New Phytologist, 177, 17-32.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[Whitmore T.C. 1962. Studies in systematic bark morphology. New Phytologist, 61 (2), 191-207.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
