Search for: All records

Plant canopies divert a portion of precipitation to the base of their stems through “stemflow”, a phenomenon that influences the canopy water balance, soil microbial ecology, and intrasystem nutrient cycling. However, a comprehensive integration of stemflow into theoretical and numerical models in natural science remains limited. This perspective examines three unresolved, fundamental questions hindering this integration, spanning the canopy to the soil. First, the precise source area within the canopy that generates stemflow is undefined. Thus, we asked, “whence stemflow?” Current common assumptions equate it to the entire tree canopy, a potentially misleading simplification that could affect our interpretation of stemflow variability. Second, we asked what are the various conditions contributing to stemflow generation—beyond rain, to dew and intercepted ice melt—and could the exclusion of these volumes consequently obscure an understanding of the broader implications of stemflow? Third, we explored ”whither stemflow?” This question extends beyond how much stemflow infiltrates where, into what uptakes it and from where. Addressing these questions is constrained by current observational and analytical methods. Nevertheless, by confronting these challenges, the stemflow research community stands to make significant strides in comprehending this unique hydrological component and situating it within the broader context of natural science.

 

As watersheds are complex systems that are difficult to directly study, the streams that drain them are often sampled to search for watershed “signals.” These signals include the presence and/or abundance of isotopes, types of sediment, organisms (including pathogens), chemical compounds associated with ephemeral biogeochemical processes or anthropogenic impacts, and so on. Just like watersheds can send signals via the streams that drain from them, we present a conceptual analysis that suggests plant canopies (equally complex and hard-to-study systems) may send similar signals via the precipitation that drains down their stems (stemflow). For large, tall, hard-to-access tree canopies, this portion of precipitation may be modest, often <2%; however, stemflow waters, like stream waters, scour a large drainage network which may allow stemflow to pick up various signals from various processes within and surrounding canopies. This paper discusses some of the signals that the canopy environment may impart to stemflow and their relevance to our understanding of vegetated ecosystems. Being a conceptual analysis, some examples have been observed; most are hypothetical. These include signals from on-canopy biogeochemical processes, seasonal epi-faunal activities, pathogenic impacts, and the physiological activities of the canopy itself. Given stemflow's currently limited empirical hydrological, ecological and biogeochemical relevance to date (mostly due to its modest fraction in most forest water cycles), future work on the possible “signals in stemflow” may also motivate more natural scientists and, perhaps some applied researchers, to rigorously monitor this oft-ignored water flux. 

Stormwater is a vital resource and dynamic driver of terrestrial ecosystem processes. However, processes controlling interactions during and shortly after storms are often poorly seen and poorly sensed when direct observations are substituted with technological ones. We discuss how human observations complement technological ones and the benefits of scientists spending more time in the storm. Human observation can reveal ephemeral storm-related phenomena such as biogeochemical hot moments, organismal responses, and sedimentary processes that can then be explored in greater resolution using sensors and virtual experiments. Storm-related phenomena trigger lasting, oversized impacts on hydrologic and biogeochemical processes, organismal traits or functions, and ecosystem services at all scales. We provide examples of phenomena in forests, across disciplines and scales, that have been overlooked in past research to inspire mindful, holistic observation of ecosystems during storms. We conclude that technological observations alone are insufficient to trace the process complexity and unpredictability of fleeting biogeochemical or ecological events without the shower thoughts produced by scientists’ human sensory and cognitive systems during storms.