Abstract
The interaction between mistletoes and hosts impacts tree performance and mortality under climate change. However, little is known about the hydraulic performance and drought resistance of mistletoes, and their potential impacts on hosts. Here, we measured 21 functional traits related to hydraulics and drought resistance of eight mistletoe-host species pairs. We found that mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts, characterized by more negative midday leaf water potentials during the dry season, turgor loss point (ranging from -1.81 to -2.48 MPa) and water potential at 12% loss of conductivity (ranging from -0.97 to -2.94 MPa), higher Huber values, sapwood density and vessel density, and lower leaf size, specific leaf area, vein density and stomatal density. Meanwhile, mistletoes were less hydraulically efficient compared with their hosts, demonstrated by lower leaf-specific hydraulic conductivity, sapwood-specific hydraulic conductivity and hydraulically weighted vessel diameter. Paradoxically, mistletoes showed lower water-use efficiency (as indicated by more negative stable carbon isotope values). Notably, trait associations between mistletoes and hosts differed, with mistletoes showing stronger correlations among functional traits, both within leaf traits and between leaf and stem traits. This suggests divergent ecological strategies between mistletoes and their hosts. However, no trade-off between hydraulic efficiency and safety was observed across the mistletoes and hosts examined. High plasticity in hydraulic traits was also found in mistletoes, with water potential at 12, 50 and 88% loss of conductivity varying significantly and intraspecifically across host species. Furthermore, trait correlations in mistletoes were driven by both intraspecific and interspecific variation, with interspecific variation being more important. These findings highlight the response capacity of mistletoes, enabling them to adjust their hydraulic strategies based on host-specific conditions. This study provides insights into mistletoe water use, drought resistance and potential responses to changing environmental conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 15
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes were more drought tolerant than hosts.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes had more negative midday leaf water potentials during the dry season than hosts.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts, characterized by more negative midday leaf water potentials during the dry season”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoe turgor loss point ranged from -1.81 to -2.48 MPa and was more negative than in hosts.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts, characterized by more negative midday leaf water potentials during the dry season, turgor loss point (ranging from -1.81 to -2.48 MPa)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoe water potential at 12% conductivity loss ranged from -0.97 to -2.94 MPa.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts, characterized by more negative midday leaf water potentials during the dry season, turgor loss point (ranging from -1.81 to -2.48 MPa) and water potential at 12% loss of conductivity (ranging from -0.97 to -2.94 MPa)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes had higher Huber values, sapwood density and vessel density than hosts.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts, characterized by more negative midday leaf water potentials during the dry season, turgor loss point (ranging from -1.81 to -2.48 MPa) and water potential at 12% loss of conductivity (ranging from -0.97 to -2.94 MPa), higher Huber values, sapwood density and vessel density”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes had lower leaf size, specific leaf area and vein density than hosts.
Verbatim
e0“lower leaf size, specific leaf area, vein density and stomatal density.”
e1“mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes had lower stomatal density than hosts.
Verbatim
e0“lower leaf size, specific leaf area, vein density and stomatal density.”
e1“mistletoes were more drought tolerant compared with their hosts”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes had lower leaf-specific and sapwood-specific hydraulic conductivity and vessel diameter than hosts.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes were less hydraulically efficient compared with their hosts, demonstrated by lower leaf-specific hydraulic conductivity, sapwood-specific hydraulic conductivity and hydraulically weighted vessel diameter.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes had lower water-use efficiency, indicated by more negative stable carbon isotope values.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes showed lower water-use efficiency (as indicated by more negative stable carbon isotope values).”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoes had stronger trait correlations within leaves and between leaf and stem than hosts.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes and hosts differed, with mistletoes showing stronger correlations among functional traits, both within leaf traits and between leaf and stem traits.”
Claim · model-written summary
No hydraulic efficiency-safety trade-off was observed across mistletoes and hosts.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“no trade-off between hydraulic efficiency and safety was observed across the mistletoes and hosts examined.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mistletoe hydraulic traits showed high plasticity across hosts.
Verbatim
e0“High plasticity in hydraulic traits was also found in mistletoes, with water potential at 12, 50 and 88% loss of conductivity varying significantly and intraspecifically across host species.”
Claim · model-written summary
Water potentials at 12%, 50% and 88% conductivity loss varied significantly within mistletoe species across hosts.
Verbatim
e0“mistletoes, with water potential at 12, 50 and 88% loss of conductivity varying significantly and intraspecifically across host species.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both intraspecific and interspecific variation drove mistletoe trait correlations.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“trait correlations in mistletoes were driven by both intraspecific and interspecific variation, with interspecific variation being more important.”
Claim · model-written summary
Interspecific variation contributed more than intraspecific variation to mistletoe trait correlations.
Verbatim
e0“trait correlations in mistletoes were driven by both intraspecific and interspecific variation, with interspecific variation being more important.”