Abstract
Key message
Bedrock can store appreciable amounts of available water, and some trees apparently use this resource to survive drought.
Abstract
Several forest ecosystems rely on only shallow soil layers overlying more or less compact bedrock. In such habitats, the largest water reservoir can be represented by rock moisture, rather than by soil water. Here, we review evidence for the presence of water available for root water uptake in some rock types, and show examples of the physiological and ecological roles of rock moisture, especially when trees are facing drought conditions. The possible magnitude of rock–root water exchanges is discussed in the frame of current knowledge of rock, soil, and root hydraulic properties. We highlight several areas of uncertainty regarding the role of rock moisture in preventing tree hydraulic failure under drought, the exact pathway(s) available for rock–root water exchange, and the relative efficiencies of water transport in the different compartments of the rock–soil–root continuum. Overall, available experimental evidence suggests that bedrock water should be incorporated into any model describing the forest seasonal water use and tree responses to drought.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction: how climate change challenges tree survival?
Trees are long-living organisms exposed to variable, and sometimes harsh, environmental conditions. Water shortage, at least on a seasonal scale, is a common occurrence in several forest biomes and trees have evolved complex adaptations to manage and survive occasional or even prolonged drought stress, ranging from tight control of water loss (Klein 2014; Roman et al. 2015) to extreme resistance to xylem embolism and hydraulic failure (Maherali et al. 2004; Nardini et al. 2013), and to extensive and deep root systems accessing relatively reliable water stores (Canadell et al. 1996; Nardini et al. 2016). Tree productivity, growth, reproduction, and survival depend on the maintenance of adequate water and carbon pools, which are essential to assure plant hydration, active metabolism, and cell vitality. When these pools are depleted by stress factors, and related water and carbohydrate fluxes through the plant are reduced below critical levels, trees face the risk of decline and death (McDowell et al. 2022). In particular, trees exposed to water shortage close their stomata to reduce water loss to the atmosphere, with kinetics depending on the species-specific hydraulic strategies (Klein 2014) ranging from a ‘safe’ early prevention of water potential drop and xylem embolism formation to safeguard the integrity of the hydraulic system, to a ‘risky’ acceptance of some degree of embolism build-up to maximize carbon gain and delay eventual carbon starvation (Martínez-Vilalta and Garcia-Forner 2017; Mirfenderesgi et al. 2019). Stomatal closure strongly reduces but does not eliminate plant water losses, as residual transpiration can occur through stomatal leaks or leaf cuticle, and even from the bark at stem level (Duursma et al. 2019; Wolfe 2020). After stomatal closure has occurred, the fate of the plant during a prolonged drought depends on the available carbohydrates reserves and on the water pools belowground (McLaughlin et al. 2020) plus internal stores (Yu et al. 2019; Preisler et al. 2022). Hence, the balance between residual water loss and uptake (from the soil) or release (from internal capacitors) becomes crucial to maintain the minimum hydration level required for cell survival (Abate et al. 2021; Mantova et al. 2021; Trifilò et al. 2023).
Nowadays, the survival of several tree species in different forest ecosystems is challenged by ongoing climate change (Choat et al. 2012; Neumann et al. 2017), leading to increased frequency and severity of drought coupled to extreme heat waves that increase atmospheric evaporative demand (Teskey et al. 2015; Grossiord et al. 2020). Over recent decades, background tree mortality rates have apparently spiked in several biomes (Peng et al. 2011; Hember et al. 2017) and some extreme ‘hot’ droughts have produced sudden and massive mortality events (Moore et al. 2016; Hammond et al. 2022), raising consciousness on the increasing risk of diffuse forest decline over the next future (Hartmann et al. 2022). Tree decline and death are caused by complex and interrelated processes and mechanisms (de la Serrana et al. 2015; Yi et al. 2022), but most available evidence supports the crucial role of ‘plant hydraulic failure’ in tree mortality (Nardini et al. 2013; Nolan et al. 2021), while proofs for the occurrence of death induced by sole carbon starvation are more elusive (McDowell et al. 2022). Hence, a better understanding of the performance of trees typically thriving in arid habitats or occasionally exposed to severe/prolonged drought calls for a thorough description and quantification of the nature of water pools available to root systems (Dawson et al. 2020; Phelan et al. 2022), and how roots interact with different water stores at different water contents (Carminati and Javaux 2020; Duddek et al. 2022) to maintain the minimal vital hydration of the plant.
Water stores belowground: not only soil and groundwater
The most important reservoirs sustaining tree water uptake are soil moisture and groundwater (Lobet et al. 2014; Fan et al. 2017), with foliar uptake of rain and dew contributing to water balance in some species and under some environmental conditions (Berry et al. 2019). While soil water is potentially available to all tree species, only some of them can exploit groundwater, when this is relatively shallow and/or when roots are deep enough to target this more reliable source (see Evaristo and McDonnell 2017). Extensive literature has described changes in soil water availability to plants as a function of soil texture, water content, and water potential (Kramer 1944; Gardner 1965; Saxton and Rawls 2006; Cousin et al. 2022), and most basic and advanced textbooks of plant physiology and ecophysiology focus on the crucial importance of soil as a water (and nutrient) source for plants. This view is partly influenced by the fact that the most productive agricultural areas are characterized by relatively deep soils (e.g., Tautges et al. 2019), and that most root biomass is found in shallow horizons (Jackson et al. 1996) making soil water the most obvious and important reservoir for crop functioning and productivity. Yet, it is very interesting to note that several natural ecosystems, including forests, cannot rely on thick and well-developed soils, but thrive on relatively thin substrates overlying more or less compact bedrock (Shangguan et al. 2017; Dawson et al. 2020; McCormick et al. 2021). This situation becomes very apparent for non-woody plants colonizing volcanic or desert areas, where rocks are often the only water reservoirs (Bashan et al. 2002; Puente et al. 2004; Lopez et al. 2009). Yet, even trees often face situations where a large share of belowground water sources is stored in rocks and not in soil, which is the case of forest ecosystems occupying karstic areas (Fig. 1) (Estrada-Medina et al. 2013; Nardini et al. 2016; Geekiyanage et al. 2019). Karstic substrates are characterized by dissolution features like cracks, fissures, and caves where soil can accumulate even at substantial depths (Peng et al. 2020). Thus, weathered limestone offers some opportunities for plants to access relatively deep soil pockets that can store rainfall water and protect it from direct evaporation to the atmosphere (Jackson et al. 1999; Hahm et al. 2020). Still, compact bedrock frequently occupies by far most of the volume belowground (Nardini et al. 2021). The chemical and physical features of bedrock can be very different and so its primary porosity, raising questions on the possible role of this matrix as a water source for plants. Some studies have explored this possibility, and most evidence supports the view that rocks can store significant amounts of available water in their pores, depending on rock material density and fragment size. Highly weathered bedrock can have saturated water contents comparable to those of coarse-textured soils (Graham et al. 1997; Querejeta et al. 2006), but experimental evidence suggests that also compact and unweathered bedrock can store significant amounts of extractable water. To cite a few examples, Zwieniecki and Newton (1996) reported an available water content (AWC) of about 0.15 m3/m3 in a metasedimentary rock formation in Southern Oregon. Robertson et al. (2021) reported water contents between 0.03 and 0.07 m3/m3 for rock fragments from a hard sandstone alluvium. Schoeman et al. (1997) showed that 2–40% of total water content of different rock types (ranging from 0.05 to 0.3 m3/m3) was released at water potential values between 0 and – 1.5 MPa, i.e., the range conventionally considered as water extractable by plant roots (Ritchie 1981; Cousin et al. 2022). In a granitic rock in southern California, Jones and Graham (1993) found AWC ranging from 0.01 to 0.07 m3/m3. More recently, Korboulewsky et al. (2020) reported AWC of 0.08 m3/m3 for limestone pebbles collected from a Calcaric Cambisol in the Beauce region (central France) and Nardini et al. (2021) found similar AWC values (about 0.03 m3/m3) for a Breccia limestone from the Classical Karst formations at the border between Italy and Slovenia.
All these data suggest that rocks commonly store water in their pores and that an appreciable amount of this water reservoir is potentially available to plants. The absolute values of rock AWC might appear relatively low at first sight, but it should be noted that they overlap with the bottom end of AWC reported for soils, which typically ranges from 0.03 m3/m3 for sands, and up to 0.30 m3/m3 for heavy clays (Kirkham 2005). Indeed, in rocky habitats like karstic ones, where the bedrock dominates the belowground volume, the largest share of water storage in the critical zone is due to the rock matrix and not to the soil. As an example, Nardini et al. (2021) calculated the total available water content of a soil bedrock system in a Karst area dominated by Breccia limestone, taking into account a total depth of 5 m, which is easily explored by roots of several woody species in the area (Nardini et al. 2016; Savi et al. 2018). Soil occupied only the first 70 cm of the profile, and the remaining 4.3 m were dominated by compact bedrock, as detected by ground penetrating radar analysis (Jayawickreme et al. 2014). Based on AWC values of soil and rock, and taking into account their relative volumes, the total amount of water stored in the system and potentially absorbable by plant roots was 190 mm, of which only 60 mm were attributable to the soil layer, while the remaining 130 mm were stored in the primary pores of bedrock.
Hence, available experimental evidence suggests that rocks can store appreciable amounts of water that can be released in a water potential interval compatible with physiological ranges of root water uptake. The relative belowground volumes occupied by soil and rock in some ecosystems are such that rocks can become the primary site for storage of water available to sustain plant hydration and transpiration. Thus, rocks have the potential to be primary water pools sustaining forest productivity and survival under drought, provided trees can actually exploit this reservoir. An important difference between soil and rocks is that pore size in the former allows root penetration and growth, while rock pores largely exclude roots (Schwinning 2020). Hence, water stored in the soils is promptly available to a relatively large root surface area, while the same does not hold true for rocks, especially when the surface-to-volume ratio is unfavorable like in the case of large rock fragments or compact bedrock. So, is there any evidence that trees can actually use rock water for their physiological needs?
Is bedrock water important for tree water relations?
There is substantial experimental and anecdotal evidence for tight physical association between roots and rocks. More than a century ago, Cannon (1911) highlighted the close contact between roots of a succulent plant and the rocky substrate, and it was also already suggested that rock moisture might represent an important water source to maintain a minimum level of plant hydration during dry periods (Cooper 1922). Hellmers et al. (1955) described how several woody plants of California Chaparral displayed roots penetrating by more than 50 cm into cracks of unweathered rock material, or showed a layer of roots growing over the soil–bedrock interface. Similar observations were later reported by other studies for different vegetation types, climates, and geological contexts (Zwieniecki and Newton 1994; Matthes-Sears and Larson 1995; Sternberg et al. 1996). Zwieniecki and Newton (1995) also described the peculiar morphology of roots of two species growing in rock fissures as small as 100 µm, in a site characterized by sedimentary rock layers and a Mediterranean-like climate. There are also several observations of root layers growing over the rock surface in caves, or protruding inside the cave from even very narrow fissures in rocks (e.g., Lamont and Lange 1976; Maeght et al. 2013; Nardini et al. 2016; Adams et al. 2020) (Fig. 1).
The visual evidence of root–rock contact does not necessarily prove that plants use rock moisture to sustain transpiration or to maintain hydration after full stomatal closure. In fact, rocks also represent a potential source of nutrients, and roots growing inside rock fissures or over rock surface might be mainly involved in mining for P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, Fe, and other elements (Burghelea et al. 2015), indeed contributing to a significant extent to rock weathering (Raven and Edwards 2001). However, several studies suggest that rock moisture significantly contributes to plant water use (Schwinning 2010), and we will provide some examples of such experimental evidence.
Based on a mix of measurements of plant water status, isotopic composition of plant/soil/rock water, and direct measurements of annual trends in bedrock moisture, Hahm et al. (2020) showed that plants of Quercus garryana growing in Northern California use soil moisture pools during spring, but then shift to exploiting residual moisture in the underlying bedrock. Notably, neutron probe measurements revealed a decline of rock moisture in late summer but only under the oaks, while rock moisture levels remained constant under areas covered by grasses. Similarly, Montaldo et al. (2021) investigated trees of Olea europaea and Quercus suber growing in a Mediterranean site with shallow soil (< 50 cm) overlying fractured basalt, and showed that plants absorbed all the available rock moisture during summer drought. The dynamics of rock moisture in the deep vadose zone were also monitored in a catchment of the Rocky Mountains with a set of tools and methods (water isotope analysis, nuclear magnetic resonance, neutron probes, soil moisture and sapflow sensors), showing that during the growing season rock water depletion occurred from 0.3 to 5 m depth, with a magnitude that mirrored vegetation water consumption (Burns et al. 2023). In another isotope-based study, Querejeta et al. (2006) showed that plants of Brosimum alicastrum growing on shallow soil atop limestone in Yucatán were able to absorb bedrock water from a depth of 0–5-2.5 m, improving plant water status during the peak of summer drought. Using a similar approach, Rose et al. (2003) detected a progressive shift of water use from surface soil to bedrock at several meters depth for plants of Pinus jeffreyi and Arctostaphylos patula in southern Sierra Nevada. Isotopic evidence for the use of crystallization water in gypsum substrates by Helianthemum squamatum was also provided by Palacio et al. (2014). In a controlled experiment, Korboulewsky et al. (2020) analyzed the water status of cuttings of Populus euramericana growing in a mix of soil and either quartz or limestone pebbles, showing that limestone contained water that was used by plants to buffer water stress under a drought treatment. Similarly, Savi et al. (2019) reported that young grapevine plants growing in a soil mixed with crushed limestone rocks had a better water status during summer drought compared to plants growing in plots with only soil. Wang et al. (2023) showed that rock moisture contributed by about 20% to total root water uptake over the growing season in an apple orchard in the hinterland of Shandong Peninsula, China. Nardini et al. (2021) investigated seasonal water relations of Fraxinus ornus trees growing on shallow soil overlying compact bedrock in two sites with contrasting lithology. Trees growing over compact dolostone, with low rock AWC, displayed a critical water status during the peak of summer drought. On the contrary, trees growing over highly porous breccia with relatively higher AWC showed higher water content and water potential. The important contribution of rock moisture to tree performance under drought was also confirmed in saplings grown under controlled conditions in different mixtures of soil and either dolostone or breccia pebbles. During an experimental drought, critical and lethal water potential values were reached earlier in plants growing with the compact dolostone, and were delayed for plants growing with the porous breccia (Nardini et al. 2021). Considering all the above data, it is not surprising that a recent study by McCormick et al. (2021), based on a meta-analysis of studies in different sites across the continental USA, came to the conclusion that woody plants extensively and routinely access bedrock water, and not only during extreme drought conditions. In particular, the study identified several sites where soil water-storage capacity was insufficient to explain annual evapotranspiration, and bedrock was apparently the actual additional source supplying plants with water.
Possible ecological consequences of plant–rock water relations
Considering the evidence for widespread use of bedrock water by plants, especially in sites with limited soil depth, it is interesting to consider the possible functional and ecological consequences of this phenomenon, as well as pointing out the current gaps in our understanding of plant-rock water relations. A first important question is whether tree growth and productivity are influenced by the nature of bedrock, especially in areas characterized by shallow soil cover. Indeed, higher availability of rock moisture in such areas might sustain tree transpiration, thus enhancing photosynthesis, carbon gain, and growth. Unfortunately, answering this question is quite complex because in natural settings, it is very difficult to disentangle the impact of bedrock moisture from that of nutrient availability, which is also affected by the geological nature of the substrate and can significantly impact plant productivity. Indeed, an analysis of available literature on this topic yields contrasting results. Jiang et al. (2020) reported that bedrock nature was an important determinant of vegetation productivity in a karst region in Southwest China, and Callahan et al. (2022) showed that site-to-site differences in forest cover across different sites in California are driven by differences in belowground water-storage capacity, that are in turn regulated by mineral composition and porosity of bedrock. On the other hand, Nardini et al. (2021) reported that two sites both dominated by Fraxinus ornus trees but overlying bedrock of different nature and porosity showed overlapping seasonal trends of above-ground biomass productivity, as revealed by changes of remotely sensed NDVI (Marusig et al. 2020), despite spatial differences in water status at the peak of summer drought (see above).
Although the impact of bedrock moisture on vegetation productivity is unclear, there are several lines of evidence supporting the view that bedrock nature can impact tree water relations and forest responses under drought. As an example, Liu et al. (2014) showed that bedrock water was fundamental to sustain transpiration and hydration of adult Celtis wightii trees over the seasonal drought in a tropical rainforest characterized by karst-like soils. Similar findings for different species and settings were reported by Hubbert et al. (2001), Rose et al. (2003), Eliades et al. (2018), Rempe and Dietrich (2018), Crouchet et al. (2019), McDowell et al. (2022), Hahm et al. (2022), Ding et al. (2021), and Nardini et al. (2021).
Overall, these studies suggest that bedrock moisture might behave like a water pool relatively protected from evaporation that remains hydrated even when the soil has been depleted by evaporation or by root water uptake, and can, thus, release some water that is important to maintain some minimal hydration levels of plants under prolonged drought. It is tempting to speculate that this process might be at least partly responsible for the well know, but still partly unexplained phenomenon of patchy tree mortality under extreme drought. In fact, anomalous drought events frequently cause episodes of tree dieback and mortality, but quite often the extension of these events is highly variable on even narrow spatial scales (Fensham and Fairfax 1997; Schwantes et al. 2018; Flake and Weisberg 2019). We speculate that in some ecosystems, such spatial variability in drought impacts might be partly correlated to belowground heterogeneity of bedrock and root/bedrock interactions, so that in some patches, trees might have access to a residual water sources stored in rocks and made available under critical conditions, allowing some plants to maintain minimum vital hydration levels and, thus, survive the drought (McDowell et al. 2022). A recent study by Crouchet et al. (2019) provides support to this view, by showing that trees of Juniperus ashei and Quercus fusiformis experiencing a severe drought displayed better crown conditions when growing in closer contact with bedrock. Based on data analysis, Crouchet et al. (2019) argued that excess precipitation falling on the year preceding the drought was stored in the bedrock below the soil horizon, especially on sites characterized by thin soil layers. This rock-stored water apparently rescued plants from crown death, and these findings might explain other cases of spatial heterogeneity of drought impacts on forest ecosystems. The spatial heterogeneity of bedrock properties might also explain the small- to medium-scale variability in crop water status in karstic area otherwise characterized by very similar pedo-climatic conditions, as shown by Petruzzellis et al. (2022) for different vineyards experiencing summer drought.
The need for a mechanistic understanding of rock–root water relations
The picture emerging from the studies reviewed in the previous section supports the view that rock moisture can significantly contribute to plant water use, especially under drought conditions. Despite experimental evidence for rock water use by trees, the mechanistic relationships between roots and rocks remain still largely unexplored. Stating that plants use rock moisture implies that water can move from rock pores to the roots and then to leaf cells, but how this can be achieved is not clear. Schwinning (2020) has listed some possible pathways allowing exchange of water between rocks and roots (see Fig. 2). In the simplest scenario, the close association between roots and rock surface might allow direct water transfer from the rock matrix to the root cells. In a second scenario, water could be released from the hydrated porous matrix to the dehydrated surrounding soil, which would be first depleted by root water uptake; water potential gradients between soil–rock interface and the rock pores might then favor water release from bedrock and local ‘rehydration’ of soil volumes explored by the roots. In a third scenario, mycorrhizal hyphae could be directly involved in exploring the narrow rock pores, thus promoting a more direct contact between plant roots and the water-filled rock matrix. Indeed, in several angiosperm and gymnosperm trees, arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal hyphae, responsible for enhancing rock weathering, can grow directly over the surface of carbonate rocks or are able to pit them (Thorley et al. 2015).
An important question, and a very relevant one for each of the above scenarios, is how rock hydraulic conductivity compares to soil and root hydraulic conductivity. Clearly, water transfer between rock, soil, and roots can occur at physiologically relevant rates only when hydraulic conductivities and or water potential gradients between these three compartments allow water flows comparable to residual leaf- and bark-level water losses under drought conditions (see scheme in Fig. 3). Rock hydraulic conductivities are generally measured at spatial scales and with methods that are only partially relevant for the analysis of rock–root physiological interaction and its role in plant water relations, but some data from existing literature can provide interesting insights into this under-investigated topic. Root hydraulic conductivity per unit root/leaf surface area ranges from about 10–1 to 10–6 kg s−1 m−1 MPa−1 (Nardini and Tyree 1999; Nardini et al. 2000; Atkinson et al. 2003; Li et al. 2018) according to species, water status, aquaporin expression level and other factors regulating root hydraulic properties (Aroca et al. 2012; Miniussi et al. 2015). A similar range of variation is observed in irrigated soils, with typical values ranging between 10 and 10–4 kg s−1 m−1 MPa−1 (Adamcova et al. 2005). Interestingly, some rock types display relatively high hydraulic conductivities ranging from 10–3 to 10–7 kg s−1 m−1 MPa−1 (Boving and Grathwohl 2001; Pulido-Bosch et al. 2017; Pirastru et al. 2017). The overlap between values of hydraulic conductivities of rocks and those in the lower range for roots suggests that water movement from the rock to the root interior might be moderately efficient, at least under stress conditions limiting root hydraulics (Lo Gullo et al. 1998; Nardini et al. 1998). This scenario would agree with the putative role of rock moisture as a water reservoir that can be slowly released to the roots when transpiration is reduced, thus helping some tree species to maintain a minimum level of hydration and allowing survival under drought. Yet, as mentioned above, the size of rock pores largely excludes root penetration, unlike soil pores. Hence, the length of the water transport pathway in large-volume rocks might increase the overall hydraulic resistance to values incompatible with significant water supply to the plant. Clearly, these and other considerations highlight a number of questions that still remain open: is rock-root contact direct, or is it mediated by thin soil layers and/or mucilage (Carminati and Vetterlien 2013; Schwartz et al. 2016)? Is the rock–root hydraulic contact maintained under drought, or does root shrinkage prevent water uptake from the rock reservoir (Trifilò et al. 2004; Carminati et al. 2009)? Do mycorrhizae warrant the hydraulic connection between roots and rock interior, and what are typical hyphal hydraulic conductivities compared to rock hydraulics (Nardini et al. 2000; Muhsin and Zwiazek 2002)?
We highlight some areas of research and possible techniques that might help to advance our understanding of the complex nature of rock-soil-root water transfer.
-
1.
Quantification of the hydraulic conductivity of different rock types among those known to be colonized/explored by roots: hydraulic techniques used to measure the hydraulic properties of plant samples (e.g., High Pressure Flow Meter; Tyree et al. 1995; Nardini and Tyree 1999) might be adapted to quantify water flow under different water pressure differences in cylindrical rock samples, thus allowing to compare rock and root hydraulic properties when measured with similar instrumentation.
-
2.
Visualization and quantification of root-rock contact using X-Ray microcomputed tomography in small-sized plants grown in different soil-rock mixtures, to assess the potentially available area for direct water transfer from rocks to roots (Hou et al. 2022).
-
3.
Implementation of neutron tomography techniques to quantify water flow from different rock types to soil and/or directly to roots in vivo (Tötzke et al. 2017).
-
4.
Generation of a global dataset of rock coverage to improve our understanding of the influence of bedrock on plant drought resilience; such a dataset, when integrated into large-scale ecological and hydrological models and combined with advanced remote sensing analysis, might significantly enhance our insights into how geological formations impact vegetation under drought conditions (Ernst et al. 2003; Marusig et al. 2020).
Closer interdisciplinary cooperation between scientists with expertise in plant physiology, ecology, geology, mineralogy and hydrology, aimed at harmonizing hydraulic concepts and techniques, might finally provide numerical solutions to the basic question: how rock water can be used by plants under drought?
Author contribution statement
AN conceived the manuscript and wrote the first draft. MT and SDB contributed to writing and final revision, and prepared the figures.
References
Abate E, Nardini A, Petruzzellis F, Trifilò P (2021) Too dry to survive: leaf hydraulic failure in two Salvia species can be predicted on the basis of water content. Plant Physiol Biochem 166:215–224
Adamcova R, Ottner F, Durn G, Greifeneder S, Dananaj I, Dubikova M, Skalsky R, Miko S, Kapelj S (2005) Problems of hydraulic conductivity estimation in clayey Karst soils. Geol Croat 58:195–203
Adams RE, Iliffe TM, West JB (2020) Identifying tree roots in the caves of Quintana Roo, Mexico as a step toward ecological insights and improved conservation. Plant People Planet 2:133–139
Aroca R, Porcel R, Ruiz-Lozano JM (2012) Regulation of root water uptake under abiotic stress conditions. J Exp Bot 63:43–57
Atkinson CJ, Else MA, Taylor L, Dover CJ (2003) Root and stem hydraulic conductivity as determinants of growth potential in grafted trees of apple (Malus pumila Mill.). J Exp Bot 54:1221–1229
Bashan Y, Li CY, Lebski VK, Moreno M, de-Bashan LE, (2002) Primary colonization of volcanic rocks by plants in arid Baja California, Mexico. Plant Biol 4:392–402
Berry ZC, Emery NC, Gotsch SG, Goldsmith GR (2019) Foliar water uptake: processes, pathways, and integration into plant water budgets. Plant Cell Environ 42:410–423
Boving TB, Grathwohl P (2001) Tracer diffusion coefficients in sedimentary rocks: correlation to porosity and hydraulic conductivity. J Contam Hydrol 53:85–100
Burghelea C, Zaharescu DG, Dontsova K, Maier R, Huxman T, Chorover J (2015) Mineral nutrient mobilization by plants from rock: influence of rock type and arbuscular mycorrhiza. Biogeochemistry 124:187–203
Burns EF, Rempe DM, Parsekian AD, Schmidt LM, Singha K, Barnard HR (2023) Ecohydrologic dynamics of rock moisture in a montane catchment of the Colorado Front Range. Water Resour Res 59:e2022WR034117
Callahan RP, Riebe CS, Sklar LS, Pasquet S, Ferrier KL, Hahm WJ, Taylor NJ, Grana D, Flinchum BA, Hayes JL, Holbrook WS (2022) Forest vulnerability to drought controlled by bedrock composition. Nature Geosci 15:714–719
Canadell J, Jackson RB, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia 108:583–595
Cannon WA (1911) The root habits of desert plants. Carnegie Inst Washington Publ 131. Carnegie Inst Washington Carnegie Inst, Washington, DC
Carminati A, Javaux M (2020) Soil rather than xylem vulnerability controls stomatal response to drought. Trends Plant Sci 9:868–880
Carminati A, Vetterlein D (2013) Plasticity of rhizosphere hydraulic properties as a key for efficient utilization of scarce resources. Ann Bot 112:277–290
Carminati A, Vetterlein D, Weller U, Vogel HJ, Oswald SE (2009) When roots lose contact. Vadose Zone J 8:805–809
Choat B, Jansen S, Brodribb TJ, Cochard H, Delzon S, Bhaskar R, Bucci SJ, Feild TS, Gleason SM, Hacke UG, Jacobsen AL, Lens F, Maherali H, Martnez-Vilalta J, Mayr S, Mencuccini M, Mitchell PJ, Nardini A, Pittermann J, Pratt RB, Sperry JS, Westoby M, Wright IJ, Zanne AE (2012) Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491:752–755
Cooper WS (1922) The broad-sclerophyll vegetation of California An ecological study of the chaparral and its related communities. Carnegie Inst Washington Publ 319. Carnegie Inst, Washington, DC
Cousin I, Buis S, Lagacherie P, Doussan C, Le Bas C, Guérif M (2022) Available water capacity from a multidisciplinary and multiscale viewpoint. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 42:46
Crouchet SE, Jensen J, Schwartz BF, Schwinning S (2019) Tree mortality after a hot drought: distinguishing density-dependent and -independent drivers and why it matters. Front Glob Change 2:21
Dawson TE, Hahm WJ, Crutchfield-Peters K (2020) Digging deeper: what the critical zone perspective adds to the study of plant ecophysiology. New Phytol 226:666–671
de la Serrana RG, Vilagrosa A, Alloza JA (2015) Pine mortality in southeast Spain after an extreme dry and warm year: interactions among drought stress, carbohydrates and bark beetle attack. Trees 29:1791–1804
Ding Y, Nie Y, Chen H, Wang K, Querejeta JI (2021) Water uptake depth is coordinated with leaf water potential, water-use efficiency and drought vulnerability in karst vegetation. New Phytol 229:1339–1353
Duddek P, Carminati A, Koebernick N, Ohmann L, Lovric G, Delzon S, Rodriguez-Dominguez CM, King A, Ahmed MA (2022) The impact of drought-induced root and root hair shrinkage on root–soil contact. Plant Physiol 189:1232–1236
Duursma RA, Blackman CJ, Lopéz R, Martin-StPaul NK, Cochard H, Medlyn BE (2019) On the minimum leaf conductance: its role in models of plant water use, and ecological and environmental controls. New Phytol 221:693–705
Eliades M, Bruggeman A, Lubczynski MW, Christou A, Camera C, Djuma H (2018) The water balance components of Mediterranean pine trees on a steep mountain slope during two hydrologically contrasting years. J Hydrol 562:712–724
Ernst WG, Van de Ven CM, Lyon RJP (2003) Relationships among vegetation, climatic zonation, soil, and bedrock in the central White-Inyo Range, eastern California: a ground-based and remote-sensing study. Geol Soc Am Bull 115:1583–1597
Estrada-Medina H, Santiago LS, Graham RC, Allen MF, Jiménez-Osornio JJ (2013) Source water, phenology and growth of two tropical dry forest tree species growing on shallow karst soils. Trees 27:1297–1307
Evaristo J, McDonnell JJ (2017) Prevalence and magnitude of groundwater use by vegetation: a global stable isotope meta-analysis. Sci Rep 7:44110
Fan Y, Miguez-Macho G, Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB, Otero-Casal C (2017) Hydrologic regulation of plant rooting depth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:10572–10577
Fensham RJ, Fairfax RJ (1997) Drought-related tree death of savanna eucalypts: species susceptibility, soil conditions and root architecture. J Veg Sci 18:71–80
Flake SW, Wesiberg PJ (2019) Fine-scale stand structure mediates drought-induced tree mortality in pinyon–juniper woodlands. Ecol Appl 29:e01831
Gardner WR (1965) Dynamic aspects of soil-water availability to plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 16:323–342
Geekiyanage N, Goodale UM, Cao K, Kitajima K (2019) Plant ecology of tropical and subtropical karst ecosystems. Biotropica 51:626–640
Graham RC, Anderson MA, Sternberg PD, Tice KR, Schoeneberger PJ (1997) Morphology, porosity, and hydraulic conductivity of weathered granitic bedrock and overlying soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:516–522
Grossiord C, Buckley TN, Cernusak LA, Novick KA, Poulter B, Siegwolf RTW, Sperry JS, McDowell NG (2020) Plant responses to rising vapor pressure deficit. New Phytol 226:1550–1566
Hahm WJ, Rempe DM, Dralle DN, Dawson TE, Dietrich WE (2020) Oak transpiration drawn from the weathered bedrock vadose zone in the summer dry season. Water Resour Res 56:e2020WR027419
Hahm WJ, Dralle DN, Sanders M, Bryk AB, Fauria KE, Huang MH, Hudson-Rasmussen B, Nelson MD, Pedrazas MA, Schmidt L, Whiting J, Dietrich WE, Rempe DM (2022) Bedrock vadose zone storage dynamics under extreme drought: consequences for plant water availability, recharge, and runoff. Water Resour Res 58:e2021WR031781
Hammond WM, Williams AP, Abatzoglou JT, Adams HD, Klein T, López R, Sáenz-Romero C, Hartmann H, Breshears DD, Allen CD (2022) Global field observations of tree die-off reveal hotter-drought fingerprint for Earth’s forests. Nature Comm 13:1761
Hartmann H, Bastos A, Das AJ, Esquivel-Muelbert A, Hammond WM, Martínez-Vilalta J, McDowell NG, Powers JS, Pugh TAM, Ruthrof KX, Allen CD (2022) Climate change risks to global forest health: emergence of unexpected events of elevated tree mortality worldwide. Annu Rev Plant Biol 73:673–702
Hellmers H, Horton JS, Juhren G, O’Keefe J (1955) Root systems of some chaparral plants in southern California. Ecology 36:667–678
Hember RA, Kurz WA, Coops NC (2017) Relationships between individual-tree mortality and water-balance variables indicate positive trends in water stress-induced tree mortality across North America. Glob Change Biol 23:1691–1710
Hou LH, Gao W, der Bom van F, Weng ZH, Doolette CL, Maksimenko A, Hausermann D, Zheng Y, Tang C, Lombi E, Kopittke PM (2022) Use of X-ray tomography for examining root architecture in soils. Geoderma 405:115405
Hubbert KR, Graham RC, Anderson MA (2001) Soil and weathered bedrock: components of a Jeffrey pine plantation substrate. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1255–1262
Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108:389–411
Jackson RB, Moore LA, Hoffmann WA, Pockman WT, Linder CR (1999) Ecosystem rooting depth determined with caves and DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci 96:11387–11392
Jayawickreme DH, Jobbagy EG, Jackson RB (2014) Geophysical subsurface imaging for ecological applications. New Phytol 201:1170–1175
Jiang Z, Liu H, Wang H, Peng J, Meersmans J, Green SM, Quine TA, Wu X, Song Z (2020) Bedrock geochemistry influences vegetation growth by regulating the regolith water holding capacity. Nature Comm 11:2392
Jones DP, Graham RC (1993) Water-holding characteristics of weathered granitic rock in chaparral and forest ecosystems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:256–261
Kirkham MB (2005) Principles of soil and plant water relations. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington
Klein T (2014) The variability of stomatal sensitivity to leaf water potential across tree species indicates a continuum between isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. Funct Ecol 28:1313–1320
Korboulewsky N, Tétégan M, Samouelian A, Cousin I (2020) Plants use water in the pores of rock fragments during drought. Plant Soil 454:35–47
Kramer PJ (1944) Soil moisture in relation to plant growth. Bot Rev 10:525–559
Lamont BB, Lange BJ (1976) ‘Stalagmiform’ roots in limestone caves. New Phytol 76:353–360
Li S, Su P, Zhang H, Zhou Z, Shi R, Gou W (2018) Hydraulic conductivity characteristics of desert plant organs: coping with drought tolerance strategy. Water 10:1036
Liu W, Li P, Duan W, Liu W (2014) Dry-season water utilization by trees growing on thin karst soils in a seasonal tropical rainforest of Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. Ecohydrology 7:927–935
Lo Gullo MA, Nardini A, Salleo S, Tyree MT (1998) Changes in root hydraulic conductance (KR) of Olea oleaster seedlings following drought stress and irrigation. New Phytol 140:25–31
Lobet G, Couvreur V, Meunier F, Javaux M, Draye X (2014) Plant water uptake in drying soils. Plant Physiol 164:1619–1627
Lopez BR, Bashan Y, Bacilio M, De la Cruz-Agüero G (2009) Rock-colonizing plants: abundance of the endemic cactus Mammillaria fraileana related to rock type in the southern Sonoran Desert. Plant Ecol 201:575–588
Maeght JL, Rewald B, Pierret A (2013) How to study deep roots – and why it matters. Front Plant Sci 4:299
Maherali H, Pockman WT, Jackson RB (2004) Adaptive variation in the vulnerability of woody plants to xylem cavitation. Ecology 85:2184–2199
Mantova M, Menezes-Silva PE, Badel E, Cochard H, Torres-Ruiz JM (2021) The interplay of hydraulic failure and cell vitality explains tree capacity to recover from drought. Physiol Plant 172:247–257
Martínez-Vilalta J, Garcia-Forner N (2017) Water potential regulation, stomatal behaviour and hydraulic transport under drought: deconstructing the iso/anisohydric concept. Plant Cell Environ 40:962–976
Marusig D, Petruzzellis F, Tomasella M, Napolitano R, Altobelli A, Nardini A (2020) Correlation of field-measured and remotely sensed plant water status as a tool to monitor the risk of drought-induced forest decline. Forests 11:77
Matthes-Sears U, Larson DW (1995) Rooting characteristics of trees in rock: a study of Thuja occidentalis on cliff faces. Int J Plant Sci 156:679–686
McCormick EL, Dralle DN, Hahm WJ, Tune AK, Schmidt LM, Chadwick KD, Rempe DM (2021) Widespread woody plant use of water stored in bedrock. Nature 597:225–229
McDowell NG, Sapes G, Pivovaroff A, Adams HD, Allen CD, Anderegg WRL, Arend M, Breshears DD, Brodribb T, Choat B, Cochard H, De Cáceres M, De Kauwe MG, Grossiord C, Hammond WM, Hartmann H, Hoch G, Kahmen A, Klein T, Mackay DS, Mantova M, Martínez-Vilalta J, Medlyn BE, Mencuccini M, Nardini A, Oliveira RS, Sala A, Tissue DT, Torres-Ruiz JM, Trowbridge AM, Trugman AT, Wiley E, Xu C (2022) Mechanisms of woody-plant mortality under rising drought, CO2 and vapour pressure deficit. Nat Rev Earth Environ 3:294–308
McLaughlin BC, Blakey R, Weitz AP, Feng X, Brown BJ, Ackerly DD, Dawson TE, Thompson SE (2020) Weather underground: subsurface hydrologic processes mediate tree vulnerability to extreme climatic drought. Glob Change Biol 26:3091–3107
Miniussi M, Del Terra L, Savi T, Pallavicini A, Nardini A (2015) Aquaporins in Coffea arabica L.: Identification, expression, and impacts on plant water relations and hydraulics. Plant Physiol Biochem 95:92–102
Mirfenderesgi G, Matheny AM, Bohrer G (2019) Hydrodynamic trait coordination and cost–benefit trade-offs throughout the isohydric-anisohydric continuum in trees. Ecohydrology 12:e2041
Montaldo N, Corona R, Curreli M, Sirigu S, Piroddi L, Oren R (2021) Rock water as a key resource for patchy ecosystems on shallow soils: digging deep tree clumps subsidize surrounding surficial grass. Earth’s Future 9:e2020EF001870
Moore GW, Edgar CB, Vogel JG, Washington-Allen RA, March RG, Zehnder R (2016) Tree mortality from an exceptional drought spanning mesic to semiarid ecoregions. Ecol Appl 26:602–611
Muhsin TM, Zwiazek JJ (2002) Ectomycorrhizas increase apoplastic water transport and root hydraulic conductivity in Ulmus Americana seedlings. New Phytol 153:153–158
Nardini A, Tyree MT (1999) Root and shoot hydraulic conductance of seven Quercus species. Ann for Sci 56:371–377
Nardini A, Lo Gullo MA, Salleo S (1998) Seasonal changes of root hydraulic conductance (KRL) in four forest trees: an ecological interpretation. Plant Ecol 139:81–90
Nardini A, Salleo S, Tyree MT, Vertovec M (2000) Influence of the ectomycorrhizas formed by Tuber melanosporum Vitt. on hydraulic conductance and water relations of Quercus ilex L. seedlings. Ann for Sci 57:305–312
Nardini A, Battistuzzo M, Savi T (2013) Shoot desiccation and hydraulic failure in temperate woody angiosperms during an extreme summer drought. New Phytol 200:322–329
Nardini A, Casolo V, Dal Borgo A, Savi T, Stenni B, Bertoncin P, Zini L, McDowell NG (2016) Rooting depth, water relations and non-structural carbohydrate dynamics in three woody angiosperms differentially affected by an extreme summer drought. Plant Cell Environ 39:618–627
Nardini A, Petruzzellis F, Marusig D, Tomasella M, Natale S, Altobelli A, Calligaris C, Floriddia G, Cucchi F, Forte E, Zini L (2021) Water ‘on the rocks’: a summer drink for thirsty trees? New Phytol 229:199–212
Neumann M, Mues V, Moreno A, Hasenauer H, Seidl R (2017) Climate variability drives recent tree mortality in Europe. Glob Change Biol 23:4788–4797
Nolan RH, Gauthey A, Losso A, Medlyn BE, Smith R, Chhajed SS, Fuller K, Song M, Li X, Beaumont LJ, Boer MM, Wright IJ, Choat B (2021) Hydraulic failure and tree size linked with canopy die-back in eucalypt forest during extreme drought. New Phytol 230:1354–1365
Palacio S, Azorín J, Montserrat-Martí G, Ferrio JP (2014) The crystallization water of gypsum rocks is a relevant water source for plants. Nat Commun 5:4660
Peng C, Ma Z, Lei X, Zhu Q, Chen H, Wang W, Liu S, Li W, Fang X, Zhou X (2011) A drought-induced pervasive increase in tree mortality across Canada’s boreal forests. Nature Clim Change 1:467–471
Peng X, Wang X, Dai Q, Ding G, Li C (2020) Soil structure and nutrient contents in underground fissures in a rock-mantled slope in the karst rocky desertification area. Environ Earth Sci 79:3
Petruzzellis F, Natale S, Bariviera L, Calderan A, Mihelčič A, Reščič J, Sivilotti P, Šuklje K, Lisjak K, Vanzo A, Nardini A (2022) High spatial heterogeneity of water stress levels in Refošk grapevines cultivated in Classical Karst. Agric Water Manag 260:107288
Phelan CA, Pearce DW, Rood SB (2022) Thirsty trees: even with continuous river flow, riparian cottonwoods are constrained by water availability. Trees 36:1247–1260
Pirastru M, Marrosu R, Di Prima S, Keesstra S, Giadrossich F, Niedda M (2017) Lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil horizons evaluated in large-volume soil monoliths. Water 9:862
Preisler Y, Hölttä T, Grünzweig JM, Oz I, Tatarinov F, Ruehr NK, Rotenberg E, Yakir D (2022) The importance of tree internal water storage under drought conditions. Tree Physiol 42:771–783
Puente ME, Bashan Y, Li CY, Lebsky VK (2004) Microbial populations and activities in the rhizoplane of rock-weathering desert plants. I. Root colonization and weathering of igneous rocks. Plant Biol 6:629–642
Pulido-Bosch A, Motyka J, Pulido-Leboeuf P, Borczak S (2017) Matrix hydrodynamic properties of carbonate rocks from the Betic Cordillera (Spain). Hydrol Process 18:2893–2906
Querejeta JI, Estrada-Medina H, Allen MF, Jiménez-Osornio JJ, Ruenes R (2006) Utilization of bedrock water by Brosimum alicastrum trees growing on shallow soil atop limestone in a dry tropical climate. Plant Soil 287:187–197
Raven JA, Edwards D (2001) Roots: evolutionary origins and biogeochemical significance. J Exp Bot 52:381–401
Rempe DM, Dietrich WE (2018) Direct observations of rock moisture, a hidden component of the hydrologic cycle. Proc Natinl Acad Sci USA 115:2664–2669
Ritchie JT (1981) Soil water availability. Plant Soil 58:327–338
Robertson BB, Almond PC, Carrick ST, Penny V, Eger A, Chau HW, Smith CMS (2021) The influence of rock fragments on field capacity water content in stony soils from hard sandstone alluvium. Geoderma 389:114912
Roman DT, Novick KA, Brzostek ER, Dragoni D, Rahman F, Phillips RP (2015) The role of isohydric and anisohydric species in determining ecosystem-scale response to severe drought. Oecologia 179:641–654
Rose KL, Graham RC, Parker DR (2003) Water source utilization by Pinus jeffreyi and Arctostaphylos patula on thin soils over bedrock. Oecologia 134:46–54
Savi T, Petruzzellis F, Martellos S, Stenni B, Dal Borgo A, Zini L, Lisjak K, Nardini A (2018) Vineyard water relations in a karstic area: deep roots and irrigation management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 263:53–59
Savi T, Petruzzellis F, Moretti E, Stenni B, Zini L, Martellos S, Lisjak K, Nardini A (2019) Grapevine water relations and rooting depth in karstic soils. Sci Total Environ 692:669–675
Saxton KE, Rawls WJ (2006) Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1569–1578
Schoeman JL, Kruger MM, Loock AH (1997) Water-holding capacity of rock fragments in rehabilitated open cast mine soils. S Afr Tydskr Plant Grond 14:98–102
Schwantes AM, Parolari AJ, Swenson JJ, Johnson DM, Domec JC, Jackson RB, Pelak N, Porporato A (2018) Accounting for landscape heterogeneity improves spatial predictions of tree vulnerability to drought. New Phytol 220:132–146
Schwartz N, Carminati A, Javaux M (2016) The impact of mucilage on root water uptake—a numerical study. Water Resour Res 52:264–277
Schwinning S (2010) The ecohydrology of roots in rocks. Ecohydrology 3:238–245
Schwinning S (2020) A critical question for the critical zone: how do plants use rock water? Plant Soil 454:49–56
Shangguan W, Hengl T, Mendes de Jesus J, Yuan H, Dai Y (2017) Mapping the global depth to bedrock for land surface modelling. J Adv Model Earth Syst 9:65–88
Sternberg PD, Anderson MA, Graham RC, Beyers JL, Tice KR (1996) Root distribution and seasonal water status in weathered granitic bedrock under chaparral. Geoderma 72:89–98
Tautges NE, Chiartas JL, Gaudin ACM, O’Geen AT, Herrera I, Scow KM (2019) Deep soil inventories reveal that impacts of cover crops and compost on soil carbon sequestration differ in surface and subsurface soils. Glob Change Biol 25:3753–3766
Teskey R, Wertin T, Bauweraerts I, Ameye M, McGuire MA, Steppe K (2015) Responses of tree species to heat waves and extreme heat events. Plant Cell Environ 38:1699–1712
Thorley RMS, Taylor LL, Banwart SA, Leake JR, Beerling DJ (2015) The role of forest trees and their mycorrhizal fungi in carbonate rock weathering and its significance for global carbon cycling. Plant Cell Environ 38:947–1961
Tötzke C, Kardjilov N, Manke I, Oswald SE (2017) Capturing 3D water flow in rooted soil by ultra-fast neutron tomography. Sci Rep 7:6192
Trifilò P, Raimondo F, Nardini A, Lo Gullo MA, Salleo S (2004) Drought resistance of Ailanthus altissima: root hydraulics and water relations. Tree Physiol 24:107–114
Trifilò P, Abate E, Petruzzellis F, Azzarà M, Nardini A (2023) Critical water contents at leaf, stem and root level leading to irreversible drought-induced damage in two woody and one herbaceous species. Plant Cell Environ 46:119–132
Tyree MT, Patiño S, Bennink J, Alexander J (1995) Dynamic measurements of root hydraulic conductance using a high pressure flowmeter in the laboratory and field. J Exp Bot 46:83–94
Wang J, Wang C, Li H, Liu Y, Li H, Ren R, Si B (2023) Rock water use by apple trees affected by physical properties of the underlying weathered rock. Agric Water Manag 287:108413
Wolfe BT (2020) Bark water vapour conductance is associated with drought performance in tropical trees. Biol Lett 16:20200263
Yi C, Hendrey G, Niu S, McDowell NG, Allen CD (2022) Tree mortality in a warming world: causes, patterns, and implications. Environ Res Lett 17:030201
Yu T, Feng Q, Si J, Pinkard EA (2019) Coordination of stomatal control and stem water storage on plant water use in desert riparian trees. Trees 33:787–801
Zwieniecki MA, Newton M (1994) Root distribution of 12-year-old forests at rocky sites in southwestern Oregon: effects of rock physical properties. Can J for Res 24:1791–1796
Zwieniecki MA, Newton M (1995) Roots growing in rock fissures: their morphological adaptation. Plant Soil 172:181–187
Zwieniecki MA, Newton M (1996) Water-holding characteristics of metasedimentary rock in selected forest ecosystems in southwestern Oregon. Soil Sci Soc Am J 60:1578–1582
Funding
Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Trieste within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nardini, A., Tomasella, M. & Di Bert, S. Bedrock: the hidden water reservoir for trees challenged by drought. Trees 38, 1–11 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-023-02482-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-023-02482-6