"Vodn\u00ED kapacita a vlhkost k\u016Fry m\u00E1 zna\u010Dn\u00FD vliv na roz\u0161i\u0159ov\u00E1n\u00ED a druhovou diverzitu epifytn\u00EDch li\u0161ejn\u00EDk\u016F a epifytn\u00EDch mechorost\u016F. Normativn\u00ED vodn\u00ED kapacita byla studov\u00E1na pro sedm druh\u016F strom\u016F ve t\u0159ech lokalit\u00E1ch (Osobla\u017Esko, Odersko, Vset\u00EDnsko). Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED hodnotu normativn\u00ED vodn\u00ED kapacity m\u011Bly Picea abies a Malus sp. Pr\u016Fm\u011Brn\u00E1 hodnota normativn\u00ED vodn\u00ED kapacity ze v\u0161ech t\u0159\u00ED lokalit \u010Dinila pro Picea abies 0,934 g/cm3 a pro Malus sp. 0,914 g/cm3. Nejvy\u0161\u0161\u00ED ztr\u00E1tu vlhkosti za 24 hod. dos\u00E1hl druh Larix decidua 92%, Carpinus betulus, Betula pendula a Malus sp.dos\u00E1hly a\u017E 91% ztr\u00E1ty vlhkosti za 24hodin. Nejmen\u0161\u00ED ztr\u00E1ty vlhkosti m\u011Bli druhy Picea abies 88,7%, Pinus sylvestris 85% a Acer Pseudoplatanus 77,42%. U v\u0161ech druh\u016F strom\u016F byla z\u0159ejm\u00E9 z\u00E1vislost ve velikosti obvodu stromu a procentu\u00E1ln\u00ED ztr\u00E1tou vlhkosti za 24 hodin. Nejz\u0159eteln\u011Bji to bylo u stromu Betula pendula. P\u0159i obvodu kmene 1,31m dosahovala ztr\u00E1tu vlhkosti za 24 hodin 85,74%. Naproti tomu Betula pendula s obvodem kmene 0,15m byla procentu\u00E1ln\u00ED ztr\u00E1ta vl"@cs . . . "Many studies show that the rates of water storage capacity can differ between different types of trees. The main purpose of this study was to compare normative water capacity of chosen types of woody species (Acer pseudoplatanus, Betula pendula, Carpinus betulus, Malus sp. as the representatives of broadleaved trees and as the representatives of coniferous were chosen species Larix decidua, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris). In some cases the rates of water storage capacity between chosen trees were considerable, e.g. the water storage capacity of tree Malus sp with the tree trunk?s perimeter 100cm was 0,886 g/cm3 and water storage capacity of tree pendula with tree trunk?s perimeter 100cm was 0,342 g/cm3. There were big differences between the losses of moisture during the 24 hours period. The understanding of differences in interspecific variation of water storage capacity can help us in better insight of occurrence of some organisms living on tree trunks and their dependence."@en . . "P(2B06068), S" . . "INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION OF BARK\u00B4S WATER STORAGE CAPACITY OF CHOSEN TYPES OF TREES AND THE DEPENDANCE ON OCCURANCE OF EPIPHYTIC MOSSES"@en . "RIV/61989100:27350/08:00019714!RIV09-MSM-27350___" . "Bieleszov\u00E1, Silvia" . . "RIV/61989100:27350/08:00019714" . "INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION OF BARK\u00B4S WATER STORAGE CAPACITY OF CHOSEN TYPES OF TREES AND THE DEPENDANCE ON OCCURANCE OF EPIPHYTIC MOSSES" . "Valov\u00E1, Marie" . "4" . "INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION OF BARK\u00B4S WATER STORAGE CAPACITY OF CHOSEN TYPES OF TREES AND THE DEPENDANCE ON OCCURANCE OF EPIPHYTIC MOSSES" . . "Mezidruhov\u00E9 rozd\u00EDly vodn\u00ED kapacity k\u016Fry pro vybran\u00E9 druhy strom\u016F a z\u00E1vislost na v\u00FDskytu epifytick\u00FDch mechorost\u016F"@cs . . "1"^^ . . "27350" . "7"^^ . "[14ADCBBBD133]" . . "373042" . . "epipihytic moses; bark water storage capacity"@en . . "CZ - \u010Cesk\u00E1 republika" . "2"^^ . "Mezidruhov\u00E9 rozd\u00EDly vodn\u00ED kapacity k\u016Fry pro vybran\u00E9 druhy strom\u016F a z\u00E1vislost na v\u00FDskytu epifytick\u00FDch mechorost\u016F"@cs . . "GeoScience Engineering" . . "INTERSPECIFIC VARIATION OF BARK\u00B4S WATER STORAGE CAPACITY OF CHOSEN TYPES OF TREES AND THE DEPENDANCE ON OCCURANCE OF EPIPHYTIC MOSSES"@en . "Many studies show that the rates of water storage capacity can differ between different types of trees. The main purpose of this study was to compare normative water capacity of chosen types of woody species (Acer pseudoplatanus, Betula pendula, Carpinus betulus, Malus sp. as the representatives of broadleaved trees and as the representatives of coniferous were chosen species Larix decidua, Picea abies, Pinus sylvestris). In some cases the rates of water storage capacity between chosen trees were considerable, e.g. the water storage capacity of tree Malus sp with the tree trunk?s perimeter 100cm was 0,886 g/cm3 and water storage capacity of tree pendula with tree trunk?s perimeter 100cm was 0,342 g/cm3. There were big differences between the losses of moisture during the 24 hours period. The understanding of differences in interspecific variation of water storage capacity can help us in better insight of occurrence of some organisms living on tree trunks and their dependence." . "LIV" . . . "1802-5420" .