C seed plants were close for the fog water. Moreover, the 2 H and 18 O of Betamethasone disodium custom synthesis epiphytic bryophytes and epiphytic ferns had been identical to humus. The two H and 18 O of fog water were larger (p 0.05) than those of humus and rainwater (Figure three and Table S1). Having said that, no substantial distinction was found between the humus and rainwater. Particularly, the average two H and 18 O values were -27.four 4.9 and -5.93 0.55 for fog water, -70.8 three.1 and -8.80 0.46 for humus, and -88.9 13.7 and -11.89 1.71 for rainwater. The two H and 18 O of epiphytic lichens were substantially greater than epiphytic bryophytes (p 0.01), epiphytic ferns (p 0.01), and epiphytic seed plants (p 0.05) (Figure four). Meanwhile, we also found a important distinction in two H and 18 O between epiphytic bryophytes and epiphytic seed plants (p 0.01). There was no considerable distinction involving the epiphytic bryophytes along with the epiphytic ferns. The average 2 H and 18 O values had been -34.7 4.0 and -3.38 0.92 for epiphytic lichens, -71.7 2.0 and -8.42 0.29 for epiphytic bryophytes, and -63.9 four.2 and -7.16 0.59 for epiphytic ferns, and -44.5 two.2 and -6.75 0.45 for epiphytic seed plants. There were also interspecific differences (p 0.05) among the epiphytic ferns. The 2 H and 18 O values of epiphytic ferns ranged from -77.33 to -46.46 and from -9.22 to -5.66, respectively.Water 2021, 13,7 ofFigure 2. Typical hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios (2 H and 18 O) of epiphytes (Epiphytic lichens, n = four species; Epiphytic bryophytes, n = four; Epiphytic ferns, n = 4; Epiphytic seed plants, n = 4) and water sources (Fog water, n = 7; humus, n = four; and rainwater, n = 5) within the dry season (January 2019). The strong and segmented lines represent the international meteoric water line (GMWL: 2 H = 10 eight 18 O) plus the neighborhood meteoric water line (LMWL: two H = six.23 7.55 18 O, R2 = 0.86, p 0.001), respectively. The LMWL was calculated by linear regression in the two H and 18 O of nearby precipitation information from 2018 to 2019. Error bars represent mean SE of epiphytes and water sources.Figure three. The 2 H (a) and 18 O (b) of distinct water sources (Fog water, n = 7; humus, n = 4; and rainwater, n = five) within the dry season, January 2019. Wilcoxon rank sum test is applied to verify the variations of water supply samples (NS 0.05, p 0.05, p 0.01, p 0.001); Error bars represent signifies SEs of distinctive water sources.Water 2021, 13,8 ofFigure four. The two H (a) and 18 O (b) of epiphytes from unique groups. Epiphytic lichens (n = four): NP, Nephromopsis pallescens; LR, Lobaria retigera. Epiphytic bryophytes (n = 4): HM, Hamaliodendron montagneanum; PA, Plagiochila assamica; BH, Bazzania himlayana; TC, Thuidium cymbifolium. Epiphytic ferns (n = 4): AI, Asplenium indicum; LL, Lepisorus UCB-5307 Autophagy loriformis; HP, Hymenophyllum polyanthos; LC, Loxogramme chinensis. Epiphytic seed plants (n = four): AB, Aeschynanthus buxifolius; AM, Agapetes mannii.) inside the dry season, January 2019. Wilcoxon rank sum test is utilised to confirm the differences of epiphyte samples (NS 0.05, p 0.05, p 0.01, p 0.001); Error bars represent mean SE, and distinctive letters with bars represent considerable differences for every species (p 0.05).3.two. Partitioning of Water Sources for Epiphytes The MixSIAR model showed that all the epiphytes could use fog water as their water sources (Figure 5). Since the epiphytic lichens had only two prospective water sources (see Section 2.4), the contributions of fog water to Nephromopsis pallescens (NP) and Lobaria retigera (LR) had been up to 86.