Here are two reasons:
1. Oxygen absorption through your skin
- Your skin absorbs a lot of oxygen, up to 8% of your body's requirement. Underwater this is not the case.
Not sure if you are exact here, Eric. As far as I could find, oxygen absorption at humans is usually estimated to lower levels. Diverse sources give values between 1% to 5% (for example
here), usually rather at the lower end. 8% seems to be a lot, but I guess at some individuals under special circumstances it might be still possible. The values given in diverse documents also usually speak about the intake under normal conditions, and I do not exclude that the percentage may grow under hypoxia, or in apnea.
On the other hand, the body also gets rid of some CO2 in the same way - I did not find any values, but guess they may be similar to those of O2. And of course, vasoconstriction reducing the blood flow through the skin would reduce both the O2 intake, and the CO2 elimination through the skin.
There are indeed individuals who breath more than others through the skin - their skin is then often wet even at moderate temperatures, and not from sweating (for example persons referred in the document "
The Osmotic Passage of Water and Gases through the Human Skin" eliminated through skin breathing 18g of water per hour)
In the same time, the claim that is not possible under water in not necessarily exact either (at least without a wetsuit). Although the full text of the above mentioned article is not available online, from the abstract and from other sources it is clear that gas and liquid exchange through the skin continue also under water. I am not sure about the levels - did not find any numbers anywhere, but there are diverse factors acting in both ways, so although I guess the levels would be lower than on air, I do not know if dramatically or not (Negative effects: lower oxygen percentage in water than in air; vasoconstriction, use of wetsuit, ... Positive effects: liquid osmosis; depth increases the partial osmotic pressure gradient of O2; high solubility of CO2 in water,...)
However, at
Naiad it may be quite an amplified case: I found a document called
An experimental study of oxygen absorption in some damselfly naiads. The full text is again not available, but from the title and the brief description it is apparent that damselfly naiads absorb oxygen through the skin much more intensively that humans, and that's the case even under water. So if Naiad is of a similar construction as damselfly naiads, it is no wonder she can hold her breath 6 minutes on the air, but not as long underwater - underwater she either has a 5mm wetsuit which prevents the gas exchange, or is too cold, having hence intensive vasoconstriction of skin capillaries, stopping the gas exchange in similar way as the wetsuit.
Now seriously: I think there are multiple factors playing role in Naiad's case (most already mentioned in this thread), but think that the skin respiration is not the principal one. From her description it is apparent that it is not the diving reflex in water that is not helpful, but rather the complete lack of it. One thing seems to be clear though: once the DR starts kicking in strongly, she will probably break some records
She probably needs to spend more time with some real diving, than training dry on the bed - I guess it could help with improving the DR.
2. CO2 storage
- Under conditions of vasoconstriction & cold, your CO2 storage capacity is reduced.
I am not quite sure about this either. Better told, I believe there is indeed some reduction of CO2 storage with vasoconstriction, but maybe not that important. I'd be interested in seeing some documents talking about it closer. The vasoconstriction does not reduce the volume of blood in circulation importantly - it rather shifts it into the core, so the blood as CO2 buffer plays no big role. Possibly, the blood shift even improves the ratio of blood volume to the CO2 producing cells in the core. On the other hand, CO2 may be also stored in cells and liquids all over the body, so by limiting the delivery of the excess CO2 to the inactive parts may indeed play some negative role (especially at static apnea where the muscles produce little waste and could take some more off from the core if the vasoconstriction did not throttle it).
That told, I am not sure what the outcome exactly is, and would love to see some results of some serious research, but so far did not find anything specific.