In considering the question, I'm left to wonder if by using the word 'tolerate' you're wondering if it makes sense that a pothos in water might look better in low light than a genetic clone of the same plant with the same photosynthesizing surface area in a solid medium? Or, are you wondering if the same 2 plants were growing side by side and the photo load was gradually diminished, which would hold tighter to viability?

Al

that ones in water survive better than ones in soil

A large number of plants considered to be terrestrial are able to adapt to various forms of hydro/aqua culture. They can do this because, when inundated, a simple tissue (parenchyma) in root stele is able to change how it's structured. The new more porous structure (aerenchyma) allows roots which normally get the oxygen they need to function from the rhizosphere, to get the oxygen needed from above the water line by diffusion of atmospheric gasses from the plant's above-water parts to and through its roots.

Aerenchymous tissue is filled with airy compartments. It usually forms in already rooted plants as a result of highly selective cell death and dissolution in the root cortex in response to hypoxic conditions in the rhizosphere. Aerenchymous tissue can form 2 ways. One, by cellular differentiation and subsequent collapse, and the other type is formed by cell separation without collapse ( as in water-rooted plants). In both cases, the long continuous air spaces allow diffusion of oxygen (and probably ethylene) from shoots to roots that would normally be unavailable to plants with roots growing in hypoxic media. In fresh cuttings placed in water, aerenchymous tissue forms due to the same hypoxic conditions w/o cell death & dissolution.

I don't see a terrestrial plant adapted to a life in water as having an advantage over the same plant grown in a solid medium, if we assume that all cultural factors affecting the plant (light, temp, fertility are spot on once plants have adapted to some form of water culture. Neither do I see it as a +.

In most cases where a grower touts some form of water culture as being 'better' than conventional container culture, it can be read as saying, "I was struggling to keep containerized plants healthy in soil and failed, but they're doing great in jars of water". Usually, this would be the result of grower error centering on a medium that held excessive amounts of water for extended periods. Perhaps someone else can think of a reason I might have missed.

Al

thankfully, i am able to grow pothos in both water and soil. :)

I think which method works best in the end is what method the grower is best suited to. The methodologies of each form of culture are different enough the driving force behind whichever method reigns superlative is the efficacy of the grower. It's very unlikely that the grower will be precisely as skilled using either method.

I've decided that the only job of a grower is to identify what is limiting his/her plant and eliminate (to the greatest degree possible) the limitations ..... nothing more than that. In order for any plant to realize its full genetic potential, every cultural factor must be perfect. As cultural conditions move from perfect to almost perfect, some of the plants potential is lost forever to the stress - and it cannot be regained. As a cultural condition starts edging toward the limits of what a plant is genetically programmed to tolerate, a significant part of the plant's potential is lost to stress. Continuing decline leads to strain, which always ends in loss of viability unless the trend is reversed. Strain occurs when the plant is using more energy (food) than it's able to make via photosynthesis.

Best luck with your new venture.

Al