| Literature DB >> 19495788 |
Jun-Wen Chen1, Qiang Zhang, Xiao-Shuang Li, Kun-Fang Cao.
Abstract
Hydraulic traits and hydraulic-related structural properties were examined in three deciduous (Hevea brasiliensis, Macaranga denticulate, and Bischofia javanica) and three evergreen (Drypetes indica, Aleurites moluccana, and Codiaeum variegatum) Euphorbiaceae tree species from a seasonally tropical forest in south-western China. Xylem water potential at 50% loss of stem hydraulic conductivity (P50(stem)) was more negative in the evergreen tree, but leaf water potential at 50% loss of leaf hydraulic conductivity (P50(leaf)) did not function as P50(stem) did. Furthermore, P50(stem) was more negative than P50(leaf) in the evergreen tree; contrarily, this pattern was not observed in the deciduous tree. Leaf hydraulic conductivity overlapped considerably, but stem hydraulic conductivity diverged between the evergreen and deciduous tree. Correspondingly, structural properties of leaves overlapped substantially; however, structural properties of stem diverged markedly. Consequently, leaf and stem hydraulic traits were closely correlated with leaf and stem structural properties, respectively. Additionally, stem hydraulic efficiency was significantly correlated with stem hydraulic resistance to embolism; nevertheless, such a hydraulic pattern was not found in leaf hydraulics. Thus, these results suggest: (1) that the evergreen and deciduous tree mainly diverge in stem hydraulics, but not in leaf hydraulics, (2) that regardless of leaf or stem, their hydraulic traits result primarily from structural properties, and not from leaf phenology, (3) that leaves are more vulnerable to drought-induced embolism than stem in the evergreen tree, but not always in the deciduous tree and (4) that there exists a trade-off between hydraulic efficiency and safety for stem hydraulics, but not for leaf hydraulics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19495788 PMCID: PMC2715567 DOI: 10.1007/s00425-009-0959-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Planta ISSN: 0032-0935 Impact factor: 4.116
Fig. 1Vulnerability to water stress-induced embolism in six Euphorbiaceae tree species: H. brasiliensis (HB), M. denticulate (MD), B. javanica (BJ), D. indica (DI), A. moluccana (AM), and C. variegatum (CV). Each point represents one measurements and percentage loss of conductivity (PLC) was plotted against xylem tension for each tree species. The vertical dashed lines indicated the xylem tension at which 50% loss of hydraulic conductivity occurs (P50)
Fig. 2Leaf hydraulic conductivity (Kleaf) as a function of leaf water potential for six Euphorbiaceae tree species: H. brasiliensis, M. denticulate, B. javanica, D. indica, A. moluccana, and C. variegatum. Values for each point are mean ± SD of more than ten measurements on the slowly dark-desiccated leaves from 3 to 5 individual trees (n = 3–5), and a sigmoid function was fitted to the data. The vertical dashed lines indicated the leaf water potential at which 50% loss of maximum Kleaf occurs (P50)
Fig. 3Water potential at 50% loss of hydraulic conductivity (P50) for stem (shaded rectangle) and leaf (striped rectangle) in the deciduous and evergreen Euphorbiaceae tree species. The mean ± SD is shown for the values of P50 (n = 3). Within the graph, different lower case letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05, t tests)
Fig. 4Maximum leaf hydraulic conductivity (Kleaf-max, a), maximum leaf area-specific hydraulic conductivity (KL-max, b), and maximum sapwood area-specific hydraulic conductivity (KS-max, c) in six Euphorbiaceae tree species with contrasting leaf phenology. HB, H. brasiliensis; MD, M. denticulate; BJ, B. javanica; DI, D. indica; AM, A. moluccana; CV, C. variegatum; DT, deciduous tree, and ET, evergreen tree. For individual hydraulic traits of six tree species, values are mean ± SD of more than ten measurements on leaves or stem from 3 to 5 individual trees (n = 3–5). For hydraulic traits of deciduous and evergreen tree species, values are mean ± SD (n = 3) and different lower case letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05, t tests) within the graph
Leaf and stem structural traits in six Euphorbiaceae tree species: H. brasiliensis, M. denticulate, B. javanica, D. indica, A.moluccana, C. variegatum
| Tree species | Leaf phenology | UE (μm) | LE (μm) | PM (μm) | SM (μm) | LT (μm) | LMA (g/m2) | ρ (g/cm−3) | VN (mm−2) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deciduous | 25.0 ± 0.9 | 28.6 ± 0.8 | 100.2 ± 8.3 | 98.0 ± 4.2 | 251.8 ± 4.9 | 74.50 ± 8.9 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 80.9 ± 12.6 | 27 ± 3.9 | |
| Deciduous | 26.0 ± 1.2 | 20.5 ± 1.3 | 114.1 ± 7.5 | 67.0 ± 3.2 | 227.7 ± 7.3 | 54.08 ± 6.8 | 0.41 ± 0.03 | 97.3 ± 10.9 | 21 ± 4.3 | |
| Deciduous | 67.6 ± 1.9 | 34.8 ± 1.8 | 185.4 ± 11.0 | 276.3 ± 15.2 | 564.1 ± 6.5 | 157.51 ± 18.0 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | 85.4 ± 13.9 | 38 ± 5.5 | |
| Evergreen | 30.4 ± 0.9 | 23.1 ± 0.5 | 80.6 ± 5.2 | 155.6 ± 13.1 | 289.7 ± 10.1 | 105.20 ± 11.3 | 0.67 ± 0.04 | 33.6 ± 4.5 | 135 ± 9.1 | |
| Evergreen | 45.4 ± 3.6 | 31.9 ± 3.2 | 129.6 ± 12.3 | 154.7 ± 9.1 | 361.6 ± 8.1 | 82.17 ± 9.8 | 0.52 ± 0.03 | 49.2 ± 3.2 | 69 ± 13.1 | |
| Evergreen | 47.1 ± 2.5 | 61.5 ± 5.2 | 162.2 ± 10.8 | 251.5 ± 14.6 | 522.2 ± 13.5 | 104.87 ± 14.5 | 0.49 ± 0.05 | 38.0 ± 5.6 | 92 ± 10.1 |
The variables are given as mean ± SD (n = 3–5)
UE upper epidermis, LE lower epidermis, PM palisade mesophyll, SM spongy mesophyll, LT leaf thickness, LMA leaf mass per area, ρ sapwood density, Dm–v mean vessel diameter, VN vessels number per square millimeter
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the traits of leaf and stem in six Euphorbiaceae tree species: H. brasiliensis, M. denticulate, B. javanica, D. indica, A.moluccana, C. variegatum
| P50leaf | UE | LE | SM | PM | LT | LMA | P50stem | ρ | Dm-v | VN | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P50leaf | −0.37 | −0.70* | −0.69* | −0.54 | −0.91*** | −0.73** | −0.45 | 0.29 | −0.66* | −0.50 | 0.65* | −0.36 | 0.30 | |
| 0.76** | 0.31 | 0.47 | 0.71* | 0.62* | 0.32 | 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.14 | −0.30 | 0.04 | 0.15 | |||
| P50stem | 0.21 | 0.40 | 0.47 | −0.14 | 0.29 | 0.27 | 0.66* | 0.80** | 0.79** | 0.98*** | −0.96*** | |||
| 0.21 | 0.04 | −0.17 | 0.53 | 0.07 | −0.20 | 0.93*** | −0.83** | 0.79** | −0.78** | |||||
| 0.11 | −0.25 | −0.28 | 0.36 | −0.08 | −0.17 | −0.78** | 0.91*** | −0.85** |
To facilitate log10-transformation for analysis, P50leaf and P50stem values were converted from negatives to positives. *P < 0.10, **P < 0.05, ***P < 0.01
P50 leaf water potential at 50% loss of leaf hydraulic conductivity, K maximum leaf hydraulic conductivity, P50 xylem water potential at 50% loss of stem hydraulic conductivity, K maximum leaf area-specific hydraulic conductivity, K maximum sapwood area-specific hydraulic conductivity, UE upper epidermis, LE lower epidermis, PM palisade mesophyll, SM spongy mesophyll, LT leaf thickness, LMA leaf mass per area, ρ sapwood density, D mean vessel diameter, VN vessels number per square millimeter