| Literature DB >> 24655599 |
Arne Sellin1, Aigar Niglas, Eele Õunapuu-Pikas, Priit Kupper.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effects of water deficit on plant water status, gas exchange and hydraulic conductance were investigated in Betula pendula under artificially manipulated air humidity in Eastern Estonia. The study was aimed to broaden an understanding of the ability of trees to acclimate with the increasing atmospheric humidity predicted for northern Europe. Rapidly-induced water deficit was imposed by dehydrating cut branches in open-air conditions; long-term water deficit was generated by seasonal drought.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24655599 PMCID: PMC3976162 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-14-72
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Daily variation of mean atmospheric water vapour pressure deficit (VPD) in June and July 2010. The error bars denote S.E.
Results of ANCOVA for effects of the humidification treatment and fast-imposed water deficit on leaf water status, temperature, gas exchange and hydraulic conductance (N = 117–124)
| Leaf water potential, ΨL | Treatment | 0.090 | |
| | Branch water status | 0.763 | |
| Leaf temperature, | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.246 | |
| Leaf conductance to water vapour, | Treatment | 0.101 | |
| | Branch water status | 0.544 | |
| Transpiration rate, | Treatment | 0.088 | |
| | Branch water status | 0.401 | |
| | Leaf temperature | 0.127 | |
| Stomatal conductance, | Treatment | 0.041 | |
| | Branch water status | 0.543 | |
| | Leaf temperature | 0.044 | |
| Ratio of intercellular to ambient CO2 concentrations, | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.338 | |
| Net photosynthesis, | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.518 | |
| | Leaf temperature | 0.037 | |
| Intrinsic water-use efficiency, IWUE | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.140 | |
| Leaf hydraulic conductance, | Treatment | 0.039 | |
| | Leaf water status | 0.433 | |
| Leaf temperature | 0.062 |
ns, not significant.
Figure 2Branch water potential (Ψ) versus leaf conductance to water vapour (; A) and leaf hydraulic conductance (; B) in control and humidified trees. The numbers by the regression lines indicate the respective slopes.
Comparison of mean values of physiological characteristics in control (C) and humidified trees (H) before branch cutting (on intact trees) and depending on severity of water deficit (Ψ <-1.55 MPa versus Ψ ≥-1.55 MPa)
| ΨL (MPa) | -1.07 | -1.03 | -1.26 | -1.25 | -1.91 | -2.10 |
| ΨB (MPa) | -0.81 | -0.65 | -0.98 | -0.90 | -1.62 | -1.56 |
| 26.2 | 25.4 | 28.8 | 29.3 | |||
| 0.026 | 0.060 | |||||
| 0.47 | 1.00 | |||||
| 0.145 | 0.237 | 0.086 | 0.138 | 0.046 | 0.060 | |
| 0.70 | 0.68 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.87 | 0.89 | |
| 6.47 | 9.29 | 4.21 | 5.96 | 2.00 | 2.66 | |
| IWUE (μmol mol-1) | 51.3 | 48.2 | 49.3 | 49.9 | 35.3 | 32.8 |
| 3.65 | 5.88 | 1.85 | 1.88 | |||
| 0.32 | 0.44 | - | - | - | - | |
| - | - | - | - | |||
| - | - | - | - | |||
ΨL, leaf water potential; ΨB, branch water potential; TL, leaf temperature; gL, leaf conductance to water vapour; E, transpiration rate; gS, stomatal conductance to water vapour; Ci/Ca, ratio of intercellular to ambient CO2 concentrations; An, net photosynthesis; IWUE, intrinsic water-use efficiency; KL, leaf hydraulic conductance; RL, relative leaf hydraulic resistance; KS-B, soil-to-branch hydraulic conductance; KT, whole-tree hydraulic conductance. Statistical significance of the difference: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Figure 3Stomatal conductance ( ) versus net photosynthetic rate ( ; A) and intrinsic water-use efficiency (IWUE; B) across control (C) and humidified trees (H).
Sums of precipitation (mm) at the FAHM site in June and July
| June | 79 | 152 | 110 |
| July | 64 | 90 | 33 |
Figure 4Mean bulk soil water potential (Ψ) in control and humidified plots in June and July 2010. The error bars denote S.E.
Results of ANCOVA for effects of the humidification treatment and fast and long-term water deficit on leaf water status, temperature, gas exchange and hydraulic conductance (N = 117–124)
| Leaf water potential, ΨL | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.808 | |
| | Soil water availability | 0.209 | |
| Leaf temperature, | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.246 | |
| | Soil water availability | - | |
| Leaf conductance to water vapour, | Treatment | 0.033 | |
| | Branch water status | 0.572 | |
| | Soil water availability | 0.164 | |
| Transpiration rate, | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.413 | |
| | Soil water availability | 0.145 | |
| | Leaf temperature | 0.129 | |
| Stomatal conductance, | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.560 | |
| | Soil water availability | 0.184 | |
| | Leaf temperature | 0.087 | |
| Ratio of intercellular to ambient CO2 concentrations, | Treatment | - | |
| Branch water status | 0.338 | ||
| | Soil water availability | - | |
| Net photosynthesis, | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.526 | |
| | Soil water availability | 0.122 | |
| | Leaf temperature | 0.067 | |
| Intrinsic water-use efficiency, IWUE | Treatment | - | |
| | Branch water status | 0.140 | |
| | Soil water availability | - | |
| Leaf hydraulic conductance, | Treatment | - | |
| | Leaf water status | 0.465 | |
| | Soil water availability | 0.064 | |
| Leaf temperature | 0.073 |
ns, not significant.
Figure 5Co-ordination between gaseous and liquid-phase conductances. Stomatal conductance to water vapour (gS; A) and net photosynthetic rate (An; B) versus soil-to-branch hydraulic conductance (KS-B) and whole-tree conductance (KT) across humidification and control treatments.