| Literature DB >> 27446118 |
Claudia Cocozza1, Marina de Miguel2, Eva Pšidová3, L'ubica Ditmarová3, Stefano Marino4, Lucia Maiuro4, Arturo Alvino4, Tomasz Czajkowski5, Andreas Bolte5, Roberto Tognetti6.
Abstract
Frequency and intensity of heat waves and drought events are expected to increase in Europe due to climate change. European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) is one of the most important native tree species in Europe. Beech populations originating throughout its native range were selected for common-garden experiments with the aim to determine whether there are functional variations in drought stress responses among different populations. One-year old seedlings from four to seven beech populations were grown and drought-treated in a greenhouse, replicating the experiment at two contrasting sites, in Italy (Mediterranean mountains) and Germany (Central Europe). Experimental findings indicated that: (1) drought (water stress) mainly affected gas exchange describing a critical threshold of drought response between 30 and 26% SWA for photosynthetic rate and Ci/Ca, respectively; (2) the Ci to Ca ratio increased substantially with severe water stress suggesting a stable instantaneous water use efficiency and an efficient regulation capacity of water balance achieved by a tight stomatal control; (3) there was a different response to water stress among the considered beech populations, differently combining traits, although there was not a well-defined variability in drought tolerance. A combined analysis of functional and structural traits for detecting stress signals in beech seedlings is suggested to assess plant performance under limiting moisture conditions and, consequently, to estimate evolutionary potential of beech under a changing environmental scenario.Entities:
Keywords: European beech; chlorophyll a fluorescence; ecophysiology; gas exchange; water stress
Year: 2016 PMID: 27446118 PMCID: PMC4916223 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00886
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Location, average of mean annual air temperature (°C), and total annual rainfall (mm) at the seven sites where the seedlings originated.
| Country | Denmark | Germany | France | France | Romania | Bosnia | Spain |
| Provenance | |||||||
| Longitude | 9.65 | 9.93 | 1.88 | 2.22 | 21.68 | 18.13 | −1.47 |
| Latitude | 55.47 | 53.35 | 50.225 | 43.50 | 44.77 | 43.27 | 43.00 |
| Altitude (GIS Interpol.) | 18 | 86 | 30 | 341 | 445 | 862 | 931 |
| Mean annual air temperature (°C) | 7.7 | 8.2 | 10.5 | 12.4 | 9.3 | 9.6 | 9.1 |
| Total annual rainfall (mm) | 720 | 748 | 637 | 791 | 722 | 1199 | 1166 |
Root collar diameter, plant height, leaf area, and number for beech seedlings at the beginning of the water-stress experiment.
| Root collar diameter (mm) | 2.00 (0.00) | 2.44 (0.09) | 2.25 (0.10) | 2.45 (0.11) | 2.00 (0.00) | 2.75 (0.10) | 2.00 (0.00) | Population | 4.696 | 0.000 |
| Plant height (cm) | 14.67 (0.32) | 12.44 (0.62) | 17.50 (0.40) | 14.92 (0.76) | 15.42 (0.47) | 16.77 (0.79) | 13.80 (0.45) | 7.568 | 0.000 | |
| Leaf area (cm2) | 77.11 (5.47) | 99.62 (12.70) | 99.44 (12.19) | 69.99 (11.50) | 111.25 (16.12) | 110.43 (7.47) | 90.12 (11.61) | 1.918 | 0.098 | |
| Leaf number ( | 9.50 (0.90) | 13.13 (2.38) | 12.75 (1.50) | 4.40 (0.57) | 15.00 (1.64) | 15.63 (0.86) | 9.63 (2.27) | 5.171 | 0.000 |
The values for the mean (± standard error), and the statistical analysis of the populations (ANOVA test) (F-value, P-level) are shown (experiment 1).
Figure 1Effects of drought treatment on rapid light response curves of the maximal yield of photochemical energy conversion (yield; A-C), the relative photosynthetic electron transport rate (ETR; D-F), the quantum yield of regulated energy dissipation of PSII (NPQ; G-I), the coefficient for photochemical quenching (qP; J-L), the coefficient for non-photochemical quenching (qN; M-O) in beech seedlings in days of drought treatment (experiment 1).
Figure 2Fluorescence traits (F.
Figure 3Relationships between assimilation rate (AR) and shoot predawn water potential (Ψ. Non-linear regression model (exponential function) was used for curve-fitting analysis (experiment 1).
Structure of fully expanded foliage (harvested at the beginning of the experiment) of seedlings for each population grown in control conditions.
| Stomatal density (n mm−2) | 7.00 (0.29) | 6.60 (0.20) | 5.80 (0.21) | 4.60 (0.26) | 20.63 | 0.000 |
| Mesophyll (μm) | 68.84 (2.27) | 72.20 (0.92) | 58.15 (1.53) | 64.96 (1.15) | 16.14 | 0.000 |
| Palisade (μm) | 33.84 (0.85) | 33.15 (0.82) | 26.68 (0.61) | 34.04 (0.49) | 26.54 | 0.000 |
| Spongy (μm) | 23.19 (2.02) | 27.52 (0.87) | 21.21 (1.20) | 19.99 (1.42) | 5.659 | 0.002 |
| Polar size (μm) | 8.97 (0.50) | 8.23 (0.24) | 8.44 (0.49) | 10.29 (0.39) | 5.316 | 0.003 |
| Equatorial size (μm) | 3.51 (0.20) | 3.71 (0.20) | 3.97 (0.18) | 4.46 (0.36) | 2.982 | 0.039 |
| Distance between guard cells (μm) | 11.37 (0.20) | 12.15 (0.33) | 11.51 (0.20) | 11.58 (0.20) | 2.23 | 0.095 |
Values are means ± standard error for population (n = 5 seedlings). Significance (F-value; P-level) of population effects is shown (experiment 2).
Populations effects on photosynthesis (A) response curves to internal [CO.
| Rday | 2.67 (1.71) | 1.46 (0.07) | −0.03 (0.08) | 0.83 (0.41) | 2.00 | 0.232 |
| Vcmax | 26.65 (14.32) | 21.61 (1.89) | 20.58 (4.37) | 27.25 (0.33) | 0.17 | 0.912 |
| Jmax | 31.16 (14.74) | 21.10 (2.93) | 20.39 (3.45) | 26.42 (0.66) | 0.39 | 0.762 |
| TPU | 2.86 (0.58) | 2.51 (0.16) | 2.67 (0.36) | 2.77 (0.20) | 0.17 | 0.911 |
| Amax | 5.49 (0.43) | 5.21 (0.91) | 6.07 (1.37) | 5.27 (0.83) | 0.26 | 0.854 |
| φ | 0.09 (0.01) | 0.09 (0.00) | 0.09 (0.02) | 0.10 (0.01) | 0.63 | 0.614 |
| Rd | −0.19 (0.06) | −0.31 (0.09) | −0.25 (0.20) | −0.21 (0.13) | 0.05 | 0.983 |
| Γl | 2.67 (1.63) | 2.67 (1.63) | 1.31 (1.60) | 2.65 (1.62) | 0.26 | 0.852 |
Measurements were made on fully expanded leaves of control plants. Values are the means ± standard error for population (n = 5 seedlings). Significance (F-value; p-level) of population effects for A/Ci and A/Q curve parameters are presented. R.
Daytime gas exchange under saturating light conditions of seedlings for each population grown in different drought thresholds (treatment).
| 30 | 1.10 (0.55) | 0.36 (0.24) | 1.36 (0.65) | 0.52 (0.50) | Population | 8.087 | 0.000 | |
| 40 | 4.04 (0.45) | 3.35 (0.59) | 2.51 (1.06) | 3.56 (0.52) | Treatment | 59.940 | 0.000 | |
| 50 | 5.51 (0.29) | 4.63 (0.44) | 3.81 (0.60) | 4.19 (0.42) | Population × Treatment | 34.806 | 0.000 | |
| Control | 5.26 (0.12) | 4.03 (0.20) | 4.35 (0.32) | 4.30 (0.30) | ||||
| 30 | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.02 (0.00) | 0.01 (0.00) | Population | 1.114 | 0.344 | |
| 40 | 0.06 (0.01) | 0.05 (0.01) | 0.04 (0.02) | 0.05 (0.01) | Treatment | 34.965 | 0.000 | |
| 50 | 0.07 (0.00) | 0.07 (0.01) | 0.06 (0.01) | 0.06 (0.01) | Population × Treatment | 18.313 | 0.000 | |
| Control | 0.06 (0.00) | 0.05 (0.00) | 0.06 (0.01) | 0.05 (0.00) | ||||
| 30 | 0.69 (0.08) | 0.89 (0.06) | 0.71 (0.08) | 0.87 (0.07) | Population | 6.372 | 0.000 | |
| 40 | 0.61 (0.03) | 0.70 (0.03) | 0.71 (0.04) | 0.65 (0.04) | Treatment | 21.689 | 0.000 | |
| 50 | 0.61 (0.02) | 0.66 (0.03) | 0.70 (0.02) | 0.63 (0.03) | Population × Treatment | 14.201 | 0.000 | |
| Control | 0.57 (0.02) | 0.63 (0.02) | 0.64 (0.02) | 0.59 (0.02) | ||||
| 30 | 66.88 (21.33) | 15.27 (15.40) | 61.60 (19.55) | 19.55 (17.95) | Population | 6.148 | 0.000 | |
| 40 | 85.23 (7.52) | 50.90 (16.97) | 60.35 (10.84) | 73.66 (10.88) | Treatment | 21.008 | 0.000 | |
| 50 | 82.79 (3.95) | 73.78 (8.23) | 63.97 (5.59) | 78.00 (7.14) | Population × Treatment | 13.670 | 0.000 | |
| Control | 95.61 (4.06) | 82.75 (5.29) | 78.22 (4.33) | 92.97 (4.93) | ||||
Photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (g.
Figure 4Relationship between ecophysiological traits and soil water availability (each point corresponds mean of five plants). Non-linear regression model was used for curve-fitting analysis, such as a four parameter logistic equation, where: (A) is the minimum asymptote; (B) is the hill slope; (C) is the inflection point; (D) is the maximum asymptote; global goodness of fit is defined by R-squared, and significance of the regression by p-level (experiment 2).