| Literature DB >> 28559896 |
Sara M Top1, Caroline M Preston2, Jeffrey S Dukes3,4,5, Nishanth Tharayil1.
Abstract
Environmental stresses not only influence production of plant metabolites but could also modify their resorption during leaf senescence. The production-resorption dynamics of polyphenolic tannins, a class of defense compound whose ecological role extends beyond tissue senescence, could amplify the influence of climate on ecosystem processes. We studied the quantity, chemical composition, and tissue-association of tannins in green and freshly-senesced leaves of Quercus rubra exposed to different temperature (Warming and No Warming) and precipitation treatments (Dry, Ambient, Wet) at the Boston-Area Climate Experiment (BACE) in Massachusetts, USA. Climate influenced not only the quantity of tannins, but also their molecular composition and cell-wall associations. Irrespective of climatic treatments, tannin composition in Q. rubra was dominated by condensed tannins (CTs, proanthocyanidins). When exposed to Dry and Ambient*Warm conditions, Q. rubra produced higher quantities of tannins that were less polymerized. In contrast, under favorable conditions (Wet), tannins were produced in lower quantities, but the CTs were more polymerized. Further, even as the overall tissue tannin content declined, the content of hydrolysable tannins (HTs) increased under Wet treatments. The molecular composition of tannins influenced their content in senesced litter. Compared to the green leaves, the content of HTs decreased in senesced leaves across treatments, whereas the CT content was similar between green and senesced leaves in Wet treatments that produced more polymerized tannins. The content of total tannins in senesced leaves was higher in Warming treatments under both dry and ambient precipitation treatments. Our results suggest that, though climate directly influenced the production of tannins in green tissues (and similar patterns were observed in the senesced tissue), the influence of climate on tannin content of senesced tissue was partly mediated by the effect on the chemical composition of tannins. These different climatic impacts on leaves over the course of a growing season may alter forest dynamics, not only in decomposition and nutrient cycling dynamics, but also in herbivory dynamics.Entities:
Keywords: Proanthocyanidins; Quercus rubra; condensed tannins; drought; hydrolysable tannins; warming
Year: 2017 PMID: 28559896 PMCID: PMC5432568 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00423
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Identification and categorization of condensed tannin monomers.
| (+)-Catechin | 289 | |
| (−)-Epicatechin | 289 | |
| (−)-Epigallocatechin | 305 | |
| (+)-Catechin with phloroglucinol adduct | 413 | |
| (−)-Epi-catechin with phloroglucinol adduct | 413 | |
| Epi-gallocatechin with phloroglucinol adduct | 429 |
[M-H].
Figure 1Total average (±SE) tannin content for green (A) and senesced (B) leaf tissue. Asterisks (*) above a set of columns indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences between No Warm and Warm treatments within each precipitation treatment. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between precipitation treatments within the No Warm temperature regime. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between precipitation treatments within the Warm temperature regime.
Percentages of hydrolysable tannins calculated from total tannins (±SE) for both green and senesced leaf tissue.
| Dry | No warm | 30.7 ± 4.0A | 21.2 ± 0.4A |
| Dry | Warm | 24.4 ± 1.3a | 20.6 ± 0.9a |
| Ambient | No warm | 13.5 ± 1.4A | 12.7 ± 0.6*B |
| Ambient | Warm | 36.1 ± 0.9ab | 26.0 ± 1.2a |
| Wet | No warm | 69.1 ± 0.9B | 42.2 ± 2.2*C |
| Wet | Warm | 50.0 ± 2.0b | 26.3 ± 1.2a |
Upper- and lower-case letters indicate significant (P < 0.05, Tukey's HSD) differences between precipitation treatments within the No Warm and Warm temperatures, respectively.
Asterisk (.
Figure 2Total average (±SE) condensed (A,B) and hydrolysable (C,D) tannin content for the extractable and non-extractable portions of both green (A,C) and senesced (B,D) leaf tissue. Upper asterisks (*) indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between the No Warm and Warm treatments within each precipitation treatment for extractable condensed tannins and lower asterisks indicate significant effects of warming within each precipitation treatment for non-extractable condensed tannins. Different upper case letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between precipitation treatments within the No Warm temperature regime. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between precipitation treatments within the Warm treatment.
Percentage (±SE) of type of condensed tannins and average (±SE) chain length of condensed tannin polymers.
| Dry | No warm | 13.8 ± 1.5a | 6.2 ± 0.5b |
| Dry | Warm | 10.2 ± 1.7a | 7.4 ± 0.6b |
| Ambient | No warm | 27.7 ± 1.9b | 6.1 ± 1.5b |
| Ambient | Warm | 27.7 ± 1.3b | 6.9 ± 0.5b |
| Wet | No warm | 5.2 ± 0.3c | 8.9 ± 0.8a |
| Wet | Warm | 6.8 ± 0.5c | 9.6 ± 1.4a |
Different letters indicate significant (P < 0.05, Tukey's HSD) differences between treatments.
PD refers to prodelphinidin, see Table .
Average concentrations, mg g.
| Dry | No warm | 15.4 ± 2.0A | 20.4 ± 4.8A | 8.7 ± 0.5A | 8.7 ± 0.1*A |
| Dry | Warm | 12.6 ± 0.6a | 18.8 ± 1.3a | 10.0 ± 0.7a | 12.6 ± 0.04a |
| Ambient | No warm | 2.3 ± 0.2*B | 7.8 ± 1.8*B | 1.6 ± 0.2*B | 5.3 ± 0.6*B |
| Ambient | Warm | 20.3 ± 1.4a | 26.2 ± 4.1a | 9.9 ± 0.4a | 11.8 ± 0.9ab |
| Wet | No warm | 24.8 ± 2.2*A | 37.9 ± 3.6A | 10.9 ± 0.1A | 10.3 ± 0.2A |
| Wet | Warm | 15.2 ± 0.5a | 25.4 ± 0.3a | 7.3 ± 0.2a | 9.0 ± 0.2b |
Upper- and lower-case letters indicate significant (P < 0.05, Tukey's HSD) differences between precipitation treatments within the No Warm and Warm temperatures, respectively.
Asterisk (.
Average concentrations, mg g.
| Dry | No warm | 71.6 ± 2.1A | 43.3 ± 7.6A | 57.8 ± 4.7A | 24.4 ± 1.0A |
| Dry | Warm | 81.2 ± 5.1a | 40.0 ± 3.6a | 68.9 ± 5.8a | 41.5 ± 1.6a |
| Ambient | No warm | 57.2 ± 4.5A | 16.4 ± 1.6*B | 39.5 ± 3.2AB | 15.0 ± 1.5B |
| Ambient | Warm | 78.1 ± 4.0a | 50.6 ± 3.0a | 51.8 ± 3.2ab | 31.9 ± 1.1a |
| Wet | No warm | 29.2 ± 3.3A | 61.8 ± 6.6A | 23.0 ± 2.4B | 27.7 ± 0.4AB |
| Wet | Warm | 37.8 ± 1.6a | 43.6 ± 1.4a | 37.1 ± 3.0b | 25.0 ± 0.1a |
Upper- and lower-case letters indicate significant (P < 0.05, Tukey's HSD) differences between precipitation treatments within the No Warm and Warm temperatures, respectively.
Asterisk (.
Figure 3Average (±SE) percent of non-extractable condensed tannins for green (A) and senesced (B) leaf tissue. Asterisks (*) above a set of columns indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences between the No Warm and Warm treatments within each precipitation treatment. Different uppercase letters indicate significant differences between precipitation treatments within the No Warm temperature regime. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between precipitation treatments within the Warm temperature regime.
Figure 4Average (±SE) percent gallotannins in non-extractable and extractable hydrolysable tannins for both green (A,B) and senesced (C,D) leaf tissue. Asterisks (*) above a set of columns indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences between No Warm and Warm treatments within each precipitation treatment. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between precipitation treatments within the No Warm temperature regime. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between precipitation treatments within the Warm temperature regime.