| Literature DB >> 29164366 |
Stef Bokhorst1,2, Laura Jaakola3,4, Katja Karppinen3,5, Guro K Edvinsen6, Hanne K Mæhre6, Jarle W Bjerke7.
Abstract
MAINEntities:
Keywords: C-repeat binding factor; Fatty acids; Frost; Grass; Multiple stresses; Shrub; Snow
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29164366 PMCID: PMC5809542 DOI: 10.1007/s00425-017-2813-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Planta ISSN: 0032-0935 Impact factor: 4.116
Fig. 1Daily mean soil surface temperature during and following the extreme winter warming and freezing experiments. a Soil surface temperature in control plots with and without snow (− S). b Temperature in the ‘Treatment Control’ (0.5 °C) and ‘WW’ (6 °C) treatment with and without snow. c Soil surface temperature of the potted plants during and following exposure to − 10 °C (for TC and WW) with and without snow. d Soil surface temperature of the potted plants during and following exposure to − 20 °C (for TC and WW) with and without snow. Days of the year (DOY) from 1 January until 1 May are shown on the horizontal axes
Fig. 2Survival of sub-Arctic plants following simulations of extreme short winter warming events. The treatments included a true control (C), a treatment control (TC at 0.5 °C), a winter warming treatment (WW at 6 °C) and freezing exposure to − 10 and − 20 °C. a All Betula (black) and Festuca (gray) survived, while 73% of Poa (white) plants survived when exposed to winter warming. b Survival of the grass Phleum and rosette plant Pyrola. c Survival of evergreen tree seedlings (Pinus and Picea). d Survival of evergreen dwarf shrubs (Empetrum and Vaccinium)
Fig. 3Impact of extreme short winter warming events and freezing on total plant biomass. The treatments included a true control (C), a treatment control (TC at 0.5 °C), a winter warming treatment (WW at 6 °C) and freezing exposure to − 10 and − 20 °C. Biomass values are obtained from plants that survived (see Fig. 2). Bars with different letters are significantly different (Tukey’s HSD P < 0.05) (see Table 1 for ANOVA results). Bars are means of n = 40–120, as the number of plants that survived varied across species. Error bars are 1 SE
Chi-squared and ANOVA statistics of plant survival and biomass of deciduous and evergreen species exposed to extreme winter warming simulations [Control, Treatment Control (0.5 °C) and Winter Warming], freezing (− 10 and − 20 °C), snow removal (+ Snow vs. − Snow) and nitrogen additions (0 vs. 5 kg N m−2 year−1)
| Mortality (Chi squared) | Biomass ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warming | Freezing | Nitrogen | Snow | Warming | Freezing | Nitrogen | Snow | |
|
| No mortality | 11.9*** | 17.2*** | 20.5*** | 16.6*** | |||
|
| No mortality | 13.5*** | 12.0*** | 6.2 | 2.1 | |||
|
| 16.3*** | 67.8*** | 9.0** | 9.6** | 155.7*** | 17.9*** | 14.6*** | 12.1*** |
|
| 39.0*** | 97.2*** | 0.1 | 12.3*** | 77.8*** | 7.4*** | 9.4** | 28.3*** |
|
| 4.1 | 31.3*** | 0.1 | 0.1 | 4.2* | 0.8 | 0.0 | 5.2* |
|
| 141.5*** | 117.4*** | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.5 | 0.2 | 4.1* | 5.1* |
|
| 122.5*** | 145.2*** | 2.6 | 0.1 | 106.8*** | 40.3*** | 65.8*** | 0.2 |
| % Dead biomass | ||||||||
|
| 35.1*** | 53.5*** | 0.7 | 3.5 | ||||
|
| 57.1*** | 39.9*** | 0.6 | 5.4* | ||||
With the Chi-square analysis, we tested the following null hypothesis: ‘There is no difference in the number of dead and alive plants between the treatment comparisons’, and lack of significance confirms this hypothesis. Note that there was no mortality among Betula and Festuca in response to any of the treatments. Only main factors are shown for the ANOVA as there were few consistent significant interactions terms. Relevant interaction terms are mentioned in the results text. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001
Fig. 4Impact of snow removal (a) and nitrogen addition (b) on various sub-Arctic plant biomass and survival. Note that for the evergreen dwarf shrubs Empetrum nigrum and Vaccinium vitis-idaea there was no individual plant biomass data; hence, the % survival for the whole soil–vegetation mat is presented. Asterisks indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences between treatments (see Table 2 for ANOVA results). Bars are means of n between 45 and 157, as sample sizes varied across species. Error bars are 1 SE
ANOVA statistics (F values) of plant respiration, potential activity of photosystem II (Fv/Fm), electrolyte leakage and changes in fatty acid composition of dominant sub-Arctic plant types exposed to extreme winter warming simulations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respiration rate (μmol CO2 g−1 s−1) | |||||||
| Warming treatment | 12.8** | 18.8*** | 4.8* | 1.2 | 12.4** | 24.0*** | 0.8 |
| Extreme temperature | 7.9*** | 18.3*** | 6.9*** | 35.5*** | 17.9*** | 10.4*** | 4.3** |
| Nitrogen addition | 0.8 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Fv/Fm | |||||||
| Warming treatment | 0.7 | 3.3 | 3.7 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.4 |
| Extreme temperature | 4.4** | 2.3 | 12.2*** | 2.5 | 0.6 | 4.2** | 0.5 |
| Nitrogen addition | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 0.1 | 2.3 |
| Electrolyte leakage (%) | |||||||
| Warming treatment | 0.3 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 3.2 | 21.9*** | 3.2 | 0.0 |
| Extreme temperature | 2.5 | 22.3*** | 9.3*** | 5.1** | 17.4*** | 4.3** | 1.8 |
| Nitrogen addition | 5.8* | 0.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Membrane fatty acids | |||||||
| PC1 | |||||||
| Warming treatment | 0.0 | 10.1** | 9.5*** | 0.4 | 0.5 | 3.2 | 0.2 |
| Extreme temperature | 4.0** | 7.1*** | 2.5 | 3.7* | 2.8 | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Nitrogen addition | 1.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 0.0 |
| PC2 | |||||||
| Warming treatment | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1.7 | – | – | 1.2 | 0.3 |
| Extreme temperature | 2.1 | 1.2 | 1.1 | – | – | 1.5 | 1.7 |
| Nitrogen addition | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.6 | – | – | 4.6* | 1.0 |
Winter warming treatments: TC: 0.5 °C, WW: 6.0 °C; extreme temperature treatments: 0.5, 6.0, − 10 and − 20 °C; nitrogen addition treatments: 0 or 5 kg N m2. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001. Note that the snow removal on these variables could not be tested as the snow removal treatment took place after the warming and freezing treatments in the climate chambers
Fig. 5Winter respiration rates of sub-Arctic plants exposed to extreme short winter warming events and freezing. The treatments included a treatment control (TC at 0.5 °C), a winter warming treatment (WW at 6 °C) and freezing exposure to − 10 and − 20 °C. Bars with different letters are significantly different from one another (Tukey HSD P < 0.05). Bars are means of n = 20. Error bars are 1 SE
Differences in fatty acid proportions for three sub-Arctic grass species in response to extreme short winter warming events and freezing
| Fatty acids | Treatments | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC | WW | − 10 °C | − 20 °C | |
|
| ||||
| c8:0 | 0.12 (0.01)a | 0.24 (0.03)b | 0.20 (0.04)ab | 0.29 (0.04)b |
| c10:0 | 0.04 (0.01)a | 0.02 (0)b | 0.03 (0)ab | 0.02 (0)b |
| c12:0 | 0.03 (0.01)a | 0.01 (0)b | 0.03 (0.01)a | 0.01 (0)b |
| c14:0 | 0.04 (0.01)a | 0.02 (0.01)b | 0.04 (0.01)a | 0.01 (0)b |
| c14:1 | 0.21 (0.03)a | 0.11 (0.02)b | 0.15 (0.02)ab | 0.12 (0.02)b |
| c18:2n-6 | 0.001 (0)a | 0.00 (0)b | 0.001 (0)a | 0.00 (0)b |
|
| ||||
| c11:0 | 0.00 (0)a | 0.00 (0)ab | 0.01 (0)b | 0.01 (0)b |
| c15:0 | 0.01 (0)a | 0.01 (0)ab | 0.01 (0)ab | 0.01 (0)b |
| c18:0 | 0.01 (0)a | 0.01 (0)ab | 0.02 (0)ab | 0.02 (0)b |
| c18:2n-6 | 0.02 (0.01)a | 0.03 (0.01)ab | 0.06 (0.02)b | 0.07 (0.01)b |
| c18:3n-6 | 0.17 (0.01)a | 0.13 (0.01)ab | 0.16 (0.01)ab | 0.12 (0.01)b |
| c20:n-9 | 0.38 (0.03)a | 0.32 (0.03)ab | 0.35 (0.03)ab | 0.27 (0.02)b |
| c22:6n-3 | 0.00 (0)a | 0.02 (0.01)ab | 0.03 (0.01)ab | 0.04 (0.01)b |
|
| ||||
| c16:1n-7 | 0.02 (0)a | 0.01 (0)b | 0.02 (0)ab | 0.02 (0)ab |
| c18:2n-6 | 0.16 (0)a | 0.13 (0.01)ab | 0.15 (0.01)ab | 0.13 (0.01)b |
| c18:3n-3 | 0.48 (0.02)a | 0.43 (0.03)ab | 0.35 (0.03)bc | 0.32 (0.02)c |
| c22:6n-3 | 0.03 (0)a | 0.03 (0.01)ab | 0.04 (0.01)ab | 0.05 (0.01)b |
The treatments included a treatment control (TC at 0.5 °C), a winter warming treatment (WW at 6 °C) and freezing exposure to − 10 and − 20 °C. Note that only the fatty acids with significant proportional differences between treatments are shown. Values are means of n = 20–40 replicates as sample size varied across species and treatments. SEs are shown between brackets. Values with different letters between treatments indicate significant (P < 0.05) differences