| Literature DB >> 29666233 |
Toby M Maxwell1, Lucas C R Silva2, William R Horwath1.
Abstract
This study was designed to address a major source of uncertainty pertaining to coupledEntities:
Keywords: carbon; climate change; forests; stable isotopes; water
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29666233 PMCID: PMC5939077 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1718864115
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 11.205
Fig. 1.Field site locations within California and their associated climate zones (CALVEG attribute CVNAME). Each field area transitions from an MC or ponderosa pine forest toward a fir-dominated forest with red fir at the top of the transects. Maps on the right are blown up to show the gradient of plant available water down to 150 cm in soil (SSURGO) and normalized to mean annual precipitation. Stands (15 total, five per transect) with lower precipitation have greater water storage relative to incident precipitation. Climate zones (five total, repeated within each transect) MC, T1, WF, T2, and RF increase in elevation in that order.
Fig. 2.The sampling design is shown starting with regional scale variables on the left, stand scale properties in the middle, and plant scale on the right, based on the scale at which each property was measured. Transects were established on different parent materials (BS, AN, and GR) selected for their prevalence across the Sierra Nevada and for their contrasting mineralogical properties that result from differences in weatherability. At the stand scale, a number of dynamic climatic and ecosystem variables represent general trends associated with elevational gain at all transects. Soil weathering was measured as clay content, secondary iron (Fed), and as a function of a pedogenic energy (Eped). Canopy density was measured by hemispherical photography used to calculate LAI, which was compared with stand-level NDVI, a satellite-based measure of greenness and productivity. Climate variables were derived from the PRISM model (26). Tree-level variables, such as isotopic composition and nitrogen content, were measured to help understand resource limitation and photosynthetic capacity across the gradient. Taken together, these variables were used to investigate how species traits and soil properties affect productivity and water-use efficiency of trees and forests throughout the region.
Fig. 3.Leaf cellulose δ13C and δ18O values of all sampled trees by transect (shapes)—AN, BS, and GR—and species (color). Regressions were performed on all data points yielding positive correlations with elevation isotopic values. Regression models for the trends are as follows: (A) y = 0.0026x − 29.97, R2adj = 0.32, P < 0.0001 and (B) y = 0.0011x + 41.40, R2adj = 0.015, P = 0.012. Species abbreviations are as follows: BO, black oak/Quercus kelloggii; CLO, canyon live oak/Quercus chrysolepis; DF, Douglas fir/Pseudotsuga menziesii; IC, incense cedar/Calocedrus decurrens; JP, Jeffrey pine/Pinus jeffreyi; PP, ponderosa pine/Pinus ponderosa; RF, red fir/Abies magnifica; SP, sugar pine/Pinus lambertiana; and WF, white fir/Abies concolor.
Fig. 4.Measured iWUE averaged by species at each sampled forest stand and plotted in relation to elevation (A), ∆18O values (B), and C:N ratios (C). Different species are shown in different colors and parent material in different shapes as described in Fig. 3. Clustering is apparent at the species level with species effects shown as solid regression lines. The final observed versus predicted mixed-effect model including species:parent material interactions is shown in . These plots indicate that increasing iWUE with elevation is primarily due to differences in species traits and associated effects on transpiration, as inferred from carbon and oxygen isotope fractionations. In contrast, leaf C:N content has a weak association with iWUE. See for model coefficients and random intercepts and for R codes.
Test of Hi, Hii, and Hiii using linear mixed-effects models to show significant elevation, species, and parent material effects on iWUE
| Model | Random effects | Fixed effects | Significance | AICc | Adjusted |
| Hi | Species | Elevation | <0.0001 | 2,831 | 0.28 |
| Hii | Parent material | Species | <0.0001 | 2,774 | 0.30 |
| Hiii | Species | Parent material | <0.0001 | 2,812 | 0.30 |
| Interaction | NA | Species × parent material | <0.0001 | 2,776 | 0.36 |
All hypotheses are supported and species effects emerge as dominant. shows effect sizes for each these terms. AICc, corrected Akaike information criterion; NA, not applicable.
Fig. 5.Graphic representation of standardized water use for dominant tree species present in MC stands AN, BS, and GR transects. In this schematic representation, increasing color intensities represent decreasing water-use efficiency, such that each incremental step (from light to dark blue) corresponds to a 10–15% increase in water loss through transpiration per unit of carbon assimilated during photosynthesis. Standardized water use is inferred from iWUE (divided by VPD; Eq. ) and scaled for ease of comparison with a mean of zero and SD of 1. The area of each square is proportional to the average specific leaf area of each species (), which generally corresponds to water use (i.e., species with high leaf area tend to have low efficiency). The effect of parent material can be visualized as variation in color intensity within each of the selected species: BO, black oak/Quercus kelloggii; CLO, canyon live oak/Quercus chrysolepis; DF, Douglas fir/Pseudotsuga menziesii; IC, incense cedar/Calocedrus decurrens; and PP, ponderosa pine/Pinus ponderosa. In this example, which is based on observations of compositional change in forests located at altitudes where the selected species cooccur, the expansion of broad-leaf trees into conifer-dominated stands could represent >10% increase in water transpired in forests on AN- and BS-derived soils and up to 60% increase in water loss through transpiration in forests on GR-derived soils.
Summary statistics for correlations of all measured variables and iWUE
| Group | iWUE predictor | Effect size | Adjusted | Significance |
| Soil development | Clay | −4.7 | 0.08 | <0.0001 |
| Fed | −4.1 | 0.06 | <0.0001 | |
| Eped | −5.6 | 0.12 | <0.0001 | |
| SWS | −3.9 | 0.06 | <0.0001 | |
| Productivity | LAI | −6.5 | 0.16 | <0.0001 |
| NDVI | −3.3 | 0.04 | 0.0003 | |
| VPD maximum | −5.9 | 0.13 | <0.0001 | |
| Soil and litter quality | C:N litter | 0.50 | 0 | 0.56 |
| %N litter | 0.40 | 0 | 0.65 | |
| %N soil | −0.10 | 0 | 0.91 | |
| %C soil | −0.40 | 0 | 0.65 | |
| Feo | 0.05 | 0 | 0.95 | |
| Seasonality | Temperature | −5.5 | 0.11 | <0.0001 |
| Precipitation | 1.7 | 0.01 | 0.05 | |
| cvPPT | −0.97 | 0 | 0.27 | |
| RUN | 4.0 | 0.06 | <0.0001 | |
| RCH | −1.4 | 0 | 0.11 | |
| SD NDVI | 1.1 | 0 | 0.21 | |
| Other | Elevation | 5.8 | 0.12 | <0.0001 |
| SLA | −7.2 | 0.19 | <0.0001 | |
| Categorical | Species | 0.24 | <0.0001 | |
| Parent material | 0.02 | 0.01 | ||
| Climate zone | 0.13 | <0.0001 |
The relationships are separated into major categories that are expected to effect iWUE. All variables were standardized to a mean of 0 and SD of 1 before analysis and related to untransformed iWUE values.