| Literature DB >> 30455713 |
Michele Colangelo1,2, J Julio Camarero2, Marco Borghetti1, Tiziana Gentilesca1, Jonàs Oliva3,4, Miguel-Angel Redondo4, Francesco Ripullone1.
Abstract
Forest decline induced by climate change is a global phenomenon that affects many tree species, mainly in drought-prone areas as the Mediterranean region. In southern Italy, several oak species have shown decline symptoms and elevated mortality since the 2000s due to drought stress. However, it remains to be answered whether decline occurred alone or whether a pathogen was also involved. To this aim, we compared two coexisting oak species in a forest located in southern Italy which are assumed to be less (Quercus cerris) and more tolerant to drought (Entities:
Keywords: Phytophthora species; Quercus cerris; Quercus pubescens; carbon isotopes; dendroecology; drought stress; forest dieback; water-use efficiency
Year: 2018 PMID: 30455713 PMCID: PMC6230577 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01595
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Climate trends and drought patterns in the study area. The selected climate variables correspond to monthly mean maximum (TMx) and minimum (TMn) temperatures (A) and precipitation [(B) Prec] showing the most pronounced trends for the 1950–2016 period as assessed through the tau (τ) statistic (D). The drought severity was assessed using the May Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) for 11-months long scales (C), which showed high associations to tree growth (see Figure 4).
FIGURE 4Drought-growth relationships (Pearson correlations) in declining (D) and non-declining (ND) trees of Quercus pubescens and Quercus cerris. The color scale shows the correlations between ring-width indices and the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) calculated at 1–24 months long scales (x axes) from January to December (y axes). Significance levels are as in Figure 2.
Main structural characteristics of the non-declining (ND) and declining (D) oak trees sampled in Gorgoglione forest.
| Tree species | Vigor class | Density (trees ha-1) | Diameter at 1.3 m (cm) | Height (m) | Age at 1.3 m (years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND | 100 ± 11b | 26.5 ± 1.3b | 11.3 ± 0.3b | 115 ± 4 | |
| D | 43 ± 6a | 22.5 ± 0.8a | 8.6 ± 0.3a | 111 ± 3 | |
| ND | 148 ± 13a | 33.0 ± 0.9b | 15.0 ± 0.6b | 102 ± 4 | |
| D | 262 ± 16b | 28.3 ± 0.7a | 12.2 ± 0.4a | 107 ± 2 | |
FIGURE 2Radial-growth patterns from 1900 to 2016 of non-declining (ND) and declining (D) trees in (A) Q. pubescens and Q. cerris and (B) residual ring-width chronologies for the best-replicated period (1950–2016). The right y axes show the sample depth. In the plot (A) the gray areas indicate periods when tree-ring width of ND trees was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than in D trees according to Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Values are mean tree-ring widths ± SE. The inset shows one of the sampled couples of ND and D Q. cerris trees.
Tree-ring width statistics of the non-declining (ND) and declining (D) oak trees sampled in Gorgoglione forest and calculated for the common and best-replicated period 1950–2016.
| Tree species | Vigor class | Time span | Tree-ring width (mm) | AR1 | MS | Correlation with mean series |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND | 1881–2016 | 0.94 ± 0.10b | 0.66 ± 0.03 | 0.32 ± 0.01 | 0.45 ± 0.03 | |
| D | 1883–2016 | 0.73 ± 0.04a | 0.63 ± 0.04 | 0.33 ± 0.01 | 0.50 ± 0.04 | |
| ND | 1890–2016 | 1.22 ± 0.04b | 0.69 ± 0.02 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.67 ± 0.02 | |
| D | 1879–2016 | 1.07 ± 0.04a | 0.72 ± 0.01 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.66 ± 0.02 | |
FIGURE 3Climate-growth relationships (Pearson correlations) in declining (D, filled bars) and non-declining (ND, hatched bars) trees of Quercus pubescens and Quercus cerris. The dashed and dotted horizontal lines indicate the 0.05 and 0.01 significance levels.
Wood C isotope radios (d13C) and discrimination (Δ13C) in non-declining (ND) and declining (D) Q. cerris and Q. pubescens individuals considering three 5-year periods.
| Tree species | Period | d13C (‰) | D13C (‰) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND trees | D trees | ND trees | D trees | ||
| 2002–2006 | -26.92 ± 0.45 | -26.76 ± 0.39 | 19.17 ± 0.41 | 19.33 ± 0.47 | |
| 2007–2011 | -27.77 ± 0.41 | -27.57 ± 0.48 | 19.90 ± 0.50 | 20.11 ± 0.43 | |
| 2012–2016 | -27.99 ± 0.32 | -27.83 ± 0.64 | 20.01 ± 0.67 | 20.32 ± 0.30 | |
| 2002–2006 | -27.14 ± 0.51 | -26.08 ± 0.36 | 18.45 ± 0.37 | 19.56 ± 0.53 | |
| 2007–2011 | -27.85 ± 0.42a | -26.73 ± 0.28b | 19.02 ± 0.30a | 20.19 ± 0.45b | |
| 2012–2016 | -28.38 ± 0.52 | -27.94 ± 0.37 | 19.99 ± 0.33 | 20.54 ± 0.54 | |