| Literature DB >> 30697222 |
Shuang-Xi Zhou1,2, I Colin Prentice1,3, Belinda E Medlyn1,4.
Abstract
Global climate change is expected to increase drought duration and intensity in certain regions while increasing rainfall in others. The quantitative consequences of increased drought for ecosystems are not easy to predict. Process-based models must be informed by experiments to determine the resilience of plants and ecosystems from different climates. Here, we demonstrate what and how experimentally derived quantitative information can improve the representation of stomatal and non-stomatal photosynthetic responses to drought in large-scale vegetation models. In particular, we review literature on the answers to four key questions: (1) Which photosynthetic processes are affected under short-term drought? (2) How do the stomatal and non-stomatal responses to short-term drought vary among species originating from different hydro-climates? (3) Do plants acclimate to prolonged water stress, and do mesic and xeric species differ in their degree of acclimation? (4) Does inclusion of experimentally based plant functional type specific stomatal and non-stomatal response functions to drought help Land Surface Models to reproduce key features of ecosystem responses to drought? We highlighted the need for evaluating model representations of the fundamental eco-physiological processes under drought. Taking differential drought sensitivity of different vegetation into account is necessary for Land Surface Models to accurately model drought responses, or the drought impacts on vegetation in drier environments may be over-estimated.Entities:
Keywords: Jmax; Vcmax; drought acclimation; flux measurement; land surface model; mesophyll conductance; photosynthesis; stomatal and non-stomatal limitation
Year: 2019 PMID: 30697222 PMCID: PMC6340983 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01965
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1Conceptual diagram of the model-experiment synthesis framework to quantify and model the differential sensitivities of leaf gas exchange to drought. (A) During photosynthesis, the CO2 flux from the air (ambient CO2 concentration, Ca) to intercellular air spaces (intercellular CO2 concentration, Ci) through stomata is limited by stomatal conductance (gs). The CO2 flux from the intercellular space to the chloroplast site (CO2 concentration at the chloroplast, Cc) is limited by mesophyll conductance (gm). The non-stomatal limitation on photosynthesis was attributed to drought effects on gm, the actual maximum rate of CO2 consumption by RuBP carboxylation by Rubisco (Vcmax) and the actual maximum electron transport rate (Jmax). (B) An impression of the leaf epidermis of E. camaldulensis subsp. camaldulensis was produced using clear nail polish, which then was mounted for applications of microphotography of the leaf surface. The microscope (Olympus BX53, Olympus America Inc.) was interfaced with a digital camera at ×40 magnification. Photo: Shuang-Xi Zhou.
FIGURE 2Correlation between the pre-dawn leaf water potential at 50% loss of photosynthetic functions and moisture index for six woody species from contrasting hydroclimates. (A) The pre-dawn leaf water potential at 50% loss of net carbon assimilation rate (P50An, -MPa) and moisture index. (B) The pre-dawn leaf water potential at 50% loss of stomatal conductance (P50gs, -MPa) and moisture index. (C) The pre-dawn leaf water potential at 50% loss of stomatal sensitivity parameter g1 (P50g1, -MPa) and moisture index. (D) The pre-dawn leaf water potential at 50% loss of RuBP carboxylation by Rubisco (P50Vcmax, -MPa) and moisture index. (E) Correlation between P50Vcmax and P50gs. (F) Correlation between P50g1 and P50gs. Moisture index is the ratio between mean annual precipitation and mean annual potential evapotranspiration, which can range from zero in the driest regions to higher values in wetter regions (Zhou et al., 2014). Values of P50An, P50gs, P50g1 and P50Vcmax (solid circle) – and the bootstrap 2.5% and bootstrap 95% values (bars) to indicate the error in each estimate – were fitted by employing data from Zhou et al. (2014) using the ‘fitplc’ package in R (Duursma and Choat, 2017).
FIGURE 3Conceptual diagram of potential acclimation responses of diffusional and biochemical parameters to water stress. Solid lines show the strong short-term sensitivity of parameters to the decreasing soil water potential (Ψsoil) before plants being given time to acclimate to water stress. Dashed lines indicate reduced sensitivity to soil water potential following a period of acclimation to water stress. Upward arrow between the solid and dashed line shows potential shift upward of the drought-response curve during acclimation. (A) Exponential function of stomatal conductance (gs) and mesophyll conductance (gm) with the decreasing Ψsoil based on Zhou et al. (2013, 2014). (B) Logistic function of the maximum rate of CO2 consumption by RuBP carboxylation by Rubisco (Vcmax) and the maximum electron transport rate (Jmax) with the decreasing Ψsoil based on Zhou et al. (2013, 2014). K is the maximum value of the parameter under moist conditions. Sf indicates the sensitivity of each parameter against the decreasing Ψsoil. Ψf is soil water potential at 50% reduction of K.