Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 172, Issue 1, pp 17–27 | Cite as

Soil water dynamics in an oak stand

I. Soil moisture, water potentials and water uptake by roots
  • N. Bréda
  • A. Granier
  • F. Barataud
  • C. Moyne
Research Article

Abstract

Soil water dynamics under a mixed stand of mature sessile and pedunculate oaks were studied both under natural conditions and during imposed water shortages in a lysimeter. Root densities of each species were described in situ by counting roots in the trench surrounding the dry plot. Soil water contents and potentials, and pre-dawn leaf water potentials (Ψwp) were monitored during three successive years. Soil water retention characteristics were obtained from field measurements of water potential and water content. The decreasing rooting density with depth was strongly related to soil physical properties. The root system was separated into two compartments by a layer with a high clay content. The deepest soil compartment was mainly explored by fine roots. Neutron probe measurements allowed the detection of variations in water content down to a depth of 2.00 m. The distribution of water uptake among the different soil layers changed when drought increased. Water was extracted from the deepest reservoir, and capillary rises even occurred after partial water depletion in the upper part of the soil. Seasonal trends of pre-dawn leaf water potential generally matched those of soil water potential in the wettest rooted zone, which was at − 140 cm. In the upper, dry, horizons, the sharp loss of soil hydraulic conductivity reduced water transport to roots leading to impossible equilibrium between roots and soil at pre-dawn. Finally, Ψwp presented a low sensitivity to variations of total soil water content between 40% and 100% of extractable water. Below this threshold, Ψwp decreased sharply to a minimal value of about − 2.0 MPa.

Key words

drought in situ leaf water potential Quercus petraea Quercus robur soil water soil water potential soil water uptake root 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams M D 1990 Adaptations and responses to drought in Quercus species of North America. Tree Physiol. 7, 227–238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aussenac C and Granier A 1978 Quelques résultats de cinétique journalière de potentiel de sève chez les arbres forestiers Ann. Sci. For. 35, 19–32.Google Scholar
  3. Aussenac G, Granier A and Ibrahim M 1984 Influence du dessèchement du sol sur le fonctionnement hydrique et la croissance du douglas (Pseudostuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco). Acta Oecologica, Oecol. Plant. 5, 241–253.Google Scholar
  4. Barataud F, Moyne C, Granier A and Bréda N 1994 Soil water dynamics in an oak stand. Part II. A model to the soil-root network compared with experimental data. Plant and Soil (In press).Google Scholar
  5. Bédéneau M and Auclair D 1989 The study of tree fine root distribution and dynamics using a combined trench and observation window method. Ann. Sci. For. 46, 283–290.Google Scholar
  6. Black T A 1979 Evapotranspiration from Douglas-fir stands exposed to soil water deficits. Water Resour. Res 15, 164–170.Google Scholar
  7. Bouten W, Schaap M G, Bakker D J and Verstraten J M 1992 Modelling soil water dynamics in a forested ecosystem. I: A site specific evaluation. Hydrol. Proc. 6, 435–444.Google Scholar
  8. Bréda N 1994 Analyse du fonctionnement hydrique des chênes sessile (Quercus petraea) et pédonculé (Quercus robur) en conditions naturelles; effets des facteurs du milieu et de l'éclaircie. PhD thesis, Nancy University, 59p and publications.Google Scholar
  9. Bréda N, Cochard H, Dreyer E and Granier A 1993a Water transfer in a mature oak stand (Quercus petraea): seasonal evolution and effects of a severe drought. Can. J. For. Res. 23, 1136–1143.Google Scholar
  10. Bréda N, Cochard H, Dreyer E and Granier A 1993b Field comparison of transpiration, stomatal conductance and vulnerability to cavitation of Quercus petraea and Quercus robur under water stress. Ann. Sci. For. 6, 571–582.Google Scholar
  11. Bréda N, Granier A and Aussenac G 1995 Effects of thinning on soil water balance and tree water relations, transpiration and growth in an oak forest (Quercus petraea). Tree Physiol. (In press).Google Scholar
  12. Callaway R M 1990 Effects of soil water distribution on the lateral root development of three species of California oaks. Am. J. Bot. 77, 1469–1475.Google Scholar
  13. Cermak J, Huzulak J and Penka M 1980 Water potential and sap flow rate in adult trees with moist and dry soil as used for the assessment of root system depth. Biol. Plant. 22, 31–41.Google Scholar
  14. Crombie D S, Tippett J T and Hill T C 1988 Dawn water potential and root depth of trees and understorey species in south-western Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 36, 621–631.Google Scholar
  15. Dufrêne E, Dubos B, Rey H, Quencez P and Saugier B 1992 Changes in evapotranspiration from an oil palm stand (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) exposed to seasonal soil water deficits. Acta Oecol. 13, 299–314.Google Scholar
  16. Gardner W R 1960 Dynamic aspects of water availability to plants. Soil Sci. 89, 6373.Google Scholar
  17. Garnier E, Berger A and Rambal S 1988 Water balance and pattern of soil water uptake in a peach orchard Agric. Water Manage. 11, 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goulden M L 1991 Nutrient and water utilisation by evergreen oaks that differ in rooting depth. PhD thesis, Standford University, CA. 145p.Google Scholar
  19. Granier A 1987 Evaluation of transpiration in a Douglas-fir stand by means of sap flow measurements. Tree Physiol. 3, 309–320.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Henin S and Monnier G 1956 Evaluation de la stabilité structurale d'un sol. CR 6ème Congrès Int. Sc. Sol, Paris. pp 49–52.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson P S, Novinger S L and Mares W G 1984 Root, shoot and leaf area growth potentials of Northern red oak planting stock. For. Sci. 30, 1017–1026.Google Scholar
  22. Lévy G, Becker M and Duhamel D 1992 A comparison of the ecology of pedunculate and sessile oaks: radial growth in the centre and North-West of France. For. Ecol. Manage. 55, 51–65.Google Scholar
  23. Lucot E and Bruckert S 1992 Organisation du système racinaire du chêne pédonculé (Quercus robur) développé en conditions édaphiques non contraignantes (sol brun lessivé colluvial). Ann. Sci. For. 49, 465–479.Google Scholar
  24. Molz F J 1981 Models of water transport in soil-plant system: A review. Water Resour. Res. 17, 1245–1260.Google Scholar
  25. Nizinski J and Saugier B 1989 A model of transpiration and soilwater balance for a mature oak forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 47, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nnyamah J U, Black T A and Tan C S 1978 Resistance to water uptake in a Douglas fir forest. Soil Sci. 126, 63–76.Google Scholar
  27. Nobel P S 1991 Physiochemical and Environmental Plant Physiology. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 635 p.Google Scholar
  28. Pagès L 1992 Mini-rhizotrons transparents pour l'étude du système racinaire de jeunes plantes. Application à la caractérisation du développement racinaire de jeunes chênes (Quercus robur). Can. J. Bot. 70, 1840–1847.Google Scholar
  29. Rambal S 1984 Water balance and pattern of root water uptake by a Quercus coccifera L. evergreen scrub. Oecologia 62, 18–25.Google Scholar
  30. Reich P B and Hinckley T M 1989 Influence of pre-dawn water potential and soil-to-leaf hydraulic conductance on maximum daily le diffusive conductance in two oaks species. Func. Ecol. 3, 719–726.Google Scholar
  31. Reich P B, Teskey R O, Johnson P S and Hinckley T M 1980 Periodic root and shoot growth in oak. For. Sci. 26, 590–598.Google Scholar
  32. Ritchie G A and Hinckley T M 197S The pressure chamber as an instrument for ecological research. In Advances in Ecological Research 9, 238–240. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  33. Schulze E-D 1986 Carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange in response to drought in the atmosphere and in the soil. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 37, 247–74.Google Scholar
  34. Sucoff E and Hong S G 1974 Effects of thinning on needle water potential in red pine. For. Sci. 20, 25–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Bréda
    • 1
  • A. Granier
    • 1
  • F. Barataud
    • 2
  • C. Moyne
    • 2
  1. 1.Equipe de Bioclimatologie et Ecophysiologie ForestièresINRA-Nancy, UR Ecophysiologie ForestièreSEICHAMPSFrance
  2. 2.LEMTA, Laboratoire d'Energétique et de Mécanique Théorique et AppliquéeURA 875VandoeuvreFrance

Personalised recommendations