, 154:207 | Cite as

Water use efficiency of twenty-five co-existing Patagonian species growing under different soil water availability

Global Change and Conservation Ecology


The variation of plant water use efficiency (WUE) with water availability has two interacting components: a plastic response, evident when individuals of the same genotype are compared (e.g. wet versus dry years), and an interspecific response, evident when different species living in habitats with different water availability are compared. We analysed the WUE of 25 Patagonian species that belong to four life forms (grasses, shrubs, annual herbs and perennial herbs) in relation to the climatic conditions of 2 years and the mean historic water availability experienced by each species. To estimate water availability, we calculated the effective soil water potential (EWP) of each species, based on available information about soil water dynamics, phenology and root system structure. To estimate WUE, we used isotopic discrimination of leaf C (Δ13C) and mean annual water vapour difference between leaves and atmosphere (Δe) measured in situ. For the plastic response, for every species and life form, WUE increased from the dry to the wet year. We hypothesize that photosynthesis was less nutrient limited in the wet than in the dry year, facilitating higher net photosynthesis rates per unit of stomatal conductance in the wet year. For the interspecific response, WUE was lower in species native to drier habitats than in species native to wetter habitats. This response was mostly accounted for by a decrease in Δe with EWP. Annual herbs, which avoid drought in time (they have the earliest growth cycle), and shrubs, which avoid drought in space (they have the deepest roots), showed the highest EWP and WUE. We conclude that the conventional wisdom which states that the highest WUE occurs within a species during the driest years, and among species in the driest habitats, does not always hold true, and that co-existing life forms drastically differ in water availability and water economy.


Isotopic carbon discrimination Life forms Plastic responses Water vapour difference Interspecific comparison 


  1. Austin AT, Yahdjian L, Stark J, Belnap J, Porporato A, Norton U, Ravetta D, Schaeffer SM (2004) Water pulses and biogeochemical cycles in arid and semiarid ecosystems. Oecologia 141:221–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beltrán AB (1997) Caracterización microclimática del Distrito Occidental de la estepa patagónica. Maestría en Agrometeorología. University of Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen D (1970) The expected eficiency of water utilization in plants under different competition and selection regimes. Isr J Bot 19:50–54Google Scholar
  4. Crombie DS, Tippett JT, Hill TC (1988) Dawn water potential and root depth of trees and understorey species in south-western Australia. Aust J Bot 36:621–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawson T, Mambelli S, Plamboeck A, Templer P, Tu K (2002) Stable isotopes in plant ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 33:507–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Lucia EH, Heckathorn SA (1989) The effect of soil drought on water-use efficiency in a contrasting Great Basin desert and Sierran montane species. Plant Cell Environ 12:935–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Lucia EH, Schlesinger WH (1991) Resource-use efficiency and drought tolerance in adjacent Great Basin and Sierran plants. Ecology 72:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donovan LA, Ehleringer JR (1992) Contrasting water-use patterns among size and life-history classes of a semi-arid shrub. Funct Ecol 6:482–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eamus D (1999) Ecophysiological traits of deciduous and evergreen woody species in the seasonally dry tropics. Trends Ecol Evol 14:11–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehleringer JR, Cooper TA (1988) Correlation between carbon isotope ratio and microhabitat in desert plants. Oecologia 76:562–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehleringer JR, Phillips SL, Comstock JP (1992) Seasonal variation in the carbon isotope composition of desert plants. Funct Ecol 6:396–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eissenstat DM (1997) Trade-offs in root form and function. In: Jackson LE (ed) Ecology in agriculture. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif., pp 173–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erskine PD, Stewart GR, Schmidt S, Turnbull MH, Unkovich M, Pate JS (1996) Water availability—a physiological constraint on nitrate utilization in plants of Australian semi-arid mulga woodlands. Plant Cell Environ 19:1149–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Farquhar GD, O’Leary MH, Berry JA (1982) On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular carbon dioxide concentration in leaves. Aust J Plant Physiol 9:121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fernández RJ, Paruelo JM (1988) Root systems of two Patagonian shrubs: a quantitative description using a geometrical method. J Range Manage 41:220–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fernández RJ, Sala OE, Golluscio RA (1991) Woody and herbaceous aboveground production of a Patagonian steppe. J Range Manage 44:434–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Field C, Merino J, Mooney HA (1983) Compromises between water-use efficiency, and nitrogen-use efficiency in five species of California evergreens. Oecologia 60:384–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer RA, Turner NC (1978) Plant productivity in the arid and semiarid zones. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 29:277–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forseth IN, Ehleringer JR, Werk KS, Cook CS (1984) Field water relations of Sonoran desert annuals. Ecology 65:1436–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. French N, Sauer RH (1974) Phenological studies and modelling in grasslands. In: Lieth H (ed) Phenology and seasonality modelling. Ecological studies. Analysis and synthesis, vol 8. Springer, Berlin, pp 227–236Google Scholar
  21. Garten CT, Taylor GE (1992) Foliar δ 13C within a temperate deciduous forest: spatial, temporal and species sources of variation. Oecologia 90:1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Golluscio RA (2005) Dimensiones de la heterogeneidad a nivel de comunidad: profundidad radical y fenología en 25 especies patagónicas. In: Oesterheld M, Aguiar M, Ghersa C, Paruelo J (eds) La heterogeneidad de la vegetación de los agroecosistemas. Editorial Facultad de Agronomía, UBAGoogle Scholar
  23. Golluscio RA, Sala OE (1993) Plant functional types and ecological strategies in Patagonian forbs. J Veg Sci 4:839–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Golluscio RA, León RJC, Perelman SB (1982) Caracterización fitosociológica de la estepa del Oeste de Chubut: su relación con el gradiente ambiental. Bol Soc Argent Bot 21:299–324Google Scholar
  25. Golluscio RA, Sala OE, Lauenroth WK (1998) Differential use of large summer rainfall events by shrubs and grasses: a manipulative experiment in the Patagonian steppe. Oecologia 115:17–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Golluscio RA, Oesterheld M, Aguiar MR (2005) Phenology of twenty five Patagonian species related to their life form. Ecography 28:273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Golluscio RA, Faigón A, Tanke M (2006) Spatial distribution of roots and nodules, and δ15N evidences of nitrogen fixation in Adesmia volckmanni, a Patagonian leguminous shrub. J Arid Environ 67:328–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gutiérrez MV, Meinzer FC (1994) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthetic gas exchange in coffee hedgerows during canopy development. Aust J Plant Physiol 21:207–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoffmann AJ, Walker MJ (1980) Growth habits and phenology of drought-deciduous species in an altitudinal gradient. Can J Bot 58:1789–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jackson L, Bliss LC (1984) Phenology and water relations of three plant life forms in a dry tree-line meadow. Ecology 65:1302–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jobbágy EG, Sala OE (2000) Controls of grass and shrub aboveground production in the Patagonian steppe. Ecol Appl 10:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lajtha K, Getz J (1993) Photosynthesis and water-use efficiency in pinyon-juniper communities along an elevation gradient in northern New Mexico. Oecologia 94:95–101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Lambers H, Chapin FS, Pons TL (1998) Plant physiological ecology. Springer, New York, Berlin, Heildelberg, p 540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lauenroth WK, Sala OE (1992) Long-term forage production of North American shortgrass steppe. Ecol Appl 2:397–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. León RJC, Bran D, Collantes M, Paruelo JM, Soriano A (1998) Grandes unidades de vegetación de la Patagonia extra andina. Ecol Aust 8:125–144Google Scholar
  36. Lin G, Phillips SL, Ehleringer JR (1996) Monsoonal precipitation responses of shrubs in a cold desert community on the Colorado Plateau. Oecologia 106:8–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Montenegro G, Aljaro ME, Kummerow J (1979) Growth dynamics of Chilean matorral shrubs. Bot Gaz 140:114–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mooney HA, Dunn EI (1970) Photosynthetic systems of mediterranean climate shrubs and trees of California and Chile. Am Nat 104:447–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mooney HA, Ehleringer JR, Berry JA (1976) High photosinthetic capacity of a winter annual in Death Valley. Science 194:322–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Neales TF, Patterson AA, Hartney VJ (1968) Physiological adaptation to drought in the carbon assimilation and water loss of xerophytes. Nature 219:469–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Paruelo JM, Aguiar MR, Golluscio RA (1988) Soil water availability in the Patagonian arid steppe: gravel content effect. Arid Soil Res Rehabil 2:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paruelo JM, Lauenroth WK, Burke IC, Sala OE (1999) Grassland precipitation use efficiency varies accross a resource gradient. Ecosystems 2:64–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Poole DK, Miller PC (1975) Water relations of selected species of chaparral and coastal sage communities. Ecology 56:1118–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sala OE, Lauenroth WK, Parton WJ, Trlica MJ (1981) Water status of soil and vegetation in a shortgrass steppe. Oecologia 48:327–331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sala OE, Golluscio RA, Lauenroth WK, Soriano A (1989) Resource partitioning between shrubs and grasses in the Patagonian steppe. Oecologia 81:501–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Scheidegger Y, Saurer M, Bahn M, Siegwolf R (2000) Linking stable oxygen and carbon isotopes with stomatal conductance and photosynthetic capacity: a conceptual model. Oecologia 125:350–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schleser GH (1990) Investigations of the δ13C pattern in leaves of Fagus sylvatica L. J Exp Bot 41:565–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schulze E-D, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Jobbágy EG, Buchmann N, Bauer G, Canadell J, Jackson RB, Loreti J, Oesterheld M, Ehleringer JR (1996) Rooting depth, water availability, and vegetation cover along an aridity gradient in Patagonia. Oecologia 108:503–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sigal Escalada V (1997) Adaptaciones de las plantas patagónicas a suelos de distinta textura: xerofitismo versus productividad. Trabajo de Intensificación. Facultad de Agronomía (UBA)Google Scholar
  50. Sinclair TR, CB Tanner, Bennett JM (1984) Water-use efficiency in crop production. Bioscience 34:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smedley MP, Dawson TE, Comstock JP, Donovan LA, Sherrill DE, Cook CS, Ehleringer JR (1991) Seasonal carbon isotope discrimination in a grassland community. Oecologia 85:314–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Soriano A (1956) Los distritos florísticos de la Provincia Patagónica. Rev Invest Agropec 10:323–347Google Scholar
  53. Soriano A, Sala OE (1983) Ecological strategies in a Patagonian arid steppe. Vegetatio 56:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soriano A, Golluscio RA, Satorre EH (1987) Spatial heterogeneity of the root systems of grasses in the Patagonian arid steppe. Bull Torrey Bot Club 114:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. StatSoft (1995) STATISTICA for Windows. StatSoft, Tulsa, Okla.Google Scholar
  56. Toft NL, Anderson JE, Nowak RS (1989) Water use efficiency and carbon isotope composition of plants in a cold desert environment. Oecologia 80:11–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Valentini R, Scarascia Mugnozza GE, Ehleringer JR (1992) Hydrogen and carbon isotope ratios of selected species of a Mediterranean macchia ecosystem. Funct Ecol 6:627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yahdjian L, Sala OE, Austin AT (2006) Differential controls of water input on litter decomposition and nitrogen dynamics in the Patagonian steppe. Ecosystems 9:128–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Warren CR, McGrath JF, Adams MA (2001) Water availability and carbon isotope discrimination in conifers. Oecologia 127:476–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentIFEVA (Facultad de Agronomía–UBA/CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.Department of Animal ProductionIFEVA (Facultad de Agronomía–UBA/CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations