, Volume 179, Issue 3, pp 641–654 | Cite as

The role of isohydric and anisohydric species in determining ecosystem-scale response to severe drought

  • D. T. Roman
  • K. A. NovickEmail author
  • E. R. Brzostek
  • D. Dragoni
  • F. Rahman
  • R. P. Phillips
Physiological ecology - Original research


Ongoing shifts in the species composition of Eastern US forests necessitate the development of frameworks to explore how species-specific water-use strategies influence ecosystem-scale carbon (C) cycling during drought. Here, we develop a diagnostic framework to classify plant drought-response strategies along a continuum of isohydric to anisohydric regulation of leaf water potential (Ψ L). The framework is applied to a 3-year record of weekly leaf-level gas exchange and Ψ measurements collected in the Morgan-Monroe State Forest (Indiana, USA), where continuous observations of the net ecosystem exchange of CO2 (NEE) have been ongoing since 1999. A severe drought that occurred in the middle of the study period reduced the absolute magnitude of NEE by 55 %, though species-specific responses to drought conditions varied. Oak species were characterized by anisohydric regulation of Ψ L that promoted static gas exchange throughout the study period. In contrast, Ψ L of the other canopy dominant species was more isohydric, which limited gas exchange during the drought. Ecosystem-scale estimates of NEE and gross ecosystem productivity derived by upscaling the leaf-level data agreed well with tower-based observations, and highlight how the fraction of isohydric and anisohydric species in forests can mediate net ecosystem C balance.


Carbon flux Water regulation Eddy covariance Stomatal conductance Net ecosystem exchange 



We would like to acknowledge the contributions of HaPe Schmid, Sue Grimmond, J. C. Randolph, Steve Scott and the MMSF field crew to the establishment and operation of the MMSF Ameriflux site. We thank the Indiana Department of Natural Resources for supporting and hosting the MMSF AmeriFlux site, and the US Department of Energy, through the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Program and the AmeriFlux Management Project through the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, for funding the project. Special thanks to Rob Conover, Bo Stearman, Whitney Moore, and Brenten Reust for their help in data collection and processing, and to Benjamin Sulman for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

442_2015_3380_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1556 kb)


  1. Abrams MD (1990) Adaptations and responses to drought in Quercus species of North America. Tree Physiol 7(1–4):227–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams MD (2003) Where has all the white oak gone? Bioscience 53(10):927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brzostek EB, Dragoni D, Schmid HP, Rahman AF, Sims D, Wayson CA, Johnson DJ, Phillips RP (2014) Chronic water stress reduces tree growth and the carbon sink of deciduous hardwood forests. Glob Change Biol 20(8):2531–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucci SJ, Scholz FG, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC, Hinojosa JA, Hoffmann WA, Franco AC (2004) Processes preventing nocturnal equilibration between leaf and soil water potential in tropical savanna woody species. Tree Physiol 24(10):1119–1127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Choat B, Jansen S, Brodribb TJ, Cochard H, Delzon S, Bhaskar R, Bucci SJ, Feild TS, Gleason SM, Hacke UG et al (2012) Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 491(7426):752–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dai AG (2011) Characteristics and trends in various forms of the Palmer drought severity index during 1900–2008. J Geophys Res Atmos 116:D12Google Scholar
  7. Dickson RE, Tomlinson PT (1996) Oak growth, development and carbon metabolism in response to water stress. Ann Sci For 53(2–3):181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dragoni D, Schmid HP, Wayson CA, Potter H, Grimmond CSB, Randolph JC (2011) Evidence of increased net ecosystem productivity associated with a longer vegetated season in a deciduous forest in south-central Indiana, USA. Glob Change Biol 17(2):886–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehman JL, Schmid HP, Grimmond CSB, Randolph JC, Hanson PJ, Wayson CA, Cropley FD (2002) An initial intercomparison of micrometeorological and ecological inventory estimates of carbon exchange in a mid-latitude deciduous forest. Glob Change Biol 8(6):575–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flatley WT, Lafon CW, Grissino-Mayer HD, LaForest LB (2013) Fire history, related to climate and land use in three southern Appalachian landscapes in the eastern United States. Ecol Appl 23(6):1250–1266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ford CR, Laseter SH, Swank WT, Vose JM (2011) Can forest management be used to sustain water-based ecosystem services in the face of climate change? Ecol Appl 21(6):2049–2067CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanson PJ, Todd DE, Huston MA, Joslin JD, Croker J, Augé RM (1998) Description and field performance of the Walker Branch Throughfall Displacement Experiment: 1993–1996, ORNL/TM-13586. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoerling M, Eischeid J, Kumar A, Leung R, Mariotti A, Mo K, Schubert S, Seager R (2014) Causes and predictability of the 2012 Great Plains drought. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 95:269–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huntington TG (2006) Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: review and synthesis. J Hydrol 319(1–4):83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson DM, McCulloh KA, Woodruff DR, Meinzer FC (2012) Hydraulic safety margins and embolism reversal in stems and leaves: why are conifers and angiosperms so different? Plant Sci 195:48–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kattge J, Diaz S, Lavorel S, Prentice C, Leadley P, Bonisch G, Garnier E, Westoby M, Reich PB, Wright IJ et al (2011) TRY—a global database of plant traits. Glob Change Biol 17(9):2905–2935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katul GG, Palmroth S, Oren R (2009) Leaf stomatal responses to vapour pressure deficit under current and CO2-enriched atmosphere explained by the economics of gas exchange. Plant Cell Environ 32(8):968–979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Klein T (2014) The variability of stomatal sensitivity to leaf water potential across tree species indicates a continuum between isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. Funct Ecol. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12289 Google Scholar
  19. Laseter SH, Ford CR, Vose JM, Swift LW (2012) Long-term temperature and precipitation trends at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, Otto, North Carolina, USA. Hydrol Res 43(6):890–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leach JE, Woodhead T, Day W (1982) Bias in pressure chamber measurements of leaf water potential. Agric Meteorol 27:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mallya G, Zhao L, Song XC, Niyogi D, Govindaraju RS (2013) 2012 Midwest drought in the United States. J Hydrol Eng 18(7):737–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manzoni S, Vico G, Katul G, Palmroth S, Jackson RB, Porporato A (2013) Hydraulic limits on maximum plant transpiration and the emergence of the safety-efficiency trade-off. New Phytol 198(1):169–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Martinez-Vilalta J, Poyatos R, Aguade D, Retana J, Mencuccini M (2014) A new look at water transport regulation in plants. New Phytol. doi: 10.1111/nph.12912 Google Scholar
  24. McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD, Breshears DD, Cobb N, Kolb T, Plaut J, Sperry J, West A, Williams DG, Yepez EA (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178:719–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McEwan RW, Dyer JM, Pederson N (2011) Multiple interacting ecosystem drivers: toward an encompassing hypothesis of oak forest dynamics across eastern North America. Ecography 34(2):244–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meinzer FC, Johnson DM, Lachenbruch B, McCulloh KA, Woodruff DR (2009) Xylem hydraulic safety margins in woody plants: coordination of stomatal control of xylem tension with hydraulic capacitance. Funct Ecol 23(5):922–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meinzer FC, Woodruff DR, Eissenstat DM, Lin HS, Adams TS, McCulloh KA (2013) Above- and belowground controls on water use by trees of different wood types in an eastern US deciduous forest. Tree Physiol 33(4):345–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Meinzer FC, Woodruff DR, Marias DE, McColloh KA, Sevanto S (2014) Dynamics of leaf water relations components in co-occuring iso- and anisohydric conifer species. Plant Cell Environ 37:2577–2587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Novick KA, Oishi AC, Ward EJ, Siqueira MBS, Juang JY, Stoy PC (in press) Inter-annual variability in the biosphere-atmosphere exchange of CO2 and H2O in adjacent pine and hardwood forests: links to drought, rising CO2, and seasonalityGoogle Scholar
  30. Nowacki GJ, Abrams MD (2008) The demise of fire and “mesophication” of forests in the eastern United States. Bioscience 58(2):123–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Gorman PA, Schneider T (2009) The physical basis for increases in precipitation extremes in simulations of 21st-century climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(35):14773–14777PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG, Pataki DE, Ewers BE, Phillips N, Schafer KVR (1999) Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ 22(12):1515–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Phillips NG, Ryan MG, Bond BJ, McDowell NG, Hinckley TM, Cermak J (2003) Reliance on stored water increases with tree size in three species in the Pacific Northwest. Tree Physiol 23(4):237–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Plaut JA, Yepez EA, Hill J, Pangle R, Sperry JS, Pockman WT, McDowell NG (2012) Hydraulic limits preceding mortality in a pinon-juniper woodland under experimental drought. Plant Cell Environ 35:1601–1617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Quero JL, Sterck FJ, Martinez-Vilalta J, Villar R (2011) Water-use strategies of six co-existing Mediterranean woody species during a summer drought. Oecologia 166:45–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Richter H (1997) Water relations of plants in the field: some comments on the measurement of selected parameters. J Exp Bot 87:1287–1299Google Scholar
  37. Ritchie GA, Hinckley TM (1975) The pressure chamber as an instrument for ecological research. Adv Ecol Res 9:165–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schmid HP, Grimmond CSB, Cropley F, Offerle B, Su HB (2000) Measurements of CO2 and energy fluxes over a mixed hardwood forest in the mid-western United States. Agric For Meteorol 103(4):357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shifley S (2012) The Northern Forest Futures Project: examining past, present, and future trends affecting forests in and around the central hardwood forest regionq. In Miller GW, Schuler TM, Gottschalk KW, Brooks JR, Grushecky ST, Spong BD, Rentch JS (eds) 18th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, Morgantown, WV. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research StationGoogle Scholar
  40. Sperry JS (2000) Hydraulic constraints on plant gas exchange. Agric For Meteorol 104(1):13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stoy PC, Katul GG, Siqueira MBS, Juang JY, Novick KA, McCarthy HR, Oishi AC, Oren R (2008) Role of vegetation in determining carbon sequestration along ecological succession in the southeastern United States. Glob Change Biol 14(6):1409–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taneda H, Sperry JS (2008) A case-study of water transport in co-occurring ring- versus diffuse-porous trees: contrasts in water-status, conducting capacity, cavitation and vessel refilling. Tree Physiol 28(11):1641–1651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Thomsen JE, Bohrer G, Matheny AM, Ivanov VY, He LL, Renninger HJ, Schafer KVR (2013) Contrasting hydraulic strategies during dry soil conditions in Quercus rubra and Acer rubrum in a sandy site in Michigan. Forests 4(4):1106–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turner NC, Long MJ (1980) Errors arising from rapid water loss in the measurement of leaf water potential by pressure chamber technique. Aust J Plant Physiol 7:527–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tyree MT, Sperry JS (1988) Do woody-plants operate near the point of catastrophic xylem dysfunction caused by dynamic water-stress—answers from a model. Plant Physiol 88(3):574–580PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Van der Molen MK, Dolmana AJ, Ciais P, Eglinc T, Gobrond N, Lawe BE, Meirf P, Petersb W, Phillips OL, Reichsteinh M, Chena T, Dekkeri SC, Doubkov M, Friedl MA, Jungh M, van den Hurkl BJJM, de Jeua RAM, Kruijtm B, Ohtan T, Rebeli KT, Plummero S, Seneviratnep SI, Sitchg S, Teulingp AJ, van der Werfa GR, Wanga G (2011) Drought and ecosystem carbon cycling. Agric For Meteorol 151:765–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang H, Schubert S, Koster R, Ham YG, Suarez M (2014) On the role of SST in the 2011 and 2012 extreme US heat and drought: a study in contrasts. J Hydrometeorol 15:1255–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wayson CA, Randolph JC, Hanson PJ, Grimmond CSB, Schmid HP (2006) Comparison of soil respiration methods in a mid-latitude deciduous forest. Biogeochemistry 80(2):173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wear DN, Greis JG (2012) In: Report GT (ed) The Southern Forest Futures Project: summary report. USDA Forest Service, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  50. Whitehead D, Edwards WRN, Jarvis PG (1984) Conducting sapwood area, foliage area, and permeability in mature trees of Picea sitchensis and Pinus contorta. Can J For Res-Rev Can Rech For 14(6):940–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. T. Roman
    • 1
  • K. A. Novick
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. R. Brzostek
    • 2
  • D. Dragoni
    • 3
  • F. Rahman
    • 4
  • R. P. Phillips
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University-BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantownUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyIndiana University-BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyThe University of Texas Rio Grande ValleyEdinburgUSA
  5. 5.Department of BiologyIndiana University-BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations