Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 381–389 | Cite as

Physiological responses to water stress in Eucalyptus cloeziana and E. argophloia seedlings

  • Michael R. NgugiEmail author
  • David Doley
  • Mark A. Hunt
  • Paul Ryan
  • Peter Dart
Original Article

Abstract

Effects of water stress duration and intensity on gas exchange and leaf water potential were investigated in 7-month-old seedlings of a humid coastal provenance (Gympie) and a dry inland (Hungry Hills) provenance of E. cloeziana F. Muell. and in a dry inland (Chinchilla) provenance of E. argophloia Blakely supplied with 100% (T100), 70% (T70), 50% (T50) of their water requirements, or were watered only after they were wilted at dawn (T0). Seedlings of E. argophloia had the highest midday net photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (g s), stomatal density and predawn leaf water potential (Ψpd) in all treatments. The E. cloeziana provenances did not differ in these attributes. The T70 and T50 treatments caused reductions in A of 30% in E. argophloia, and 55% in the E. cloeziana provenances. Under the T0 treatment, E. argophloia maintained higher rates of gas exchange at all levels of water stress than E. cloeziana provenances. The estimates of Ψpd and midday water potential (Ψmd) at which plants remained wilted overnight were respectively: −2.7 and −4.1 MPa for E. cloeziana (humid), −2.8 and −4.0 MPa for E. cloeziana (dry) and, −3.7 and −4.9 MPa for E. argophloia. Following stress relief, both A and g s recovered more quickly in E. argophloia and in the dry provenance of E. cloeziana than in the humid provenance. We conclude that E. argophloia is more drought tolerant and has a potential for cultivation in the humid and semi humid climates, whilst E. cloeziana has greater potential in the humid subtropical climates.

Keywords

Gas exchange Acclimation Stomatal density Subhumid tropics Drought tolerance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out while the first author was supported by a University of Queensland Graduate School postgraduate scholarship and a School of Land and Food Sciences scholarship. The authors thank Dr. David Lee, QFRI, for providing seedlings.

References

  1. Abrams MD (1994) Genotypic and phenotypic variation as stress adaptations in temperate tree species: a review of several case studies. Tree Physiol 14:833–842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyschlag W, Eckstein J (1997) Stomatal patchiness. Prog Bot 59:283–298Google Scholar
  3. Birk EM, Turner J (1992) Response of flooded gum (Eucalyptus grandis) to intensive cultural treatments—biomass and nutrient content of Eucalyptus plantations and native forests. For Ecol Manage 47:1-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake TJ (1980) Effect of coppicing on growth rates, stomatal characteristics and water relations in Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehn. Aust J Plant Physiol 7:81–87Google Scholar
  5. Blake TJ, Tschaplinski TJ. (1992). Water relations. In: Mitchell CP, Ford-Robertson JB, Hinckley T, Sennerby-Forsse L (eds) Ecophysiology of short rotation forest crops. Elsevier Science, London, pp 66–94Google Scholar
  6. Boland DJ, Brooker MIH, Chippendale GM, Hall N, Hyland BPM, Johnson RD, Kleinig DA, Turner JD. (1984) Forest trees of Australia. Thomas Nelson Australia and CSIRO, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  7. Collatz GJ, Ball JT, Grivet C, Berry JA (1991) Physiological and environmental regulation of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration; a model that includes a laminar boundary layer. Agric For Meteorol 54:107–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colquhoun IJ, Ridge RW, Bell DT, Loneragan WA (1984) Comparative studies in selected species of Eucalyptus used in rehabilitation of the Northern Jarrah Forest, Western Australia. I. Patterns of xylem pressure potential and diffusive resistance of leaves. Aust J Bot 32:367–373Google Scholar
  9. Cowan IR (1982) Regulation of water use in relation to carbon gain in higher plants. Enc Plant Physiol 12B:589–613Google Scholar
  10. Cromer RN, Jarvis PG (1990) Growth and biomass partitioning in Eucalyptus grandis seedlings in response to nitrogen supply. Aust J Plant Physiol 17:503–515Google Scholar
  11. Doley D (1967) Water relations of Eucalyptus marginata under natural conditions. J Ecol 55:597–614Google Scholar
  12. Doley D (1978) Effects of shade on gas exchange and growth of Eucalyptus grandis Hill. ex Maiden. Aust J Plant Physiol 5:723–738Google Scholar
  13. Downton WJS, Loveys BR, Grant WJR (1988) Stomatal closure fully accounts for the inhibition of photosynthesis by abscisic acid. New Phytol 108:263–266Google Scholar
  14. Dye PJ (1996) Response of Eucalyptus grandis trees to soil water deficits. Tree Physiol 16:233–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Facanha JGV, Oliva MA, Lopes NF, Barros NF (1983) Germination/growth relation in eucalypt species under water stress. Revista-Arvore 7:177–187Google Scholar
  16. Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 33:317–345Google Scholar
  17. Fisher JR. (1991). Aspects of the water relations of Eucalyptus grandis and Eucalyptus cloeziana. MAgrSc. thesis, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  18. Fort C, Fauveau ML, Muller F, Label P, Granier A, Dreyer E (1997) Stomatal conductance, growth and root signalling in young oak seedlings subjected to partial soil drying. Tree Physiol 17:281–289PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Keenan RJ, Ivory M, Lawson S, Lee D, Leggate W, Lewty MJ, Nikles DG, Ryan P, Walker S (1998) Hardwood plantation research and development: a strategy to support a hardwood plantation industry in Queensland. Queensland Forestry Research Institute, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirschbaum MUF (1987) Water stress in Eucalyptus pauciflora: comparison of effects on stomatal conductance with effects on the mesophyll capacity for photosynthesis, and investigation of a possible involvement of photoinhibition. Planta 171:466–473Google Scholar
  21. Kozlowski TT, Kramer PJ, Pallardy SG (1991) The physiological ecology of woody plants. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramer PJ (1983) Water relations of plants. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Kramer PJ, Boyer JS (1995) Water relations of plants and soils. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  24. Kundu SK, Tigerstedt PMA (1998) Variation in net photosynthesis, stomatal characteristics, leaf area and whole-plant phytomass production among ten provenances of neem (Azadirachta indica). Tree Physiol 19:47–52Google Scholar
  25. Küppers M, Neales TF, Küppers BIL, Swan AG, Myers BA (1987) Hydraulic flow characteristics in the lignotuberous mallee Eucalyptus behriana F. Muell. in the field. Plant Cell Environ 10:27–37Google Scholar
  26. Lee D, Ryan P, Nikles G. (1997). Provenance variation of Eucalyptus cloeziana exhibited at Pomona in South eastern Queensland. In: Kikkawa J, Dart P, Doley D, Ishii K, Lamb D, Suzuki K (eds) Overcoming Impediments to Reforestation: Tropical Forest Rehabilitation in the Asia-Pacific Region, Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop of Biotechnology assisted Reforestation. Brisbane, Australia, pp 187–189Google Scholar
  27. Loxton I, Forster S (2000) Brigalow Research Station Technical Report 1999–2000. Queensland Beef Industry Institute, Department of Primary Industries, Theodore, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  28. Meidner H, Mansfield TA (1968) Physiology of stomata. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Myers BJ, Landsberg JJ (1989) Water stress and seedling growth of two eucalypt species from contrasting habitats. Tree Physiol 5:207–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Myers BA, Küppers M, Neales TF (1987) Effect of stem excision under water on bulk leaf water potential, leaf conductance, CO2 assimilation and stemwood water storage in Eucalyptus behriana F. Muell. Aust J Plant Physiol 14:135–145Google Scholar
  31. Newton RJ, Meier CE, Van Buijtenen JP, McKinley CR (1986) Moisture-stress management: Silviculture and genetics. Stress physiology and forest productivity. Martinus Nijhoff, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  32. Ngugi MR, Doley D, Hunt MA, Dart PJ, Ryan P (2003a) Leaf water relations of Eucalyptus cloeziana and Eucalyptus argophloia in response to water deficit. Tree Physiol 23:335–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ngugi MR, Hunt MA, Doley D, Ryan P, Dart P (2003b) Dry matter production and allocation in Eucalyptus cloeziana and Eucalyptus argophloia seedlings in response to soil water deficits. New For 26:187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ni BR, Pallardy SG (1991) Response of gas exchange to water stress in seedlings of woody angiosperms. Tree Physiol 8:1-9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Nilsen ET, Orcutt DM. (1996) The physiology of plants under stress: abiotic factors. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Osmond CB, Bjorkman O, Anderson DJ (1980) Physiological processes in plant ecology: toward a synthesis with Atriplex. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Osório J, Osório ML, Chaves MM, Pereira JS (1998) Water deficits are more important in delaying growth than in changing patterns of carbon allocation in Eucalyptus globulus. Tree Physiol 18:363–373PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Passioura JB, Condon AG, Richards RA (1993) Water deficits, the development of leaf area and crop productivity. In: Smith JAC, Griffiths H (eds) Water deficits: plant responses from cell to community. Bios Scientific, Oxford, UK, p 345Google Scholar
  39. Pereira JS, Pallardy S (1987) Water stress limitations to tree productivity. In: Pereira JS Landsberg JJ (eds) Biomass production by fast-growing trees. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 37–56Google Scholar
  40. Pereira JS, Tenhunen JD, Lange OL (1987) Stomatal control of photosynthesis of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. trees under field conditions in Portugal. J Exp Bot 38:1678–1688Google Scholar
  41. Sands PJ, Rawlins W, Battaglia M (1999) Use of a simple plantation productivity model to study the profitability of irrigated Eucalyptus globulus. Ecol Model 117:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. SAS (1985) SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  43. Schulze ED (1986) Carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange in response to drought in the atmosphere and in the soil. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 37:247–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sun OJ, Sweet GB, Whitehead D, Graeme D (1995) Physiological responses to water stress and waterlogging in Nothofagus species. Tree Physiol 15:629–638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Teskey RO, Hinckley TM (1986) Moisture: Effects of water stress on trees. In: Hennessey TC, Dougherty PM, Kossuth SV, Johnson JD (eds) Stress physiology and forest productivity. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 9–34Google Scholar
  46. Turnbull JW. (1979) Geographic variations in Eucalyptus cloeziana. Ph.D thesis. Australia National University, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  47. Turner NC, Schulze ED, Gollan T (1984) The response of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water contents. I. Species comparisons at high soil water contents. Oecologia 63:338–342Google Scholar
  48. Wartinger A, Heilmeier H, Hartung W, Schulze ED (1990) Daily and seasonal courses of leaf conductance and abscisic acid in the xylem sap of almond trees [ Prunus dulcis (Miller) D. A. Webb] under desert conditions. New Phytol 116:581–587Google Scholar
  49. White DA, Turner NC, Galbraith JH (2000) Leaf water relations and stomatal behavior of four allopatric Eucalyptus species planted in Mediterranean southwestern Australia. Tree Physiol 20:1157–1165PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael R. Ngugi
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • David Doley
    • 2
  • Mark A. Hunt
    • 3
  • Paul Ryan
    • 3
  • Peter Dart
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Land and Food SciencesUniversity of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  2. 2.Department of BotanyUniversity of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Queensland Forestry Research Institute and Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Production ForestryGympieAustralia
  4. 4.Environmental Protection Agency, Conservation Services DivisionQLD Parks and Wildlife ServiceAustralia

Personalised recommendations