Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 735–749 | Cite as

Anisohydric water use behavior links growing season evaporative demand to ring-width increment in conifers from summer-dry environments

  • Steve L. VoelkerEmail author
  • R. Justin DeRose
  • Matthew F. Bekker
  • Chalita Sriladda
  • Nisa Leksungnoen
  • Roger K. Kjelgren
Original Article

Abstract

Key message

Compared to isohydric Pinaceae, anisohydric Cupressaceae exhibited: (1) a threefold larger hydroscape area; (2) growth at lower pre-dawn water potentials that extended longer into the growing season; and (3) stronger coupling of growth to growing season atmospheric moisture demand in summer-dry environments.

Abstract

Conifers in the Pinaceae and Cupressaceae from dry environments have been shown to broadly differ in their stomatal sensitivity to soil drying that result in isohydric versus anisohydric water use behavior, respectively. Here, we first employ a series of drought experiments and field observations to confirm the degree of isohydric versus anisohydric water use behavior in species of these two families that are representative of the Interior West of the United States. We then use experimental soil drying to demonstrate how growth of anisohydric Juniperus osteosperma was more closely tied to pre-dawn water potentials than isohydric Pinus monophylla. Finally, we confirm that measured leaf gas-exchange and growth responses to drying hold real-world consequences for conifers from the Interior West. More specifically, across the past ~ 100 years of climate variation, pairwise comparisons of annual ring-width increment responses indicate that growth of Cupressaceae species (J. osteosperma and J. scopulorum) was more strongly coupled to growing season evaporative demand than co-occurring Pinaceae species (Pinus monophylla, P. edulis, P. flexilis, P. longaeva, P. ponderosa, and Pseudotsuga menziesii). Overall, these experimental and observational results suggest that an a priori distinction based on family and associated hydric water use behavior should lead to more accurate and mechanistically correct dendrochronological reconstructions of growing season evaporative demand (i.e., Cupressaceae) versus antecedent precipitation (i.e., Pinaceae) in summer-dry environments. Moreover, these differences in growth sensitivity to evaporative demand among these groups suggest that incorporating hydric water use behavior into models of forest responses to global warming can provide more accurate projections of future forest composition and functioning.

Keywords

Dendrochronology Drought tolerance Stomatal conductance Tree growth Water potential Water use behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Wasatch Dendroclimatology Research Group (WADR) was responsible for this project. This paper was greatly improved by the helpful comments of Joshua Leffler. We would like to thank Le Canh Nam, Slaton Wheeler, Eric Allen, Shawn Wortham, Roxy Hedges, Shauna Mecham, and Jackson Deere, Hannah Gray and Jessika Pettit for their contributions to field and laboratory data collection. For access to sampling sites we also would like to thank: Jennefer Parker, Logan Ranger District, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest; Karl Fuelling, Minidoka Ranger District, Sawtooth National Forest; and Del Barnhurst, Fillmore Ranger District, Fishlake National Forest. We acknowledge Marlee Beers and BYU Think Spatial for cartographic work. This paper was prepared in part by an employee of the US Forest Service as part of official duties and is, therefore, in the public domain.

Funding

This research was funded by a Bureau of Reclamation WaterSmart Grant, No. R13AC80039, the Utah State University Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (CWEL), and Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Project 1304.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams HD, Collins AD, Briggs SP et al (2015) Experimental drought and heat can delay phenological development and reduce foliar and shoot growth in semiarid trees. Glob Change Biol 21:4210–4220.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen EB, Rittenour TM, DeRose RJ et al (2013) A tree-ring based reconstruction of Logan River streamflow, northern Utah. Water Resour Res 49:8579–8588.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderegg WRL, Hicke JA, Fisher RA et al (2015) Tree mortality form drought, insects, and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytol 208:674–683CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartlett MK, Klein T, Choat B, Sack L (2016) The correlations and sequence of plant stomatal, hydraulic, and wilting responses to drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:13098–13103CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Beeson RC (2011) Weighing lysimeter systems for quantifying water use and studies of controlled water stress for crops grown in low bulk density substrates. Agricult Water Man 98:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biondi F, Waikul K (2004) DENDROCLIM2002: a C++ program for statistical calibration of climate signals in tree-ring chronologes. Comput Geosci 30:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breshears DD, Myers OB, Meyer CW et al (2009) Tree die-off in response to global change-type drought: mortality insights from a decade of water potential measurements. Front Ecol Environ 7:185–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breshears DD, Adams HD, Eamus D et al (2013) The critical amplifying role of increasing atmospheric moisture demand on tree mortality and associated regional die-off. Front Plant Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00266 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Brodribb TJ, McAdam SAM, Jordan GJ, Martins SCV (2014) Conifer species adapt to low-rainfall climates by following one of two divergent pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:14489–14493.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407930111 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowker MA, Muñoz A, Martinez T, Lau MK (2012) Rare drought-induced mortality of juniper is enhanced by edaphic stressors and influenced by stand density. J Arid Environ 76:9–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook ER (1985) A time series analysis approach to tree ring standardization (dendrochronology, forestry, dendroclimatology, autoregressive process). The University of Arizona, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook ER, Seager R, Cane MA, Stahle DW (2007) North American drought: reconstructions, causes, and consequences. Earth Sci Rev 81:93–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daly C, Halbleib M, Smith JI, Gibson WP, Doggett MK, Taylor GH, Curtis J, Pasteris PP (2008) Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperatuer and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int J Climatol 28:2031–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis KJ (2005) Comparison of the water relations characteristics of woody plants in western Oregon. M.S. Thesis submitted to Oregon State University, p 110Google Scholar
  15. DeRose RJ, Wang S-Y, Buckley BM, Bekker MF (2014) Tree-ring reconstruction of the level of Great Salt Lake, USA. Holocene 24:805–813.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683614530441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeRose RJ, Bekker MF, Wang S-Y et al (2015) A millennium-length reconstruction of Bear River stream flow, Utah. J Hydrol 529:524–534.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeRose RJ, Bekker MF, Kjelgren R et al (2016) Dendrochronology of Utah Juniper (Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little). Tree Ring Res 72:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-72.01.01 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eamus D, Boulain N, Cleverly J, Breshears DD (2013) Global change-type drought-induced tree mortality: vapor pressure deficit is more important than temperature per se in causing decline in tree health. Ecol Evol 3:2711–2729.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.664 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Eissenstat DM, Mitchell JE (1983) Effects of seeding grass and clover on growth and water potential of Douglas-fir seedlings. For Sci 29:166–179Google Scholar
  20. Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 40:503–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Franks PJ, Drake PL, Froend RH (2007) Anisohydric but isohydrodynamic: seasonally constant plant water potential gradient explained by a stomatal control mechanism incorporating variable plant hydraulic conductance. Plant Cell Environ 30:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01600.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fritts HC (1976) Tree rings and climate. Academic Press, New York, 567Google Scholar
  23. Garcia-Forner N, Sala A, Biel C et al (2016) Individual traits as determinants of time to death under extreme drought in Pinus sylvestris L. Tree Physiol 36:1196–1209.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpw040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaylord ML, Kolb TE, Pockman WT, Plaut JA, Yepez EA, Macalady AK, Pangle RE (2013) Drought predisposes piñon-juniper woodlands to insect attacks and mortality. New Phytol 198:567–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffin D, Meko DM, Touchan R et al (2011) Latewood chronology development for summer-moisture reconstruction in the U.S. southwest. Tree-Ring Res 67:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffin D, Woodhouse CA, Meko DM et al (2013) North American monsoon precipitation reconstructed from tree-ring latewood. Geophys Res Lett 40:954–958.  https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA (1985) Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Appl Eng Agric 1:96–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holmes RL (1983) Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement. Tree-Ring Bull 43:69–78Google Scholar
  29. 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 28:1313–1320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kozlowski TT (1964) Shoot growth in woody plants. Bot Rev 30:335–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lajtha K, Barnes FJ (1991) Carbon gain and water use in pinyon pine-juniper woodlands of northern New Mexico: field versus phytotron chamber measurements. Tree Physiol 9:59–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Limousin J-M, Bickford CP, Dickman LT et al (2013) Regulation and acclimation of leaf gas exchange in a piñon–juniper woodland exposed to three different precipitation regimes. Plant Cell Environ 36:1812–1825.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12089 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Linton MJ, Sperry JS, Williams DG (1998) Limits to water transport in Juniperus osteosperma and Pinus edulis: implications for drought tolerance and regulation of transpiration. Funct Ecol 12:906–911.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1998.00275.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martinez-Vilalta J, Poyatos R, Aguade D, Retana J, Mencuccini M (2014) A new look at water transport regulation in plants. New Phytol 204:105–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Matheny AM, Fiorella RP, Bohrer G et al (2017) Contrasting strategies of hydraulic control in two codominant temperate tree species. Ecohydrol 10:e1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maxwell RS, Hessl AE, Cook ER, Buckley BM (2012) A multicentury reconstruction of May precipitation for the mid-Atlantic region using Juniperus virginiana tree rings. J Clim 25:1045–1056.  https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00017.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD et al (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178:719–739.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McDowell NG, Ryan MG, Zeppel MJB, Tissue DT (2013) Feature: Improving our knowledge of drought-induced forest mortality through experiments, observations, and modeling. New Phytol 200:289–293.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12502 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Meinzer FC, McCulloh KA, Lachenbruch B, Woodruff DR, Johnson DM (2010) The blind men and the elephant: the impact of context and scale in evaluating conflicts between plant hydraulic safety and efficiency. Oecologia 164:287–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Meinzer FC, Woodruff DR, Eisenstat DM et al (2013) Above- and belowground controls on water use by trees of different wood types in an eastern US deciduous forest. Tree Physiol 33:345–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Meinzer FC, Woodruff DR, Marias DE et al (2014) Dynamics of leaf water relations components in co-occurring iso- and anisohydric conifer species. Plant Cell Environ 37:2577–2586.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12327 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Meinzer FC, Woodruff DR, Marias DE et al (2016) Mapping “hydroscapes” along the iso- to anisohydric continuum of stomatal regulation of plant water status. Ecol Lett 19:1343–1352.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12670 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Meinzer FC, Smith DD, Woodruff DR et al (2017) Stomatal kinetics and photosynthetic gas exchange along a continuum of isohydric to anisohydric regulation of plant water status. Plant Cell Environ 40:1618–1628.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12970 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitchell TD, Jones PD (2005) An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution outputs. Int J Climatol 25:693–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mock CJ (1996) Climatic controls and spatial variations of precipitation in the western United States. J Clim 9:1111–1125. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1996)009<1111:CCASVO>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newton M, Preest DS (1988) Growth and water relations of douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings under different weed control regimes. Weed Sci 36:653–662Google Scholar
  47. Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG et al (1999) Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ 22:1515–1526.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.1999.00513.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plaut JA, Yepez EA, Hill J et al (2012) Hydraulic limits preceding mortality in a piñon–juniper woodland under experimental drought. Plant Cell Environ 35:1601–1617. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2012.02512.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. R. Development Core Team (2012) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  50. Riddle J, Pederson N, Stella JC, Leopold DJ (2014) Shifting climate sensitivity and contrasting growth trends in Juniperus species growing together at opposite range margins. Tree-Ring Res 70:101–111.  https://doi.org/10.3959/1536-1098-70.2.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruehr NK, Law BE, Quandt D, Williams M (2014) Effects of heat and drought on carbon and water dynamics in a regenerating semi-arid pine forest: a combined experimental andmodeling approach. Biogeosciences 11:4139–4156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Running SW (1976) Environmental control of leaf water conductance in conifers. Can J For Res 6:104–112.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x76-013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sevanto S, McDowell NG, Dickman LT et al (2014) How do trees die? a test of the hydraulic failure and carbon starvation hypotheses. Plant Cell Environ 37:153–161.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12141 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Speer JH (2010) Fundamentals of tree-ring research. University of Arizona Press, TucsonGoogle Scholar
  55. Spond MD, van de Gevel SL, Grissino-Mayer HD (2014) Climate-growth relationships for Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum Sarg.) on the volcanic badlands of western New Mexico, USA. Dendrochronologia 32:137–143.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2014.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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 28:1641–1651.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/28.11.1641 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Tardieu F, Simonneau T (1998) Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative demand: modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. J Exp Bot 49:419–432.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/49.Special_Issue.419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wang S-Y, Gillies RR, Tackle ES, Gutowski WJ Jr (2009) Evaluation of precipitation in the Intermountain Region as simulated by the NARCCAP regional climate modelsGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang T, Hamann A, Spittlehouse DL, Carrol C (2016) Locally downscaled and spatially customizable climate data for historical and future periods for North America. PLoS One 11:e0156720CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. West AG, Hultine KR, Jackson TL, Ehleringer JR (2007) Differential summer water use by Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma reflects contrasting hydraulic characteristics. Tree Physiol 27:1711–1720.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/27.12.1711 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Williams DG, Ehleringer JR (2000) Intra- and interspecific variation for summer precipitation use in pinyonjuniper woodlands. Ecol Monogr 70:517–537Google Scholar
  62. Williams AP, Allen CD, Macalady AK et al (2013) Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality. Nat Clim Change 3:292–297.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Willson CJ, Manos PS, Jackson RB (2008) Hydraulic traits are influenced by phylogenetic history in the drought-resistant, invasive genus Juniperus (Cupressaceae). Am J Bot 95:299–314.  https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.95.3.299 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Wise EK (2012) Hydroclimatology of the US Intermountain West. Prog Phys Geogr 1–22Google Scholar
  65. Woodruff DR, Meinzer FC, Marias DE et al (2015) Linking nonstructural carbohydrate dynamics to gas exchange and leaf hydraulic behavior in Pinus edulis and Juniperus monosperma. New Phytol 206:411–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13170 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Zang C, Biondi F (2013) Dendroclimatic calibration in R: the bootRes package for response and correlation function analysis. Dendrochronologia 31:68–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2012.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve L. Voelker
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Justin DeRose
    • 2
  • Matthew F. Bekker
    • 3
  • Chalita Sriladda
    • 4
  • Nisa Leksungnoen
    • 4
  • Roger K. Kjelgren
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Plants, Soils, and ClimateUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.USDA Forest Service, Forest Inventory and AnalysisRocky Mountain Research StationOgdenUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  4. 4.Department of Plants, Soils, and ClimateUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  5. 5.Mid Florida Research and Education CenterUniversity of FloridaApopkaUSA

Personalised recommendations