“Responsiveness of mature oak trees (Quercus robur L.) to soil water dynamics and meteorological constraints in urban environments”

  • Simon ThomsenEmail author
  • Christoph Reisdorff
  • Alexander Gröngröft
  • Kai Jensen
  • Annette Eschenbach


Urban trees contribute to the regulation of microclimates of cities through transpirational cooling. The main environmental factors determining transpiration are evaporative demand and soil water availability. However, growth conditions in urban areas are often unfavorable and may promote drought stress. The responses of trees to these conditions may vary between species and age classes, and in addition, can be modified by their environment. For a better understanding of water use patterns of urban tree species, these responses were investigated as a function of different meteorological and soil conditions of their urban environments. To identify physiological responses of mature oaks (Quercus robur L.) to contrasting site conditions, sap flow measurements were carried out in two consecutive growing seasons (2013 and 2014) in urban and suburban areas of Hamburg, Germany. Even considering the varying and sometimes challenging local soil and meteorological conditions, the oaks showed predominantly uniform response patterns. At all study sites, sap flow dynamics were characterized by saturation responses to increasing vapor pressure deficits during both daytime and nighttime conditions, reflecting stomatal responsiveness and hence, a stomatal down-regulation of water loss at demanding atmospheric conditions. Accordingly, the water use of oak trees was characterized by an isohydric strategy, which can help to avoid the risk of cavitation. Moreover, the maximum values of nighttime sap flow exceeded 20% of the daily total at all sites, indicating high rates of nocturnal transpiration and thus a relevant cooling effect during the night. Actual sap flow followed potential sap flow at all sites despite decreasing soil water potentials in the upper soil layers. This suggests actual sap flow during both growing seasons was only limited by atmospheric water demand. Accordingly, the studied mature oak trees maintained high rates of transpiration even in times of reduced soil water availability and thus could provide cooling under challenging site conditions. In contrast to suburban areas, however, oaks in the urban site showed reduced absolute sap flow rates, indicating transpiration sensitivity to different situations of water demand and supply. Due to its water use strategy and its ability to cope with moderate drought, Q. robur can be considered a suitable urban tree species in view of current and future demanding urban growth conditions.


Quercus robur Urban trees Sap flow dynamics Soil water potential Reduced soil water availability 



We thank Volker Kleinschmidt for the assistance during the field data collection and his advice in the installation of the measuring equipment. We thank Heather A. Shupe for proofreading our English.

This work was partly funded by the Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg. Furthermore, financial support was granted by DFG as part of the cluster of excellence “Integrated Climate System Analysis and Prediction (CliSAP)”, KlimaCampus, Hamburg.

Supplementary material

11252_2019_908_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (236 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 236 kb)


  1. Ad-Hoc-AG Boden (2005) Bodenkundliche Kartieranleitung: [KA 5]; mit 103 Tabellen und 31 Listen. SchweizerbartGoogle Scholar
  2. Anjum SA, Xie X-y, Wang L-c, Saleem MF, Man C, Lei W (2011) Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. Afr J Agric Res 6(9):2026–2032Google Scholar
  3. Bennett AC, McDowell NG, Allen CD, Anderson-Teixeira KJ (2015) Larger trees suffer most during drought in forests worldwide. Nat Plants 1:15139. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Børja I, Svĕtlík J, Nadezhdin V, Čermák J, Rosner S, Nadezhdina N (2013) Sap flow dynamics as a diagnostic tool in Norway spruce. Acta Hortic (991):31–36.
  5. Bovard BD, Curtis PS, Vogel CS, Su H-B, Schmid HP (2005) Environmental controls on sap flow in a northern hardwood forest. Tree Physiol 25(1):31–38. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali L, Knight TM, Pullin AS (2010) Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc Urban Plan 97(3):147–155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgess SSO, Adams MA, Turner NC, Beverly CR, Ong CK, Khan AAH, Bleby TM (2001) An improved heat pulse method to measure low and reverse rates of sap flow in woody plants. Tree Physiol 21(9):589–598. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bush SE, Pataki DE, Hultine KR, West AG, Sperry JS, Ehleringer JR (2008) Wood anatomy constrains stomatal responses to atmospheric vapor pressure deficit in irrigated, urban trees. Oecologia 156(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen L, Zhang Z, Li Z, Tang J, Caldwell P, Zhang W (2011) Biophysical control of whole tree transpiration under an urban environment in Northern China. J Hydrol 402(3–4):388–400. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Close RE, Nguyen PV, James KJ (1996) Urban Vs. Natural Sugar Maple Growth: I. Stress Symptoms And Phenology In Relation To Site Characteristics. J Arboric 22(3):144–150Google Scholar
  11. Cochard H, Bréda N, Granier A (1996) Whole tree hydraulic conductance and water loss regulation in Quercus during drought: evidence for stomatal control of embolism? Ann For Sci 53(2–3):197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cregg BM, Dix ME (2001) Tree moisture stress and insect damage in urban areas in relation to heat island effects. J Arboric 27(1):8–17Google Scholar
  13. Dale AG, Frank SD (2017) Warming and drought combine to increase pest insect fitness on urban trees. PLoS One 12:e0173844. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Daley MJ, Phillips NG (2006) Interspecific variation in nighttime transpiration and stomatal conductance in a mixed New England deciduous forest. Tree Physiol 26(4):411–419. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawson TE (1996) Determining water use by trees and forests from isotopic, energy balance and transpiration analyses: The roles of tree size and hydraulic lift. Tree Physiol 16(1–2):263–272. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dierick D, Hölscher D (2009) Species-specific tree water use characteristics in reforestation stands in the Philippines. Agric For Meteorol 149(8):1317–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Epron D, Dreyer E (1993) Long-term effects of drought on photosynthesis of adult oak trees [Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Quercus robur L.] in a natural stand. New Phytol 125(2):381–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fahey RT, Bialecki MB, Carter DR (2013) Tree growth and resilience to extreme drought across an urban land-use gradient. Arboric. Urban For 39:279–285Google Scholar
  19. Farquhar GD (1978) Feedforward Responses of Stomata to Humidity. Aust J Plant Phys 5(6):787. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forster MA (2014) How significant is nocturnal sap flow? Tree Physiol 34:757–765. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fuchs S, Leuschner C, Link R, Coners H, Schuldt B (2017) Calibration and comparison of thermal dissipation, heat ratio and heat field deformation sap flow probes for diffuse-porous trees. Agric For Meteorol 244-245:151–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gebauer T, Horna V, Leuschner C (2008) Variability in radial sap flux density patterns and sapwood area among seven co-occurring temperate broad-leaved tree species. Tree Physiol 28(12):1821–1830. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gill SE, Handley JF, Ennos AR, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33(1):115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gillner S, Korn S, Hofmann M, Roloff A (2016) Contrasting strategies for tree species to cope with heat and dry conditions at urban sites. Urban Ecosyst. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hacke UG, Sperry JS, Wheeler JK, Castro L (2006) Scaling of angiosperm xylem structure with safety and efficiency. Tree Physiol 26(6):689–701. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Heilman JL, Brittin CL, Zajicek JM (1989) Water use by shrubs as affected by energy exchange with building walls. Agric For Meteorol 48(3):345–357. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hogg EH, Hurdle PA (1997) Sap flow in trembling aspen: implications for stomatal responses to vapor pressure deficit. Tree Physiol 17(8–9):501–509. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hopmans JW, Schoups G (2006) Soil Water Flow at Different Spatial Scales. In: Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences. John Wiley & Sons, LtdGoogle Scholar
  29. Iakovoglou V, Thompson J, Burras L, Kipper R (2001) Factors related to tree growth across urban-rural gradients in the Midwest, USA. Urban Ecosyst 5(1):71–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iritz Z, Lindroth A (1994) Night-time evaporation from a short-rotation willow stand. J Hydrol 157(1):235–245. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jarvis PG (1976) The interpretation of the variations in leaf water potential and stomatal conductance found in canopies in the field. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 273(927):593–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kjelgren R, Clark JR (1992) Microclimates and tree growth in three urban spaces. J Environ Hortic 10(3):139–145Google Scholar
  33. Köcher P, Gebauer T, Horna V, Leuschner C (2009) Leaf water status and stem xylem flux in relation to soil drought in five temperate broad-leaved tree species with contrasting water use strategies. Ann For Sci 66:101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Konarska J, Uddling J, Holmer B, Lutz M, Lindberg F, Pleijel H, Thorsson S (2016) Transpiration of urban trees and its cooling effect in a high latitude city. Int J Biometeorol 60(1):159–172. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Landesbetrieb Geoinformation und Vermessung (2015) Grundwasserflurabstand Min 2008. Accessed 1 July 2015
  36. Larsen L (2015) Urban climate and adaptation strategies. Front Ecol Environ 13(9):486–492. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leuzinger S, Vogt R, Körner C (2010) Tree surface temperature in an urban environment. Agric For Meteorol 150:56–62.ß CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Litvak E, McCarthy HR, Pataki DE (2012) Transpiration sensitivity of urban trees in a semi-arid climate is constrained by xylem vulnerability to cavitation. Tree Physiol 32:373–388. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. McCree KJ (1981) Photosynthetically Active Radiation. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Physiological Plant Ecology I: Responses to the Physical Environment. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD, Breshears DD, Cobb N, Kolb T, Plaut J, Sperry J, West A, Williams DG (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178(4):719–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDowell NG, Bond BJ, Dickman LT, Ryan MG, Whitehead D (2011) Relationships Between Tree Height and Carbon Isotope Discrimination. In: Meinzer FC, Lachenbruch B, Dawson TE (eds) Size- and Age-Related Changes in Tree Structure and Function, vol 4. Springer Science+Business Media B.V, Dordrecht, pp 255–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meineke EK, Frank SD, de Frenne P (2018) Water availability drives urban tree growth responses to herbivory and warming. J Appl Ecol 55:1701–1713. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miehlich G (2010) Die Böden Hamburgs. In: Poppendieck H-H (ed) Der Hamburger Pflanzenatlas: Von A bis Z, 1. Aufl. Dölling und Galitz, München, pp 18–27Google Scholar
  44. Moser A, Rötzer T, Pauleit S, Pretzsch H (2016) The Urban Environment Can Modify Drought Stress of Small-Leaved Lime (Tilia cordata Mill.) and Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia L.). Forests 7(3):71. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nadezhdina N, Vandegehuchte M, Steppe K (2012) Sap flux density measurements based on the heat field deformation method. Trees - Struct Funct 26(5):1439–1448. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nielsen CN, Bühler O, Kristoffersen P (2007) Soil water dynamics and growth of street and park trees. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 33(4):231–245Google Scholar
  47. Niinemets Ü (2010) Responses of forest trees to single and multiple environmental stresses from seedlings to mature plants: Past stress history, stress interactions, tolerance and acclimation. For Ecol Manag 260(10):1623–1639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nitschke CR, Nichols S, Allen K, Dobbs C, Livesley SJ, Baker PJ, Lynch Y (2017) The influence of climate and drought on urban tree growth in southeast Australia and the implications for future growth under climate change. Landsc Urban Plan 167:275–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Brien JJ, Oberbauer SF, Clark DB (2004) Whole tree xylem sap flow responses to multiple environmental variables in a wet tropical forest. Plant Cell Environ 27(5):551–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Oren R, Zimmermann R, Terbough J (1996) Transpiration in Upper Amazonia Floodplain and Upland Forests in Response to Drought-Breaking Rains. Ecology 77(3):968–973. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oren R, Phillips N, Katul G, Ewers BE, Pataki DE (1998) Scaling xylem sap flux and soil water balance and calculating variance: a method for partitioning water flux in forests. Ann For Sci 55(1–2):191–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peters EB, McFadden JP, Montgomery RA (2010) Biological and environmental controls on tree transpiration in a suburban landscape. J Geophys Res 115(G4).
  53. Phillips N, Oren R (1998) A comparison of daily representations of canopy conductance based on two conditional time-averaging methods and the dependence of daily conductance on environmental factors. Ann For Sci 55(1–2):217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rahman MA, Armson D, Ennos AR (2015) A comparison of the growth and cooling effectiveness of five commonly planted urban tree species. Urban Ecosyst 18(2):371–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rahman MA, Moser A, Rötzer T, Pauleit S (2017) Microclimatic differences and their influence on transpirational cooling of Tilia cordata in two contrasting street canyons in Munich, Germany. Agric For Meteorol 232:443–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rahman MA, Moser A, Rötzer T, Pauleit S (2019) Comparing the transpirational and shading effects of two contrasting urban tree species. Urban Ecosyst 22:683–697. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rechid D, Petersen J, Schoetter R, Jacob D (2014) Klimaprojektionen für die Metropolregion HamburgGoogle Scholar
  58. Roloff A, Korn S, Gillner S (2009) The Climate-Species-Matrix to select tree species for urban habitats considering climate change. Urban For Urban Green 8(4):295–308. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosas T, Mencuccini M, Barba J, Cochard H, Saura-Mas S, Martínez-Vilalta J (2019) Adjustments and coordination of hydraulic, leaf and stem traits along a water availability gradient. New Phytol 223:632–646. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Sade N, Gebremedhin A, Moshelion M (2012) Risk-taking plants: anisohydric behavior as a stress-resistance trait. Plant Signal Behav 7(7):767–770. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Sæbø A, Benedikz T, Randrup TB (2003) Selection of trees for urban forestry in the Nordic countries. Urban For Urban Green 2(2):101–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Savi T, Bertuzzi S, Branca S, Tretiach M, Nardini A (2015) Drought-induced xylem cavitation and hydraulic deterioration: Risk factors for urban trees under climate change? New Phytol 205:1106–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Saxton KE, Rawls W_J, Romberger JS, Papendick RI (1986) Estimating generalized soil-water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50(4):1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schlünzen KH, Hoffmann P, Rosenhagen G, Riecke W (2010) Long-term changes and regional differences in temperature and precipitation in the metropolitan area of Hamburg. Int J Climatol 30(8):1121–1136. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sieghardt M, Mursch-Radlgruber E, Paoletti E, Couenberg E, Dimitrakopoulus A, Rego F, Hatzistathis A, Randrup TB (2005) The Abiotic Urban Environment: Impact of Urban Growing Conditions on Urban Vegetation. In: Konijnendijk C, Nilsson K, Randrup T, Schipperijn J (eds) Urban Forests and Trees: A Reference Book. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 281–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith DM, Jarvis PG (1998) Physiological and environmental control of transpiration by trees in windbreaks. For Ecol Manag 105(1–3):159–173. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sperry JS (2000) Hydraulic constraints on plant gas exchange. Agric For Meteorol 104:13–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Steppe K, de Pauw DJW, Doody TM, Teskey RO (2010) A comparison of sap flux density using thermal dissipation, heat pulse velocity and heat field deformation methods. Agric For Meteorol 150:1046–1056. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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):1641–1651. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Tyree MT, Sperry JS (1989) Vulnerability of xylem to cavitation and embolism. Annu Rev Plant Biol 40:19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vincke C, Breda N, Granier A, Devillez F (2005) Evapotranspiration of a declining Quercus robur (L.) stand from 1999 to 2001. I. Trees and forest floor daily transpiration. Ann. For. Sci. 62(6):503–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang Y, Bakker F, de Groot R, Wortche H, Leemans R (2015) Effects of urban trees on local outdoor microclimate: Synthesizing field measurements by numerical modelling. Urban Ecosyst 18:1305–1331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weltecke K, Gaertig T (2012) Influence of soil aeration on rooting and growth of the Beuys-trees in Kassel, Germany. Urban For Urban Green 11(3):329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wiesner S, Eschenbach A, Ament F (2014) Urban air temperature anomalies and their relation to soil moisture observed in the city of Hamburg. Meteorologische Zeitschrift:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wullschleger SD, Meinzer FC, Vertessy RA (1998) A review of whole-plant water use studies in tree. Tree Physiol 18(8–9):499–512. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Zapater M, Bréda N, Bonal D, Pardonnet S, Granier A (2013) Differential response to soil drought among co-occurring broad-leaved tree species growing in a 15- to 25-year-old mixed stand. Ann For Sci 70(1):31–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Soil Science, CENUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Applied Plant Ecology, Institute of Plant Science and MicrobiologyUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations