Advertisement

Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 2163–2173 | Cite as

Studies on forest ecosystem physiology: marginal water-use efficiency of a tropical, seasonal, evergreen forest in Thailand

  • Mengping Chen
  • Guanze Wang
  • Shuangxi Zhou
  • Junfu Zhao
  • Xiang Zhang
  • Chunsheng He
  • Yongjiang Zhang
  • Liang Song
  • Zhenghong TanEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Marginal water-use efficiency plays a critical role in plant carbon–water coupling relationships. We investigated the ecosystem marginal water-use efficiency (λ) of a tropical seasonal evergreen forest to (1) determine the general pattern of λ across time, (2) compare different models for calculating λ, and (3) address how λ varies with soil water content during different seasons. There was a U-shaped diurnal pattern in λ, which was higher in the early morning and late afternoon. At other times of the day, λ was lower and remained constant. Ecosystem λ was higher in the wet season than in the dry season. All three models successfully captured the diurnal and seasonal patterns of λ but differed in the calculated absolute values. The idea that λ is constant on a subdaily scale was partly supported by our study, while a constant λ was only true when data from the early morning and late afternoon were not included. The λ increases with soil water content on a seasonal scale, possibly because early morning λ remained low in dry conditions when the soil water content was low.

Keywords

Canopy conductance Stomatal optimization Soil moisture Photosynthesis model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge AsiaFLUX for providing the data set and Emeritus Professor Minoru Gamo for data sharing. This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC Nos. 31660142 and 41771099).

References

  1. Baldocchi D (2014) Measuring fluxes of trace gases and energy between ecosystems and the atmosphere—the state and future of the eddy covariance method. Glob Change Biol 20:3600–3609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beerling DJ (2007) The emerald planet: how plants changed Earth’s history. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–34Google Scholar
  3. Cowan IR (1977) Stomatal behaviour and environment. Adv Ecol Res 4:117–228Google Scholar
  4. Cowan I (1982) Regulation of water use in relation to carbon gain in higher plants. In: Lange OL et al (eds) Physiological plant ecology II. Water relations and carbon assimilation. Springer, Berlin, pp 589–614Google Scholar
  5. Cowan IR, Farquhar GD (1977) Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment. In: Jennings DH (ed) Integration of activity in the high plant. Cambridge University Press, London, pp 471–505Google Scholar
  6. Darwin F (1898) Observations on stomata. Proc R Soc Lond 63:413–417Google Scholar
  7. Edwards D, Davies KL, Axe L (1992) A vascular conducting strand in the early land plant cooksonia. Nature 357:683–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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(2):281–292Google Scholar
  9. Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 33:317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan JZ, Wang D, Hu YL, Jing PP, Wang PP, Chen JQ (2016) Optimal stomatal behavior theory for simulating stomatal conductance. Chin J Plant Ecol 40:631–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fick A (1855) Uber diffusion. Annalen der Physik und Chemie 94:59–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gao Y, Xia J, Chen Y, Zhao Y, Kong Q, Lang Y (2017) Effects of extreme soil water stress on photosynthetic efficiency and water consumption characteristics of Tamarix chinensisin China’s Yellow River Delta. J For Res 28:491–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Givnish TJ (1986) Optimal stomatal conductance, allocation of energy between leaves and roots, and the marginal cost of transpiration. In: Givnish TJ (ed) On the economy of plant from and function, vol 115, no 4. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, New York, p 319Google Scholar
  14. Givnish TJ, Vermeij GJ (1976) Sizes and shapes of liane leaves. Am Nat 110:743–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katul G, Manzoni S, Palmroth S, Oren R (2010) Stomatal optimization theory to describe the effects of atmospheric CO2 on leaf photosynthesis and transpiration. Ann Bot 105:431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Konrad W, Roth-Nebelsick A, Grein M (2008) Modelling of stomatal density in response to atmospheric CO2. J Therm Biol 253:638–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lasslop G, Reichstein M, Detto M, Richardson AD, Baldocchi DD (2010) Comment on vickers et al.: self-correlation between assimilation and respiration resulting from flux partitioning of eddy-covariance CO2, fluxes. Agr Forest Meteorol 150(2):312–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin YS, Medlyn BE, Duursma RA et al (2015) Optimal stomatal behavior around the world. Nat Clim Change 5:459–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lloyd J, Farquhar GD (1994) 13C discrimination during Co2 assimilation by the terrestrial biosphere. Oecologia 99(3/4):201–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mäkelä A, Berninger F, Hari P (1996) Optimal control of gas exchange during drought: theoretical analysis. Ann Bot 77:461–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manzoni S, Vico G, Katul G et al (2011) Optimizing stomatal conductance for maximum carbon gain under water stress: a meta-analysis across plant functional types and climates. Funct Ecol 25:456–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Medlyn BE, Duursma RA, Eamus D et al (2011) Reconciling the optimal and empirical approaches to modeling stomatal conductance. Glob Change Biol 17:2134–2144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Medlyn BE, Duursma RA, De Kauwe MG, Prentice IC (2013) The optimal stomatal response to atmospheric CO2 concentration: alternative solutions, alternative interpretations. Agric For Meteorol 182–183:200–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mondal D, Percival DB (2010) Wavelet variance analysis for gappy time series. Ann Inst Stat Math 62:943–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Monteith JL (1965) Evaporation and environment. Symp Soc Exp Biol 19(19):205–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Tan ZH, Zhang YP, Yu GR et al (2008) Spatial and temporal dynamics of CO2 concentration and its causes in Xishuangbanna tropical seasonal rain forest, China. Chin J Plant Ecol 32:555–567Google Scholar
  27. Thomas DS, Eamus D, Bell D (1999) Optimization theory of stomatal behaviour: I. A critical evaluation of five methods of calculation. J Exp Bot 50:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vico G, Manzoni S, Palmroth S, Weih M, Katul G (2013) A perspective on optimal leaf stomatal conductance under CO2 and light co-limitations. Agric For Meteorol 182–183:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Willmer C, Fricker M (1996) Stomata, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 92–106, 126–177Google Scholar
  30. Xia J, Zhang S, Guo J, Rong Q, Zhang G (2017a) Critical effects of gas exchange parameters in Tamarix chinensis Lour on soil water and its relevant environmental factors on a shell ridge island in China’s Yellow River Delta. Ecol Eng 76:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Xia J, Zhao X, Ren J, Lang Y, Qu F, Xu H (2017b) Photosynthetic and water physiological characteristics of Tamarix chiensis under different groundwater sanilty conditions. Environ Exp Bot 138:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xia J, Zhao Z, Sun J, Liu J, Zhao Y (2017c) Response of stem sap flow and leaf photosynthesis in Tamarix chinensis to soil mositure in the Yellow River Delta, China. Photosynthetica 55:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yamakura T (1987) An empirical approach to the analysis of forest stratification: I. Proposed graphical method derived by using an empirical distribution function. J Plant Res 100:109–128Google Scholar
  34. Zhou S, Duursma RA, Medlyn BE, Kelly JW, Prentice IC (2013) How should we model plant responses to drought? An analysis of stomatal and non-stomatal responses to water stress. Agric For Meteorol 182:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhou S, Medlyn B, Sabaté S, Sperlich D, Prentice IC (2014) Short-term water stress impacts on stomatal, mesophyll and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis differ consistently among tree species from contrasting climates. Tree Physiol 34:1035–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mengping Chen
    • 1
  • Guanze Wang
    • 1
  • Shuangxi Zhou
    • 2
  • Junfu Zhao
    • 1
  • Xiang Zhang
    • 1
  • Chunsheng He
    • 1
  • Yongjiang Zhang
    • 3
  • Liang Song
    • 4
  • Zhenghong Tan
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Ecology Program, College for Tropical Agriculture and ForestryHainan UniversityHaikouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Organismic and Evolutionary BiologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  4. 4.Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical GardenChinese Academy of SciencesKunmingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations