Consequences of moderate drought stress on the net photosynthesis, water-use efficiency and biomass production of three poplar clones

  • Dietmar Lüttschwager
  • Dietrich Ewald
  • Lucía Atanet Alía
Short Communication


The breeding of efficient but drought-tolerant poplar clones is very important for short-rotation planting because of frequent periods with low precipitation in Central Europe. Three clones exhibiting very different shoot–root ratios under well-watered conditions were investigated: (1) the aspen clone Großdubrau No. 1 (Populus tremula); (2) the newly bred aspen clone L316 × L9 No. 21 Thermo (P. tremula × P. tremula); (3) and the poplar clone Max2 (P. maximowiczii × P. trichocarpa). All three clones were exposed to moderate drought stress. Photosynthesis and transpiration were measured. The influences of drought on the biometrical parameters of the plants were evaluated. The intrinsic water-use efficiency (WUEintrinsic) was calculated. Height growth was decreased in stressed plants. Photosynthesis and water conductivity were significantly decreased, which is why the WUEintrinsic exhibited a greater increase in Max2 than in the aspen clones. The poplar clone Max2 showed low WUE after sufficient watering, but this parameter exhibited a greater increase under drought stress compared with the aspen clones. Max2 was characterised by intensive root growth that was diminished under stress. In contrast, both aspen clones were less adaptive to moderate drought stress. The capability to change the WUEintrinsic under different water availabilities can be considered a possible selection criterion for breeding.


Photosynthesis Water-use efficiency Drought stress Shoot:root ratio Poplar 



This project was funded and supported by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Agency for Renewable Resources (FNR) under FKZ: 22012510. We thank Christine Ewald for her technical assistance.


  1. Anderegg WRL, Plavcová L, Anderegg LDL, Hacke UG, Berry JA, Field CB (2013) Drought’s legacy: multiyear hydraulic deterioration underlies widespread aspen forest die-off and portends increased future risk. Glob Change Biol 19:1188–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arango-Velez A, Zwiazeka JJ, Thomasa BR, Tyree MT (2011) Stomatal factors and vulnerability of stem xylem to cavitation in poplars. Physiol Plant 143:154–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Attia Z, Domec J-C, Oren R, Way DA, Moshelion M (2015) Growth and physiological responses of isohydric and anisohydric poplars to drought. J Exp Bot 66:4373–4381PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bassman JH, Zwier JC (1991) Gas exchange characteristics of Populus trichocarpa, Populus deltoides and Populus trichocarpa × P. deltoides clones. Tree Physiol 8:145–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum S, Weih M, Busch G, Kroiher F, Bolte A (2009) The impact of Short Rotation Coppice plantations on phytodiversity. Landbauforschung vTI Agric For Res 59:163–170Google Scholar
  6. Bazzaz FA (1991) Habitat selection in plants. Am Nat 137:S116–S130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ceulemans R, Impens I, Imler R (1988) Stomatal conductance and stomatal behaviour in Populus clones and hybrids. Can J Bot 66:1404–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaves MM, Flexas J, Pinheiro C (2009) Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann Bot 103:551–560PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Demeritt ME Jr (1990) Populus L. poplar hybrids. In: Burns RM, Honkala BH (eds) Silvics of North America, vol 1 Hardwoods. Agricultural Handbook 654. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Dillen SY, Djomo SN, Al Afas N, Vanbeveren S, Ceulemans R (2013) Biomass yield and energy balance of a shortrotation poplar coppice with multiple clones on degraded land during 16 years. Biomass Bioenergy 56:157–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dreyer E, Bogeat-Triboulot MB, Le Thiec D, Guehl JM, Brignolas F, Villar M, Bastien C, Martin F, Kohler A (2004) Drought tolerance of poplars: can we expect to improve it? Biofutur 247:54–58Google Scholar
  12. Ewald D, Ulrich K, Naujoks G, Schröder MB (2009) Induction of tetraploid poplar and black locust plants using colchicine: chloroplast number as an early marker for selecting polyploids in vitro. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 99:353–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989) Carbon- isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Mol Biol 40:503–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry DA (2008) The biodiversity of short rotation willow coppice in Wales, with particular reference to birds. Thesis for PhD, UMI U585248, Cardiff University, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Ismail AM, Hall AE, Bray EA (1994) Drought and pot size effects on transpiration efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination of cowpea accessions and hybrids. Aust J Plant Physiol 21:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Licht LA, Isebrands JG (2005) Linking phytoremediated pollutant removal to biomass economic opportunities. Biomass Bioenergy 28:203–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lichtenthaler HK, Wellburn AR (1983) Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochem Soc Trans 11:591–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu Z, Dickmann DI (1996) Effects of water and nitrogen interaction on net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, and water-use efficiency in two hybrid poplar clones. Physiol Plant 97:507–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lüttschwager D, Ewald D, Atanet Alía L (2015) Comparative examinations of gas exchange and biometrical parameters of eight fast-growing poplar clones. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 37:214. doi: 10.1007/s11738-015-1968-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marron N, Delay D, Petit JM, Dreyer E, Kahlem G, Delmotte FM, Brignolas F (2002) Physiological traits of two Populus × euramericana clones, Luisa Avanzo and Dorskamp, during a water stress and re-watering cycle. Tree Physiol 22:849–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Meyer M, Solger A, Krabel D (2013) Xylem cell length under drought and its value for predicting radial growth of SRF poplar cultivars (Populus spp.). Trees 27:1353–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Monclus R, Dreyer E, Villar M, Delmotte FM, Delay D, Petit JM, Barbaroux C, Le Thiec D, Brèchet C, Brignolas F (2006) Impact of drought on productivity and water use efficiency in 29 genotypes of Populus deltoides × Populus nigra. New Phytol 169:765–777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Monclus R, Villar M, Barbaroux C, Bastien C, Fichot R, Dreyer E, Delmotte FM, Delay D, Petit J, Bre C (2009) Productivity, water-use efficiency and tolerance to moderate water deficit correlate in 33 poplar genotypes from a Populus deltoides × Populus trichocarpa F 1 progeny. Tree Physiol 29:1329–1339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Nash RM (2009) Drought adaptations of hybrid poplar clones commonly grown on the Canadian prairies. Thesis for a Master of Science. University of Saskatchewan, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  25. Ni B-R, Pallardy SG (1991) Response of gas exchange to water stress in seedlings of woody angiosperms. Tree Physiol 8:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Robinson DJ, Raffa KF (1998) Productivity, drought tolerance and pest status in hybrid Populus: tree improvement and silvicultural implications. Biomass Bioenergy 14:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rood SB, Bratney JH, Hughes FM (2003) Ecophysiology of riparian cottonwoods: streamflow dependency, water relations and restoration. Tree Physiol 23:1113–1124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryan MG (2011) Tree responses to drought. Tree Physiol 31:237–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schulte PJ, Hinckley TM, Stettler RF (1987) Stomatal responses of Populus to leaf water potential. Can J Bot 65:255–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silim S, Nash R, Reynard D, White B, Schroeder W (2009) Leaf gas exchange and water potential responses to drought in nine poplar (Populus spp.) clones with contrasting drought tolerance. Trees 23:959–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tambussi EA, Bort J, Araus JL (2007) Water use efficiency in C3 cereals under Mediterranean conditions: a review of physiological aspects. Ann Appl Biol 150:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tschaplinski TJ, Tuskan GA, Gunderson CA (1994) Water-stress tolerance of black cottonwood and eastern cottonwood clones and four of their hybrid progeny. Chapt I: Growth, water relations and gas exchange. Can J Forest Res 24:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tschaplinski TJ, Tuskan GA, Sewell MM, Gebre GM, Todd DE, Pendley CD (2006) Phenotypic variation and quantitative trait locus identification for osmotic potential in an interspecific hybrid inbred F2 poplar pedigree grown in contrasting environments. Tree Physiol 26:595–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulrich K, Ulrich A, Ewald D (2008) Diversity of endophytic bacterial communities in poplar grown under field conditions. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 63:169–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu Z, Zhou G, Shimizu H (2010) Plant responses to drought and rewatering. Plant Signal Behav 5:649–654PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dietmar Lüttschwager
    • 1
  • Dietrich Ewald
    • 2
  • Lucía Atanet Alía
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Landscape BiogeochemistryLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Forest GeneticsThünen-InstituteWaldsieversdorfGermany

Personalised recommendations