Advertisement

Plastic response of four maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Aiton) families to controlled soil water deficit

  • Muriel Feinard-Duranceau
  • Alexane Berthier
  • Cécile Vincent-Barbaroux
  • Sara Marin
  • Francisco-José Lario
  • Philippe Rozenberg
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Mediterranean Pines

Abstract

Key message

Separating the internal (ontogenetic) and external (environmental) components of maritime pine development during controlled soil water deficit helps to highlight the plastic response. The adjusted measurements reveal significant differences between families for their plastic response for several physiology and growth traits.

Context

Soil water deficit is and will be a growing problem in some regions. Pinus pinaster Ait. is a species of commercial interest and is recognized as a drought-avoiding species. It is thus of interest to evaluate the adaptation potential of P. pinaster to soil water deficit.

Aims

This paper aims to estimate the plastic response to the variation of water availability at the family level (half-sibs).

Methods

Two-year-old P. pinaster cuttings from four families were submitted during 6 weeks to two contrasting watering regimes. The experiment started in April 2011 shortly after sprouting. The photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to water vapor were measured on 1-year-old needles. Intrinsic water-use efficiency was calculated as the ratio of photosynthesis to stomatal conductance. Radial growth, length of terminal shoot, and total height were also measured. The ontogenetic component of tree development was estimated on the well-watered trees for all the traits. Then, this development effect was eliminated from the data collected on the trees submitted to the soil water deficit in order to keep only the effect of this soil water deficit.

Results

After 6 weeks of reduced watering, the value of all adjusted traits decreased. An average plastic response to the variation of water availability was found to be significant and variable at the family level for the six adjusted variables.

Conclusion

These results suggest that there is genetic variation of phenotypic plasticity to drought in P. pinaster for several traits, including stomatal conductance, which appears to be a promising variable for future selection for resistance to drought.

Keywords

Adaptation Ontogenetic CO2 assimilation Stomatal conductance Water-use efficiency Growth 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Patrick Poursat, Christophe Borel, and Bernard Lhomel of the experimental unit UE GBFOR, and Frédéric Millier, from the plateau technique GENOBOIS, INRA Val de Loire, Orléans, France, for the installation and the management of the experimental design.

Funding

Xunta de Galicia was the owner of the original material from which the cuttings were derived. The cuttings were produced by TRAGSA with funds of Restauración y Gestión Forestal – Bosques del Futuro (PSS-310000-2009-20) project of the Spanish Science and Innovation Ministry. The research was funded by the Region Centre-Val de Loire France Project Xylome no. 2009 0003 8263.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

13595_2018_719_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (188 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 188 kb).
13595_2018_719_MOESM2_ESM.txt (33 kb)
ESM 2 (TXT 33 kb).

References

  1. Aranda I, Alía R, Ortega U, Dantas ÂK, Majada J (2010) Intra-specific variability in biomass partitioning and carbon isotopic discrimination under moderate drought stress in seedlings from four Pinus pinaster populations. Tree Genet Genomes 6:169–178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-009-0238-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aussenac G, Granier A (1978) Quelques résultats de cinétique journalière du potentiel de sève chez les arbres forestiers. Ann Sci For 35:19–32.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/19780102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brendel O, Pot D, Plomion C, Rozenberg P, Guehl JM (2002) Genetic parameters and QTL analysis of delta C-13 and ring width in maritime pine. Plant Cell Environ 25:945–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chambel MR, Climent J, Alía R (2007) Divergence among species and populations of Mediterranean pines in biomass allocation of seedlings grown under two watering regimes. Ann For Sci 64:87–97.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2006092 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaves MM (1991) Effects of water deficits on carbon assimilation. J Exp Bot 42:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/42.1.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corcuera L, Gil-Pelegrin E, Notivol E (2010) Phenotypic plasticity in Pinus pinaster δ13C: environment modulates genetic variation. Ann For Sci 67:812–812.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2010048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corcuera L, Cochard H, Gil-Pelegrin E, Notivol E (2011) Phenotypic plasticity in Mesic populations of Pinus pinaster improves resistance to xylem embolism (P50) under severe drought. Trees 25:1033–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0578-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Corcuera L, Gil-Pelegrin E, Notivol E (2012) Differences in hydraulic architecture between Mesic and xeric Pinus pinaster populations at the seedling stage. Tree Physiol 32:1442–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tps103 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornic G (2000) Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal aperture—not by affecting ATP synthesis. Trends Plant Sci 5:187–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01625-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Correia I, Almeida MH, Aguiar A, Alia R, David TS, Pereira JS (2008) Variations in growth, survival and carbon isotope composition (13C) among Pinus pinaster populations of different geographic origins. Tree Physiol 28:1545–1552.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/28.10.1545 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. de la Mata R, Voltas J, Zas R (2012) Phenotypic plasticity and climatic adaptation in an Atlantic maritime pine breeding population. Ann For Sci 69:477–487.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-011-0173-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de la Mata R, Merlo E, Zas R (2014) Among-population variation and plasticity to drought of Atlantic, Mediterranean, and interprovenance hybrid populations of maritime pine. Tree Genet Genomes 10:1191–1203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-014-0753-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Miguel M, Sanchez-Gomez D, Cervera MT, Aranda I (2012) Functional and genetic characterization of gas exchange and intrinsic water use efficiency in a full-sib family of Pinus pinaster Ait. in response to drought. Tree Physiol 32:94–103.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr122 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. de Miguel M, Cabezas J-A, de María N, Sánchez-Gómez D, Guevara M-Á, Vélez M-D, Sáez-Laguna E, Díaz L-M, Mancha J-A, Barbero M-C, Collada C, Díaz-Sala C, Aranda I, Cervera M-T (2014) Genetic control of functional traits related to photosynthesis and water use efficiency in Pinus pinaster Ait. drought response: integration of genome annotation, allele association and QTL detection for candidate gene identification. BMC Genomics 15:464.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-464 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. DeWitt TJ, Scheiner SM (2004) Phenotypic plasticity: functional and conceptual approaches. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Dietz K-J, Heber U (1983) Carbon dioxide gas exchange and the energy status of leaves of Primula palinuri under water stress. Planta 158:349–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00397337 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Egea G, GonzáLez-Real MM, Baille A, Nortes PA, Diaz-Espejo A (2011) Disentangling the contributions of ontogeny and water stress to photosynthetic limitations in almond trees: photosynthetic limitations in almond trees. Plant Cell Environ 34:962–979.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02297.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 33:317–345.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.33.060182.001533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fernández M, Gil L, Pardos JA (1999) Response of Pinus pinaster Ait. provenances at early age to water supply. I. Water relation parameters. Ann For Sci 56:179–187.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19990209 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernández M, Gil L, Pardos JA (2000) Effects of water supply on gas exchange in Pinus pinaster Ait. provenances during their first growing season. Ann For Sci 57:9–16.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2000107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández M, Novillo C, Pardos JA (2006) Effects of water and nutrient availability in Pinus pinaster Ait. open pollinated families at an early age: growth, gas exchange and water relations. New For 31:321–342.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-005-8196-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flexas J (2002) Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Ann Bot 89:183–189.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf027 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Galmés J, Medrano H, Flexas J (2007) Photosynthetic limitations in response to water stress and recovery in Mediterranean plants with different growth forms. New Phytol 175:81–93.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02087.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaspar MJ, Velasco T, Feito I, Alía R, Majada J (2013) Genetic variation of drought tolerance in Pinus pinaster at three hierarchical levels: a comparison of induced osmotic stress and field testing. PLoS One 8:e79094.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079094 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghalambor CK, McKAY JK, Carroll SP, Reznick DN (2007) Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct Ecol 21:394–407.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01283.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Granier A, Loustau D (1994) Measuring and modelling the transpiration of a maritime pine canopy from sap-flow data. Agric For Meteorol 71:61–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(94)90100-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guehl JM, Picon C, Aussenac G, Gross P (1994) Interactive effects of elevated CO(2) and soil drought on growth and transpiration efficiency and its determinants in two European forest tree species. Tree Physiol 14:707–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamy J-B, Delzon S, Bouche PS, Alia R, Vendramin GG, Cochard H, Plomion C (2014) Limited genetic variability and phenotypic plasticity detected for cavitation resistance in a Mediterranean pine. New Phytol 201:874–886.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12556 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lawlor DW, Cornic G (2002) Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell Environ 25:275–294.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00814.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lebourgeois F, Lévy G, Aussenac G, Clerc B, Willm F (1998) Influence of soil drying on leaf water potential, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and growth in two black pine varieties. Ann Sci For 55:287–299.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19980302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Limousin J-M, Misson L, Lavoir A-V, Martin NK, Rambal S (2010) Do photosynthetic limitations of evergreen Quercus ilex leaves change with long-term increased drought severity? Plant Cell Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02112.x
  32. Marguerit E, Bouffier L, Chancerel E, Costa P, Lagane F, Guehl J-M, Plomion C, Brendel O (2014) The genetics of water-use efficiency and its relation to growth in maritime pine. J Exp Bot 65:4757–4768.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru226 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin-StPaul NK, Limousin J-M, Rodríguez-Calcerrada J, Ruffault J, Rambal S, Letts MG, Misson L (2013) Photosynthetic sensitivity to drought varies among populations of Quercus ilex along a rainfall gradient. Funct Plant Biol 39:25.  https://doi.org/10.1071/FP11090 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maseda PH, Fernández RJ (2006) Stay wet or else: three ways in which plants can adjust hydraulically to their environment. J Exp Bot 57:3963–3977.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl127 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Monclus R, Dreyer E, Villar M, Delmotte FM, Delay D, Petit J-M, Barbaroux C, Le Thiec D, Brechet C, Brignolas F (2006) Impact of drought on productivity and water use efficiency in 29 genotypes of Populus deltoides × Populus nigra. New Phytol 169:765–777.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01630.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pachauri RK, Leo M, et Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (éds) (2015) Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  37. Paiva JAP, Garnier-Géré PH, Rodrigues JC, Alves A, Santos S, Graça J, Le Provost G, Chaumeil P, Da Silva-Perez D, Bosc A, Fevereiro P, Plomion C (2008) Plasticity of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) wood-forming tissues during a growing season. New Phytol 179:1180–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02536.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Picon C, Guehl JM, Ferhi A (1996) Leaf gas exchange and carbon isotope composition responses to drought in a drought-avoiding (Pinus pinaster) and a drought-tolerant (Quercus petraea) species under present and elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Plant Cell Environ 19:182–190.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1996.tb00239.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Picon-Cochard C, Guehl J-M (1999) Leaf gas exchange and carbohydrate concentrations in Pinus pinaster plants subjected to elevated CO2 and a soil drying cycle. Ann For Sci 56:71–76.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19990109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plomion C, Bartholomé J, Bouffier L, Brendel O, Cochard H, De Miguel M, Delzon S, Gion J-M, Gonzalez-Martinez SC, Guehl J-M, Lagraulet H, Le Provost G, Marguerit E, Porté A (2016) Understanding the genetic bases of adaptation to soil water deficit in trees through the examination of water use efficiency and cavitation resistance: maritime pine as a case study. J Plant Hydraul 3(8):008.  https://doi.org/10.20870/jph.2016.e008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R software (version 2.8.0, R 274Q8 Development Core Team 2008)Google Scholar
  42. Sánchez-Gómez D, Majada J, Alía R, Feito I, Aranda I (2010) Intraspecific variation in growth and allocation patterns in seedlings of Pinus pinaster Ait. submitted to contrasting watering regimes: can water availability explain regional variation? Ann For Sci 67:505–504.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/2010007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scheiner SM (2013) The genetics of phenotypic plasticity. XII. Temporal and spatial heterogeneity. Ecol Evol 3:4596–4609.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.792 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Schlichting CD (1986) The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 17:667–693.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.17.110186.003315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scholander PF, Hammel HT, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA (1965) Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Schulze ED, Turner NC, Gollan T, Shackel KA (1987) Stomatal responses to air humidity and to soil drought. Stomatal Funct 804713472:311–321Google Scholar
  47. Slaney M (2006) Impact of elevated temperature and [CO2] on spring phenology and photosynthetic recovery of boreal Norway spruce. Southern Swedish Forest research Centre. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, AlnarpGoogle Scholar
  48. Strand M, Lundmark T (1995) Recovery of photosynthesis in 1-year-old needles of unfertilized and fertilized Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) karst.) during spring. Tree Physiol 15:151–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Strand M, Lundmark T, Söderbergh I, Mellander P-E (2002) Impacts of seasonal air and soil temperatures on photosynthesis in Scots pine trees. Tree Physiol 22:839–847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Tardieu F (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/jexbot/49.suppl_1.419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Xu L, Baldocchi DD (2003) Seasonal trends in photosynthetic parameters and stomatal conductance of blue oak (Quercus douglasii) under prolonged summer drought and high temperature. Tree Physiol 23:865–877.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/23.13.865 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang J, Marshall JD, Jaquish BC (1993) Genetic differentiation in carbon isotope discrimination and gas exchange in Pseudotsuga menziesii: a common-garden experiment. Oecologia 93:80–87.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00321195 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang J, Fins L, Marshall JD (1994) Stable carbon isotope discrimination, photosynthetic gas exchange, and growth differences among western larch families. Tree Physiol 14:531–539.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/14.5.531 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Muriel Feinard-Duranceau
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexane Berthier
    • 1
    • 3
  • Cécile Vincent-Barbaroux
    • 1
  • Sara Marin
    • 4
  • Francisco-José Lario
    • 5
  • Philippe Rozenberg
    • 3
  1. 1.LBLGC, INRA, Université d’Orléans, USC 1328OrléansFrance
  2. 2.ERCAE EA 7493 Université d’OrléansOrléansFrance
  3. 3.INRA UMR 588 BIOFORA (formerly AGPF)Orleans Cedex 2France
  4. 4.Université Toulouse 3 Paul Sabatier, CNRS, ENFA, UMR5174 EDBToulouseFrance
  5. 5.Empresa de Transformación Agraria SA, TRAGSA, Vivero de MacedaOurenseSpain

Personalised recommendations