Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 85, Issue 3, pp 1677–1682 | Cite as

Transpiration and hydraulic conductivity in three Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands with different air pollution histories

  • S. Rust
  • D. Lüttschwager
  • R. F. Hüttl
Part VI Ecosystem Experiments — Case Studies

Abstract

As part of a project studying the effects of massive reductions in the output of air pollutants in eastern Germany we monitored stand transpiration rates and water stress and analyzed the hydraulic architecture of Scots pine in three stands with different air pollution histories. Sap flow densities were continuously measured in 15 trees per stand with a thermoelectric method. The sap flow densities were scaled up to the stand transpiration rate via the conductive xylem area, which was measured with computer-tomography in the same trees. Radiation (PAR), humidity and temperature were monitored at three levels in the stands, water stress is assessed by predawn water potentials. As a parameter of hydraulic architecture we studied leaf specific conductivity (LSC). The proportion of the heartwood area did not significantly vary along the gradient of air pollution. The variation of sap flow densities within the stands was large. The ratios of sap flow densities in the inner and outer xylem were site-specific and significantly different between the stands. In the stand with the highest rate of air pollution there was a sharp decline in the sap flow densities towards the heartwood. Stand transpiration in the site with the lowest pollution was significantly higher than in the two more polluted sites. LSC in 2 years old twigs was significantly higher in the low pollution stand. In the dry summer of 1994 predawn water potentials fell to extreme values of below 1.6 MPa. At that stage transpiration ceased until the next substantial rainfalls.

Keywords

stand transpiration hydraulic architecture Pinus sylvestris L. air pollution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bues, C.T. and Schulz, H.: 1988, Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 46, 41–45.Google Scholar
  2. Cermak, J.; Cienciala, E.; Kucera, J.; Hällgren J -E.: 1992. Tree Physiology 10(4), 367–380Google Scholar
  3. Granier, A.: 1985, Ann. Sci. For. 42 (2), 193–200.Google Scholar
  4. Habermehl, A.; Ridder, H.-W.; Schmidt, S.: 1986, Atomenergie. Kerntechnik 48 (2). 94–99.Google Scholar
  5. Happla, F.: 1986, Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff, p. 361Google Scholar
  6. Happla, F., Knigge, W. and Rommerskirchen, A.: 1988, Forstarcniv 58, 211–216.Google Scholar
  7. Hüttl, R.F., Bellmann, K. and Seiler, W.: 1995, Atmosphärensanierung und Waldökosysteme. Eberhard-Blottner-Verlag, TaunussteinGoogle Scholar
  8. Langström, B. and Hellqvist, C.: 1991, For. Ecol. Man. 44(1–2), 239–254Google Scholar
  9. Margolis, H.A., Gagnon, R.R., Pothier, D and Pineau, M.: 1988, Can J For Res 18, 723–727Google Scholar
  10. Richter, H., Eckmüllner, O. and Ebermann, R.: 1988, Bericht FIW Symposium, Unversität für BodenkulturGoogle Scholar
  11. Sperry, J.S., Donnelly, J.R. and Tyree, M.T.: 1988, Plant Cell Environ 11, 35–40Google Scholar
  12. Weissdorfer, M., Schaaf, W. and Hüttl, R.F.: 1995, In: Hüttl, R.F., Bellmann, K. and Seiler, W.(1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Rust
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Lüttschwager
    • 2
  • R. F. Hüttl
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Chair of Recultivation and Soil ProtectionTechnical University of BrandenburgCottbus
  2. 2.Research StationCenter for Agricultural Landscape and Landuse ResearchEberswaldeGermany

Personalised recommendations