Advertisement

Trees

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 292–298 | Cite as

Canopy transpiration of Jeffrey pine in mesic and xeric microsites: O3 uptake and injury response

  • N. E. GrulkeEmail author
  • Ron Johnson
  • Annie Esperanza
  • David Jones
  • Tham Nguyen
  • Sabine Posch
  • Michael Tausz
Original Article
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

Canopy transpiration of mature Jeffrey pine was compared in "mesic" and "xeric" microsites differing in topographical position, bole growth, and the level of drought stress experienced. Diurnal and seasonal course of canopy transpiration was monitored with thermal dissipation probes in 1999 and 2000. Mid-canopy measures of diurnal foliar stomatal conductance (gs) were taken in June and August in 1999. In early summer, there was little difference between trees in either microsite with regard to gs (55 mmol H2O m−2s−1), canopy transpiration (4.0 l h−1), and total duration of active transpiration (12 h >0.03 l h−1). In late summer, xeric trees had a lower daily maximum gs (by 30%), a greater reduction in whole canopy transpiration relative to the seasonal maximum (66 vs 79%), and stomata were open 2 h less per day than in mesic trees. Based on leaf-level gas exchange measurements, trees in mesic sites had an estimated 46% decrease in O3 uptake from June to August. Xeric trees had an estimated 72% decrease over the same time period. A multivariate analysis of morphological and tissue chemistry attributes in mid-canopy elucidated differences in mesic and xeric tree response. Mesic trees exhibited more O3 injury than xeric trees based on reduced foliar nitrogen content and needle retention in mid-canopy.

Keywords

O3 injury Water relations Stomatal conductance Drought Jeffrey pine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by PRIMENET, a program jointly funded by US EPA and NPS. This presentation has not been subjected to the EPA's internal review, and does not necessarily reflect their view. The field work was supported by Liz Ballenger, Tony Gomez, Janet Kirsch, Tony Davila, Veronica Pile, Crystal Dickard, and Terrence Kastner. Many thanks to Susan Schilling for technical support of all kinds. M. Tausz gratefully acknowledges a grant of the Fulbright Commission that provided for his stay in California. N. Grulke gratefully acknowledges a Guest Professorship at the Institute of Plant Physiology in Graz, Austria that expedited this paper and cooperative work with M. Tausz.

References

  1. Barbour MG (1988) Californian upland forests and woodlands. In: Barbour MG, Billings WD (eds) North American terrestrial vegetation. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 131–164Google Scholar
  2. Becker P (1998) Limitation of a compensation heat pulse velocity system at low sap flow: implications for measurements at night and in shaded trees. Tree Physiol 18:177–184Google Scholar
  3. Dawson TE (1994) Determining water use by trees and forests from isotopic, energy balance, and transpirational analyses: the roles of tree size and hydraulic lift. Tree Physiol 16:263–272Google Scholar
  4. De Kok LJ, Tausz M (2001) The role of glutathione in plant reaction and adaptation to air pollutants. In: Grill D, Tausz M, De Kok LJ (eds) Significance of glutathione in plant adaptation to the environment. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 185–206Google Scholar
  5. Ewell DM, Mazzu LC, Duriscoe DM (1989) Specific leaf weight and other characteristics of ponderosa pine as related to visible ozone injury. In: Olson RK, Lefohn AS (eds) Effects of air pollution on western forests. Transactions, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, Pa., pp 411–418Google Scholar
  6. Führer J, Skärby L, Ashmore MR (1997) Critical levels for ozone effects on vegetation in Europa. Environ Pollut 97:97–106Google Scholar
  7. Granier A (1987) Evaluation of transpiration in a Douglas-fir stand by means of sap flow measurements. Tree Physiol 3:309–320Google Scholar
  8. Grime VL, Sinclair FL (1999) Sources of error in stem heat balance sap flow measurements. Agric For Meteorol 94:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grulke NE, Balduman L (1999) Deciduous conifers: high N deposition and O3 exposure effects on growth and biomass allocation in ponderosa pine. Water Air Soil Pollut 116:235–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grulke NE, Lee EH (1997) Assessing visible ozone-induced foliar injury in ponderosa pine. Can J For Res 27:1658–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grulke NE, Preisler HK, Fan CC, Retzlaff WA (2002) An empirical approach to estimate ozone uptake of ponderosa pine in a Mediterranean climate. Environ Pollut 109:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hubbert KR (1999) The edaphic role of weathered bedrock in a seasonal-dry Jeffrey pine plantation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Soil, Water Science, University of California, Riverside, Calif.Google Scholar
  13. Laisk A, Kull O, Moldau H (1989) Ozone concentration in leaf intercellular air spaces is close to zero. Plant Physiol 90:1163–1167Google Scholar
  14. Lopushinsky W (1986) Seasonal and diurnal trends of heat pulse velocity in Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. Can J For Res 16:814–821Google Scholar
  15. Miller PR, Longbotham GJ, Longbotham CR (1983) Sensitivity of selected western conifers to ozone. Plant Dis 67:1113–1115Google Scholar
  16. Miller PR, Stolte KW, Duriscoe DM, Pronos J (1996) Evaluating ozone air pollution effects on pines in the western United States. Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-155, Albany, Calif.Google Scholar
  17. Oliver WW, Ryker RA (1994) Pinus ponderosa Dougl. Ex Laws. In: Burns, RM, Honkala BH (eds) Silvics of North America, vol 1. Conifers. Agricultural Handbook 654, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., pp 413–424Google Scholar
  18. Pallardy SG, Pereira JS, Parker WC (1991) Measuring the state of water in tree systems. In: Lassoie JP, Hinckley TM (eds) Techniques and approaches in forest tree ecophysiology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla., pp 27–76Google Scholar
  19. Pell EJ, Schlagnhaufer CD, Arteca RN (1997) Ozone-induced oxidative stress: mechanisms of action and reaction. Physiol Planta 100:264–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterson DL, Arbaugh MJ, Robinson LJ (1991) Regional growth changes in ozone-stressed ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Holocene 1:50–61Google Scholar
  21. Polle A (1998) Photochemical oxidants: uptake and detoxification mechanisms. In: De Kok LJ, Stulen I (eds) Responses of plant metabolism to air pollution and global change. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 95–116Google Scholar
  22. Smirnoff N (1993) The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficiency and desiccation. New Phytol 125:27–58Google Scholar
  23. S-Plus (2000) Modern statistics and advanced graphics. User's Guide. Data Analysis Products Division, MathSoft, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  24. Ter-Mikaelian M, Korzukhin MD (1997) Biomass equations for 65 North American tree species. For Ecol Manage 97:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Unger CD (1978) The transport of photochemical smog in the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. In: Proceedings, conference on Sierra Nevada meteorology, America Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass., p 38Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. E. Grulke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ron Johnson
    • 1
  • Annie Esperanza
    • 2
  • David Jones
    • 1
  • Tham Nguyen
    • 1
  • Sabine Posch
    • 3
  • Michael Tausz
    • 3
  1. 1.Pacific Southwest Research StationUSDA Forest ServiceRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Resource Management OfficeSequoia National ParkThree RiversUSA
  3. 3.Institut für PflanzenphysiologieKarl-Franzens-UniversitätGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations