European Journal of Forest Research

, Volume 131, Issue 6, pp 1737–1746 | Cite as

Physiological response of irrigated and non-irrigated Norway spruce trees as a consequence of drought in field conditions

  • Daniel Kurjak
  • Katarína Střelcová
  • Ľubica Ditmarová
  • Tibor Priwitzer
  • Jaroslav Kmet’
  • Marián Homolák
  • Viliam Pichler
Original Paper

Abstract

Physiological reactions of 25-year-old Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) trees to drought were examined during 2009 vegetation period. During the second half of summer, the decrease in soil water content was observed and irrigation was applied to a group of spruce trees, while the second group was treated under natural soil drought. The response to water deficit was recorded at the level of leaf water potential (ΨL). However, it appears that ΨL plays minor role in early stomata regulation of Norway spruce as CO2 assimilation rate (P N) and stomatal conductance (g S) were reduced already before water potential decrease. Leaf water potential decreased significantly only in case when soil water content was low in the long run and when transpiration losses were simultaneously relatively high. Almost complete stomatal closure even of the irrigated trees was caused by the increase in the vapour pressure deficit of the air (D) above the value of approximately 1.5 kPa. Low values of D were accompanied by partial stomata opening of drought-treated trees. In non-irrigated spruce trees, the values of P N decreased by 35–55% in comparison with irrigated trees. No drought-induced significant changes were found either in chlorophyll and carotenoid concentration (chl a + b, car) or in maximal photochemical efficiency of photosystem II (F v/F m). High rates of sap flow (F) did not always lead to stomatal closure during midday. It appears that high transpiration rates do not control stomatal response to D.

Keywords

Picea abies Water deficit Leaf water potential Transpiration Photosynthesis Stomatal closure Vapour pressure deficit 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This publication is the result of the project implementation Extension of the Centre of Excellence “Adaptive Forest Ecosystems”, ITMS: 26220120049, supported by the Research & Development Operational Programme funded by the ERDF. This work was also supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract No. APVV-0022-07.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Addington RN, Mitchell RJ, Oren R, Donovan LA (2004) Stomatal sensitivity to vapor pressure deficit and its relationship to hydraulic conductance in Pinus palustris. Tree Physiol 24:561–569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bigras FJ (2005) Photosynthetic response of white spruce families to drought stress. New Forest 29:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolhar-Nordenkampf HR, Haumann J, Lechner EG, Postl WF, Schreier V (1992) Seasonal changes in photochemical capacity, quantum yield, P700-absorbance and carboxylation efficiency in needles from Norway spruce. In: Yamamoto HY, Smith CM (eds) Photosynthetic response to the environment. American Society of Plant Physiologists, Washington, pp 193–200Google Scholar
  4. Borchert R (1994) Soil and stem water storage determine phenology and distribution of tropical dry forest trees. Ecology 75:1437–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brestič M (2002) Determination of sensitive sites in photosynthesis during longtermplant dehydration. (In Slovak, with English detailed abstract) J Cent Eur Agric 2:217–226Google Scholar
  6. Brestič M, Cornic G, Fryer MJ, Baker NR (1995) Does photorespiration protect the photosynthetic apparatus in French bean leaves from photoinhibition during drought stress? Planta 196:450–457Google Scholar
  7. Buckley TN (2005) The control of stomata by water balance. New Phytol 168:275–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Centritto M, Magnani F, Lee HSJ, Jarvis PG (1999) Interactive effects of elevated [CO2] and drought on cherry (Prunus avium) seedlings. II. Photosynthetic capacity and water relations. New Phytol 141:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Centritto M, Loreto F, Chartzoulakis K (2003) The use of low [CO2] to estimate diffusional and non-diffusional limitations of photosynthetic capacity of salt-stressed olive saplings. Plant, Cell Environ 26:585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Centritto M, Tognetti R, Leitgeb E, Strelcova K, Cohen S (2011a) Above ground processes: anticipating climate change influences. In: Bredemeier M, Cohen S, Godbold LD, Lode E, Pichler V, Schleppi P (eds) Forest management and the water cycle: an ecosystem-based approach ecological studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 31–64Google Scholar
  11. Centritto M, Brilli F, Forale R, Loreto F (2011b) Different sensitivity of isoprene emission, respiration and photosynthesis to high growth temperature coupled with drought stress in black poplar (Populus nigra) saplings. Tree Physiol 31:275–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Čermák J, Kučera J (1981) The compensation of natural temperature gradient in the measuring point during the sap flow rate determination in trees. Biol Plant 23:469–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Čermák J, Kučera J, Bauerle WL, Phillips N, Hinckley TM (2007) Tree water storage and its diurnal dynamics related to sap flow and changes in stem volume in old-growth Douglas-fir trees. Tree Physiol 27:181–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornic G (2000) Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal aperture—not by affecting ATP synthesis. Trends Plant Sci 5:187–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cregg BM, Zhang JW (2001) Physiology and morphology of Pinus sylvestris seedlings from diverse sources under cyclic drought stress. Forest Ecol Manag 154:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ditmarová L', Kurjak D, Palmroth S, Kmet’ J, Střelcová K (2010) Physiological responses of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L] Karst) seedlings to drought stress. Tree Physiol 30:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Duan B, Lu Y, Yin C, Junttila O, Li C (2005) Physiological responses to drought and shade in two contrasting Picea asperata populations. Physiol Plant 124:476–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duan B, Yang Y, Lu Y, Korpelainen H, Berninger F, Li C (2007) Interactions between water deficit, ABA and provenances in Picea asperata. J Exp Bot 58:3025–3036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ewers BE, Oren R, Philips N, Strömgren M, Linder S (2001) Mean canopy stomatal conductance responses to water and nutrient availabilities in Picea abies and Pinus taeda. Tree Physiol 21:841–850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FAO (2006) World reference base for soil resources. World soil resources reports 103. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  21. Galle A, Feller U (2007) Changes of photosynthetic traits in beech saplings (Fagus sylvatica) under severe drought stress and during recovery. Physiol Plant 131:412–421PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gartner K, English M, Leitgeb E (2011) Effects of climate change on the vulnerability of Norway spruce stands—soil hydrological constraints for forest management in Austria’s lowlands. In: Bredemeier M, Cohen S, Godbold LD, Lode E, Pichler V, Schleppi P (eds) Forest management and the water cycle: an ecosystem-based approach ecological studies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 127–140Google Scholar
  23. Gaul F, Hertel D, Borken W, Batzner E, Leuschner C (2008) Effects of experimental drought on the fine root system of mature Norway spruce. For Ecol Manag 256:1151–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gömöry D, Longauer R, Hlásny T, Pacalaj M, Strmeň S, Krajmerová D (2011) Adaptation to common optimum in different populations of Norway spruce (Picea abies Karst.). Eur J Forest Res. doi: 10.1007/s10342-011-0512-6
  25. Hlásny T, Barcza Z, Fabrika M, Balázs B, Churkina G, Pajtík J, Sedmák R, Turčáni M (2011) Climate change impacts on growth and carbon balance of forests in central Europe. Clim Res 47:219–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jakuš R (2001) Bark beetle (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) infestation in spruce forest stands affected by intensive forest decline connected with honey fungus (Armillaria sp.). Anzeiger fur Schadlingskunde 74:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones HG (1998) Stomatal control of photosynthesis and transpiration. J Exp Bot 49:387–398Google Scholar
  28. Konôpka B (2009) Differences in fine root traits between Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.)—a case study in the Kysucké Beskydy Mts. J For Sci 55:56–566Google Scholar
  29. Krause GH, Weis E (1991) Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basics. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 42:313–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kronfuss G, Polle A, Tausz M, Havranek WM, Weisner G (1998) Effects of ozone and mild drought stress on gas exchange, antioxidants and chloroplast pigments in current-year needles of young Norway spruce (Picea abies [L] Karst.). Trees 12:482–489Google Scholar
  31. Kučera J, Čermák J, Penka M (1977) Improved thermal method of continual recording the transpiration flow rate dynamics. Biol Plant 19:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lagergren F, Lindroth A (2002) Transpiration response to soil moisture in pine and spruce trees in Sweden. Agric For Meteorol 112:67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Larcher W (1988) Physiological plant ecology. Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawlor DW, Cornic G (2002) Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant, Cell Environ 25:275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lendzion J, Leuschner C (2008) Growth of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) saplings is limited by elevated atmospheric vapour pressure deficits. For Ecol Manag 256:648–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lichtenthaler HK (1987) Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Method enzymol 148:350–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lu P, Biron P, Bréda N, Granier A (1995) Water relation of adult Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.)Karst) under soil drought in the Vosges mountains: water potential, stomatal conductance and transpiration. Ann For Sci 52:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mäkinen H, Nöjd P, Kahle HP, Neumann U, Tveite B, Nielikäinen K, Röhle H, Spiecker H (2001) Radial growth variation of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) across latitudinal and altitudinal gradients in central and northern Europe. For Ecol Manag 171:243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Máliš J (2007) The interpretation of a tomographic reflection of electrical resistivity in the Javorie massif. (In Slovak, with English abstract). Acta Fac For Zvolen 49:73–83Google Scholar
  40. Manes F, Donato E, Vitale M (2001) Physiological response of Pinus halepensis needles under ozone and water stress conditions. Physiol Plant 113:249–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Matyssek R, Wieser G, Patzner K, Blaschke H, Häberle KH (2009) Transpiration of forest trees and stands at different altitude: consistencies rather than contrasts? Eur J Forest Res 128:579–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McDowell NG, Pockman W, Allen C, Breshears D, Cobb N, Kolb T, Plaut J, Sperry J, West A, Williams D, Yepez EA (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb? New Phytol 178:719–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Medrano H, Escalona JM, Bota J, Gulias J, Flexas J (2002) Regulation of photosynthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. Ann Bot 89:895–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Minďáš J, Škvarenina J, Střelcová K, Priwitzer T (2000) Influence of climatic changes of Norway spruce occurrence in the west Carpathians. J For Sci 46:249–259Google Scholar
  45. Monteith JL (1995) A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant, Cell Environ 18:357–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG, Pataki DE, Ewers BE, Phillips N, Schäfer KVR (1999) Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant, Cell Environ 22:1515–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pesoli P, Gratani L, Larcher W (2003) Responses of Quercus ilex from different provenances to experimentally imposed water stress. Biol Plant 46:577–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Przybylski T (1998) Morphology. In: Tjoelker MG, Boratynski A, Bugala W (eds) Biology and ecology of Norway spruce. Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, PoznańGoogle Scholar
  49. Pukacki PM, Kaminska-Rozek E (2005) Effect of drought stress on chlorophyll a fluorescence and electrical admittance of shoots in Norway spruce seedlings. Trees 19:539–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roháček K, Barták M (1999) Technique of the modulated chlorophyll fluorescence: basic concepts, useful parameters, and some applications. Photosynthetica 37:339–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schume H, Jost G, Hager H (2004) Soil water depletion and recharge patterns in mixed and pure forest stands of European beech and Norway spruce. J Hydrol 289:258–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Šprtová M, Marek MV, Nedbal L, Prášil O, Kalina J (1999) Seasonal changes of photosynthetic assimilation of Norway spruce under the impact of enhanced UV-B radiation. Plant Sci 142:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Štroch M, Vrábl D, Podolinská J, Kalina J, Urban O, Špunda V (2010) Acclimation of Norway spruce photosynthetic apparatus to the combined effect of high irradiance and temperature. J Plant Physiol 167:597–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tardieu F, Davies WJ (1993) Integration of hydraulic and chemical signalling in the control of stomatal conductance and water status of droughted plants. Plant, Cell Environ 16:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tardieu F, Davis WJ (1992) Stomatal response to abscisic acid is a function of current plant water status. Plant Physiol 98:540–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Urban O, Janouš D, Acosta M, Czerný R, Marková I, Navrátil M, Pavelka M, Pokorný R, Šprtová M, Zhang R, Špunda V, Grace J, Marek MV (2007) Ecophysiological controls over the net ecosystem exchange of mountain spruce stand. Comparison of the response in direct vs. diffuse solar radiation. Glob Change Biol 13:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wallin G, Karlsson PE, Sedén G, Ottosson S, Medin EL, Pleijel H, Skärby L (2002) Impact of four years exposure to different levels of ozone, phosphorus and drought on chlorophyll, mineral nutrients, and stem volume of Norway spruce, Picea abies. Physiol Plant 114:192–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ward EJ, Oren R, Sigurdsson BD, Jarvis PG, Linder S (2008) Fertilization effects on mean stomatal conductance are mediated through changes in the hydraulic attributes of mature Norway spruce trees. Tree Physiol 28:579–596PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilkinson S, Davies WJ (2002) ABA-based chemical signalling: the co-ordination of responses to stress in plants. Plant, Cell Environ 25:195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Woo SY (2009) Forest decline of the world: a linkage with air pollution and global warming. Afr J Biotechnol 8:7409–7414Google Scholar
  61. Zweifel R, Böhm JP, Häsler R (2002) Midday stomatal closure in Norway spruce—reactions in the upper and lower crown. Tree Physiol 22:1125–1136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Kurjak
    • 1
  • Katarína Střelcová
    • 1
  • Ľubica Ditmarová
    • 2
  • Tibor Priwitzer
    • 3
  • Jaroslav Kmet’
    • 4
  • Marián Homolák
    • 1
  • Viliam Pichler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Environment, Forestry FacultyTechnical University in ZvolenZvolenSlovakia
  2. 2.Institute of Forest EcologySlovak Academy of SciencesZvolenSlovakia
  3. 3.National Forest Research CenterZvolenSlovakia
  4. 4.Department of Phytology, Forestry FacultyTechnical University in ZvolenZvolenSlovakia

Personalised recommendations