Advertisement

Scarce population genetic differentiation but substantial spatiotemporal phenotypic variation of water-use efficiency in Pinus sylvestris at its western distribution range

  • F. Santini
  • J. P. Ferrio
  • A.-M. Hereş
  • E. Notivol
  • M. Piqué
  • L. Serrano
  • T. A. Shestakova
  • E. Sin
  • P. Vericat
  • J. Voltas
Original Paper

Abstract

Water and carbon fluxes in forests are largely related to leaf gas exchange physiology varying across spatiotemporal scales and modulated by plant responses to environmental cues. We quantified the relevance of genetic and phenotypic variation of intrinsic water-use efficiency (WUEi, ratio of net photosynthesis to stomatal conductance of water) in Pinus sylvestris L. growing in the Iberian Peninsula as inferred from tree-ring carbon isotopes. Inter-population genetic variation, evaluated in a provenance trial comprising Spanish and German populations, was low and relevant only at continental scale. In contrast, phenotypic variation, evaluated in natural stands (at spatial level) and by tree-ring chronologies (at temporal inter-annual level), was important and ten- and threefold larger than the population genetic variance, respectively. These results points to preponderance of plastic responses dominating variability in WUEi for this species. Spatial phenotypic variation in WUEi correlated negatively with soil depth (r = − 0.66; p < 0.01), while temporal phenotypic variation was mainly driven by summer precipitation. At the spatial level, WUEi could be scaled-up to ecosystem-level WUE derived from remote sensing data by accounting for soil water-holding capacity (r = 0.63; p < 0.01). This outcome demonstrates a direct influence of the variation of leaf-level WUEi on ecosystem water and carbon balance differentiation. Our findings highlight the contrasting importance of genetic variation (negligible) and plastic responses in WUEi (large, with changes of up to 33% among sites) on determining carbon and water budgets at stand and ecosystem scales in a widespread conifer such as Pinus sylvestris.

Keywords

Genetic variation Phenotypic plasticity Pinus sylvestris Remote sensing Tree rings Intrinsic water-use efficiency 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Spanish Government [MINECO Grant Number AGL2015-68274-C3-3-R] and the Russian Science Foundation (Project Number 14-14-00219-P, mathematical approach). We acknowledge P. Sopeña and M.J. Pau for technical assistance and V. Muñoz, M. Sala and A. Teixidó for field sampling.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10342_2018_1145_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
Online Resource 1 Characteristics of the 22 Scots pine populations evaluated in the provenance trial (XLSX 14 kb)
10342_2018_1145_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (17 kb)
Online Resource 2 Characteristics of the 30 Scots pine natural stands (XLSX 16 kb)
10342_2018_1145_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (231 kb)
Online Resource 3 Normal quantile plots of the ANOVAs residuals (PDF 231 kb)
10342_2018_1145_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
Online Resource 4 Pearson correlations between WUEi or TRW and climatic, edaphic and physiographic characteristics of the 30 Scots pine natural stands (XLSX 14 kb)
10342_2018_1145_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (380 kb)
Online Resource 5 WUEi and TRW chronologies (PDF 380 kb)
10342_2018_1145_MOESM6_ESM.xlsx (15 kb)
Online Resource 6 Variance components estimated for absolute TRW and for WUEi obtained from annually resolved Ca values (XLSX 14 kb)

References

  1. Alberto FJ, Aitken SN, Alía R et al (2013) Potential for evolutionary responses to climate change—evidence from tree populations. Glob Change Biol 19:1645–1661.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alía R, Moro-Serrano J, Notivol E (2001) Genetic variability of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) provenances in Spain: growth traits and survival. Silva Fenn 35:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreu-Hayles L, Planells O, Gutiérrez E, Muntan E, Helle G, Anchukaitis KJ, Schleser GH (2011) Long tree-ring chronologies reveal 20th century increases in water-use efficiency but no enhancement of tree growth at five Iberian pine forests. Glob Change Biol 17:2095–2112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02373.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bachofen C, Moser B, Hoch G, Ghazoul J, Wohlgemuth T (2018) No carbon “bet hedging” in pine seedlings under prolonged summer drought and elevated CO2. J Ecol 106:31–46.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beer C, Ciais P, Reichstein M et al (2009) Temporal and among-site variability of inherent water use efficiency at the ecosystem level. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 23:GB2018.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benito-Garzón M, Alía R, Robson M, Zavala MA (2011) Intra-specific variability and plasticity influence potential tree species distributions under climate change. Glob Ecol Biogeog 20:766–778.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00646.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biondi F, Waikul K (2004) DENDROCLIM2002: a C ++ program for statistical calibration of climate signals in tree-ring chronologies. Comput Geosci 30:303–311.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2003.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115–155.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2660(08)60048-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brendel O, Handley L, Griffiths H (2002) Differences in δ13C and diameter growth among remnant Scots pine populations in Scotland. Tree Physiol 22:983–992.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/22.14.983 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bussotti F, Pollastrini M, Holland V, Brüggemann W (2015) Functional traits and adaptive capacity of European forests to climate change. Environ Exp Bot 111:91–113.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2014.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Camarero JJ, Guerrero-Campo J, Gutiérrez E (1998) Tree-ring growth and structure of Pinus uncinata and Pinus sylvestris in the Central Spanish Pyrenees. Arct Alp Res 30:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1551739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camarero JJ, Gazol A, Sangüesa-Barreda G et al (2018) Forest growth responses to drought at short-and long-term scales in Spain: squeezing the stress memory from tree rings. Front Ecol Evol 6:9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook ER, Krusic PJ (2005) Program ARSTAN: a tree-ring standardization program based on detrending and autoregressive time series modeling, with interactive graphics. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, PalisadesGoogle Scholar
  15. Cristiano PM, Campanello PI, Bucci SJ et al (2015) Evapotranspiration of subtropical forests and tree plantations: a comparative analysis at different temporal and spatial scales. Agric For Meteorol 203:96–106.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dekker SC, Booth BB, Cox PM (2016) Spatial and temporal variations in plant water-use efficiency inferred from tree-ring, eddy covariance and atmospheric observations. Earth Syst Dynam 7:525–533.  https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-525-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. del Castillo J, Voltas J, Ferrio JP (2015) Carbon isotope discrimination, radial growth, and NDVI share spatiotemporal responses to precipitation in Aleppo pine. Trees 29:223–233.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-014-1106-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eilmann B, Zweifel R, Buchmann N, Fonti P, Rigling A (2009) Drought-induced adaptation of the xylem in Scots pine and pubescent oak. Tree Physiol 29:1011–1020.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpp035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Eilmann B, Buchmann N, Siegwolf R, Saurer M, Rigling PC (2010) Fast response of Scots pine to improved water availability reflected in tree-ring width and δ13C. Plant Cell Environ 33:1351–1360.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02153.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISS-CAS/JRC (2009) Harmonized world soil database (version 1.1). FAO, Rome, Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Fardusi MJ, Ferrio JP, Comas C, Voltas J, de Dios VR, Serrano L (2016) Intra-specific association between carbon isotope composition and productivity in woody plants: a meta-analysis. Plant Sci 251:110–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.04.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989a) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 40:503–537.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.40.060189.002443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Farquhar GD, Hubick KT, Condon AG, Richards RA (1989b) Carbon isotope fractionation and plant water-use efficiency. In: Rundel PW, Ehleringer JR, Nagy KA (eds) Stable isotopes in ecological research. Springer, New York, pp 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feichtinger LM, Siegwolf RTW, Gessler A, Buchmann N, Lévesque M, Rigling A (2017) Plasticity in gas-exchange physiology of mature Scots pine and European larch drive short- and long-term adjustments to changes in water availability. Plant, Cell Environ 40:1972–1983.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ferrio JP, Voltas J (2005) Carbon and oxygen isotope ratios in wood constituents of Pinus halepensis as indicators of precipitation, temperature and vapour pressure deficit. Tellus b 57:164–173.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2005.00137.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ferrio J, Araus JL, Buxó R, Voltas J, Bort J (2005) Water management practices and climate in ancient agriculture: inferences from the stable isotope composition of archaeobotanical remains. Veget Hist Archaeobot 14:510–517.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00334-005-0062-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frank DC, Poulter B, Saurer M et al (2015) Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests during the Anthropocene. Nat Clim Change 5:579–583.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2614 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gessler A, Ferrio JP, Hommel R, Treydte K, Werner RA, Monson RK (2014) Stable isotopes in tree rings: towards a mechanistic understanding of isotope fractionation and mixing processes from the leaves to the wood. Tree Physiol 34:796–818.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Grace J, Norton DA (1990) Climate and growth of Pinus sylvestris at its upper altitudinal limit in Scotland: evidence from tree growth-rings. J Ecol 78:601–610.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2260887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Granier A, Loustau D, Bréda N (2000) A generic model of forest canopy conductance dependent on climate, soil water availability and leaf area index. Ann For Sci 57:755–765.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2000158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA (1982) Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J Irrig Drain Div 108:225–230Google Scholar
  32. Harris IPDJ, Jones PD, Osborn TJ, Lister DH (2014) Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int J Clim 34:623–642.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3711 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. He B, Wang H, Huang L, Liu J, Chen Z (2017) A new indicator of ecosystem water use efficiency based on surface soil moisture retrieved from remote sensing. Ecol Indic 75:10–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hereş A-M, Martínez-Vilalta J, López BC (2012) Growth patterns in relation to drought-induced mortality at two Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) sites in NE Iberian Peninsula. Trees 26:621–630.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0628-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hereş A-M, Voltas J, López BC, Martínez-Vilalta J (2014) Drought-induced mortality selectively affects Scots pine trees that show limited intrinsic water-use efficiency responsiveness to raising atmospheric CO2. Funct Plant Biol 41:244–256.  https://doi.org/10.1071/FP13067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for Glob land areas. Int J Clim 25:1965–1978.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holmes RL (1983) Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement. Tree Ring Bull 43:69–78Google Scholar
  38. Huang M, Piao S, Sun Y et al (2015) Change in terrestrial ecosystem water-use efficiency over the last three decades. Glob Change Biol 21:2366–2378.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12873 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Irvine J, Perks MP, Magnani F, Grace J (1998) The response of Pinus sylvestris to drought: stomatal control of transpiration and hydraulic conductance. Tree Physiol 18:393–402.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/18.6.393 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Keenan TF, Hollinger DY, Bohrer G, Dragoni D, Munger JW, Schmid H, Richardson AD (2013) Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise. Nature 499:324–327.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12291 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim HW, Hwang K, Mu Q, Lee SO, Choi M (2012) Validation of MODIS 16 Glob terrestrial evapotranspiration products in various climates and land cover types in Asia. KSCE J Civ Eng 16:229–238.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-012-0006-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klein T, Di Matteo G, Rotenberg E, Cohen S, Yakir D (2013) Differential ecophysiological response of a major Mediterranean pine species across a climatic gradient. Tree Physiol 33:26–36.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tps116 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Knauer J, Zaehle S, Reichstein M, Medlyn BE, Forkel M, Hagemann S, Werner C (2016) The response of ecosystem water-use efficiency to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations: sensitivity and large-scale biogeochemical implications. New Phytol 213:1654–1666.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14288 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lebourgeois F, Rathgeber CB, Ulrich E (2010) Sensitivity of French temperate coniferous forests to climate variability and extreme events (Abies alba, Picea abies and Pinus sylvestris). J Veg Sci 21:364–376.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01148.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martín JA, Esteban LG, de Palacios P, García-Fernández F (2010) Variation in wood anatomical traits of Pinus sylvestris L. between Spanish regions of provenance. Trees 24:1017–1028.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-010-0471-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Martínez-Vilalta J, Cochard H, Mencuccini M et al (2009) Hydraulic adjustment of Scots pine across Europe. New Phytol 184:353–364.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02954.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Matías L, Jump AS (2012) Interactions between growth, demography and biotic interactions in determining species range limits in a warming world: the case of Pinus sylvestris. For Ecol Manag 282:10–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Matías L, González-Díaz P, Jump AS (2014) Larger investment in roots in southern range-edge populations of Scots pine is associated with increased growth and seedling resistance to extreme drought in response to simulated climate change. Environ Exp Bot 105:32–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2014.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Matías L, Castro J, Villar-Salvador P, Quero JL, Jump AS (2017) Differential impact of hotter drought on seedling performance of five ecologically distinct pine species. Plant Ecol 218:201–212.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-016-0677-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McCarroll D, Loader NJ (2004) Stable isotopes in tree rings. Quat Sci Rev 23:771–801.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2003.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mellert KH, Lenoir J, Winter S et al (2017) Soil water storage appears to compensate for climatic aridity at the xeric margin of European tree species distribution. Eur J For Res.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1092-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Merlin O, Escorihuela MJ, Mayoral MA, Hagolle O, Al Bitar A, Kerr Y (2013) Self-calibrated evaporation-based disaggregation of SMOS soil moisture: an evaluation study at 3 km and 100 m resolution in Catalunya, Spain. Remote Sens Environ 130:25–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2012.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nicotra AB, Atkin OK, Bonser SP et al (2010) Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends Plant Sci 15:684–692.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2010.09.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Notivol E, Garcia-Gil MR, Alía R, Savolainen O (2007) Genetic variation of growth rhythm traits in the limits of a latitudinal cline in Scots pine. Can J For Res 37:540–551.  https://doi.org/10.1139/X06-243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oleksyn J, Reich PB, Zytkowia R, Karolewski P, Tjoelker MG (2003) Nutrient conservation increases with latitude of origin in European Pinus sylvestris populations. Oecologia 136:220–235.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1265-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Ostle NJ, Smith P, Fisher R et al (2009) Integrating plant–soil interactions into global carbon cycle models. J Ecol 97:851–863.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2009.01547.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Palmroth S, Berninger F, Nikinmaa E, Lloyd J, Pulkkinen P, Hari P (1999) Structural adaptation rather than water conservation was observed in scots pine over a range of wet to dry climates. Oecologia 121:302–309.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050932 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Pan Y, Birdsey RA, Fang J et al (2011) A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science 333:988–993.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201609 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Persson B, Beuker E (1997) Distinguishing between the effects of changes in temperature and light climate using provenance trials with Pinus sylvestris in Sweden. Can J For Res 27:572–579.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x96-222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sánchez-Salguero R, Camarero JJ, Hevia A et al (2015) What drives growth of scots pine in continental Mediterranean climates: drought, low temperatures or both? Agric For Meteorol 206:151–162.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Saurer M, Spahni R, Frank DC et al (2014) Spatial variability and temporal trends in water-use efficiency of European forests. Glob Change Biol 20:3700–3712.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schlesinger WH, Jasechko S (2014) Transpiration in the global water cycle. Agric For Meteorol 189:115–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shestakova TA, Aguilera M, Ferrio JP, Gutiérrez E, Voltas J (2014) Unravelling spatiotemporal tree-ring signals in Mediterranean oaks: a variance-covariance modelling approach of carbon and oxygen isotope ratios. Tree Physiol 34:819–838.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu037 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Shestakova TA, Camarero JJ, Ferrio JP, Knorre AA, Gutiérrez E, Voltas J (2017) Increasing drought effects on five European pines modulate Δ13C–growth coupling along a Mediterranean altitudinal gradient. Funct Ecol 31:1359–1370.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12857 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Silva LC, Gómez-Guerrero A, Doane TA, Horwath WR (2015) Isotopic and nutritional evidence for species-and site-specific responses to N deposition and elevated CO2 in temperate forests. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 120:1110–1123.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JG002865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Song L, Zhu J, Li M, Yan Q (2015) Intrinsic water use efficiency in wet and dry years at young and old plantations of Pinus sylvestris var. mongolica in semiarid China. J For Res 20:263–271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-014-0474-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taeger S, Fussi B, Konnert M, Menzel A (2013) Large-scale genetic structure and drought-induced effects on European Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seedlings. Eur J For Res 132:481–496.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-013-0689-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tang X, Li H, Desai AR (2014) How is water-use efficiency of terrestrial ecosystems distributed and changing on Earth? Sci Rep 4:7483.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07483 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Tapias R, Climent J, Pardos JA, Gil L (2004) Life histories of Mediterranean pines. Plant Ecol 171:53–68.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:VEGE.0000029383.72609.f0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Cohen WB et al (2006a) Evaluation of MODIS NPP and GPP products across multiple biomes. Remote Sens Environ 102:282–292.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2006.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Turner DP, Ritts WD, Zhao M et al (2006b) Assessing interannual variation in MODIS-based estimates of gross primary production. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 44:1899–1907.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2006.876027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ukkola AM, Keenan TF, Kelley DI, Prentice IC (2016) Vegetation plays an important role in mediating future water resources. Environ Res Lett 11:094022.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD et al (2013) Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. J Ecol 101:265–276.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vernomann-Jürgenson L-L, Tosens T, Laanisto L, Niinemets U (2017) Extremely thick cell walls and low mesophyll conductance: welcome to the world of ancient living! J Exp Bot 68:1639–1653.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erx045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Voltas J, Chambel MR, Prada MA, Ferrio JP (2008) Climate-related variability in carbon and oxygen stable isotopes among populations of Aleppo pine grown in common-garden tests. Trees 22:759–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-008-0236-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Voltas J, Camarero JJ, Carulla D, Aguilera M, Ortiz A, Ferrio JP (2013) A retrospective, dual-isotope approach reveals individual predispositions to winter-drought induced tree dieback in the southernmost distribution limit of Scots pine. Plant Cell Environ 36:1435–1448.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12072 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Voltas J, Lucabaugh D, Chambel MR, Ferrio JP (2015) Intraspecific variation in the use of water sources by the circum-Mediterranean conifer Pinus halepensis. New Phytol 208:1031–1041.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13569 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Whitehead D (1978) The estimation of foliage area from sapwood basal area in Scots pine. Forestry 51:137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/51.2.137 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Crop and Forest Sciences – AGROTECNIO CenterETSEA-University of LleidaLleidaSpain
  2. 2.Aragon Agency for Research and Development (ARAID)SaragossaSpain
  3. 3.Forest Resources UnitAgrifood Research and Technology Centre of Aragón (CITA)ZaragozaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Forest SciencesTransilvania University of BrasovBrasovRomania
  5. 5.BC3 - Basque Centre for Climate ChangeScientific Campus of the University of the Basque CountryLeioaSpain
  6. 6.Sustainable Forest Management UnitForest Sciences Centre of Catalonia (CTFC)SolsonaSpain
  7. 7.Mathematical Methods and IT Department, Siberian Federal UniversityKrasnoyarskRussia

Personalised recommendations