Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Growth performance of six multipurpose tree species based on the carbon assimilation capacity: a functional approach

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study is an attempt to evaluate six tree species with potential for growth and water use efficiency under 50% moisture stress, based on the carbon assimilation capacity in order to identify species to be grown in low moisture conditions. Plants were maintained at field capacity (control) and at 50% less than the field capacity (stress) in lysimeters for 90 days by weighing them and replenishing with the water lost. Eucalyptus comaldulensis and Melia dubia recorded 259 and 204 and 243 and 151 g plant−1 of biomass under control and moisture stress conditions respectively while Simaruba glauca and Callophylum inophyllum recorded 61–53 and 37–23 g plant−1. Photosynthetic rates of these species were in the range of 25.43–22.78 and 9.10–8.03 μmol m−2s−1 under control and stress conditions respectively, which corroborated with biomass production. Both diffusive and carboxylation processes of photosynthesis were higher in species with higher biomass. Photosynthetic rates assessed using leaf model and cumulative models go with each other. Species with higher photosynthetic rates tended to sustain under stress by reducing photosynthetic surface area and maintain the growth rates suggesting that growth performance under moisture stress depends on carbon assimilation capabilities. This was also evident in species with low photosynthetic rates which recorded lower growth rates. Species with lower carbon assimilation showed higher water use efficiency, while it was the opposite in species with higher carbon assimilation. Isohydric behavior of stomata help plants to maintain longer stomatal conductance and hence the photosynthetic rates, but lower water use efficiency. Such a strategy helps plants in sustaining growth under intermittent moisture stress. Thus slow growing species with higher water use efficiency and lower moisture consumption are useful in establishing tree cover in marginal lands with low moisture.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holiday JA, Wang T, Curtis Mclane S (2008) Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evol Appl 1:95–111

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Araus JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds MP, Royo C (2002) Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereals: what should we breed for? Ann Bot 89:925–940

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Arnada I, Forner A, Cuesta B, Valladares F (2012) Species-specific water use by forest tree species: from the tree to the stand. Agri water manag 114:67–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atwell BJ, Kriedmann PE, Turnbaall EGN (1999) Growth analysis: a quantitative approach. In: Atwell BJ, Kriedmann PE, Turnbaall EGN (eds) Plant in action: adaptation in nature, performance in cultivation. Macmillan Publishers, South Yarra, p 664

    Google Scholar 

  • Betts RA, Cox PM, Collins M, Harris PP, Huntingford C, Jones CD (2004) The role of ecosystem-atmosphere interactions in simulated Amazonian precipitation decrease and forest dieback under global climate warming. Theor Appl Climatol 78:157–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum A (2005) Drought resistance, water use efficiency and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Aust J Agric Res 56:1151–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer JS (1982) Plant productivity and environment. Science 218:443–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brienen RJW, Gloor E, Zuidema PA (2012) Detecting evidence for CO2 fertilization from tree ring studies: the potential role of sampling biases. Glob Biogeochem cycle 26(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GB004143

  • Bréda N, Huc R, Granier A, Dreyer E (2006) Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: a review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences. Ann For Sci 63:544–625. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2006042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brendel O, Iannetta PPM, Stewart D (2000) A rapid and simple method to isolate pure alpha-cellulose. Phytochem Anal 11:7–10

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brix H (1983) Effects of thinning and nitrogen fertilization on growth of Douglas fir: relative contribution of foliage quantity and efficiency. Can J For Res 13:167–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaves M (1991) Effects of water deficits in carbon assimilation. J Exp Bot 42:1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cornic G (2000) Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal aperture and not by affecting ATP synthesis. Trends Plant Sci 5:187–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditmarová L, Kurjak D, Palmroth S, Kmet J, Strelcová K (2010) Physiological responses of Norway spruce (Piceaabies) seedlings to drought stress. Tree Physiol 30:205–213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler AM, Wisniewski J (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystem. Science 263:185–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ewers BE, Oren R, Sperry JS (2000) Influence of nutrient versus water supply on hydraulic architecture and water balance in Pinus taeda. Plant Cell Environ 23:1055–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar GD, Richards RA (1984) Isotopic composition of plant carbon correlates with water-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Aust J Plant Physiol 11:539–552

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Phys 40:503–537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Franks PJ, Drake PL, Froend RH (2007) Anisohydric but isohydrodynamic: seasonally constant plant water potential gradient explained by a stomatal control mechanism incorporating variable plant hydraulic conductance. Plant Cell Environ 30:19–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Francy RJ, Farquhar GD (1982) An explatanation of 13C/12C variations in tree rings. Nature 297:28–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil S (2003) The Indian monsoon and its variability. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 31:429–467. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.earth.31.100901.141251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garnier E (1992) Growth analysis of congeneric annual and perennial grass species. J Ecol 80:665–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gessler A, Ferrio JP, Hommel R, Treydte K, Werner RA, Russell K (2014) Monson stable isotopes in tree rings: towards a mechanistic understanding of isotope fractionation and mixing processes from the leaves to the wood. Tree Physiol 34(8):796–818. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpu040

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford RM, Evans LT (1981) Photosynthesis, carbon partitioning and yield. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 32:485–509

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gindaba J, Rozanov A, Negash L (2005) Photosynthetic gas exchange, growth and biomass allocation of two Eucalyptus and three indigenous tree species of Ethiopia under moisture deficit. For Ecol Manag 205:127–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens. Science 277:1260–1261

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hall AE, Richards RA, Condon AG, Wright GC, Farquhar GD (1993) Carbon isotope discrimination and plant breeding. Plant Breed Rev 12:81–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamrick JL (2004) Response of forest trees to global environmental changes. For Ecol Manag 197:323–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helms JA (1976) Factors influencing net photosynthesis in trees: an ecological view point. In: Cannell MGR (ed) Tree physiology and yield improvement. Academic Press, London, pp 55–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao TC (1973) Plant responses to water stress. Annu Rev Plant Phys 24:519–570

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hubick KT, Farquhar GD, Shorter R (1986) Correlation between water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in diverse peanut (Arachis) germplasm. Aust J Plant Physiol 13:803–816

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • INECC (2010) The semi-arid region.http://www.ced.org.in/docs/inecc/arid_booklet/Arid-3-Arids.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2014

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Forth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp 1009

  • Ishizaki S, Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2003) Increase in leaf mass per area benefits plant growth at elevated CO2 concentration. Ann Bot 91(7):905–914

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis PG, McNaughton KG (1986) Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. Adv Ecol Res 15:1–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DA, Richards RA, Turner NC (1983) Yield, water relations and surface reflectances of near -isogenic wheat lines differing in glaucousness. Crop Sci 23:318–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones PG, Thornton PK (2002) Croppers to livestock keepers: livelihood transition to 2010 in Africa due to climate change. Global Environmental Change, World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski TT (1963) Physiological implications in tree improvement. FAO/FORGEN, 63-5/1

  • Kramer PJ (1986) The role of physiology in forestry. Tree Physiol 2:1–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (2005) Forest soil and carbon sequestration. For Ecol Manag 220:242–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ledig ET (1976) Physiological genetics, photosynthesis and growth models. In: Cannell MGR (ed) Tree physiology and yield improvement. Academic Press, London, pp 21–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Leuzinger S, Zotz G, Asshoff R, Korner C (2005) Responses of deciduous forest trees to severe drought in Central Europe. Tree Physiol 25:641–650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Schimid B, Wang F, Paine CET (2016) Net assimilation rate determines the growth rates of 14 species of subtropical forest trees. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.popne.0150644

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein NJ, Pallardy SG (1998) Drought tolerance, xylem sap abscisic acid and stomatal conductance during soil drying: a comparison of canopy trees of three temperate deciduous angiosperms. Tree Physiol 18:431–439

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maherali H, DeLucia EH (2001) Influence of climate driven shifts in biomass allocation on water transport and storage in ponderosa pine. Oceologia 129:481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maire V, Gross N, Hill D, Martin R, Wirth IJ, Soussana JF (2013) Disentangling coordination among functional traits using an individual-centered model; impact on plant performance at intra and inter-specific levels. PLoS ONE 8(10):e77372. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077372

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Manzoni S, Vico G, Katul G, Palmroth S, Porporato A (2014) Optimal plant water-use strategies under stochastic rainfall. Water Resour Res 50:5379–5394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mathews JD (1963) Some applications of genetics and physiology in thinning. Forestry 36:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittrmeier CG, DaFanseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspot for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell NG (2011) Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, carbon metabolism and vegetation mortality. Plant Physiol 155:1051–1059

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell NG, PockmanWT Allen CD, Breshears DD, Cobb N, Kolb T et al (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178:719–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nabuurs GJO, Masera K, Andrasko P et al (2007) Forestry. In climate change 2007. Mitigation. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter JM (2010) Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron 108:237–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Orwig DA, Abrams MD (1997) Variations in radial growth responses to drought among species, site and canopy strata. Trees 11:474–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovington JD (1957) The volatile matter, organic carbon and nitrogen contents of tree species grown in close stands. New Phytol 56:289–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passioura JB (1986) Resistance to drought salinity: avenue for improvement. Aust J Plant Physiol 13:191–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry AL, Low PJ, Ellis JR, Reynolds JD (2005) Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308:1912–1915

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pham TTH, Tong THA, Pham VC (2013) Becoming urban: how urbanization influences the loss of Arable Land in Peri-urban Hanoi. In: Murgante B (ed) Computational science and its applications part- IV. Springer, Berlin, pp 238–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice IC, Dong N, Gleason SM, Maire V, Wright IJ (2014) Balancing the costs of carbon gain and water transport: testing a new theoretical framework for plant functional ecology. Ecol Lett 17:82–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rao PB (2005) Effect of shade on seedling growth of five important tree species in Tarai region of Uttaranchal. Bull Natl Inst Ecol 15:161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees M, Osborne CP, Woodward FL, Hule SP, Turnbull LA, Taylor SH (2010) Partitioning the components of growth rate: how important is plant size variation? Am Nat 176:E152–E161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schopfer W (1961) Quantitative determination of the assimilating organs of Norway spruce. Schrift der landesforestvewaltung 6:828–847

    Google Scholar 

  • Seager R, Ting M, Held I, Kushnir Y, Lu J, Vecchi G, Huang HP, Harnik N, Leetma A, Lau NC, Li C, Velez J, Naik N (2007) Model projections of an imminent transition to a more arid climate in Southwestern North America. Science 316:1181–1184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sehgal J, Abrol IP (1994) Soil degradation in India: status and impact. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, p 80

    Google Scholar 

  • Shangguan Z, Shao M, Dyckmans J (1999) Interactions of osmotic adjustment and photosynthesis in winter wheat under soil drought. J Plant Physiol 154:753–758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto-Pinto L, Anzueto M, Mendoza J, Ferrer G, de Jong B (2010) Carbon sequestration through agroforestry in indigenous communities of Chiapas, Mexico. Agroforest Syst 78:39–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamm CO (1977) Factors limiting primary production in the boreal forest-long-term and short term considerations. In Bicentenary celebration of C.P. Thunberg’s visit to Japan. Royal Swedish Embassy and Bot. Sot. of Japan, Tokyo, pp 52–59

  • Tardieu F, Simonneau T (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton P (2012) Recalibrating food production in developing world global warming will change more than just the climate. CCAFS policy brief no. 6 (CGIAR research program on climate change, Agriculture and food security, 2010)

  • Tilman D (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: Daily G (ed) Nature services and societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Bhagwat SA et al (2010) Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes. J Appl Ecol 48:619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udawatta RP, Jose S (2011) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry practices in temperate North America. In: Kumar B, Nair P (eds) Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems. Advances in Agroforestry, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 17–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Udayakumar M, Rao RCN, Wright GC, Ramaswamy GC, Stephan AR, Gangadhar GC (1998) Measurement of transpiration efficiency in field condition. J Plant Physiol Biochem 1:69–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen SJ, Cambell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food system. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon AJ, Allison JCS (1963) A method of calculating net assimilation rate. Nature 200:814. https://doi.org/10.1038/200814a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JS (2000) Increasing agricultural water efficiency to meet future food production. Agric Water Manage 82:105–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson DJ (1958) Factors limiting production. In: Yapp WB, Watson DJ (eds) The biological productivity of Britain London. Institute of Biology, London, pp 25–32

    Google Scholar 

  • West AG, Hultine KR, Burtch KG, Ehleringer JR (2007) Seasonal variations in moisture use in a piñon–juniper woodland. Oecologia 153:787–798

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright IJ, Reich PB, Cornelissen JHC et al (2005) Modulation of leaf economic traits and trait relationships by climate. Glob Ecol Bio Geogr 14:411–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou S, Remko AD, Medlyn BE, Kelly JWG, Prentice IC (2013) How should we model plant response to drought? An analysis of stomatal and non-stomatal responses to water stress. Agric For Meteorol 182–183:204–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev Z, Lidon FC (2012) An overview on drought induced changes in plant growth, water relations and photosynthesis. Emir J Food Agric 24(1):57–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev Z, Yordanov I (2004) Effects of soil drought on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence in common bean plants. Bulg J Plant Physiol 30(3–4):3–18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zobel B, Tolbert J (1984) Applied forest tree improvement. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the Department of Crop Physiology for extending the ROS and stable carbon isotope analysis facility. We also thank Dr. Jalendra for his assistance in statistical analysis and Mr. S. Narayanan, Professor of English, for his inputs in manuscript preparation.

Funding

This project is not funded by any external agency. However, the University of Agricultural sciences, Bangalore, India, has facilitated this work under co-operative research activity, where facilities like stable carbon analysis, Rain out shelter under the Department of Crop Physiology were utilized in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry & Environmental Science, University of Agricultural Sciences GKVK, Bangalore, 560 065, India

    Neha Tolia & A. S. Devakumar

  2. Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences GKVK, Bangalore, 560065, India

    M. S. Sheshshayee & Sumanth Kambalimath

Authors
  1. Neha Tolia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. S. Devakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. S. Sheshshayee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sumanth Kambalimath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NT: Field work execution, sample collection and processing, data collection and analysis. ASD: Conception, planning and execution of research and manuscript preparation. MSS: Provided ROS facility, carbon isotope analysis and manuscript preparation. SK: Assisted in field observations, data collection and processing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. S. Devakumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tolia, N., Devakumar, A.S., Sheshshayee, M.S. et al. Growth performance of six multipurpose tree species based on the carbon assimilation capacity: a functional approach. Agroforest Syst 93, 1031–1043 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0198-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0198-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation