Please wait a minute...
Journal of Arid Land
Journal of Arid Land  2020, Vol. 12 Issue (2): 267-282    DOI: 10.1007/s40333-020-0008-7     CSTR: 32276.14.s40333-020-0008-7
Research article     
Responses of leaf water potential and gas exchange to the precipitation manipulation in two shrubs on the Chinese Loess Plateau
LI Yangyang1,2,*(), CHEN Jiacun2, AI Shaoshui1, SHI Hui3
1 State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling 712100, China
2 Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yangling 712100, China
3 School of Environmental and Municipal Engineering, Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an 710055, China
Download: HTML     PDF(657KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      

Abstract  

Regulation of leaf gas exchange plays an important role in the survival of trees and shrubs under future climate change. However, the responses of leaf water potential and gas exchange of shrubs in semi-arid areas to the precipitation alteration are not clear. Here, we conducted a manipulated experiment with three levels of precipitation, i.e., a control with ambient precipitation, 50% above ambient precipitation (irrigation treatment), and 50% below ambient precipitation (drought treatment), with two common shrubs, Salix psammophila C. Wang & C. Y. Yang (isohydric plant, maintaining a constant leaf water potential by stomatal regulation) and Caragana korshinskii Kom. (anisohydric plant, having more variable leaf water potential), on the Chinese Loess Plateau in 2014 and 2015. We measured the seasonal variations of predawn and midday leaf water potential (Ψpd and Ψmd), two parameters of gas exchange, i.e., light-saturated assimilation (An) and stomatal conductance (gs), and other foliar and canopy traits. The isohydric S. psammophila had a similar An and a higher gs than the anisohydric C. korshinskii under drought treatment in 2015, inconsistent with the view that photosynthetic capacity of anisohydric plants is higher than isohydric plants under severe drought. The two shrubs differently responded to precipitation manipulation. Ψpd, An and gs were higher under irrigation treatment than control for S. psammophila, and these three variables and Ψmd were significantly higher under irrigation treatment and lower under drought treatment than control for C. korshinskii. Leaf water potential and gas exchange responded to manipulated precipitation more strongly for C. korshinskii than for S. psammophila. However, precipitation manipulation did not alter the sensitivity of leaf gas exchange to vapor-pressure deficit and soil moisture in these two shrubs. Acclimation to long-term changes in soil moisture in these two shrubs was primarily attributed to the changes in leaf or canopy structure rather than leaf gas exchange. These findings will be useful for modeling canopy water-carbon exchange and elucidating the adaptive strategies of these two shrubs to future changes in precipitation.

Key words： drought      irrigation      leaf water potential      gas exchange      acclimation     
Published: 10 March 2020
Corresponding Authors:
About author: *Corresponding author: LI Yangyang (E-mail: yyli@ms.iswc.ac.cn)
Service
E-mail this article
Add to my bookshelf
Add to citation manager
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Yangyang LI
Jiacun CHEN
Shaoshui AI
Hui SHI
Cite this article:

LI Yangyang, CHEN Jiacun, AI Shaoshui, SHI Hui. Responses of leaf water potential and gas exchange to the precipitation manipulation in two shrubs on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Journal of Arid Land, 2020, 12(2): 267-282.

URL:

http://jal.xjegi.com/10.1007/s40333-020-0008-7     OR     http://jal.xjegi.com/Y2020/V12/I2/267

Fig. 1 Seasonal variations in precipitation, solar radiation and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) during the growing seasons in 2014 (a) and 2015 (b)
Fig. 2 Variations of soil moisture within 1.0 m soil depth for Salix psammophila (a and c) and Caragana korshinskii (b and d) under different precipitation treatments in 2014 and 2015. Bars are standard errors, n=3. * and ** indicate significance among three treatments at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively.
Fig. 3 Variations in predawn (Ψpd) and midday (Ψmd) leaf water potentials for Salix psammophila (a, b, e and f) and Caragana korshinskii (c, d, g and h) under different precipitation treatments during the growing seasons in 2014 and 2015. Bars are standard errors, n=3. * and ** indicate significance among three treatments at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively.
Variable Salix psammophila Caragana korshinskii
Irrigation Drought N Irrigation Drought N
2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015
Ψpd 1 (+) 4 (+) 1 (-) 1 (-) 9, 11 3 (+) 9 (+) 7 (-) 10 (-) 12, 10
Ψmd 0 4 (+) 3 (-) 2 (-)/2 (+) 9, 11 2 (+) 8 (+) 2 (-) 9 (-) 12, 10
An 0 3 (+) 1 (-) 2 (-) 8, 8 0 6 (+) 0 6 (-) 10, 8
gs 2 (+) 3 (+) 0 1 (-) 8, 8 0 4 (+) 0 5 (-) 10, 8
Table 1 Number of days with significant treatment effects for irrigation and drought treatments when compared with the control for Salix psammophila and Caragana korshinskii during the growing seasons in 2014 and 2015
Variable Salix psammophila Caragana korshinskii
Control Irrigation Drought Control Irrigation Drought
Ψpd (MPa) -0.30 -0.27 (10.00) -0.34 (-13.33) -0.65* -0.50 (23.08)* -0.91 (-40.00)*
Ψmd (MPa) -1.09 -0.97 (11.01) -1.09 (0.00) -2.11* -1.93 (8.53)* -2.51 (-18.96)*
An (μmol/(m2?s)) 13.85 16.71 (20.65) 12.16 (-12.20) 16.24* 21.66 (33.37)* 11.33 (-30.23)ns
gs (mmol/(m2?s)) 119.00 142.50 (19.80) 106.10 (-10.85) 116.00ns 159.20 (37.25)* 75.80 (-34.66)*
Table 2 Averaged leaf water potentials and gas exchange parameters for Salix psammophila and Caragana korshinskii during the growing season in 2015
Fig. 4 Relationships of predawn leaf water potential (Ψpd) with midday leaf water potential (Ψmd) and water potential gradient (ΔΨ, Ψpd-Ψmd) for Salix psammophila (a and b) and Caragana korshinskii (c and d) under different precipitation treatments. Bars are standard errors. Data from 2014 and 2015 were pooled together, in which n=9 in 2014 and 11 in 2015 for S. psammophila, and 12 in 2014 and 10 in 2015 for C. korshinskii.
Fig. 5 Variations in light-saturated net assimilation (An) and stomatal conductance (gs) for Salix psammophila (a, b, c and d) and Caragana korshinskii (e, f, g and h) under different precipitation treatments during the growing seasons in 2014 and 2015. Bars are standard errors, n=3. * and ** indicate significance among three treatments at P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels, respectively.
Fig. 6 Relationship between light-saturated net assimilation (An) and stomatal conductance (gs) for Salix psammophila (a) and Caragana korshinskii (b) under different precipitation treatments. Bars are standard errors. Data from 2014 and 2015 were pooled together, in which n=48 for S. psammophila and 54 for C. korshinskii.
Fig. 7 Relationships of light-saturated net assimilation (An) and stomatal conductance (gs) with VPD (vapor pressure deficit) for Salix psammophila (a and b) and Caragana korshinskii (c and d) under different precipitation treatments. Bars are standard errors. Data from 2014 and 2015 were pooled together, in which n=48 for S. psammophila and n=54 for C. korshinskii.
Fig. 8 Relationships of light-saturated net assimilation (An) and stomatal conductance (gs) with predawn leaf water potential (Ψpd) for Salix psammophila (a and b) and Caragana korshinskii (c and d) under different precipitation treatments. Bars are standard errors. Data from 2014 and 2015 were pooled together, in which n=48 for S. psammophila and n=54 for C. korshinskii.
Species Treatment LMA (g/m2) δ13C (‰)
May August May August
Salix psammophila Control 74.33±2.03a 123.05±5.40a -24.8±0.1a -25.6±0.2ab
Irrigation 61.11±3.37b 99.11±9.85b -25.4±0.1b -26.0±0.1b
Drought 72.00±2.08a 125.09±10.7a -25.0±0.3ab -25.2±0.1a
Caragana korshinskii Control 63.37±1.68 104.30±2.79 -25.2±0.1 -26.2±0.4
Irrigation 61.77±2.92 104.73±1.37 -25.5±0.4 -25.7±0.3
Drought 59.42±1.23 89.92±3.48 -24.9±0.2 -25.9±0.1
Table 3 Leaf mass per area (LMA) and δ13C for Salix psammophila and Caragana korshinskii during the growing season in 2015
Fig. 9 Leaf area index of Salix psammophila (a) and Caragana korshinskii (b) under different precipitation treatments during the growing seasons in 2014 and 2015. Bars are standard errors, n=3. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different treatments at P<0.05 level.
[1]   Adams H D, Guardiola-Claramonte M, Barron-Gafford G A, et al. 2009. Temperature sensitivity of drought-induced tree mortality portends increased regional die-off under global-change-type drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(17): 7063-7066.
[2]   Ai S H, Li Y Y, Chen L R. 2017. Responses of the shoot growth in Salix psammophila and Caragana korshinskii to manipulated precipitation variation. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 15(3): 90-98. (in Chinese)
[3]   Chaves M M, Pereira J S, Maroco J, et al. 2002. How plants cope with water stress in the field? Photosynthesis and growth. Annals of Botany, 89(7): 907-916.
[4]   de Dios V R, Fischer C, Colinas C. 2007. Climate change effects on Mediterranean forests and preventive measures. New Forest, 33(1): 29-40.
[5]   Dong X J, Zhang X S. 2001. Some observations of the adaptations of sandy shrubs to the arid environment in the Mu Us Sandland: leaf water relations and anatomic features. Journal of Arid Environments, 48(1): 41-48.
[6]   Falster D S, Warton D I, Wright I J. 2006. Users Guide to SMATR: Standardised Major Axis Tests & Routines Version 2.0. [2014-03-11]. http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR/.
[7]   Fan L M. 2007. Groundwater seepage caused by mining and the prevention strategies in the northern Shaanxi. Mining Safety and Environmental Protection, 34(5): 62-64. (in Chinese)
[8]   Flexas J, Bota J, Loreto F, et al. 2004. Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C3 plants. Plant Biology, 6(3): 269-279.
doi: 10.1055/s-2004-820867 pmid: 15143435
[9]   Garcia-Forner N, Adams H D, Sevanto S, et al. 2016. Responses of two semiarid conifer tree species to reduced precipitation and warming reveal new perspectives for stomatal regulation. Plant, Cell and Environment, 39(1): 38-49.
doi: 10.1111/pce.12588 pmid: 26081870
[10]   Gulías J, Flexas J, Mus M, et al. 2003. Relationship between maximum leaf photosynthesis, nitrogen content and specific leaf area in Balearic endemic and non-endemic Mediterranean species. Annals of Botany, 92(2): 215-222.
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcg123 pmid: 12805082
[11]   Hartmann H, Ziegler W, Kolle O, et al. 2013. Thirst beats hunger-declining hydration during drought prevents carbon starvation in Norway spruce saplings. New Phytologist, 200(2): 340-349.
doi: 10.1111/nph.12331 pmid: 23692181
[12]   Huang G, Li Y, Mu X H, et al. 2017. Water-use efficiency in response to simulated increasing precipitation in a temperate desert ecosystem, of Xinjiang, China. Journal of Arid Land. 9(6): 823-836.
[13]   Huxman T E, Smith M D, Fay P A, et al. 2004. Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency. Nature, 429(6992): 651-654.
doi: 10.1038/nature02561 pmid: 15190350
[14]   Jiang G M, Zhu G J. 2001. Effects of natural high temperature and irradiation on photosynthesis and related parameters in three arid sandy shrub species. Acta Phytoecologia Sinica, 25(5): 525-531. (in Chinese)
pmid: 14650150
[15]   Lamont B B, Groom P K, Cowling R M. 2002. High leaf mass per area of related species assemblages may reflect low rainfall and carbon isotope discrimination rather than low phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations. Functional Ecology, 16(3): 403-412.
[16]   Li Y Y, Chen W Y, Chen J C, et al. 2016. Vulnerability to drought-induced cavitation in shoots of two typical shrubs in the southern Mu Us Sandy Land, China. Journal of Arid Land, 8(1): 125-137.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-015-0056-6
[17]   Limousin J M, Misson L, Lavoir A V, et al. 2010. Do photosynthetic limitations of evergreen Quercus ilex leaves change with long-term increased drought severity? Plant, Cell and Environment, 33(5): 863-875.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02112.x pmid: 20051039
[18]   Limousin J M, Bickford C P, Dickman L T, et al. 2013. Regulation and acclimation of leaf gas exchange in a piñon-juniper woodland exposed to three different precipitation regimes. Plant, Cell and Environment, 36(10): 1812-1825.
doi: 10.1111/pce.12089 pmid: 23461476
[19]   Liu H Y, Li J Y, Zhao Y, et al. 2007. Influence of drought stress on gas exchange and water use efficiency of Salix psammophila growing in five places. Arid Zone Research, 24(6): 815-820. (in Chinese)
[20]   Liu J, He X, Bao H L, et al. 2010. Distribution of fine roots of Salix psammophila and its relationship with soil moisture in Mu Us Sandland. Journal of Desert Research, 30(6): 1362-1366. (in Chinese)
[21]   Lovisolo C, Perrone I, Carra A, et al. 2010. Drought-induced changes in development and function of grapevine (Vitis spp.) organs and in their hydraulic and non-hydraulic interactions at the whole-plant level: a physiological and molecular update. Functional Plant Biology, 37(2): 98-116.
[22]   Ma C C, Gao Y B, Guo H Y, et al. 2008. Physiological adaptations of four dominant Caragana species in the desert region of the Inner Mongolia Plateau. Journal of Arid Environments, 72(3): 247-254.
[23]   Martínez-Vilalta J, Garcia-Forner N. 2016. Water potential regulation, stomatal behaviour and hydraulic transport under drought: deconstructing the iso/anisohydric concept. Plant, Cell and Environment, 40(6): 962-976.
doi: 10.1111/pce.12846 pmid: 27739594
[24]   Martin-StPaul N K, Limousin J M, Rodriguez-Calcerrada J, et al. 2012. Photosynthetic sensitivity to drought varies among populations of Quercus ilex along a rainfall gradient. Functional Plant Biology, 39(1): 25-37.
[25]   Maseda P H, Fernández R J. 2006. Stay wet or else: three ways in which plants can adjust hydraulically to their environment. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57(15): 3963-3977.
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erl127 pmid: 17079697
[26]   McDowell N G, Pockman W T, Allen C D, et al. 2008. Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytologist, 178(4): 719-739.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x pmid: 18422905
[27]   Misson L, Limousin J M, Rodriguez R, et al. 2010. Leaf physiological responses to extreme droughts in Mediterranean Quercus ilex forest. Plant, Cell and Environment, 33(11): 1898-1910.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02193.x pmid: 20561253
[28]   Murray F W. 1967. On the computation of saturation vapor pressure. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 58(6): 203-204.
[29]   Niu X W, Ding Y C, Zhang Q, et al. 2003. Studies on the characteristics of Caragana root development and some relevant physiology. Acta Botania Boreal-Occidential Sinica, 23(5): 860-865. (in Chinese)
[30]   Nogués S, Alegre L. 2002. An increase in water deficit has no impact on the photosynthetic capacity of field-grown Mediterranean plants. Functional Plant Biology, 29(5): 621-630.
[31]   Oren R, Sperry J S, Katul G G, et al. 1999. Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapor pressure deficit. Plant, Cell and Environment, 22(12): 1515-1526.
[32]   Quero J L, Sterck FJ, Martínez-Vilalta J, et al. 2011. Water-use strategies of six co-existing Mediterranean woody species during a summer drought. Oecologia, 166: 45-57.
doi: 10.1007/s00442-011-1922-3 pmid: 21290148
[33]   Ripullone F, Guerrieri M R, Nole A, et al. 2007. Stomatal conductance and leaf water potential responses to hydraulic conductance variation in Pinus pinaster seedlings. Trees, 21(3): 371-378.
doi: 10.1093/treephys/23.12.793 pmid: 12865245
[34]   Ripullone F, Borghetti M, Raddi S, et al. 2009. Physiological and structural changes in response to altered precipitation regimes in a Mediterranean macchia ecosystem. Trees, 23(4): 823-834.
[35]   Sevanto S, Mcdowell N G, Dickman L T, et al. 2014. How do trees die? A test of the hydraulic failure and carbon starvation hypotheses. Plant, Cell and Environment, 37(1): 153-161.
doi: 10.1111/pce.12141 pmid: 23730972
[36]   Tang K L, Hou Q C, Wang B K, et al. 1993. The environment background and administration way of wind-water erosion crisscross region and Shenmu experimental area on the Loess Plateau. Memoir of Northwestern Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Academia Sinica and Ministry of Water Conservancy, 18: 1-15. (in Chinese)
[37]   Tardieu F, Simonneau T. 1998. Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative demand: modeling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49(Special Issue): 419-432.
[38]   Weltzin J F, Loik M E, Schwinning S, et al. 2003. Assessing the response of terrestrial ecosystems to potential changes in precipitation. Bioscience, 53(10): 941-952.
[39]   Xu D H, Fang X W, Bin Z J, et al. 2012. Eco-physiological mechanism of Caragana korshinskii Kom adaptation to extreme drought stress: leaf abscission and keeping chloroplast integrity in stem. Journal of Desert Research, 32(3): 691-697. (in Chinese)
[40]   Zhou S X, Medlyn B E, Prentice I C. 2016. Long-term water stress leads to acclimation of drought sensitivity of photosynthetic capacity in xeric but not riparian Eucalyptus species. Annals of Botany, 117(1): 133-144.
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcv161 pmid: 26493470
[41]   Zhu Y J, Jia Z Q, Lu Q, et al. 2010. Water use strategy of five shrubs in Ulanbuh Desert. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 46(4): 15-21. (in Chinese)
[1] YANG Jianhua, LI Yaqian, ZHOU Lei, ZHANG Zhenqing, ZHOU Hongkui, WU Jianjun. Effects of temperature and precipitation on drought trends in Xinjiang, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(8): 1098-1117.
[2] Seyed Morteza MOUSAVI, Hossein BABAZADEH, Mahdi SARAI-TABRIZI, Amir KHOSROJERDI. Assessment of rehabilitation strategies for lakes affected by anthropogenic and climatic changes: A case study of the Urmia Lake, Iran[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(6): 752-767.
[3] CAO Wenyu, BAI Jianjun, YU Leshan. Grassland-type ecosystem stability in China differs under the influence of drought and wet events[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(5): 615-631.
[4] TANG Xiaoyan, FENG Yongjiu, LEI Zhenkun, CHEN Shurui, WANG Jiafeng, WANG Rong, TANG Panli, WANG Mian, JIN Yanmin, TONG Xiaohua. Urban growth scenario projection using heuristic cellular automata in arid areas considering the drought impact[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(4): 580-601.
[5] BAI Jizhou, LI Jing, RAN Hui, ZHOU Zixiang, DANG Hui, ZHANG Cheng, YU Yuyang. Influence of varied drought types on soil conservation service within the framework of climate change: insights from the Jinghe River Basin, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(2): 220-245.
[6] LI Chaoqun, HAN Wenting, PENG Manman. Effects of drip and flood irrigation on carbon dioxide exchange and crop growth in the maize ecosystem in the Hetao Irrigation District, China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(2): 282-297.
[7] ZHAO Xuqin, LUO Min, MENG Fanhao, SA Chula, BAO Shanhu, BAO Yuhai. Spatiotemporal changes of gross primary productivity and its response to drought in the Mongolian Plateau under climate change[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2024, 16(1): 46-70.
[8] CHEN Yingying, LIN Yajun, ZHOU Xiaobing, ZHANG Jing, YANG Chunhong, ZHANG Yuanming. Effects of drought treatment on photosystem II activity in the ephemeral plant Erodium oxyrhinchum[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(6): 724-739.
[9] Fateme RIGI, Morteza SABERI, Mahdieh EBRAHIMI. Improved drought tolerance in Festuca ovina L. using plant growth promoting bacteria[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(6): 740-755.
[10] BAI Miao, LI Zhanling, HUO Pengying, WANG Jiawen, LI Zhanjie. Propagation characteristics from meteorological drought to agricultural drought over the Heihe River Basin, Northwest China[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(5): 523-544.
[11] Khouloud ZAGOUB, Khouloud KRICHEN, Mohamed CHAIEB, Lobna F MNIF. Morphological and physiological responses to drought stress of carob trees in Mediterranean ecosystems[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(5): 562-577.
[12] Sakine KOOHI, Hadi RAMEZANI ETEDALI. Future meteorological drought conditions in southwestern Iran based on the NEX-GDDP climate dataset[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(4): 377-392.
[13] Mohammad Hossein TAGHIZADEH, Mohammad FARZAM, Jafar NABATI. Rhizobacteria facilitate physiological and biochemical drought tolerance of Halimodendron halodendron (Pall.) Voss[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(2): 205-217.
[14] ZHAO Lili, LI Lusheng, LI Yanbin, ZHONG Huayu, ZHANG Fang, ZHU Junzhen, DING Yibo. Monitoring vegetation drought in the nine major river basins of China based on a new developed Vegetation Drought Condition Index[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(12): 1421-1438.
[15] Mahdi SEDIGHKIA, Bithin DATTA. Analyzing environmental flow supply in the semi-arid area through integrating drought analysis and optimal operation of reservoir[J]. Journal of Arid Land, 2023, 15(12): 1439-1454.