Mapping ‘hydroscapes’ along the iso- to anisohydric continuum of stomatal regulation of plant water status

Ecology Letters

Volumn 19, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 1343-1352

  Meinzer, Frederick C ^a   Woodruff, David R ^a   Marias, Danielle E ^b   Smith, Duncan D ^c   McCulloh, Katherine A ^c   Howard, Ava R ^d   Magedman, Alicia L ^b  

^a PACIFIC NORTHWEST RESEARCH STATION   (United States)

^b OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Anisohydry; drought resistance; isohydry; leaf osmotic potential; leaf turgor; plant traits; plant water potential; stomata

Indexed keywords

WATER;

ANGIOSPERM; EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; METABOLISM; MICROCLIMATE; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT STOMA;

ANGIOSPERMS; ENVIRONMENT, CONTROLLED; PLANT STOMATA; PLANT TRANSPIRATION; WATER;

EID: 84988023729     PISSN: 1461023X     EISSN: 14610248     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ele.12670     Document Type: Letter

References (49)

1. Anderegg, W.R.L., Hicke, J.A., Fisher, R.A., Allen, C.D., Aukema, J., Bentz, B. et al. (2015). Tree mortality from drought, insects and their interactions in a changing climate. New Phytol., 208, 674–683.
2. Bartlett, M.K., Scoffoni, C. & Sack, L. (2012a). The determinants of leaf turgor loss point and prediction of drought tolerance of species and biomes: a global meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett., 15, 393–405.
3. Bartlett, M.K., Scoffoni, C., Ardy, R., Zhang, Y., Sun, S., Cao, K. et al. (2012b). Rapid determination of comparative drought tolerance traits: using an osmometer to predict turgor loss point. Methods Ecol. Evol., 3, 880–888.
4. Bartlett, M.K., Zhang, Y., Kreidler, N., Sun, S., Ardy, R., Cao, K. et al. (2014). Global analysis of plasticity in turgor loss point, a key drought tolerance trait. Ecol. Lett., 17, 1580–1590.
5. Blackman, C.J., Brodribb, T.J. & Jordan, G.J. (2010). Leaf hydraulic vulnerability is related to conduit dimensions and drought resistance across a diverse range of woody angiosperms. New Phytol., 188, 1113–1123.
6. Brodribb, T.J. & Holbrook, N.M. (2003). Stomatal closure during leaf dehydration, correlation with other leaf physiological traits. Plant Physiol., 132, 2166–2173.
7. Brodribb, T.J., Holbrook, N.M., Edwards, E.J. & Gutierrez, M.V. (2003). Relations between stomatal closure, leaf turgor and xylem vulnerability in eight tropical dry forest trees. Plant, Cell Environ., 26, 443–450.
8. Brodribb, T.J., Holbrook, N.M., Zwieniecki, M.A. & Palma, B. (2005). Leaf hydraulic capacity in ferns, conifers and angiosperms: impacts on photosynthetic maxima. New Phytol., 165, 839–846.
9. Bucci, S.J., Scholz, F.G., Goldstein, G., Meinzer, F.C., Franco, A.C., Campanello, P.I. et al. (2006). Nutrient availability constrains the hydraulic architecture and water relations of savanna trees. Plant, Cell Environ., 29, 2153–2167.
10. Buckley, T.N. (2005). The control of stomata by water balance. New Phytol., 168, 275–292.
11. Choat, B., Sack, L. & Holbrook, N.M. (2007). Diversity of hydraulic traits in nine Cordia species growing in tropical forests with contrasting precipitation. New Phytol., 175, 686–698.
12. Cochard, H., Martin, R., Gross, P. & Bogeat-Triboulot, M.B. (2000). Temperature effects on hydraulic conductance and water relations of Quercus robur L. J. Exp. Bot., 51, 1255–1259.
13. Comstock, J. & Mencuccini, M. (1998). Control of stomatal conductance by leaf water potential in Hymenoclea salsola (T. & G.), a desert shrub. Plant, Cell Environ., 21, 1029–1038.
14. Cowan, I.R. (1977). Stomatal behavior and environment. Adv. Bot. Res., 4, 117–228.
15. Domec, J.-C. & Johnson, D.M. (2012). Does homeostasis or disturbance of homeostasis in minimum leaf water potential explain the isohydric versus anisohydric behavior of Vitis vinifera L. cultivars? Tree Physiol., 32, 245–248.
16. Evans, R.D., Black, R.A. & Link, S.O. (1990). Rehydration-induced changes in pressure-volume relationships of Artemisia tridentata. Plant, Cell Environ., 13, 455–461.
17. Ewers, B.E., Mackay, D.S. & Samanta, S. (2007). Interannual consistency in canopy stomatal conductance control of leaf water potential across seven tree species. Tree Physiol., 27, 11–24.
18. Fuchs, E.E. & Livingston, N.J. (1996). Hydraulic control of stomatal conductance in Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb) Franco] and alder [Alnus rubra (Bong)] seedlings. Plant, Cell Environ., 19, 1091–1098.
19. Garcia-Forner, N., Adams, H.D., Sevanto, S., Collins, A.D., Dickman, L.T., Hudson, P.J. et al. (2016). Responses of two semi-arid conifer tree species to reduced precipitation and warming reveal new perspectives for stomatal regulation. Plant, Cell Environ., 39, 38–49.
20. Hubbard, R.M., Ryan, M.G., Stiller, V. & Sperry, J.S. (2001). Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis vary linearly with plant hydraulic conductance in ponderosa pine. Plant, Cell Environ., 24, 113–121.
21. Jacobsen, A.L., Pratt, R.B., Davis, S.D. & Ewers, F.W. (2007). Cavitation resistance and seasonal hydraulics differ among three arid Californian plant communities. Plant, Cell Environ., 30, 1599–1609.
22. Klein, T. (2014). The variability of stomatal sensitivity to leaf water potential across tree species indicates a continuum between isohydric and anisohydric behaviors. Funct. Ecol., 28, 1313–1320.
23. Kubiske, M.E. & Abrams, M.D. (1991). Seasonal, diurnal and rehydration-induced variation of pressure-volume relationships in Pseudotsuga menziesii. Physiol. Plant., 83, 107–116.
24. Lenz, T.I., Wright, I.J. & Westoby, M. (2006). Interrelations among pressure-volume curve traits across species and water availability gradients. Physiol. Plant., 127, 423–433.
25. Maréchaux, I., Bartlett, M.K., Sack, L., Baraloto, C., Engel, J., Joetzjer, E. et al. (2015). Drought tolerance as predicted by leaf water potential at turgor loss point varies strongly across species within an Amazonian forest. Funct. Ecol., 29, 1268–1277.
26. Maréchaux, I., Bartlett, M.K., Gaucher, P., Sack, L. & Chave, J. (2016). Causes of variation in leaf-level drought tolerance within an Amazonian forest. J. Plant Hydraul., 3, e-004.
27. Martínez-Vilalta, J., Poyatos, R., Aguade, D., Retana, J. & Mencuccini, M. (2014). A new look at water transport regulation in plants. New Phytol., 204, 105–115.
28. McDowell, N.G., Pockman, W.T., Allen, C.D., Breshears, D.D., 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.
29. McDowell, N.G., Beerling, D.J., Breshears, D.D., Fisher, R.A., Raffa, K.F. & Stitt, M. (2011). The interdependence of mechanisms underlying climate-driven vegetation mortality. Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 523–532.
30. Meinzer, F.C. & Grantz, D.A. (1990). Stomatal and hydraulic conductance in growing sugarcane: stomatal adjustment to water transport capacity. Plant, Cell Environ., 13, 383–388.
31. Meinzer, F.C., Rundel, P.W., Sharifi, M.R. & Nilsen, E.T. (1986). Turgor and osmotic relations of the desert shrub Larrea tridentata. Plant, Cell Environ., 9, 467–476.
32. Meinzer, F.C., Woodruff, D.R., Domec, J.-C., Goldstein, G., Campanello, P.I., Gatti, M.G. et al. (2008). Coordination of leaf and stem water transport properties in tropical forest trees. Oecologia, 156, 31–41.
33. Meinzer, F.C., Woodruff, D.R., Marias, D.E., McCulloh, K.A. & Sevanto, S. (2014). Dynamics of leaf water relations components in co-occurring iso- and anisohydric conifer species. Plant, Cell Environ., 37, 2577–2588.
34. Mencuccini, M., Minunno, F., Salmon, Y., Martínez-Vilalta, J. & Holtta, T. (2015). Coordination of physiological traits involved in drought-induced mortality of woody plants. New Phytol., 208, 396–409.
35. Mitchell, P.J., Veneklaas, E.J., Lambers, H. & Burgess, S.S.O. (2008). Leaf water relations during summer water deficit: differential responses in turgor maintenance and variation in leaf structure among different plant communities in south-western Australia. Plant, Cell Environ., 31, 1791–1802.
36. Mitchell, P.J., O'Grady, A.P., Tissue, D.T., White, D.A., Ottenschlaeger, M.L. & Pinkard, E.A. (2013). Drought response strategies define the relative contributions of hydraulic dysfunction and carbohydrate depletion during tree mortality. New Phytol., 197, 862–872.
37. Nilsen, E.T., Sharifi, M.R. & Rundel, P.W. (1984). Comparative water relations of phreatophytes in the Sonoran Desert of California. Ecology, 65, 767–778.
38. Osuna, J.L., Baldocchi, D.D., Kobayashi, H. & Dawson, T.E. (2015). Seasonal trends in photosynthesis and electron transport during the Mediterranean summer drought in leaves of deciduous oaks. Tree Physiol., 35, 485–500.
39. Pratt, R.B., Jacobsen, A.L., Golgotiu, K.A., Sperry, J.S., Ewers, F.W. & Davis, S.D. (2007). Life history type and water stress tolerance in nine California chaparral species (Rhamnaceae). Ecol. Monogr., 77, 239–253.
40. Raschke, K. (1975). Stomatal action. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol., 26, 309–340.
41. Rogiers, S.Y., Greer, D.H., Hatfield, J.M., Hutton, R.J., Clarke, S.J., Hutchinson, P.A. et al. (2012). Stomatal response of an anisohydric grapevine cultivar to evaporative demand, available soil moisture and abscisic acid. Tree Physiol., 32, 249–261.
42. Santiago, L.S., Goldstein, G., Meinzer, F.C., Fisher, J.B., Machado, K., Woodruff, D. et al. (2004). Leaf photosynthetic traits scale with hydraulic conductivity and wood density in Panamanian forest canopy trees. Oecologia, 140, 543–550.
43. Schultz, H.R. (2003). Differences in hydraulic architecture account for near-isohydric and anisohydric behavior of two field-grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought. Plant, Cell Environ., 26, 1393–1405.
44. Skelton, R.P., West, A.G. & Dawson, T.E. (2015). Predicting plant vulnerability to drought in biodiverse regions using functional traits. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 5744–5749.
45. Sperry, J.S., Hacke, U.G., Oren, R. & Comstock, J.P. (2002). Water deficits and hydraulic limits to leaf water supply. Plant, Cell Environ., 25, 251–263.
46. 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.
47. Tyree, M.T. & Hammel, H.T. (1972). The measurement of the turgor pressure and the water relations of plants by the pressure-bomb technique. J. Exp. Bot., 23, 267–282.
48. West, A.G., Hultine, K.R., Jackson, T.L. & Ehleringer, J.R. (2007). Differential summer water use by Pinus edulis and Juniperus osteosperma reflects contrasting hydraulic characteristics. Tree Physiol., 27, 1711–1720.
49. Xu, L. & Baldocchi, D.D. (2003). Seasonal trends in photosynthetic parameters and stomatal conductance in blue oak (Quercus douglasii) under prolonged summer drought and high temperature. Tree Physiol., 23, 865–877.