Growth performance of six multipurpose tree species based on the carbon assimilation capacity: a functional approach
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.
KeywordsCarbon assimilation Tree growth Moisture stress WUE Marginal lands
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.
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.
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.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Authors do not have any conflict of interest.
- Aerts R, Chapin FS (2000) The mineral nutrition of wild plants revisited: a re-evaluation of processes and patterns. Adv Ecol Res 30:1–67Google 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 664Google 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
- Farquhar GD, Richards RA (1984) Isotopic composition of plant carbon correlates with water-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Aust J Plant Physiol 11:539–552Google 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hall AE, Richards RA, Condon AG, Wright GC, Farquhar GD (1993) Carbon isotope discrimination and plant breeding. Plant Breed Rev 12:81–113Google 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 55–78Google 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 13:803–816Google 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 1009Google 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- Kozlowski TT (1963) Physiological implications in tree improvement. FAO/FORGEN, 63-5/1Google Scholar
- Ledig ET (1976) Physiological genetics, photosynthesis and growth models. In: Cannell MGR (ed) Tree physiology and yield improvement. Academic Press, London, pp 21–54Google 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 CrossRefGoogle 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Passioura JB (1986) Resistance to drought salinity: avenue for improvement. Aust J Plant Physiol 13:191–201Google 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 238–252Google Scholar
- Rao PB (2005) Effect of shade on seedling growth of five important tree species in Tarai region of Uttaranchal. Bull Natl Inst Ecol 15:161–170Google Scholar
- Schopfer W (1961) Quantitative determination of the assimilating organs of Norway spruce. Schrift der landesforestvewaltung 6:828–847Google Scholar
- Sehgal J, Abrol IP (1994) Soil degradation in India: status and impact. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, p 80Google Scholar
- Stern N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle 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 52–59Google 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)Google Scholar
- Tilman D (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: Daily G (ed) Nature services and societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island press, Washington, DCGoogle 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 1:69–75Google 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wallace JS (2000) Increasing agricultural water efficiency to meet future food production. Agric Water Manage 82:105–119Google Scholar
- Watson DJ (1958) Factors limiting production. In: Yapp WB, Watson DJ (eds) The biological productivity of Britain London. Institute of Biology, London, pp 25–32Google 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):3–18Google Scholar
- Zobel B, Tolbert J (1984) Applied forest tree improvement. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar