Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 1031–1043 | Cite as

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

  • Neha Tolia
  • A. S. DevakumarEmail author
  • M. S. Sheshshayee
  • Sumanth Kambalimath
Article

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.

Keywords

Carbon assimilation Tree growth Moisture stress WUE Marginal lands 

Notes

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.

Author contribution’s

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.

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.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors do not have any conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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
  2. Aitken SN, Yeaman S, Holiday JA, Wang T, Curtis Mclane S (2008) Adaptation, migration or extirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evol Appl 1:95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Araus JL, Slafer GA, Reynolds MP, Royo C (2002) Plant breeding and drought in C3 cereals: what should we breed for? Ann Bot 89:925–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 114:67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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 78:157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blum A (2005) Drought resistance, water use efficiency and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Aust J Agric Res 56:1151–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyer JS (1982) Plant productivity and environment. Science 218:443–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brendel O, Iannetta PPM, Stewart D (2000) A rapid and simple method to isolate pure alpha-cellulose. Phytochem Anal 11:7–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 13:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chaves M (1991) Effects of water deficits in carbon assimilation. J Exp Bot 42:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cornic G (2000) Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal aperture and not by affecting ATP synthesis. Trends Plant Sci 5:187–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ditmarová L, Kurjak D, Palmroth S, Kmet J, Strelcová K (2010) Physiological responses of Norway spruce (Piceaabies) seedlings to drought stress. Tree Physiol 30:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dixon RK, Brown S, Houghton RA, Solomon AM, Trexler AM, Wisniewski J (1994) Carbon pools and flux of global forest ecosystem. Science 263:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 23:1055–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Phys 40:503–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 30:19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Francy RJ, Farquhar GD (1982) An explatanation of 13C/12C variations in tree rings. Nature 297:28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Garnier E (1992) Growth analysis of congeneric annual and perennial grass species. J Ecol 80:665–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Gifford RM, Evans LT (1981) Photosynthesis, carbon partitioning and yield. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 32:485–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 205:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grime JP (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem function: the debate deepens. Science 277:1260–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall AE, Richards RA, Condon AG, Wright GC, Farquhar GD (1993) Carbon isotope discrimination and plant breeding. Plant Breed Rev 12:81–113Google Scholar
  29. Hamrick JL (2004) Response of forest trees to global environmental changes. For Ecol Manag 197:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Hsiao TC (1973) Plant responses to water stress. Annu Rev Plant Phys 24:519–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. INECC (2010) The semi-arid region.http://www.ced.org.in/docs/inecc/arid_booklet/Arid-3-Arids.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2014
  34. 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
  35. Ishizaki S, Hikosaka K, Hirose T (2003) Increase in leaf mass per area benefits plant growth at elevated CO2 concentration. Ann Bot 91(7):905–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jarvis PG, McNaughton KG (1986) Stomatal control of transpiration: scaling up from leaf to region. Adv Ecol Res 15:1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson DA, Richards RA, Turner NC (1983) Yield, water relations and surface reflectances of near -isogenic wheat lines differing in glaucousness. Crop Sci 23:318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Kozlowski TT (1963) Physiological implications in tree improvement. FAO/FORGEN, 63-5/1Google Scholar
  40. Kramer PJ (1986) The role of physiology in forestry. Tree Physiol 2:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lal R (2005) Forest soil and carbon sequestration. For Ecol Manag 220:242–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lawlor DW, Cornic G (2002) Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell Environ 25:275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Leuzinger S, Zotz G, Asshoff R, Korner C (2005) Responses of deciduous forest trees to severe drought in Central Europe. Tree Physiol 25:641–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 Google Scholar
  46. 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 18:431–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maherali H, DeLucia EH (2001) Influence of climate driven shifts in biomass allocation on water transport and storage in ponderosa pine. Oceologia 129:481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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
  49. Manzoni S, Vico G, Katul G, Palmroth S, Porporato A (2014) Optimal plant water-use strategies under stochastic rainfall. Water Resour Res 50:5379–5394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mathews JD (1963) Some applications of genetics and physiology in thinning. Forestry 36:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittrmeier CG, DaFanseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspot for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McDowell NG (2011) Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, carbon metabolism and vegetation mortality. Plant Physiol 155:1051–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 178:719–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter JM (2010) Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron 108:237–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Orwig DA, Abrams MD (1997) Variations in radial growth responses to drought among species, site and canopy strata. Trees 11:474–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ovington JD (1957) The volatile matter, organic carbon and nitrogen contents of tree species grown in close stands. New Phytol 56:289–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Passioura JB (1986) Resistance to drought salinity: avenue for improvement. Aust J Plant Physiol 13:191–201Google Scholar
  60. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Perry AL, Low PJ, Ellis JR, Reynolds JD (2005) Climate change and distribution shifts in marine fishes. Science 308:1912–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 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 17:82–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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–E161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schopfer W (1961) Quantitative determination of the assimilating organs of Norway spruce. Schrift der landesforestvewaltung 6:828–847Google Scholar
  67. 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 316:1181–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sehgal J, Abrol IP (1994) Soil degradation in India: status and impact. Oxford and IBH, New Delhi, p 80Google Scholar
  69. Shangguan Z, Shao M, Dyckmans J (1999) Interactions of osmotic adjustment and photosynthesis in winter wheat under soil drought. J Plant Physiol 154:753–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stern N (2006) Stern review: the economics of climate change. HM Treasury, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  71. 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 78:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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
  73. 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 49:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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
  75. Tilman D (1997) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. In: Daily G (ed) Nature services and societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  76. Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Bhagwat SA et al (2010) Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes. J Appl Ecol 48:619–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 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 17–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. Vernon AJ, Allison JCS (1963) A method of calculating net assimilation rate. Nature 200:814.  https://doi.org/10.1038/200814a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wallace JS (2000) Increasing agricultural water efficiency to meet future food production. Agric Water Manage 82:105–119Google Scholar
  82. 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
  83. West AG, Hultine KR, Burtch KG, Ehleringer JR (2007) Seasonal variations in moisture use in a piñon–juniper woodland. Oecologia 153:787–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Cornelissen JHC et al (2005) Modulation of leaf economic traits and trait relationships by climate. Glob Ecol Bio Geogr 14:411–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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 182–183:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zlatev Z, Lidon FC (2012) An overview on drought induced changes in plant growth, water relations and photosynthesis. Emir J Food Agric 24(1):57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 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
  88. Zobel B, Tolbert J (1984) Applied forest tree improvement. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forestry & Environmental ScienceUniversity of Agricultural Sciences GKVKBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Crop PhysiologyUniversity of Agricultural Sciences GKVKBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations