Advertisement

Complementary water uptake depth of Quercus petraea and Pinus sylvestris in mixed stands during an extreme drought

  • Jordan BelloEmail author
  • Niles J. Hasselquist
  • Patrick Vallet
  • Ansgar Kahmen
  • Thomas Perot
  • Nathalie Korboulewsky
Regular Article
First Online:
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

The growing demand from forest managers is to identify silvicultural practices to overcome projected water scarcity during the next decades. One solution is to mix tree species in the same stand, thereby increasing resource partitioning and minimizing competition for limited soil water. This study investigates the mixture approach for Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. and Pinus sylvestris L. during an extreme summer drought event.

Methods

During the summer drought event in 2016, we analyzed the isotopic signatures of large- and small-tree xylem and soil water throughout the soil profile to assess the depth of water uptake for both tree species. We also measured predawn leaf water potentials (PLWP) to assess water availability for individual tree species.

Results

When grown in pure stands, both species primarily utilized soil water near the surface. In contrast, partial niche complementarity for limited water resources between the two species in mixed stands resulted in less water constraint (i.e., less negative PLWP) for oak trees compared to pure stands, especially for small trees.

Conclusions

Results from this study show that contrasting water use strategies can change water availability for trees and could help some species, though not all, to cope with the water scarcity predicted in a changing climate.

Keywords

Monoculture Mixture Stable isotopes Resource partitioning Predawn leaf water potential Complementarity 

Abbreviations

PLWP

Predawn leaf water potential

VWC

Volumetric Water Content

SWC

Soil water content

δ18O

Isotopic signature of 18Oxygene

ΨPLWP

Predawn leaf water potential

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

Notes

Acknowledgments

The experimental site where our study took place was installed and equipped thanks to the Centre Val-de-Loire region, the Loiret and the French National Forest Office (ONF).

The site belongs to SOERE F-ORE-T, which is supported annually by Ecofor, Allenvi and the French national research infrastructure, ANAEE-F (http://www.anaee-france.fr/fr/).

This work was carried out within the framework of the SATAN project (n°1660C0008, REACCTIF program), funded by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME).

The authors thank the certified facility in Functional Ecology (PTEF OC 081) from UMR 1137 and UR 1138 BEF at the INRA Nancy-Lorraine research center for preparing and carrying out the isotopic analyses. The PTEF facility is supported by the French National Research Agency through the ARBRE Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-11-LABX-0002-01). NJ Hasselquist would like to thank the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (Branch-point) and the Swedish Research Council (2015-04791) for financial support. We also thank Victor Evrard for his help with the isotopic analyses, Svenja Föster (BaSIEL) for her help with the cryogenic distillation vacuum line, Camille Couteau (Irstea, EFNO) for canopy sampling and Vincent Seigner (Irstea, EFNO) for his assistance in the field. We also thank Damien Bonal (INRA) for his helpful discussions.

Supplementary material

Open image in new windowFig. 8 Open image in new windowFig. 9 Open image in new windowFig. 10 Open image in new windowFig. 11 Open image in new windowFig. 12 Open image in new windowFig. 13

References

  1. Aitken SN, Whitlock MC (2013) Assisted gene flow to facilitate local adaptation to climate change. In: Futuyma DJ (ed) Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, Vol 44. Annual Reviews, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  2. Al Majou H, Bruand A, Duval O, Le Bas C, Vautier A (2008) Prediction of soil water retention properties after stratification by combining texture, bulk density and the type of horizon. Soil Use Manag 24:383–391.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2008.00180.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen CD, Macalady AK, Chenchouni H, Bachelet D, McDowell N, Vennetier M, Kitzberger T, Rigling A, Breshears DD, Hogg EH, Gonzalez P, Fensham R, Zhang Z, Castro J, Demidova N, Lim J-H, Allard G, Running SW, Semerci A, Cobb N (2010) A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For Ecol Manag 259:660–684.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour MM (2007) Stable oxygen isotope composition of plant tissue: a review. Funct Plant Biol 34:83–94.  https://doi.org/10.1071/fp06228 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bello J, Vallet P, Perot T, Balandier P, Seigner V, Perret S, Couteau C, Korboulewsky N (2019) How do mixing tree species and stand density affect seasonal radial growth during drought events? For Ecol Manag 432:436–445.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.09.044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigler C, Bräker OU, Bugmann H, Dobbertin M, Rigling A (2006) Drought as an inciting mortality factor in scots pine stands of the Valais, Switzerland. Ecosystems.  https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0021-005-0126-2
  7. Bréda N, Granier A, Barataud F, Moyne C (1995) Soil-water dynamics in an oak stand. Plant Soil 172:17–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00020856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brinkmann N, Eugster W, Buchmann N, Kahmen A (2018) Species-specific differences in water uptake depth of mature temperate trees vary with water availability in the soil. Plant Biol 0.  https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.12907
  9. Brunel JP, Walker GR, Kennettsmith AK (1995) Field validation of isotopic procedures for determining sources of water used by plants in a semiarid environment. J Hydrol 167:351–368.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)02575-v CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buckley TN (2005) The control of stomata by water balance. New Phytol 168:275–291.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01543.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castagneri D, Nola P, Cherubini P, Motta R (2012) Temporal variability of size-growth relationships in a Norway spruce forest: the influences of stand structure, logging, and climate. Can J For Res 42:550–560.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x2012-007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Condés S, del Río M, Sterba H (2013) Mixing effect on volume growth of Fagus sylvatica and Pinus sylvestris is modulated by stand density. For Ecol Manag 292:86–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.12.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Curt T, Prevosto B (2003) Rooting strategy of naturally regenerated beech in silver birch and scots pine woodlands. Plant Soil 255:265–279.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026132021506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dawson TE, Ehleringer JR (1991) Streamside trees that do not use stream water. Nature 350:335–337.  https://doi.org/10.1038/350335a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. del Río M, Pretzsch H, Alberdi I, Bielak K, Bravo F, Brunner A, Condes S, Ducey MJ, Fonseca T, von Lupke N, Pach M, Peric S, Perot T, Souidi Z, Spathelf P, Sterba H, Tijardovic M, Tome M, Vallet P, Bravo-Oviedo A (2016) Characterization of the structure, dynamics, and productivity of mixed-species stands: review and perspectives. Eur J For Res 135:23–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-015-0927-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Durand Y, Brun E, Merindol L, Guyomarc'h G, Lesaffre B, Martin E (1993) A meteorological estimation of relevant parameters for snow models. Ann Glaciol 18:65–71.  https://doi.org/10.3189/S0260305500011277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehleringer JR, Dawson TE (1992) Water uptake by plants: perspectives from stable isotope composition. Plant Cell Environ 15:1073–1082.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1992.tb01657.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Epron D, Dreyer E (1990) Stomatal and non stomatal limitation of photosynthesis by leaf water deficits in three oak species: a comparison of gas exchange and chlorophyll a fluorescence data. Ann For Sci 47:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farquhar GD, Lloyd J (1993) 5 - carbon and oxygen isotope effects in the exchange of carbon dioxide between terrestrial plants and the atmosphere. In: Ehleringer JR, Hall AE, Farquhar GD (eds) Stable isotopes and plant carbon-water relations. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  20. Forrester DI, Bauhus J (2016) A review of processes behind diversity-productivity relationships in forests. Curr Forestry Rep 2:45–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-016-0031-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forrester DI, Kohnle U, Albrecht AT, Bauhus J (2013) Complementarity in mixed-species stands of Abies alba and Picea abies varies with climate, site quality and stand density. For Ecol Manag 304:233–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.04.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Forrester DI, Tang X (2016) Analysing the spatial and temporal dynamics of species interactions in mixed-species forests and the effects of stand density using the 3-PG model. Ecol Model 319:233–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fruleux A, Bonal D, Bogeat-Triboulot MB (2016) Interactive effects of competition and water availability on above- and below-ground growth and functional traits of European beech at juvenile level. For Ecol Manag 382:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.09.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giuggiola A, Bugmann H, Zingg A, Dobbertin M, Rigling A (2013) Reduction of stand density increases drought resistance in xeric scots pine forests. For Ecol Manag 310:827–835.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grossiord C, Gessler A, Granier A, Pollastrini M, Bussotti F, Bonal D (2014a) Interspecific competition influences the response of oak transpiration to increasing drought stress in a mixed Mediterranean forest. For Ecol Manag 318:54–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grossiord C, Granier A, Ratcliffe S, Bouriaud O, Bruelheide H, Checko E, Forrester DI, Dawud Muhie S, Finér L, Pollastrini M, Valladares F, Bonal D, Gessler A (2014b) Tree diversity does not always improve resistance of forest ecosystems to drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:14812–14815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grossiord C, Sevanto S, Dawson TE, Adams HD, Collins AD, Dickman LT, Newman BD, Stockton EA, McDowell NG (2017) Warming combined with more extreme precipitation regimes modifies the water sources used by trees. New Phytol 213:584–596.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hasselquist NJ, Allen MF, Santiago LS (2010) Water relations of evergreen and drought-deciduous trees along a seasonally dry tropical forest chronosequence. Oecologia 164:881–890.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-010-1725-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hendriks CMA, Bianchi F (1995) Root density and root biomass in pure and mixed forest stands of Donglas-fir and beech. Neth J Agric Sci 43:321–331Google Scholar
  30. Higgins SI, Clark JS, Nathan R, Hovestadt T, Schurr F, Fragoso JMV, Aguiar MR, Ribbens E, Lavorel S (2003) Forecasting plant migration rates: managing uncertainty for risk assessment. J Ecol 91:341–347.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2745.2003.00781.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC (2014) Synthesis report. GIECGoogle Scholar
  32. Irvine J, Perks MP, Magnani F, Grace J (1998) The response of Pinus sylvestris to drought: stomatal control of transpiration and hydraulic conductance. Tree Physiol 18:393–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IUSS Working Group WRB (2015) International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  34. Khalvati MA, Hu Y, Mozafar A, Schmidhalter U (2005) Quantification of water uptake by arbuscular mycorrhizal hyphae and its significance for leaf growth, water relations, and gas exchange of barley subjected to drought stress. Plant Biol 7:706–712.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-872893 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolb TE, Stone JE (2000) Differences in leaf gas exchange and water relations among species and tree sizes in an Arizona pine-oak forest. Tree Physiol 20:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Korboulewsky N, Pérot T, Balandier P, Barrier R, Boscardin Y, Dauffy-Richard E, Dumas Y, Seigner V, Vallet P (2015) OPTMix - Dispositif expérimental de suivi à long terme du fonctionnement de la forêt mélangée. Rendez-vous Technique 47:60–70Google Scholar
  37. Lehto T, Zwiazek JJ (2011) Ectomycorrhizas and water relations of trees: a review. Mycorrhiza 21:71–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00572-010-0348-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liang J, Crowther TW, Picard N, Wiser S, Zhou M, Alberti G, Schulze ED, McGuire AD, Bozzato F, Pretzsch H, de Miguel S, Paquette A, Herault B, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Barrett CB, Glick HB, Hengeveld GM, Nabuurs GJ, Pfautsch S, Viana H, Vibrans AC, Ammer C, Schall P, Verbyla D, Tchebakova N, Fischer M, Watson JV, Chen HYH, Lei X, Schelhaas MJ, Lu H, Gianelle D, Parfenova EI, Salas C, Lee E, Lee B, Kim HS, Bruelheide H, Coomes DA, Piotto D, Sunderland T, Schmid B, Gourlet-Fleury S, Sonke B, Tavani R, Zhu J, Brandl S, Vayreda J, Kitahara F, Searle EB, Neldner VJ, Ngugi MR, Baraloto C, Frizzera L, Ba azy R, Oleksyn J, Zawi a-Nied wiecki T, Bouriaud O, Bussotti F, Finer L, Jaroszewicz B, Jucker T, Valladares F, Jagodzinski AM, Peri PL, Gonmadje C, Marthy W, Obrien T, Martin EH, Marshall AR, Rovero F, Bitariho R, Niklaus PA, Alvarez-Loayza P, Chamuya N, Valencia R, Mortier F, Wortel V, Engone-Obiang NL, Ferreira LV, Odeke DE, Vasquez RM, Lewis SL, Reich PB (2016) Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests. Science 354:aaf8957.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lin G, da S. L. Sternberg L (1993) 31 - hydrogen isotopic fractionation by plant roots during water uptake in coastal wetland plants. In: Ehleringer JR, Hall AE, Farquhar GD (eds) Stable isotopes and plant carbon-water relations. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  40. Loreau M, Hector A (2001) Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature 412:72–76.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35083573 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lu H, Mohren GMJ, den Ouden J, Goudiaby V, Sterck FJ (2016) Overyielding of temperate mixed forests occurs in evergreen–deciduous but not in deciduous–deciduous species mixtures over time in the Netherlands. For Ecol Manag 376:321–332.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2016.06.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin-Gomez P, Aguilera M, Peman J, Gil-Pelegrin E, Ferrio JP (2017) Contrasting ecophysiological strategies related to drought: the case of a mixed stand of scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and a submediterranean oak (Quercus subpyrenaica). Tree Physiol 37:1478–1492.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpx101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martinez-Sancho E, Dorado-Linan I, Merino EG, Matiu M, Helle G, Heinrich I, Menzel A (2018) Increased water-use efficiency translates into contrasting growth patterns of scots pine and sessile oak at their southern distribution limits. Glob Chang Biol 24:1012–1028.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meinen C, Hertel D, Leuschner C (2009) Biomass and morphology of fine roots in temperate broad-leaved forests differing in tree species diversity: is there evidence of below-ground overyielding? Oecologia 161:99–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-009-1352-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Michelot A, Simard S, Rathgeber C, Dufrene E, Damesin C (2012) Comparing the intra-annual wood formation of three European species (Fagus sylvatica, Quercus petraea and Pinus sylvestris) as related to leaf phenology and non-structural carbohydrate dynamics. Tree Physiol 32:1033–1045.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tps052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mommer L, van Ruijven J, de Caluwe H, Smit-Tiekstra AE, Wagemaker CAM, Ouborg NJ, Bogemann GM, van der Weerden GM, Berendse F, de Kroon H (2010) Unveiling below-ground species abundance in a biodiversity experiment: a test of vertical niche differentiation among grassland species. J Ecol 98:1117–1127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01702.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moreno G, Obrador JJ, Cubera E, Dupraz C (2005) Fine root distribution in Dehesas of Central-Western Spain. Plant Soil 277:153–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-6805-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Newberry SL, Nelson DB, Kahmen A (2017) Cryogenic vacuum artifacts do not affect plant water-uptake studies using stable isotope analysis. Ecohydrology 10.  https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1892
  49. Pena J, Grace J (1986) Water relations and ultrasound emissions of pinus sylvestris L. Before, during and after a period of water stress. New Phytologist 103(3):515–524.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1986.tb02889.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phillips DL, Gregg JW (2003) Source partitioning using stable isotopes: coping with too many sources. Oecologia 136:261–269.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1218-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Phillips DL, Newsome SD, Gregg JW (2005) Combining sources in stable isotope mixing models: alternative methods. Oecologia 144:520–527.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1816-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pinheiro JC, Bates D, DebRoy S, R_Core_Team (2018) {nlme}: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 31–137Google Scholar
  53. Piutti E, Cescatti A (1997) A quantitative analysis of the interactions between climatic response and intraspecific competition in European beech. Can J For Res 27:277–284.  https://doi.org/10.1139/x96-176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. R_Core_Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical ComputingGoogle Scholar
  55. Reineke LH (1933) Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. J Agric Res 46:627–638Google Scholar
  56. Renninger HJ, Carlo NJ, Clark KL, Schafer KVR (2015) Resource use and efficiency, and stomatal responses to environmental drivers of oak and pine species in an Atlantic coastal plain forest. Front Plant Sci 6.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00297
  57. Richards AE, Forrester DI, Bauhus J, Scherer-Lorenzen M (2010) The influence of mixed tree plantations on the nutrition of individual species: a review. Tree Physiol 30:1192–1208.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpq035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rowe EC, Van Noordwijk M, Suprayogo D, Cadisch G (2006) Variable responses of the depth of tree nitrogen uptake to pruning and competition. Tree Physiol 26:1529–1535.  https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/26.12.1529 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schmid I, Kazda M (2002) Root distribution of Norway spruce in monospecific and mixed stands on different soils. For Ecol Manag 159:37–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-1127(01)00708-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scholander PF, Hammel HT, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA (1965) Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sturm N, Kostner B, Hartung W, Tenhunen JD (1998) Environmental and endogenous controls on leaf- and stand-level water conductance in a scots pine plantation. Ann Sci For 55:237–253.  https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19980114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Toïgo M, Vallet P, Perot T, Bontemps J-D, Piedallu C, Courbaud B, Canham C (2015) Overyielding in mixed forests decreases with site productivity. J Ecol 103:502–512.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Trouvé R, Bontemps JD, Collet C, Seynave I, Lebourgeois F (2017) Radial growth resilience of sessile oak after drought is affected by site water status, stand density, and social status. Trees (Berl West) 31:517–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-016-1479-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Stan JT, Van Stan JH, Levia DF (2014) Meteorological influences on stemflow generation across diameter size classes of two morphologically distinct deciduous species. Int J Biometeorol 58:2059–2069.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-014-0807-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Werner RA, Bruch BA, Brand WA (1999) ConFlo III - an interface for high precision delta(13)C and delta(15)N analysis with an extended dynamic range. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 13:1237–1241.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0231(19990715)13:13<1237::aid-rcm633>3.0.co;2-c CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. White J, Edward R, Cook R (1985) The D/H ratios of sap in trees: implications for xater sources and tree ring D/H ratios. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 49:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu H, Li X-Y, Jiang Z, Chen H, Zhang C, Xiao X (2016) Contrasting water use pattern of introduced and native plants in an alpine desert ecosystem, Northeast Qinghai–Tibet plateau, China. Sci Total Environ 542(Part A):182–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zang C, Pretzsch H, Rothe A (2012) Size-dependent responses to summer drought in scots pine, Norway spruce and common oak. Trees (Berl West) 26:557–569.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0617-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zweifel R, Steppe K, Sterck FJ (2007) Stomatal regulation by microclimate and tree water relations: interpreting ecophysiological field data with a hydraulic plant model. J Exp Bot 58:2113–2131.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Irstea, UR EFNO, Domaine des BarresNogent-sur-VernissonFrance
  2. 2.Department of Forest Ecology and ManagementSwedish University of Agriculture Sciences (SLU)UmeåSweden
  3. 3.University Grenoble Alpes, Irstea, UR LESSEMSt-Martin-d’HèresFrance
  4. 4.Department of Environmental Sciences-BotanyUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options