Photosynthesis Research

, Volume 139, Issue 1–3, pp 307–323 | Cite as

Impact of weak water deficit on growth, photosynthetic primary processes and storage processes in pine and spruce seedlings

  • Ilya E. Zlobin
  • Yury V. IvanovEmail author
  • Alexander V. Kartashov
  • Boris A. Sarvin
  • Andrey N. Stavrianidi
  • Vladimir D. Kreslavski
  • Vladimir V. Kuznetsov
Original Article


We investigated the influence of 40 days of drought on growth, storage processes and primary photosynthetic processes in 3-month-old Scots pine and Norway spruce seedlings growing in perlite culture. Water stress significantly affected seedling water status, whereas absolute dry biomass growth was not substantially influenced. Water stress induced an increase in non-structural carbohydrate content (sugars, sugar alcohols, starch) in the aboveground part of pine seedlings in contrast to spruce seedlings. Due to the relatively low content of sugars and sugar alcohols in seedling organs, their expected contribution to osmotic potential changes was quite low. In contrast to biomass accumulation and storage, photosynthetic primary processes were substantially influenced by water shortage. In spruce seedlings, PSII was more sensitive to water stress than PSI. In particular, electron transport in PSI was stable under water stress despite the substantial decrease of electron transport in PSII. The increase in thermal energy dissipation due to enhancement of non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) was evident in both species under water stress. Simultaneously, the yields of non-regulated energy dissipation in PSII were decreased in pine seedlings under drought. A relationship between growth, photosynthetic activities and storage processes is analysed under weak water deficit.


Scots pine Norway spruce Drought Photosystem I Photosystem II Non-structural carbohydrates 



Electron transport chain


Non-photochemical quenching


Non-structural carbohydrates


Photosystem I


Photosystem II


Plastoquinol terminal oxidases


Reactive oxygen species


Relative water content


Water-holding capacity



This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Project No. 16-14-10224). We are grateful to Dr. Eugene A. Lysenko for assistance in obtaining data on chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. We are grateful to Prof. A.M. Nosov and Dr. D.V. Kochkin for their support and valuable advice regarding the analysis of sugars.


  1. Allakhverdiev SI (2011) Recent progress in the study of structure and function of photosystem II. J Photochem Photobiol B 104:1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allakhverdiev SI, Klimov VV, Carpentier R (1997) Evidence for the involvement of cyclic electron transport in the protection of photosystem II against photoinactivation: influence of a new phenolic compound. Biochemistry 36:4149–4154. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allakhverdiev SI, Kreslavski VD, Klimov VV, Los DA, Carpentier R, Mohanty P (2008) Heat stress: an overview of molecular responses in photosynthesis. Photosynth Res 98:541–550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asada K (1999) The water–water cycle in chloroplasts: scavenging of active oxygens and dissipation of excess photons. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 50:601–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker NR (2008) Chlorophyll fluorescence: a probe of photosynthesis in vivo. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:89–113. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bansal S, Germino MJ (2008) Carbon balance of conifer seedlings at timberline: relative changes in uptake, storage, and utilization. Oecologia 158:217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baquedano FJ, Castillo FJ (2006) Comparative ecophysiological effects of drought on seedlings of the Mediterranean water-saver Pinus halepensis and water-spenders Quercus coccifera and Quercus ilex. Trees 20:689. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernacchi CJ, Portis AR, Nakano H, von Caemmerer S, Long SP (2002) Temperature response of mesophyll conductance. Implications for the determination of Rubisco enzyme kinetics and for limitations to photosynthesis in vivo. Plant Physiol 130:1992–1998. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Björkman O, Demmig B (1987) Photon yield of O2 evolution and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics at 77 K among vascular plants of diverse origins. Planta 170:489–504. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blödner C, Skroppa T, Johnsen Ø, Polle A (2005) Freezing tolerance in two Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) progenies is physiologically correlated with drought tolerance. J Plant Physiol 162:549–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 63:625–644. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brestic M, Zivcak M, Hauptvogel P, Misheva S, Kocheva K, Yang X, Allakhverdiev SI (2018) Wheat plant selection for high yields entailed improvement of leaf anatomical and biochemical traits including tolerance to non-optimal temperature conditions. Photosynth Res. Google Scholar
  13. Deslauriers A, Beaulieu M, Balducci L, Giovannelli A, Gagnon MJ, Rossi S (2014) Impact of warming and drought on carbon balance related to wood formation in black spruce. Ann Bot 114:335–345. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietze MC, Sala A, Carbone MS, Czimczik CI, Mantooth JA, Richardson AD, Vargas R (2014) Nonstructural carbon in woody plants. Ann Rev Plant Biol 65:667–687. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ditmarová Ľ, Kurjak D, Palmroth S, Kmeť J, Střelcová K (2009) Physiological responses of Norway spruce (Picea abies) seedlings to drought stress. Tree Physiol 30:205–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Driever SM, Lawson T, Andralojc PJ, Raines CA, Parry MAJ (2014) Natural variation in photosynthetic capacity, growth, and yield in 64 field-grown wheat genotypes. J Exp Bot 65:4959–4973. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Duan B, Lu Y, Yin C, Junttila O, Li C (2005) Physiological responses to drought and shade in two contrasting Picea asperata populations. Physiol Plant 124:476–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dulamsuren C, Hauck M, Bader M, Oyungerel S, Osokhjargal D, Nyambayar S, Leuschner C (2009) The different strategies of Pinus sylvestris and Larix sibirica to deal with summer drought in a northern Mongolian forest–steppe ecotone suggest a future superiority of pine in a warming climate. Can J For Res 39:2520–2528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Enquist BJ, Kerkhoff AJ, Stark SC, Swenson NG, McCarthy MC, Price CA (2007) A general integrative model for scaling plant growth, carbon flux, and functional trait spectra. Nature 449:218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flexas J, Escalona JM, Evain S, Gulías J, Moya I, Osmond CB, Medrano H (2002) Steady-state chlorophyll fluorescence (Fs) measurements as a tool to follow variations of net CO2 assimilation and stomatal conductance during water-stress in C3 plants. Physiol Plant 114:231–240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Flexas J, Ribas-Carbo M, Diaz-Espejo A, Galmés J, Medrano H (2008) Mesophyll conductance to CO2: current knowledge and future prospects. Plant Cell Environ 31:602–621. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flexas J, Barbour MM, Brendel O, Cabrera HM, Carriquí M, Díaz-Espejo A, Gallé A (2012) Mesophyll diffusion conductance to CO2: an unappreciated central player in photosynthesis. Plant Sci 193:70–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flexas J, Diaz-Espejo A, Gago J, Gallé A, Galmés J, Gulías J, Medrano H (2014) Photosynthetic limitations in Mediterranean plants: a review. Environ Exp Bot 103:12–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Foyer CH, Neukermans J, Queval G, Noctor G, Harbinson J (2012) Photosynthetic control of electron transport and the regulation of gene expression. J Exp Bot 63:1637–1661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galiano L, Martínez-Vilalta J, Lloret F (2011) Carbon reserves and canopy defoliation determine the recovery of Scots pine 4 year after a drought episode. New Phytol 190:750–759. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garcia-Forner N, Sala A, Biel C, Savé R, Martínez-Vilalta J (2016) Individual traits as determinants of time to death under extreme drought in Pinus sylvestris L. Tree Physiol 36:1196–1209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Golding AJ, Johnson GN (2003) Down-regulation of linear and activation of cyclic electron transport during drought. Planta 218:107–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goltsev VN, Kalaji HM, Paunov M, Bąba W, Horaczek T, Mojski J, Kociel H, Allakhverdiev SI (2016) Variable chlorophyll fluorescence and its use for assessing physiological condition of plant photosynthetic apparatus. Russ J Plant Physiol 63:869–893. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. González L, González-Vilar M (2001) Determination of relative water content. In: Roger MJR (ed) Handbook of plant ecophysiology techniques, 1st edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 207–212. Google Scholar
  30. Grassi G, Magnani F (2005) Stomatal, mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis as affected by drought and leaf ontogeny in ash and oak trees. Plant Cell Environ 28:834–849. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gruber A, Pirkebner D, Oberhuber W, Wieser G (2011) Spatial and seasonal variations in mobile carbohydrates in Pinus cembra in the timberline ecotone of the Central Austrian Alps. Eur J For Res 130:173–179. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Gururani MA, Venkatesh J, Tran L-SP (2015) Regulation of photosynthesis during abiotic stress-induced photoinhibition. Mol Plant 8:1304–1320. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Handa S, Bressan RA, Handa AK, Carpita NC, Hasegawa PM (1983) Solutes contributing to osmotic adjustment in cultured plant cells adapted to water stress. Plant Physiol 73:834–843. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Hartmann H, Ziegler W, Trumbore S (2013) Lethal drought leads to reduction in nonstructural carbohydrates in Norway spruce tree roots but not in the canopy. Funct Ecol 27:413–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoch G, Richter A, Körner C (2003) Non-structural carbon compounds in temperate forest trees. Plant Cell Environ 26:1067–1081. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huang W, Fu P-L, Jiang Y-J, Zhang J-L, Zhang S-B, Hu H, Cao K-F (2013) Differences in the responses of photosystem I and photosystem II of three tree species Cleistanthus sumatranus, Celtis philippensis and Pistacia weinmannifolia exposed to a prolonged drought in a tropical limestone forest. Tree Physiol 33:211–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ivanov YV, Kartashov AV, Ivanova AI, Savochkin YV, Kuznetsov VV (2016) Effects of zinc on Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) seedlings grown in hydroculture. Plant Physiol Biochem 102:1–9. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ivanov YV, Zlobin IE, Kartashov AV, Pashkovskiy PP, Kuznetsov VV (2018) Scale of physiological processes sensitivity to PEG-induced water stress in Scots pine seedlings. Russ J Plant Physiol. Google Scholar
  39. Jia H, Oguchi R, Hope AB, Barber J, Chow WS (2008) Differential effects of severe water stress on linear and cyclic electron fluxes through Photosystem I in spinach leaf discs in CO2-enriched air. Planta 228:803–812. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones RW, Storey R (1978) Salt stress and comparative physiology in the Gramineae. II. Glycinebetaine and proline accumulation in two salt-and water-stressed barley cultivars. Funct Plant Biol 5:817–829. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kartashov AV, Pashkovskiy PP, Ivanov YV, Ivanova AI, Savochkin YV (2014) Morphogenesis of Norway spruce and Scots pine seedlings assimilating organs under the influence of red and blue LED light. Tomsk State Univ J Biol 25:167–182. Google Scholar
  42. Keunen ELS, Peshev D, Vangronsveld J, Van Den Ende WIM, Cuypers ANN (2013) Plant sugars are crucial players in the oxidative challenge during abiotic stress: extending the traditional concept. Plant Cell Environ 36:1242–1255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim JH, Kim SJ, Cho SH, Chow WS, Lee CH (2005) Photosystem I acceptor side limitation is a prerequisite for the reversible decrease in the maximum extent of P700 oxidation after short-term chilling in the light in four plant species with different chilling sensitivities. Physiol Plant 123:100–107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Klughammer C, Schreiber U (1994) Saturation pulse method for assessment of energy conversion in PS I. PAM Appl Notes 1:11–14Google Scholar
  45. Kono M, Noguchi K, Terashima I (2014) Roles of the cyclic electron flow around PSI (CEF-PSI) and O2-dependent alternative pathways in regulation of the photosynthetic electron flow in short-term fluctuating light in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell Physiol 55:990–1004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kramer DM, Johnson G, Kiirats O, Edwards GE (2004) New fluorescence parameters for the determination of QA redox state and excitation energy fluxes. Photosynth Res 79:209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krasensky J, Jonak C (2012) Drought, salt, and temperature stress-induced metabolic rearrangements and regulatory networks. J Exp Bot 63:1593–1608. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Kreslavskii VD, Carpentier R, Klimov VV, Murata N, Allakhverdiev SI (2007) Molecular mechanisms for photosynthetic apparatus resistance to stress. Biol Membr 24:195–217Google Scholar
  49. Kruger EL, Volin JC (2006) Reexamining the empirical relation between plant growth and leaf photosynthesis. Funct Plant Biol 33:421–429. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Li X, Schmid B, Wang F, Paine CT (2016) Net assimilation rate determines the growth rates of 14 species of subtropical forest trees. PloS ONE 11:e0150644. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Linkosalo T, Heikkinen J, Pulkkinen P, Mäkipää R (2014) Fluorescence measurements show stronger cold inhibition of photosynthetic light reactions in Scots pine compared to Norway spruce as well as during spring compared to autumn. Front Plant Sci 5:264. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Loewus FA, Murthy PP (2000) myo-Inositol metabolism in plants. Plant Sci 150:1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. López R, Aranda I, Gil L (2009) Osmotic adjustment is a significant mechanism of drought resistance in Pinus pinaster and Pinus canariensis. For Syst 18:159–166. Google Scholar
  54. Lu C, Zhang J (1999) Effects of water stress on photosystem II photochemistry and its thermostability in wheat plants. J Exp Bot 50:1199–1206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martı̀nez JP, Lutts S, Schanck A, Bajji M, Kinet JM (2004) Is osmotic adjustment required for water stress resistance in the Mediterranean shrub Atriplex halimus L? J Plant Physiol 161:1041–1051. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martínez-Vilalta J, Sala A, Asensio D, Galiano L, Hoch G, Palacio S, Piper FI, Lloret F (2016) Dynamics of non-structural carbohydrates in terrestrial plants: a global synthesis. Ecol Monogr 86:495–516. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McDonald AE, Ivanov AG, Bode R, Maxwell DP, Rodermel SR, Hüner NP (2011) Flexibility in photosynthetic electron transport: the physiological role of plastoquinol terminal oxidase (PTOX). BBA-Bioenergetics 1807:954–967. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McDowell NG (2011) Mechanisms linking drought, hydraulics, carbon metabolism, and vegetation mortality. Plant Physiol 155:1051–1059. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. McGarvey RC, Martin TA, White TL (2004) Integrating within-crown variation in net photosynthesis in loblolly and slash pine families. Tree Physiol 24:1209–1220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Miyake C, Miyata M, Shinzaki Y, Tomizawa KI (2005) CO2 response of cyclic electron flow around PSI (CEF-PSI) in tobacco leaves—relative electron fluxes through PSI and PSII determine the magnitude of non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) of Chl fluorescence. Plant Cell Physiol 46:629–637. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moya JL, Ros R, Picazo I (1993) Influence of cadmium and nickel on growth, net photosynthesis and carbohydrate distribution in rice plants. Photosynth Res 36:75–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Muller B, Pantin F, Génard M, Turc O, Freixes S, Piques M, Gibon Y (2011) Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs. J Exp Bot 62:1715–1729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Munekage Y, Hashimoto M, Miyake C, Tomizawa KI, Endo T, Tasaka M, Shikanai T (2004) Cyclic electron flow around photosystem I is essential for photosynthesis. Nature 429:579–582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Nguyen A, Lamant A (1988) Pinitol and myo-inositol accumulation in water-stressed seedlings of maritime pine. Phytochemistry 27:3423–3427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Niinemets Ü, Díaz-Espejo A, Flexas J, Galmés J, Warren CR (2009) Role of mesophyll diffusion conductance in constraining potential photosynthetic productivity in the field. J Exp Bot 60:2249–2270. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto H, Allakhverdiev SI, Inaba M, Yokota A, Murata N (2001) Oxidative stress inhibits the repair of photodamage to the photosynthetic machinery. EMBO J 20:5587–5594. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Oukarroum A, Schansker G, Strasser RJ (2009) Drought stress effects on photosystem I content and photosystem II thermotolerance analyzed using Chl a fluorescence kinetics in barley varieties differing in their drought tolerance. Physiol Plant 137:188–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Peltier G, Cournac L (2002) Chlororespiration. Ann Rev Plant Biol 53:523–550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Piper FI, Fajardo A, Hoch G (2017) Single-provenance mature conifers show higher non-structural carbohydrate storage and reduced growth in a drier location. Tree Physiol 37:1001–1010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pollastrini M, Holland V, Brüggemann W, Bussotti F (2016) Chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis in forests. Ann di Bot 6:23–37. Google Scholar
  71. Pravdin LF (1964) Sosna obyknovennaya. Izmenchivost’, vnutrividovaya sistematika i selekciya. Nauka, Moscow (In Russian) Google Scholar
  72. Pravdin LF (1975) El’ evropeyskaya i el’ sibirskaya v SSSR. Nauka, Moscow (In Russian) Google Scholar
  73. Quero JL, Villar R, Marañón T, Zamora R, Vega D, Sack L (2008) Relating leaf photosynthetic rate to whole-plant growth: drought and shade effects on seedlings of four Quercus species. Funct Plant Biol 35:725–737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schreiber U, Schliwa U, Bilger W (1986) Continuous recording of photochemical and non-photochemical chlorophyll fluorescence quenching with a new type of modulation fluorometer. Photosynth Res 10:51–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sevanto S, McDowell NG, Dickman LT, Pangle R, Pockman WT (2014) How do trees die? A test of the hydraulic failure and carbon starvation hypotheses. Plant Cell Environ 37:153–161. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shirao M, Kuroki S, Kaneko K, Kinjo Y, Tsuyama M, Förster B, Takahashi S, Badger MR (2013) Gymnosperms have increased capacity for electron leakage to oxygen (Mehler and PTOX reactions) in photosynthesis compared with angiosperms. Plant Cell Physiol 54:1152–1163. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Silvente S, Sobolev AP, Lara M (2012) Metabolite adjustments in drought tolerant and sensitive soybean genotypes in response to water stress. PLoS ONE 7:e38554. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. Sonoike K (2011) Photoinhibition of photosystem I. Physiol Plant 142:56–64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sulpice R, Pyl ET, Ishihara H, Trenkamp S, Steinfath M, Witucka-Wall H, Von Korff M (2009) Starch as a major integrator in the regulation of plant growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10348–10353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Urban L, Aarrouf J, Bidel LP (2017) Assessing the effects of water deficit on photosynthesis using parameters derived from measurements of leaf gas exchange and of chlorophyll a fluorescence. Front Plant Sci 8:2068. CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. Zivcak M, Brestic M, Balatova Z, Drevenakova P, Olsovska K, Kalaji HM, Yang X, Allakhverdiev SI (2013) Photosynthetic electron transport and specific photoprotective responses in wheat leaves under drought stress. Photosynth Res 117:529–546. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zlobin IE, Ivanov YV, Kartashov AV, Kuznetsov VV (2018) Impact of drought stress induced by polyethylene glycol on growth, water relations and cell viability of Norway spruce seedlings. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:8951–8962. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Timiryazev Institute of Plant PhysiologyRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institute of Basic Biological ProblemsRussian Academy of SciencesPushchinoRussia
  4. 4.Tomsk State UniversityTomskRussia

Personalised recommendations