Differences in physiological and biochemical responses to summer drought of Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana and Pinus brutia in a natural mixed stand

  • Ayşe DeligözEmail author
  • Fatma Gökçe Cankara
Original Paper


Understanding how tree species respond to drought in their natural environment is needed to predict forest adaptation and management practices under global environmental changes. This study was carried out to determine and compare physiological and biochemical responses to variations in environmental conditions during summer drought of mixed natural stands of Pinus nigra Arn. subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe and Pinus brutia Ten. Midday xylem water potential (Ψmd), water relations, photosynthetic pigments, total soluble sugar and proline contents were investigated during the growing season. Ψmd followed a similar seasonal trend in both species but P. nigra subsp. pallasiana had higher Ψmd than P. brutia. The Ψmd gradually decreased from June, reached its lowest value in August, and then increased again. Gradual decreases in the osmotic potential at turgor loss point (ΨпTLP) were observed during the summer. Generally, ΨпTLP was lower in P. brutia. Total soluble sugars decreased from April to June for P. brutia, then increased and stayed relatively constant August to October. Similar changes were found at lower values in P. nigra subsp. pallasiana. Prolin accumulation and photosynthetic pigments were higher in P. brutia. The results indicate that physiological and biochemical responses of both species against changing environmental conditions were in different degrees but followed similar trends. P. nigra subsp. pallasiana is more sensitive to summer drought than P. brutia in their natural environment.


Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana Pinus brutia Osmotic potential Photosynthetic pigments Soluble sugars Proline Summer drought 


  1. Arnon DI (1949) Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiol 24(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atalay İ, Efe R (2012) Ecological attributes and distribution of Anatolian black pine [Pinus nigra Arnold. subsp. pallasiana Lamb. Holmboe] in Turkey. J Environ Biol 33:509–519Google Scholar
  3. Bandurska H, Plachta M, Woszczyk M (2009) Seasonal patterns of free proline and carbohydrate levels in cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) and ivy (Hederea helix) leaves and resistance to freezing and water deficit. Dendrobiology 62:3–9Google Scholar
  4. Bansal S, Germino MJ (2009) Temporal variation of nonstructural carbohydrates in montane conifers: similarities and differences among developmental stages, species and environmental conditions. Tree Physiol 29:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbaroux C, Bréda N, Dufrêne E (2003) Distribution of above-ground and below-ground carbohydrate reserves in adult trees of two contrasting broad-leaved species (Quercus petraea and Fagus sylvatica). New Phytol 157(3):605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Basu S, Ramegowda V, Kumar A, Pereira A (2016) Plant adaptation to drought stress. Research 1554:1–10Google Scholar
  7. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blum A (2017) Osmotic adjustment is a prime drought stress adaptive engine in support of plant production. Plant Cell Environ 40:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boscaiu M, Mora E, Fola O, Scridon S, Llinares J, Vicente O (2009) Osmolyte accumulation in xerophytes as a response to environmental stress. Bull UASVM Hortic 66(1):96–102Google Scholar
  10. Bucci SJ, Scholz FG, Goldstein G, Meinzer FC, Franco AC, Zhang Y, Hao G (2008) Water relations and hydraulic architecture in cerrado trees: adjustments to seasonal changes in water availability and evaporative demand. Braz J Plant Physiol 20(3):233–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buras A, Schunk C, Zeiträg C, Herrmann C, Kaiser L, Lemme H, Straub C, Taeger S, Gößwein S, Klemmt H, Menzel A (2018) Are Scots pine forest edges particularly prone to drought-induced mortality? Environ Res Lett 13:025001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Çolak AH, Odabaşı T (2004) Silvikültürel Planlama. Istanbul University, Istanbul (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  13. Daoudi H, Derridj A, Hannachi L, Mevy JP (2016) Growth, ectomycorrhization and biochemical parameters of Quercus suber L. seedlings under drought conditions. Afr J Biotechnol 15(38):2082–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deligöz A (2011) Seasonal changes in the physiological characteristics of Anatolian black pine and the effect on seedling quality. Turk J Agric For 35:23–30Google Scholar
  15. Deligöz A, Bayar E (2017) Variations in physiological and biochemical traits of drought-stressed Quercus cerris seedlings. Turk J For 18(4):269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deligoz A, Gur M (2015) Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses to drought stress of Stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) seedlings. Acta Physiol Plant 37:243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA, Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for the determination of sugars and related substances. Ann Chem 28(3):350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elvira S, Alonso R, Castillo FJ, Gimeno BS (1998) On the response of pigments and antioxidants of Pinus halepensis seedlings to mediterranean climatic factors and long-term ozone exposure. New Phytol 138:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra SMA (2009) Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management. Agron Sustain Dev 29(1):185–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao DH, Gao Q, Xu HY, Ma F, Zhao CM, Liu JQ (2009) Physiological responses to gradual drought stress in the diploid hybrid Pinus densata and its two parental species. Trees 23(4):717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 130:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hatfield JL, Prueger JH (2015) Temperature extremes: Effect on plant growth and development. Weather Clim Extreme 10:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hernández EI, Vilagrosa A, Pausas JG, Bellot J (2010) Morphological traits and water use strategies in seedlings of Mediterranean coexisting species. Plant Ecol 207:233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hyyryläinen A, Rautio P, Turunen M, Huttunen S (2015) Seasonal and inter-annual variation in the chlorophyll content of three co-existing sphagnum species exceeds the effect of solar UV reduction in a subarctic peatland. Springer Plus 4(1):478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaiswal A, Singh NK, Shekhawat GS, Aktar M, Jaiswal JP (2010) Proline biosynthesis and accumulation in plants: a review. ITAS 2(4):651–660Google Scholar
  26. Kancheva R, Borisova D, Georgiev G (2014) Chlorophyll assessment and stress detection from vegetation optical properties. Ecol Eng Environ Prot 1:34–43Google Scholar
  27. Kandemir G, Önde S, Temel F, Kaya Z (2017) Population variation in drought resistance and its relationship with adaptive and physiological seedling traits in Turkish red pine (Pinus brutia Ten.). Turk J Biol 41:256–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Major JE, Johnsen KH (1999) Shoot water relations of mature black spruce families displaying a genotype x environment ınteraction in growth rate. II. Temporal trends and response to varying soil water conditions. Tree Physiol 19:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mandre M, Tullus H, Klošeiko J (2002) Partitioning of carbohydrates and biomass of needles in scots pine canopy. Z Naturforsch 57:296–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merchant A, Arndt SK, Rowell DM, Posch S, Callister A, Tausz M, Mark Adams A (2010) Seasonal changes in carbohydrates, cyclitols, and water relations of 3 field grown Eucalyptus species from contrasting taxonomy on a common site. Ann For Sci 67(1):104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mildrexler D, Yang Z, Cohen WB, Bell DM (2016) A forest vulnerability index based on drought and high temperatures. Proc SPIE 173:314–325Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell PJ, Veneklaas EJ, Lambers H, Burgess SSO (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 31:1791–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Naor A (2000) Midday stem water potenial as a plant water stress ındicator for ırrigation scheduling in fruit trees. Acta Hortic 537:447–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oleksyn J, Zytkowiak R, Karolewski P, Reich PB, Tjoelker MG (2000) Genetic and environmental control of seasonal carbohydrate dynamics in trees of diverse Pinus sylvestris populations. Tree Physiol 20:837–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pardos M, Jıménez MD, Aranda I, Puértolas J, Pardos JA (2005) Water relations of cork oak (Quercus suber L.) seedlings in response to shading and moderate drought. Ann For Sci 62:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parker WC, Pallardy SG (1988) Leaf and root osmotic adjustment in drought-stressed Quercus alba, Q. macrocarpa, and Q. stellata seedlings. Can J For Res 18(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raftoyannis Y, Radoglou K (2002) Physiological responses of beech and sessile oak in a natural mixed stand during a dry summer. Ann Bot 89:723–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Regier N, Streb S, Zeeman SC, Frey B (2010) Seasonal changes in starch and sugar content of poplar (Populus deltoides × nigra cv. Dorskamp) and the impact of stem girdling on carbohydrate allocation to roots. Tree Physiol 30:979–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ritchie GA (1984) Assessing seedling quality. In: Duryea ML, Thomas DL (eds) Forest nursery manual: production of bareroot seedlings. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W Junk, Hague, pp 243–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sala A, Piper F, Hoch G (2010) Physiological mechanisms of drought-induced tree mortality are far from being resolved. New Phytol 186:274–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sauceda JU, Rodriguez HG, Lozano RR, Silva IC, Meza MG, Larga L (2008) Seasonal trends of chlorophylls a and b carotenoids in native trees and shrubs of Northeastern Mexico. J Biol Sci 8(2):258–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sheikh AQ, Pandit AK, Ganai BA (2017) Seasonal variation in chlorophyll content of some selected plant species of Yousmarg grassland ecosystem. Asian J Plant Sci Res 7(2):33–36Google Scholar
  43. Solomou AD, Proutsos ND, Karetsos G, Tsagari K (2017) Effects of climate change on vegetation in Mediterranean forests: a review. Int J Environ Agric Biotech 2:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tognetti R, Raschi A, Jones MB (2000) Seasonal patterns of tissue water relations in three Mediterranean shrubs co-occurring at a natural CO2 spring. Plant Cell Environ 23:1341–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tyree MT, Hammel HT (1972) The measurement of the turgor pressure and the water relations of plants by the pressure-bomb technique. J Exp Bot 23:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Viljevac M, Dugalić K, Mihaljević I, Šimić D, Sudar R, Jurković Z, Lepeduš H (2013) Chlorophyll content, photosynthetic efficiency and genetic markers in two sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) genotypes under drought stress. Acta Bot Croat 72(2):221–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. White AD, Turner CN, Galbraith HJ (2000) Leaf water relations and stomal behavior of four allopatric Eucalyptus species planted in Mediterranean southwestern Australia. Tree Physiol 20:1157–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zhang JX, Nguyen HT, Blum A (1999) Genetic analysis of osmotic adjustment in crop plants. J Exp Bot 50(332):291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zolfaghar S, Villalobos-Vega R, Cleverly J, Eamus D (2015) Co-ordination among leaf water relations and xylem vulnerability to embolism of Eucalyptus trees growing along a depth-to-groundwater gradient. Tree Physiol 35:732–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryIsparta University of Applied SciencesIspartaTurkey

Personalised recommendations