Advertisement

Theoretical and Experimental Plant Physiology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 321–333 | Cite as

Is a reduction in stomatal conductance the main strategy of Garcinia brasiliensis (Clusiaceae) to deal with water stress?

  • Paula Romenya dos Santos Gouvêa
  • Ricardo Antonio Marenco
Article
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

A reduction in rainfall is predicted by climate models for some parts of the Amazon, and a decline in stomatal conductance (gs) is often the main effect of drought. The physiological effect of soil water deficit on other physiological traits has been little investigated in Amazonian trees. In this work we assess the effect of soil water deficit on leaf pigment content, gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence, total leaf area (AL), consumptive use of water (CUW, total amount of water used for irrigation), and biomass accumulation. Plants of Garcinia brasiliensis were grown in pots under greenhouse conditions and submitted to soil water deficit for 90 days, when several physiological parameters were measured. Water deficit was induced by reducing soil water content (SWC) to 25, 50 and 75% of field capacity (FC). The control was soil at 100% FC. Midday leaf water potential varied from − 0.72 MPa (SWC at 25% FC) to − 0.29 MPa in well-irrigated plants. Subjecting the plants to soil water deficit did not affect light saturating photosynthesis, leaf pigment content, Ribulose-1,5-biphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) activity or fluorescence parameters. Under moderate water stress Garcinia plants did not reduce stomatal conductance (gs) which remained rather unchanged. Instead, we found that mild water stress led to an increase in total non-structural carbohydrates, and as the stress progressed AL substantially declined, at a SWC of 25% FC. Drastic reduction of AL in plants exposed to SWC of 25% FC contributed to a reduction in total biomass accumulation, and a drop in AL resulted in a decline in CUW in this treatment. These results show that although there is no effect of moderated water stress on photosynthesis, gs or photochemical responses, there is a remarkable effect of moderate drought on biomass accumulation.

Keywords

Leaf water content Non-structural carbohydrates Rheedia brasiliensis Specific leaf area Total plant transpiration 

Abbreviations

AL

Total leaf area

Car

Carotenoids

Chl-a

Chlorophyll-a

Chl-b

Chlorophyll-b

Ci

Intercellular CO2 concentration

Ca

CO2 concentration in the leaf chamber

CUW

Consumptive use of water

Ei

Transpiration (instantaneous)

EP

Total plant transpiration per unit area

ETR

Electron transport rate

FC

Field capacity

Fm

Maximum Chl fluorescence of a dark-adapted leaf

F′m

Maximum Chl fluorescence of an illuminated leaf

Fs

Steady-state fluorescence

LWC

Leaf water content

gs

Stomatal conductance

H

Plant height

Jmax

Maximum electron transport rate

Kc

Michaelis constant of Rubisco for carboxylation

Kc

Michaelis constant of Rubisco for oxygenation

NL

Leaf number (per plant)

NPQ

Non-photochemical quenching

NSC

Non-structural carbohydrates

PAR

Photosynthetically active radiation

PN

Net photosynthetic rate

PNmax

Light and CO2 saturated photosynthesis

PNmax-mass

PNmax on a mass basis

PNsat

Light saturated photosynthesis

PNsat-mass

PNsat on a mass basis

Rd

Leaf respiration (in the dark)

RH

Relative humidity

SL

Leaf size

SLA

Specific leaf area

SRR

Shoot/root ratio

SWC

Soil water content (%, w/w)

TNC

Total non-structural carbohydrates

Vcmax

Maximum carboxylation rate of Rubisco

WL

Leaf biomass

WR

Root biomass

WS

Stem biomass

WT

Total biomass

WUEi

Instantaneous water-use efficiency

WUEP

Whole-plant water-use efficiency

Γ*

CO2 compensation point in the absence of mitochondrial respiration

ΨL

Leaf water potential

ФPSII

Effective quantum yield of photosystem II

Notes

Acknowledgements

To the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations and Communications (MCTIC/INPA PRJ 15.120), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, CNPq (fellowship to RAM) and FAPEAM for scholarship to PRSG. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author contributions

PRSG collected gas exchange data, performed laboratory analyses and made the calculations; RAM planned and supervised the experiment, and wrote the article with contributions of the first author.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute for Research in the Amazon (MCTIC/INPA PRJ 15.120) and CNPq.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40626_2018_127_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. Asada K (2006) Production and scavenging of reactive oxygen species in chloroplasts and their functions. Plant Physiol 141:391–396CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Asner GP, Brodrick PG, Anderson CB, Vaughn N, Knapp DE, Martin RE (2016) Progressive forest canopy water loss during the 2012–2015 California drought. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 113:E249–E255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Björkman O, Demmig B (1987) Photon yield of O2 evolution and chlorophyll fluorescence characteristics at 77 K among vascular plants of diverse origins. Planta 170:489–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Black CC (1973) Photosynthetic carbon fixation in relation to net CO2 uptake. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 24:253–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum A (2017) Osmotic adjustment is a prime drought stress adaptive engine in support of plant production. Plant Cell Environ 40:4–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyer JS (1976) Photosynthesis at low water potentials. Phil. Trans R Soc Lond B 273:501–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradford KJ, Hsiao TC (1982) Physiological responses to moderate water stress. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Physiological plant ecology Water relation and carbon assimilation. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–324Google Scholar
  8. Choudhury FK, Rivero RM, Blumwald E, Mittler R (2017) Reactive oxygen species, abiotic stress and stress combination. Plant J 90:856–867CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornic G (2000) Drought stress inhibits photosynthesis by decreasing stomatal aperture–not by affecting ATP synthesis. Trends Plant Sci 5:187–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornic G, Ghashghaie GCJ, Genty B, Briantais JM (1992) Leaf photosynthesis is resistant to a mild drought stress. Photosynthetica 27:295–309Google Scholar
  11. Duffy PB, Brando P, Asner GP, Field CB (2015) Projections of future meteorological drought and wet periods in the Amazon. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:13172–13177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Farquhar GD, Sharkey TD (1982) Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 33:317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Farquhar GD, Von Caemmerer S, Berry JA (1980) A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149:78–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flexas J, Gallé A, Galmés J, Ribas-Carbo M, Medrano H (2012) The response of photosynthesis to soil water stress. In: Aroca R (ed) Plant responses to drought stress. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Genty B, Briantais JM, Baker NR (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Bioch Biophys Act 990:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibon Y, Sulpice R, Larher F (2000) Proline accumulation in canola leaf discs subjected to osmotic stress is related to the loss of chlorophylls and to the decrease of mitochondrial activity. Physiol Plant 110:469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grace J (2016) The Amazon carbon balance: an evaluation of methods and results. In: Nagy L, Forsberg BR, Artaxo P (eds) Interactions between biosphere, atmosphere and human land use in the Amazon Basin. Springer, Berlin, pp 79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendry GAF, Price AH (1993) Stress indicators: chlorophylls and carotenoids. In: Hendry GA, Grime JP (eds) Methods in comparative plant ecology: a laboratory manual. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsiao TC, Acevedo E, Fereres E, Henderson DW (1976) Water stress, growth and osmotic adjustment. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 273:479–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huang W, Cai YF, Wang JH, Zhang SB (2018) Chloroplastic ATP synthase plays an important role in the regulation of proton motive force in fluctuating light. J Plant Physiol 226:40–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lawlor DW (2002) Limitation to photosynthesis in water-stressed leaves: stomata vs. metabolism and the role of ATP. Ann Bot 89:871–885CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawlor DW, Cornic G (2002) Photosynthetic carbon assimilation and associated metabolism in relation to water deficits in higher plants. Plant Cell Environ 25:275–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lim PO, Kim HJ, Gil Nam H (2007) Leaf senescence. Annu Rev Plant Biol 58:115–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Liu C, Wang Y, Jin Y et al (2017) Photoprotection regulated by phosphorus application can improve photosynthetic performance and alleviate oxidative damage in dwarf bamboo subjected to water stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 118:88–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Malgat R, Faure F, Boudaoud A (2016) A mechanical model to interpret cell-scale indentation experiments on plant tissues in terms of cell wall elasticity and turgor pressure. Front Plant Sci 7:1351.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01351 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Marenco RA, Vieira G (2005) Specific leaf area and photosynthetic parameters of tree species in the forest understorey as a function of the microsite light environment in central Amazonia. J Trop For Sci 17:265–278Google Scholar
  27. Marenco RA, Nascimento HCS, Magalhães NDS (2014) Stomatal conductance in Amazonian tree saplings in response to variations in the physical environment. Photosynthetica 52:493–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marenco RA, Camargo MAB, Antezana-Vera AS, Oliveira MF (2017) Leaf trait plasticity in six forest tree species of central Amazonia. Photosynthetica 55:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martins FT, Doriguetto AC, Souza TC, Souza KR, Santos MH, Moreira ME, Barbosa LC (2008) Composition, and anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities of the volatile oil from the fruit peel of Garcinia brasiliensis. Chem Biodiver 5:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000) Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. J Exp Bot 51:659–668CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Muller B, Bourdais G, Reidy B, Bencivenni C, Massonneau A et al (2007) Association of specific expansins with growth in maize leaves is maintained under environmental, genetic, and developmental sources of variation. Plant Physiol 143:278–290CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Ögren E, Öquist G (1985) Effects of drought on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and photoinhibition susceptibility in intact willow leaves. Planta 166:380–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Ohashi Y, Nakayama N, Saneoka H, Fujita K (2006) Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence and stem diameter of soybean plants. Biol Plant 50:138–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oliveira MF, Marenco RA (2019) Photosynthesis and biomass accumulation in Carapa surinamensis (Meliaceae) in response to water stress at ambient and elevated CO2. Photosynthetica (in press)Google Scholar
  35. OsakabeY Osakabe K, Shinozaki K, Tran LSP (2014) Response of plants to water stress. Front Plant Sci 5:86.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00086 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palhares D, Franco AC, Zaidan LBP (2010) Respostas fotossintéticas de plantas do cerrado nas estações seca e chuvosa. Rev Bras Biocien 8:213–220Google Scholar
  37. Peeva V, Cornic G (2009) Leaf photosynthesis of Haberlea rhodopensis before and during drought. Environ Exp Bot 65:310–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pereira IO, Marques MJ, Pavan ALR, Codonho BS et al (2010) Leishmanicidal activity of benzophenones and extracts from Garcinia brasiliensis Mart. fruits. Phytomedicine 17:339–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Pinnola A, Bassi R (2018) Molecular mechanisms involved in plant photoprotection. Biochem Soc Trans 46:467–482.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20170307 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Pospíšil P (2016) Production of reactive oxygen species by photosystem II as a response to light and temperature stress. Front Plant Sci 7:1950.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01950 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Ranzani G (1980) Identificação e caracterização de alguns solos da Estação Experimental de Silvicultura Tropical do INPA. Acta Amazon 10:7–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sablowski R (2016) Coordination of plant cell growth and division: collective control or mutual agreement? Curr Opin Plant Biol 34:54–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Sayed OH (2001) Crassulacean acid metabolism 1975–2000, a check list. Photosynthetica 39:339–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sharkey TD, Seemann JR (1989) Mild water stress effects on carbon-reduction-cycle intermediates, ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase activity, and spatial homogeneity of photosynthesis in intact leaves. Plant Physiol 89:1060–1065CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Tardieu F, Simonneau T, Parent B (2015) Modelling the coordination of the controls of stomatal aperture, transpiration, leaf growth, and abscisic acid: update and extension of the Tardieu–Davies model. J Exp Bot 66:2227–2237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Tezara W, Mitchell VJ, Driscoll SD, Lawlor DW (1999) Water stress inhibits plant photosynthesis by decreasing coupling factor and ATP. Nature 401:914–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Watanabe S, Kojima K, Ide Y, Sasaki S (2000) Effects of saline and osmotic stress on proline and sugar accumulation in Populus euphratica in vitro. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 63:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yamori W, Takahashi S, Makino A, Price GD, Badger MR, von Caemmerer S (2011) The roles of ATP synthase and the cytochrome b6/f complexes in limiting chloroplast electron transport and determining photosynthetic capacity. Plant Physiol 155:956–962CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Zamora-Briseño JA, Reyes-Hernández SJ, Zapata LCR (2018) Does water stress promote the proteome-wide adjustment of intrinsically disordered proteins in plants? Cell Stress Chap.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12192-018-0918-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhou S, Duursma RA, Medlyn BE, Kelly JW, Prentice IC (2013) How should we model plant responses to drought? An analysis of stomatal and non-stomatal responses to water stress. Agric For Meteorol 182:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Brazilian Society of Plant Physiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tropic Humid Agriculture Graduate ProgramNational Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA)ManausBrazil
  2. 2.Coordination of Environmental DynamicNational Institute for Research in the Amazon (INPA)ManausBrazil

Personalised recommendations