New Forests

, Volume 43, Issue 5–6, pp 791–804 | Cite as

Growth, survival, and genetic variability of Austrian pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) seedlings in response to water deficit

  • Milan Mataruga
  • Diane Haase
  • Vasilije Isajev
  • Saša Orlović


Drought is one of the crucial factors limiting plant growth and is expected to become even more limiting in many regions as the effects of climate change increase. Knowledge of genetic adaptation to environmental factors can help develop strategies for successful reforestation in arid terrain. In this study, Austrian pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) seedlings grown from seed collected from 40 open-pollinated families from five Balkan Peninsula provenances were evaluated for survival and growth under imposed drought. Within each provenance, seed was collected from an extremely harsh habitat and from a favorable habitat. One-year-old seedlings, from each provenance, habitat type and open pollinated family were transplanted into three “stressbeds”, each designed to simulate different levels of water availability by filling with varying ratios of crushed stone and soil. Seedling height growth and survival were recorded every 20–30 days from April–September. In all provenances, seedlings grown from seed originating from the harsh habitats had lower survival regardless of stressbed treatment compared to those grown from seed collected from favorable habitats, with the exception of one population from the Višegrad provenance which had high survival rates throughout. Overall height growth was very low and did not follow consistent patterns among treatment groups. Cluster analyses of survival data showed that populations from a similar habitat generally grouped together, regardless of provenance. The lowest and highest survival values were found in seedlings from harsh habitats, while those from the favorable habitats clustered in the mid-range. These results suggest that higher seed quality from productive stands may be the most influential factor determining seedling vigor under drought stress and that genetic adaptation to drought was not detected in adjacent populations having different habitat conditions.


Water deficit Survival Seedlings Austrian pine 


  1. Abrams MD (1988) Genetic variation in leaf morphology and plant and tissue water relations during drought in Cercis canadensis L. For Sci 34(1):200–207Google Scholar
  2. Abrams MD, Kubiske ME, Steiner KC (1990) Drought adaptations and responses in five genotypes of Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.: photosynthesis, water relations and leaf morphology. Tree Physiol 6:305–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilan MV, Hogan CT, Carter HB (1977) Stomatal opening, transpiration and needle moisture in loblolly pine seedlings from two Texas sources. For Sci 23:457–462Google Scholar
  4. Blake TJ, Yeatman CW (1989) Water relations, gas exchange and early growth rates of outcrossed and selfed Pinus banksiana families. Can J Bot 67:1618–1623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borghetti M, Cinnirella S, Magnani F, Saracino A (1998) Impact of long term drought on xylem embolism and growth in Pinus halepensis. Trees Struct Funct 12:187–195Google Scholar
  6. Burdett AN (1990) Physiological processes in plantation establishment and the development of specifications for forest planting stock. Can J For Res 20(4):415–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen CW, Tsai WT, Gomez LE (1994) Modeling responses of ponderosa pine to interacting stresses of ozone and drought. For Sci 40(2):267–288Google Scholar
  8. Choi SH (1992) Variation in water potential components among half-sib families of shortleaf pine (Pinuse chinata) in response to soil drought. Can J For Res 22(1):111–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa P, Bahrman N, Frigerio JM, Kremer A, Plomion C (1998) Water-deficit responsive proteins in Maritime pine. Plant Mol Biol 39:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cregg BM (1994) Carbon allocation, gas exchange and needle morphology of Pinus ponderosa genotypes known to differ in growth and survival under imposed drought. Tree Physiol 14:883–898PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cregg BM (2004) Improving drought tolerance of trees: theoretical and practical considerations. In: Fernandes T, Davidson CG (eds) Proceedings of the XXVI IHC-Nursery Crops, Can Int Dev Agency, p 147Google Scholar
  12. Cregg BM, Zhang JW (2001) Physiology and morphology of Pinus sylvestris seed sources from diverse sources under cyclic drought stress. For Ecol Manag 154:131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cregg BM, Olivas-García JM, Hennessey TC (2000) Provenance variation in carbon isotope discrimination of mature ponderosa pine trees at two locations in the Great Plains. Can J For Res 30:428–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubos C, Plomion C (2001) Drought differentially affects expression of a PR-10 protein, in needles of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). J Exp Bot 358:1143–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dubos C, Plomion C (2003) Identification of water-deficit responsive genes in maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.) roots. Plant Mol Biol 51(2):249–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubos C, Le Provost G, Pot D, Salin F, Lalane C, Madur D, Frigerio J-M, Plomion C (2003) Identification and characterization of water-stress-responsive genes in hydroponically grown maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) seedlings. Tree Physiol 23(3):169–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Džamić R, Stikić R, Nikolić M, Jovanović Z (1999) Fiziologija biljaka—praktikum. Naučna Knjiga. Poljoprivredni fakultet, Beograd, pp 24–138. (eng—Plant Physiology-Lab. Scientific Book. Faculty of Agriculture, Belgrade, pp 24–138)Google Scholar
  18. Elfeel AA, Al-Namo ML (2011) Effect of imposed drought on seedling growth, water use efficiency and survival of three arid zone species (Acacia tortilis subsp raddiana, Salvadora persica and Leptadenia pyrotechnica). Agric Biol J N Am 2(3):493–498Google Scholar
  19. Fan S, Grossnickle SC, Russell JH (2008) Morphological and physiological variation in western redcedar (Thuja plicata) populations under contrasting soil water conditions. Trees Struct Funct 22:671–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, Fujita D, Basra SMA (2009) Plant drought stress: effects, mechanism and management. Agron Sustain Dev 29:185–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fernández M, Gil L, Pardos J (1999) Response of Pinus pinaster Ait. provenances at early age to water supply. I. Water relation parameters. Ann For Sci 56(2):179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garau AM, Lemcoff JH, Ghersa CM, Beadle CL (2008) Water stress tolerance in Eucalyptus globulus Labill. subsp. Maidenii (G.Muell.) saplings induced by water restrictions imposed by weeds. For Ecol Manag 255:2811–2819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gibelin AL, Déqué M (2003) Anthropogenic climate change over the Mediterranean region simulated by a global variable resolution model. Clim Dynam 20:327–339Google Scholar
  24. Grossnickle SC, Russell JH (2010) Physiological variation among western redcedar (Thuja plicata Donn ex D. Don) populations in response to short-term drought. Ann For Sci 67:506–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grossnickle SC, Fan S, Russell JH (2005) Variation in gas exchange and water use efficiency patterns among populations of western redcedar. Trees Struct Funct 19:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guehl JM, Clement A, Kaushal P, Aussenac G (1993) Planting stress, water status and non-structural carbohydrate concentrations in Corsican pine seedlings. Tree Physiol 12:173–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. He C, Zhang J, Duan A, Zheng S, Sun H, Fu L (2008) Proteins responding to drought and high-temperature stress in Populus × euramericana cv. ‘74/76’. Trees Struct Funct 22(6):803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heth D, Kramer PJ (1975) Drought tolerance of pine seedlings under various climatic conditions. For Sci 21:72–82Google Scholar
  29. IPCC (2007) Climate change, fourth assessment report. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 18:393–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson D, McCulloh K, Reinhardt K (2011) The earliest stages of tree growth: development, physiology and impacts of microclimate. Tree Physiol 4(2):65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones MM, Turner NC, Osmond CB (1981) Mechanisms of drought resistance. In: Paleg LG, Aspinall D (eds) Physiology and biochemistry of drought resistance in plants. Academic Press, Sydney, p 15Google Scholar
  33. Margolis HA, Brand DG (1990) An ecophysiological basis for understanding plantation establishment. Can J For Res 20(4):375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin-Benito D, Kint V, del Rio M, Muys B, Canellas I (2011) Growth responses of West-Mediterranean Pinus nigra to climate change are modulated by competition and productivity: past trends and future perspectives. Forest Ecol Manag 262:1030–1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mataruga M (2006) Austrian pine growing on the rocks—its variability and various possibilities of its use. University of Banja Luka, Banja LukaGoogle Scholar
  36. Mataruga M, Haase D, Isajev V (2010) Dynamics of seed imbibition and germination of Austrian pine (Pinus nigra Arnold) from extreme habitat conditions within five Balkan provenances. New For 40:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Olivas-García JM, Cregg BM, Hennessey TC (2000) Genotypic variation in carbon isotope discrimination and gas exchange of ponderosa pine seedlings under two levels of water stress. Can J For Res 30:1581–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Otorepec S (1991) Agrometeorologija, Naučna knjiga Beograd, pp 222. (eng—Agrometeorology, Scientific book, Belgrade, pp 222)Google Scholar
  39. Pausas JG, Bladé C, Valdecantos A, Seva JP, Fuentes D, Alloza JA, Vilagrosa A, Bautista S, Cortina J, Vallejo R (2004) Pines and oaks in the restoration of Mediterranean landscapes of Spain: new perspectives for an old practice—a review. Plant Ecol 171(1–2):209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raev I, Rosnev B (2004) Drought impacts on managed forests. In: CG Knight, I Raev, MP Staneva (eds) Drought in Bulgaria: a contemporary analog for climate change. Printed by Ashgote studie in environmental policy and practice, pp 145–150Google Scholar
  41. Rao PB, Kaur A, Tewari A (2008) Drought resistance in seedlings of five important tree species in Tarai region of Uttarakhand. Trop Ecol 49(1):43–52Google Scholar
  42. Šolaja M, Topalić LJ (1998) Praktikum za biologiju. Banja Luka. pp 13–17 (eng Practicum in Biology. Banja Luka, pp 13–17)Google Scholar
  43. Teskey RO, Bongarten BC, Cregg BM, Dougherty PM, Hennessey TC (1987) Physiology and genetics of tree growth in response to moisture and temperature stress: an examination of the characteristics of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Physiol 3:41–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Tognetti R, Michelozzi M, Giovannelli A (1997) Geographical variation in water relations, hydraulic architecture and terpene composition of Aleppo pine seedlings from Italian provenances. Tree Physiol 17:241–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Buijtenen JP, Bilan MV, Zimmerman RH (1976) Morpho-physiological characteristics related to drought resistance in Pinus taeda. In: Cannell MGR, Last FT (eds) Tree physiology and yield improvement. Academic Press, New York, pp 349–359Google Scholar
  46. Woeste EK, Jacobs DF, McKenna JR (2011) Half-sib seed source and nursery sowing density affect black walnut (Juglans nigra) growth after 5 years. New For 41:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang JW, Feng Z, Cregg BM, Schumann CM (1997) Carbon isotopic composition, gas exchange, and growth of three populations of ponderosa pine differing in drought tolerance. Tree Physiol 7:461–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zlatanov T, Velichkov I, Lexer JM, Dubravec T (2010) Regeneration dynamics in aging black pine (Pinus nigra Arn.) plantations on the south slopes of the Middle Balkan Range in Bulgaria. New For 40(3):289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milan Mataruga
    • 1
  • Diane Haase
    • 2
  • Vasilije Isajev
    • 3
  • Saša Orlović
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of ForestryUniversity of Banja LukaBanja LukaBosnia and Herzegovina
  2. 2.USDA Forest ServicePortlandUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of ForestryUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  4. 4.Institute of Lowland Forestry and EnvironmentUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations