Advertisement

Russian Journal of Ecology

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 422–427 | Cite as

Drought Stress in Four Subalpine Species: Gas Exchange Response and Survivorship

  • S. M. Anev
  • N. P. Tzvetkova
Article
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

An assessment of adaptability of saplings of four evergreen species (Picea abies Karst., Pinus mugo Turra, Pinus peuce Grisb. and Pinus heldreichii H. Christ.), native for Bulgarian treeline zone, was made on the basis of leaf gas exchange and survivability in artificially induced drought stress. The established low sensitivity of gas exchange to summer drought and the highest mortality of P. abies may be regarded as an evidence for a narrow zone of tolerance. P. peuce and P. heldreichii have low survivorship under drought conditions, regardless of the variable effect of soil moisture on the gas exchange parameters. The better survivability and significant reduction of gas exchange in response to soil water deficit of P. mugo probably will give him an advantage in future adaptation to climate change and in competition with other subalpine species. We conclude that the expected trends in climate change will most likely lead to a further narrowing of the ecological and physiological comfortable zone for two investigated endemic species.

Keywords

drought saplings survivorship photosynthesis transpiration 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pachauri, R.K., Allen, M.R., Barros, V.R., Broome, J., et al., Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, 2014.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ditmarova, L., Kurjak, D., Palmroth, S., Kmet, J., et al., Physiological responses of Norway spruce (Picea abies) seedlings to drought stress, Tree Physiol., 2010, vol. 30, pp. pp. 205–213.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson, J.E. and McNaughton, S.J., Effects of low soil temperature on transpiration, photosynthesis, leaf relative water content, and growth among elevationally diverse plant populations, Ecology, 1973, vol. 54, pp. 1220–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chapin, F.S., The mineral nutrition of wild plants, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 1980, vol. 11, pp. 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davies, W.J., Root signals and the regulation of growth and development of plants in drying soil, Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 1991, vol. 42, pp. 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornic, G. and Massacci, A., Leaf photosynthesis under drought stress, in Photosynthesis and the Environment, Baker, N.R., Ed., Dordrecht, 1996, pp. 347–366.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bréda, N., Huc, R., Granier, A., and Dreyer, E., Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: A review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences, Ann. For. Sci., 2006, vol. 63, pp. 625–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindner, M., Maroschek, M., Netherer, S., Kremer, A., et al., Climate change impacts, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability of European forest ecosystems, For. Ecol. Manag., 2010, vol. 259, pp. 698–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Allen, C.D., Macalady, A.K., Chenchouni, H., Bachelet, D., et al., A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests, For. Ecol. Manag., 2010, vol. 259, pp. 660–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Minďáš, J., Čaboun, V., and Priwitzer, T. Timber line and expected climate changes, in Zborník Turiec a Fatra, Kadlečík, J., Ed., Vrútky, Slovakia: ŠOP SR, pp. 17–23.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vacek, S., Hejcmanová, P., Hejcman, M., and Vacek, Z., Growth, healthy status and seed production of differently aged allochthonous and autochthonous Pinus mugo stands in the Giant Mts. over 30 years, Eur. J. For. Res., 2013, vol. 132, pp. 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Švajda J., Solár, J., Janiga, M., and Buliak, M., Dwarf pine (Pinus mugo) and selected abiotic habitat condi-tions in the Western Tatra Mountains, Mt. Res. Dev., 2011, vol. 31, pp. 220–228.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meshinev, T., Apostolova, I., and Koleva, E., Influence of warming on timberline rising: A case study on Pinus peuce Griseb. in Bulgaria, Phytocoenologia, 2000, vol. 30, pp. 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shelford, V.E., Some concepts of bioecology, Ecology, 1931, vol. 12, pp. 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schulze, E.D., Beck, E., and Müller-Hohenstein, K., Plant Ecology, Springer, 2005.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abramoff, M.D., Image processing with ImageJ, Biophotonics Int., 2004, vol. 11, pp. 36–42.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Solberg, S., Summer drought: A driver for crown condition and mortality of Norway spruce in Norway, For. Pathol., 2004, vol. 34, pp. 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Monson, R.K., Turnipseed, A.A., Sparks, J.P., Harley, P.C., et al., Carbon sequestration in a high-elevation, subalpine forest, Global Change Biol., 2002, vol. 8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dullinger, S., Dirnböck T., Köck, R., Hochbichler, E., et al., Interactions among tree-line conifers: Differential effects of pine on spruce and larch, J. Ecol., 2005, vol. 93, pp. 948–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ForestrySofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations