LEAF-SCALE DROUGHT RESISTANCE AND TOLERANCE OF THREE PLANT SPECIES IN A SEMI-ARID ENVIRONMENT: APPLICATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO STOMATAL CONDUCTANCE MODELS

doi:10.17521/cjpe.2006.0009

Abstract

Abstract:

We measured diurnal gas exchange properties of three major species in a semi-arid site, and two stomatal conductance models were then applied to the data. The result indicated that the BBL model and the Gao model could explain on average 77.6% and 59.3% of variation in the observed stomatal conductance, respectively. Sensitivity analysis of the models indicated that the BBL model tended to give higher predictions of stomatal conductance than the Gao model. Both models showed similar responses to changes in vapor pressure. The sharp contrast between the two models, however, was that the Gao model responded to changes in soil water stress to different extents. The BBL model coupled with the TJ photosynthesis model was indifferent to increases of soil water stresses, which contradicts concurrent understanding and observations about plant physiology in arid and semiarid regions. Thus the BBL model, even though it provided better explanations of the variations in field stomata data, may not be appropriate for experimental data analysis and ecosystem simulation applications. The analysis using the Gao model indicated that Populus simonii was the least tolerant and resistant to water stresses among the three species studied. Pinus tabulaeformis had both high tolerance and resistance, but stomatal conductance of the pine tree was the least insensitive to changes in soil water stresses. Hence this pine tree may not be good for water conservation under extremely dry conditions. Caragana intermedia, however, had both larger drought tolerance and larger sensitivity to incremental soil water stresses, and thus can provide large stomatal conductance for photosynthesis when soil water stress was low, but reduce water consumption under severe water stresses by decreasing stomatal conductance with increasing soil water stress.

Key words: Stomatal conductance, Drought resistance, Sensitive analysis, Stomatal model

LIU Ying-Hui, GAO Qiong, JIA Hai-Kun. LEAF-SCALE DROUGHT RESISTANCE AND TOLERANCE OF THREE PLANT SPECIES IN A SEMI-ARID ENVIRONMENT: APPLICATION AND COMPARISON OF TWO STOMATAL CONDUCTANCE MODELS[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2006, 30(1): 64-70.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.17521/cjpe.2006.0009

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2006/V30/I1/64

Figures/Tables 4

Fig.1 Comparison of stomatal conductance predicted by the two models

Table 1 Nonlinear regression result for the BBL models

Species	g₀	α	D₀	R²	F	F_c(1%)
Populus simonii	0.074 0	29.99	0.247 1	0.775	$F 983$ =112.5	3.99
Pinus tabulaeformis	0.026 5	196.34	0.019 0	0.736	$F 1033$ =97.7	3.97
Caragana intermedia	0.067 1	10.84	1.179 4	0.818	$F 983$ =147.0	3.99

Table 1 Nonlinear regression result for the BBL models

Species	g₀	α	D₀	R²	F	F_c(1%)
Populus simonii	0.074 0	29.99	0.247 1	0.775	$F 983$ =112.5	3.99
Pinus tabulaeformis	0.026 5	196.34	0.019 0	0.736	$F 1033$ =97.7	3.97
Caragana intermedia	0.067 1	10.84	1.179 4	0.818	$F 983$ =147.0	3.99

Table 2 Nonlinear regression result for the model by Gao et al. (2002)

Species	g₀_m	k_ψ	k_αβ	k_βg	R²	F	F_c(1%)	β	π₀	g_z
Populus simonii	0.77	0.37	1.19	253.5	0.627	$F 984$ =37.1	3.52	2.7	-2.06	0.0015
Pinus tabulaeformis	1.47	0.13	0.73	600	0.416	$F 1054$ =14.2	3.50	7.4	-10.9	0.0002
Caragana intermedia	5.19	0.51	16.35	2320.9	0.735	$F 984$ =66.6	3.52	2.0	-10.2	0.0002

Table 2 Nonlinear regression result for the model by Gao et al. (2002)

Species	g₀_m	k_ψ	k_αβ	k_βg	R²	F	F_c(1%)	β	π₀	g_z
Populus simonii	0.77	0.37	1.19	253.5	0.627	$F 984$ =37.1	3.52	2.7	-2.06	0.0015
Pinus tabulaeformis	1.47	0.13	0.73	600	0.416	$F 1054$ =14.2	3.50	7.4	-10.9	0.0002
Caragana intermedia	5.19	0.51	16.35	2320.9	0.735	$F 984$ =66.6	3.52	2.0	-10.2	0.0002

Fig.2 Simulated stomatal conductance by the two models under prescribed micro-environmental conditions

References 28

[1]	Ball JT, Woodrow IE, Berry JA (1987). A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions. In: Biggins I ed. Progress in Photosynthesis Research. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,Netherlands,221-224.
[2]	Buckley TN, Mott KA, Farquhar GD (2003). A hydromechanical and biochemical model of stomatal conductance. Plant, Cell and Environment, 26,1767-1785.
[3]	Campbell GS, Jungbauer JD, Shiozawa S, Hungerford RD (1993). A one-parameter equation for water sorption isotherms of soils. Soil Science, 156,302-305.
[4]	Costa Franca MG, Pham Thi AT, Pimentel C, Pereyra Rossiello RO, Zuily-Fodil Y, Laffray D (2000). Differences in growth and water relations among Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars in response to induced drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 43,227-237. URL PMID
[5]	Dewar RC (2002). The Ball-Berry-Leuning and Tardieu-Davies stomatal models: synthesis and extension within a spatially aggregated picture of guard cell function. Plant, Cell and Environment, 25,1383-1398.
[6]	Dong X, Zhang X (2001). Some observations of the adaptations of sandy shrubs to the arid environment in the Mu Us Sandland: leaf water relations and anatomic features. Journal of Arid Environments, 48,41-48.
[7]	Franks PJ, Cowan IR, Farquhar GD (1997). The apparent feedforward response of stomata to air vapour pressure deficit: information revealed by different experimental procedures with two rainforest trees. Plant,Cell and Environment, 20,142-145.
[8]	Gao Q, Reynolds JF (2003). Historical shrub-grass transitions in the northern Chihuahuan Desert: modeling the effects of shifting rainfall seasonality and event size over a landscape gradient. Global Change Biology, 9,1475-1493.
[9]	Gao Q, Zhang XS, Huang YM, Xu HM (2004). A comparative analysis of four models of photosynthesis for 11 plant species in the Loess Plateau. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 126,203-222.
[10]	Gao Q, Zhao P, Zeng X, Cai X, Shen W (2002). A model of stomatal conductance to quantify the relationship between leaf transpiration, microclimate and soil water stress. Plant,Cell and Environment, 25,1373-1381.
[11]	Giorio P, Sorrentino G, d'Andria R (1999). Stomatal behaviour, leaf water status and photosynthetic response in field-grown olive trees under water deficit. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 42,95-104.
[12]	Gucci R, Massai R, Xiloyannis C, Flore JA (1996). The effect of drought and vapour pressure deficit on gas exchange of young Kiwifruit ( Actinidia deliciosa var. deliciosa) vines. Annals of Botany, 77,605-613.
[13]	Haefner JW, Buckley TN, Mott KA (1997). A spatially explicit model of patchy stomatal responses to humidity. Plant,Cell and Environment, 20,1087-1097.
[14]	Leuning R (1995). A critical appraisal of a combined stomatal-photosynthesis model for C ₃ plants. Plant, Cell and Environment, 18,339-355.
[15]	Li YG, Jiang GM, Niu SL, Liu MZ, Peng Y, Yu SL, Gao LM (2003). Gas exchange and water use efficiency of three native tree species in Hunshandak sandland of China. Photosynthetica, 41,227-232.
[16]	Liang JS, Zhang JH (1999). The relations of stomatal closure and reopening to xylem ABA concentration and leaf water potential during soil drying and rewatering. Plant Growth Regulation, 29,77-86.
[17]	Liu MZ, Jiang GM, Li YG, Gao LM, Niu SL, Cui HX, Ding L (2003). Gas exchange, photochemical efficiency, and leaf water potential in three Salix species. Photosynthetica, 41,393-398.
[18]	Monson RK, Smith SD (1982). Seasonal water potential components of Sonoran Desert (Arizona, USA) plants. Ecology, 63,113-123.
[19]	Monteith JL (1995). A reinterpretation of stomatal responses to humidity. Plant,Cell and Environment, 18,357-364.
[20]	Nilsen ET, Sharifi MR, Rundel PW, Jarrell WM, Virginia RA (1983). Diurnal and seasonal water relations of the desert phreatophyte Prosopis glandulosa (honey mesquite) in the Sonoran Desert California (USA). Ecology, 64,1381-1393.
[21]	Niu SL, Jiang GM, Li YG, Gao LM, Liu MZ, Peng Y, Ding L (2003). Comparison of photosynthetic traits between two typical shrubs: legume and non-legume in Hunshandak sandland. Photosynthetica, 41,111-116.
[22]	Park SY, Furukawa A (1999). Photosynthetic and stomatal responses of two tropical and two temperate trees to atmospheric humidity. Photosynthetica, 36,181-186.
[23]	Sadras VO, Milroy SP (1996). Soil water thresholds for the responses of leaf expansion and gas exchange: a review. Field Crops Research, 47,253-266.
[24]	Tardieu F, Davies WJ (1993). Integration of hydraulic and chemical signalling in the control of stomatal conductance and water status of droughted plants. Plant,Cell and Environment, 16,341-349.
[25]	Thornley JM, Johnson IR (1990). Plant and Crop Modelling. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
[26]	Tuzet A, Perrier A, Leuning R (2003). A coupled model of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Plant, Cell and Environment, 26,1097-1116.
[27]	Turner NC, Schulze ED, Gollan T (1984). The response of stomata and leaf gas exchange to vapour pressure deficits and soil water content. I. Species comparisons at high soil water contents. Oecologia, 63,338-342. URL PMID
[28]	Zavala MA (2004). Integration of drought tolerance mechanisms in Mediterranean sclerophylls: a functional interpretation of leaf gas exchange simulators. Ecological Modelling, 176,211-226.