Ecophysiological adaptations to drought stress of seedlings of four plant species with different growth forms in karst habitats

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01070

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims Drought stress is one of the most important factors limiting the growth of plants in the harsh karst habitats of southwestern China, especially at the seedling establishment stage. Our objective was to elucidate the adaptive strategies against drought stress of native plants with different growth forms.
Methods We investigated leaf water potential, photosynthetic capacity, pigments, osmotic solutes, antioxidant enzymes, and growth of the seedlings of four plant species under four drought intensities. The species were Pyracantha fortuneana (evergreen shrub), Rosa cymosa (deciduous shrub), Cinnamomum bodinieri (evergreen tree), and Platycarya longipes (deciduous tree).
Important findings As drought stress intensified, leaf water potential, photosynthetic capacity, chlorophylls content, biomass increase, leaf mass ratio (LMR), leaf area ratio (LAR) and specific leaf area (SLA) gradually decreased, while thermal dissipation (NPQ), ratio of carotenoids to chlorophylls, malondialdehyde content and root mass ratio (RMR) increased in the four species. Intrinsic water use efficiency (A_n/g_s), content of osmotic solutes and activity of antioxidant enzymes in C. bodinieri and Platycarya longipes increased under mild and/or moderate drought and decreased under severe drought, while A_n/g_s, proline content and superoxide dismutase activity gradually increased in Pyracantha fortuneana and R. cymosa as drought intensified. Under severe drought, Pyracantha fortuneana and R. cymosa showed smaller decreases of predawn water potential and chlorophylls content and maintained higher photosynthetic capacity and larger percent biomass increase than C. bodinieri and Platycarya longipes, due to lower SLA and LAR, higher A_n/g_s and NPQ and higher capacities of osmotic adjustment and antioxidant protection. Under moderate drought, C. bodinieri exhibited small decrease of predawn water potential and higher LMR and LAR than the deciduous species, and maintained unusually high proline accumulation and high activities of antioxidant enzymes. However, the low maximum quantum efficiency of PSII photochemistry and net assimilation rate, the sharp decreases of water potential, LMR, LAR and biomass and the low capacities of osmotic adjustment and antioxidant protection under severe drought indicated C. bodinieri’s weak tolerance. Under well-watered condition, Platycarya longipes with high RMR showed higher LAR, chlorophylls content and biomass increase than the two shrubs. However, in response to drought stress, Platycarya longipes revealed sharp reduction of biomass due to large drought-induced decreases of gas exchange, LAR, LMR and chlorophylls content. It minimized water loss by both stomatal closure and reducing transpiration leaf area through shedding leaves and also reduced light harvesting by pigments breakdown. These results suggested that Pyracantha fortuneana, R. cymosa and C. bodinieri adopted tolerance strategies against drought stress with C. bodinieri having lower tolerance to severe drought, whereas Platycarya longipes was more sensitive to drought stress and employed avoidance strategies.

Key words: adaptive strategy, antioxidant, growth form, limestone, osmotic adjustment, photosynthesis, water deficit

LIU Chang-Cheng, LIU Yu-Guo, GUO Ke. Ecophysiological adaptations to drought stress of seedlings of four plant species with different growth forms in karst habitats[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2011, 35(10): 1070-1082.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2011.01070

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2011/V35/I10/1070

Figures/Tables 6

Fig. 1 Predawn water potential of seedlings of four karst plant species under four drought treatments (mean ± SE; n = 10). Four drought treatments: well-watered (D1), mild drought stress (D2), moderate drought stress (D3), severe drought stress (D4). Different letters denote significant differences among four drought treatments (p < 0.05).

Fig. 2 Net assimilation rate (An), stomatal conductance (gs), intrinsic water use efficiency (An/gs) and the ratio of intercellular to ambient CO2 (Ci/Ca) of seedlings of four karst plant species under four drought treatments (mean ± SE; n = 20). Four drought treatments: well-watered (D1), mild drought stress (D2), moderate drought stress (D3), severe drought stress (D4). Different letters denote significant differences among four drought treatments (p < 0.05).

Fig. 3 The maximum quantum efficiency of PSII photochemistry (Fv/Fm), electron transport rate (ETR), photochemical quenching (qP) and non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) of seedlings of four karst plant species under four drought treatments (mean ± SE; n = 20). Four drought treatments: well-watered (D1), mild drought stress (D2), moderate drought stress (D3), severe drought stress (D4). Different letters denote significant differences among four drought treatments (p < 0.05).

Fig. 4 Total chlorophylls (Chl a+b), the ratio of carotenoids to total chlorophylls (Car/Chl (a+b)), soluble sugar content and proline content of seedlings of four karst plant species under four drought treatments (mean ± SE; n = 3). Four drought treatments: well-watered (D1), mild drought stress (D2), moderate drought stress (D3), severe drought stress (D4). Different letters denote significant differences among four drought treatments (p < 0.05).

Fig. 5 Malondialdehyde (MDA) content, and activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and peroxidase (POD) of seedlings of four karst plant species under four drought treatments (mean ± SE; n = 3). Four drought treatments: well-watered (D1), mild drought stress (D2), moderate drought stress (D3), severe drought stress (D4). Different letters denote significant differences among four drought treatments (p < 0.05).

Fig. 6 Biomass increase, leaf mass ratio (LMR), stem mass ratio (SMR), root mass ratio (RMR), leaf area ratio (LAR) and specific leaf area (SLA) of seedlings of four karst plant species under four drought treatments (mean ± SE; n = 5). Four drought treatments: well-watered (D1), mild drought stress (D2), moderate drought stress (D3), severe drought stress (D4). Different letters denote significant differences among four drought treatments (p < 0.05).

References 44

[1]	Adams WW III, Demming-Adams B, Logan BA, Barker DH, Osmond CB (1999). Rapid changes in xanthophyll cycle-dependent energy dissipation and photosystem II efficiency in two vines, Stephania japonica and Smilax australis, growing in the understory of an open Eucalyptus forest. Plant, Cell & Environment, 22, 125-136.
[2]	Asada K (1999). The water-water cycle in chloroplasts: scavenging of active oxygens and dissipation of excess photons. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 50, 601-639.
[3]	Bacelar EA, Moutinho-Pereira JM, Gonçalves BC, Ferreira HF, Correia CM (2007). Changes in growth, gas exchange, xylem hydraulic properties and water use efficiency of three olive cultivars under contrasting water availability regimes. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 60, 183-192.
[4]	Baquedano FJ, Castillo FJ (2006). Comparative ecophy- siological effects of drought on seedlings of the Medit- erranean water-saver Pinus halepensis and water- spenders Quercus coccifera and Quercus ilex. Trees- Structure and Function, 20, 689-700.
[5]	Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39, 205-207.
[6]	Ben Ahmed C, Ben Rouina B, Sensoy S, Boukhris M, Ben Abdallah F (2009). Changes in gas exchange, proline accumulation and antioxidative enzyme activities in three olive cultivars under contrasting water availability regimes. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 67, 345-352.
[7]	Chaves MM, Maroco JP, Pereira JS (2003). Understanding plant responses to drought―from genes to the whole plant. Functional Plant Biology, 30, 239-264.
[8]	Chen JW, Cao KF (2008). Changes in activities of antioxidative system and monoterpene and photochemical efficiency during seasonal leaf senescence in Hevea brasiliensis trees. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 30, 1-9.
[9]	Elsheery NI, Cao KF (2008). Gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence, and osmotic adjustment in two mango cultivars under drought stress. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 30, 769-777.
[10]	Flexas J, Bota J, Loreto F, Cornic G, Sharkey TD (2004). Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C₃ plants. Plant Biology, 6, 269-279.
[11]	Fu JM, Huang BR (2001). Involvement of antioxidants and lipid peroxidation in the adaptation of two cool-season grasses to localized drought stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 45, 105-114.
[12]	Galmés J, Cifre J, Medrano H, Flexas J (2005). Modulation of relative growth rate and its components by water stress in Mediterranean species with different growth forms. Oecologia, 145, 21-31.
[13]	Galmés J, Abadía A, Medrano H, Flexas J (2007). Photosy- nthesis and photoprotection responses to water stress in the wild-extinct plant Lysimachia minoricensis. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 60, 308-317.
[14]	Gulías J, Flexas J, Mus M, Cifre J, Lefi E, Medrano H (2003). Relationship between maximum leaf photosynthesis, nitrogen content and specific leaf area in Balearic endemic and non-endemic Mediterranean species. Annals of Botany, 92, 215-222.
[15]	Hodges DM, DeLong JM, Forney CF, Prange RK (1999). Improving the thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances assay for estimating lipid peroxidation in plant tissues containing anthocyanin and other interfering compounds. Planta, 207, 604-611.
[16]	Khanna-Chopra R, Selote DS (2007). Acclimation to drought stress generates oxidative stress tolerance in drought- resistant than-susceptible wheat cultivar under field conditions. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 60, 276-283.
[17]	Lambers H, Chapin FS, Pons TL (1998). Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York.
[18]	Li AD (李安定), Lu YF (卢永飞), Wei XL (韦小丽), Yu LF (喻理飞) (2008). Studies on the regime of soil moisture under different microhabitats in Huajiang karst valley. Carsologica Sinica (中国岩溶), 27, 56-62. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[19]	Lichtenthaler HK (1987). Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods in Enzymology, 148, 350-382.
[20]	Liu CC, Liu YG, Guo K, Fan DY, Yu LF, Yang R (2011). Exploitation of patchy soil water resources by the clonal vine Ficus tikoua in karst habitats in southwestern China. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 33, 93-102.
[21]	Liu CC, Liu YG, Guo K, Zheng YR, Li GQ, Yu LF, Yang R (2010). Influence of drought intensity on the response of six woody karst species subjected to successive cycles of drought and rewatering. Physiologia Plantarum, 139, 39-54.
[22]	Liu CQ (刘丛强) (2009). Biogeochemical Processes and Cycling of Nutrients in the Earth’s Surface: Cycling of Nutrients in Soil-Plant Systems of Karstic Environments, Southwest China (生物地球化学过程与地表物质循环——西南喀斯特土壤-植被系统生源要素循环). Science Press, Beijing. (in Chinese)
[23]	Liu WL (刘伟玲), Xie SX (谢双喜), Yu LF (喻理飞) (2003). Physiological response of several karst common tree species seedlings to water stress. Guizhou Science (贵州科学), 21(3), 51-55. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[24]	Maroco JP, Pereira JS, Chaves MM (2000). Growth, photosynthesis and water-use efficiency of two C₄ Sahelian grasses subjected to water deficits. Journal of Arid Environments, 45, 119-137.
[25]	Maxwell K, Johnson GN (2000). Chlorophyll fluorescence—a practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany, 51, 659-668.
[26]	Medrano H, Escalona JM, Bota J, Gulías J, Flexas J (2002). Regulation of photosynthesis of C₃ plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. Annals of Botany, 89, 895-905.
[27]	Medrano H, Flexas J, Galmés J (2009). Variability in water use efficiency at the leaf level among Mediterranean plants with different growth forms. Plant and Soil, 317, 17-29.
[28]	Morgan JM (1984). Osmoregulation and water stress in higher plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 35, 299-319.
[29]	Munné-Bosch S, Peñuelas J (2003). Photo-and antioxidative protection during summer leaf senescence in Pistacia lentiscus L. grown under Mediterranean field conditions. Annals of Botany, 92, 385-391.
[30]	Reddy AR, Chaitanya KV, Jutur PP, Sumithra K (2004). Differential antioxidative responses to water stress among five mulberry (Morus alba L.) cultivars. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 52, 33-42.
[31]	Reich PB, Ellsworth DS, Walters MB, Vose JM, Gresham C, Volin JC, Bowman WD (1999). Generality of leaf trait relationships: a test across six biomes. Ecology, 80, 1955-1969.
[32]	Reich PB, Walters MB, Ellsworth DS, Vose JM, Volin JC, Gresham C, Bowman WD (1998). Relationships of leaf dark respiration to leaf nitrogen, specific leaf area and leaf life-span: a test across biomes and functional groups. Oecologia, 114, 471-482.
[33]	Rong L (容丽), Wang SJ (王世杰), Du XL (杜雪莲) (2007). Responses of foliar δ ¹³C values of woody plants to different karst rocky desertification degrees in Huajiang Gorge, Guizhou . Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 43(6), 38-44. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[34]	Rong L (容丽), Wang SJ (王世杰), Liu N (刘宁), Yang L (杨龙) (2005). Leaf anatomical characters and its ecological adaptation of the pioneer species in the karst mountain area―with a special reference to the Huajiang Canyon of Guizhou. Journal of Mountain Science (山地学报), 23, 35-42. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[35]	Siam AMJ, Radoglou KM, Noitsakis B, Smiris P (2009). Differences in ecophysiological responses to summer drought between seedlings of three deciduous oak species. Forest Ecology and Management, 258, 35-42.
[36]	Smirnoff N (1993). The role of active oxygen in the response of plants to water deficit and desiccation. New Phytologist, 125, 27-58.
[37]	Türkan İ, Bor M, Özdemir F, Koca H (2005). Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought-tolerant P. acutifolius Gray and drought- sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Science, 168, 223-231.
[38]	Wei XL (韦小丽), Yu LF (喻理飞), Zhu SQ (朱守谦), Xu XZ (徐锡增) (2007). Effect of soil drying-wetting alternation on physiology and growth of Pteroceltis tatarinowii seedlings. Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 43(8), 23-28. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[39]	White DA, Turner NC, Galbraith JH (2000). Leaf water relations and stomatal behavior of four allopatric Eucalyptus species planted in Mediterranean southwestern Australia. Tree Physiology, 20, 1157-1165.
[40]	Yemm EW, Willis AJ (1954). The estimation of carbohydrates in plant extracts by anthrone. Biochemical Journal, 57, 508-514.
[41]	Yu LF (喻理飞), Zhu SQ (朱守谦), Ye JZ (叶镜中) (2002). Preliminary study on the adaptability of tolerate-drought for different species group in karst forest. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Science Edition) (南京林业大学学报(自然科学版)), 26(1), 19-22. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[42]	Zhou YC (周运超), Pan GX (潘根兴) (2001). Adaptation and adjustment of Maolan forest ecosystem to karst environment. Carsologica Sinica (中国岩溶), 20, 47-52. (in Chinese with English Abstract)
[43]	Zhu SQ (朱守谦) (1997). Ecological Research on Karst Forest (II) (喀斯特森林生态研究II). Guizhou Science and Technology Press, Guiyang. (in Chinese)
[44]	Zhu ZB, Liang ZS, Han RL (2009). Saikosaponin accumulation and antioxidative protection in drought-stressed Bupleu- rum chinense DC. plants. Environmental and Experim- ental Botany, 66, 326-333.