Growth of 19 Conifer Species is Highly Sensitive to Winter Warming, Spring Frost and Summer Drought

Overview

Journal Ann Bot

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Biology

Date 2021 Jul 3

PMID 34216460

Citations 4

Authors

Yanjun Song

Ute Sass-Klaassen

Frank Sterck

Leo Goudzwaard

Linar Akhmetzyanov

Lourens Poorter

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Aims: Conifers are key components of many temperate and boreal forests and are important for forestry, but species differences in stem growth responses to climate are still poorly understood and may hinder effective management of these forests in a warmer and drier future.

Methods: We studied 19 Northern Hemisphere conifer species planted in a 50-year-old common garden experiment in the Netherlands to (1) assess the effect of temporal dynamics in climate on stem growth, (2) test for a possible positive relationship between the growth potential and climatic growth sensitivity across species, and (3) evaluate the extent to which stem growth is controlled by phylogeny.

Key Results: Eighty-nine per cent of the species showed a significant reduction in stem growth to summer drought, 37 % responded negatively to spring frost and 32 % responded positively to higher winter temperatures. Species differed largely in their growth sensitivity to climatic variation and showed, for example, a four-fold difference in growth reduction to summer drought. Remarkably, we did not find a positive relationship between productivity and climatic sensitivity, but instead observed that some species combined a low growth sensitivity to summer drought with high growth potential. Both growth sensitivity to climate and growth potential were partly phylogenetically controlled.

Conclusions: A warmer and drier future climate is likely to reduce the productivity of most conifer species. We did not find a relationship between growth potential and growth sensitivity to climate; instead, some species combined high growth potential with low sensitivity to summer drought. This may help forest managers to select productive species that are able to cope with a warmer and drier future.

Citing Articles

Climate of origin shapes variations in wood anatomical properties of 17 Picea species.

Yang X, Yan H, Hao C, Hu J, Yang G, An S BMC Plant Biol. 2024; 24(1):414.

PMID: 38760680 PMC: 11100223. DOI: 10.1186/s12870-024-05103-7.

Drought- and heat-induced mortality of conifer trees is explained by leaf and growth legacies.

Sterck F, Song Y, Poorter L Sci Adv. 2024; 10(15):eadl4800.

PMID: 38608026 PMC: 11014445. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adl4800.

Drought resilience of conifer species is driven by leaf lifespan but not by hydraulic traits.

Song Y, Sterck F, Zhou X, Liu Q, Kruijt B, Poorter L New Phytol. 2022; 235(3):978-992.

PMID: 35474217 PMC: 9322575. DOI: 10.1111/nph.18177.

Identifying climate thresholds for dominant natural vegetation types at the global scale using machine learning: Average climate versus extremes.

Beigaite R, Tang H, Bryn A, Skarpaas O, Stordal F, Bjerke J Glob Chang Biol. 2022; 28(11):3557-3579.

PMID: 35212092 PMC: 9302987. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.16110.

References

McLane S, LeMay V, Aitken S . Modeling lodgepole pine radial growth relative to climate and genetics using universal growth-trend response functions. Ecol Appl. 2011; 21(3):776-88. DOI: 10.1890/10-0131.1. View

Blomberg S, Garland Jr T, Ives A . Testing for phylogenetic signal in comparative data: behavioral traits are more labile. Evolution. 2003; 57(4):717-45. DOI: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb00285.x. View

Pittermann J, Sperry J . Tracheid diameter is the key trait determining the extent of freezing-induced embolism in conifers. Tree Physiol. 2003; 23(13):907-14. DOI: 10.1093/treephys/23.13.907. View

Zanne A, Tank D, Cornwell W, Eastman J, Smith S, FitzJohn R . Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature. 2013; 506(7486):89-92. DOI: 10.1038/nature12872. View

Zohner C, Mo L, Renner S, Svenning J, Vitasse Y, Benito B . Late-spring frost risk between 1959 and 2017 decreased in North America but increased in Europe and Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020; 117(22):12192-12200. PMC: 7275740. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1920816117. View

Huang M, Wang X, Keenan T, Piao S . Drought timing influences the legacy of tree growth recovery. Glob Chang Biol. 2018; 24(8):3546-3559. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14294. View

Ciais P, Reichstein M, Viovy N, Granier A, Ogee J, Allard V . Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and drought in 2003. Nature. 2005; 437(7058):529-33. DOI: 10.1038/nature03972. View

Santarius K . The protective effect of sugars on chloroplast membranes during temperature and water stress and its relationship to frost, desiccation and heat resistance. Planta. 2014; 113(2):105-14. DOI: 10.1007/BF00388196. View

Choat B, Brodribb T, Brodersen C, Duursma R, Lopez R, Medlyn B . Triggers of tree mortality under drought. Nature. 2018; 558(7711):531-539. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0240-x. View

10.

Adams D . A generalized K statistic for estimating phylogenetic signal from shape and other high-dimensional multivariate data. Syst Biol. 2014; 63(5):685-97. DOI: 10.1093/sysbio/syu030. View

11.

DeSoto L, Varino F, Andrade J, Gouveia C, Campelo F, Trigo R . Different growth sensitivity to climate of the conifer Juniperus thurifera on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea. Int J Biometeorol. 2014; 58(10):2095-109. DOI: 10.1007/s00484-014-0811-y. View

12.

Gazol A, Camarero J, Vicente-Serrano S, Sanchez-Salguero R, Gutierrez E, de Luis M . Forest resilience to drought varies across biomes. Glob Chang Biol. 2018; 24(5):2143-2158. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14082. View

13.

Vitali V, Buntgen U, Bauhus J . Silver fir and Douglas fir are more tolerant to extreme droughts than Norway spruce in south-western Germany. Glob Chang Biol. 2017; 23(12):5108-5119. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13774. View

14.

Vitasse Y, Signarbieux C, Fu Y . Global warming leads to more uniform spring phenology across elevations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 115(5):1004-1008. PMC: 5798366. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717342115. View

15.

Williams C, Henry H, Sinclair B . Cold truths: how winter drives responses of terrestrial organisms to climate change. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2014; 90(1):214-35. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12105. View

16.

Charney N, Babst F, Poulter B, Record S, Trouet V, Frank D . Observed forest sensitivity to climate implies large changes in 21st century North American forest growth. Ecol Lett. 2016; 19(9):1119-28. DOI: 10.1111/ele.12650. View

17.

Vitasse Y, Bottero A, Cailleret M, Bigler C, Fonti P, Gessler A . Contrasting resistance and resilience to extreme drought and late spring frost in five major European tree species. Glob Chang Biol. 2019; 25(11):3781-3792. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14803. View

18.

DOrangeville L, Duchesne L, Houle D, Kneeshaw D, Cote B, Pederson N . Northeastern North America as a potential refugium for boreal forests in a warming climate. Science. 2016; 352(6292):1452-5. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4951. View

19.

Kurz W, Dymond C, Stinson G, Rampley G, Neilson E, Carroll A . Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change. Nature. 2008; 452(7190):987-90. DOI: 10.1038/nature06777. View

20.

DOrangeville L, Maxwell J, Kneeshaw D, Pederson N, Duchesne L, Logan T . Drought timing and local climate determine the sensitivity of eastern temperate forests to drought. Glob Chang Biol. 2018; 24(6):2339-2351. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14096. View