» Articles » PMID: 39658309

Contrasting the Soil-plant Hydraulics of Beech and Spruce by Linking Root Water Uptake to Transpiration Dynamics

Overview
Journal Tree Physiol
Specialty Biology
Date 2024 Dec 10
PMID 39658309
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Tree water status is mainly determined by the amount of water taken up from roots and lost through leaves by transpiration. Variations in transpiration and stomatal conductance are often related to atmospheric conditions and leaf water potential. Yet, few experimental datasets exist that enable to relate leaf water potential, transpiration dynamics and temporal variation of root water uptake from different depths during soil drying. Here we explored the soil-plant hydraulic system using field measurements of water potentials and fluxes in soils, roots, stems and leaves of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce (Picea abies) trees. Spruce maintained less negative water potentials than beech during soil drying, reflecting a more stringent stomatal control. While root water uptake depths were similar between species, water potentials in plant tissues of spruce were rather constant and less correlated across roots and the stem, possibly because of large water storage and hydraulic capacitance in these tissues. Root water uptake from deep soil layers increased during dry periods, particularly for beech. Our data suggest that species-specific root hydraulic conductance, capacitance and water uptake strategy are linked and affect transpiration dynamics. Thus, it is important to include such species-specific hydraulics when predicting transpiration rates based on plant water status.

References
1.
Fu X, Meinzer F . Metrics and proxies for stringency of regulation of plant water status (iso/anisohydry): a global data set reveals coordination and trade-offs among water transport traits. Tree Physiol. 2018; 39(1):122-134. DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpy087. View

2.
Ewers B, MacKay D, Samanta S . Interannual consistency in canopy stomatal conductance control of leaf water potential across seven tree species. Tree Physiol. 2006; 27(1):11-24. DOI: 10.1093/treephys/27.1.11. View

3.
Martinez-Vilalta J, Poyatos R, Aguade D, Retana J, Mencuccini M . A new look at water transport regulation in plants. New Phytol. 2014; 204(1):105-115. DOI: 10.1111/nph.12912. View

4.
Domec J, Warren J, Meinzer F, Brooks J, Coulombe R . Native root xylem embolism and stomatal closure in stands of Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine: mitigation by hydraulic redistribution. Oecologia. 2004; 141(1):7-16. DOI: 10.1007/s00442-004-1621-4. View

5.
Hochberg U, Rockwell F, Holbrook N, Cochard H . Iso/Anisohydry: A Plant-Environment Interaction Rather Than a Simple Hydraulic Trait. Trends Plant Sci. 2017; 23(2):112-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.11.002. View