Hacke U G, Sperry J S, Ewers B E, Ellsworth D S, Schäfer K V R, Oren R
Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA e-mail:
Department of Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA, , , , , , US.
Oecologia. 2000 Sep;124(4):495-505. doi: 10.1007/PL00008875.
We analyzed the hydraulic constraints imposed on water uptake from soils of different porosities in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) by comparing genetically related and even-aged plantations growing in loam versus sand soil. Water use was evaluated relative to the maximum transpiration rate (E ) allowed by the soil-leaf continuum. We expected that trees on both soils would approach E during drought. Trees in sand, however, should face greater drought limitation because of steeply declining hydraulic conductivity in sand at high soil water potential (Ψ ). Transport considerations suggest that trees in sand should have higher root to leaf area ratios (A :A ), less negative leaf xylem pressure (Ψ ), and be more vulnerable to xylem cavitation than trees in loam. The A :A was greater in sand versus loam (9.8 vs 1.7, respectively). This adjustment maintained about 86% of the water extraction potential for both soils. Trees in sand were more deeply rooted (>1.9 m) than in loam (95% of roots <0.2 m), allowing them to shift water uptake to deeper layers during drought and avoid hydraulic failure. Midday Ψ was constant for days of high evaporative demand, but was less negative in sand (-1.6 MPa) versus loam (-2.1 MPa). Xylem was more vulnerable to cavitation in sand versus loam trees. Roots in both soils were more vulnerable than stems, and experienced the greatest predicted loss of conductivity during drought. Trees on both soils approached E during drought, but at much higher Ψ in sand (<-0.4 MPa) than in loam (<-1.0 MPa). Results suggest considerable phenotypic plasticity in water use traits for P. taeda which are adaptive to differences in soil porosity.
我们通过比较生长在壤土和沙土中的遗传相关且树龄相同的火炬松(Pinus taeda L.)人工林,分析了不同孔隙度土壤对火炬松水分吸收的水力限制。相对于土壤 - 叶片连续体允许的最大蒸腾速率(E)评估水分利用情况。我们预计在干旱期间,两种土壤上的树木都将接近E。然而,由于在高土壤水势(Ψ)下沙土的水力传导率急剧下降,沙土中的树木应面临更大的干旱限制。从运输角度考虑,与壤土中的树木相比,沙土中的树木应具有更高的根叶面积比(A :A)、更低的叶片木质部负压(Ψ),并且更容易发生木质部空化。沙土中的A :A比壤土中的更大(分别为9.8和1.7)。这种调整使两种土壤的水分提取潜力均维持在约86%。与壤土中的树木相比,沙土中的树木根系更深(>1.9米)(壤土中95%的根系<0.2米),这使它们能够在干旱期间将水分吸收转移到更深层,避免水力故障。在高蒸发需求的日子里,中午的Ψ保持恒定,但沙土中的Ψ(-1.6 MPa)比壤土中的Ψ(-2.1 MPa)更低。与壤土中的树木相比,沙土中的树木木质部更容易发生空化。两种土壤中的根系都比茎更易发生空化,并且在干旱期间预计传导率损失最大。在干旱期间,两种土壤上的树木都接近E,但沙土中的树木在Ψ更低(<-0.4 MPa)时接近E,而壤土中的树木在Ψ更低(<-1.0 MPa)时接近E。结果表明,火炬松在水分利用性状方面具有相当大的表型可塑性,这使其能够适应土壤孔隙度的差异。