Within-crown plasticity of hydraulic properties influence branch dieback patterns of two woody plants under experimental drought conditions.

In recent year, widespread declines of Populus bolleana Lauche trees (P. bolleana, which dieback from the top down) and Haloxylon ammodendron shrubs (H. ammodendron, which dieback starting from their outer canopy) have occurred. To investigate how both intra-canopy hydraulic changes and plasticity in hydraulic properties create differences in vulnerability between these two species, we conducted a drought simulation field experiment. We analyzed branch hydraulic vulnerability, leaf water potential (Ψ), photosynthesis (A), stomatal conductance (gs), non-structural carbohydrate (NSCs) contents and morphological traits of the plants as the plants underwent a partial canopy dieback. Our results showed that: (1) the hydraulic architecture was very different between the two life forms; (2) H. ammodendron exhibited a drought tolerance response with weak stomatal control, and thus a sharp decline in Ψ while P. bolleana showed a drought avoidance response with tighter stomatal control that maintained a relatively stable Ψ; (3) the Ψ of H. ammodendron showed relative consistent symptoms of drought stress with increasing plant stature, but the Ψ of P. bolleana showed greater drought stress in higher portions of the crown; (4) prolonged drought caused P. bolleana to consume and H. ammodendron to accumulate NSCs in the branches of their upper canopy. Thus, the prolonged drought caused the shoots of the upper canopy of P. bolleana to experience greater vulnerability leading to dieback of the upper branches first, while all the twigs of the outer canopy of H. ammodendron experienced nearly identical degrees of vulnerability, and thus dieback occurred uniformly. Our results indicate that intra-canopy hydraulic change and their plasticity under drought was the main cause of the observed canopy dieback patterns in both species. However, more work is needed to further establish that hydraulic limitation as a function of plant stature was the sole mechanism for causing the divergent canopy dieback patterns.