Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought?
Tóm tắt
Severe droughts have been associated with regional‐scale forest mortality worldwide. Climate change is expected to exacerbate regional mortality events; however, prediction remains difficult because the physiological mechanisms underlying drought survival and mortality are poorly understood. We developed a hydraulically based theory considering carbon balance and insect resistance that allowed development and examination of hypotheses regarding survival and mortality. Multiple mechanisms may cause mortality during drought. A common mechanism for plants with isohydric regulation of water status results from avoidance of drought‐induced hydraulic failure via stomatal closure, resulting in carbon starvation and a cascade of downstream effects such as reduced resistance to biotic agents. Mortality by hydraulic failure
Contents
Summary
1
I.
2
II.
3
III.
3
IV.
4
V.
5
VI.
13
VII.
15
15
15
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barnes FJ, 1986, PhD dissertation
BreshearsDD MyersOB MeyerCW BarnesFJ ZouCB AllenCD McDowellNG PockmanWT. (in press).Tree die‐off in response to global‐change‐type drought: mortality insights from a decade of plant water potential measurements.Frontiers in Ecology.
Cowan IR, 1977, Stomatal function in relation to leaf metabolism and environment, Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology, 31, 475
DoreS KolbTE Montes‐HeluM SullivanBW WinslowWD HartSC KayeJP KochGW HungateBA. (in press).The effect of stand‐replacing fire on ecosystem CO2exchange of ponderosa pine forests in northern Arizona.Global Change Biology.
Franklin JF, 1987, Tree death as an ecological process, Bioscience, 27, 259
Gower ST, 1994, Pine ecosystems, 115
Hietz P, 2005, Tree temperatures, volatile organic emissions, and primary attraction of bark beetles, Phyton, 45, 341
IPCC, 2007, Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, 1009
Kelsey RG, 2001, Chemical indicators of stress in trees: their ecological significance and implication for forestry in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Northwest Science, 75, 70
KurzWA AppsMJ.1999.A 70‐year retrospective analysis of carbon fluxes in the Canadian forest sector.Ecological Applications9:526–547.
Larsson S, 1983, Attacks of mountain pine beetle as related to tree vigor of ponderosa pine, Forest Science, 29, 395
Manion PD, 1991, Tree disease concepts
Monteith JL, 1990, Principles of environmental, 291
National Research Council, 2007, Understanding multiple environmental stresses
RichPM BreshearsDD WhiteAB.2008.Phenology of mixed woody‐herbaceous ecosystems following extreme events: net and differential responses. Special feature on phenology.Ecology89:342–352.
RommeWH ClementJ HickeJ KulakowskiD MacDonaldLH SchoennagelTL VeblenTT.2006.Recent forest insect outbreaks and fire risk in colorado forests: a brief synthesis of relevant research.Colorado Forest Research Institute.
Ryan MG, 1994, Dark respiration of pines, Ecological Bulletins, 43, 50
Schoeneweiss DF, 1981, Water Deficits and Plant Growth
Shaw JD, 2005, Forest inventory and analysis (FIA) annual inventory answers the question: what is happening to pinyon–juniper woodlands?, Journal of Forestry, 103, 80
Sieg CH, 2006, Best predictors for postflre mortality of ponderosa pine trees in the intermountain west, Forest Science, 52, 718
Wardle JA, 1983, Dieback in New Zealand Nothofagus forests, Pacific Science, 37, 397
Waring GL, 1992, Plant‐insect interactions, 167
WestAG HultineKR SperryJS BushSE EhleringerJR.2008.Transpiration and hydraulic strategies in a piñon–juniper woodland.Ecological Applications18:911–927.
Yoder BJ, 1994, Evidence of reduced photosynthetic rates in old trees, Forest Science, 40, 513
Zhang J, 1995, Genetic differentiation in carbon isotope discrimination and gas exchange in Pseudotsuga menziesii., Oecologia, 101, 80