Drought and freezing vulnerability of the isolated hybrid aspen relative to its parental species, and .

Nicholas J Deacon, Jake J Grossman, Jeannine Cavender-Bares
Author Information
  1. Nicholas J Deacon: Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior University of Minnesota St. Paul Minnesota. ORCID
  2. Jake J Grossman: Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior University of Minnesota St. Paul Minnesota. ORCID
  3. Jeannine Cavender-Bares: Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior University of Minnesota St. Paul Minnesota. ORCID

Abstract

AIM: We assessed the vulnerability of an isolated, relictual Pleistocene hybrid aspen population of conservation interest () and the nearest populations of its parent species ( and ) to springtime post-bud break freezing and growing season drought stress. Response to these stressors in the three taxa was compared in terms of avoidance and tolerance.
LOCATION: North American Midwest; USA.
METHODS: Unique genets from the hybrid Niobrara River population and from the two parental populations were propagated in a common garden from rhizome cuttings. We tracked their phenology before and after bud break and measured their vulnerability to freezing (stem electrolyte leakage and leaf chlorophyll fluorescence) and to drought (stem hydraulic conductance, leaf osmotic potential, stomatal pore index, and gas exchange).
RESULTS: was slower to leaf out, showed lower vulnerability to stem freezing and drought-induced cavitation, but exhibited a lower capacity to tolerate drought stress through leaf resistance traits compared to . Hybrids were similar to in their overwintering strategy, exhibiting later bud break, and in their higher resistance to stem freezing damage, but they were more similar to in their higher vulnerability to drought-induced cavitation. The hybrids shared various leaf-level gas exchange traits with both parents. All aspens showed limited loss of leaf photosynthetic function following moderate freezing.
MAIN CONCLUSIONS: The Niobrara River hybrid population is vulnerable to drought due to its combination of inherited drought avoidance and tolerance traits. As climate changes, will likely suffer from increased drought stress, while being unaffected by frost during warmer springs. The two parental species contrast in their survival mechanisms in response to climatic stress, with tending toward freezing tolerance but drought avoidance and tending toward freezing avoidance and drought tolerance.

Keywords

References

  1. Oecologia. 2001 May;127(3):314-320 [PMID: 28547101]
  2. New Phytol. 2005 Dec;168(3):597-612 [PMID: 16313643]
  3. Ecology. 2013 Aug;94(8):1708-17 [PMID: 24015515]
  4. Tree Physiol. 2018 May 1;38(5):658-663 [PMID: 29474684]
  5. Evol Appl. 2008 Nov;1(4):598-607 [PMID: 25567800]
  6. Glob Chang Biol. 2017 Feb;23(2):920-932 [PMID: 27435828]
  7. Nature. 2014 Feb 6;506(7486):89-92 [PMID: 24362564]
  8. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 08;11(6):e0156720 [PMID: 27275583]
  9. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015 Jul;30(7):398-406 [PMID: 25982153]
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Apr 28;106(17):7063-6 [PMID: 19365070]
  11. Ecol Evol. 2016 Oct 05;6(21):7645-7655 [PMID: 30128118]
  12. New Phytol. 2015 Aug;207(3):710-22 [PMID: 25809016]
  13. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 May 14;93(10):5090-3 [PMID: 11607681]
  14. Mol Ecol. 2005 Apr;14(4):1045-57 [PMID: 15773935]
  15. Science. 2005 Dec 23;310(5756):1924 [PMID: 16373568]
  16. Ecology. 2007 Feb;88(2):478-89 [PMID: 17479765]
  17. Photosynth Res. 2007 Nov-Dec;94(2-3):437-53 [PMID: 17805986]
  18. Mol Ecol. 2016 Jun;25(11):2482-98 [PMID: 26880192]
  19. Plant Cell. 1995 Jul;7(7):1099-1111 [PMID: 12242400]
  20. BMC Plant Biol. 2016 Apr 18;16:89 [PMID: 27091174]
  21. Tree Physiol. 2017 Dec 1;37(12):1727-1738 [PMID: 29099953]
  22. Trends Ecol Evol. 1992 Dec;7(12):401-5 [PMID: 21236080]
  23. Tree Physiol. 2007 Apr;27(4):611-20 [PMID: 17242002]
  24. Environ Manage. 2018 Nov;62(5):906-914 [PMID: 30159704]
  25. New Phytol. 2012 Feb;193(3):730-744 [PMID: 22171967]
  26. New Phytol. 1998 Dec;140(4):599-624 [PMID: 33862960]
  27. Ecol Evol. 2019 Jun 25;9(14):8062-8074 [PMID: 31380071]
  28. Ann Bot. 2008 Sep;102(3):399-407 [PMID: 18587131]
  29. Am J Bot. 2011 Mar;98(3):336-51 [PMID: 21613130]
  30. Am J Bot. 2005 Jan;92(1):37-44 [PMID: 21652382]
  31. Am J Bot. 2017 Dec;104(12):1878-1890 [PMID: 29247028]
  32. Tree Physiol. 2011 Jun;31(6):604-14 [PMID: 21778293]
  33. Tree Physiol. 2008 Aug;28(8):1297-304 [PMID: 18519261]
  34. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005 Dec;20(12):685-92 [PMID: 16701458]
  35. Plant Cell Environ. 2011 Jan;34(1):43-51 [PMID: 20825578]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0freezingdroughtvulnerabilityleafhybridstressavoidancetolerancestempopulationspeciesbreakNiobraraRiverparentalgasexchangetraitsisolatedaspenpopulationscomparedtwophenologybudelectrolyteleakagehydraulicshowedlowerdrought-inducedcavitationresistancesimilarhigheraspensclimatetendingtowardAIM:assessedrelictualPleistoceneconservationinterestnearestparentspringtimepost-budgrowingseasonResponsestressorsthreetaxatermsLOCATION:NorthAmericanMidwestUSAMETHODS:UniquegenetspropagatedcommongardenrhizomecuttingstrackedmeasuredchlorophyllfluorescenceconductanceosmoticpotentialstomatalporeindexRESULTS:slowerexhibitedcapacitytolerateHybridsoverwinteringstrategyexhibitinglaterdamagehybridssharedvariousleaf-levelparentslimitedlossphotosyntheticfunctionfollowingmoderateMAINCONCLUSIONS:vulnerableduecombinationinheritedchangeswilllikelysufferincreasedunaffectedfrostwarmerspringscontrastsurvivalmechanismsresponseclimaticDroughtrelativeNationalScenicchangeecophysiologyconductivity

Similar Articles

Cited By