A global analysis of plant recovery performance from water stress

Abstract

Plant post-drought recovery performance is essential to predict shifts in ecosystem dynamics and production during frequent climate change-driven drought events. Yet, it is not clear how post-drought recovery is related to evolutionary and geographic variations in plants. In this study, we generated a global data set of post-drought recovery performance in 140 plant species from published studies. We quantified the plant post-drought recovery performance by calculating a recovery index for multiple plant physiological and hydraulic parameters, including leaf water potential, net photosynthetic rate, leaf hydraulic conductance and shoot biomass. The magnitude of recovery among four plant functional types (deciduous angiosperms, evergreen angiosperms, gymnosperms, and crops), two plant growth forms (shrubs and trees), two water management strategies (isohydric and anisohydric), four xylem porosity types (diffuse, ring, semi-ring and tracheid), and four major biomes (dry sclerophyll forest, boreal forest, temperate forest and tropical/subtropical forest) were compared. We found the inability to completely recover immediately after severe water stress is ubiquitous across all plant functional types and growth forms, while the rate and magnitude of post-drought recovery varied greatly across different plant taxonomic categories and geographic ranges. In general, plant hydraulic architecture, leaf anatomy and physiology affect plants' propensity towards recovery, and reflect evolutionary consequences of plant adaptation to their habitat. Due to the essential role of plant functional traits in regulating carbon storage in each biome, a better understanding plant postdrought recovery performance could improve our predictions on ecosystem productivity in a rapidly changing climate.

Forest Growth Responses to Drought at Short- and Long-Term Scales in Spain: Squeezing the Stress Memory from Tree Rings

“…In general, our results agree with published meta-analyses showing that gymnosperms (e.g., pines) often exhibit greater drought legacy than angiosperms (Anderegg et al, 2015), albeit we also detected drought-induced legacy effects on the growth of some beech forests as, for instance, the Eraso site ( Figure 3C). Angiosperms have more carbon reserves and display higher maximum hydraulic efficiency than gymnosperms, even if gymnosperms show higher resistance to drought-induced xylem cavitation (Maherali et al, 2004), which allows angiosperms a more rapid growth recovery upon rewatering (Yin and Bauerle, 2017). Discovering how forests will face more frequent and severe droughts remains a challenge but here we provide a framework to advance in our understanding by recovering part of the information contained in tree rings.…”

“…Long-term growth responses and "legacy effects" may include the cumulative effects of successive droughts and differ in duration and severity depending upon several factors (Anderegg et al, 2015). While some tree individuals or species display a marked resilience capacity and recover from drought after 1-5 years, others might maintain reduced growth rates for decades (Yin and Bauerle, 2017). For example, this is the case of some silver-fir (Abies alba) populations showing dieback in the Spanish Pyrenees due to a pronounced and long-term growth decline which started after the 1986 drought Gazol and Camarero, 2016).…”

Forest resilience to drought varies across biomes

“…Furthermore, forest growth resilience seems to rely on the species considered, indicating species-specific responses to drought stress (Anderegg et al, 2015Gea-Izquierdo et al, 2017Peltier et al, 2016;Pretzsch et al, 2013;S anchez-Salguero, Camarero, Guti errez et al, 2017;Yin & Bauerle, 2017). Evergreen gymnosperms dominating the semi-arid and drought-prone areas displayed lower resistance but faster recovery than evergreen gymnosperms and deciduous angiosperms dominating the temperate and wet regions, suggesting different adaptations and physiological mechanisms to cope with drought ( Figure 3).…”

“…Thus, this region could be subjected to species' range shifts in the near future, as successional dynamics and climate warming may be favouring angiosperms to the detriment of gymnosperms (Coll, Peñuelas, Ninyerola, Pons, & Carnicer, 2013;Vayreda, Mart ınez-Vilalta, Gracia, Canadell, & Retana, 2016). Quantifying the resilience in response to drought of forests dominated by species with contrasting functional traits in different biomes is therefore a major knowledge gap and remains a research challenge (Gea-Izquierdo et al, 2017;Yin & Bauerle, 2017).…”

Functional diversity differently shapes growth resilience to drought for co‐existing pine species

“…The on‐going increases in temperature and in the frequency and severity of droughts in southern Europe (Dai, ) are already negatively affecting forest productivity. Nonetheless, tree species have been shown to be able to buffer adverse climate conditions through varying key functional traits (Yin & Bauerle, ), but also through benefiting from a more diverse neighbourhood (Gazol & Camarero, ). Nevertheless, the consequences of species mixing and functional diversity on forest drought resilience remain unclear (Grossiord et al., ).…”