Is a drought a drought in grasslands? Productivity responses to different types of drought

Carroll, Charles J. W.; Slette, Ingrid J.; Griffin‐Nolan, Robert J.; Baur, Lauren E.; Hoffman, Ava M.; Denton, Elsie M.; Gray, Jesse E.; Post, Alison K.; Johnston, Melissa K.; Yu, Qiang; Collins, Scott L.; Luo, Yiqi; Smith, Melinda D.; Knapp, Alan K.

doi:10.1007/s00442-020-04793-8

Cited by 48 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is despite differences in the timing of peak physiological activity between cool‐season C 3 grass species and warm‐season C 4 species. The negative effects of drought on root biomass or BNPP across photosynthetic functional groups in our study are consistent with reported patterns in root production in response to seasonal fluctuations in soil water availability and soil moisture manipulations in irrigation experiments (Carroll et al, 2021; de Vries et al, 2016; Fang et al, 2017; Frank, 2007; Gibson‐Forty et al, 2016; Sindhøj et al, 2000). This reduction in root growth is likely to be associated with decreased photosynthate allocation to roots due to a drought‐induced reduction in C assimilation (Ruehr et al, 2009; Taylor et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The shift towards preferential below‐ground biomass investment in drier environments has been observed in other studies, with increases in both f BNPP (Bloom et al, 1985; Denton et al, 2017; Hui & Jackson, 2006; Zhang et al, 2019) and RMF (Eziz et al, 2017; Poorter et al, 2012; Zhou et al, 2018) reported. One species ( F. arundinacea (C 3 )) had lower f BNPP under drought in our study; although this was an exception here, a reduction in relative below‐ground production has been reported in response to severe soil water deficit in montane C 3 grasslands (Frank, 2007), native Great Plains grasslands (Carroll et al, 2021) and grasslands of northeast China (Ma et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 39%

“…been reported in response to severe soil water deficit in montane C 3 grasslands (Frank, 2007), native Great Plains grasslands (Carroll et al, 2021) and grasslands of northeast China (Ma et al, 2022).…”

Section: Do Drought-induced Plant Production and Biomass Allocation R...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C₃ and C₄ pasture grasses under drought

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Plant species show a broad spectrum of plasticity in their covarying root traits in response to soil water limitation ranging from no change to shifts towards traits that enhance water and nutrient acquisition. Knowledge of root trait correlations and associated trait plasticity under drought is crucial to sustaining grassland production, including rangelands and pastures, under future, drier climates.2. Here, we investigated below-ground responses to drought in four C 3 and three C 4 grasses and whether these explain above-ground responses during extreme cool-season drought and post-drought recovery in a well-replicated field experiment. We hypothesised that (a) C 3 and C 4 functional groups differ in their below-ground trait responses to drought: C 3 species shift their traits in line with a drought avoidance strategy and C 4 species shift towards drought tolerance strategies; (b) post-drought recovery is associated with below-ground carbon reserves in both functional groups. 3. Root traits in the C 3 functional group differed from C 4 by having higher values for specific root length, nitrogen and soluble sugar concentrations, while C 4 root traits were associated with higher mean diameter, tissue density and starch concentrations. Drought-induced plasticity in root traits in both functional groups was evidenced by increased values for specific root length, soluble sugars and nitrogen concentrations, and reduced values for tissue density, which we interpret as a drought avoidance strategy. Increasing root soluble sugars in C 3 and C 4 grasses and lower root tissue density in C 4 species under drought were associated with greater above-ground productivity. Above-ground biomass recovery post-drought was predicted by root and crown soluble sugar concentrations and root longevity across both plant functional groups. 4. These findings highlight the importance of understanding links between root trait plasticity and plant productivity during and following drought for predicting plant species' responses to changes in a future climate. K E Y W O R D S C 3 and C 4 functional groups, cool-season drought, drought avoidance and tolerance, nonstructural carbohydrates, resistance and resilience, root crown, root traits, trait plasticity | 1755 Functional Ecology CHANDREGOWDA et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 39%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C₃ and C₄ pasture grasses under drought

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Russ has a longstanding interest in the physiological ecology of plants in desert and semiarid systems (Smith et al 1997), and several studies in this Special Issue advance our understanding of vegetation responses to water availability. For example, Carroll et al (2021) find that intense drought decreased aboveground net primary productivity in different grasslands more than chronic drought and that wetter systems experienced a greater decrease in belowground net primary productivity under intense drought. In addition, Driscoll et al (2021) find little evidence that "conservative" water use strategies benefitted fitness of Encelia farinosa (brittlebrush) during dry years nor that "aggressive" water use was universally beneficial during wet years.…”

Section: Plant and Ecosystem Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Preface: honoring the career of Russell K. Monson

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Grasslands play a major role in regional carbon sequestration and water cycling because grasses invest in extensive rooting systems and storage organs [1,2]. Carbon dynamics are highly influenced by water availability in grassland systems, evident in drought years that result in decreased productivity [3][4][5]. Grasslands experiencing extreme droughts can have reduced physiological functioning [6,7], increased invasibility from non-native species [8], disruption of fire intervals [9], and loss of ecosystem functioning (i.e., productivity & species composition) [10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiological responses to drought stress and recovery reflect differences in leaf function and anatomy among grass lineages

Bachle

Zaricor

Griffith

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasses are cosmopolitan, existing in many biome and climate types from xeric to tropical. Traits that control physiological responses to drought vary strongly among grass lineages, suggesting that tolerance strategies may differ with evolutionary history. Here, we withheld water from 12 species representing six tribes of grasses to compare how species respond to drought in different grass lineages. We measured physiological, morphological, and anatomical traits. Dominant lineages from tropical savannas, like Andropogoneae, tolerated drought due to above and belowground morphological traits (specific leaf area and root length, SLA and SRL), while temperate grasses in this study utilized conservative leaf physiology (gas exchange) and anatomy traits. Increased intrinsic water-use efficiency coincided with a larger number of stomata, resulting in greater water loss (with inherently greater carbon gain) and increased drought sensitivity. Inherent leaf and root economic strategies impacting drought response were observed in all species, resulting in either high SLA or SRL, but not both. Our results indicate that grasses subjected to severe drought were influenced by anatomical traits (e.g., number of stomata and xylem area) and similar within lineages. In addition, grasses recovered at least 50% of physiological functioning across all lineages and 92% within Andropogoneae species, illustrating how drought can influence functional responses across diverse grass lineages.

show abstract

Is a drought a drought in grasslands? Productivity responses to different types of drought

Cited by 48 publications

References 54 publications

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C₃ and C₄ pasture grasses under drought

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C₃ and C₄ pasture grasses under drought

Preface: honoring the career of Russell K. Monson

Physiological responses to drought stress and recovery reflect differences in leaf function and anatomy among grass lineages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Is a drought a drought in grasslands? Productivity responses to different types of drought

Cited by 48 publications

References 54 publications

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C3 and C4 pasture grasses under drought

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C3 and C4 pasture grasses under drought

Preface: honoring the career of Russell K. Monson

Physiological responses to drought stress and recovery reflect differences in leaf function and anatomy among grass lineages

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C₃ and C₄ pasture grasses under drought

Root trait shifts towards an avoidance strategy promote productivity and recovery in C₃ and C₄ pasture grasses under drought