Abstract
Plant metabolic acclimation to thermal stress remains underrepresented in current global climate models. Gaps exist in our understanding of how metabolic processes (i.e., photosynthesis, respiration) acclimate over time and how aboveground versus belowground acclimation differs. We measured the thermal acclimation of Populus trichocarpa, comparing aboveground versus belowground physiology over time. Ninety genetically identical ramets were propagated in mesocosms that separated root and microbial components. After establishment at 25°C for 6 weeks, 60 clones were warmed +4 or +8°C and monitored for 10 weeks, measuring photosynthesis (A), leaf respiration (R), soil respiration (Rs), root plus soil respiration (Rs+r), and root respiration (Rr). We observed thermal acclimation in both A and R, with rates initially increasing, then declining as the thermal photosynthetic optimum (Topt) and the temperature-sensitivity (Q10) of respiration adjusted to warmer conditions. Photosynthetic acclimation was constructive, based on an increase in both Topt and peak A. Belowground, Rs+r decreased linearly with warming, while Rs rates declined abruptly, then remained constant with additional warming. Plant biomass was greatest at +4°C, with 30% allocated belowground. Rates of mass-based Rr were similar among treatments; however, root nitrogen declined at +8°C leading to less mass nitrogen-based Rr in that treatment. The Q10-temperature relationship of Rr was affected by warming, leading to differing values among treatments. Aboveground acclimation exceeded belowground acclimation, and plant nitrogen-use mediated the acclimatory response. Results suggest that moderate climate warming (+4°C) may lead to acclimation and increased plant biomass production but increases in production could be limited with severe warming (+8°C).
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1008-1029 |
Number of pages | 22 |
Journal | Physiologia Plantarum |
Volume | 173 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Nov 2021 |
Funding
We thank Lionel Perez-Collazo, David McLennan, Keith van Schaick, and Zach Ziegler for help with measurements and plant harvests. We also thank Will Cook at the Duke Environmental Isotope laboratory for his assistance with the nutrient analysis. We thank Dr. Zoran Bursac and the personnel of the FIU Statistics Department for statistical advice. We are grateful to Martijn Slot for discussions and for providing helpful feedback on the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science Graduate Student Research (SCGSR) program, and by Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The SCGSR program is administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) for the DOE. ORISE is managed by ORAU under contract number DE-SC0014664. ORNL is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the DOE under contract DE-AC05-1008 00OR22725. All opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of DOE, ORAU, or ORISE. We thank Lionel Perez‐Collazo, David McLennan, Keith van Schaick, and Zach Ziegler for help with measurements and plant harvests. We also thank Will Cook at the Duke Environmental Isotope laboratory for his assistance with the nutrient analysis. We thank Dr. Zoran Bursac and the personnel of the FIU Statistics Department for statistical advice. We are grateful to Martijn Slot for discussions and for providing helpful feedback on the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science Graduate Student Research (SCGSR) program, and by Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The SCGSR program is administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) for the DOE. ORISE is managed by ORAU under contract number DE‐SC0014664. ORNL is managed by UT‐Battelle, LLC, for the DOE under contract DE‐AC05‐1008 00OR22725. All opinions expressed in this paper are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the policies and views of DOE, ORAU, or ORISE.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
Office of Science Graduate Student Research | |
SCGSR | |
U.S. Department of Energy | DE‐AC05‐1008 00OR22725 |
Office of Science | |
Biological and Environmental Research | |
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists | |
Oak Ridge Associated Universities | DE‐SC0014664 |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory | DE-AC05-1008 00OR22725 |
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education |