Next Article in Journal
Measuring Urban Green Space Exposure Based on Street View Images and Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Woody Species Composition, Stand Structure and Regeneration Status of Londiani Forest in Kenya
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Water and Temperature Ecophysiological Challenges of Forests Plantations under Climate Change

by
Rafael A. Rubilar
1,2,*,
Juan Carlos Valverde
1,
Guillermo Barrientos
2,3 and
Otávio Camargo Campoe
4
1
Cooperativa de Productividad Forestal, Departamento de Silvicultura, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4030555, Chile
2
Centro Nacional de Excelencia para la Industria de la Madera (CENAMAD), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 7820436, Chile
3
Departamento de Obras Civiles, Facultad de Ciencias de la Ingeniería, Universidad Católica del Maule, Talca 3460000, Chile
4
Forest Productivity Cooperative, Departamento de Ciências Florestais, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras 37200-000, MG, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2024, 15(4), 654; https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040654
Submission received: 6 December 2023 / Revised: 11 March 2024 / Accepted: 26 March 2024 / Published: 3 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)

Abstract

:
Climate change has impacted the environmental conditions in which forest plantations grow worldwide. Droughts and extreme temperatures have compromised the survival and productivity of plantations, and the effects on carbon and water balance have increased risks to sustained productivity and sustainability. Interestingly, opportunities for improvement rely on a better understanding of the ecophysiological response of species or genotypes, their tolerance or resistance to thermal and water stress, and genetic–environmental interactions. Our manuscript summarizes tree and stand-level major reported ecophysiological responses that could challenge the establishment and development of forest plantations under future climate change scenarios. The manuscript discusses potential climate change effects on plantation forest productivity, carbon balance, water use, and water use efficiency, and suggests some potential silvicultural strategies to avoid or reduce risks under uncertain climate scenarios. An integrated approach to understanding the linkages between water resource availability and plant-stand carbon balance is proposed to provide sustainable management that may alleviate the social and environmental concerns associated with challenges relating to climate change for managed forests and the forest industry.

1. Introduction

The impact of current and potential changes in the relationship between forests and society is critical in many parts of the world, especially considering that the value of intensively managed forest plantations for carbon mitigation has become challenged and debated as a valid mitigation strategy [1,2,3], and also due to the fact that forest plantations have been considered to be in conflict with rational land and water resource use [4,5,6,7,8]. Given the complexity of the scenario surrounding forest plantations, the forestry industry has become particularly aware of the issues and challenges relating to sustaining forest productivity under climate change (CC) [9,10,11,12]. Large areas being planted and managed for fiber and timber production have been showing increasing rates of mortality due to unexpected longer drought periods and an increase in extreme dry season temperatures.
Therefore, understanding and modeling the response of tree species to potential variations in temperature and water availability under CC is essential for forecasting changes in forest productivity and determining their true potential C sequestration contributions. Developing indicators that identify and prevent large-scale mortality of individual tree species is key to forest sustainability [13,14,15]; McDowell et al. [16] and Peltier and Ogle [17] postulated that understanding genetic, physiological, and hydraulic traits is essential to be able to manage future forests. For example, identifying species/genotypes with tolerance to drought [18,19], or identifying vulnerable species or varieties, will create effective conservation programs and policies that may maintain productivity and carbon sequestration goals [20].
This manuscript reviews climate change effects on forest plantations and highlights approaches to the use of physiological indicators that may provide a guide for understanding responses of intensively managed forest plantations under temperature and water stress conditions. Potential climate change effects on plantation forest productivity, carbon balance, water use, and water use efficiency, along with silvicultural strategies to avoid or reduce risks under uncertain climate scenarios, are also discussed.

2. Forest Plantations under Climate Change

Understanding the effect of CC on forest plantations is complex due to the many unknowns involved [16,21]. In the 1980s, the first hypotheses related CC with vegetation growth patterns [22,23]. Initially, it was considered that species/ecosystem responses were specific; however, this highlighted the importance of scaling up studies and the need for understanding potential global implications [24]. In the following decades, society drove tremendous scientific research interest into CC, facilitating analyses from different perspectives. Multiple studies investigated the effects of CC with spatiotemporal dimensionality, given many existing local to global uncertainties [25,26]. Bastin et al. [27], Butt et al. [20], and Adams et al. [28] mentioned that incorporating spatial (local, regional, continental or global) and temporal (historical data or future predictions) dimensionality in research implied a minimization in prediction errors, given that CC effects are not constant around the planet or over time. For example, an IPCC report showed that 58% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been generated in the last 30 years, and in the last decade, emissions have increased by 20% compared to previous projections [29]. In this regard, research into the effects of CC has been focused on different climatic parameters and understanding the response of tree species to changes in ozone (O3), CO2, temperature, and precipitation, and how a negative response (considered stress) influences tree growth and survival [30,31].
There is extensive current knowledge about the metabolic response of trees to changes in environmental O3-CO2. It has been determined that if higher CO2 and lower O3-CO2 are maintained, responses across different scales may include those at the cellular level, with effects on the activity and production of RuBisCO [32], flavonoid biosynthesis [33], and protein repair and turnover [34]; those at the leaf level, with changes in photosynthesis, starch, sucrose metabolism, respiration, and leaf structure [35,36]; and those at the tree level, with changes in biomass allocation, leaf area, and reproductive output [37,38]. In the case of forest plantations, changes in gross primary production partitioning (GPP) and mortality have been the major focus [39]. A great matter of debate has arisen in regard to whether an increase in CO2 is beneficial in the long term to forest productivity because of the “CO2 fertilization effect on photosynthesis”. This benefit has been compared against increases in global warming and associated changes to hydrological cycles, which can have negative effects on forests [40]. Multiple studies have focused on analyzing and modeling the response of different species-genotypes to different temperature-water balance combination regimes in order to identify the ranges of adaptability and mortality rates, and how these environmental conditions may affect growth and resource use [1,20,41].

3. Plasticity Traits and Potential Adaptation of Managed Trees to Climate Change

A basic aspect of understanding the adaptation of forest plantations to CC involves characterizing the degree of vulnerability of species or genotypes to climate change. Genetic improvement has usually focused on improving production, resistance to pathogens, and adaptability to nutritional restrictions [42]; however, current species and genotypes are not guaranteed to be resilient to CC scenarios [43]. Previous studies developed by Trugman et al. [44] and Schwarz et al. [45] critically considered identifying genotypes with some degree of plasticity to regulate carbon flux and water use, which guarantees resistance to heat stress and drought conditions in trees [46]. Nicotra et al. [47], Teskey et al. [48], and Sala et al. [38] considered it key to identify the degree of phenotypic plasticity to heat stress and drought conditions present among species and genotypes. Understanding stress response mechanisms and identifying physiological traits that secure tree survival at different stages of development may also be of great importance. According to Gunderson et al. [49], O’Brien et al. [50], and Pita-Barboza et al. [51], response mechanisms could be categorized as avoidance (ability to maintain a favorable internal water balance under stress), tolerance (ability to maintain growth and biomass production under stress), and resistance (a sum of avoidance and tolerance mechanisms).
O’Brien et al. [50] synthesized morphological, physiological, hydraulic, and biochemical response mechanisms to water stress. Morphological traits consider absolute and relative growth efficiency per individual or stand biomass allocation (e.g., root system architecture, root maximum depth, and root: shoot relationship), anatomical traits at leaf level (e.g., stomatal density, leaf area, and leaf thickness), and xylem structure (e.g., density and diameter of vessels and wood density). Silva et al. [52] found that Eucalyptus genotypes with greater resistance to drought reduced their leaf area as an adjustment mechanism to avoid excessive transpiration and regulate photo assimilation. Similarly, Corrêa et al. [53] identified stress-tolerant Eucalyptus species that develop complex root architecture, allowing trees a greater probability of survival under droughts, but negatively affecting wood production. Worbes et al. [54] also concluded that vessel size is the limiting variable regulating hydraulic conductivity and tree water loss, and that wood density is correlated with water transport and loss for plantation forests containing tropical species.
Physiological variables such as photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, stomata conductance, carboxylation efficiency, leaf water potential, and non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) have also been investigated as proxies to evaluate drought resistance [55]. Photosynthesis and transpiration are highly susceptible to changes in climatic conditions, so it has been suggested that species with greater vulnerability to stress will experience sudden changes in these processes [56]. Aspinwall et al. [57], investigating the response of Eucalyptus tereticornis genotypes to heat stress, observed a significant reduction in, and a lower physiological variation of, photosynthesis, transpiration, stomatal conductance, and leaf relative water content for resistant genetic materials, and concluded that physiological traits may allow for discriminating genotypes that could withstand stress conditions.
Hydraulic traits such as the hydraulic safety margin, water potential at P50 or P88, and percentage loss of conductance (PLC) have been directly related to mortality under drought conditions. For example, Anderegg et al. [58] found that PLC was highly correlated to mortality for Pinus spp. and that wood anatomical traits were critical in this context. Kursar et al. [59] recommended the use of xylem hydraulic failure as a predictive factor for drought-induced tree mortality. Similarly, Mantova et al. [60] postulated that relative water content (RWC) and PLC could provide novel and valuable information surrounding the prediction of tree mortality, and thus forest dieback, under drought conditions. O’Brien et al. [50] recommended that hydraulic traits be analyzed in greater depth in tree species from different regions and conditions. Evidence of the mechanistic link connecting hydraulic failure with living cell damage and tree death is yet to be identified, and this compromises our ability to predict mortality events. Some studies have focused on identifying tolerance traits through analyzing the resilience of materials to hydraulic failure and carbon starvation (Figure 1) [50,61].
Biochemical traits, such as the activity and production of RuBisCO [32], flavonoid biosynthesis [33], antioxidant activity, carotenoid concentration, and protein repair and turnover [34] have been correlated well with morphological and physiological adaptation traits to stress. For example, at the leaf level, it has been identified that changes in photosynthesis and stomatal closure processes show a significant relationship with RuBisCO and ABA concentration [35,36].

4. Implication of Response to Stress for Species or Genotype Selection

Using traits associated with stress tolerance or resistance allows, in the short term, improvement in the adaptability of forest plantations to adverse events related to CC. Identifying stress resistant or tolerant traits at the nursery stage may significantly affect the selection process of genotypes to be planted according to the environmental conditions of each site and may provide room to facilitate reduced intraspecific competition for water resources [62]. For example, Müller et al. [63] and García et al. [64] differentiated resistance to water stress in Eucalyptus nursery plants, finding that plant height growth, root: shoot relationship, predawn leaf water potential, and instantaneous water efficiency use (iWUE) were key features in determining such resistance. These results suggest that genotype selection for greater resistance to environmental limitations may reduce mortality and growth loss risks in the early stages of plant development after planting.
Phenological development may also provide another driver for the selection of species and genotypes. Understanding species-specific and/or genotypic responses to temperature extremes and the duration of such stresses is critical for predicting plantation responses under climate change. Detailed phenological studies, such as those developed by Watt et al. [65] and Queiroz et al. [66], that evaluate optimal, minimum, and maximum performance temperature limits, or cardinal temperatures, for several tropical and Mediterranean eucalyptus species, may provide a basis for understanding key CC-related effects on growth performance of tree species and genotypes (Figure 2). Major changes in vegetation phenology have been observed in several ecosystems due to earlier warmer temperatures throughout the seasons, causing an earlier start to the growing season and increasing stand growth and carbon fixation [67,68]. However, these changes may also affect site carbon fluxes, in particular in tissues and soil respiration, and may also limit water resource availability, affecting site productivity and carbon sequestration by increasing seasonal stand evapotranspiration and water loss ahead of potential critical periods of increased atmospheric demand [69]. Temperature may also significantly affect absolute WUE, but responses may be positive or negative given specific site interactions [70].
Trees maintain relatively safe water levels through strict stomatal control; exposure to lethal water stress thresholds can increase the risk of carbon depletion and the chance of plant hydraulic failure. Sala et al. [38] and Allen et al. [71] investigated the interactions between storage and capacitance (water content × water potential) and showed the strong relationship of this interaction to tolerance to water stress and its value as a key factor in the design of plant strategies to cope with the environment [27,72]. Water storage can buffer rapid fluctuations in water status caused by severe environmental events, such as drought, and capacitance plays an important role in the efficiency and safety of water transport through the xylem [73].
Tree water stress response to cope with the inhibition of photosynthesis depends on the genetic potential of the species [74]. Indirect water use efficiency evaluation using carbon isotopes (e.g., δ C13, δ C12) has been proposed as a strategy for selection in forest breeding programs. However, investigations have shown mixed results in evaluating the response to water stress among species and genotypes. The reasons for this may be related to differential carbon partitioning mechanisms (e.g., leaf area adjustment to sapwood area, root:shoot ratio adjustment, and leaf photosynthetic capacity or respiration) that may affect this relationship [75,76]. Opportunities to forecast the risk of death for species/genotypes under CC may also require a clear understanding of a tree’s hydraulic safety margin between observed minimum xylem water potential and cavitation water potential [77]. However, the tradeoff between selecting better-adapted trees under CC requires a compromise: tolerant species or genotypes that sustain higher stomatal conductance to maintain C fixation will often lose water and risk hydraulic failure (anisohydric or drought-tolerant behavior). This contrasts with resistant species/genotypes that are very sensitive to closing stomata under drought (reducing C fixation and growth), but possess secure xylem hydraulic conductivity (isohydric or drought-avoider species or genotypes) [78].
The growth response to water stress over time and its genetic variation in Eucalytpus genotypes has been analyzed using the water stress integral concept [79,80] (Figure 3). Low productivity varieties showing higher levels of accumulated stress response over time may represent the responses of sensitive species to seasonal water stress (Figure 3a) [81]. For example, Waghorn et al. [82], researching juvenile Pinus radiata, concluded that late-season drought (higher WSI levels) is more detrimental to diameter growth and biomass accumulation compared to early-season drought (Figure 3b). The commercial use of forest materials that resist higher WSI levels may allow maximizing of production at early ages in drought-prone regions.

5. Implications for Water Use, Carbon Allocation and Growth

Water use by forest plantations has been strongly debated in the scientific community, and implications under CC are critical for ecosystem sustainability [83]. Several reports emphasize the idea that the water consumption of natural forests is lower than forest plantations [84,85] and assume a larger resilience of natural forests compared to plantations under drought events [86]. White et al. [87] showed potential effects on water ecosystem resources due to larger water consumption of perennial planted exotic species compared to natural senescent forest species during seasonal leaf-off periods. This perennial vs. senescent vegetation implies different phenological mechanisms, affecting ecosystem water balance but not vegetation responses during spring and summer’s drier months. Schwärzel et al. [7] also showed that understory, as opposed to overstory, may be an unexpected key major water consumer regulator. In situ water balance studies have shown differences among vegetation types, and a major common finding indicates that water use is a function of leaf area as a key driver, triggered by atmospheric demand [62,88,89]. This suggests that effects on ecosystem water resources are mainly physical, and forest plantations may not differ from a broad range of natural forests that sustain similar leaf area levels under the same conditions of atmospheric demand. Thus, both are highly susceptible to CC event impacts.
The effects of forest plantations on water resources, considering erosion, sedimentation, and groundwater recharge, have been summarized by van Dijk and Keenan [90]. Comparisons between forest plantations and natural forests at the watershed level have usually provided assessments that do not account for differences in past land use (e.g., well-developed soil profiles are usually maintained under natural forests). Additionally, underlying geological differences may be large under forest landscapes, creating biased comparisons [91]. Interestingly, Cassiano and Ferraz [12] showed that management of landscape forest mosaics may provide a better balance, in terms of stable annual streamflow and maintenance of wood production, at the watershed scale level. Current research studies suggest that assessment of the potential effects of plantations on water resources requires a site-specific planning approach [91,92,93]. A minimum forest cover that may provide a balance between ecosystem NPP for productive/carbon fixation purposes and water sustainability has been proposed by Tarigan et al. [94]. Hakamada et al. [95] showed practical opportunities for reducing stand WU, considering lower initial planting densities or initial stockings, and Medhurst et al. [96] also suggested a leaf area reduction approach to estimate thinning effects on stand water use. In this regard, thinning and pruning have also been suggested as silvicultural strategies for reducing potential impact on transpiration and interception, improving site water yield. However, studies have shown that the effects are transient depending on thinning intensity and final time of recovery of leaf area levels of the overstory and understory [97]. The strong relationship between the plantation leaf area and understory leaf area (site leaf area) relies on the key role of the understory in transpiration, and its direct effects on interception and soil evaporation. Nevertheless, atmospheric demand is the major driver of site water use of forests and accompanying vegetation. A comprehensive approach modeling effects on water resources, combining crop water balance and environmental variables, has been synthesized by White et al. [91] for South-East Asia. Water sustainability under CC for intensively managed plantations may consider stand management strategies, such as mosaics, reduced planting densities with or without changes in plantation design, and species or genotype selections that may provide sustained ecosystem-level effects, in order to minimize impacts.
Understanding carbon and water balance is key for understanding ecosystem sustainability under CC. The strong relationships reported between GPP and ET for forest plantations suggest a connection between carbon fixation and water use [98]. In this regard, forest plantations, similar to natural forests and other vegetation types, show a strong positive correlation between productivity and rainfall [70], but higher net ecosystem productivity rates and higher absolute water use efficiency compared to other vegetation types [98]. Interestingly, plantations have been reported to be more sensitive to drought compared to natural forests due to natural adaptation and more resistant than natural forests due to physiological adaptation advantages [70,85,99]. It is found that these responses are local due to site-specific environments when comparisons are made among studies [100,101].
A synthesis of studies accounting for annual water use and forest stand carbon annual production suggested an increase in water use when increasing the amount of C being fixed by forest plantations [91,102,103]. Comparable results analyzing forest productivity across a rainfall gradient have been reported by Zhang et al. [104] for Eucalyptus spp. in Australia, Eucalyptus spp. and Pinus spp. in Brazil [103], and Pinus radiata in Chile [102]. Worldwide studies have shown a strong linear relationship between low-productivity forests and low water use efficiency, but this relationship changes to an asymptotic behavior with larger variability in absolute water use efficiency as higher levels of site carbon fixation are reached with smaller increments in water use (Figure 4). Interestingly, the linear portion of this relationship agrees with the linear relationship between leaf area and water use evaluated for several Eucalyptus species by Hatton et al. [105], but does not explain the higher absolute WUE at higher productivity sites. This WUE relationship has several implications for climate change effects on productivity and suggests that severe and mild water-limited environments may show severe and significant reductions in yield and carbon sequestration. On the other hand, high-productivity forest sites (e.g., >6 Mg C ha−1 yr−1) that maintain higher WUE levels may provide sustained levels of forest productivity and carbon sequestration unless extreme shortages in water resource availability affect site productivity (Figure 4).
Selecting water-use efficient (WUE) tree species as a strategy for forest plantations has been challenged. For example, Hodge and Dvorak [107] considered that selecting species/genotypes based on their productivity in a drought environmental gradient may indirectly result in the selection of more WUE trees. However, higher productivity may also be attained via different physiological mechanisms, and more importantly, rates of water use (Figure 4). In all cases, selecting sustainable water use species/genotypes for intensively managed fast-growing forest plantations may provide an opportunity to maintain forest productivity in regions where climate change scenarios will reduce water resource availability [93,107,108,109].
Maintenance of productivity and survival may strongly depend on carbon fixation and partitioning between aboveground and belowground components [110]. Partitioning to belowground components conveys an important tradeoff that may favor survival by accessing limited water or nutrient resources, but investment in non-photosynthetic tissues may reduce carbon fixation at the expense of growth required for survival and growth rate maintenance [111]. Campoe et al. [112] evaluated the carbon balance of five clonal Eucalyptus across four contrasting sites representing a water and temperature stress gradient in Brazil and Uruguay. The study observed large differences in gross primary production across sites where belowground partitioning increased, with increasing site mean annual temperature and soil water deficit reducing aboveground wood production. Results from other studies and species have also shown comparable results on a broader scale [113]. Interestingly, in this study, clones showed similar belowground partitioning, but larger differences in partitioning regarding wood. These differences among clonal materials may provide guidance for selecting genotypes better adapted to CC scenarios and improving the parametrization of process-based models for evaluating species and genotypes [114,115]. Considering more tolerant, rather than more resistant, genotypes for selection in order to maintain productivity under CC may demand a tradeoff in terms of risk of sudden death or failure under drought.
The resistance characteristics of selected genotypes may secure survival, but this is usually at the expense of reduced growth rates, as these characteristics typically rely on the avoidance of water stress mechanisms that may reduce productivity. These mechanisms include premature foliage senesce and drop in leaf area, the development of larger and deeper root systems at the expense of growing aboveground biomass, or having faster or larger sensitivity of stomata to water deficit. On the other hand, tolerant genotypes will maintain site productivity and carbon sequestration in forest plantations, as their key physiological, morphological, and phenological mechanisms of response to water stress do not strongly affect carbon fixation or partitioning to aboveground components. However, extremely tolerant materials showing high growth rates may be susceptible to higher risks under short-term droughts (Figure 5). Appropriate matching of species/genotypes to sites is required as a strategy to reduce such risks. Additionally, species selection is critical for defining silvicultural management strategies and the plantation rotation period. For example, older P. radiata plantations are more conservative in terms of WU and show higher WUE levels compared to younger stands (Figure 5b).
Despite the complexity of carbon fluxes and balance assessments at an individual tree or stand level, understanding these responses for improved species/genotypes/clones under water availability or temperature environmental gradients, or under manipulated experimental conditions, may provide a base understanding to guide the assessment of mortality risks and prediction of potential growth rate declines and sustainability of future plantations. The implications of these key elements will provide better certainty surrounding the use of current process-based model projections and their effects on ecosystem net carbon sequestration potential, as well as the role of forest plantations at large-scale levels [116,117].
Debate on the positive effects of forest plantations on site carbon sequestration has been raised in regard to the comparison of plantation carbon gain versus the restoration of natural forests, under global forestation plans, for carbon mitigation [115,118]. Considering the relevance and caution of sustaining forest biodiversity, robust scientific studies have shown the importance of considering fast-growing forest plantations to reach high C sequestration rates, and at the same time, the importance of maintaining long-term large C stocks accumulated over decades or centuries by old and natural forests. From a soil carbon sequestration point of view, and in particular considering degraded or low fertility soils with agricultural abandonment, plantations with fast-growing species undoubtedly show faster and larger positive effects on soil C sequestration and stocks [81,119]. The C sequestration potential of a given soil depends strongly on belowground biomass growth and decay, up until reaching a physical maximum potential of organic matter accumulation associated with soil porosity. This short to medium-term soil organic carbon (SOC) accumulation potential is, as may be expected for most degraded soils, strongly linked to the maximum aboveground biomass attained at a given site for a particular soil-site condition (Figure 6).

6. Risks to Forest Productivity and Mitigation Strategies

Reforestation efforts being made around the world with fast-growing plantations need to consider climate change risks in order to achieve mitigation objectives [119,120,121,122,123]. Several reports from intensively managed forest plantations worldwide have indicated lower survival and reduced growth rates due to CC [15,124,125]. Increases in maximum and/or minimum absolute temperatures, reductions in precipitation, and extended drought periods have affected the sustained productivity of intensively managed plantations [126,127,128]. However, productivity gains have been frequently reported due to longer growing seasons, or increases in seasonal temperature, rainfall, and/or atmospheric CO2 [129,130,131]. Interestingly, the gains in productivity observed in several reports rely on a CO2 fertilization effect that, when removed, may result in productivity decreases at sites with water and/or nutrient resource limitations or environmental temperature constraints that may elicit unknown results [123,132]. Forest ecosystem responses under elevated CO2 may be affected by interactions with water and nutrient availability that depend strongly on site-specific characteristics [133]. Despite there being some evidence of improved water use efficiency when nutrients are not limited, any other environmental limitation (water, nutrients, temperature, oxygen, light) at different stages of stand development could reduce the productivity and carbon sequestration potential of forest plantations, limiting the expected results under an elevated CO2 enrichment scenario.
The selection of forest tree species for large-scale forestation planting programs targeted for climate change mitigation may provide interesting opportunities for increasing C sequestration, as well as the establishment of mixed-species plantations [120,134,135,136,137,138,139]. Silveira et al. [140] evaluated several Eucalyptus spp. and Pinus spp. based on an extensive literature review and ranked their potentials in terms of carbon sequestration and storage. Their results suggested that in 60% of all comparisons, Eucalyptus species performed better than Pinus spp., but some broadly planted pine species such as P. patula, P. halepensis, and P. radiata showed better performance in limited environments. In fact, selecting fast-growing or better-adapted species may reduce the land area required for a given target mitigation goal and/or provide larger C stocks in a shorter spam of time. Similarly, Bush et al. [139] evaluated several potential new species and sustainable product alternatives for Australia under CC scenarios, considering the impacts of biotic and abiotic stresses on survival and productivity. As a corollary of these studies and the observed CC biotic and abiotic challenges, the need to evaluate new potential species for the establishment of productively managed plantations should be considered a strategic goal of countries with highly developed forest industries and/or those considering target sequestration scenarios.
Appropriate management of plantations, and associated silvicultural activities, such as removing competing vegetation and fertilization and soil preparation, are required to maintain, improve, and sustain the productivity and carbon sequestration of forest plantations, and cement their role in mitigating climate change effects [140,141,142,143,144]. Intermediate management activities such as pruning, thinning, or variable retention harvesting may also provide opportunities for reducing severe water stress effects on plantations [145,146,147].
Understanding the physical characteristics of soils and their effects on species or genetic material may gain importance under reduced water availability CC scenarios. Several studies have shown critical differences in root system architecture that are affected by soil properties at the species, taxa, and variety levels. Soil dynamic properties, such as soil moisture and soil resistance, may impose limitations on root growth that in some instances, if not appropriately manipulated [148], may limit seasonal plant development and growth. In fact, despite most modern fast-growing stands, silviculture considers that intensive soil preparation [108], drier soil conditions, and enhancing high soil resistance to penetration may provide unknown effects on belowground plant growth.

7. Conclusions

Sustained water and thermal stresses challenge the survival and future productivity of intensively managed forest plantations worldwide under current and future climate change scenarios. Even though productivity increases are expected in many regions, other regions sustaining forest plantations may face tremendous uncertainties in maintaining forest productivity and health under potential climate change scenarios. The future of forest productivity demands a better understanding of environmental changes, the ecophysiological responses of species/genotypes, and the effect of silvicultural management on efficient and sustainable use of site-specific available resources.
Evidence from various investigations, supported by ecophysiological assessments, suggests that the selection of new species or genotypes, determining initial planting density and stocking management according to carrying capacity scenarios, and properly managing intensity and duration of competing vegetation (understory) and fertilization may be considered as key strategies for securing the productivity and C sequestration of forest plantations under challenging CC scenarios.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f15040654/s1. Table S1. Detail of the studies considered for the productivity-water use relationship in Figure 5 and Figure 6. References [87,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163] are cited in Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

R.A.R., J.C.V. and G.B. designed and performed the research framework, collected, and analyzed the data, and wrote and prepared the original draft. R.A.R. and O.C.C. designed and supervised the study, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final draft. O.C.C. participated in data analysis and reviewed the manuscript draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research FONDECYT Project Grant 1190835, ANID BASAL FB210015 and Fondef IDeA I+D 23I10011, the Forest Productivity Cooperative at Universidad de Concepción Chile, and the support of the ANID agency via DOCTORADO BECAS CHILE/2020-21202023.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the support of many professionals from Forest Productivity Cooperative and Facultad de Ciencias Forestales at Universidad de Concepción.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wang, S.; Huang, Y. Determinants of soil organic carbon sequestration and its contribution to ecosystem carbon sinks of planted forests. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 3163–3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Suryaningrum, F.; Jarvis, R.M.; Buckley, H.L.; Hall, D.; Case, B.S. Large-scale tree planting initiatives as an opportunity to derive carbon and biodiversity co-benefits: A case study from Aotearoa New Zealand. New For. 2021, 53, 589–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Forster, E.J.; Healey, J.R.; Dymond, C.; Styles, D. Commercial afforestation can deliver effective climate change mitigation under multiple decarbonisation pathways. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Tong, X.; Brandt, M.; Yue, Y.; Ciais, P.; Rudbeck Jepsen, M.; Penuelas, J.; Wigneron, J.-P.; Xiao, X.; Song, X.-P.; Horion, S. Forest management in southern China generates short term extensive carbon sequestration. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vetter, S. With power comes responsibility–a rangelands perspective on forest landscape restoration. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 549483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gogoi, A.; Ahirwal, J.; Sahoo, U.K. Plant biodiversity and carbon sequestration potential of the planted forest in Brahmaputra flood plains. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Schwärzel, K.; Zhang, L.; Montanarella, L.; Wang, Y.; Sun, G. How afforestation affects the water cycle in drylands: A process-based comparative analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 944–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gimeno, F.; Galleguillos, M.; Manuschevich, D.; Zambrano-Bigiarini, M. A coupled modeling approach to assess the effect of forest policies in water provision: A biophysical evaluation of a drought-prone rural catchment in south-central Chile. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 830, 154608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gómez, I.; Caselles, V.; Estrela, M.J.; Sánchez, J.M.; Rubio, E. Simulation of surface energy fluxes and meteorological variables using the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS): Evaluating the impact of land-atmosphere coupling on short-term forecasts. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 249, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, B.; Waters, C.; Anwar, M.R.; Cowie, A.; Liu, D.L.; Summers, D.; Paul, K.; Feng, P. Future climate impacts on forest growth and implications for carbon sequestration through reforestation in southeast Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 302, 113964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Martins, F.B.; Benassi, R.B.; Torres, R.R.; de Brito Neto, F.A. Impacts of 1.5 C and 2 C global warming on Eucalyptus plantations in South America. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 825, 153820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cassiano, C.C.; Ferraz, S.F.d.B. Fast-growing forest management to regulate the balance between wood production and water supply. Sci. Agric. 2022, 80, e20210148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wilmking, M.; van der Maaten-Theunissen, M.; van der Maaten, E.; Scharnweber, T.; Buras, A.; Biermann, C.; Gurskaya, M.; Hallinger, M.; Lange, J.; Shetti, R. Global assessment of relationships between climate and tree growth. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 3212–3220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. McDowell, N.G.; Allen, C.D.; Anderson-Teixeira, K.; Aukema, B.H.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Chini, L.; Clark, J.S.; Dietze, M.; Grossiord, C.; Hanbury-Brown, A. Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 2020, 368, eaaz9463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Chenchouni, H.; Bachelet, D.; McDowell, N.; Vennetier, M.; Kitzberger, T.; Rigling, A.; Breshears, D.D.; Hogg, E.T. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 660–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McDowell, N.G.; Grossiord, C.; Adams, H.D.; Pinzón-Navarro, S.; Mackay, D.S.; Breshears, D.D.; Allen, C.D.; Borrego, I.; Dickman, L.T.; Collins, A. Mechanisms of a coniferous woodland persistence under drought and heat. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 045014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peltier, D.M.; Ogle, K. Tree growth sensitivity to climate is temporally variable. Ecol. Lett. 2020, 23, 1561–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Alfaro, R.I.; Fady, B.; Vendramin, G.G.; Dawson, I.K.; Fleming, R.A.; Sáenz-Romero, C.; Lindig-Cisneros, R.A.; Murdock, T.; Vinceti, B.; Navarro, C.M. The role of forest genetic resources in responding to biotic and abiotic factors in the context of anthropogenic climate change. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 333, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hussein, H.-A.A.; Alshammari, S.O.; Kenawy, S.K.M.; Elkady, F.M.; Badawy, A.A. Grain-Priming with L-Arginine Improves the Growth Performance of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Plants under Drought Stress. Plants 2022, 11, 1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Butt, N.; Possingham, H.; De Los Rios, C.; Maggini, R.; Fuller, R.; Maxwell, S.; Watson, J. Challenges in assessing the vulnerability of species to climate change to inform conservation actions. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 199, 10–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Peringer, A.; Siehoff, S.; Chételat, J.; Spiegelberger, T.; Buttler, A.; Gillet, F. Past and future landscape dynamics in pasture-woodlands of the Swiss Jura Mountains under climate change. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pollard, D. A forestry perspective on the carbon dioxide issue. For. Chron. 1985, 61, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Layser, E.F. Forestry and climatic change. J. For. 1980, 78, 678–682. [Google Scholar]
  24. Gates, D.M. Climate change and the response of forests. Int. J. Remote Sens. 1990, 11, 1095–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Thomas, J.; Brunette, M.; Leblois, A. The determinants of adapting forest management practices to climate change: Lessons from a survey of French private forest owners. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 135, 102662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nolan, R.H.; Gauthey, A.; Losso, A.; Medlyn, B.E.; Smith, R.; Chhajed, S.S.; Fuller, K.; Song, M.; Li, X.; Beaumont, L.J. Hydraulic failure and tree size linked with canopy die-back in eucalypt forest during extreme drought. New Phytol. 2021, 230, 1354–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bastin, J.-F.; Finegold, Y.; Garcia, C.; Mollicone, D.; Rezende, M.; Routh, D.; Zohner, C.M.; Crowther, T.W. The global tree restoration potential. Science 2019, 365, 76–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Adams, H.D.; Zeppel, M.J.; Anderegg, W.R.; Hartmann, H.; Landhäusser, S.M.; Tissue, D.T.; Huxman, T.E.; Hudson, P.J.; Franz, T.E.; Allen, C.D. A multi-species synthesis of physiological mechanisms in drought-induced tree mortality. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 1285–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Slade, R.; Al Khourdajie, A.; Van Diemen, R.; McCollum, D.; Pathak, M.; Some, S.; Vyas, P.; Fradera, R. IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022; Volume 10, p. 9781009157926. [Google Scholar]
  30. Teramura, A.H. Implications of stratospheric ozone depletion upon plant production. HortScience 1990, 25, 1557–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ainsworth, E.A.; Yendrek, C.R.; Sitch, S.; Collins, W.J.; Emberson, L.D. The effects of tropospheric ozone on net primary productivity and implications for climate change. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2012, 63, 637–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Urban, O.; Hrstka, M.; Zitová, M.; Holišová, P.; Šprtová, M.; Klem, K.; Calfapietra, C.; De Angelis, P.; Marek, M.V. Effect of season, needle age and elevated CO2 concentration on photosynthesis and Rubisco acclimation in Picea abies. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 58, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jaafar, H.Z.; Ibrahim, M.H.; Karimi, E. Phenolics and flavonoids compounds, phenylanine ammonia lyase and antioxidant activity responses to elevated CO2 in Labisia pumila (Myrisinaceae). Molecules 2012, 17, 6331–6347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Birami, B.; Nägele, T.; Gattmann, M.; Preisler, Y.; Gast, A.; Arneth, A.; Ruehr, N.K. Hot drought reduces the effects of elevated CO2 on tree water-use efficiency and carbon metabolism. New Phytol. 2020, 226, 1607–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Curtis, P.S.; Wang, X. A meta-analysis of elevated CO2 effects on woody plant mass, form, and physiology. Oecologia 1998, 113, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Lauriks, F.; Salomón, R.L.; De Roo, L.; Sobrino-Plata, J.; Rodríguez-García, A.; Steppe, K. Limited mitigating effects of elevated CO2 in young aspen trees to face drought stress. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 201, 104942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Palahí, M.; Pukkala, T.; Kasimiadis, D.; Poirazidis, K.; Papageorgiou, A.C. Modelling site quality and individual-tree growth in pure and mixed Pinus brutia stands in north-east Greece. Ann. For. Sci. 2008, 65, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sala, A.; Piper, F.; Hoch, G. Physiological mechanisms of drought-induced tree mortality are far from being resolved. New Phytol. 2010, 186, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Körner, C.; Asshoff, R.; Bignucolo, O.; Hättenschwiler, S.; Keel, S.G.; Peláez-Riedl, S.; Pepin, S.; Siegwolf, R.T.; Zotz, G. Carbon flux and growth in mature deciduous forest trees exposed to elevated CO2. Science 2005, 309, 1360–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bugmann, H.; Bigler, C. Will the CO2 fertilization effect in forests be offset by reduced tree longevity? Oecologia 2011, 165, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Choat, B.; Jansen, S.; Brodribb, T.J.; Cochard, H.; Delzon, S.; Bhaskar, R.; Bucci, S.J.; Feild, T.S.; Gleason, S.M.; Hacke, U.G. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought. Nature 2012, 491, 752–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. DeSoto, L.; Cailleret, M.; Sterck, F.; Jansen, S.; Kramer, K.; Robert, E.M.; Aakala, T.; Amoroso, M.M.; Bigler, C.; Camarero, J.J. Low growth resilience to drought is related to future mortality risk in trees. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Walther, G.-R.; Post, E.; Convey, P.; Menzel, A.; Parmesan, C.; Beebee, T.J.; Fromentin, J.-M.; Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Bairlein, F. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 2002, 416, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Trugman, A.T.; Anderegg, L.D.; Anderegg, W.R.; Das, A.J.; Stephenson, N.L. Why is tree drought mortality so hard to predict? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 520–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schwarz, J.; Skiadaresis, G.; Kohler, M.; Kunz, J.; Schnabel, F.; Vitali, V.; Bauhus, J. Quantifying growth responses of trees to drought—A critique of commonly used resilience indices and recommendations for future studies. Curr. For. Rep. 2020, 6, 185–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bennett, A.C.; Dargie, G.C.; Cuni-Sanchez, A.; Tshibamba Mukendi, J.; Hubau, W.; Mukinzi, J.M.; Phillips, O.L.; Malhi, Y.; Sullivan, M.J.; Cooper, D.L. Resistance of African tropical forests to an extreme climate anomaly. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2003169118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Nicotra, A.B.; Atkin, O.K.; Bonser, S.P.; Davidson, A.M.; Finnegan, E.J.; Mathesius, U.; Poot, P.; Purugganan, M.D.; Richards, C.L.; Valladares, F. Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 684–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Teskey, R.; Wertin, T.; Bauweraerts, I.; Ameye, M.; McGuire, M.A.; Steppe, K. Responses of tree species to heat waves and extreme heat events. Plant Cell Environ. 2015, 38, 1699–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Gunderson, C.A.; O’hara, K.H.; Campion, C.M.; Walker, A.V.; Edwards, N.T. Thermal plasticity of photosynthesis: The role of acclimation in forest responses to a warming climate. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010, 16, 2272–2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. O’Brien, M.J.; Engelbrecht, B.M.; Joswig, J.; Pereyra, G.; Schuldt, B.; Jansen, S.; Kattge, J.; Landhäusser, S.M.; Levick, S.R.; Preisler, Y. A synthesis of tree functional traits related to drought-induced mortality in forests across climatic zones. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 1669–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pita-Barbosa, A.; Oliveira, L.A.; de Barros, N.F.; Hodecker, B.E.R.; Oliveira, F.S.; Araújo, W.L.; Martins, S.C. Developing a Roadmap to Define a Potential Ideotype for Drought Tolerance in Eucalyptus. For. Sci. 2023, 69, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Silva, C.D.; Nascimento, J.S.; Scarpinati, E.A.; Paula, R.C. Classification of Eucalyptus urograndis hybrids under different water availability based on biometric traits. For. Syst. 2014, 23, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Corrêa, T.R.; de Toledo Picoli, E.A.; de Souza, G.A.; Conde, S.A.; Silva, N.M.; Lopes-Mattos, K.L.B.; de Resende, M.D.V.; Zauza, E.A.V.; Oda, S. Phenotypic markers in early selection for tolerance to dieback in Eucalyptus. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2017, 107, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Worbes, M.; Blanchart, S.; Fichtler, E. Relations between water balance, wood traits and phenological behavior of tree species from a tropical dry forest in Costa Rica—A multifactorial study. Tree Physiol. 2013, 33, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Cregg, B. Improving drought tolerance of trees: Theoretical and practical considerations. In Proceedings of the XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Nursery Crops; Development, Evaluation, Production and Use 630, Toronto, ON, Canada, 11–17 August 2002; pp. 147–158. [Google Scholar]
  56. Charrier, G.; Martin-StPaul, N.; Damesin, C.; Delpierre, N.; Hänninen, H.; Torres-Ruiz, J.M.; Davi, H. Interaction of drought and frost in tree ecophysiology: Rethinking the timing of risks. Ann. For. Sci. 2021, 78, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aspinwall, M.J.; Drake, J.E.; Campany, C.; Vårhammar, A.; Ghannoum, O.; Tissue, D.T.; Reich, P.B.; Tjoelker, M.G. Convergent acclimation of leaf photosynthesis and respiration to prevailing ambient temperatures under current and warmer climates in Eucalyptus tereticornis. New Phytol. 2016, 212, 354–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Anderegg, W.R.; Klein, T.; Bartlett, M.; Sack, L.; Pellegrini, A.F.; Choat, B.; Jansen, S. Meta-analysis reveals that hydraulic traits explain cross-species patterns of drought-induced tree mortality across the globe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 5024–5029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Kursar, T.A.; Engelbrecht, B.M.; Burke, A.; Tyree, M.T.; EI Omari, B.; Giraldo, J.P. Tolerance to low leaf water status of tropical tree seedlings is related to drought performance and distribution. Funct. Ecol. 2009, 23, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mantova, M.; Herbette, S.; Cochard, H.; Torres-Ruiz, J.M. Hydraulic failure and tree mortality: From correlation to causation. Trends Plant Sci. 2022, 27, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Li, S.; Jansen, S. The root cambium ultrastructure during drought stress in Corylus avellana. IAWA J. 2017, 38, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Whitehead, D.; Beadle, C.L. Physiological regulation of productivity and water use in Eucalyptus: A review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 193, 113–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Müller, C.; Hodecker, B.; De Barros, N.; Merchant, A. A physiological approach for pre-selection of Eucalyptus clones resistant to drought. Iforest Biogeosci. For. 2020, 13, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. García, L.Y.; Rubilar, R.; Valverde, J.C.; Emhart, V.; Bascuñán, L.; Medina, A.; Bozo, D. Morphological, physiological and carbon balance response of Eucalyptus genotypes under water stress. New For. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Watt, M.S.; Rubilar, R.; Kimberley, M.O.; Kriticos, D.J.; Emhart, V.; Mardones, O.; Acevedo, M.; Pincheira, M.; Stape, J.; Fox, T. Using seasonal measurements to inform ecophysiology: Extracting cardinal growth temperatures for process-based growth models of five Eucalyptus species/crosses from simple field trials. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 2014, 44, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Queiroz, T.B.; Campoe, O.C.; Montes, C.R.; Alvares, C.A.; Cuartas, M.Z.; Guerrini, I.A. Temperature thresholds for Eucalyptus genotypes growth across tropical and subtropical ranges in South America. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 472, 118248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Gao, X.; Gray, J.; Cohrs, C.W.; Cook, R.; Albaugh, T.J. Longer greenup periods associated with greater wood volume growth in managed pine stands. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2021, 297, 108237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, J.; Tong, X.; Zhang, J.; Meng, P.; Li, J.; Liu, P. Dynamics of phenology and its response to climatic variables in a warm-temperate mixed plantation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 483, 118785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Oishi, A.C.; Miniat, C.F.; Novick, K.A.; Brantley, S.T.; Vose, J.M.; Walker, J.T. Warmer temperatures reduce net carbon uptake, but do not affect water use, in a mature southern Appalachian forest. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 252, 269–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Tian, J.; Zhang, Z.; Kong, R.; Zhu, B.; Zhang, F.; Jiang, S.; Chen, X. Changes in water use efficiency and their relations to climate change and human activities in three forestry regions of China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2021, 144, 1297–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Allen, C.D.; Breshears, D.D.; McDowell, N.G. On underestimation of global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 2015, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bartlett, M.K.; Scoffoni, C.; Sack, L. The determinants of leaf turgor loss point and prediction of drought tolerance of species and biomes: A global meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 2012, 15, 393–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pratt, R.B.; Jacobsen, A.L. Conflicting demands on angiosperm xylem: Tradeoffs among storage, transport and biomechanics. Plant Cell Environ. 2017, 40, 897–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Aitken, S.N.; Yeaman, S.; Holliday, J.A.; Wang, T.; Curtis-McLane, S. Adaptation, migration or extirpation: Climate change outcomes for tree populations. Evol. Appl. 2008, 1, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Medlyn, B.E.; De Kauwe, M.G.; Lin, Y.S.; Knauer, J.; Duursma, R.A.; Williams, C.A.; Arneth, A.; Clement, R.; Isaac, P.; Limousin, J.M. How do leaf and ecosystem measures of water-use efficiency compare? New Phytol. 2017, 216, 758–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Condon, A.G.; Richards, R.; Rebetzke, G.; Farquhar, G. Breeding for high water-use efficiency. J. Exp. Bot. 2004, 55, 2447–2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Tyree, M.T.; Zimmermann, M.; Tyree, M.T.; Zimmermann, M. Hydraulic architecture of whole plants and plant performance. In Xylem Structure and the Ascent of Sap; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; pp. 175–214. [Google Scholar]
  78. Skelton, R.P.; West, A.G.; Dawson, T.E. Predicting plant vulnerability to drought in biodiverse regions using functional traits. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 5744–5749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Gonzalez-Benecke, C.A.; Dinger, E.J. Use of water stress integral to evaluate relationships between soil moisture, plant water stress and stand productivity in young Douglas-fir trees. New For. 2018, 49, 775–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Myers, B.; Benyon, R.; Theiveyanathan, S.; Criddle, R.; Smith, C.; Falkiner, R. Response of effluent-irrigated Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus radiata to salinity and vapor pressure deficits. Tree Physiol. 1998, 18, 565–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. de Oliveira, T.W.G.; Rubilar, R.; Sanquetta, C.R.; Corte, A.P.D.; Medina, A.; Mardones, O.; Emhart, V.; Quiroga, J.J.; Valenzuela, H.; Bozo, D. Differences in early seasonal growth efficiency and productivity of eucalyptus genotypes. New For. 2022, 53, 811–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Waghorn, M.J.; Whitehead, D.; Watt, M.S.; Mason, E.G.; Harrington, J.J. Growth, biomass, leaf area and water-use efficiency of juvenile Pinus radiata in response to water deficits. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 2015, 45, 31–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dresel, P.E.; Dean, J.F.; Perveen, F.; Webb, J.A.; Hekmeijer, P.; Adelana, S.M.; Daly, E. Effect of Eucalyptus plantations, geology, and precipitation variability on water resources in upland intermittent catchments. J. Hydrol. 2018, 564, 723–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Yu, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, J.; Wei, X.; Schuler, J.; Sun, P.; Harper, R.; Zegre, N. Natural forests exhibit higher carbon sequestration and lower water consumption than planted forests in China. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Zabaleta, A.; Garmendia, E.; Mariel, P.; Tamayo, I.; Antigüedad, I. Land cover effects on hydrologic services under a precipitation gradient. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 5227–5241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhong, Z.; He, B.; Chen, Y.; Yuan, W.; Huang, L.; Guo, L.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, X. Higher sensitivity of planted forests’ productivity than natural forests to droughts in China. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2021, 126, e2021JG006306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. White, D.A.; Silberstein, R.P.; Balocchi-Contreras, F.; Quiroga, J.J.; Meason, D.F.; Palma, J.H.; de Arellano, P.R. Growth, water use, and water use efficiency of Eucalyptus globulus and Pinus radiata plantations compared with natural stands of Roble-Hualo forest in the coastal mountains of central Chile. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 501, 119676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Cristiano, P.M.; Villa, M.D.; De Diego, M.S.; Lacoretz, M.V.; Madanes, N.; Goldstein, G. Carbon assimilation, water consumption and water use efficiency under different land use types in subtropical ecosystems: From native forests to pine plantations. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2020, 291, 108094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Tian, A.; Webb, A.A.; Yu, P.; Xiong, W.; Xu, L.; Wang, Y. Modeling the response of daily evapotranspiration and its components of a larch plantation to the variation of weather, soil moisture, and canopy leaf area index. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2018, 123, 7354–7374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. van Dijk, A.I.; Keenan, R.J. Planted forests and water in perspective. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. White, D.A.; Battaglia, M.; Ren, S.; Mendham, D.S. Water use and water productivity of Eucalyptus plantations in South-East Asia. In ACIAR Technical Reports Series; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR): Canberra, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  92. Dye, P.; Versfeld, D. Managing the hydrological impacts of South African plantation forests: An overview. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Dye, P. A review of changing perspectives on Eucalyptus water-use in South Africa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 301, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tarigan, S.; Wiegand, K.; Slamet, B. Minimum forest cover required for sustainable water flow regulation of a watershed: A case study in Jambi Province, Indonesia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 22, 581–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hakamada, R.E.; Hubbard, R.M.; Stape, J.L.; de Paula Lima, W.; Moreira, G.G.; de Barros Ferraz, S.F. Stocking effects on seasonal tree transpiration and ecosystem water balance in a fast-growing Eucalyptus plantation in Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 466, 118149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Medhurst, J.L.; Battaglia, M.; Beadle, C.L. Measured and predicted changes in tree and stand water use following high-intensity thinning of an 8-year-old Eucalyptus nitens plantation. Tree Physiol. 2002, 22, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Liu, X.; Sun, G.; Mitra, B.; Noormets, A.; Gavazzi, M.J.; Domec, J.-C.; Hallema, D.W.; Li, J.; Fang, Y.; King, J.S. Drought and thinning have limited impacts on evapotranspiration in a managed pine plantation on the southeastern United States coastal plain. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 262, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Xiao, J.; Sun, G.; Chen, J.; Chen, H.; Chen, S.; Dong, G.; Gao, S.; Guo, H.; Guo, J.; Han, S. Carbon fluxes, evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency of terrestrial ecosystems in China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2013, 182, 76–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Khoury, S.; Coomes, D.A. Resilience of Spanish forests to recent droughts and climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 7079–7098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Luo, H.; Zhou, T.; Yu, P.; Yi, C.; Liu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, P.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Y. The forest recovery path after drought dependence on forest type and stock volume. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 055006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Luo, H.; Zhou, T.; Wu, H.; Zhao, X.; Wang, Q.; Gao, S.; Li, Z. Contrasting responses of planted and natural forests to drought intensity in Yunnan, China. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Álvarez, J.; Allen, H.; Albaugh, T.; Stape, J.; Bullock, B.; Song, C. Factors influencing the growth of radiata pine plantations in Chile. Forestry 2013, 86, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Stape, J.L.; Binkley, D.; Ryan, M.G.; Fonseca, S.; Loos, R.A.; Takahashi, E.N.; Silva, C.R.; Silva, S.R.; Hakamada, R.E.; Ferreira, J.M.d.A. The Brazil Eucalyptus Potential Productivity Project: Influence of water, nutrients and stand uniformity on wood production. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1684–1694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, D.J.; Zhang, J.; Yang, W.Q.; Wu, F.Z. Potential allelopathic effect of Eucalyptus grandis across a range of plantation ages. Ecol. Res. 2010, 25, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hatton, T.; Reece, P.; Taylor, P.; McEwan, K. Does leaf water efficiency vary among eucalypts in water-limited environments? Tree Physiol. 1998, 18, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Rubilar, R.; Valverde, J.C.; Bozo, D.; Campoe, O. Dynamics of carbon balance and water use in forest plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 2024; in preparation. [Google Scholar]
  107. Hodge, G.; Dvorak, W. Growth potential and genetic parameters of four Mesoamerican pines planted in the Southern Hemisphere. South. For. J. For. Sci. 2012, 74, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Rubilar, R.; Hubbard, R.; Emhart, V.; Mardones, O.; Quiroga, J.J.; Medina, A.; Valenzuela, H.; Espinoza, J.; Burgos, Y.; Bozo, D. Climate and water availability impacts on early growth and growth efficiency of Eucalyptus genotypes: The importance of GxE interactions. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 458, 117763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hatfield, J.L.; Dold, C. Water-use efficiency: Advances and challenges in a changing climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Litton, C.M.; Raich, J.W.; Ryan, M.G. Carbon allocation in forest ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 2089–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ryan, M.G.; Binkley, D.; Fownes, J.H.; Giardina, C.P.; Senock, R.S. An experimental test of the causes of forest growth decline with stand age. Ecol. Monogr. 2004, 74, 393–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Campoe, O.C.; Alvares, C.A.; Carneiro, R.L.; Binkley, D.; Ryan, M.G.; Hubbard, R.M.; Stahl, J.; Moreira, G.; Moraes, L.F.; Stape, J.L. Climate and genotype influences on carbon fluxes and partitioning in Eucalyptus plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 475, 118445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Litton, C.; Giardina, C. Below-ground carbon flux and partitioning: Global patterns and response to temperature. Funct. Ecol. 2008, 22, 941–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Elli, E.F.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Huth, N.; Carneiro, R.L.; Alvares, C.A. Gauging the effects of climate variability on Eucalyptus plantations productivity across Brazil: A process-based modelling approach. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 114, 106325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Elli, E.F.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Bender, F.D. Impacts and uncertainties of climate change projections on Eucalyptus plantations productivity across Brazil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 474, 118365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Noormets, A.; Epron, D.; Domec, J.-C.; McNulty, S.; Fox, T.; Sun, G.; King, J. Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: A review and hypothesis. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 355, 124–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Elli, E.F.; Huth, N.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Carneiro, R.L.; Alvares, C.A. Global sensitivity-based modelling approach to identify suitable Eucalyptus traits for adaptation to climate variability and change. In Silico Plants 2020, 2, diaa003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Heilmayr, R.; Echeverría, C.; Lambin, E.F. Impacts of Chilean forest subsidies on forest cover, carbon and biodiversity. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 701–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mishra, G.; Sarkar, A.; Giri, K.; Nath, A.J.; Lal, R.; Francaviglia, R. Changes in soil carbon stocks under plantation systems and natural forests in Northeast India. Ecol. Model. 2021, 446, 109500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Pinkard, E. Climate change: Threat or opportunity? Aust. For. 2017, 80, 195–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Pinkard, E.A.; Paul, K.; Battaglia, M.; Bruce, J. Vulnerability of plantation carbon stocks to defoliation under current and future climates. Forests 2014, 5, 1224–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Nolan, R.H.; Drew, D.M.; O’Grady, A.P.; Pinkard, E.A.; Paul, K.; Roxburgh, S.H.; Mitchell, P.J.; Bruce, J.; Battaglia, M.; Ramp, D. Safeguarding reforestation efforts against changes in climate and disturbance regimes. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 424, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Gupta, R.; Sharma, L. Modelling the growth response to climate change and management of Tectona grandis L. f. using the 3-PGmix model. Ann. For. Sci. 2021, 78, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Pinkard, E.; Battaglia, M.; Bruce, J.; Matthews, S.; Callister, A.; Hetherington, S.; Last, I.; Mathieson, S.; Mitchell, C.; Mohammed, C. A history of forestry management responses to climatic variability and their current relevance for developing climate change adaptation strategies. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2015, 88, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Battaglia, M.; Bruce, J. Direct climate change impacts on growth and drought risk in blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) plantations in Australia. Aust. For. 2017, 80, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sun, S.; He, C.; Qiu, L.; Li, C.; Zhang, J.; Meng, P. Stable isotope analysis reveals prolonged drought stress in poplar plantation mortality of the Three-North Shelter Forest in Northern China. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 252, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Booth, T.H. Eucalypt plantations and climate change. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 301, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Mitchell, P.J.; O’Grady, A.P.; Pinkard, E.A.; Brodribb, T.J.; Arndt, S.K.; Blackman, C.J.; Duursma, R.A.; Fensham, R.J.; Hilbert, D.W.; Nitschke, C.R. An ecoclimatic framework for evaluating the resilience of vegetation to water deficit. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 1677–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Watt, M.S.; Kirschbaum, M.U.; Moore, J.R.; Pearce, H.G.; Bulman, L.S.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Melia, N. Assessment of multiple climate change effects on plantation forests in New Zealand. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2019, 92, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Xie, Y.; Lei, X.; Shi, J. Impacts of climate change on biological rotation of Larix olgensis plantations for timber production and carbon storage in northeast China using the 3-PGmix model. Ecol. Model. 2020, 435, 109267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Almeida, A.C.; Soares, J.V.; Landsberg, J.J.; Rezende, G.D. Growth and water balance of Eucalyptus grandis hybrid plantations in Brazil during a rotation for pulp production. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Toriyama, J.; Hashimoto, S.; Osone, Y.; Yamashita, N.; Tsurita, T.; Shimizu, T.; Saitoh, T.M.; Sawano, S.; Lehtonen, A.; Ishizuka, S. Estimating spatial variation in the effects of climate change on the net primary production of Japanese cedar plantations based on modeled carbon dynamics. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Jia, G.; Chen, L.; Yu, X.; Liu, Z. Soil water stress overrides the benefit of water-use efficiency from rising CO2 and temperature in a cold semi-arid poplar plantation. Plant Cell Environ. 2022, 45, 1172–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Whitehead, D. Forests as carbon sinks—Benefits and consequences. Tree Physiol. 2011, 31, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Xiang, Y.; Li, Y.; Luo, X.; Liu, Y.; Huang, P.; Yao, B.; Zhang, L.; Li, W.; Xue, J.; Gao, H. Mixed plantations enhance more soil organic carbon stocks than monocultures across China: Implication for optimizing afforestation/reforestation strategies. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 821, 153449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Lutter, R.; Stål, G.; Arnesson Ceder, L.; Lim, H.; Padari, A.; Tullus, H.; Nordin, A.; Lundmark, T. Climate benefit of different tree species on former agricultural land in northern Europe. Forests 2021, 12, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Güner, Ş.T.; Erkan, N.; Karataş, R. Effects of afforestation with different species on carbon pools and soil and forest floor properties. Catena 2021, 196, 104871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Gong, C.; Tan, Q.; Liu, G.; Xu, M. Mixed-species plantations enhance soil carbon stocks on the loess plateau of China. Plant Soil 2021, 464, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bush, D.; Harwood, C.; Pinkard, E. Species for changing climates–Australian dryland forestry opportunities. Aust. For. 2018, 81, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Silveira, C.; De Oliveira, L.; Talamini, E. Which species perform best in carbon sequestration and storage in planted forests? A review of the potential of Pinus and Eucalyptus. Int. For. Rev. 2020, 22, 544–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Yu, Z.; You, W.; Agathokleous, E.; Zhou, G.; Liu, S. Forest management required for consistent carbon sink in China’s forest plantations. For. Ecosyst. 2021, 8, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Mattson, K.; Finley, K. Effect of silviculture on carbon pools during development of a ponderosa pine plantation. Forests 2020, 11, 997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Diao, J.; Liu, J.; Zhu, Z.; Wei, X.; Li, M. Active forest management accelerates carbon storage in plantation forests in Lishui, southern China. For. Ecosyst. 2022, 9, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kumi, J.A.; Kyereh, B.; Ansong, M.; Asante, W. Influence of management practices on stand biomass, carbon stocks and soil nutrient variability of teak plantations in a dry semi-deciduous forest in Ghana. Trees For. People 2021, 3, 100049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Bodo, A.V.; Arain, M.A. Effects of variable retention harvesting on canopy transpiration in a red pine plantation forest. Ecol. Process. 2022, 11, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Gong, C.; Tan, Q.; Liu, G.; Xu, M. Forest thinning increases soil carbon stocks in China. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 482, 118812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Navarro Cerrillo, R.M.; Esteves Vieira, D.J.; Ochoa-Gaona, S.; de Jong, B.H.; del Mar Delgado Serrano, M. Land cover changes and fragmentation in mountain neotropical ecosystems of Oaxaca, Mexico under community forest management. J. For. Res. 2019, 30, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Rubilar, R.; Bozo, D.; Albaugh, T.; Cook, R.; Campoe, O.; Carter, D.; Allen, H.L.; Alvarez, J.; Pincheira, M.; Zapata, A. Rotation-age effects of subsoiling, fertilization, and weed control on radiata pine growth at sites with contrasting soil physical, nutrient, and water limitations. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 544, 121213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Sánchez-Costa, E.; Poyatos, R.; Sabaté, S. Contrasting growth and water use strategies in four co-occurring Mediterranean tree species revealed by concurrent measurements of sap flow and stem diameter variations. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 207, 24–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Gyenge, J.; Fernández, M.E.; Sarasola, M.; Schlichter, T. Testing a hypothesis of the relationship between productivity and water use efficiency in Patagonian forests with native and exotic species. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 255, 3281–3287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Hubbard, R.M.; Stape, J.; Ryan, M.G.; Almeida, A.C.; Rojas, J. Effects of irrigation on water use and water use efficiency in two fast growing Eucalyptus plantations. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 1714–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Wise, R.M.; Dye, P.J.; Gush, M.B. A comparison of the biophysical and economic water-use efficiencies of indigenous and introduced forests in South Africa. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 262, 906–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Nadal-Sala, D.; Sabaté, S.; Sánchez-Costa, E.; Poblador, S.; Sabater, F.; Gracia, C. Growth and water use performance of four co-occurring riparian tree species in a Mediterranean riparian forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 2017, 396, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Park, J.; Kim, T.; Moon, M.; Cho, S.; Ryu, D.; Kim, H.S. Effects of thinning intensities on tree water use, growth, and resultant water use efficiency of 50-year-old Pinus koraiensis forest over four years. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 408, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Hakamada, R.E.; Hubbard, R.M.; Moreira, G.G.; Stape, J.L.; Campoe, O.; de Barros Ferraz, S.F. Influence of stand density on growth and water use efficiency in Eucalyptus clones. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 466, 118125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Reichert, J.M.; Prevedello, J.; Gubiani, P.I.; Vogelmann, E.S.; Reinert, D.J.; Consensa, C.O.B.; Soares, J.C.W.; Srinivasan, R. Eucalyptus tree stockings effect on water balance and use efficiency in subtropical sandy soil. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 497, 119473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Manrique-Alba, À.; Beguería, S.; Molina, A.J.; González-Sanchis, M.; Tomàs-Burguera, M.; Del Campo, A.D.; Colangelo, M.; Camarero, J.J. Long-term thinning effects on tree growth, drought response and water use efficiency at two Aleppo pine plantations in Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 138536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Myers, B.J.; Theiveyanathan, S.; O’Brien, N.D.; Bond, W.J. Growth and water use of Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus radiata plantations irrigated with effluent. Tree Physiol. 1996, 16, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Samuelson, L.J.; Kane, M.B.; Markewitz, D.; Teskey, R.O.; Akers, M.K.; Stokes, T.A.; Pell, C.J.; Qi, J. Fertilization increased leaf water use efficiency and growth of Pinus taeda subjected to five years of throughfall reduction. Can. J. For. Res. 2018, 48, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Gush, M.B.; Dye, P. Water-Use Efficiency within a Selection of Indigenous and Exotic Tree Species in South Africa as Determined Using Sap Flow and Biomass Measurements; VII International Workshop on Sap Flow 846; International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS): Leuven, Belgium, 2008; pp. 323–330. [Google Scholar]
  161. Gush, M.B. The potential of Vachellia kosiensis (Acacia kosiensis) as a dryland forestry species in terms of its water use, growth rates and resultant water-use efficiency. South. For. J. For. Sci. 2017, 79, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Mapeto, T.; Gush, M.; Louw, J. Single-tree water use and water-use efficiencies of selected indigenous and introduced species in the Southern Cape region of South Africa. South. For. J. For. Sci. 2018, 80, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. González Muñoz, N.; Linares, J.C.; Castro-Díez, P.; Sass-Klaassen, U. Contrasting secondary growth and water use efficiency patterns in native and exotic trees co-occurring in inner Spain riparian forests. For. Syst. 2015, 24, e017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Conceptual framework summarizing physiological mechanisms or processes that induce hydraulic failure and carbon starvation in trees and affect the resilience of forests and/or mortality of trees in drought scenarios induced by climate change. Extreme processes are noted, with the best conditions for each mechanism shown in the lower part of the diagram and the worst conditions shown in the upper part. R is Rainfall (mm); T is Temperature (°C).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework summarizing physiological mechanisms or processes that induce hydraulic failure and carbon starvation in trees and affect the resilience of forests and/or mortality of trees in drought scenarios induced by climate change. Extreme processes are noted, with the best conditions for each mechanism shown in the lower part of the diagram and the worst conditions shown in the upper part. R is Rainfall (mm); T is Temperature (°C).
Forests 15 00654 g001
Figure 2. Air temperature response function for Eucalyptus globulus (Eg, blue line), Eucalyptus nitens (En, red line), and Eucalyptus camaldulensis x globulus hybrid (Ecg, green line) species. The temperature modifier scales the maximum potential daily tree growth according to daily mean temperature (adapted from Watt et al. [65]).
Figure 2. Air temperature response function for Eucalyptus globulus (Eg, blue line), Eucalyptus nitens (En, red line), and Eucalyptus camaldulensis x globulus hybrid (Ecg, green line) species. The temperature modifier scales the maximum potential daily tree growth according to daily mean temperature (adapted from Watt et al. [65]).
Forests 15 00654 g002
Figure 3. (a) Water stress integral (WSI) and current annual increment (CAI) relationship for Eucalyptus globulus (Eg, blue dots), E. nitens (En, red dots), and E. nitens x globulus (Eng, green dots) genotypes. Different genotypes are indicated by a number after taxa (adapted from Oliveira et al. [81]). (b) Monthly water stress integral (mWSI) and monthly stem diameter growth (mSDG) evaluated for juvenile Pinus radiata trees (2 years old). Adapted from Waghorn et al. [82].
Figure 3. (a) Water stress integral (WSI) and current annual increment (CAI) relationship for Eucalyptus globulus (Eg, blue dots), E. nitens (En, red dots), and E. nitens x globulus (Eng, green dots) genotypes. Different genotypes are indicated by a number after taxa (adapted from Oliveira et al. [81]). (b) Monthly water stress integral (mWSI) and monthly stem diameter growth (mSDG) evaluated for juvenile Pinus radiata trees (2 years old). Adapted from Waghorn et al. [82].
Forests 15 00654 g003
Figure 4. Relationship between site aboveground C fixation and water use (WU) estimated by Rubilar et al. [106] and published information from studies considering a range of different forest species worldwide (see Table S1 for details).
Figure 4. Relationship between site aboveground C fixation and water use (WU) estimated by Rubilar et al. [106] and published information from studies considering a range of different forest species worldwide (see Table S1 for details).
Forests 15 00654 g004
Figure 5. (a) Stand water use (WU) and water use efficiency (WUE) for a range of Mediterranean Eucalyptus sp. genotypes and hybrids growing under experimental conditions. In order from left to right: E. badjensis (Eb), E. camaldulensis × globulus (Ecg), E. globulus (Eg), E. nitens (En), and E. nitens × globulus (Eng). (b) WU and WUE for an age range of plantations (based on references indicated in Table S1). (c) Top site productivity for E. nitens family genotype, showing sudden mortality at six years of age under short-term drought at Eucahydro experimental site (details in Rubilar et al. [106]).
Figure 5. (a) Stand water use (WU) and water use efficiency (WUE) for a range of Mediterranean Eucalyptus sp. genotypes and hybrids growing under experimental conditions. In order from left to right: E. badjensis (Eb), E. camaldulensis × globulus (Ecg), E. globulus (Eg), E. nitens (En), and E. nitens × globulus (Eng). (b) WU and WUE for an age range of plantations (based on references indicated in Table S1). (c) Top site productivity for E. nitens family genotype, showing sudden mortality at six years of age under short-term drought at Eucahydro experimental site (details in Rubilar et al. [106]).
Forests 15 00654 g005
Figure 6. Soil organic Carbon (SOC) and aboveground biomass accumulation in degraded abandoned soils from agriculture established or colonized by Acacia dealbata (Acacia, red dots), native species with Pinus radiata (Native & Pine, purple dots), and Pinus radiata (Only Pine, green dots). Similar patterns of SOC are observed for non-N fixing species compared to invasive Acacia species, adapted from Rubilar et al. [106].
Figure 6. Soil organic Carbon (SOC) and aboveground biomass accumulation in degraded abandoned soils from agriculture established or colonized by Acacia dealbata (Acacia, red dots), native species with Pinus radiata (Native & Pine, purple dots), and Pinus radiata (Only Pine, green dots). Similar patterns of SOC are observed for non-N fixing species compared to invasive Acacia species, adapted from Rubilar et al. [106].
Forests 15 00654 g006
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rubilar, R.A.; Valverde, J.C.; Barrientos, G.; Campoe, O.C. Water and Temperature Ecophysiological Challenges of Forests Plantations under Climate Change. Forests 2024, 15, 654. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040654

AMA Style

Rubilar RA, Valverde JC, Barrientos G, Campoe OC. Water and Temperature Ecophysiological Challenges of Forests Plantations under Climate Change. Forests. 2024; 15(4):654. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040654

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rubilar, Rafael A., Juan Carlos Valverde, Guillermo Barrientos, and Otávio Camargo Campoe. 2024. "Water and Temperature Ecophysiological Challenges of Forests Plantations under Climate Change" Forests 15, no. 4: 654. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040654

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop