Next Article in Journal
Enhancement of Yield, Phytochemical Content and Biological Activity of a Leafy Vegetable (Beta vulgaris L. var. cycla) by Using Organic Amendments as an Alternative to Chemical Fertilizer
Next Article in Special Issue
Differential Effect of Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) in Different Organs and Growth Stages of Two Cultivars of Durum Wheat
Previous Article in Journal
Diversity of Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrad Seeds Extracts: Detailed Chemical Profiling and Evaluation of Their Medicinal Properties
Previous Article in Special Issue
Isoprene-Emitting Tobacco Plants Are Less Affected by Moderate Water Deficit under Future Climate Change Scenario and Show Adjustments of Stress-Related Proteins in Actual Climate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 3
10.3390/plants12030568
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Legacy Effects in Buds and Leaves of European Beech Saplings (Fagus sylvatica) after Severe Drought

by
Frank M. Thomas
*,
Lena Schunck
and
Alexis Zisakos
Faculty of Spatial and Environmental Sciences, Geobotany, University of Trier, Behringstraße 21, 54296 Trier, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(3), 568; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030568
Submission received: 17 October 2022 / Revised: 12 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 26 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Responses to Future Climate Scenarios)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Against the background of climate change, we studied the effects of a severe summer drought on buds of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) saplings and on leaves formed during the subsequent spring in trees attributed to different drought-damage classes. For the first time, we combined assessments of the vitality (assessed through histochemical staining), mass and stable carbon isotope ratios (δ13C) of buds from drought-stressed woody plants with morphological and physiological variables of leaves that have emerged from the same plants and crown parts. The number, individual mass and vitality of the buds decreased and δ13C increased with increasing drought-induced damage. Bud mass, vitality and δ13C were significantly intercorrelated. The δ13C of the buds was imprinted on the leaves formed in the subsequent spring, but individual leaf mass, leaf size and specific leaf area were not significantly different among damage classes. Vitality and δ13C of the buds are suitable indicators of the extent of preceding drought impact. Bud vitality may be used as a simple means of screening saplings for the flushing capability in the subsequent spring. European beech saplings are susceptible, but—due to interindividual differences—are resilient, to a certain extent, to a singular severe drought stress.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In the course of climate change, increased frequency and intensity of hot and dry summer periods in recent years have caused damage to forests and forest trees. Such damage has also affected trees and stands of the European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8], the ecologically and economically most important deciduous forest tree species in Central Europe [9]. Effects of climate change and weather extremes on the beech have sparked a discussion on the species’ suitability for the future silviculture in warmer regions of Central Europe [10,11,12]. In a precipitation exclusion experiment on seedlings of East-Asian trees, including broad-leaved species [13], which was conducted to create a scientific foundation of species selection for afforestation programmes, prolonged drought resulted in morphological alterations, including reductions in growth and specific leaf area (SLA), as well as in physiological responses such as a decrease in the leaf water potential and net photosynthesis and an increase in the ratio of stable carbon isotopes (δ13C). In principle, drought legacy effects on growth, water relations, gas exchange and concentrations of nitrogen (N) and non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) have been widely studied in mature broadleaf–deciduous and coniferous trees up until the most recent past [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21], but investigations of drought effects on the buds formed in late summer and on the leaves emerged from buds in the subsequent spring are very rare. At least, it has been found that the number of flushes in saplings of Central-European oak species was significantly lower in the second and third year of drought stress [22]. In a previous study [23], the mass of individual buds, but not the bud number per tree was significantly reduced in two-year-old seedlings of the European beech. However, the vitality of beech buds as a measure of flushing capability and the δ13C ratios in buds as an indicator of drought stress [24] has not been investigated so far.
In the present study, we took advantage of a warm and extremely dry spring and summer that enabled us to investigate the effects of severe drought on buds and its legacy effects on the subsequent year’s leaves in European beech saplings cultivated in an open space. In the earlier study [23], foliar δ13C values of bulk leaf material sampled in the summer and early autumn did not differ between severely drought-stressed and control trees, most probably because the bulk of the leaves had been generated before the onset of drought stress. In the European beech, however, a fixed (determinate) shoot growth pattern prevails, in which the winter buds contain primordia of all leaves that will expand in the subsequent spring [25]; and the δ13C of NSC, which would be used for leaf formation in the next growing season, was significantly increased in European beech saplings upon severe drought stress [26]. On the basis of all those previous findings, we hypothesised that (1) not only the number and the individual mass of the buds, but also their vitality, assessed through histochemical staining and taken as a measure of flushing capability, would be reduced in severely injured plants; that bud mass and vitality are correlated; and that the δ13C values of buds should be higher in trees of higher damage classes. We also expected that (2) leaves formed from 13C-enriched buds of severely drought-injured trees should not only exhibit a lower mass and smaller size, but also an increased δ13C ratio, resulting in a significant correlation between the δ13C signatures of buds and leaves. Accordingly, we hypothesised (3) significant correlations between bud vitality and bud δ13C, as well as between the masses of the buds and their δ13C ratios. Finally, (4) leaf mass should correlate significantly with bud mass. If the histochemically determined vitality and the mass and the δ13C signature of the buds would prove to be interrelated, they may also be used interchangeably in the future to assess the flushing probability and, thus, the growth potential of tree seedlings and saplings not only in nurseries but also in forest stands to predict recruitment success.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Cultivation, Drought Damage Classification and Sampling

In March 2020, 40 three-year-old saplings of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) of the height class 60–100 cm had been obtained from a commercial tree nursery. They were kept in standard garden soil in 14-L plastic pots and placed in an open space outside the greenhouse (49°44′50″ N; 006°41′03″ E; 249 m a.s.l.) of Trier University’s Geobotany department. There, the trees were exposed to the ambient weather conditions that were characterised by a warm–dry period from April to September (Figure 1): the monthly mean temperature was above the long-term average except for May, and the monthly precipitation was below average during the entire spring and summer (weather data originated from the weather station Trier-Petrisberg of the German Meteorological Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst, DWD [27]; 49°44′52″ N; 006°39′30″ E; 261 m a.s.l., approximately 2 km linear distance from the greenhouse) and were retrieved from [28]). July and August were particularly dry and even met the definition of an arid period according to Walter’s type of climate diagram [29] when the precipitation figure is below the line of the average temperature (Figure 1). In September, 97% of the month’s precipitation, which equalled a quarter of the entire rainfall from April to September, fell in the month’s last week. After September, the plants were watered just enough to prevent their death. In March 2021, another twenty beech trees (height class 80–120 cm, to compensate for the growth increment of the saplings bought in the preceding year), were purchased from the same tree nursery and were then used as unstressed control (C) trees.
In autumn 2020, the height and the stem diameter of the trees (5 cm above the soil surface; average of two measurements perpendicular to each other) were measured and their leaf buds were counted. All trees were attributed to classes of damage caused by drought stress based on the extent of leaf loss, as well as leaf and stem discolouration. By combining the extents of damage and following the conventional classification scheme of the Level I monitoring programme for the crown condition of European forests (e.g., [30]), we assigned the trees to four damage classes (DC): DC1 (0–25% damage), DC2 (>25–60% damage), DC3 (>60–90% damage) and DC4 (>90% damage). The number of trees in each damage class is given in Table 1. For further investigations, four trees were randomly selected from each damage class. From each of those trees, two buds per crown part (upper, middle, and lower) and tree were harvested for further analyses. During winter, all plants were kept in the open space outside the greenhouse until the subsequent spring.
In May 2021, after complete leaf unfolding, five leaves per crown part were sampled from the trees selected in 2020 for bud analyses (four trees per DC) and from four randomly selected control trees. One tree each of DC2 and DC3 had to be replaced by another tree of the same damage class, as the original trees could not be identified anymore. In DC3, only one out of the four trees formed leaves in the upper crown part. All trees of DC4 did not leaf out anymore and had therefore to be excluded from further analyses.

2.2. Analyses of Buds

After the fresh mass of each harvested bud had been determined, the buds were longitudinally cut into halves. One half was used for the “vitality” analyses and the other for the ratio of stable carbon isotopes (δ13C).
The “vitality” test was conducted with the TTC (2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride) method, a histochemical staining approach that is widely employed for assessing tissue vitality, including organs of the European beech [31]. Here, we used the results of this test as a proxy of the flushing capability of the buds, as has been carried out in a previous study [32]. In healthy tissues, water-soluble TTC is reduced by electrons resulting from the mitochondrial respiratory chain to the red and insoluble 2,3,5-triphenyl formazan (TF) [33]. The intensity of the red colour is a measure of the tissue’s “vitality”.
We added 1% aqueous TTC solution to the bud halves that had been placed in Petri dishes. Subsequently, the buds in the dishes were vacuum infiltrated in an exsiccator for 30 min and then incubated for 3 h at 30 °C. The colouration of the cut surfaces of the buds was then used to assign them to the following vitality classes: bright red, red or purple surfaces—class 1 (high vitality and flushing capability); patchy to weakly red, but clearly visible colouration—class 2 (reduced vitality); weakly to brownish colouration—class 3 (sub-vital) [32]. For illustration, examples of the staining results are given in Figure S1 of the Supplementary Material.
The other halves of the buds (or buds from the same tree and crown position if the remaining material was insufficient) were cut with a scalpel in very fine pieces, frozen to −70 °C for 17 h and lyophilised for 24 h. Thereafter, 0.3 to 0.7 mg of bud material was weighed into tin capsules and analysed for δ13C with an IRMS Delta V™ isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany; two replicates per sample) with IAEA-CH-3 cellulose as a standard.

2.3. Analyses of Leaves

Upon harvest in May 2021, the size of each leaf was measured with a portable area meter (LI-3000A, LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA). Subsequently, the leaves were oven-dried for 24 h at 65 °C and weighed. From the leaf sizes and masses, the specific leaf area (SLA; m2 kg−1) was calculated. Until further analysis, the leaf samples were stored in an exsiccator.
For the measurement of the N concentration and δ13C, the same leaves that had been used for the SLA determination were pulverised in a swing mill grinder. The foliar N concentrations were measured in an element analyser. The δ13C ratios were determined in 2.0–2.5 mg of leaf material, as has been stated for the buds (see Section 2.2).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Mean values ± 1 standard error (SE) are given if not stated otherwise. Statistical analyses were conducted with SigmaPlot for Windows Version 13.0, Build 13.0.0.83 (Systat Software, Inpixon, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Differences among the tree damage classes in tree height and stem diameter were tested with One-Way ANOVA, and in the number of buds, with the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Dunn’s method for multiple comparisons. We used Two-Way ANOVA, followed by pairwise comparisons according to Holm–Sidak, to test differences among the tree damage classes and crown parts (fixed factors) in the variables bud and leaf mass, leaf size, SLA, foliar N concentration and δ13C of buds and leaves. For the tests on the harvested buds, due to their limited number, we pooled all the buds per crown part across all trees per damage class to increase the statistical power of the tests (eight buds per crown part and damage class); whereas for the tests on leaves, we used mean values calculated separately for each tree and crown region (five leaves per tree and crown part). We calculated Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient to detect correlations between mass and vitality and between vitality and δ13C of the buds and used Pearson product-moment correlation to find relationships between mass and δ13C of the buds, between bud mass and leaf morphology and between bud and leaf δ13C.

3. Results

At the end of the 2020 growing season, the trees of the damage classes did not differ in height and stem diameter, but the extent of damage to the leaves and to the stems increased from DC1 to DC4 and the number of buds was significantly smaller in DC3 and DC4 than in DC1 (Table 1). Trees of the damage classes 3 and 4 also exhibited lower masses of the individual buds and smaller numbers of vital buds. In the buds of the DC3 and DC4 trees, the δ13C values were higher (less negative) than in the saplings of DC1. Across all damage classes, bud mass and δ13C differed significantly among crown parts (Table 2), but within damage classes, significant differences among the crown parts were restricted to DC3. There, the bud mass of the uppermost crown part and the δ13C ratios in the lowest crown part were the lowest. In DC2 to DC4, there was also a tendency for a lower number of vital and a higher number of sub-vital buds along the crowns from their lower to upper parts (Table 1).
Bud mass was significantly correlated with vitality and δ13C, and vitality was also significantly related to δ13C (Figure 2a–c). In the spring after the year of extreme summer drought, the trees of DC4 did not leaf out anymore. Likewise, buds did not unfold in the uppermost crown part in three out of the four DC3 plants. In the leaves that had been formed from the preceding year’s buds, no significant differences were found in dry mass, leaf size and SLA among damage classes (including control) (Table 3). However, the SLA tended to decrease from the lower to the upper crown region (significant differences in the control and DC2 and across all damage classes) (Table 2 and Table 3). Significant differences were found among the damage classes in the foliar δ13C ratios and N concentrations, with significantly higher (more positive) δ13C values in DC2 and significantly higher N concentrations in DC2 and DC3 compared to the other classes. The crown parts did not differ significantly in these variables (Table 2 and Table 3). The δ13C values of the leaves formed in spring 2021 were significantly and positively correlated with the δ13C ratios of the buds set in the preceding year at the same trees and crown regions (Figure 3). In contrast, the masses of the individual leaves (r = −0.003; p = 0.986), their sizes (r = −0.069; p = 0.703) and SLA (r = −0.139; p = 0.440) were not significantly related to the bud mass (N = 33 in these regressions).

4. Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine assessments of the vitality, mass and δ13C ratios of buds from severely drought-stressed plants with morphological and physiological variables of leaves that have emerged from the same plants and crown parts. As a confirmation of our first hypothesis, the number, the individual mass and the vitality of the buds were significantly reduced in the severely injured plants of the higher damage classes and the δ13C signature was higher in the buds of these trees. According to their low mass and vitality, buds of trees in the class of the severest damage (DC4) and in the uppermost crown parts of three out of the four saplings in DC3 did not unfold to leaves in spring. The finding of all these legacy effects on buds upon drought confirmed the existence of the expected interindividual differences among the beech saplings in their susceptibility to severe drought. Intraspecific differences in survival, growth and parameters of photosynthesis among provenances or cultivars subjected to drought stress were also found in seedlings of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) [34] and grafts of apple trees (Malus × domestica) [35]. Our result of a lower bud mass in more severely drought-stressed trees is in accordance with earlier findings of a reduced bud mass in severely drought-stressed seedlings of European beech and pubescent oak (Quercus pubescens), whereas in sessile oak (Q. petraea) and rowan (Sorbus aucuparia), which also can grow at dry sites, only the number, but not the individual mass of the buds was reduced [23]. The reduction in bud number can be interpreted in two ways: solely as a result of reduced carbon gain via photosynthesis during the drought period, or as a consequence of altered carbon allocation towards repair or enhanced formation of water-transport tissue as a prerequisite of a future positive carbon balance [36] at the expense of bud formation. In grafts of apple trees, for instance, drought stress not only resulted in decreases in the size and mass of the leaves, but also in a reduction in vessel area, density and diameter and, consequently, in a decrease in the hydraulic conductance and sap flow [35]. In our study, the findings of significantly reduced numbers and masses of the individual buds could be explained by either of these two mechanisms, but these reductions may simply be due to reduced photosynthesis via lowered stomatal conductance, which results in higher (less negative) δ13C ratios. Accordingly, shaded or only weakly illuminated saplings or cuttings of broadleaf North American or Asian tree species exhibited 13C enrichment, due to reduced 13C discrimination, and lowered bud biomass upon a decrease in stomatal conductance compared to non-shaded or well-illuminated plants [37,38]. In addition, prolonged drought can also exert an immediate impact on the biochemistry of photosynthesis by impairing photosystem II with negative effects on growth and survival, as has been found in several provenances of the Scots pine [34].
Our second hypothesis was only partly confirmed, as there were no significant differences in leaf mass, leaf size and SLA among the damage classes, and thus, no legacy effects of drought on leaf morphology. However, we found significantly increased foliar δ13C ratios in at least one of the damage classes and a significantly positive correlation between bud and leaf δ13C. This finding suggests that the unfolded leaves were generated under consumption of 13C-enriched NSC synthesised under drought stress in the preceding year. Increased δ13C ratios in foliar NSC upon drought have also been found in mature European beech trees and in saplings of European oak species (pedunculate oak, Quercus robur; and sessile oak) [26,39]. In general, foliar δ13C also is a suitable proxy of plant water relations and water-use efficiency in seedlings of trees depending on the duration and intensity of drought, the time of sampling and precipitation events (e.g., [40] and references therein). The fact that in our study, foliar δ13C was increased in only one of the damage classes (DC2), the lack in significant differences among the damage classes in leaf morphology (mass, size, SLA) and the non-significant correlations between bud mass and leaf morphology might, at least in part, be due to a delay in bud burst of up to two years after bud formation, which has been observed in mature European beech trees [41]. However, this is not very probable for very young beech trees that need to rely on rapid growth and would not be in line with the above-stated correlation between bud and foliar δ13C.
As is typical of the European beech, as a tree species that generates characteristic sun and shade leaves with all intermediate forms, the SLA decreased from the lower to the upper crown part, implying that towards the crown top, the leaves become smaller but thicker. As could be expected from the early developmental stage of the saplings compared to mature trees, their SLA rather was typical of shade leaves of adult specimens (≥20 m2 kg−1) than of sun leaves, which generally attain values of 8–16 m2 kg−1 [42,43,44,45].
As we had put forward in our third hypothesis, bud δ13C was also significantly correlated with the bud mass and, according to the significant correlation between bud mass and vitality, also with the vitality of the buds. The explanatory power of the ordinal regressions on vitality is somewhat restricted, as only three classes of bud vitality could be considered, but the clear trends are nevertheless obvious from the scatter plots shown in Figure 2a,c, and the concordance among the relationships among the vitality, mass and δ13C of the buds confirms our conclusion.
In contradiction to our fourth hypothesis, bud mass and leaf morphology were not significantly related to each other. This finding might be due to a certain extent of resilience of the European beech after drought stress, which was found in several previous studies. Beech seedlings were able to regain a high relative water content upon rewatering after severe drought stress, probably because they retained a relatively low (more negative) leaf water potential [23]. Recovery of the trees should also be facilitated by the observed fast recuperation of gas exchange and tree-ring growth [46]. A recovery in the extent of foliation and leaf colouration, as well as in the basal area increment of the stems, was also detected in mature beech trees in the year following a year with a severe drought in spring and summer [3]. Recreation in beech saplings was also observed in the understorey beneath the canopy of forest stands in the year after a year of severe summer drought [47]. In our study, all trees of the moderate damage classes (DC1 and DC2) leaved out completely in spring after the year of drought stress, but no leaves were formed in the uppermost crown part of DC3 trees and no leaf formation occurred in DC4 plants, which shows interindividual differences due to various extents of plasticity. Leaf unfolding in the damaged trees might have been supported by a relatively large N pool in the plants. This can be concluded from the finding that the foliar N concentrations in the trees of the remaining classes with the severest damage (DC2 and DC3) were significantly higher than in the control trees, whose N concentrations were still in the normal range for beech seedlings and saplings of approximately 2.0–2.3%, whereas the N concentrations in the trees of DC2 and DC3 were already in the optimum range [48,49]. Efficient N resorption from senescing leaves of drought-stressed woody plants has been found in deciduous species of eastern North America [50]. A reduced biomass formation in the spring after drought may also have contributed to the higher foliar N concentrations of the trees in DC2 and DC3.
From all those results, it can be concluded that the European beech is not resistant, but resilient to a certain extent, at least to a singular drought stress [46]. At the species level, the resilience of the European beech to drought may be due to a relatively high plasticity in its hydraulic features not only at the individual level within a given population [51]. Significant differences in the individuals’ drought-related xylem vulnerability [52,53] and also in the production and partitioning of biomass [54], soil-water exploitation, leaf water potential, transpiration, foliar δ13C, leaf morphology and foliar NSC [55,56,57,58] have also been detected among different populations. However, the capability of the European beech to recover from drought stress also seems to depend on the local climatic and edaphic conditions [8]. Nevertheless, the species’ plasticity within and among population opens up options for selecting suitable provenances for rejuvenation and afforestation, e.g., within the framework of assisted migration [59,60]. However, the species’ resilience may be substantially diminished when periods of severe drought stress occur in successive years [61]; this occurred in many regions of Central Europe in 2018–2020, followed by another hot and dry summer in 2022.

5. Conclusions

For the first time, we have combined assessments of the vitality, mass and δ13C ratios of buds from severely drought-stressed woody plants with morphological and physiological variables of leaves that have emerged from the same plants and crown parts. Bud vitality and δ13C have proven to be suitable indicators of the extent of drought-induced injury to plants. Bud vitality may be used as a simple means of screening saplings for the flushing capability in the subsequent spring. The isotopic signature of the buds was still imprinted on the leaves emerged in the following spring. In contrast, the lack of significant differences in morphological leaf variables among the drought damage classes in the subsequent spring is indicative of a relatively high resilience of the beech to drought stress. Differences among individuals and populations in the susceptibility of the beeches to drought are due to a high plasticity in traits related to water relations and biomass partitioning. They provide a basis for selecting suitable provenances for rejuvenation and afforestation. Such options, however, may be restricted by an increased frequency of hot and dry summer periods, which are projected in the future course of climate change.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12030568/s1, Figure S1. Buds of the European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) stained with TTC (2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chlo-ride) as a vitality test. (a) High vitality and flushing capability; (b) reduced vitality; (c) sub-vital. See the main text for further explanation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, F.M.T.; methodology, F.M.T.; validation, F.M.T.; formal analysis, F.M.T., L.S. and A.Z.; investigation, L.S. and A.Z.; resources, F.M.T.; data curation, L.S. and A.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.T.; writing—F.M.T., L.S. and A.Z.; visualisation, F.M.T.; supervision, F.M.T.; project administration, F.M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Diplom-Biogeograph Philipp Schäfer for supervising the categorisation and sampling of the plant material and supervising the laboratory analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chakraborty, T.; Saha, S.; Reif, A. Decrease in available soil water storage capacity reduces vitality of young understorey European beeches (Fagus sylvatica L.)—A case study from the Black Forest, Germany. Plants 2013, 2, 676–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Klesse, S.; Wohlgemuth, T.; Meusburger, K.; Vitasse, Y.; von Arx, G.; Lévesque, M.; Neycken, A.; Braun, S.; Dubach, V.; Gessler, A.; et al. Long-term soil water limitation and previous tree vigor drive local variability of drought-induced crown dieback in Fagus sylvatica. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 157926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rohner, B.; Kumar, S.; Liechti, K.; Gessler, A.; Ferretti, M. Tree vitality indicators revealed a rapid response of beech forests to the 2018 drought. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schuldt, B.; Buras, A.; Arend, M.; Vitasse, Y.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Damm, A.; Gharun, M.; Grams, T.E.E.; Hauck, M.; Hajek, P.; et al. A first assessment of the impact of the extreme 2018 summer drought on Central European forests. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2020, 45, 86–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Walthert, L.; Ganthaler, A.; Mayr, S.; Saurer, M.; Waldner, P.; Walser, M.; Zweifel, R.; von Arx, G. From the comfort zone to crown dieback: Sequence of physiological stress thresholds in mature European beech trees across progressive drought. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 141792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wohlgemuth, T.; Kistler, M.; Aymon, C.; Hagedorn, F.; Gessler, A.; Gossner, M.M.; Queloz, V.; Vögtli, I.; Wasem, U.; Vitasse, Y.; et al. Früher Laubfall der Buche während der Sommertrockenheit 2018: Resistenz oder Schwächesymptom? Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 2020, 171, 257–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bréda, N.; Huc, R.; Granier, A.; Dreyer, E. Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: A review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences. Ann. For. Sci. 2006, 63, 625–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Frei, E.R.; Gossner, M.M.; Vitasse, Y.; Queloz, V.; Dubach, V.; Gessler, A.; Ginzler, C.; Hagedorn, F.; Meusburger, K.; Moor, M.; et al. European beech dieback after premature leaf senescence during the 2018 drought in northern Switzerland. Plant Biol. 2022, 24, 1132–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Leuschner, C.; Ellenberg, H. Ecology of Central European Forests; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rennenberg, H.; Seiler, W.; Matyssek, R.; Gessler, A.; Kreuzwieser, J. Die Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.)—ein Waldbaum ohne Zukunft im südlichen Mitteleuropa? Allg. Forst Jagdztg. 2004, 175, 210–224. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ammer, C.; Albrecht, L.; Borchert, H.; Brosinger, F.; Dittmar, C.; Elling, W.; Ewald, J.; Felbermeier, B.; von Gilsa, H.; Huss, J.; et al. Zur Zukunft der Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) in Mitteleuropa—Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Beitrag von RENNENBERG et al. (2004). Allg. Forst Jagdztg. 2005, 176, 60–67. [Google Scholar]
  12. Geßler, A.; Keitel, C.; Kreuzwieser, J.; Matyssek, R.; Seiler, W.; Rennenberg, H. Potential risks for European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in a changing climate. Trees 2006, 21, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bhusal, N.; Lee, M.; Lee, H.; Adhikari, A.; Han, A.R.; Han, A.; Kim, H.S. Evaluation of morphological, physiological, and biochemical traits for assessing drought resistance in eleven tree species. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 779, 146466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Anderegg, W.R.L.; Plavcová, L.; Anderegg, L.D.L.; Hacke, U.G.; Berry, J.A.; Field, C.B. Drought’s legacy: Multiyear hydraulic deterioration underlies widespread aspen forest die-off and portends increased future risk. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 1188–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. González de Andrés, E.; Rosas, T.; Camarero, J.J.; Martínez-Vilalta, J. The intraspecific variation of functional traits modulates drought resilience of European beech and pubescent oak. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 3652–3669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, M.; Wang, X.; Keenan, T.F.; Piao, S. Drought timing influences the legacy of tree growth recovery. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, 3546–3559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Kannenberg, S.A.; Maxwell, J.T.; Pederson, N.; D’Orangeville, L.; Ficklin, D.L.; Phillips, R.P. Drought legacies are dependent on water table depth, wood anatomy and drought timing across the eastern US. Ecol. Lett. 2019, 22, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Kannenberg, S.A.; Novick, K.A.; Alexander, M.R.; Maxwell, J.T.; Moore, D.J.P.; Phillips, R.P.; Anderegg, W.R.L. Linking drought legacy effects across scales: From leaves to tree rings to ecosystems. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 2978–2992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miller, T.W.; Stangler, D.F.; Larysch, E.; Honer, H.; Puhlmann, H.; Schindler, D.; Jung, C.; Seifert, T.; Rigling, A.; Kahle, H.-P. Later growth onsets or reduced growth rates: What characterises legacy effects at the tree-ring level in conifers after the severe 2018 drought? Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 854, 158703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peltier, D.M.P.; Guo, J.; Nguyen, P.; Bangs, M.; Wilson, M.; Samuels-Crow, K.; Yocom, L.L.; Liu, Y.; Fell, M.K.; Shaw, J.D.; et al. Temperature memory and non-structural carbohydrates mediate legacies of a hot drought in trees across the southwestern USA. Tree Physiol. 2021, 42, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schönbeck, L.; Gessler, A.; Hoch, G.; McDowell, N.G.; Rigling, A.; Schaub, M.; Li, M.H. Homeostatic levels of nonstructural carbohydrates after 13 yr of drought and irrigation in Pinus sylvestris. New Phytol. 2018, 219, 1314–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kuster, T.M.; Dobbertin, M.; Günthardt-Goerg, M.S.; Schaub, M.; Arend, M. A phenological timetable of oak growth under experimental drought and air warming. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Thomas, F.M. Growth and water relations of four deciduous tree species (Fagus sylvatica L., Quercus petraea [Matt.] Liebl., Q. pubescens Willd., Sorbus aria [L.] Cr.) occurring at Central-European tree-line sites on shallow calcareous soils: Physiological reactions of seedlings to severe drought. Flora 2000, 195, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Farquhar, G.D.; Ehleringer, J.R.; Hubick, K.T. Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1989, 40, 503–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pallardy, S.G. Physiology of Woody Plants, 3rd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pflug, E.E.; Buchmann, N.; Siegwolf, R.T.W.; Schaub, M.; Rigling, A.; Arend, M. Resilient leaf physiological response of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) to summer drought and drought release. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD). Klimadaten Deutschland—Monats- und Tageswerte (Archiv)—Trier-Petrisberg. Available online: https://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/klimadatendeutschland/klarchivtagmonat.html?nn=560674#buehneTop (accessed on 26 September 2022).
  28. WetterKontor GmbH. Monats- und Jahreswerte für Trier. Available online: https://www.wetterkontor.de/de/wetter/deutschland/monatswerte-station.asp?id=10609&yr=2022&mo=-1 (accessed on 26 September 2022).
  29. Breckle, S.-W. Walter’s Vegetation of the Earth, 4th ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; p. 527. [Google Scholar]
  30. Michel, A.; Seidling, W. Forest condition in Europe: 2016 Technical Report of ICP Forests. Report under the UNECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP); BFW-Dokumentation 21/2015; BFW Austrian Research Centre for Forests: Vienna, Austria, 2016; p. 182. [Google Scholar]
  31. Richter, A.K.; Frossard, E.; Brunner, I. Polyphenols in the woody roots of Norway spruce and European beech reduce TTC. Tree Physiol. 2007, 27, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Thomas, F.M.; Ahlers, U. Effects of excess nitrogen on frost hardiness and freezing injury of above-ground tissue in young oaks (Quercus petraea and Q. robur). New Phytol. 1999, 144, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Larcher, W. Anwendung und Zuverlässigkeit der Tetrazoliummethode zur Feststellung von Schäden in pflanzlichen Geweben. Mikroskopie 1969, 25, 207–218. [Google Scholar]
  34. Semerci, A.; Semerci, H.; Çalişkan, B.; Çiçek, N.; Ekmekçi, Y.; Mencuccini, M. Morphological and physiological responses to drought stress of European provenances of Scots pine. Eur. J. For. Res. 2017, 136, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Bhusal, N.; Han, S.-G.; Yoon, T.-M. Impact of drought stress on photosynthetic response, leaf water potential, and stem sap flow in two cultivars of bi-leader apple trees (Malus × domestica Borkh.). Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Trugman, A.T.; Detto, M.; Bartlett, M.K.; Medvigy, D.; Anderegg, W.R.L.; Schwalm, C.; Schaffer, B.; Pacala, S.W. Tree carbon allocation explains forest drought-kill and recovery patterns. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1552–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Saveyn, A.; Steppe, K.; Ubierna, N.; Dawson, T.E. Woody tissue photosynthesis and its contribution to trunk growth and bud development in young plants. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 1949–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Liu, J.; Gu, L.; Yu, Y.; Ju, G.; Sun, Z. Stem photosynthesis of twig and its contribution to new organ development in cutting seedlings of Salix Matsudana Koidz. Forests 2018, 9, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Scartazza, A.; Moscatello, S.; Matteucci, G.; Battistelli, A.; Brugnoli, E. Seasonal and inter-annual dynamics of growth, non-structural carbohydrates and C stable isotopes in a Mediterranean beech forest. Tree Physiol. 2013, 33, 730–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bhusal, N.; Lee, M.; Reum Han, A.; Han, A.; Kim, H.S. Responses to drought stress in Prunus sargentii and Larix kaempferi seedlings using morphological and physiological parameters. For. Ecol. Manag. 2020, 465, 118099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Felbermeier, B.; Mosandl, R. Fagus sylvatica Linné, 1973. In Enzyklopädie der Holzgewächse—Handbuch und Atlas der Dendrologi; Roloff, A., Weisgerber, H., Lang, U., Stimm, B., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2002; Volume 3, p. 20. [Google Scholar]
  42. Legner, N.; Fleck, S.; Leuschner, C. Low light acclimation in five temperate broad-leaved tree species of different successional status: The significance of a shade canopy. Ann. For. Sci. 2013, 70, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Konôpka, B.; Pajtík, J.; Marušák, R.; Bošeľa, M.; Lukac, M. Specific leaf area and leaf area index in developing stands of Fagus sylvatica L. and Picea abies Karst. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 364, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Šimpraga, M.; Verbeeck, H.; Bloemen, J.; Vanhaecke, L.; Demarcke, M.; Joó, E.; Pokorska, O.; Amelynck, C.; Schoon, N.; Dewulf, J.; et al. Vertical canopy gradient in photosynthesis and monoterpenoid emissions: An insight into the chemistry and physiology behind. Atmos. Environ. 2013, 80, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Thomas, F.M.; Bögelein, R.; Werner, W. Interaction between Douglas fir and European beech—Investigations in pure and mixed stands. Forstarchiv 2015, 86, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
  46. Gebauer, R.; Plichta, R.; Urban, J.; Volařík, D.; Hájíčková, M. The resistance and resilience of European beech seedlings to drought stress during the period of leaf development. Tree Physiol. 2020, 40, 1147–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Beloiu, M.; Stahlmann, R.; Beierkuhnlein, C. High recovery of saplings after severe drought in temperate deciduous forests. Forests 2020, 11, 546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. van den Burg, J. Foliar Analysis for Determination of Tree Nutrient Status: A Compilation of Literature Data; Report No. 414; Institute for Forestry and Urban Ecology: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1985; p. 615. [Google Scholar]
  49. van den Burg, J. Foliar Analysis for Determination of Tree Nutrient Status—A Compilation of Data. 2. Literature 1985–1989; Rapport Nr. 591; Institute for Forestry and Urban Ecology: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1990; p. 220. [Google Scholar]
  50. Marchin, R.; Zeng, H.; Hoffmann, W. Drought-deciduous behavior reduces nutrient losses from temperate deciduous trees under severe drought. Oecologia 2010, 163, 845–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Wortemann, R.; Herbette, S.; Barigah, T.S.; Fumanal, B.; Alia, R.; Ducousso, A.; Gomory, D.; Roeckel-Drevet, P.; Cochard, H. Genotypic variability and phenotypic plasticity of cavitation resistance in Fagus sylvatica L. across Europe. Tree Physiol. 2011, 31, 1175–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Herbette, S.; Wortemann, R.; Awad, H.; Huc, R.; Cochard, H.; Barigah, T.S. Insights into xylem vulnerability to cavitation in Fagus sylvatica L.: Phenotypic and environmental sources of variability. Tree Physiol. 2010, 30, 1448–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Stojnić, S.; Suchocka, M.; Benito-Garzón, M.; Torres-Ruiz, J.M.; Cochard, H.; Bolte, A.; Cocozza, C.; Cvjetković, B.; de Luis, M.; Martinez-Vilalta, J.; et al. Variation in xylem vulnerability to embolism in European beech from geographically marginal populations. Tree Physiol. 2018, 38, 173–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Tognetti, R.; Johnson, J.D.; Michelozzi, M. The response of European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedlings from two Italian populations to drought and recovery. Trees 1995, 9, 348–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Czajkowski, T.; Bolte, A. Unterschiedliche Reaktionen deutscher und polnischer Herkünfte der Buche (Fagus sylvatica L.) auf Trockenheit. Allg. Forst Jagdztg. 2006, 177, 30–40. [Google Scholar]
  56. Peuke, A.D.; Schraml, C.; Hartung, W.; Rennenberg, H. Identification of drought-sensitive beech ecotypes by physiological parameters. New Phytol. 2002, 154, 373–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Weithmann, G.; Schuldt, B.; Link, R.M.; Heil, D.; Hoeber, S.; John, H.; Müller-Haubold, H.; Schüller, L.-M.; Schumann, K.; Leuschner, C. Leaf trait modification in European beech trees in response to climatic and edaphic drought. Plant Biol. 2022, 24, 1272–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schraml, C.; Rennenberg, H. Ökotypen der Rotbuche (Fagus sylvatica L.) zeigen unterschiedliche Reaktionen auf Trockenstreß. Forstw. Cbl. 2002, 121, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McLachlan, J.S.; Hellmann, J.J.; Schwartz, M.W. A framework for debate of assisted migration in an era of climate change. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 297–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Leech, S.M.; Almuedo, P.L.; O’Neill, G. Assisted migration: Adapting forest management to a changing climate. BC J. Ecosyst. Manag. 2011, 12, 18–34. Available online: https://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/article/view/91/98 (accessed on 13 October 2022).
  61. Stribley, G.H.; Ashmore, M.R. Quantitative changes in twig growth pattern of young woodland beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in relation to climate and ozone pollution over 10 years. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 157, 191–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 00568 g001 550
Figure 1. Monthly averages of maximum (solid black line) and mean temperature (grey line) and monthly sums of precipitation (grey bars) in spring and summer 2020, and long-term monthly averages (1981–2010) of temperature (dashed line) and precipitation (white bars) for comparison.
Figure 1. Monthly averages of maximum (solid black line) and mean temperature (grey line) and monthly sums of precipitation (grey bars) in spring and summer 2020, and long-term monthly averages (1981–2010) of temperature (dashed line) and precipitation (white bars) for comparison.
Plants 12 00568 g001
Plants 12 00568 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Bud vitality classes vs. individual bud mass; (b) bud δ13C vs. individual bud mass; (c) bud δ13C vs. bud vitality in European beech saplings. The bud vitality classes ranged from 1, high vitality and flushing probability to 3, low vitality and flushing probability. Buds were harvested from different parts of the crown (triangles up, upper part; circles, middle part; triangles down, lower part) of saplings assigned to different drought damage classes (DC; white symbols = DC1, almost no damage; light grey symbols = DC2, moderate damage; dark grey symbols = DC3, severe damage; black symbols = DC4, very severe damage; cf. Section 2.1 and Table 1). r, Spearman correlation coefficient. To improve readability, the symbols of the different crown positions are slightly staggered around the respective vitality classes in panels (a,c).
Figure 2. (a) Bud vitality classes vs. individual bud mass; (b) bud δ13C vs. individual bud mass; (c) bud δ13C vs. bud vitality in European beech saplings. The bud vitality classes ranged from 1, high vitality and flushing probability to 3, low vitality and flushing probability. Buds were harvested from different parts of the crown (triangles up, upper part; circles, middle part; triangles down, lower part) of saplings assigned to different drought damage classes (DC; white symbols = DC1, almost no damage; light grey symbols = DC2, moderate damage; dark grey symbols = DC3, severe damage; black symbols = DC4, very severe damage; cf. Section 2.1 and Table 1). r, Spearman correlation coefficient. To improve readability, the symbols of the different crown positions are slightly staggered around the respective vitality classes in panels (a,c).
Plants 12 00568 g002
Plants 12 00568 g003 550
Figure 3. Leaf vs. bud δ13C in European beech saplings of different tree damage classes (DC; white symbols = DC1, almost no damage; light grey symbols = DC2, moderate damage; dark grey symbols = DC3, severe damage) and in different crown parts (triangles up, upper part; circles, middle part; triangles down, lower part).
Figure 3. Leaf vs. bud δ13C in European beech saplings of different tree damage classes (DC; white symbols = DC1, almost no damage; light grey symbols = DC2, moderate damage; dark grey symbols = DC3, severe damage) and in different crown parts (triangles up, upper part; circles, middle part; triangles down, lower part).
Plants 12 00568 g003
Table
Table 1. Numbers, morphological and physiological variables of young beech trees and buds in different tree damage (DC) and bud vitality classes after a dry summer (mean values ± 1 SE, where applicable). Capital letters refer to statistical comparisons among damage classes, lower-case letters indicate statistically different values among crown regions. Values marked with the same letter are not significantly different.
Table 1. Numbers, morphological and physiological variables of young beech trees and buds in different tree damage (DC) and bud vitality classes after a dry summer (mean values ± 1 SE, where applicable). Capital letters refer to statistical comparisons among damage classes, lower-case letters indicate statistically different values among crown regions. Values marked with the same letter are not significantly different.
VariableDC1DC2DC3DC4
Total number of trees751414
Tree height (cm)125.8 ± 3.8126.2 ± 6.6127.8 ± 2.6134.6 ± 3.9
Stem diameter (mm)15.3 ± 0.714.4 ± 0.614.1 ± 0.314.7 ± 0.4
Extent of damage to the stem (%)1 ± 16 ± 220 ± 560 ± 7
Extent of damage to the leaves (%)9 ± 444 ± 1083 ± 396 ± 1
Number of buds208 ± 22 A121 ± 17 AB104 ± 14 B81 ± 15 B
Number of trees for physiological analyses4444
Individual bud fresh mass, upper crown (mg) 1)41.6 ± 3.116.4 ± 3.75.4 ± 0.7 b7.3 ± 1.0
Individual bud fresh mass, middle crown (mg) 1)40.7 ± 2.731.1 ± 5.415.7 ± 2.9 a9.5 ± 2.5
Individual bud fresh mass, lower crown (mg) 1)42.7 ± 5.027.6 ± 4.318.4 ± 2.9 a9.1 ± 2.4
Individual bud fresh mass, entire crown (mg)41.7 ± 2.2 A25.0 ± 2.9 B13.2 ± 1.8 C8.6 ± 1.2 C
Bud number per bud vitality class, upper crown 2)7 / 1 / 04 / 1 / 30 / 0 / 80 / 0 / 8
Bud number per bud vitality class, middle crown 2)8 / 0 / 08 / 0 / 02 / 2 / 40 / 0 / 8
Bud number per bud vitality class, lower crown 2)6 / 2 / 08 / 0 / 04 / 2 / 22 / 2 / 4
δ13C, upper crown (‰) 1)−27.8 ± 0.4 B−25.8 ± 0.3 A−24.7 ± 0.2 Aa−24.9 ± 0.9 A
δ13C, middle crown (‰) 1)−27.2 ± 0.3−26.9 ± 0.6−25.3 ± 0.3 a−25.2 ± 0.4
δ13C, lower crown (‰) 1)−27.5 ± 0.2−27.2 ± 0.5−28.0 ± 0.5 b−26.6 ± 1.1
δ13C, entire crown (‰)−27.5 ± 0.2 B−26.6 ± 0.3 AB−26.0 ± 0.4 A−25.6 ± 0.5 A
1) Two buds per tree and crown part resulting in eight buds per damage class and crown position; 2) bud vitality classes according to TTC tests in the sequence “high vitality”/“reduced vitality”/“sub-vital”; maximum bud number per damage class and crown position = 8 (two buds per tree and crown position).
Table
Table 2. Results of Two-Way ANOVA applied to variables of buds (harvested in autumn 2020) and leaves (sampled in spring 2021) of different damage classes and crown parts of European beech saplings subjected to severe drought stress in spring and summer 2020. Significant results are printed in bold. n.t.—not tested due to unbalanced design (missing data in the upper crown part).
Table 2. Results of Two-Way ANOVA applied to variables of buds (harvested in autumn 2020) and leaves (sampled in spring 2021) of different damage classes and crown parts of European beech saplings subjected to severe drought stress in spring and summer 2020. Significant results are printed in bold. n.t.—not tested due to unbalanced design (missing data in the upper crown part).
VariableDamage ClassCrown PartDamage Class × Crown Part
dfFpdfFpdfFp
Individual bud fresh mass351.155<0.00124.6470.01261.2830.274
Bud δ13C37.436<0.00129.272<0.00162.4180.033
Individual leaf dry mass30.6290.60120.8290.44560.9190.494
Leaf size30.2510.86020.0580.94460.5640.756
SLA32.0620.124218.401<0.00161.5550.191
Leaf δ13C310.285<0.00122.6670.082n.t.n.t.n.t.
Foliar N321.626<0.00120.1300.878n.t.n.t.n.t.
Table
Table 3. Leaf features of European beech saplings (5 leaves per tree and crown part) of different damage classes (DC) in spring after a year of severe drought stress (mean values ± 1 SE). Capital letters refer to statistical comparisons among DC; lower-case letters indicate significant differences among crown regions. Values marked with the same letter are not significantly different. n.d.—no data available.
Table 3. Leaf features of European beech saplings (5 leaves per tree and crown part) of different damage classes (DC) in spring after a year of severe drought stress (mean values ± 1 SE). Capital letters refer to statistical comparisons among DC; lower-case letters indicate significant differences among crown regions. Values marked with the same letter are not significantly different. n.d.—no data available.
VariableControlDC1DC2DC3
Number of trees4444
Individual leaf dry mass, upper crown (mg) 1)62.7 ± 8.265.6 ± 11.550.4 ± 8.632.7 1)
Individual leaf dry mass, middle crown (mg) 1)39.8 ± 4.548.2 ± 8.040.0 ± 10.759.6 ± 14.3
Individual leaf dry mass, lower crown (mg) 1)36.4 ± 3.049.3 ± 6.246.0 ± 6.438.1 ± 4.9
Individual leaf dry mass, entire crown (mg)46.3 ± 4.754.3 ± 5.645.5 ± 5.247.0 ± 7.7
Leaf size, upper crown (cm2)11.7 ± 1.312.5 ± 1.79.9 ± 1.57.4 1)
Leaf size, middle crown (cm2)10.0 ± 1.110.8 ± 1.59.6 ± 2.513.2 ± 2.9
Leaf size, lower crown (cm2)10.1 ± 0.711.4 ± 1.211.4 ± 1.810.5 ± 1.4
Leaf size, entire crown (cm2)10.6 ± 0.611.6 ± 0.910.3 ± 1.211.3 ± 1.6
SLA, upper crown (m2 kg−1)18.9 ± 0.6 b20.0 ± 0.920.4 ± 0.7 b22.9 1)
SLA, middle crown (m2 kg−1)25.7 ± 1.4 a23.3 ± 1.524.6 ± 0.4 a23.8 ± 1.1
SLA, lower crown (m2 kg−1)28.2 ± 0.9 a24.0 ± 1.325.2 ± 0.8 a27.6 ± 0.7
SLA, entire crown (m2 kg−1)24.3 ± 1.322.4 ± 0.923.4 ± 0.725.4 ± 0.9
δ13C, upper crown (‰)−26.0 ± 0.4−26.4 ± 0.4−24.4 ± 0.5n.d.
δ13C, middle crown (‰)−26.2 ± 0.5−26.6 ± 0.3−24.8 ± 0.3−25.8 ± 0.3
δ13C, lower crown (‰)−26.5 ± 0.5−27.0 ± 0.3−25.4 ± 0.2−26.4 ± 0.4
δ13C, entire crown (‰)−26.2 ± 0.5 B−26.7 ± 0.3 B−24.8 ± 0.3 A−26.1 ± 0.3 B
N, upper crown (%)2.26 ± 0.032.27 ± 0.142.87 ± 0.042.97 1)
N, middle crown (%)2.27 ± 0.032.30 ± 0.152.80 ± 0.072.86 ± 0.04
N, lower crown (%)2.52 ± 0.012.21 ± 0.152.77 ± 0.082.87 ± 0.07
N, entire crown (‰)2.35 ± 0.05 B2.26 ± 0.09 B2.81 ± 0.04 A2.87 ± 0.04 A
1) Only one value.
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

Thomas, F.M.; Schunck, L.; Zisakos, A. Legacy Effects in Buds and Leaves of European Beech Saplings (Fagus sylvatica) after Severe Drought. Plants 2023, 12, 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030568

AMA Style

Thomas FM, Schunck L, Zisakos A. Legacy Effects in Buds and Leaves of European Beech Saplings (Fagus sylvatica) after Severe Drought. Plants. 2023; 12(3):568. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030568

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thomas, Frank M., Lena Schunck, and Alexis Zisakos. 2023. "Legacy Effects in Buds and Leaves of European Beech Saplings (Fagus sylvatica) after Severe Drought" Plants 12, no. 3: 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12030568

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