Abstract
Background and aims
Tree species worldwide suffer from extended periods of water limitation. These conditions not only affect the growth and vitality of trees but also feed back on the cycling of carbon (C) at the plant-soil interface. However, the impact of progressing water loss from soils on the transfer of assimilated C belowground remains unresolved.
Methods
Using mesocosms, we assessed how increasing levels of water deficit affect the growth of Pinus sylvestris saplings and performed a 13C-CO2 pulse labelling experiment to trace the pathway of assimilated C into needles, fine roots, soil pore CO2, and phospholipid fatty acids of soil microbial groups.
Results
With increasing water limitation, trees partitioned more biomass belowground at the expense of aboveground growth. Moderate levels of water limitation barely affected the uptake of 13C label and the transit time of C from needles to the soil pore CO2. Comparatively, more severe water limitation increased the fraction of 13C label that trees allocated to fine roots and soil fungi while a lower fraction of 13CO2 was readily respired from the soil.
Conclusions
When soil water becomes largely unavailable, C cycling within trees becomes slower, and a fraction of C allocated belowground may accumulate in fine roots or be transferred to the soil and associated microorganisms without being metabolically used.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Trees are typically adapted to cope with multiple climatic disturbances such as water limitation, fires, and windthrow. Yet worldwide, trees are facing a human-related intensification of these stresses (Millar and Stephenson 2015; Trumbore et al. 2015). In particular, episodes of water limitation are becoming more frequent and severe and can affect tree functioning through alterations in the allocation of photosynthetically fixed carbon (C) to different aboveground and belowground components (IPCC 2021; Joseph et al. 2020; McDowell et al. 2020; Weemstra et al. 2013). Trees are generally predicted to allocate more C to root tissues with reductions in soil water availability (Bloom et al. 1985; Ledo et al. 2018; Poorter et al. 2012). However, such a response may depend on the severity of the limitation (Hartmann et al. 2020, 2013; Ruehr et al. 2009). Furthermore, although a portion of the C assimilated through photosynthesis is commonly deposited by roots into the soil (Brunn et al. 2022; Pausch and Kuzyakov 2018; Rog et al. 2021), little is known about whether the intensity of soil water deficit affects the transfer of C from plants to soils and associated soil microorganisms (Prescott et al. 2020).
Tree growth is often constrained by environmental conditions that lead to low availability of soil water (McDowell et al. 2020; Weemstra et al. 2013). Evidence shows that in response to reductions in soil water availability, aboveground plant growth and respiration usually tend to decrease at an earlier stage of limitation than photosynthesis (Hsiao et al. 1976; Muller et al. 2011; Palacio et al. 2014). Trees would thereby produce more photosynthetic assimilates (source activity) than needed to support their metabolic functions (sink activity) (Prescott et al. 2020), which may in turn feed back on photosynthesis due to a reduced C demand (Gessler and Grossiord 2019; Hagedorn et al. 2016). In leaf tissues, some of the assimilated C is converted to metabolites and carbohydrates involved in osmoregulation or storage (Hartmann and Trumbore 2016). These compounds are transferred through the phloem from leaves to other tissues, including root systems, and a portion of C allocated to roots can be deposited into the soil as rhizodeposits. Rhizodeposits include root-released cells, exudates, and lysates known to fuel the metabolism of soil microorganisms (Dennis et al. 2010; Tian et al. 2020).
Recent research indicates that the velocity at which C metabolites and carbohydrates are transported belowground is reduced in trees and perennial herbaceous plants that are limited by water (Gao et al. 2021; Ingrisch et al. 2020; Salmon et al. 2019). This reduction is assumed to be mainly related to a delay in the export of C from leaves as well as an increased sap viscosity and a decrease in phloem turgor (Dannoura et al. 2019; Ruehr et al. 2009; Salmon et al. 2019; Sevanto 2014; Sevanto et al. 2014). Nevertheless, a reduced metabolic activity in roots under unfavorable soil moisture levels may lead to a build-up of storage carbohydrates and metabolites in belowground plant tissues (Hagedorn et al. 2016; Oberhuber et al. 2011). Mean residence times of C estimated from radiocarbon (14C) measurements provide consistent evidence that in woody species C can be stored for multiple years and used at a later point in time for respiratory metabolism and growth (Hartmann and Trumbore 2016; Herrera-Ramírez et al. 2020; Hilman et al. 2021; Muhr et al. 2013; Richardson et al. 2015; Solly et al. 2018). However, knowledge is currently lacking on how water limitation affects the transit time and accumulation of C in trees and its cascading effects on belowground plant growth and rhizodeposition (Solly et al. 2018).
Tree species adapted to dry conditions tend to sustain longer-lasting root organs to optimize water uptake (Brunner et al. 2015; Herzog et al. 2014). Nevertheless, relative changes in the partitioning between below- and aboveground biomass likely depend on the severity of the water stress and the growth of other plant tissues. Trees exposed to severe water limitation generally reduce their aboveground growth (Poorter et al. 2012). This decrease in aboveground growth can, in turn, lead to an increase in the fraction of belowground biomass relative to the total biomass of trees. Under moderate soil water deficit, trees have instead been observed to maintain their aboveground growth for as long as possible with only minor alterations in root growth (Poorter et al. 2012). However, divergent responses to water depletion have been observed for roots of diverse diameter sizes within the same root system of trees (Brunner et al. 2015; Olmo et al. 2014).
The most dynamic responses of plant root systems are expected for the most ephemeral roots with a narrow diameter (here defined as fine roots, < 2 mm in diameter) (Iversen et al. 2017; Jackson et al. 1990; Matamala and Stover 2013; Solly et al. 2013; Trumbore and Gaudinski 2003). This is because fine roots are responsible for the acquisition of water and nutrients from the soil. The growth and morphology of fine roots do not only depend on genetically determined species characteristics but also on the distribution of resources in the soil matrix (Comas et al. 2012; Imada et al. 2008; Iversen 2010; Jobbágy and Jackson 2000; Malhotra et al. 2020; Weemstra et al. 2017). Roots with a small diameter are, for instance, expected to scavenge for water resources in small water-filled soil pores; however, their development may be affected by an unfavorably dense soil structure that impedes the formation of this type of roots (Clark et al. 2003).
Environmental conditions that affect the distribution, concentration, and diffusivity of soil water also alter the metabolism of soil microbial communities (Brangarí et al. 2021; Clemmensen et al. 2006; Fuchslueger et al. 2014; Malik and Bouskill 2022; Schimel et al. 2007; Spohn and Chodak 2015; Tecon and Or 2017). In particular, the intensity of water stress can influence microbes’ ability to keep hydrated and utilize available C resources (Boot et al. 2013; Kakumanu et al. 2013; Schimel et al. 2007; Schimel 2018). In addition to direct physical effects, a lack of soil water has been observed to affect soil microbes through changes in substrate supply (Bardgett et al. 2008; Hartmann et al. 2017). Changes in plant C allocation belowground can, for instance, affect the quality and quantity of C available for soil microorganisms tightly connected to recently assimilated plant C, such as soil fungi and bacteria. Despite this improved understanding, the impact of progressing water loss on the transfer of assimilated C to root systems and associated soil microorganisms remains quantitatively unresolved (Joseph et al. 2020; McDowell et al. 2022; Prescott et al. 2020).
The C allocation within saplings is best assessed by the pulse labelling of their aboveground biomass with 13C enriched CO2 (13C-CO2) and by tracing of the newly assimilated 13C label in different aboveground and belowground compartments over repeated time points (Ruehr et al. 2009; Joseph et al. 2020). Compound-specific 13C isotope analysis of phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) markers extracted from soils is an approach to determine the incorporation of the 13C label by specific soil microbial groups (Karlowsky et al. 2018; Kramer and Gleixner 2006). The 13C label released as CO2 from the respiration of living roots and soil organisms in the soil pore space can be measured in collected soil pore gas samples (Van de Broek et al. 2020).
The main aim of this study was to assess how increasing levels of water limitation affect tree growth and the allocation of newly assimilated C to roots and soil microorganisms. We investigated these processes in mesocosms featuring three-year-old Scots pine saplings and natural soil from a mature forest stand affected by reoccurring drought episodes. The mesocosms were exposed to different levels of water limitation. In late summer, at the end of the main growing season of the trees, we performed a 13C-CO2 pulse labelling and traced the pathway of assimilated C into tree needles, fine roots, soil pore CO2, and phospholipid fatty acids of soil microbial groups. We hypothesized that increased water stress would reduce the magnitude of tree C uptake and the velocity at which newly assimilated C is transported belowground and further metabolized. Moreover, we expected that more severe levels of soil water deficit would lead to a build-up of newly assimilated C in fine roots.
Material and methods
Establishment of mesocosms
To study how different levels of water limitation affect the processes and interactions occurring at the interface between plants and soils, we established an experimental platform consisting of 18 Scots pine-soil systems at the greenhouse facility of the Research Station for Plant Sciences (ETH Zurich, Lindau, Switzerland), in September 2019. Each Scots pine-soil system (subsequently referred to as ‘mesocosm’) was set up by transplanting a three-year-old Scots pine sapling (Pinus sylvestris L, seed origin: Leuk, Switzerland, 980–1250 m a.s.l., with a mean height of 61 ± 1 cm and a mean stem diameter of 21 ± 1 mm) in a pot with the size of 32 cm height × 69 cm diameter (100 L volume). The pots were filled with a 2–3 cm bottom layer of stones (10–15 kg) to facilitate drainage of soil water and 20 cm of natural soil (100–110 kg). The soil (a Pararendzina developed from an alluvial fan and debris cone of the Ill river (Brunner et al. 2009; Guidi et al. 2022)) and the stones were collected at the margins of a xeric forest in the Rhone Valley, below the forest canopy (Pfywald, Canton Valais, Switzerland, 46°18′16.1″N, 7°36′44.8″E, 600 m a.s.l.). Details on the soil and trees used in the mesocosm experiment are provided in Methods S1.
Irrigation treatments and temperature settings
From September 2019 to January 2020, the mesocosms were watered with 2 L of local rainwater twice per week, reaching a volumetric water content (VWC) of approximately 30% (close to the field capacity of the soil: pF 1.8 ~ 35 VWC %). The water limitation experiment began in January 2020 by exposing the mesocosms to three different irrigation treatments (six mesocosms per treatment) in a randomized design to minimize spatial effects (i.e. variability in shading) (Fig. 1a). The amount of water to be supplied was controlled through automated soil moisture measurements (as detailed in Methods S2), according to the following treatments: Control, the mesocosms were supplied with sufficient soil water (close to field capacity, ca. 30% VWC; n = 6); Intermediate water deficit, the mesocosms were supplied with a moderately decreased amount of soil water (40% reduction in the amount of water supplied as compared to control; n = 6); Severe water stress, the mesocosms were supplied with a strongly decreased amount of soil water (75% reduction in the amount of water supplied as compared to control; n = 6). The intermediate water limitation treatment represents the maximum forecasted deviation of precipitation from the normal climate (1981 – 2010) for emission scenario RCP 8.5 in Southern Switzerland (NCCS 2018).
To ensure an exhaustive assessment of the soil moisture levels within the mesocosms, the gravimetric water content (GWC) of the soils was measured on a seasonal basis. For the latter, soil samples were collected using a stainless-steel auger with a 5.5 cm inner diameter down to 20 cm soil. These soil samples were additionally used for assessing concentrations of K2SO4 extractable organic C (EOC), as described in Methods S3.
The temperature conditions in the greenhouse were set to account for the seasonal changes in mean temperatures according to the climatological data measured at the meteorological station in Sion (Canton Valais, Switzerland) (MeteoSwiss, online dataset n.d.) (Table S1). The Sion meteorological station is located nearby the xeric forest dominated by Scot pine trees from which the soil for the mesocosms was collected.
Aboveground tree growth and leaf gas exchange
Throughout the experiment, the height, leader shoot, and stem diameter of the Scots pine trees were monitored monthly (as detailed in Methods S4). On a seasonal basis, leaf gas exchange (light-saturated photosynthesis (Anet) and stomatal conductance (gs)) were measured using a LiCor 6400 system (LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, NE, USA). Specifically, 25 south exposed needles were enclosed in the 2 × 3 cm chamber, and Anet and gs were measured under 400 μmol mol−1 CO2, 1000 PAR, local humidity and temperature, and a stomatal ratio of 1. At the end of the first growing season of the trees in the mesocosms (on August 28th 2020), predawn leaf water potential (Ψ) was measured on current-year twigs between 04:00 and 05:30 a.m., using a Scholander-type pressure chamber (PMS Instrument Company, Albany, NY, USA) in steps of 0.05 MPa. The leaf area of the needles was also determined at the end of the first growing season of the trees in the mesocosms by randomly collecting 30—40 needles throughout the whole crown of the trees and scanning them with a flatbed scanner (EPSON Expression 11000XL, EPSON, Suwa, Nagano, Japan). The scanned images were analyzed with the WinRHIZO program (version 2013, Regent Instruments Inc., Chemin Sainte-Foy, Quebec, Canada) to determine the leaf area of the needles (Albaugh et al. 2020), which was normalized per needle.
13C-CO2 pulse labelling
The allocation of photosynthetic assimilates to roots and soil microbes was followed by 13C-CO2 pulse labelling in nine randomly selected mesocosms (n = 3 per treatment, thereby with similar soil moisture conditions) at the end of the first main growing season of the trees (on September 2nd 2020, Fig. S1). To avoid diffusion of 13C-CO2 in the soil matrix, the soil was covered with plastic foil before pulse labelling (Fig. S2). The plastic foil was sealed to the stem of the trees with plasticine. The aboveground portion of the Scots pine tree in each mesocosm was covered with a transparent plastic bag placed over a cylindrical chamber with a volume of 73 L (Fig. S2). The plastic bag was sealed with a cotton cord around the tree stem to ensure gas tightness. The 13C-CO2 labelling of each tree lasted 45 min and was done on the same day for all mesocosms between 08:30 and 12:30 am. A fan inside the chambers ensured air circulation. During the pulse labelling, we added 40 mL of 13C-CO2 (99.54 atom% 13C; Eurisotop, Saint-Aubin, France) to achieve CO2 with an isotopic composition of roughly 50 atom-% and a mixing ratio of about 1500 ppm. The latter was assessed during the 13C-CO2 labelling by collecting air samples from each chamber. The air samples were taken with a 60 ml syringe connected to an outlet port linked to a tubing inserted in the middle of the chamber. They were measured for CO2 concentration and C isotope composition as described in Methods S5. Each tree was illuminated with an additional halogen floodlight during the 13C-CO2 labelling to ensure high radiation and comparable light conditions.
Sample collection following pulse labelling
Tree needles were collected one day before and 45 min, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 47 days after pulse labelling. At each sampling time, 15 needles were collected randomly from the crown of the young Scot pine trees. The collected needles were immediately put in liquid nitrogen to interrupt any metabolic activity and, after transport to the laboratory, dried at 70 °C.
Soil samples were collected one day before and 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 47 days after pulse labelling. The soils were sampled around the stem of the trees at a 15 cm distance down to 20 cm soil depth using a stainless-steel auger with a 2 cm inner diameter. Soils were transported back to the laboratory on ice packs and immediately sieved through a 4 mm mesh. Fresh soil samples were used for GWC assessments, as described in Methods S3. Soil for phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis was frozen after sieving and stored at -20 °C until further preparation.
Roots were carefully picked out of the soil, and fine roots with a diameter < 2 mm were washed with Milli-Q water to remove any adhering soil particles. Dead roots were removed from the < 4 mm sieved soil samples based on qualitative visual characteristics such as colour and breakability (Solly et al. 2013). Living fine roots were dried at 70 °C and their dry weight was assessed.
Soil pore gas sampling was performed one day before the pulse labelling, and 1.5, 3 h, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 7, 14, 26, and 47 days after pulse labelling. A 60 ml syringe was used to collect soil pore gas samples from the outlet port described in Methods S2. For each soil pore gas sample, two 20 ml subsamples were transferred to pre-evacuated Labco exetainers (12 mL) for measurements of CO2 concentration and C isotopic composition.
Carbon isotopic composition of needles, roots, and soil pore CO2
The dried needles and fine roots were weighed, milled, and placed into tin capsules to measure the C isotopic composition. δ13C values and total C concentrations of ground needle and fine root material were analysed at the Stable Isotope Facility of the University of California, Davis (UC Davis, CA, USA) using an Elementar Vario MICRO cube elemental analyzer (Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany) interfaced to a Sercon Europa 20–20 isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Sercon Ltd., Cheshire, United Kingdom).
The collected soil pore gas samples were used to determine the concentration and the C isotopic composition of CO2 in the soil of the mesocosms using gas chromatography (456-GC, Bruker, Billerica, USA) and an isotope ratio mass spectrometer (DeltaplusXP, Finnigan MAT, Bremen, Germany), respectively (as detailed in Methods S5).
Extraction and measurement of phospholipid fatty acids
To determine the uptake of 13C label by different soil microbial groups, phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis was performed with a modified Bligh-Dyer method following Frostegård et al. (1991), based on protocols by Waldrop and Firestone (2006) and Zosso and Wiesenberg (2021), with some modifications as described in Methods S6. The PLFAs were separated, quantified, and identified on a Trace 1300 GC (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) equipped with a mass spectrometer, while the δ13C values of individual PLFA were determined using IRMS as detailed in Methods S7.
The fatty acids C14:0, C15:0, C16:0, C17:0, C18:0, and C20:0 were used as general bacterial biomarkers (Bligh and Dyer 1959). The biomarkers i15:0, a15:0, i16:0, i17:0, and a17:0 were used to identify gram-positive bacteria (Pennanen et al. 1999). The fatty acids 16:1ω7, 16:1ω5, cy17:0, 18:1ω7, and cy19:0 were used as biomarkers for gram-negative bacteria (Zogg et al. 1997). Gram-positive, gram-negative, and general bacterial markers were summed to total bacterial PLFA (Frostegård and Bååth 1996). To identify Actinobacteriota, the fatty acids 10Me16:0, 10Me17:0, and 10Me18:0 were used (Kroppenstedt 1985). 18:2ω6,9 was used as a marker of fungi (Federle et al. 1986). The fungal to -bacterial PLFA ratio was calculated by dividing the fungal biomarker by all the bacterial biomarkers. The ratio of gram-positive to gram-negative bacteria was calculated by dividing the sum of gram-positive bacteria by the sum of the gram-negative bacteria.
Data analyses
The C isotopic composition is expressed in δ notation (‰) relative to the VPDB standard.
The 13C added by pulse labelling in the different tree and PLFA compartments (13C excess allocated, expressed as mg m−2) was computed as follows (Eq. 1):
where the 13C enrichment represents the relative abundance of 13C enrichment above the natural C isotope. To calculate the relative abundance of 13C enrichment above the natural C isotope, the δ values were converted to atom% with Eq. 2:
where 0.0111802 is the accepted C isotope ratio of VPDB.
The 13C enrichment was calculated with Eq. 3:
where atom% n is the natural 13C/12C background (in atom %) of an aboveground or belowground compartment before pulse labelling, and atom% l describes the 13C/12C ratio of the same compartment at a given time point after the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling. The C pool of roots and needles represents the total weight of these tree compartments (as detailed in Methods S8), expressed as mg dry weight m−2 ground area of the mesocosms (each mesocosm had a ground area of 0.37 m−2) and multiplied by the percentage of C in the samples and divided by 100. The C pool of the individual PLFAs (expressed as mg PLFA in soil dry weight m−2 ground area) represents the PLFAs’ concentration per dry weight soil mass within the ground area (0–20 cm depth).
To calculate the 13C released as soil pore CO2 after pulse labelling (13C excess released, expressed as mg 13C m−2 h−1), we used the following equation (Eq. 4):
where the CO2 F represents the modelled CO2 efflux (expressed as mg C m−2 h−1). A description of how the CO2 efflux was modelled is provided in Methods S9.
The fraction of 13C label transferred to different belowground compartments was calculated as the ratio of the 13C excess in the compartment relative to the total 13C label assimilated by the trees. The latter was assessed for each mesocosm by measuring the C isotopic composition and calculating the 13C excess in the needles 45 min after the end of the pulse labelling.
We estimated the mean residence time of the 13C label in the Scots pine needles by using the following exponential decay function (Eq. 5) as in (Ruehr et al. 2009):
N(t) denotes the 13C excess at time t, No the 13C excess at the labelling peak, and λ is the decay constant. The mean residence time was then calculated as \(\tau =1/\uplambda\). The time lag of the 13C signal appearing in soil pore CO2 related to the height of the trees was calculated to provide an estimate of the velocity of the stem transport of newly fixed assimilates to the rhizosphere (including roots and soil microorganisms) (Gao et al. 2021).
Statistics
We conducted statistical analyses with R, Version 4.2.1 (R Core Team 2022). Throughout the manuscript, we present data as mean ± standard error. For all statistical tests, we used a significance level of 0.05. We transformed the continuous variables to normal distributions when required to meet the normality assumptions of the applied statistical tests. To test the effect of the irrigation treatments and sampling times on the measured tree and soil parameters, we used the linear mixed effect function of the package nlme v. 3.1–1588 (Pinheiro et al. 2022) with the restricted maximum likelihood method ‘REML’ (Meyer 1989). Treatment and sampling time (season) were considered fixed effects, and pot and greenhouse were random effects for GWC, soil temperature, Aleaf, gs, tree height increment, stem diameter increment, and EOC. Treatment was considered a fixed effect, and pot and greenhouse were random effects for parameters measured at the time of 13C-CO2 pulse labelling, i.e., Ψ, leader elongation, needle area, needle biomass, fine root length and diameter, fine root biomass and fraction of root biomass (root biomass / total tree biomass), soil pore CO2 concentrations and modelled CO2 effluxes, as well as concentrations of individual PLFAs. We checked the model assumptions using the diagnostic plot functions (Crawley 2012), and the normality of the residuals was tested with histograms. To test the effect of treatment and sampling time (season) on soil GWC pairwise comparisons were estimated using marginal means adjusted with the Tukey method, with the package emmeans v. 1.8.1–1 (Lenth et al. 2022). We used linear least-squares to compare correlations between the GWC and VWC of the soil as well as the soils’ GWC and EOC. Regression analyses were used to assess the relationships between the parameters illustrated in Fig. 7. Correspondence analysis was employed to obtain graphical representations of the variability in the mean relative abundance of individual PLFA markers in relation to water limitation across all sampling times, using the package ca v. 0.71.1 (Greenacre et al. 2018).
Results
Experimental soil water
The VWC decreased steeply after the start of the irrigation treatments in January 2020 (control, intermediate water limitation, and severe water limitation) (Fig. 1b). The three different water regimes reached the anticipated level in spring 2020. Throughout the experiment, the VWC was well correlated to the GWC of the soils (R2 = 0.96, P < 0.001, Fig. S3a). The GWC of the soil differed significantly among the three treatments, with the lowest values in summer and autumn 2020 (Tables 1 and 2). At the end of summer 2020, when we traced the fate of the 13C-CO2 pulse label through the plant-soil systems, the GWC of the control treatment was larger and had a greater variability (ranging between 32.7 – 14.3%) as compared to that of the intermediate (12.2 – 4.7%) and the severe (5.5 – 1.9%) water-limiting treatments (Dataset S1).
Tree gas exchange
In response to water limitation, Anet and gs decreased significantly for trees growing under water stress compared to control trees (Table 2, Fig. 2). The response to water limitation was faster for trees growing under severe water stress than those growing under intermediate water limitation. For instance, only the trees growing under severe water deficit presented a steep decline in Anet and gs in spring 2020, while the gas exchange parameters of trees growing under intermediate water deficit were not significantly reduced until summer 2020 (Fig. 2a, b). In summer 2020, just before the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling took place, the predawn leaf water potential Ψ was significantly larger for the control trees, followed by that of the trees growing under intermediate water limitation and severe water limitation (Fig. 2c, Table. 3).
Tree aboveground and belowground growth
The main increase in tree height occurred during the spring when the trees grew on average 10 ± 1 cm between March and May 2020 (Fig. 3a, Table 2), with no significant difference in leader elongation among the three irrigation treatments (Fig. 3b, Table 3). The stem diameter of the trees mainly increased between spring 2020 and autumn 2020, with a larger stem diameter increment observed for the control trees as compared to the trees under water deficit (Fig. 3c, Table 2). At the end of the main growing season of the trees, when the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling took place, the needle area of the control trees and trees growing under intermediate water limitation was significantly larger than that of severely water-limited trees (Fig. 3d, Table 3).
The production of fine root biomass did not significantly differ among the three levels of irrigation (Fig. 3f). Nevertheless, the morphological analysis of fine root samples at the end of the main growing season indicated significant changes in fine root traits (Table 3). We observed that the overall fine root length per soil volume was significantly greater for the trees growing under severe water deficit (1.79 ± 0.31 cm cm−3) as compared to the fine roots of trees growing under intermediate water deficit (0.99 ± 0.29 cm cm−3) and control conditions (0.50 ± 0.25 cm cm−3) (Dataset S2). The average diameter of the fine roots was significantly smaller for the severely water-limited trees as compared to the fine roots of trees growing under intermediate water deficit and control conditions (Fig. 3g). The proportion of fine roots recovered in different diameter sizes varied among the three treatments (Fig. 3e).
Moreover, Table 4 shows that the total tree biomass and needle biomass at the time of pulse labelling were lower for the severe water limitation treatment in comparison to the other irrigation treatments. The root biomass fraction (root biomass / total tree biomass) was instead largest under severe levels of water deficit.
Extractable soil organic carbon
Although the amount of soil-extractable organic C (EOC) did not significantly differ among the three treatments (Table 2), it significantly varied among sampling times, with the greatest values observed during winter and spring (Fig. S3b).
Dynamics of 13C allocation
Needles
At the first sampling point of the Scots pine needles, 45 min after the end of the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling, the 13C excess in the needles ranged between 7.5 and 45.8 mg13C m−2, demonstrating that all trees assimilated a significant portion of 13C during the pulse labelling (Fig. 4a, b). The amount of 13C excess detected in the needles of trees exposed to intermediate water deficit (37.1 ± 5.2 mg13C m−2) was in a similar range as that of the control trees (32.4 ± 2.4 mg13C m−2), while the trees exposed to severe water deficit carried a markedly lower 13C excess (10.8 ± 2.5 mg13C m−2). The mean residence time of the 13C label in the needles was calculated to be longer for trees growing under severe water deficit (9.3 ± 0.7 days) as compared to trees growing under intermediate water limiting conditions (3.6 ± 0.4 days) and control trees (3.4 ± 0.1 days).
Fine roots
The 13C label measured in fine roots appeared one day after pulse labelling (Fig. 4c, d). The label was still detectable in the fine roots of the trees 47 days after pulse labelling, shifting the δ13C values by 2 ± 0.6‰ from the ambient levels measured one day before 13C-CO2 pulse labelling. Throughout all sampling times, the 13C excess measured in the fine roots of the Scots pine trees remained greater for the trees growing under intermediate and severe water limitation, as compared to the control trees (Fig. 4d).
PLFAs
An increased allocation of 13C label to fungal PLFA was observed under conditions of severe water scarcity (Fig. 4g). The 13C excess in the fungal lipid marker was observed to reach a maximum value two days after pulse labelling (Fig. 4h). The incorporation of 13C label by the other individual lipid markers was very low under control and water-limiting treatments (Dataset S3).
Regarding biomass, none of the microbial PLFAs were significantly influenced by water limitation (Table 5). Nevertheless, throughout all sampling dates the Actinobacteriota presented a marginal increase in abundance under intermediate (0.63 ± 0.04) and severe (0.76 ± 0.07) water limitation as compared to the control (0.57 ± 0.04) (Table 5). Moreover, the fungal to bacterial PLFA ratio was observed to be significantly lower under the intermediate (0.030 ± 0.003) and severe (0.028 ± 0.001) water-limiting treatments as compared to the control (0.038 ± 0.003) when averaged across all sampling times during the pulse labelling experiment (Table 5). As displayed by the correspondence analysis, soil microbial groups responded with contrasting sensitivity to reduced levels of soil moisture (Fig. 5).
Soil pore CO2
While tracing the 13C-CO2 pulse label, the CO2 concentrations measured in soil pores were significantly higher for soils kept under control conditions (4079 ± 274 ppm), as compared to soils affected by intermediate (1122 ± 32 ppm) and severe water limitation (737 ± 17 ppm) (Table 5). The modelled CO2 effluxes based on temperature and moisture dependencies applied to continuously monitored soil temperatures and VWC also significantly differed among irrigation treatments during the 13C-CO2 labelling experiment (Table 5). The 13C pulse added to the crowns of the trees started to appear in the soil pore CO2 after 1.5 days for the control and intermediate water limitation treatment, and after 3 days for the severe water limitation treatment (Fig. 4e). The level of water limitation influenced the temporal dynamics of the modelled 13C excess in the soil CO2 effluxes (Fig. 4f). The 13C excess of the control treatment reached a maximum five days following pulse labelling (Fig. 4f), that is 2 days after the peak of the intermediate water-limiting treatment and 2 days before the peak of the severe water-limiting treatment. The average transport velocity of newly assimilated 13C label from Scot pine needles to the soil-respired CO2 through the stem of the trees was comparatively faster under control (46 ± 2 cm day−1) and intermediate conditions of water limitation (44 ± 2 cm day−1) than under conditions of severe water deficit (25 ± 2 cm day−1).
Fraction of 13C label allocated to different aboveground and belowground compartments
To assess how the different levels of water limitation affected the fraction of newly assimilated 13C label allocated to belowground C compartments, we divided the 13C excess of the different belowground C compartments by the maximum 13C excess measured in the needles of the trees (i.e., the 13C excess assessed in the needles 45 min after the end of the pulse labelling, the highest values in Fig. 4b). It emerged that when compared to control conditions, the fraction of 13C label allocated to fine roots and soil fungi increased with more severe conditions of water limitation (Fig. 6b, d). Moreover, the fraction of 13C label allocated to fine roots showed a negative relationship with the transport velocity of the 13C label from Scot pine needles to the soil-respired CO2 along the stem of the trees (Fig. 7c).
Discussion
Our study showed that the allocation of newly assimilated C within Scots pine-forest soil systems depends on the levels of soil moisture (as summarized in Fig. 8). By assessing the growth of Scots pine saplings and tracing the pathway of newly assimilated 13C label into different aboveground and belowground compartments at the end of the growing season, we found that severe levels of water deficit strongly reduced the aboveground growth of the saplings and the magnitude of tree C uptake and the velocity at which newly assimilated C is transported belowground and further metabolized. In comparison, moderate levels of soil water limitation barely affected the cycling of C at the tree-soil interface. These findings are novel as the ecological implications underlying plant responses to drought still remain highly uncertain due to a lack of understanding of how individual tree species respond with abrupt changes in their physiology to different levels of water limitation (Walthert et al. 2021).
Influence of water limitation intensity on the development of Scots pine saplings
The level of soil moisture strongly influenced the development of the Scots pine trees in the mesocosms. We observed that while the needle area and growth of the stem diameter decreased, the root biomass fraction (root biomass / total tree biomass) increased with more intense levels of water limitation (Figs. 3a, d and 8, Table 4). These changes in plant biomass partitioning support findings from previous studies showing that under low levels of soil moisture plants can maintain the proportion of roots to sustain water uptake and photosynthetic C assimilation at the expense of aboveground growth (Klein et al. 2011; McDowell et al. 2008; Oberhuber et al. 2011; Poorter et al. 2012). In agreement, we further observed significant alterations in fine root traits associated with resource scavenging, such as smaller fine root diameters and longer root lengths per soil volume (Fig. 3e, g, Table 3), maintaining tree vitality under reduced soil water levels (Comas et al. 2012). Longer term studies would help to understand whether trees subjected to prolonged or recurrent episodes of soil water limitation maintain an increased root biomass fraction over time or rather adjust to a lower water demand (related to a reduced aboveground biomass) by allocating less C to root growth (Bose et al. 2022).
Carbon assimilation and transit time responses to water limitation intensity
In our study, severe levels of water deficit reduced the amount of C assimilated by the needles of the trees at the time of 13C-CO2 pulse labelling by approximately three times when compared to control trees (Fig. 7b). A lower assimilation of C is consistent with the low photosynthetic rate that we observed for trees affected by severe water limitation (Figs. 2b and 7a). Intermediate levels of water stress did not affect the uptake of C in comparison to control trees (Fig. 7b), despite a non-significant reduction in photosynthesis under intermediate water stress (Fig. 7a, P > 0.05). The higher CO2 concentrations during the pulse labelling might have compensated for stomatal closure induced by limited soil water (Morison 1985). However, in our study, the CO2 concentrations measured in the chambers during pulse labelling were similar for the three irrigation treatments, indicating that the influence of the higher CO2 concentrations during the pulse labelling on the amount of C assimilated by the trees was negligible.
When compared to the control, only severe water deficit prolonged the mean residence time of the 13C label in Scots pine needles and slowed down the transport velocity of newly assimilated C from needles to soil-respired CO2 (Fig. 8). The stem transport velocity of 25 cm day−1 (0.01 m h−1) in the Scots pine saplings growing under severe water stress is comparable to the published transport velocity of 0.01 m h−1 observed in beech saplings affected by drought (Ruehr et al. 2009), and slower as compared to mature trees (Dannoura et al. 2011). We attribute the longer transit time of C within trees affected by severe water limitation to a threshold of soil moisture at which the C metabolism of the trees was slowed down as well as to the markedly reduced photosynthetic rates (which likely prolonged the time needed to assimilate new C to dilute the 13C label assimilated in the needles). A few 13C tracer studies have already indicated that intense episodes of drought slowed down the mean transit time of newly assimilated C in plants (Barthel et al. 2011; Hasibeder et al. 2015; Joseph et al. 2020). Here, the Scots pines substantially slowed down their C transit time at soil moisture levels below 10% VWC (which for our soil are close to wilting levels).
Belowground carbon allocation responses to water limitation intensity
Both intermediate and severe levels of experimental water limitation increased the magnitude of 13C excess in fine root systems (Figs. 4d and 8). A higher C allocation to roots under water stress is known as the ‘optimal partitioning theory’ after Bloom et al. (1985), which states that plants allocate more nutrients and C to belowground tissues when they are limited by water or nutrient shortage. In our study, the fraction of recently assimilated 13C label transported to the fine roots of control trees and trees growing under intermediate water deficit appeared to be rapidly metabolized and released through the modelled soil CO2 efflux (Fig. 6b, c). The fraction of 13C label, which was allocated to fine roots, was instead larger than the fraction of 13C released through the modelled soil CO2 efflux in the mesocosms treated with severe soil moisture stress (Fig. 6b, c). The comparatively larger fraction of assimilated 13C label detected in fine roots of severely stressed trees may be implied by an accumulation of C in the fine root system or a slower metabolization of C belowground. For instance, an increase in non-structural carbohydrates such as starch and sucrose and/or osmotic adjustments to water deficit have been observed in previous studies (Hasibeder et al. 2015; Prescott et al. 2020; Tang et al. 2022). The modelled soil CO2 efflux data from our study further indicated that, as compared to the control, the fraction of newly assimilated 13C label being released back to the atmosphere via soil respiration was marginally higher under intermediate water limitation but considerably lower under conditions of severe water deficit (Fig. 6c). This pattern is a further indication that the 13C label allocated belowground continued to be readily used for root (autotrophic) and microbial (heterotrophic) respiratory C metabolism in soils kept under moderate levels of soil water stress, while it was barely used for metabolic processes in soils affected by severe water limitation. A lower metabolic activity and potential accumulation of assimilates as non-structural carbohydrates in fine roots under severe water stress would support the concept that a reduced sink activity belowground controls the C balance of trees (Hagedorn et al. 2016; Joseph et al. 2020). Nevertheless, it should be considered that the allocation of C to root systems is also tightly related to the age, growth, and physiology of individual tree species (Gessler and Grossiord 2019; Ledo et al. 2018; Rog et al. 2021), as well as on the time in the year. For instance, at the end of the growing season, when we performed the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling experiment, more carbon may have been accumulated in fine roots and transferred to the soil and associated soil microorganisms rather than used for the formation of new root systems. In any case, starting from the 14th day after pulse labelling onwards, a greater proportion of the assimilated 13C label was detected in the CO2 efflux of severely water-limited soils (Figs. 6c and 8). Although disentangling the respective respiratory activity of the autotrophic and heterotrophic sources was beyond the scope of our study, our results suggest that a severe lack of water resources may not only reduce the photosynthetic assimilation and transport of C belowground but also prolong the supply of newly assimilated C to the soil CO2 efflux.
While tracking the fate of the 13C-CO2 label in our mesocosms, we used PLFA biomarkers to assess the different uptake of 13C tracer among soil microbial groups. Although, on average, most individual markers did not incorporate significant amounts of 13C label for any of the treatments, possibly due to the low fine root biomass diluting the 13C signal, we observed that in comparison to the control, an increased 13C excess and uptake of 13C label by soil fungi occurred under water scarcity (Fig. 4g, h). This finding, and our observation that the soil EOC did not significantly differ among the three irrigation treatments, suggest that the amount of plant-derived organic C released belowground and taken up by soil fungi remains sustained. In a previous study, Fuchslueger et al. (2014) pointed to a continued transfer of C from plants to fungi under experimental drought. Our results also align with the hypothesis by Prescott et al. (2020) that the flux of photosynthates to roots and associated microbial organisms is sustained when aboveground growth is constrained. Nevertheless, the effects of water limitation on microbial metabolism are context-dependent (e.g., soil physicochemical properties, local temperatures, etc.) and are likely influenced by the strength and duration of the occurring episodes of stress (Karlowsky et al. 2018). Moreover, a different physiology and phenological stage of plants can lead to a diverse microbial use and availabilities of organic matter resources in soils (Pugnaire et al. 2019). It should be further specified that in our study the level of soil moisture in the mesocosms under the severe water limitation treatment was kept at a level at which the saplings received a minimum of water to remain vital. It is likely that a more acute soil water limitation would have led to a depletion of C pools (as recently reviewed by McDowell et al. (2022)), a phloem transport failure, and an impeded transport of C belowground.
Effect of water limitation intensity on soil microbes
Water limitation did not alter the total PLFA microbial biomass, but reduced the ratio of fungal to bacterial PLFAs (Fig. 8, Table 5). As visualized in the correspondence analysis (Fig. 5), this reduction was likely related to a contrasting sensitivity of soil microbial groups to reduced levels of soil moisture. Since the biomarker 18:2ω6,9 in the soil was found to be highly correlated to ectomycorrhizal root colonization (Kaiser et al. 2010), the observed decrease in the ratio between fungi and bacteria with water limitation may point to a change in the abundance of ectomycorrhizal fungi against the background of bacterial groups. A potential reduction of symbiotic microorganisms of trees is in line with DNA-based assessments of the soil microbiome in the same mesocosm platform (Jaeger et al. 2023). However, Jaeger et al. (2023) also reported that other fungal groups were more resistant to changes in soil water contents. In any case, the ability of soil fungi to create large hyphal networks to scavenge for water and nutrients (Allen 2007; Hendrix et al. 1986) likely consented the sustained uptake of tree-derived 13C label in the mesocosms treated with soil water limitation. Our data further showed a marginal increase of Actinobacteriota in response to reduced soil water contents (Table 5). This suggests that Actinobacteriota might have accumulated in the soils affected by water deficit in our experiment (Jaeger et al. 2023), and is further evidence that this microbial group is stress-tolerant and may proliferate at low osmotic potential (Bouskill et al. 2013), and in water-limited Scots pine forest soils (Hartmann et al. 2017). Overall, our findings highlight that altered soil moisture conditions can shift the composition of microbial communities (Manzoni et al. 2012; Schimel et al. 2007; Strickland and Rousk 2010), despite not necessarily altering the total soil microbial biomass (Hartmann et al. 2017).
Conclusions
Our experiment indicates that moderate levels of water deficit do not profoundly affect photosynthetic C assimilation and the transit time of C from needles to the rhizosphere. In contrast, more severe water limitation alters these dynamics. As soil water becomes less available, Scot pine saplings start reducing their aboveground growth and increase the fraction of newly assimilated C allocated belowground. Under moderate levels of water deficit, most of the C allocated belowground is readily metabolized. However, when soil water levels become very low, part of the C allocated belowground may accumulate in root tissues. Nevertheless, the flux of C from plants to fungi seems not to be interrupted, probably until trees suffer from permanent damage and phloem transport failure. Overall, our results suggest that long-lasting episodes of water deficit strongly slow down the cycling of C within trees. However, effects related to tree age should be considered, as in mature trees C allocation dynamics may differ from those of saplings due to larger C pools. Considering how different levels of soil water limitation shift C allocation dynamics within trees may help forecast tree functioning and the fate of assimilated C during episodes of water stress.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are provided in the Supplementary Information files.
References
Albaugh TJ, Maier CA, Campoe OC, Yáñez MA, Carbaugh ED, Carter DR, Cook RL, Rubilar RA, Fox TR (2020) Crown architecture, crown leaf area distribution, and individual tree growth efficiency vary across site, genetic entry, and planting density. Trees 34:73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-019-01898-3
Allen MF (2007) Mycorrhizal Fungi: Highways for Water and Nutrients in Arid Soils. Vadose Zone J 6:291–297. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2006.0068
Bardgett RD, Freeman C, Ostle NJ (2008) Microbial contributions to climate change through carbon cycle feedbacks. ISME J 2:805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2008.58
Barthel M, Hammerle A, Sturm P, Baur T, Gentsch L, Knohl A (2011) The diel imprint of leaf metabolism on the δ13C signal of soil respiration under control and drought conditions. New Phytol 192:925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03848.x
Bligh EG, Dyer WJ (1959) A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Physiol 37:911–917
Bloom AJ, Chapin FS, Mooney HA (1985) Resource Limitation in Plants–An Economic Analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363–392
Boot CM, Schaeffer SM, Schimel JP (2013) Static osmolyte concentrations in microbial biomass during seasonal drought in a California grassland. Soil Biol Biochem 57:356–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.09.005
Bouskill NJ, Lim HC, Borglin S, Salve R, Wood TE, Silver WL, Brodie EL (2013) Pre-exposure to drought increases the resistance of tropical forest soil bacterial communities to extended drought. ISME J 7:384–394. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.113
Brangarí AC, Manzoni S, Rousk J (2021) The mechanisms underpinning microbial resilience to drying and rewetting – A model analysis. Soil Biol Biochem 162:108400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2021.108400
Brunn M, Hafner BD, Zwetsloot MJ, Weikl F, Pritsch K, Hikino K, Ruehr NK, Sayer EJ, Bauerle TL (2022) Carbon allocation to root exudates is maintained in mature temperate tree species under drought. New Phytol 235:965–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18157
Brunner I, Herzog C, Dawes MA, Arend M, Sperisen C (2015) How tree roots respond to drought. Front Plant Sci 6:547. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00547
Brunner I, Pannatier EG, Frey B, Rigling A, Landolt W, Zimmermann S, Dobbertin M (2009) Morphological and physiological responses of Scots pine fine roots to water supply in a dry climatic region in Switzerland. Tree Physiol 29:541–550. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpn046
Clark LJ, Whalley WR, Barraclough PB (2003) How do roots penetrate strong soil? Plant Soil 255:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026140122848
Clemmensen KE, Michelsen A, Jonasson S, Shaver GR (2006) Increased ectomycorrhizal fungal abundance after long-term fertilization and warming of two arctic tundra ecosystems. New Phytol 171:391–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2006.01778.x
Comas LH, Mueller KE, Taylor LL, Midford PE, Callahan HS, Beerling DJ (2012) Evolutionary Patterns and Biogeochemical Significance of Angiosperm Root Traits. Int J Plant Sci 173:584–595. https://doi.org/10.1086/665823
Crawley MJ (2012) The R book. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester
Dannoura M, Maillard P, Fresneau C, Plan C, Berveiller D, Gerant D, Chipeaux C, Bosc A, Ngao J, Damesin C, Loustau D, Epron D (2011) In situ assessment of the velocity of carbon transfer by tracing 13C in trunk CO2 efflux after pulse labelling: variations among tree species and seasons. New Phytol 190:181–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03599.x
Dannoura M, Epron D, Desalme D, Massonnet C, Tsuji S, Plain C, Priault P, Gérant D (2019) The impact of prolonged drought on phloem anatomy and phloem transport in young beech trees. Tree Physiol 39:201–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy070
Dennis PG, Miller AJ, Hirsch PR (2010) Are root exudates more important than other sources of rhizodeposits in structuring rhizosphere bacterial communities? FEMS Microbiol Ecol 72:313–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2010.00860.x
Federle TW, Dobbins DC, Thornton-Manning JR, Jones DD (1986) Microbial Biomass, Activity, and Community Structure in Subsurface Soils. Groundwater 24:365–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.1986.tb01013.x
Frostegård A, Bååth E (1996) The use of phospholipid fatty acid analysis to estimate bacterial and fungal biomass in soil. Biol Fertil Soils 22:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00384433
Frostegård Å, Tunlid A, Bååth E (1991) Microbial biomass measured as total lipid phosphate in soils of different organic content. J Microbiol Methods 14:151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7012(91)90018-L
Fuchslueger L, Bahn M, Fritz K, Hasibeder R, Richter A (2014) Experimental drought reduces the transfer of recently fixed plant carbon to soil microbes and alters the bacterial community composition in a mountain meadow. New Phytol 201:916–927. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12569
Gao D, Joseph J, Werner RA, Brunner I, Zürcher A, Hug C, Wang A, Zhao C, Bai E, Meusburger K, Gessler A, Hagedorn F (2021) Drought alters the carbon footprint of trees in soils—tracking the spatio-temporal fate of 13C-labelled assimilates in the soil of an old-growth pine forest. Glob Change Biol 27:2491–2506. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15557
Gessler A, Grossiord C (2019) Coordinating supply and demand: plant carbon allocation strategy ensuring survival in the long run. New Phytol 222:5–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15583
Greenacre MNO, Nenadic O, Friendly M (2018) Package ‘ca’ simple, multiple and Joint correspondence analysis. Available via CRAN. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ca/ca.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2023
Guidi C, Frey B, Brunner I, Meusburger K, Vogel ME, Chen X, Stucky T, Gwiazdowicz DJ, Skubała P, Bose AK, Schaub M, Rigling A, Hagedorn F (2022) Soil fauna drives vertical redistribution of soil organic carbon in a long-term irrigated dry pine forest. Glob Change Biol 28:3145–3160. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.16122
Hagedorn F, Joseph J, Peter M, Luster J, Pritsch K, Geppert U, Kerner R, Molinier V, Egli S, Schaub M, Liu J-F, Li M, Sever K, Weiler M, Siegwolf RTW, Gessler A, Arend M (2016) Recovery of trees from drought depends on belowground sink control. Nat Plants 2:16111. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.111
Hartmann H, Bahn M, Carbone M, Richardson AD (2020) Plant carbon allocation in a changing world – challenges and progress: introduction to a Virtual Issue on carbon allocation. New Phytol 227:981–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16757
Hartmann H, Trumbore S (2016) Understanding the roles of nonstructural carbohydrates in forest trees – from what we can measure to what we want to know. New Phytol 211:386–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13955
Hartmann H, Ziegler W, Kolle O, Trumbore S (2013) Thirst beats hunger – declining hydration during drought prevents carbon starvation in Norway spruce saplings. New Phytol 200:340–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12331
Hartmann M, Brunner I, Hagedorn F, Bardgett RD, Stierli B, Herzog C, Chen X, Zingg A, Graf-Pannatier E, Rigling A, Frey B (2017) A decade of irrigation transforms the soil microbiome of a semi-arid pine forest. Mol Ecol 26:1190–1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13995
Hasibeder R, Fuchslueger L, Richter A, Bahn M (2015) Summer drought alters carbon allocation to roots and root respiration in mountain grassland. New Phytol 205:1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13146
Hendrix PF, Parmelee RW, Crossley DA, Coleman DC, Odum EP, Groffman PM (1986) Detritus Food Webs in Conventional and No-Tillage Agroecosystems. Bioscience 36:374–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310259
Herrera-Ramírez D, Muhr J, Hartmann H, Römermann C, Trumbore S, Sierra CA (2020) Probability distributions of nonstructural carbon ages and transit times provide insights into carbon allocation dynamics of mature trees. New Phytol 226:1299–1311. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.16461
Hilman B, Muhr J, Helm J, Kuhlmann I, Schulze E-D, Trumbore S (2021) The size and the age of the metabolically active carbon in tree roots. Plant, Cell Environ 44:2522–2535. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.14124
Hsiao TC, Acevedo E, Fereres E, Henderson DW, Monteith JL, Weatherley PE (1976) Water stress, growth and osmotic adjustment. Philos Transact R Soc London B, Biol Sci 273:479–500. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1976.0026
Imada S, Yamanaka N, Tamai S (2008) Water table depth affects Populus alba fine root growth and whole plant biomass. Funct Ecol 22:1018–1026. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2008.01454.x
Ingrisch J, Karlowsky S, Hasibeder R, Gleixner G, Bahn M (2020) Drought and recovery effects on belowground respiration dynamics and the partitioning of recent carbon in managed and abandoned grassland. Glob Change Biol 26:4366–4378. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15131
IPCC (2021) Climate change 2021: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York
Iversen CM (2010) Digging deeper: fine-root responses to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration in forested ecosystems. New Phytol 186:346–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03122.x
Iversen CM, McCormack ML, Powell AS, Blackwood CB, Freschet GT, Kattge J, Roumet C, Stover DB, Soudzilovskaia NA, Valverde-Barrantes OJ, van Bodegom PM, Violle C (2017) A global Fine-Root Ecology Database to address below-ground challenges in plant ecology. New Phytol 215:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14486
Jackson R, Manwaring J, Caldwell M (1990) Rapid physiological adjustment of roots to localized soil enrichment. Nature 344:58–60
Jaeger ACH, Hartmann M, Six J, Solly EF (2023) Contrasting sensitivity of soil bacterial and fungal community composition to one year of water limitation in Scots pine mesocosms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.019
Jobbágy EG, Jackson RB (2000) The vertical distribution of soil organic carbon and its relation to climate and vegetation. Ecol Appl 10:423–436
Joseph J, Gao D, Backes B, Bloch C, Brunner I, Gleixner G, Haeni M, Hartmann H, Hoch G, Hug C, Kahmen A, Lehmann MM, Li M-H, Luster J, Peter M, Poll C, Rigling A, Rissanen KA, Ruehr NK, Saurer M, Schaub M, Schönbeck L, Stern B, Thomas FM, Werner RA, Werner W, Wohlgemuth T, Hagedorn F, Gessler A (2020) Rhizosphere activity in an old-growth forest reacts rapidly to changes in soil moisture and shapes whole-tree carbon allocation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:24885–24892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014084117
Kaiser C, Frank A, Wild B, Koranda M, Richter A (2010) Negligible contribution from roots to soil-borne phospholipid fatty acid fungal biomarkers 18:2ω6,9 and 18:1ω9. Soil Biol Biogeochem 42:1650–1652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.019
Kakumanu ML, Cantrell CL, Williams MA (2013) Microbial community response to varying magnitudes of desiccation in soil: A test of the osmolyte accumulation hypothesis. Soil Biol Biochem 57:644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.08.014
Karlowsky S, Augusti A, Ingrisch J, Akanda MKU, Bahn M, Gleixner G (2018) Drought-induced accumulation of root exudates supports post-drought recovery of microbes in Mountain Grassland. Front Plant Sci 9:1593. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01593
Klein T, Cohen S, Yakir D (2011) Hydraulic adjustments underlying drought resistance of Pinus halepensis. Tree Physiol 31:637–648. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpr047
Kramer C, Gleixner G (2006) Variable use of plant- and soil-derived carbon by microorganisms in agricultural soils. Soil Biol Biochem 38:3267–3278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2006.04.006
Kroppenstedt RM (1985) Fatty acid and menaquinone analysis of actinomycetes and related organisms. In: Goodfellow M, Minnikin DE (ed) Chemical methods in bacterial systematics, society for applied bacteriology technical series vol. 20. Academic Press, New York, pp 173–199
Ledo A, Paul KI, Burslem DFRP, Ewel JJ, Barton C, Battaglia M, Brooksbank K, Carter J, Eid TH, England JR, Fitzgerald A, Jonson J, Mencuccini M, Montagu KD, Montero G, Mugasha WA, Pinkard E, Roxburgh S, Ryan CM, Ruiz-Peinado R, Sochacki S, Specht A, Wildy D, Wirth C, Zerihun A, Chave J (2018) Tree size and climatic water deficit control root to shoot ratio in individual trees globally. New Phytol 217:8–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14863
Lenth RV, Buerkner P, Herve M, Jung M, Love J (2022) Package ‘emmeans’ estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. Available via CRAN. http://cran.nexr.com/web/packages/emmeans/emmeans.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2023
Malhotra A, Brice DJ, Childs J, Graham JD, Hobbie EA, Vander Stel H, Feron SC, Hanson PJ, Iversen CM (2020) Peatland warming strongly increases fine-root growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:17627–17634. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003361117
Malik AA, Bouskill NJ (2022) Drought impacts on microbial trait distribution and feedback to soil carbon cycling. Funct Ecol 36:1442–1456. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14010
Manzoni S, Schimel JP, Porporato A (2012) Responses of soil microbial communities to water stress: results from a meta-analysis. Ecology 93:930–938. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0026.1
Matamala R, Stover DB (2013) Introduction to a virtual special issue: modeling the hidden half – the root of our problem. New Phytol 200: 939–942. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12583
McDowell N, Pockman WT, Allen CD, Breshears DD, Cobb N, Kolb T, Plaut J, Sperry J, West A, Williams DG, Yepez EA (2008) Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought: why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought? New Phytol 178:719–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x
McDowell NG, Allen CD, Anderson-Teixeira K, Aukema BH, Bond-Lamberty B, Chini L, Clark JS, Dietze M, Grossiord C, Hanbury-Brown A, Hurtt GC, Jackson RB, Johnson DJ, Kueppers L, Lichstein JW, Ogle K, Poulter B, Pugh TAM, Seidl R, Turner MG, Uriarte M, Walker AP, Xu C (2020) Pervasive shifts in forest dynamics in a changing world. Science 368:eaaz9463. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz9463
McDowell NG, Sapes G, Pivovaroff A, Adams HD, Allen CD, Anderegg WRL, Arend M, Breshears DD, Brodribb T, Choat B, Cochard H, De Cáceres M, De Kauwe MG, Grossiord C, Hammond WM, Hartmann H, Hoch G, Kahmen A, Klein T, Mackay DS, Mantova M, Martínez-Vilalta J, Medlyn BE, Mencuccini M, Nardini A, Oliveira RS, Sala A, Tissue DT, Torres-Ruiz JM, Trowbridge AM, Trugman AT, Wiley E, Xu C (2022) Mechanisms of woody-plant mortality under rising drought, CO2 and vapour pressure deficit. Nat Rev Earth Environ 3:294–308. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00272-1
MeteoSwiss (online dataset) Homogeneous data series since 1864. Available via MeteoSwiss. https://www.meteoswiss.admin.ch/services-and-publications/applications/ext/climate-tables-homogenized.html. Accessed 30 May 2023
Meyer K (1989) Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Genetics Selection Evolution 21:317. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-21-3-317
Millar CI, Stephenson NL (2015) Temperate forest health in an era of emerging megadisturbance. Science 349:823–826. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9933
Morison JIL (1985) Sensitivity of stomata and water use efficiency to high CO2. Plant, Cell Environ 8:467–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1985.tb01682.x
Muhr J, Angert A, Negrón-Juárez RI, Muñoz WA, Kraemer G, Chambers JQ, Trumbore SE (2013) Carbon dioxide emitted from live stems of tropical trees is several years old. Tree Physiol 33:743–752. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpt049
Muller B, Pantin F, Génard M, Turc O, Freixes S, Piques M, Gibon Y (2011) Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs. J Exp Bot 62:1715–1729. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq438
NCCS (2018) Climate change scenarios CH2018 - South side of the Alps. Available via MeteoSwiss. https://www.nccs.admin.ch/nccs/en/home/regions/grossregionen/south-side-of-the-Alps.html. Accessed 30 May 2023
Oberhuber W, Swidrak I, Pirkebner D, Gruber A (2011) Temporal dynamics of nonstructural carbohydrates and xylem growth in Pinus sylvestris exposed to drought. Can J Res 41:1590–1597. https://doi.org/10.1139/x11-084
Olmo M, Lopez-Iglesias B, Villar R (2014) Drought changes the structure and elemental composition of very fine roots in seedlings of ten woody tree species. Implications for a drier climate. Plant Soil 384:113–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2178-6
Palacio S, Hoch G, Sala A, Körner C, Millard P (2014) Does carbon storage limit tree growth? New Phytol 201:1096–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12602
Pausch J, Kuzyakov Y (2018) Carbon input by roots into the soil: Quantification of rhizodeposition from root to ecosystem scale. Glob Change Biol 24:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13850
Pennanen T, Liski J, Bååth E, Kitunen V, Uotila J, Westman CJ, Fritze H (1999) Structure of the Microbial Communities in Coniferous Forest Soils in Relation to Site Fertility and Stand Development Stage. Microb Ecol 38:168–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002489900161
Pinheiro JBD, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, EISPACK authors, Heisterkamp S, van Willingen B, Ranke J, R core Team (2022) Package 'nlme': Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. Available via CRAN. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/nlme/nlme.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2023
Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03952.x
Pugnaire FI, Morillo JA, Peñuelas J, Reich PB, Bardgett RD, Gaxiola A, Wardle DA, van der Putten WH (2019) Climate change effects on plant-soil feedbacks and consequences for biodiversity and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. Sci Adv 5:eaaz1834. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1834
Prescott CE, Grayston SJ, Helmisaari H-S, Kaštovská E, Körner C, Lambers H, Meier IC, Millard P, Ostonen I (2020) Surplus Carbon Drives Allocation and Plant-Soil Interactions. Trends Ecol Evol 35:1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.007
Richardson AD, Carbone MS, Huggett BA, Furze ME, Czimczik CI, Walker JC, Xu X, Schaberg PG, Murakami P (2015) Distribution and mixing of old and new nonstructural carbon in two temperate trees. New Phytol 206:590–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13273
R Core Team (2022) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 30 May 2023
Rog I, Jakoby G, Klein T (2021) Carbon allocation dynamics in conifers and broadleaved tree species revealed by pulse labeling and mass balance. Forest Ecology and Management 493:119258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119258
Ruehr NK, Offermann CA, Gessler A, Winkler JB, Ferrio JP, Buchmann N, Barnard RL (2009) Drought effects on allocation of recent carbon: from beech leaves to soil CO2 efflux. New Phytol 184:950–961. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03044.x
Salmon Y, Dietrich L, Sevanto S, Hölttä T, Dannoura M, Epron D (2019) Drought impacts on tree phloem: from cell-level responses to ecological significance. Tree Physiol 39:173–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpy153
Schimel J, Balser TC, Wallenstein M (2007) Microbial stress-response physiology and its implications for ecosystem function. Ecology 88:1386–1394. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-0219
Schimel JP (2018) Life in Dry Soils: Effects of Drought on Soil Microbial Communities and Processes. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 49:409–432. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110617-062614
Sevanto S (2014) Phloem transport and drought. J Exp Bot 65:1751–1759. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert467
Sevanto S, Mcdowell NG, Dickman LT, Pangle R, Pockman WT (2014) How do trees die? A test of the hydraulic failure and carbon starvation hypotheses. Plant, Cell Environ 37:153–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12141
Solly E, Schöning I, Boch S, Müller J, Socher SA, Trumbore SE, Schrumpf M (2013) Mean age of carbon in fine roots from temperate forests and grasslands with different management. Biogeosciences 10:4833–4843. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-4833-2013
Solly EF, Brunner I, Helmisaari H-S, Herzog C, Leppälammi-Kujansuu J, Schöning I, Schrumpf M, Schweingruber FH, Trumbore SE, Hagedorn F (2018) Unravelling the age of fine roots of temperate and boreal forests. Nat Commun 9:3006. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05460-6
Spohn M, Chodak M (2015) Microbial respiration per unit biomass increases with carbon-to-nutrient ratios in forest soils. Soil Biol Biochem 81:128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.11.008
Strickland MS, Rousk J (2010) Considering fungal:bacterial dominance in soils – Methods, controls, and ecosystem implications. Soil Biol Biochem 42:1385–1395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.05.007
Tang Y, Schiestl-Aalto P, Saurer M, Sahlstehdt E, Kulmala L, Kolari P, Ryhti K, Salmon Y, Jyske T, Ding Y, Bäck J, Rinne-Garmston R (2022) Tree organ growth and carbon allocation dynamics impact the magnitude and δ13C signal of stem and soil CO2 fluxes. Tree Physiol 42:2404–2418. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpac079
Tecon R, Or D (2017) Biophysical processes supporting the diversity of microbial life in soil. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41:599–623. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsre/fux039
Tian T, Reverdy A, She Q, Sun B, Chai Y (2020) The role of rhizodeposits in shaping rhizomicrobiome. Environ Microbiol Reports 12:160–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12816
Trumbore S, Brando P, Hartmann H (2015) Forest health and global change. Science 349:814–818. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac6759
Trumbore SE, Gaudinski JB (2003) The Secret Lives of Roots. Science 302:1344–1345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091841
Van de Broek M, Ghiasi S, Decock C, Hund A, Abiven S, Friedli C, Werner RA, Six J (2020) The soil organic carbon stabilization potential of old and new wheat cultivars: a 13CO2-labeling study. Biogeosciences 17:2971–2986. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2971-2020
Walthert L, Ganthaler A, Mayr S, Saurer M, Waldner P, Walser M, Zweiferl R, von Arx G (2021) From the comfort zone to crown dieback: Sequence of physiological stress thresholds in mature European beech trees across progressive drought. Sci Total Environ 753:14192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141792
Weemstra M, Eilmann B, Sass-Klaassen UGW, Sterck FJ (2013) Summer droughts limit tree growth across 10 temperate species on a productive forest site. For Ecol Manage 306:142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2013.06.007
Weemstra M, Sterck FJ, Visser EJ, Kuyper TW, Goudzwaard L, Mommer L (2017) Fine-root trait plasticity of beech (Fagus sylvatica) and spruce (Picea abies) forests on two contrasting soils. Plant Soil 415:175–188
Zogg GP, Zak DR, Ringelberg DB, White DC, MacDonald NW, Pregitzer KS (1997) Compositional and functional shifts in microbial communities due to soil warming. Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:475–481
Zosso CU, Wiesenberg GLB (2021) Methylation procedures affect PLFA results more than selected extraction parameters. Journal of Microbiological Methods 182:106164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2021.106164
Acknowledgements
We thank Christian Hug and Marcus Schaub of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape (WSL) for their support during the soil collection and for growing the Scots Pine seedlings. Furthermore, we are grateful for the intellectual input from Ivano Brunner and Arthur Gessler for the project. We also thank members of the ETH research station for plant sciences in Lindau for using their equipment and facilities. We are particularly grateful to Rafaela Conz, Brigitta Herzog, and Britta Jahn-Humphrey for their technical support in the greenhouse and laboratory. We further acknowledge the help of Adrian Fuhrmann and Luisa Minich with analyses in the laboratory. We also thank the Stable Isotope Facility of the University of California, Davis, for analyzing the carbon isotopic composition of the plant samples.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation SNSF (Ambizione project number PZ00P2_180030 granted to EFS).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
EFS, MH and JS conceived the idea of the study. EFS, ACHJ and MH designed and initiated the mesocosm experiment. EFS and ACHJ operated the greenhouse experiment and performed the sampling. EFS, ACHJ and MB performed the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling experiment. EFS measured tree and soil parameters. RAW and MB measured the carbon isotopic composition of the collected CO2 samples. ACHJ performed the PLFA analyses under the supervision of FH and AZ. EFS and ACHJ performed the data analyses. EFS wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript and provided critical feedback throughout the experiment. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interest to disclose.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Janusz J. Zwiazek.
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
11104_2023_6093_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx
Supplementary file2 Soil gravimetric water content (GWC), volumetric water content (VWC), and K2SO4 extractable organic carbon concentrations (EOC) at the time of seasonal soil sampling; and GWC, VWC, and mean daily temperature of soils during the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling experiment. (XLSX 19 KB)
11104_2023_6093_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx
Supplementary file3 Seasonal measurements of tree height and stem diameter increment, stomatal conductance (gs) and light-saturated photosynthesis (Anet), predawn leaf water potential, (Ψ) needle area, fine root biomass and morphology at the time of 13C-CO2 pulse labelling. (XLSX 18 KB)
11104_2023_6093_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx
Supplementary file4 Carbon isotopic composition of tree needles, fine roots, soil pore CO2, and phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA); total C concentration in needles and fine roots; soil pore CO2 concentrations and data used for PLFA quantification during the 13C-CO2 pulse labelling experiment. (XLSX 63 KB)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Solly, E.F., Jaeger, A.C.H., Barthel, M. et al. Water limitation intensity shifts carbon allocation dynamics in Scots pine mesocosms. Plant Soil 490, 499–519 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-06093-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-06093-5