Phenotypic variability: underlying mechanisms and limits do matter.
F. Magnani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03035.x
IF: 9.4
2009-10-01
New Phytologist
Abstract:The interest in the hydraulic architecture of trees, and the interplay between xylem anatomical characteristics and dimensions, its hydraulic conductance and water transport through the plant, stretches back to Leonardo da Vinci’s observations and Huber’s (1928) first systematic measurements of a constant area of conductive sapwood across the entire length of the tree and of a close correspondence with the amount of leaf area supported. Apart from the pure interest in the inner workings of plant self-organization, the study of hydraulic architecture has since demonstrated its role in key tree and ecosystem processes as a result of (1) the close association between gaseous-phase and liquid-phase conductances (i.e. between stomatal and hydraulic conductances, responsible for leaf water loss and replenishment, respectively), and important effects on CO2 availability and photosynthetic rates (Brodribb et al., 2005), (2) the requirements imposed by hydraulic constraints on growth allocation between tree parts, which affects both primary production (through allocation to transpiring foliage) and net ecosystem production (through allocation to shortlived, easily decomposed fine roots; Litton et al., 2007) and (3) xylem and foliage vulnerability to extreme events, whenever the limits imposed by plant hydraulic architecture and stomatal behaviour are exceeded, resulting in extreme tissue dehydration and foliage dieback (Martı́nezVilalta & Piñol, 2002). Several studies have demonstrated the variability of plant hydraulic architecture both between and within species, which is reflected in the huge variability in tree form and function across scales. It has been suggested that the observed differences could mirror the variability in environmental conditions experienced by different species and individuals, resulting in an optimal behaviour under the pressure of evolutionary processes (Magnani et al., 2002). In this issue of New Phytologist, Martı́nez-Vilalta et al., (pp. 353–364) explore the geographic pattern of hydraulic architecture in Pinus sylvestris, which, because of its wide natural range as well as its ecological and productive relevance, has been the subject of a number of related studies and can be therefore viewed as a de facto model species in forest tree functional and evolutionary ecology. Seen in the context of this large body of studies on the geographic and genetic variability of functional traits, the article provides not only new valuable information (in terms of parameters explored and their correlation and trade-offs), but also important hints of how evolutionary strategies could differ at the intraspecific and interspecific levels, and for different traits and processes. The authors did not find evidence at the intraspecific level of some of the associations and trade-offs between hydraulic traits that have been commonly reported across species. An interesting case in point is the observation of a lack of variability across the entire latitudinal range explored (from Finland to Spain and southern Italy) in xylem vulnerability to embolism, which is determined by tracheid fine anatomical features (Hacke & Jansen, 2009) and appears to determine the minimum water potential the plant can tolerate (Jacobsen et al., 2007). By contrast, large interspecific differences in vulnerability to xylem cavitation have been found among coniferous and other evergreen species (Maherali et al., 2004), which were related to mean annual precipitation. A similar pattern has been recently observed among a range of shrub species (Bhaskar et al., 2007), after accounting for phylogenetic effects. Can the limited variability reported here for P. sylvestris populations (and for P. ponderosa, described by Maherali & DeLucia, 2000) be extended to the entire genus, as suggested by Martı́nez-Vilalta et al. (2004)? A similar homeostatic canalization in the face of environmental variability has been reported for Quercus wislizenii adult trees by Matzner et al. (2001), ‘A more fundamental question is whether the