Tree hazards compounded by successive climate extremes after masting in a small endemic tree, Distylium lepidotum, on subtropical islands in Japan.
carbon starvation
drought
hydraulic failure
masting
oceanic islands
tropical storm
water relations
Journal
Global change biology
ISSN: 1365-2486
Titre abrégé: Glob Chang Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9888746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
02
05
2021
accepted:
19
06
2021
pubmed:
26
6
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
25
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ongoing global warming increases the frequency and severity of tropical typhoons and prolonged drought, leading to forest degradation. Simultaneous and/or successive masting events and climatic extremes may thus occur frequently in the near future. If these climatic extremes occur immediately after mass seed reproduction, their effects on individual trees are expected to be very severe because mass reproduction decreases carbohydrate reserves. While the effects of either a single climate extreme or masting alone on tree resilience/growth have received past research attention, understanding the cumulative effects of such multiple events remains challenging and is crucial for predicting future forest changes. Here, we report tree hazards compound by two successive climate extremes, a tropical typhoon and prolonged drought, after mass reproduction in an endemic tree species (Distylium lepidotum Nakai) on oceanic islands. Across individual trees, the starch stored within the sapwood of branchlets significantly decreased with reproductive efforts (fruit mass/shoot mass ratio). Typhoon damage significantly decreased not only the total leaf area of apical shoots but also the maximum photosynthetic rates. During the 5-month period after the typhoon, the mortality of large branchlets (8-10-mm diameter) increased with decreasing stored starch when the typhoon hit. During the prolonged summer drought in the next year, the recovery of total leaf area, stored starch, and hydraulic conductivity was negatively correlated with the stored starch at the typhoon. These data indicate that the level of stored starch within branchlets is the driving factor determining tree regrowth or dieback, and the restoration of carbohydrates after mass reproduction is synergistically delayed by such climate extremes. Stored carbohydrates are the major cumulative factor affecting individual tree resilience, resulting in their historical effects. Because of highly variable carbohydrate levels among individual trees, the resultant impacts of such successive events on forest dieback will be fundamentally different among trees.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34170598
doi: 10.1111/gcb.15764
pmc: PMC8518126
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5094-5108Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Global Change Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Commun Biol. 2019 Jan 7;2:8
pubmed: 30623104
Oecologia. 2008 May;156(1):193-202
pubmed: 18297313
Glob Chang Biol. 2020 Mar;26(3):1654-1667
pubmed: 31950581
Ecol Lett. 2013 Jan;16(1):90-8
pubmed: 23113938
New Phytol. 2008;178(4):719-739
pubmed: 18422905
Ecology. 2021 Jul;102(7):e03384
pubmed: 33950521
New Phytol. 2013 Jan;197(1):19-35
pubmed: 23110592
Nat Plants. 2020 May;6(5):460-465
pubmed: 32341539
Ecol Lett. 2014 Oct;17(10):1299-309
pubmed: 25103959
New Phytol. 2016 Nov;212(3):546-562
pubmed: 27477130
Plant Cell Environ. 2014 Jan;37(1):153-61
pubmed: 23730972
Tree Physiol. 2019 Jul 18;39(7):1099-1108
pubmed: 30901057
Plant Cell Environ. 2019 Sep;42(9):2584-2596
pubmed: 31083779
Proc Biol Sci. 2017 Dec 6;284(1868):
pubmed: 29212721
Oecologia. 2014 Mar;174(3):679-87
pubmed: 24221082
Tree Physiol. 2008 Aug;28(8):1269-76
pubmed: 18519258
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 23;104(43):16982-5
pubmed: 17940035
Sci Rep. 2017 Jun 7;7(1):2995
pubmed: 28592804
New Phytol. 2002 Sep;155(3):321-348
pubmed: 33873312
Plant Cell Environ. 2011 Mar;34(3):514-24
pubmed: 21118423
Oecologia. 2001 Feb;126(4):457-461
pubmed: 28547229
Nat Plants. 2015 Sep 28;1:15139
pubmed: 27251391
New Phytol. 2019 Feb;221(3):1466-1477
pubmed: 30368825
New Phytol. 2013 Oct;200(2):322-329
pubmed: 23593942
Tree Physiol. 2016 Apr;36(4):421-7
pubmed: 26941289
New Phytol. 2020 Aug;227(4):1073-1080
pubmed: 32329082
Tree Physiol. 2019 Feb 1;39(2):201-210
pubmed: 29931112
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 15;6:24513
pubmed: 27079677
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jan 3;109(1):233-7
pubmed: 22167807
Nature. 2013 Aug 15;500(7462):287-95
pubmed: 23955228
New Phytol. 2010 Apr;186(2):274-81
pubmed: 20409184
Tree Physiol. 2019 Feb 1;39(2):173-191
pubmed: 30726983
New Phytol. 2013 Jan;197(2):372-374
pubmed: 23253331
Ann Bot. 2020 Oct 6;126(5):971-979
pubmed: 32574370
Tree Physiol. 2017 Oct 1;37(10):1444-1452
pubmed: 28985431
Nat Commun. 2017 Dec 20;8(1):2205
pubmed: 29263383
Glob Chang Biol. 2021 Oct;27(20):5094-5108
pubmed: 34170598
Ecol Evol. 2021 Mar 11;11(7):2990-2996
pubmed: 33841760
Plant Cell Environ. 2006 Nov;29(11):2017-29
pubmed: 17081238
Nature. 1951 Jul 28;168(4265):167
pubmed: 14875032
Am J Bot. 2000 Apr;87(4):539-46
pubmed: 10766726
New Phytol. 2016 Feb;209(3):945-54
pubmed: 26443127
Trends Plant Sci. 2009 Oct;14(10):530-4
pubmed: 19726217
Plant Cell Environ. 2017 Jun;40(6):897-913
pubmed: 27861981
New Phytol. 2017 Jul;215(2):595-608
pubmed: 28631320
Oecologia. 1990 Jul;83(4):458-468
pubmed: 28313178
Am J Bot. 2002 May;89(5):820-8
pubmed: 21665682
Plant Sci. 2011 Apr;180(4):604-11
pubmed: 21421408
Nat Methods. 2012 Jul;9(7):671-5
pubmed: 22930834
New Phytol. 2013 Feb;197(3):850-861
pubmed: 23190200
Nature. 2015 Dec 3;528(7580):119-22
pubmed: 26595275