Next Article in Journal
Outbreak of Alternaria Black Spot of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) in Italy as a Consequence of Unusual Climatic Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Enriching NPK Mineral Fertilizer with Plant-Stimulating Peptides Increases Soilless Tomato Production, Grower Profit, and Environmental Sustainability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/plants13142006
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

Effects of Drought Stress on Leaf Functional Traits and Biomass Characteristics of Atriplex canescens

by
Shuai Wang
1,2,
Hai Zhou
1,
Zhibin He
1,*,
Dengke Ma
1,
Weihao Sun
1,2,
Xingzhi Xu
3 and
Quanyan Tian
1
1
Linze Inland River Basin Research Station, Chinese Ecosystem Research Network, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
College of Pratacultural Science, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou 730070, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(14), 2006; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13142006
Submission received: 14 June 2024 / Revised: 17 July 2024 / Accepted: 19 July 2024 / Published: 22 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Ecology)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drought is a critical factor constraining plant growth in arid regions. However, the performance and adaptive mechanism of Atriplex canescens (A. canescens) under drought stress remain unclear. Hence, a three-year experiment with three drought gradients was performed in a common garden, and the leaf functional traits, biomass and biomass partitioning patterns of A. canescens were investigated. The results showed that drought stress had significant effects on A. canescens leaf functional traits. A. canescens maintained the content of malondialdehyde (MDA) and the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD), but the peroxidase (POD) and catalase (CAT) activity decreased, and the content of proline (Pro) and soluble sugar (SS) increased only under heavy drought stress. Under drought stress, the leaves became smaller but denser, the specific leaf area (SLA) decreased, but the dry matter content (LDMC) maintained stability. Total biomass decreased 60% to 1758 g under heavy drought stress and the seed and leaf biomass was only 10% and 20% of non-stress group, but there had no significant difference on root biomass. More biomass was allocated to root under drought stress. The root biomass allocation ratio was doubled from 9.62% to 19.81% under heavy drought, and the root/shoot ratio (R/S) increased from 0.11 to 0.25. The MDA was significantly and negatively correlated with biomass, while the SPAD was significantly and positively correlated with total and aboveground organs biomass. The POD, CAT, Pro and SS had significant correlations with root and seed allocation ratio. The leaf morphological traits related to leaf shape and weight had significant correlations with total and aboveground biomass and biomass allocation. Our study demonstrated that under drought stress, A. canescens made tradeoffs between growth potential and drought tolerance and evolved with a conservative strategy. These findings provide more information for an in-depth understanding of the adaption strategies of A. canescens to drought stress and provide potential guidance for planting and sustainable management of A. canescens in arid and semi-arid regions.

1. Introduction

Plants have evolved different strategies to reduce the adverse effects of environmental stress [1,2], such as adjust morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics at the whole-plant, organ and tissue levels [3]. Drought is one of the key ecological factors that constrained plant growth and performance in arid and semi-arid area [4,5]. Considering more severe and frequent drought events to be even more pronounced in the context of climate change [6], it is urgent to understand how plants respond to drought stress. Species in water-limited environments may operate a variety of tradeoffs between various functional traits to cope with resource stress [7]. Functional traits reveal the relations between plants and environment, and objectively reflect the adaptability of plants to the environment and the utilization of resources [8].
Among the functional traits of plant organs, leaf functional traits are the decisive factors of plant physiological and biochemical cycle [9]. The leaf is the basic organ of photosynthesis, and plays a decisive role to plant productivity [10]. Leaf has the largest contact area with environment, and it is one of the most sensitive and vulnerable organs that has strong phenotypic plasticity [11]. Thus, leaf functional traits are excellent indicators to reflect the ability of resources acquisition and utilization, as well as survival strategies of plants under environmental changes [12,13,14]. Leaf functional traits can be divided into physiological, biochemical and morphological traits [15,16,17], leaf physiological traits are those related to photosynthesis, biochemical traits are those related to enzyme activity and substance content, and the leaf morphological traits are the characteristic of shape, weight and water content. Plants have been identified that accumulate a certain quantity of reactive oxygen species (ROS) under drought stress [18], and thus stimulate antioxidant enzymes activity to removal ROS to ameliorate the damage [19]. The change of osmotic adjustment substances content are also key indicators to depict the adaptive mechanism of plants under drought stress [20]. The indicators related to leaf morphology are easy to measure and usually have good data quality [21], as well as being compared between different species, so they are widely used to evaluate the adaptability of plants to the harsh environment [22]. Previous study has shown that leaf morphological traits associated with stress resistance has the expense of those associated with rapid resource capture and growth [23]; this means the plants sacrificed their rapid growth and selected conservative strategies to adapt to limited resources.
Besides leaf functional traits, biomass and biomass partitioning patterns are overriding traits when express the stress resistance of plants [24]. Variation in plant size or total biomass reflects the resources acquisition capability and biomass production. Biomass allocation to different parts determines the fitness and reproductive success; it also reflects the adaptability to heterogeneous environments [25]. The major theory in biomass partitioning is optimal partitioning theory, which indicates that plants allocate more biomass to the organs by capturing the scarcest resources (e.g., water, nutrients, or light) to optimize plant performance and maximize fitness [5]. Several studies have shown that plants invest more biomass to roots to enhance water uptake when water is limited [26].
Atriplex canescens is a drought-tolerant shrub that shows strong stress resistance to harsh environments. A. canescens is native to North America; due to its excellent ecological and forage values, it has been widely introduced to arid and semi-arid regions all around the world [27]. In 1986, A. canescens was introduced into China, and it has been used to control soil erosion, restore degraded grassland, combat desertification and as feed [28]. In the last decade, A. canescens has been widely used in railway and highway side slope protection and mining site ecological restoration. A. canescens grows well in high-altitude areas of Qinghai Tibet Plateau at 4200 m (Cuomei County, Tibet autonomous region), and its ecological properties and feed utilization are highly valued by local governments in certain ultrahigh-altitude regions. Nowadays, the most important utilization of A. canescens in China is as a host of Cistanche deserticola, which is a traditional Chinese medicinal material [29]. Because of its high economic value, it has been widely planted in North and Northwest China. In this region, the annual precipitation is from 35 mm (hotan county, Taklimakan Desert) to 450 mm (Jingbian county, south of Mu Us Desert), and most of the planting area has less than 150 mm precipitation. In addition, the planting area in heavy drought regions continues to increase. So, understanding the performance of A. canescens under drought stress has great significance for planting and management under global warming conditions. Although many studies have discussed the drought resistance of A. canescens [30,31,32,33], most of the previous studies focused on potted seedlings, with only a few studies based on common garden experiments and mature individuals [34,35]. In addition, there are no comprehensive studies that combine leaf functional traits and biomass partitioning patterns.
The overall goal of this study was to clarify how A. canescens adapted to drought stress. A. canescens seedlings were transplanted to a common garden in 2021, and heavy drought, feeble drought, and non-drought stress conditions were simulated from then until sample collection and analysis, which were conducted in 2023. Our objectives were to (1) characterize leaf functional traits changes related to drought stress, (2) assess biomass variation and biomass partitioning patterns and (3) reveal the tradeoff strategies of A. canescens under drought stress. We expected to have a better understanding of the adaptability of A. canescens to drought, and to provide management experience for the planting and utilization of A. canescens in different area under climate change.

2. Results

2.1. Leaf Biochemical Traits

It was observed that drought stress did not affect the MDA content significantly in the florescence or seed stage (Figure 1A). Heavy drought stress significantly decreased the SPAD in both stages, but feeble drought did not affect the SPAD (Figure 1B).
At the florescence stage, the SOD activity was almost steady under drought stress (Figure 2A) and there was also no significant difference at the seed stage. At both florescence and seed stages, the leaf POD activity of A. canescens from the heavy drought group was less than half of that of the non-stress group; the difference was significant. The POD activity of A. canescens from the feeble drought group was significantly lower than in the non-stress group at florescence stage, but not significantly at seed stage. The CAT activity showed the same pattern as the POD at florescence stage but was inconsistent at the seed stage. At the seed stage, the CAT activity of A. canescens under heavy and feeble drought were both significantly lower than in the non-stress group. At the florescence stage, both the Pro and SS contents showed the same pattern in that the value of the heavy drought group was significantly higher than that of non-stress group (Figure 2D,E). At the seed stage, the Pro of the heavy drought group showed the same pattern as that of the florescence stage, but there was no significant difference in SS. Feeble drought stress did not affect the Pro and SS in the florescence or seed stage.

2.2. Leaf Morphological Traits

The indicators related to leaf morphological traits are shown in Table 1. Drought affected leaf morphological traits significantly. At the florescence stage, there were 9 indicators that displayed a significant difference between the heavy drought and non-stress groups among the 13 measured indicators. Heavy drought decreased leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, leaf shape index, fresh weight, saturated fresh weight, dry weight and specific leaf area significantly, while also increasing leaf density significantly. Leaf thickness, leaf dry matter content, saturated water content and water content had not significantly changed. Most of the indicators of the feeble drought group changed with the same pattern as the heavy drought group, where only LL, LA, SLA and LD had a significant difference. At the seed stage, the general changes in leaf morphological traits under drought gradient were consistent with the florescence stage, but the difference in FW and SFW between the feeble drought group and non-stress group were significant and there were no significant changes in SLA or LD.

2.3. Biomass Allocation Variables

Biomass decreased significantly in response to drought stress (Figure 3A). The A. canescens from non-stress group had a total biomass of 4419 g, while the heavy drought group had total biomass of 1758 g, only 39.79% of that of the non-stress group. The A. canescens under feeble drought had a total biomass of 2935 g, which was significantly lower than that of the non-stress group but significantly higher than that of the heavy drought group. The biomass of different organs showed the same features as those of total biomass. The A. canescens from the heavy drought group had the lowest seed, leaf, stem and root biomass; the non-stress group had the highest biomass in those organs. All of the organs’ biomass under drought stress showed a significant difference, except for that of the root. The root biomass of A. canescens in the heavy, feeble and non-stress group was 348 g, 397 g and 425 g, respectively. The root biomass of the heavy drought group was higher than seed and leaf biomass but lower than the stem biomass, while in the feeble drought group, the root biomass was higher than the seed biomass but lower than leaf and stem biomass. The root biomass of the non-stress group was lower than that of other organs. The A. canescens from the heavy drought group had the lowest reproductive biomass of 67 g, the feeble drought group had a median value of 225 g and the non-stress group had the highest value of 551 g. Under drought stress, reproductive organs had the lowest biomass compared to the other organs, but in the non-stress group, it was lower than that of the leaf and stem but higher than that of the root.
Significant changes in biomass allocation were observed in response to drought stress (Figure 3B). The A. canescens under no drought stress allocated more biomass to the leaves and seeds, while under drought stress, more biomass was allocated to the roots and stem. Under heavy drought, A. canescens allocated 19.81% of total biomass to the roots, which was significantly higher than that of the non-stress group (9.62%) and feeble drought group (13.53%). There was no significant difference between the feeble drought and non-stress groups in root biomass allocation ratio. A. canescens allocated 12.34% of its total biomass to the leaves under heavy drought conditions, which was significantly lower than that of the non-stress group (20.60%). The A. canescens under feeble drought conditions had a leaf allocation ratio of 17.81%, which is not a significant difference compared to the non-stress group and heavy drought group. Under heavy drought conditions, the reproductive organ had only 3.82% of total biomass, that in the feeble drought group had 7.67% and that in the non-stress group had 12.49%; there were significant differences among drought gradients. A. canescens allocated most of the biomass to the stem (all groups above 57%); as drought stress strengthened, the stem biomass allocation ratio increased. Under heavy drought conditions, the stem allocation ratio was as high as 64.03%, significantly higher than in the non-stress group. Drought affected the root/shoot ratio of A. canescens: the heavy drought group had an R/S of 0.25, the feeble drought group had 0.16 and the non-stress group had 0.11. The R/S of A. canescens under heavy drought was significantly higher than those of the non-stress and feeble drought stress groups.

2.4. Correlations between Leaf Functional Traits and Biomass

At the florescence stage, the MDA content was negatively correlated with the biomass of the root, stem, leaf, seed and the total, and both the POD and CAT activity were positively correlated with seed ratio and negatively correlated with root ratio, while the Pro and SS were negatively correlated with seed ratio and positively correlated with root ratio (Figure 4). The SS was also negatively correlated with stem and total biomass and positively correlated with R/S. SPAD was positively correlated to all biomass indicators and leaf ratio, while it has a negatively correlation with stem ratio and R/S. At the seed stage, the POD was positively correlated with seed ratio and negatively correlated with root ratio, while the Pro was negatively correlated with biomass, leaf and seed allocation ratio and positively correlated with root allocation ratio and R/S. Most of the correlations reached a significant level. The SPAD had a positive correlation with biomass indicators and leaf and seed allocation ratio, and had negative correlations with root and stem allocation ratio and R/S.
At the florescence stage, the indicators related to leaf shape and weight were positively correlated with biomass and leaf and seed allocation ratio, and negatively correlated with root and stem allocation ratio and R/S (Figure 5). The LD was positively correlated with stem allocation ratio and R/S and negatively correlated with leaf, seed and total biomass. The SLA was negatively correlated with stem allocation ratio. There were no significant correlations between leaf morphological traits and root biomass, and only SFW and DW showed significant negative correlations with root biomass allocation ratio. The correlations at seed stage showed same pattern as that of the florescence stage, but SLA had significant correlations with stem, leaf and total biomass and leaf allocation ratio.

3. Discussion

Plant functional traits are the changes in the morphological structure and physiological and biochemical characteristics of plants in the long process of evolution. These changes can objectively reflect the response strategies of plants to the environment [36]. Plant functional traits do not respond to the environment in isolation but interact and correlate with each other. In the process of long-term adaptation to the environment, they coordinate and balance each other by adjusting different traits, so as to improve the adaptability to the environment [37]. Plants are subjected to drought and have evolved multi-mechanisms to minimize the negative effects [38]. This study suggests that A. canescens changes its leaf functional traits, biomass and their allocation characteristics in response to drought stress.

3.1. Leaf Biochemical Response to Drought Stress

Drought stress causes the excessive accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which causes the biomembrane lipid peroxidation reaction [39]. The toxicity of lipid peroxidation products induces damage to membrane structure and function, and then affects the normal function of the leaf [40]. MDA is the primary product of lipid peroxidation; the content of MDA can be used as an indicator to reflect the degree of membrane damage and the self-recovering ability in plants [41]. Other types of ROS damage caused are photosynthetic pigment degradation and decreased chlorophyll content [42], which affect the activity of photosynthetic enzymes and the efficiency of photosynthesis, and inhibit plant growth and development [43]. SPAD reflects the relative content of chlorophyll; it is an important indicator for revealing plant photosynthesis ability [44]. In our study, the MDA content showed no significant difference but the SPAD decreased significantly under heavy drought. These changes mean that the long drought stress did not damage the biomembrane of A. canescens significantly but significantly affected its photosynthetic system, thus potentially hampering photosynthetic potential [45], and as a result, it caused a biomass decrease in A. canescens.
Plants usually enhance their drought resistance by increasing the expression of protective enzymes to eliminate ROS under drought stress [46]. SOD, POD and CAT are the most important enzymes in the plant antioxidant defense system. Under drought stress, SOD, POD and CAT react synergistically, retain active oxygen metabolism balance and protect biomembrane structure and function [47]. SOD can catalyze the superoxide radical reaction; the generated peroxides can be decomposed into water and oxygen with the catalyst of POD and CAT [48]. Therefore, the activity of these enzymes plays an important role in reflecting drought resistance ability. In our study, the activity of SOD had no significant difference, but the activity of POD and CAT decreased significantly under heavy drought. This indicated that under drought stress, A. canescens has high superoxide disposal efficiency, thus why there was no excessive accumulation of MDA, but drought stress significantly decreased the peroxide disposal ability, which caused the accumulation of peroxide and damaged plants growth. Osmotic regulation is another biochemical mechanism for plants to adapt to arid environments. An accumulation of osmotic adjustment substances can reduce osmotic potential to maintain water absorption capacity from drought soil and maintain normal physiological and biochemical functions [49]. Pro and SS are the most studied osmotic adjustment substances [50]. Under drought stress, the content of SS and Pro increased, which means A. canescens accumulated a mass of osmotic adjustment substances to mitigate the negative effect of drought.
At the seed stage, there was a relatively higher value of leaf biochemical traits. This is probably because the experiment at seed stage was conducted in early Oct.; at that time, the temperature in the common garden was low (the night temperature was near 5 °C), and the A. canescens suffered from the combined stress of drought and low temperature. Under the dual stress, A. canescens further improved the activity of SOD and increased the content of osmotic adjustment substances to alleviate the impact of stress. The increased osmotic adjustment substances can lower the freezing point to prevent frost damage [46]. Although the low temperature in the seed stage increased the antioxidant enzyme activity and the content of osmotic substances, the difference in those indicators under drought gradients showed the same pattern at the florescence stage. Therefore, the results of the seed stage further verified the biochemical adaptation mechanism of A. canescens to drought stress. Under feeble drought stress, the activity of enzymes and the content of osmotic adjustment substances had similar overall change trends to the heavy drought group, but the content of SPAD in both stages, the activity of POD in seed stage and the activity of Pro in florescence stage showed no significant difference to the non-stress group. This may indicate that A. canescens has a relatively strong adaptability to feeble stress.

3.2. Leaf Morphological Response to Drought Stress

As the main production organ of plants, leaves have strong plasticity and are closely related to resource acquisition and utilization. The leaf is the key entry point for studying the relationship between plants and the environment [51]. Under drought stress, leaves will make a tradeoff in functional traits between fast growth and stress tolerance [52,53]. Under drought stress, the leaf of A. canescens becomes smaller but denser. These changes reflect that under drought stress, A. canescens makes tradeoffs and follows a series of conservative strategies to adapt to drought stress. In general, larger leaf area can increase the light absorption surface and improve photosynthetic capacity, which promote the fast growth of plants. However, a larger leaf area usually enhances the respiration and transpiration cost, and plants tend to decrease their leaf area to reduce the transpiration in arid regions [54]. SLA and LDMC are frequently used to reflect the resource utilization efficiency of plants [55]. Plants with high SLA are more likely to use a resource acquisition strategy, which promotes the growth rate in plants [56], while plants with lower SLA are more likely to use a stress tolerance strategy, which forms small but heavy leaves and shows strong resistance to drought stress [57]. Higher LDMC means plants accumulate more substances in leaves, which increases the diffusion distance or resistance of water inside the leaves to the surface, and reduces the water loss inside the plant to mitigate adverse environmental effects [58]. Water is limited under heavy drought, but there is no significant difference in LDMC, SWC or WC, and the LA and SLA decrease, which means that A. canescens retains high water absorption ability and decreased leaf area to reduce water transpiration to guarantee the necessary water content, which is a key factor for the survival and growth of plants [6].

3.3. Biomass Allocation Response to Drought Stress

Biomass is an important indicator to evaluate the growth status and productivity levels of plants [59]. Plants adjust their biomass and biomass allocation to adapt to environmental changes [60]. In this study, the biomass of different organs showed that A. canescens obtained a conservative strategy to coping with drought. The total biomass under heavy drought and feeble drought was only 40% and 67% of that of the non-stress group. Among all of the organs, the most decreased were seeds and leaves, while the least decreased was the root. The root system is the main organ for obtaining resources, as plants absorb water and nutrients through their massive root systems [61]. The stem transports water and nutrients from the root to other parts and provides architectural support for leaves and reproductive organs [5]. The leaf is a pivotal component in photosynthesis and also a major outlet of water via transpiration [5]. Under heavy drought, the seed and leaf biomass were only 10% and 20% of that of non-stress group, and the root biomass was over 80% of that of non-stress group. This demonstrated that A. canescens allocates high priority in guaranteeing root investment under drought stress. Even when the total biomass sharply decreased, the root biomass was relatively stable and remained at a high level, which ensured the water absorption capacity in the arid environment. Meanwhile, A. canescens invested less in its leaves to reduce the water loss, which is a tradeoff between rapid growth potential and survival ratio [52]. The investment in offspring was the most affected, which indicates A. canescens sacrificed its fecundity to guarantee the growth of its parental generation. Biomass allocation can also reflect the conservative strategy of A. canescens under drought. The organ biomass allocation ratio and root/shoot ratio showed that under drought stress, A. canescens allocated more biomass to the root system and less to the leaves, which dissipated the water more slowly.
Previous studies have shown two classical theories on biomass allocation: optimal partitioning theory and allometric partitioning theory [62]. According to optimal partitioning theory, plants give priority to allocate more biomass to organs that can obtain more restricted resources to ensure growth [63]. Thus, the organ allocation ratio is the response of plants to resource availability [64]. Allometric partitioning theory claims that the allocation ratio in different organs is a power function of plant size independently of environmental variation [65]. In our study, the biomass allocation patterns of A. canescens under drought stress were conformed with optimal partitioning theory. As a result of water limitation, A. canescens allocated more biomass to its roots to obtain water, and decreased its leaf biomass ratio to reduce transpiration. In general, under drought stress, A. canescens takes a conservative resource allocation strategy, it allocates more resources to the organs that best maintain restricted resources and reduces the investment in organs that consume those limited resources. This conclusion is consistent with a large number of studies, which shows that under drought stress, plants allocate more resources to their roots and reduce their leaf and reproductive investment [5,25,26].

3.4. The Relationship between Leaf Functional Traits and Biomass

The relationships between plant functional traits are ubiquitous [66]. Biomass is the result of photosynthate distribution and material accumulation. As the main organs of photosynthesis in plants, leaf functional traits have a conjugate relationship with biomass and biomass partitioning patterns [67]. Study on these relationships hold significance for the quantification and summary of the tradeoff and resource utilization strategies in plants under drought stress [8]. The florescence stage is one of the peak growth periods and the main stage of biomass accumulation, while at seed maturation stage, growth stagnates [68]. Thus, this study only discussed the correlations between leaf functional traits and biomass at florescence stage. Actually, the correlations at seed stage showed the same pattern as the florescence stage. In this study, the MDA content was negatively correlated with all of the biomass indicators, while SPAD was positively correlated with the total biomass and the aboveground organs biomass. It was also shown that there was a significantly negative correlation with MDA and SPAD, consistent with previous studies [69,70]. This indicated that SPAD is highly correlated with MDA content and biomass; therefore, the SPAD can be used to reflect the leaf damage degree and plant growth status of A. canescens under drought stress. Two antioxidant enzymes, POD and CAT, showed significant correlations with root and seed allocation ratio, and osmotic adjustment substance, and Pro and SS were also significantly correlated with the root and seed allocation ratio, but the positive or negative correlations were contrary to POD and CAT. It was also shown that there were negative correlations of POD and CAT with Pro and SS, which means that under drought stress, the osmotic adjustment substance increased to maintain the normal physiological and biochemical activity when the activity of POD and CAT has been inhibited [69,71]. There may have a synergistic effect between POD and CAT and also in Pro and SS [72]. In addition, there shown a complementary effect of enzymes activity and osmotic adjustment substance of A. canescens under drought stress.
In our study, the leaf morphological traits related to shape and weight had significant correlations with total and aboveground organ biomass; stem, leaf and seed allocation ratio; and R/S, which means that leaf shape and weight traits can explain the biomass and biomass partitioning pattern, and these results were consistent with previous studies [57,73,74]. It should be noted that there was an extremely negative correlation between SLA and LDMC, which was consistent with the study of Pontes et al. [75]. Garnier et al. [76] and Elger et al. [77] hold that SLA and LDMC do not directly affect productivity in plants but are related to other functional features such as palatability and litter decomposition characteristics. The synergism, complementation and trade-off among traits is one of the important mechanisms of population dynamics and community construction [66,78]. Through this research on the correlations among functional traits, traits that are highly correlated with others and easy to measure as key indicators can be screened out in future research, and this will make the research more focused and efficient. In this study, under drought stress, leaf MDA and SS content and SPAD of A. canescens were significantly correlated with each other and also had significant correlations with biomass and biomass partitioning, so more attention should be paid to these indicators in related future studies.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Experimental Site

The experiment was conducted in the Linze Inland River Basin Research Station of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (39°21′ N, 100°07′ E), which is located in the middle of Hexi Corridor of Gansu Province, on the south edge of the Badain Jaran Desert. The altitude of the experimental site was 1367 m. The soil was classified as gray-brown desert soil, which has high sand content, low organic matter content, poor water holding capacity and a lack of nutrients [79]. The experimental site has a typical arid desert climate with hot dry summers and cold winters. The average annual temperature is 7.6 °C. The average annual precipitation is 116.8 mm with 80% occurring from June to September [80]. The average annual open water (pan) evaporation is 2388 mm, which is 20-fold the annual precipitation. The number of frost-free days is between 150 and 160; the first frost day is usually in early or mid-October.

4.2. Experimental Design

The experimental site was divided into 3 fields, each field with a total area of 450 m2 (30 m × 15 m). The fields were isolated by a 60 cm × 40 cm (width × height) soil bund. The groundwater depth of the fields was about 4.5 m. One-year-old A. canescens seedlings were transplanted in rows of 1.5 m × 3 m in the spring of 2021. After transplantation, the experimental fields were irrigated every 5–10 days depending on the soil moisture to facilitate plant establishment. Groundwater was used for irrigation in this study, and flood irrigation was applied twice, with an irrigation amount of 1200 m3 hm−1 each time. After successful establishment, simulated drought gradients were applied by controlling the irrigation frequency. The south field was the non-stress group, which was irrigated monthly from April to October each year; the middle filed was the feeble drought stress group, which was irrigated bi-monthly (April, June, August and October) each year. Irrigation dates were determined according to local weather conditions, usually in the middle ten days of the month. The irrigation amount was 900 m3 hm−1 per application, which was equal to 90 mm precipitation. The north field was the heavy drought stress group, which was never irrigated, and the only water source was precipitation. The precipitation amounts of the experimental site were 108 mm, 91 mm and 73 mm in 2021, 2022 and 2023, respectively. Soil water content of 0–150 cm soil layers was measured by oven drying method at the florescence and seed maturation stage (Figure 6). During the experiment, no fertilizer was applied in the field, the weeds were mowed manually once a year, and no other management practices were applied in the common garden.

4.3. Data Collection and Processing

4.3.1. Leaf Functional Traits

Leaf biochemical traits were measured at florescence (late June) and seed maturation stage (early October). The enzyme activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and peroxidase (POD) and the content of malondialdehyde (MDA), proline (Pro) and soluble sugar (SS) were determined using biochemical kits (G0101W, G0105W, G0107W, G0109W, G0111W and G0501W, respectively) [81], which were purchased from Suzhou Grace Biotechnology Co., Ltd (Suzhou, Jiangsu, China). The indicators were tested following the manufacturer’s instructions. All indicator tests were repeated three times. Relative chlorophyll content (SPAD) was measured by SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta, Osaka, Japan) [82]. The average value of four data collected in a tree was treated as a sample datum, and ten trees were randomly selected and recorded in each group.
Leaf morphological traits were also measured at both stages. The indicators were tested on the day after the biochemical traits were tested. Ten fully developed and undamaged leaves from one tree were treated as a sample; seven samples from seven individual trees were obtained in each group. The fresh weight (FW) was determined with an analytical balance. Leaf thickness (LT) was recorded with a digital vernier caliper. The leaves were scanned with a scanner (Epson Perfection V850 Pro, Seiko Epson Corporation, Japan). The leaf length (LL), leaf width (LW) and leaf area (LA) were analyzed with Image J software (Version 1.8.0, National Institute of Health, America) [7]. The leaves were soaked in distilled water for 24 h in darkness, then patted dry on sterile filter paper, and their saturated fresh weight (SFW) was determined [31]. The leaves were dried to constant weight in an oven at 70 °C and their dry weight (DW) was determined. Other leaf morphological traits were calculated using the above data, which were specific leaf area (SLA = leaf area/dry weight), leaf shape index (LI = leaf length/leaf width), leaf density (LD = dry weight/(leaf area × leaf thickness)), dry matter content (LDMC = dry weight/saturated fresh weight), saturated water content (SWC = (saturated fresh weight − dry weight)/saturated fresh weight) and water content (WC = (fresh weight − dry weight)/fresh weight) [24,75].

4.3.2. Biomass Partitioning Patterns

Whole plants were harvested (3 in plants each group) in early October 2023 [83]. Plants were separated into four components: (1) root, (2) stem, (3) leaf and (4) seed. All of the roots, leaves and seeds were placed in paper bags and dried to a constant weight in an oven at 70 °C. All fresh stems were weighed, and a roughly 500–800 g sample was selected for drying to constant weight to evaluate the stem biomass. Total aboveground biomass (including stem, leaf and seed) was calculated as shoot biomass; the reproductive biomass was the seed biomass. From these data, we calculated the biomass allocation ratio of each organ, and the root/shoot ratio (R/S) [84].

4.4. Data Analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS software (Version 27.0.1, SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL, USA). One-way ANOVA was applied, and then an LSD test was used to detect differences among groups in leaf functional traits, biomass, and biomass allocation; the statistical significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05. Correlations between leaf functional traits and biomass at different growth stages were separated, determined using the Pearson coefficient. All the figures were drawn with Origin Software (Version 2021, Origin Lab Crop. Northampton, MA, USA).

5. Conclusions

Our common garden experiment results found that the biochemical and morphological traits of leaves, as well as the biomass and biomass allocation of A. canescens, significantly changed under drought stress. The POD and CAT activity decreased, the content of osmotic adjustment substance increased, and the content of MDA and activity of SOD were maintained. Under drought stress, leaves became smaller but denser and maintained high water content and stable dry matter content. Drought stress significantly decreased the total biomass and all organ biomasses except that of the root. Furthermore, the biomass allocated to leaves and reproductive organs decreased, the root allocation rate increased, and the root shoot ratio increased. In general, under drought stress, A. canescens maintains survival through biochemical regulation and make a tradeoff between rapid growth and drought resistance. This assessment was made based on leaf morphology, biomass and biomass allocation, showing that a conservative survival strategy had been adapted. Specifically, A. canescens increased its investment in its roots to absorb the limited water and reduced its investment in leaves and offspring to reduce the consumption of water, in order to adapt to the arid environment. The results of this study provide valuable insights to how A. canescens respond and adapt to drought stress in natural environments. However, as the adaption mechanism of plants to drought stress involves complex physiological processes, photosynthetic, plant hydraulic and gas exchange characteristics need further studies to understand the complete picture of how A. canescens adapt to drought stress.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.W. and Z.H., Methodology, S.W. and H.Z.; Formal analysis, S.W.; Investigation, S.W., W.S., X.X. and Q.T.; Writing—original draft preparation, S.W.; Supervision, Z.H.; Funding acquisition, Z.H.; Writing—review and editing, D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Key Research and Development Program of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (2022BEG02012), the public welfare research project of the Zhejiang Approaching Balance Foundation (HJ-2003-01).

Data Availability Statement

Data are available in a publicly accessible repository.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Luo, D.; Li, J.; Luo, J.; Ma, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, W.; Rodriguez, L.G.; Yao, Y. Responses to solar UV-B exclusion and drought stress in two cultivars of chestnut rose with different leaf thickness. Forests 2022, 14, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ganguly, R.; Sarkar, A.; Dasgupta, D.; Acharya, K.; Keswani, C.; Popova, V.; Minkina, T.; Maksimov, A.Y.; Chakraborty, N. Unravelling the efficient applications of zinc and selenium for mitigation of abiotic stresses in plants. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Maseda, P.H.; Fernandez, R.J. Growth potential limits drought morphological plasticity in seedlings from six Eucalyptus provenances. Tree Physiol. 2016, 36, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Li, Y.; Lu, Q.; Wu, B.; Zhu, Y.; Liu, D.; Zhang, J.; Jin, Z. A review of leaf morphology plasticity linked to plant response and adaptation characteristics in arid ecosystems. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2012, 36, 88–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Eziz, A.; Yan, Z.; Tian, D.; Han, W.; Tang, Z.; Fang, J. Drought effect on plant biomass allocation: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 11002–11010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Canning, C.M.; Mood, B.J.; Bonsal, B.; Howat, B.; Laroque, C.P. Comparison of tree-growth drought legacies of three shelterbelt species in the Canadian Prairies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2023, 330, 109317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Y.; Kang, X.; Zhou, J.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, S.; Bu, H.; Qi, W. Geographic variation in the petiole-lamina relationship of 325 Eastern Qinghai-Tibetan woody species: Analysis in three dimensions. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 748125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Wright, I.J.; Reich, P.B.; Westoby, M.; Ackerly, D.D.; Baruch, Z.; Bongers, F.; Cavender-Bares, J.; Chapin, T.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Diemer, M.; et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 2004, 428, 821–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Roa-Fuentes, L.L.; Templer, P.H.; Campo, J. Effects of precipitation regime and soil nitrogen on leaf traits in seasonally dry tropical forests of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Oecologia 2015, 179, 585–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shi, Y.; Wen, Z.; Gong, S. Comparisons of relationships between leaf and fine root traits in hilly area of the Loess Plateau, Yanhe River basin, Shaanxi Province, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2011, 31, 6805–6814. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhang, P.; Li, Y.; Shao, M. Effects of sandy land water habitat and years after rejuvenation pruning on leaf functional traits of Salix psammophila. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 22, 2240–2246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Qi, D.; Wen, Z.; Yang, S.; Wang, H.; Guo, R. Trait-based responses and adaptation of Artemisia sacrorum to environmental changes. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 26, 1921–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Taylor, S.H.; Franks, P.J.; Hulme, S.P.; Spriggs, E.; Christin, P.A.; Edwards, E.J.; Woodward, F.I.; Osborne, C.P. Photosynthetic pathway and ecological adaptation explain stomatal trait diversity amongst grasses. New Phytol. 2012, 193, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Collins, C.G.; Wright, S.J.; Wurzburger, N. Root and leaf traits reflect distinct resource acquisition strategies in tropical lianas and trees. Oecologia 2016, 180, 1037–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nelson, T.C.; Muir, C.D.; Stathos, A.M.; Vanderpool, D.D.; Anderson, K.; Angert, A.L.; Fishman, L. Quantitative trait locus mapping reveals an independent genetic basis for joint divergence in leaf function, life-history, and floral traits between scarlet monkeyflower (Mimulus cardinalis) populations. Am. J. Bot. 2021, 108, 844–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jin, N.; Yu, X.; Dong, J.; Duan, M.; Mo, Y.; Feng, L.; Bai, R.; Zhao, J.; Song, J.; Dossa, G.G.O.; et al. Vertical variation in leaf functional traits of Parashorea chinensis with different canopy layers. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1335524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Avalos, G.; Cambronero, M.; Alvarez-Vergnani, C. Divergence in functional traits in seven species of neotropical palms of different forest strata. Oecologia 2023, 203, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Samanta, S.; Seth, C.S.; Roychoudhury, A. The molecular paradigm of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) with different phytohormone signaling pathways during drought stress in plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2024, 206, 108259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yang, J.; Park, S.; Lee, H.; Nam, K.; Lee, K.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.; Kwak, S.; Kim, H.; Kim, Y. Differential responses of antioxidant enzymes and lignin metabolism in susceptible and resistant sweetpotato cultivars during root-knot nematode Infection. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wu, S.; Tian, J.; Ren, T.; Wang, Y. Osmotic adjustment and antioxidant system regulated by nitrogen deposition improve photosynthetic and growth performance and alleviate oxidative damage in dwarf bamboo under drought stress. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 819071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kommineni, V.K.; Tautenhahn, S.; Baddam, P.; Gaikwad, J.; Wieczorek, B.; Triki, A.; Kattge, J. Comprehensive leaf size traits dataset for seven plant species from digitised herbarium specimen images covering more than two centuries. Biodivers. Data J. 2021, 9, e69806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kaul, A.; Wilsey, B.J. Exotic species explain plant functional trait differences between seed mixes, restored and reference prairies. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2023, 26, e12709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pritzkow, C.; Szota, C.; Williamson, V.G.; Arndt, S.K. Phenotypic plasticity of drought tolerance traits in a widespread Eucalypt (Eucalyptus obliqua). Forests 2020, 11, 1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, Q.; Zhao, C.; Kang, M.; Li, X. The relationship of the main root-shoot morphological characteristics and biomass allocation of Saussurea salsa under different habitat conditions in Sugan lake wetland on the northern margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 128, 107836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dovrat, G.; Meron, E.; Shachak, M.; Golodets, C.; Osem, Y. Plant size is related to biomass partitioning and stress resistance in water-limited annual plant communities. J. Arid Environ. 2019, 165, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, P.; Ma, B.; Guo, S.; Ding, T.; Xiong, Y. Bottom-up redistribution of biomass optimizes energy allocation, water use and yield formation in dryland wheat improvement. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 3336–3349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ma, D.; He, Z.; Bai, X.; Wang, W.; Zhao, P.; Lin, P.; Zhou, H. Atriplex canescens, a valuable plant in soil rehabilitation and forage production. A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 804, 150287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, S.; Li, D.; Lou, J. Research advances on feeding value, processing and utilization of forage shrub Atriplex canescens. Anim. Husb. Feed. Sci. 2021, 42, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, F.; Zhuo, B.; Wang, S.; Lou, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Shi, Z.; Song, Y.; Tu, P. Atriplex canescens: A new host for Cistanche deserticola. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lei, J.; Nie, X.; Gao, W.; Sailihan, S.; Gao, Y. Study on physiology of drought resistance of Atriplex canescens. Xinjiang Agric. Sci. 2010, 47, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, T.; Yin, B.; Wang, Z.; Li, R.; Li, S. The influence of sodium salt on growth, photosynthesis, Na+/K+ homeostasis and osmotic adjustment of Atriplex canescens under drought stress. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hao, G.; Lucero, M.E.; Sanderson, S.C.; Zacharias, E.H.; Holbrook, N.M. Polyploidy enhances the occupation of heterogeneous environments through hydraulic related trade-offs in Atriplex canescens (Chenopodiaceae). New Phytol. 2013, 197, 970–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Dang, X.; Gao, Y.; Yu, Y.; Wang, J.; Hu, s.; Yuan, L.; Wang, S.; Zhang, X. Effect of drought stress on anatomical structure of leave and physiological characteristics in three Atriplex L. seedling. Acta Bot. Boreali-Occident. Sin. 2014, 34, 0976–0987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, Q.; Yi, X.; Wang, H.; Han, G.; Zhao, Z. Effects of water stress on seedling biomass of several sand-fixing shrubs. J. Gansu Agric. Univ. 2014, 49, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, Y.; Yan, Y.; Yu, X.; Li, G. Activity of protective enzymes of Atriplex canescens and its drought resistance physiological characters under drought stress. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2010, 24, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huo, J.; Ren, L.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, J.; Xiang, X.; Yu, C.; Meng, D.; Wang, Y.; Lu, R.; Huang, Y. Functional traits of desert plants and their responses to environmental factors in Qaidam Basin, China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 42, 4494–4503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, M.; Ma, J. Responses of plant functional traits and soil factors to slope aspect in alpine meadow of South Gansu, Northwest China. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 23, 3295–3300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, S.; Wang, Y.; Su, B.; Zhou, Y.; Chang, L.; Ma, X.; Li, X. Ecophysiological responses of five mangrove species (Bruguiera gymnorrhiza, Rhizophora stylosa, Aegiceras corniculatum, Avicennia marina, and Kandelia obovata) to chilling stress. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 846566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dudziak, K.; Bulak, P.; Zapalska, M.; Borner, A.; Szczerba, H.; Lesniowska-Nowak, J.; Nowak, M. Using intervarietal substitution lines for the identification of wheat chromosomes involved in early responses to water-deficit stress. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0221849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Anjum, N.A.; Sofo, A.; Scopa, A.; Roychoudhury, A.; Gill, S.S.; Iqbal, M.; Lukatkin, A.S.; Pereira, E.; Duarte, A.C.; Ahmad, I. Lipids and proteins-major targets of oxidative modifications in abiotic stressed plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2015, 22, 4099–4121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kumar, R.; Adhikary, A.; Saini, R.; Khan, S.A.; Yadav, M.; Kumar, S. Drought priming induced thermotolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during reproductive stage; a multifaceted tolerance approach against terminal heat stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 201, 107840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Sohrabi, Y.; Heidari, G.; Weisany, W.; Golezani, K.G.; Mohammadi, K. Changes of antioxidative enzymes, lipid peroxidation and chlorophyll content in chickpea types colonized by different Glomus species under drought stress. Symbiosis 2012, 56, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, R.; Zheng, Y.; Ma, G.; Zhang, X.; Lu, H.; Shi, J.; Jiquan, X. Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic traits and protective enzyme activity in maize seeding. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2011, 31, 1303–1311. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ali, A.M.; Thind, H.S.; Sharma, S.; Singh, Y. Site-specific nitrogen management in dry direct-seeded rice using chlorophyll meter and leaf colour chart. Pedosphere 2015, 25, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ma, Y.; Dias, M.C.; Freitas, H. Drought and salinity stress responses and microbe-induced tolerance in plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 591911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zareei, E.; Karami, F.; Gholami, M.; Ershadi, A.; Avestan, S.; Aryal, R.; Gohari, G.; Farooq, M. Physiological and biochemical responses of strawberry crown and leaf tissues to freezing stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2021, 21, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Xue, W.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, C.; Wang, C.; Huang, Y.; Liu, Z. Mitigating the toxicity of reactive oxygen species induced by cadmium via restoring citrate valve and improving the stability of enzyme structure in rice. Chemosphere 2023, 327, 138511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Harris, M.J.; William, H.; Outlaw, J. Rapid adjustment of guard-cell abscisic acid levels to current leaf-water status. Plant Physiol. 1991, 95, 171–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Li, A.; Wang, D.; Li, W. Resurrection characteristics, photosynthetic and physiological response to dehydration andrehydration of two species in Gesneriaceae with different habitats. Guihaia 2022, 42, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhu, H.; Li, D.; Zhang, T.; Wen, T.; Wen, C.; Wang, X. Effects of saline-alkali resistant agents on osmotic adjustment substances and root activity of double-cropping rice under saline-alkali stress. Chin. J. Soil Sci. 2022, 53, 1098–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, R.; Liu, J.; Wang, L.; Yan, Y.; Ma, X.; Li, M. Analysis of root and leaf functional traits and C, N, P stoichiometry of Cunninghamia lanceolate from different provenances. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2022, 42, 6298–6310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stahl, U.; Kattge, J.; Reu, B.; Voigt, W.; Ogle, K.; Dickie, J.; Wirth, C. Whole-plant trait spectra of North American woody plant species reflect fundamental ecological strategies. Ecosphere 2013, 4, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Coneva, V.; Chitwood, D.H. Genetic and developmental basis for increased leaf thickness in the Arabidopsis Cviecotype. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Slimani, N.; Arraouadi, S.; Hajlaoui, H.; Borgi, M.A.; Boughattas, N.E.H.; De Feo, V.; Snoussi, M. Theimpact of greenhouse and field growth conditions on Chenopodium quinoa willd accessions’ response to salt stress: A comparative approach. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Huo, C.; Zhu, L.; Long, M.; Zhao, L. Functional characters and eco stoichiometric characteristics of leaves of seven landscape shrubs. Chin. J. Trop. Crops 2023, 44, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhong, Y.; Wang, W.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Yuan, D.; Fan, Y.; Wei, X. Leaf functional traits of oasis plants in extremely arid areas and its response to soil water and salt factors. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2019, 41, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kleiman, D.; Aarssen, L.W. The leaf size/number trade-off in trees. J. Ecol. 2007, 95, 376–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Lavorel, S.; Garnier, E.; Díaz, S.; Buchmann, N.; Gurvich, D.E.; Reich, P.B.; Steege, H.t.; Morgan, H.D.; Heijden, M.G.A.v.d.; et al. A handbook of protocols for standardised and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 2003, 51, 335–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, X.; Ma, L.-h.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Guo, J.I.; Zhou, B.; Deng, Y.; Wang, X.; Wang, F.; She, Y.; et al. Relationship between the characteristics of plant community growth and climate factors in alpine meadow. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 3689–3700. [Google Scholar]
  60. Revillini, D.; Gehring, C.A.; Johnson, N.C.; Bailey, J. The role of locally adapted mycorrhizas and rhizobacteria in plant–soil feedback systems. Funct. Ecol. 2016, 30, 1086–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hu, Q.; Shu, J.; Li, W.; Wang, G. Role of auxin and nitrate signaling in the development of root system architecture. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 690363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. McCarthy, M.C.; Enquist, B.J. Consistency between an allometric approach and optimal partitioning theory in global patterns of plant biomass allocation. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Meng, B.; Li, J.; Yao, Y.; Nippert, J.B.; Williams, D.G.; Chai, H.; Collins, S.L.; Sun, W. Soil N enrichment mediates carbon allocation through respiration in a dominant grass during drought. Funct. Ecol. 2022, 36, 1204–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhou, L.; Hong, Y.; Li, C.; Lu, C.; He, Y.; Shao, J.; Sun, X.; Wang, C.; Liu, R.; Liu, H.; et al. Responses of biomass allocation to multi-factor global change: A global synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 304, 107115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Liu, R.; Yang, X.; Gao, R.; Hou, X.; Huo, L.; Huang, Z.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Vesk, P. Allometry rather than abiotic drivers explains biomass allocation among leaves, stems and roots of Artemisia across a large environmental gradient in China. J. Ecol. 2020, 109, 1026–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schellberg, J.; Pontes, L.d.S. Plant functional traits and nutrient gradients on grassland. Grass Forage Sci. 2012, 67, 305–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Midolo, G. Plant functional traits couple with range size and shape in European trees. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2024, 00, e13838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Wen, R.; Zhou, C.; Xu, L.; Xi, X. Mapping spatiotemporal changes in vegetation growth peak and the response to climate and spring phenology over Northeast China. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Duan, Y.; Yang, H.; Yang, H.; Wei, Z.; Che, J.; Wu, W.; Lyu, L.; Li, W. Physiological and morphological responses of blackberry seedlings to different nitrogen forms. Plants 2023, 12, 1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cheng, X.; Wang, R.; Liu, X.; Zhou, L.; Dong, M.; Rehman, M.; Fahad, S.; Liu, L.; Deng, G. Effects of light spectra on morphology, gaseous exchange, and antioxidant capacity of industrial hemp. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 937436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abid, M.; Ali, S.; Qi, L.K.; Zahoor, R.; Tian, Z.; Jiang, D.; Snider, J.L.; Dai, T. Physiological and biochemical changes during drought and recovery periods at tillering and jointing stages in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yang, L.; Lai, L.; Zhou, J.; Li, Q.; Yi, S.; Sun, Q.; Zheng, Y. Changes in levels of enzymes and osmotic adjustment compounds in key species and their relevance to vegetation succession in abandoned croplands of a semiarid sandy region. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 2269–2280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. He, Y.H.; Tian, Y.L.; Ye, D.M.; Qin, J.Q.; Huo, L.S. Model of aboveground biomass of Nitraria tangutorum and relationship between biomass and leaf area. J. Desert Rresearch 2005, 25, 541–546. [Google Scholar]
  74. Zhang, Y.; Cheng, J.; Su, J.; Cheng, J. Diversity-productivity relationship of plant communities in typical grassland during the long- term grazing exclusion succession. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2022, 46, 176–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pontes, L.D.S.; Soussana, J.F.; Louault, F.; Andueza, D.; Carrere, P. Leaf traits affect the above-ground productivity and quality of pasture grasses. Funct. Ecol. 2007, 21, 844–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Garnier, E.; Cortez, J.; Navas, M.-L.; Roumet, C.; Debussche, M.; Laurent, G.; Blanchard, A.; Aubry, D.; Bellmann, A.; Neill, C.; et al. Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecology 2004, 85, 2630–2637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Elger, A.; Willby, N.J. Leaf dry matter content as an integrative expression of plant palatability: The case of freshwater macrophytes. Funct. Ecol. 2003, 17, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Eviner, V.T.; Chapin Iii, F.S. Functional matrix: A conceptual framework for predicting multiple plant effects on ecosystem processes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 455–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ma, D.; He, Z.; Wang, L.; Zhao, W.; Chen, L.; Lin, P.; Zhao, P.; Wang, W.; Gao, Y.; Li, J. Soil water and salt migration in oasis farmland during crop growing season. J. Soils Sediments 2022, 23, 355–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, W. Vegetation and soil property response of short-time fencing in temperate desert of the Hexi Corridor, northwestern China. Catena 2015, 133, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhang, Y.; Tian, X.; Huang, P.; Yu, X.; Xiang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Gao, X.; Chen, Q.; Gu, Y. Biochemical and transcriptomic responses of buckwheat to polyethylene microplastics. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 899, 165587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Sun, Q.; Gilgen, A.K.; Wittwer, R.; von Arx, G.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Klaus, V.H.; Buchmann, N. Drought effects on trait space of winter wheat are independent of land management. New Phytol. 2024, 243, 591–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Zhao, M.; Sun, W.; Shen, H.; Niu, X.; Luo, Y.; Liang, C.; Li, Z.; Zheng, C.; Hu, H.; Ma, W. Models for estimating the biomass of 26 temperate shrub species in Inner Mongolia, China. Arid Zone Res. 2021, 36, 1219–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhang, C.; Niu, D.; Zhang, L.; Li, X.; Fu, H. Plant functional traits shape growth rate for xerophytic shrubs. Plant Biol. 2022, 24, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 13 02006 g001
Figure 1. The MDA content (A) and SPAD (B) of A. canescens under drought stress. MDA: malondialdehyde. SPAD: relative chlorophyll content. Heavy means heavy drought stress; feeble means feeble drought stress; non-stress means no drought stress. Florescence or seed mean at florescence or seed stage. Different letters above the error bar (a, b) in the same indicators at the same stage means a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). The same below.
Figure 1. The MDA content (A) and SPAD (B) of A. canescens under drought stress. MDA: malondialdehyde. SPAD: relative chlorophyll content. Heavy means heavy drought stress; feeble means feeble drought stress; non-stress means no drought stress. Florescence or seed mean at florescence or seed stage. Different letters above the error bar (a, b) in the same indicators at the same stage means a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). The same below.
Plants 13 02006 g001
Plants 13 02006 g002
Figure 2. The activity of antioxidant enzymes and osmotic adjustment substance content under drought stress. (A) SOD: superoxide dismutase; (B) POD: peroxidase; (C) CAT: catalase; (D) Pro: proline; (E) SS: soluble sugar. Different letters above the error bar (a, b) in the same indicators at the same stage mean a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 2. The activity of antioxidant enzymes and osmotic adjustment substance content under drought stress. (A) SOD: superoxide dismutase; (B) POD: peroxidase; (C) CAT: catalase; (D) Pro: proline; (E) SS: soluble sugar. Different letters above the error bar (a, b) in the same indicators at the same stage mean a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05).
Plants 13 02006 g002
Plants 13 02006 g003
Figure 3. The biomass (A) and biomass allocation ratio (B) under drought stress. Total means the biomass of all the organs; R/S means root/shoot ratio. Different letters above the error bar (a, b and c) in the same indicators at the same stage mean a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 3. The biomass (A) and biomass allocation ratio (B) under drought stress. Total means the biomass of all the organs; R/S means root/shoot ratio. Different letters above the error bar (a, b and c) in the same indicators at the same stage mean a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05).
Plants 13 02006 g003
Plants 13 02006 g004
Figure 4. The correlations between leaf biochemical traits, biomass and biomass allocation ratio. The mean of the indicators is as the same in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. The F after the leaf biochemical traits means at florescence stage; the S after leaf biochemical traits means at seed stage. The B after organs means biomass. The R after organs means biomass allocation ratio. * Means correlation significant at the 0.05 level (p ≤ 0.05); ** means correlation significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01). The same below.
Figure 4. The correlations between leaf biochemical traits, biomass and biomass allocation ratio. The mean of the indicators is as the same in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. The F after the leaf biochemical traits means at florescence stage; the S after leaf biochemical traits means at seed stage. The B after organs means biomass. The R after organs means biomass allocation ratio. * Means correlation significant at the 0.05 level (p ≤ 0.05); ** means correlation significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01). The same below.
Plants 13 02006 g004
Plants 13 02006 g005
Figure 5. The correlations between leaf morphological traits, biomass and biomass allocation ratio. The mean of the indicators is as the same in Figure 3 and Table 1. * Means correlation significant at the 0.05 level (p ≤ 0.05); ** means correlation significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01).
Figure 5. The correlations between leaf morphological traits, biomass and biomass allocation ratio. The mean of the indicators is as the same in Figure 3 and Table 1. * Means correlation significant at the 0.05 level (p ≤ 0.05); ** means correlation significant at the 0.01 level (p < 0.01).
Plants 13 02006 g005
Plants 13 02006 g006
Figure 6. Soil water content (SWC) of florescence stage (A) and seed stage (B) in different fields. Heavy means heavy drought stress; feeble means feeble drought stress; non-stress means no drought stress. Error bars represent standard deviation. The same below.
Figure 6. Soil water content (SWC) of florescence stage (A) and seed stage (B) in different fields. Heavy means heavy drought stress; feeble means feeble drought stress; non-stress means no drought stress. Error bars represent standard deviation. The same below.
Plants 13 02006 g006
Table 1. Leaf morphological traits of A. canescens under drought stress.
Table 1. Leaf morphological traits of A. canescens under drought stress.
Florescence StageSeed Stage
HeavyFeebleNon-StressHeavyFeebleNon-Stress
LL (10−2 m)2.65 ± 0.61 c4.56 ± 0.52 b5.67 ± 0.73 a2.87 ± 0.20 c4.62 ± 0.35 b5.12 ± 0.52 a
LW (10−2 m)0.50 ± 0.049 b0.68 ± 0.068 a0.78 ± 0.12 a0.48 ± 0.027 b0.68 ± 0.069 a0.72 ± 0.082 a
LT (10−2 m)0.044 ± 0.0019 b0.049 ± 0.0023 a0.047 ± 0.0040 ab0.043 ± 0.0033 b0.048 ± 0.0042 a0.050 ± 0.0022 a
LA (10−4 m2)0.92 ± 0.22 c2.25 ± 0.37 b3.06 ± 0.86 a0.90 ± 0.073 c1.78 ± 0.31 b2.13 ± 0.27 a
LI5.34 ± 1. 02 b6.68 ± 0.86 a7.31 ± 0.79 a5.97 ± 0.49 b6.88 ± 0.67 a7.18 ± 0.81 a
FW (10−3 g)51.09 ± 21.33 b112.134 ± 22.99 a127.42 ± 28.31 a40.23 ± 7.74 c62.39 ± 4.84 b78.75 ± 17.68 a
SFW (10−3 g)66.43 ± 16.77 b159.36 ± 28.25 a188.60 ± 55.01 a49.94 ± 11.59 c73.26 ± 5.21 b91.91 ± 20.91 a
DW (10−3 g)12.93 ± 4.25 b30.10 ± 5.18 a32.36 ± 8.95 a13.48 ± 4.40 b18.75 ± 2.33 ab22.91 ± 7.06 a
SLA
(10−4 m2 g−1)		73.68 ± 10.59 b76.36 ± 14.89 b94.86 ± 9.52 a73.00 ± 20.31 b97.16 ± 25.95 a 101.31 ± 27.36 a
LD
(106 g m−3)		0.31 ± 0.038 a 0.28 ± 0.043 a0.23 ± 0.0243 b0.35 ± 0.13 a0.22 ± 0.040 b0.22 ± 0.082b
LDMC (%)19.20 ± 2.46 a18.91 ± 1.27 a17.21 ± 0.82 a26.57 ± 3.43 a25.61 ± 2.69 a24.56 ± 2.15 a
SWC (%)80.80 ± 2.46 a81.09 ± 1.27 a82.79 ± 0.82 a73.43 ± 3.42 a74.39 ± 2.69 a75.44 ± 2.15 a
WC (%)73.50 ± 3.59 a72.84 ± 2.65 a74.13 ± 5.30 a67.17 ± 5.03 a69.90 ± 3.24 a71.30 ± 2.95 a
Heavy means heavy drought stress, feeble means feeble drought stress, non-stress means no drought stress. LL: leaf length; LW: leaf width; LT: leaf thickness; LA: leaf area; LI: leaf index; FW: fresh weight; SFW: saturated fresh weight; DW: dry weight; SLA: specific leaf area; LD: leaf density; LDMC: leaf dry matter content; SWC: saturated water content; WC: water content. The data are shown in mean ± SD. Different letters after the data (a, b and c) in the same indicators at the same stage mean significant difference (p ≤ 0.05). The same below.
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

Wang, S.; Zhou, H.; He, Z.; Ma, D.; Sun, W.; Xu, X.; Tian, Q. Effects of Drought Stress on Leaf Functional Traits and Biomass Characteristics of Atriplex canescens. Plants 2024, 13, 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13142006

AMA Style

Wang S, Zhou H, He Z, Ma D, Sun W, Xu X, Tian Q. Effects of Drought Stress on Leaf Functional Traits and Biomass Characteristics of Atriplex canescens. Plants. 2024; 13(14):2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13142006

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Shuai, Hai Zhou, Zhibin He, Dengke Ma, Weihao Sun, Xingzhi Xu, and Quanyan Tian. 2024. "Effects of Drought Stress on Leaf Functional Traits and Biomass Characteristics of Atriplex canescens" Plants 13, no. 14: 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13142006

APA Style

Wang, S., Zhou, H., He, Z., Ma, D., Sun, W., Xu, X., & Tian, Q. (2024). Effects of Drought Stress on Leaf Functional Traits and Biomass Characteristics of Atriplex canescens. Plants, 13(14), 2006. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13142006

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