Leaf water relations and structural traits of four temperate woody species occurring in serpentine and non‐serpentine soil

Abstract

Low water‐holding properties impose dry conditions on plants on serpentine soil. To test the hypothesis that leaf water relations are key plant characteristics to grow in serpentine soil, we compared these traits for four tree species (Quercus serrata, Clethra barbinervis, Magnolia obovata and Pieris japonica) growing in serpentine soil and brown forest (BF) soil. Despite a much lower soil moisture content, trees in the serpentine soil (S) plot showed similar predawn leaf water potential to trees in the BF plot in all species. Trees in the S plot showed higher drought tolerance or drought avoidance than trees in the BF plot. In the S plot, enhanced drought tolerance through osmoregulation was observed in Q. serrata and P. japonica, whereas decreased leaf capacitance was observed in C. barbinervis and Q. serrata. Decreased stomatal conductance, a typical way to avoid drought stress, was observed for serpentine C. barbinervis and M. obovata and midday leaf water potential was comparable between S and BF plots for C. barbinervis. Lamina dry mass per area was higher for C. barbinervis but lower for Q. serrata in the S plot. Wood density was higher in serpentine Q. serrata and M. obovata. On the other hand, all studied species showed lower leaf nitrogen concentration in the S plot. Our results suggest that (a) despite low water availability, the tress in the serpentine plot did not suffer drought stress, and (b) leaf water relations may be one of the traits that enabled trees to inhabit serpentine soil.

Leaf decomposition in a cool‐temperate broad‐leaved forest established on serpentine soil on Mount Oe, Japan

“…The pH was higher in the serpentine soil than in the non‐serpentine soil (Table ); a higher pH should lead to increased enzyme activities related to lignocellulose degradation (Sinsabaugh, Antibus, & Linkins, ), thus resulting in higher microbial activity (Andersson & Nilsson, ). Although water availability is lower in the serpentine soil than in the non‐serpentine soil (Kawai et al, ) and a drier soil is normally unfavorable for microbial activities (Schimel, Balser, & Wallenstein, ), we believe that the advantage of a higher pH in the serpentine soil outweighed the disadvantage of a drier soil. Therefore, exploring the influence of an edaphic condition on microbial activities in a serpentine ecosystem is important to better understand the role of microbes in leaf decomposition.…”

“…Loess deposition is observed in this region (Xiao, Kumai, Yoshikawa, Masuda, & An, ). The soil pH at the A and B horizons varied from 5.4 to 6.2 at the serpentine site and from 3.8 to 4.7 at the non‐serpentine site (Table ) (Kawai et al, ). The Ca:Mg ratio and the concentrations of C, N and P were lower in the serpentine soil than in the non‐serpentine soil (Kawai et al, ).…”

“…The soil pH at the A and B horizons varied from 5.4 to 6.2 at the serpentine site and from 3.8 to 4.7 at the non‐serpentine site (Table ) (Kawai et al, ). The Ca:Mg ratio and the concentrations of C, N and P were lower in the serpentine soil than in the non‐serpentine soil (Kawai et al, ). Some plant species like Clethra barbinervis Siebold & Zucc.…”

Response of Three Greek Populations of Aegilops triuncialis (Crop Wild Relative) to Serpentine Soil

“…Additional abiotic stresses may also often exist such as drought, low nutrient cycling rates, and shallow soil depth [ 40 ]. For example, there are many studies exploring the importance of drought tolerance to survival in serpentine soils [ 39 , 41 ]. High nickel concentration in plants, often reported in serpentine soils, has an impact on plant growth and produces symptoms of toxicity and often results in competition with other essential metal ions.…”