Bundle sheath extensions are linked to water relations but not to mechanical and structural properties of leaves

Author

• Kiyosada KawaiEmail author
• Rintaro Miyoshi 
• Naoki Okada

1. 1.

Original Article

First Online: 

06 April 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s00468-017-1540-8

Cite this article as:

Kawai, K., Miyoshi, R. & Okada, N. Trees (2017). doi:10.1007/s00468-017-1540-8

Abstract

Key message

Bundle sheath extensions (BSEs) are linked to leaf gas exchange and drought tolerance but not to leaf mechanical and structural properties across species from a cool temperate forest.

Abstract

Bundle sheath extensions (BSEs) account for the physiological differences between heterobaric and homobaric species. The boundary that divides these two groups, however, has been elusive; and the contribution of BSEs to leaf mechanical properties is not yet fully understood. Here, we quantified the density of BSEs (DBSE) and evaluated whether it contributes to the leaf mechanical properties and water relations across species, and if so, how it does this. We studied 15 woody species that had different leaf functional types and DBSE from a cool temperate forest. We quantified four leaf mechanical properties, eight traits related to water relations, and seven structural traits of the leaf and stem. Density of BSEs was independent of leaf mechanical and structural properties and C/N concentration across species. Conversely, DBSE was correlated positively with stomatal conductance, and negatively with leaf water potential at turgor loss and midday water potential across species. Our results demonstrate that BSEs are associated with key leaf physiological properties, including gas exchange and drought tolerance, and are independent of leaf mechanical and structural properties. Thus, variation in DBSE could provide a basis for explaining the ecological strategies and distributions of different tree species.

Keywords

Bundle sheath extensions (BSEs) Cool temperate forest Drought tolerance Leaf mechanical properties Heterobaric leaf Homobaric leaf 

Communicated by E. Beck.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00468-017-1540-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Supplementary material

468_2017_1540_MOESM1_ESM.docx (52 kb)

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 51 KB)

References

1. Ackerly DD (2000) Taxon sampling, correlated evolution, and independent contrasts. Evol Int J org Evol 54:1480–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ando M, Noborio H, Kubota J, Kawanabe S (1989) Analysis of the meteorological data in Ashiu (1) Compare the observation data of Jimusho at about 360 m and Chojidani at 640 m above sea level. Bull Kyoto Univ For 61:25–45 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
3. Anten NP, Alcala-Herrera R, Schieving F, Onoda Y (2010) Wind and mechanical stimuli differentially affect leaf traits in Plantago major. New Phytol 188:554–564CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
4. Balsamo RA, Bauer AM, Davis SD, Rice BM (2003) Leaf biomechanics, morphology, and anatomy of the deciduous mesophyte Prunus serrulata (Rosaceae) and the evergreen sclerophyllous shrub Heteromeles arbutifolia (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 90:72–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
5. Balsamo RA, Willigen CV, Bauer AM, Farrant J (2006) Drought tolerance of selected Eragrostis species correlates with leaf tensile properties. Ann Bot 97:985–991CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
6. Bates LM, Hall AE (1982) Diurnal and seasonal responses of stomatal conductance for cowpea plants subjected to different levels of environmental drought. Oecologia 54:304–308CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
7. Beyschlag W, Pfanz H (1990) A fast method to detect the occurrence of nonhomogeneous distribution of stomatal aperture in heterobaric plant leaves: experiments with Arbutus-Unedo L during the diurnal course. Oecologia 82:52–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
8. Boyce CK, Brodribb TJ, Feild TS, Zwieniecki MA (2009) Angiosperm leaf vein evolution was physiologically and environmentally transformative. Proc R Soc B 276:1771–1776CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
9. Brodribb TJ, Holbrook MN (2004) Stomatal protection against hydraulic failure: a comparison of coexisting ferns and angiosperms. New Phytolo 162:663–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Brodribb TJ, Holbrook NM, Edwards EJ, Gutierrez MV (2003) Relations between stomatal closure, leaf turgor and xylem vulnerability in eight tropical dry forest trees. Plant Cell Environ 26:443–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Brodribb TJ, Feild TS, Jordan GJ (2007) Leaf maximum photosynthetic rate and venation are linked by hydraulics. Plant Physiol 144:1890–1898CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
12. Brodribb TJ, Jordan GJ, Carpenter RJ (2013) Unified changes in cell size permit coordinated leaf evolution. New Phytol 199:559–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
13. Buckley TN, Sack L, Gilbert ME (2011) The role of bundle sheath extensions and life form in stomatal responses to leaf water status. Plant Physiol 156:962–973CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
14. Choong M, Lucas P, Ong J, Pereira B, Tan H, Turner I (1992) Leaf fracture toughness and sclerophylly: their correlations and ecological implications. New Phytol 121:597–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Coley PD (1983) Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecol Monogr 53:209–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Esau K (1977) Anatomy of seed plants, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
17. Escoto-Rodríguez M, Facelli JM, Watling JR (2014) Do wide crowns in arid woodland trees reflect hydraulic limitation and reduction of self-shading? Funct Plant Biol 41:1221–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Farquhar GD, Ehleringer JR, Hubick KT (1989) Carbon Isotope Discrimination and Photosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 40:503–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Group for the Study on Ecology of Natural Forest (1972) Vegetation of the natural forest of Kyoto University Forest in Ashiu. Bull Kyoto Univ For 43:33–52 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
20. Hacke UG, Sperry JS (2001) Functional and ecological xylem anatomy. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 4:97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Hacke UG, Sperry JS, Pockman WT, Davis SD, McCulloh KA (2001) Trends in wood density and structure are linked to prevention of xylem implosion by negative pressure. Oecologia 126:457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Hao GY, Sack L, Wang AY, Cao KF, Goldstein G (2010) Differentiation of leaf water flux and drought tolerance traits in hemiepiphytic and non-hemiepiphytic Ficus tree species. Funct Ecol 24:731–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Inoue Y, Kenzo T, Tanaka-Oda A, Yoneyama Y, Ichie T (2015) Leaf water use in heterobaric and homobaric leafed canopy tree species in a Malaysian tropical rain forest. Photosynthetica 53:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Jacobsen AL, Pratt RB, Ewers FW, Davis SD (2007) Cavitation resistance among 26 chaparral species of southern California. Ecol Monogr 77:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Jones MB, Muthuri FM (1984) The diurnal course of plant water potential, stomatal conductance and transpiration in a papyrus (Cyperus Papyrus L) canopy. Oecologia 63:252–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
26. Kamakura M, Kosugi Y, Takanashi S, Matsumoto K, Okumura M, Philip E (2011) Patchy stomatal behavior during midday depression of leaf CO2 exchange in tropical trees. Tree Physiol 31:160–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
27. Karabourniotis G, Bornman JF, Nikolopoulos D (2000) A possible optical role of the bundle sheath extensions of the heterobaric leaves of Vitis vinifera and Quercus coccifera. Plant Cell Environ 23:423–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Kashimura S, Hiromi T, Ninomiya I (2000) The leaf anatomical structure of broadleaf plant. Homobaric leaf and heterobaric leaf. Bull Ehime Univ For 38:23–36 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
29. Kenzo T, Ichie T, Watanabe Y, Hiromi T (2007) Ecological distribution of homobaric and heterobaric leaves in tree species of Malaysian lowland tropical rainforest. Am J Bot 94:764–775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
30. Kitajima K, Poorter L (2010) Tissue-level leaf toughness, but not lamina thickness, predicts sapling leaf lifespan and shade tolerance of tropical tree species. New Phytol 186:708–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
31. Kitajima K, Llorens AM, Stefanescu C, Timchenko MV, Lucas PW, Wright SJ (2012) How cellulose-based leaf toughness and lamina density contribute to long leaf lifespans of shade-tolerant species. New Phytol 195:640–652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
32. Koch GW, Sillett SC, Jennings GM, Davis SD (2004) The limits to tree height. Nature 428:851–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
33. Lawson T, Morison J (2006) Visualising patterns of CO2 diffusion in leaves. New Phytol 169:641–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
34. Liakoura V, Fotelli MN, Rennenberg H, Karabourniotis G (2009) Should structure-function relations be considered separately for homobaric vs. heterobaric leaves? Am J Bot 96:612–619CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
35. Lucas PW, Turner IM, Dominy NJ, Yamashita N (2000) Mechanical defences to herbivory. Ann Bot 86:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Lynch DJ, McInerney FA, Kouwenberg LL, Gonzalez-Meler MA (2012) Plasticity in bundle sheath extensions of heterobaric leaves. Am J Bot 99:1197–1206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
37. McElwain JC, Yiotis C, Lawson T (2016) Using modern plant trait relationships between observed and theoretical maximum stomatal conductance and vein density to examine patterns of plant macroevolution. New Phytol 209:94–103CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
38. Morison J, Lawson T (2007) Does lateral gas diffusion in leaves matter? Plant Cell Environ 30:1072–1085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
39. Mott KA, Shope JC, Buckley TN (1999) Effects of humidity on light-induced stomatal opening: evidence for hydraulic coupling among stomata. J Exp Bot 50:1207–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Nikolopoulos D, Liakopoulos G, Drossopoulos I, Karabourniotis G (2002) The relationship between anatomy and photosynthetic performance of heterobaric leaves. Plant Physiol 129:235–243CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
41. Onoda Y, Westoby M, Adler PB, Choong AM, Clissold FJ, Cornelissen JH, Diaz S, Dominy NJ, Elgart A, Enrico L et al (2011) Global patterns of leaf mechanical properties. Ecol Lett 14:301–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
42. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K (2004) APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. Bioinformatics 20:289–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
43. Pieruschka R, Schurr U, Jensen M, Wolff WF, Jahnke S (2006) Lateral diffusion of CO2 from shaded to illuminated leaf parts affects photosynthesis inside homobaric leaves. New Phytol 169:779–787CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
44. Pieruschka R, Chavarria-Krauser A, Schurr U, Jahnke S (2010) Photosynthesis in lightfleck areas of homobaric and heterobaric leaves. J Exp Bot 61:1031–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
45. R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
46. Rasband WS (2008) ImageJ. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
47. Read J, Stokes A (2006) Plant biomechanics in an ecological context. Am J Bot 93:1546–1565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
48. Reich PB (2014) The world-wide ‘fast-slow’ plant economics spectrum: a traits manifesto. J Ecol 102:275–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Sack L, Frole K (2006) Leaf structural diversity is related to hydraulic capacity in tropical rain forest trees. Ecology 87:483–491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
50. Sack L, Holbrook NM (2006) Leaf hydraulics. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57:361–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
51. Schulte PJ, Hinckley TM (1985) A comparison of pressure-volume curve data analysis techniques. J Exp Bot 36:1590–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52. Seibt U, Rajabi A, Griffiths H, Berry JA (2008) Carbon isotopes and water use efficiency: sense and sensitivity. Oecologia 155:441–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
53. Sommerville KE, Sack L, Ball MC (2012) Hydraulic conductance of Acacia phyllodes (foliage) is driven by primary nerve (vein) conductance and density. Plant Cell Environ 35:158–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
54. Takanashi S, Kosugi Y, Matsuo N, Tani M, Ohte N (2006) Patchy stomatal behavior in broad-leaved trees grown in different habitats. Tree Physiol 26:1565–1578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
55. Terashima I (1992) Anatomy of nonuniform leaf photosynthesis. Photosynth Res 31:195–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
56. Tyree MT, Hammel HT (1972) The measurement of the turgor pressure and the water relations of plants by the pressure-bomb technique. J Exp Bot 23:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Webb CO, Donoghue MJ (2005) Phylomatic: tree assembly for applied phylogenetics. Mol Ecol Notes 5:181–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. West JD, Peak D, Peterson JQ, Mott KA (2005) Dynamics of stomatal patches for a single surface of Xanthium strumarium L. leaves observed with fluorescence and thermal images. Plant Cell Environ 28:633–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Westbrook JW, Kitajima K, Burleigh JG, Kress WJ, Erickson DL, Wright SJ (2011) What makes a leaf tough? Patterns of correlated evolution between leaf toughness traits and demographic rates among 197 shade-tolerant woody species in a neotropical forest. Am Nat 177:800–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
60. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M et al (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
61. Wylie RB (1943) The role of the epidermis in foliar organization and its relations to the minor venation. Am J Bot 30:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. Wylie RB (1952) The bundle sheath extension in leaves of dicotyledons. Am J Bot 39:645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63. Zanne AE, Tank DC, Cornwell WK, Eastman JM, Smith SA, FitzJohn RG, McGlinn DJ, O’Meara BC, Moles AT, Reich PB et al (2014) Three keys to the radiation of angiosperms into freezing environments. Nature 506:89–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
64. Zsogon A, Negrini AC, Peres LE, Nguyen HT, Ball MC (2015) A mutation that eliminates bundle sheath extensions reduces leaf hydraulic conductance, stomatal conductance and assimilation rates in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). New Phytol 205:618–626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
65. Zwieniecki MA, Brodribb TJ, Holbrook NM (2007) Hydraulic design of leaves: insights from rehydration kinetics. Plant Cell Environ 30:910–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

For further details log on website :
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00468-017-1540-8