干旱胁迫下温带与亚热带森林非结构性碳水化合物(NSC)与生长之间的优先级分析

吴苗苗, 崔钰雪, 陈奕兆

南京林业大学学报(自然科学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (5) : 108-118.

PDF(2861 KB)
PDF(2861 KB)
南京林业大学学报(自然科学版) ›› 2026, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (5) : 108-118. DOI: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202601021
专题报道Ⅱ:森林生态系统水分调控与水土保持功能(执行主编 张金池 姜姜)

干旱胁迫下温带与亚热带森林非结构性碳水化合物(NSC)与生长之间的优先级分析

作者信息 +

Effects of drought stress on structural growth and non-structural carbohydrate dynamics in temperate and subtropical forests: a Meta-analysis

Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

【目的】通过全面评估干旱胁迫对树木非结构性碳水化合物(NSC)动态和生长的影响,加深对树木应对环境胁迫响应规律及其潜在调节机制的理解。【方法】以温带和亚热带森林生态系统为对象,通过文献梳理,系统收集现有同时观测树木NSC与结构性生长的干旱胁迫实验结果,采用整合分析(Meta-analysis)方法,定量评估不同功能类型树种对干旱的响应规律,并探讨该响应与干旱强度及持续时间之间的关系。【结果】①树木在干旱胁迫下通常表现为维持NSC浓度并显著降低生长速率的响应规律。其中,地上部分NSC浓度基本稳定,淀粉向可溶性糖的转化趋势增强,而根系NSC显著上升;径向生长、树高增量和总生物量累积在干旱胁迫下分别降低36.68%、50.07%和28.64%;②不同叶习性树木呈现出响应差异:落叶树种主要表现出枝条和根系NSC增加,生物量分配向根系倾斜;常绿树种地上器官NSC维持稳定,根系中出现更加明显的淀粉向可溶性糖转化的趋势,生物量累积在不同器官的分配受干旱影响较落叶树种更小;③干旱强度与持续时间影响部分功能器官NSC与生长动态:干旱强度主要影响根系与树干淀粉浓度和生物量累积等指标,呈显著负相关关系;干旱持续时间与树干生物量累积呈显著负相关,与根系生物量累积呈正相关关系。【结论】树木在干旱胁迫下普遍采取限制生长、提升或维持NSC储备的保守策略,因此碳储存的优先级通常较结构性生长更高;碳分配则倾向于向根系转移,以维持水分获取能力和基本代谢过程,从而增强树木对水分胁迫的耐受性。本研究有助于深化对树木碳分配动态在干旱等不利环境条件下调节机制的认识,并为预测未来气候变化情景下森林碳汇能力提供依据和参考。

Abstract

【Objective】This study aims to enhance the understanding of tree response patterns to environmental stresses and their underlying regulatory mechanisms by comprehensively assessing the effects of drought stress on non-structural carbohydrate (NSC) dynamics and growth in trees.【Method】Existing drought stress experiments that simultaneously observed tree NSC indicators and growth were systematically collected. Using meta-analysis, the response patterns of different functional tree types to drought were quantitatively evaluated, and the relationships between these responses and drought intensity as well as duration were explored.【Result】(1)Trees under drought stress generally maintained nonstructural carbohydrate (NSC) concentrations while significantly reducing growth rates. Specifically, aboveground NSC remained stable, and the conversion of starch to soluble sugar was promoted,whereas root NSC increased significantly. Radial growth, tree height increment, and total biomass accumulation decreased by 36.68%, 50.07%, and 28.64%, respectively; (2) Responses varied by different leaf habit tree species: deciduous trees showed increased NSC in branches and roots with biomass allocation shifting toward roots, while evergreen trees maintained stable above ground NSC but exhibited more pronounced starch to sugar conversion in roots, with less drought impact on biomass allocation among organs;(3) Drought intensity and duration affect the starch and growth dynamics of some functional organs: Drought intensity mainly affects the starch concentration and biomass accumulation of roots and stems, showing a significant negative correlation; while drought duration is significantly negatively correlated with stem biomass accumulation, but positively correlated with root biomass accumulation. 【Conclusion】Under drought stress, trees generally adopt a conservative strategy of restricting growth and enhancing or maintaining NSC reserves, so the priority of carbon storage is usually higher than that of structural growth; carbon allocation tends to shift to roots to maintain water acquisition ability and basic metabolic processes, thereby enhancing the tree’s tolerance to water stress. This study helps deepen the understanding of the dynamic regulation mechanism of carbon allocation in trees under drought, and provides a basis and reference for predicting the carbon sink capacity of forests under future climate change scenarios.

关键词

功能型树种 / 干旱胁迫 / 非结构性碳水化合物 / 生长 / 整合分析 / 森林碳汇

Key words

functional tree types / drought stress / non-structural carbohydrates / growth / Meta analysis / forest carbon sink

引用本文

导出引用
吴苗苗, 崔钰雪, 陈奕兆. 干旱胁迫下温带与亚热带森林非结构性碳水化合物(NSC)与生长之间的优先级分析[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版). 2026, 50(5): 108-118 https://doi.org/10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202601021
Wu Miaomiao, Cui Yuxue, Chen Yizhao. Effects of drought stress on structural growth and non-structural carbohydrate dynamics in temperate and subtropical forests: a Meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Nanjing Forestry University (Natural Sciences Edition). 2026, 50(5): 108-118 https://doi.org/10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202601021
中图分类号: S718   

参考文献

[1]
Dai A G. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2013, 3(1):52-58. DOI:10.1038/nclimate1633.
[2]
Wolf S, Paul-Limoges E. Drought and heat reduce forest carbon uptake[J]. Nature Communications, 2023, 14:6217. DOI:10.1038/s41467-023-41854-x.
[3]
Allen C D, Macalady A K, Chenchouni H, et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2010, 259(4):660-684. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.001.
[4]
Jafarnia S, Akbarinia M, Hosseinpour B, et al. Effect of drought stress on some growth,morphological,physiological,and biochemical parameters of two different populations of Quercus brantii[J]. IForest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2018, 11(2):212-220. DOI:10.3832/ifor2496-010.
[5]
Grassi G, Magnani F. Stomatal,mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis as affected by drought and leaf ontogeny in ash and oak trees[J]. Plant,Cell & Environment, 2005, 28(7):834-849. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01333.x.
[6]
Flexas J, Ribas-Carbó M, Diaz-Espejo A, et al. Mesophyll conductance to CO2:current knowledge and future prospects[J]. Plant,Cell & Environment, 2008, 31(5):602-621. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01757.x.
[7]
Pinheiro C, Chaves M M. Photosynthesis and drought:can we make metabolic connections from available data?[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2011, 62(3):869-882. DOI:10.1093/jxb/erq340.
[8]
Woodruff D R, Meinzer F C. Water stress,shoot growth and storage of non-structural carbohydrates along a tree height gradient in a tall conifer[J]. Plant,Cell & Environment, 2011, 34(11):1920-1930. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02388.x.
[9]
Bouche P S, Larter M, Domec J C, et al. A broad survey of hydraulic and mechanical safety in the xylem of conifers[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2014, 65(15):4419-4431. DOI:10.1093/jxb/eru218.
[10]
Choat B. Predicting thresholds of drought-induced mortality in woody plant species[J]. Tree Physiology, 2013, 33(7):669-671. DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpt046.
[11]
Chen L, Yang A Q, Li N, et al. Climate-driven divergence between leaf and stem phenology constrains carbon dynamics in trees[PP/OL]. Version 1. Research Square (2025-11-13)[2026-08-17]. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7912136/v1.
[12]
Eckes-Shephard A H, Tiavlovsky E, Chen Y Z, et al. Direct response of tree growth to soil water and its implications for terrestrial carbon cycle modelling[J]. Global Change Biology, 2021, 27(1):121-135. DOI:10.1111/gcb.15397.
[13]
He W Q, Liu H Y, Qi Y, et al. Patterns in nonstructural carbohydrate contents at the tree organ level in response to drought duration[J]. Global Change Biology, 2020, 26(6):3627-3638. DOI:10.1111/gcb.15078.
[14]
Doughty C E, Metcalfe D B, Girardin C A J, et al. Drought impact on forest carbon dynamics and fluxes in Amazonia[J]. Nature, 2015, 519(7541):78-82. DOI:10.1038/nature14213.
[15]
Zhang P P, Zhou X H, Fu Y L, et al. Differential effects of drought on nonstructural carbohydrate storage in seedlings and mature trees of four species in a subtropical forest[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2020, 469:118159. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118159.
[16]
Lauder J D, Moran E V, Hart S C. Fight or flight?Potential tradeoffs between drought defense and reproduction in conifers[J]. Tree Physiology, 2019, 39(7):1071-1085. DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpz031.
[17]
Maguire A J, Kobe R K. Drought and shade deplete nonstructural carbohydrate reserves in seedlings of five temperate tree species[J]. Ecology and Evolution, 2015, 5(23):5711-5721. DOI:10.1002/ece3.1819.
[18]
Lin X Y, Wu C X, Zhang K K, et al. Hydraulic strategy defines contrasting responses to an abrupt precipitation during a successive lethal drought[J]. BMC Plant Biology, 2024, 24(1):1143. DOI:10.1186/s12870-024-05859-y.
[19]
McDowell N, Pockman W T, Allen C D, et al. Mechanisms of plant survival and mortality during drought:why do some plants survive while others succumb to drought?[J]. The New Phytologist, 2008, 178(4):719-739. DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02436.x.
[20]
Munné-Bosch S, Alegre L. Die and let live:leaf senescence contributes to plant survival under drought stress[J]. Functional Plant Biology, 2004, 31(3):203-216. DOI:10.1071/FP03236.
[21]
Pittermann J, Sperry J S, Hacke U G, et al. Torus-Margo pits help conifers compete with angiosperms[J]. Science, 2005, 310(5756):1924. DOI:10.1126/science.1120479.
[22]
Choat B, Jansen S, Brodribb T J, et al. Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought[J]. Nature, 2012, 491(7426):752-755. DOI:10.1038/nature11688.
[23]
Secchi F, Zwieniecki M A. Sensing embolism in xylem vessels:the role of sucrose as a trigger for refilling[J]. Plant,Cell & Environment, 2011, 34(3):514-524. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-3040.2010.02259.x.
[24]
Sevanto S. Phloem transport and drought[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2014, 65(7):1751-1759. DOI:10.1093/jxb/ert467.
[25]
Wang W F, Shang J Z, Gao T H, et al. Nitrogen addition enhanced carbon assimilation and biomass accumulation in poplar seedlings under moderate drought but not severe drought[J]. Industrial Crops and Products, 2025, 229:121040. DOI:10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.121040.
[26]
Wang X, Zheng W L, Ma X Z, et al. Biochar aggravates the negative effect of drought duration on the growth and physiological dynamics of Pinus massoniana[J]. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2023, 11:1166538. DOI:10.3389/fevo.2023.1166538.
[27]
金胶胶, 宋子文, 马晓雨, 等. 大青杨对不同干旱胁迫强度的形态和生理响应[J]. 植物研究, 2019, 39(4):490-496.
Jin J J, Song Z W, Ma X Y, et al. Morphological and physiological responses of Populus ussuriensis Kom.to drought stress[J]. Bulletin of Botanical Research, 2019, 39(4):490-496. DOI:10.7525/j.issn.1673-5102.2019.04.002.
[28]
Wang Z G, Zhou Z H, Wang C K. Defoliation-induced tree growth declines are jointly limited by carbon source and sink activities[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 762:143077. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143077.
[29]
Li W B, Hartmann H, Adams H D, et al. The sweet side of global change-dynamic responses of non-structural carbohydrates to drought,elevated CO2 and nitrogen fertilization in tree species[J]. Tree Physiology, 2018, 38(11):1706-1723. DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpy059.
[30]
Du Y, Lu R L, Xia J Y. Impacts of global environmental change drivers on non-structural carbohydrates in terrestrial plants[J]. Functional Ecology, 2020, 34(8):1525-1536.
[31]
Zhou G Y, Zhou X H, Zhang T, et al. Biochar increased soil respiration in temperate forests but had no effects in subtropical forests[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2017, 405:339-349. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2017.09.038.
[32]
Alex Thompson R. A neutral theory of plant carbon allocation[J]. Tree Physiology, 2024,44:tpad151. DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpad151.
[33]
Wan Y F, Yu P T, Wang Y H, et al. More tree growth reduction due to consecutive drought and its legacy effect for a semiarid larch plantation in Northwest China[J]. Journal of Forestry Research, 2024, 35(1):39. DOI:10.1007/s11676-023-01691-6.
[34]
Wang Z G, Wang C K. Dynamics of nonstructural carbohydrates during drought and subsequent recovery:a global meta-analysis[J]. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2025, 363:110429. DOI:10.1016/j.agrformet.2025.110429.
[35]
Aranda I, Cadahía E, Specific leaf metabolic changes that underlie adjustment of osmotic potential in response to drought by four Quercus species[J]. Tree Physiology, 2021, 41(5):728-743. DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpaa157.
[36]
Galvez D A, Landhäusser S M, Tyree M T. Root carbon reserve dynamics in aspen seedlings:does simulated drought induce reserve limitation?[J]. Tree Physiology, 2011, 31(3):250-257. DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpr012.
[37]
Eziz A, Yan Z B, Tian D, et al. Drought effect on plant biomass allocation:a meta-analysis[J]. Ecology and Evolution, 2017, 7(24):11002-11010. DOI:10.1002/ece3.3630.
[38]
Burghardt M, Riederer M. Ecophysiological relevance of cuticular transpiration of deciduous and evergreen plants in relation to stomatal closure and leaf water potential[J]. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2003, 54(389):1941-1949. DOI:10.1093/jxb/erg195.
[39]
Jin X, Zimmermann J, Polle A, et al. Auxin is a long-range signal that acts independently of ethylene signaling on leaf abscission in Populus[J]. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2015, 6:634. DOI:10.3389/fpls.2015.00634.
[40]
Guan X Y, Jansen S, Huang L X, et al. Evergreen species exhibit higher growth resistance under drought:insights from carbon-water relations[J]. Tree Physiology, 2025, 45(11):tpaf115. DOI:10.1093/treephys/tpaf115.
[41]
Zhang Z Q, Zhou L Y, Lu C Y, et al. Drought-induced decrease in tree productivity mainly mediated by the maximum growth rate and growing-season length in a subtropical forest[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 2024, 563:121985. DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2024.121985.

基金

国家重点研发计划(2023YFD2200404)

责任编辑: 孟苗婧
PDF(2861 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/

〈 〉