Ecology of Water Relations in Plants

Abstract

Water is an important and often limiting resource for plant growth. Water can influence plant growth and functioning as a direct resource, or indirectly by influencing availability of other resources such as nutrients and oxygen. Availability of water in soil can be quantified in a number of ways, namely as amount of water stored in soil; as depth of water level from soil surface; duration of specific water level through time; or frequency of occurrence of specified water levels in a set duration of time. Plants are sensitive to water availability and have developed sensing and adaptation strategies to ensure competitive and survival success. Variation in water availabilities can determine the distribution and interaction of plants by influencing their response, thereby establishing a basis for niche differentiation.

Key Concepts:

  • Water is fundamental to plant growth and function.

  • Water can exert its influence in plant growth and distribution directly, as a resource or indirectly by influence on availability of other resources such as nutrients and oxygen.

  • Availability of water for plant use is determined by soil texture, structure and meteorological drivers such as evaporation.

  • Appropriate quantification of water availability is important to study its influence on plant growth and distribution.

  • Water can determine coexistence of species in a community through niche differentiation along existing hydrological gradients.

Keywords: hydrological niche; plant–water relations; water deficit; waterlogging; measuring water availability

Figure 1.

Moisture, total net productivity and plant species diversity of selected vegetation communities, along an elevation gradient from Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona (after Whittaker and Niering, ). The elevation gradient ranges from 1000 to 3000 m above sea level. The moisture index relates to precipitation ranges of 190 mm per annum (moisture index 8) and 850 mm per annum (moisture index 1).

Figure 2.

Schematic summary of the processes that influence the relationship between plants and soil water.

Figure 3.

Soil water availability and soil aeration availability for two representative sandy (solid line) and clayey (broken line) soils. Soil water contents on volume basis is shown against soil water potential (suction) and against air‐filled pore space (volume of pore space not occupied by water).

Figure 4.

Distribution of coexisting plant species from a dehesa meadow in Salamanca, Western Spain along water table depth gradient (broken lines indicate 95% confidence intervals). Water table depth (in metres) from ground surface was measured over the growing season and averaged (i.e. low values indicate wet soils whereas high values indicate dry soils). Distribution models were made using Generalised Additive Modelling (GAM) approach, accounting for spatial correlation structure (Zuur et al., ).

Figure 5.

Distributions of eight sedge species showing differentiation in niche space defined by hydrological axes on a fine‐scale gradient. The x‐axis depicts increasing soil drying stress, whereas the y‐axis shows increasing flooding (i.e. aeration) stress (see Section ‘Water Stress and Plants’ for explanation). The vertically hatched area in each graph shows the range of possible hydrological regimes and the solid area indicates the zone in which the species occurs significantly more frequently than by chance. Data reproduced from Gowing et al., .

close

References

Araya YN, Gowing DJ and Dise N (2013) Does soil nitrogen availability mediate the response of grassland composition to water regime? Journal of Vegetation Science 24(3): 506–517.

Araya YN, Silvertown J, Gowing DJ et al. (2011) A fundamental, eco‐hydrological basis for niche segregation in plant communities. New Phytologist 189: 253–258.

Castelli RM, Chambers JC and Tausch R (2000) Soil‐plant relations along a soil‐water gradient in great basin riparian meadows. Wetlands 20: 251–266.

Davies WJ and Gowing DJG (1999) Plant responses to small perturbations in soil water status. In: Press MC, Scholes JD and Barker MG (eds) Plant Physiological Ecology, vol. 39, pp. 67–89. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Dyer JA (2009) Assessing topographic patterns in moisture use and stress using a water balance approach. Landscape Ecology 24: 391–403.

February EC, Matimati I, Hedderson TA and Musil CF (2013) Root niche partitioning between shallow rooted succulents in a South African semi desert: implications for diversity. Plant Ecology 214: 1181–1187.

Gowing D, Lawson C, Youngs E et al. (2002) The Water Regime Requirements and the Response to Hydrological Change of Grassland Plant Communities: DEFRA Commissioned Project BD1310. Final report to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Cranfield University, Silsoe.

Hartung W and Davies WJ (1991) Drought‐induced changes in physiology and ABA. In: Davies WJ and Jones HG (eds) Abscisic Acid Physiology and Biochemistry, pp. 63–79. Oxford: BIOS Science Publications Ltd.

Henson IE, Jensen CR and Turner NC (1989) Leaf gas exchange and water relations of lupins and wheat. I Shoot responses to soil water deficits. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 16: 401–413.

MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical Ecology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Neill C (1990) Effects of nutrients and water levels on emergent macrophyte biomass in a prairie marsh. Canadian Journal of Botany 68: 1007–1014.

Norwood M, Toldi O, Richter A and Scott P (2003) Investigation into the ability of roots of the poikilohydric plant Craterostigma plantagineum to survive dehydration stress. Journal of Experimental Botany 54(391): 2313–2321.

Piedallu C, Gégout JC, Perez V and Lebourgeois FO (2013) Soil water balance performs better than climatic water variables in tree species distribution modelling. Global Ecology and Biogeography 22: 470–482.

Rodriguez‐Iturbe I and Porporato A (2004) Ecohydrology of Water‐Controlled Ecosystems: Soil Moisture and Plant Dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scott P (2000) Resurrection plants and the secrets of eternal leaf. Annals of Botany 85: 159–166.

Seneviratne SI, Corti T, Davin EL et al. (2010) Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth‐Science Reviews 99: 125–161.

Silvertown J, Dodd ME, Gowing DJG and Mountford JO (1999) Hydrologically defined niches reveal a basis for species richness in plant communities. Nature 400: 61–63.

Taiz L and Zeiger E (1998) Plant Physiology, 2nd edn. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Tilman D (1988) Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Webb JA, Wallis EM and Stewardson MJ (2012) A systematic review of published evidence linking wetland plants to water regime components. Aquatic Botany 103: 1–14.

Wesseling J and van Wijk WR (1957) Soil physical conditions in relation to drain depth. In: Luthin JN (ed.) Drainage in Agricultural Lands, pp. 461–504. Madison, WI: American Society for Agronomy.

Whittaker RH and Niering WA (1975) Vegetation of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona. V. Biomass, production, and diversity along the elevation gradient. Ecology 56: 771–790.

Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA and Smith GM (2009) Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Statistics for Biology and Health. New York, NY: Springer.

Further Reading

Archibold OW (1995) Ecology of World Vegetation. London: Chapman & Hall.

Eamus D, Hatton T, Cook P and Colvin C (2006) Ecohydrology: Vegetation Function, Water and Resource Management. Collingwood, VIC: CSIRO Publishing.

Ellenberg H (1988) Vegetation Ecology of Central Europe, 4th edn. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Etherington JR and William A (1976) Environment and Plant Ecology. London: Wiley.

Grime JP, Hodgson JG and Hunt R (1988) Comparative Plant Ecology A Functional Approach to Common British Species. London: Unwin Hyman.

Lambers H, Stuart Chapin F III and Pons TL (1998) Plant Physiological Ecology. New York, NY: Springer New York, Inc.

Proctor MCF and Tuba Z (2002) Poikilohydry and homoihydry: antithesis or spectrum of possibilities? New Phytologist 156: 327–349.

Smith JAC and Griffiths H (1993) Water Deficits Plant Responses from Cell to Community. Oxford: BIOS Scientific.

Vicca S, Gilgen AK, Serrano MC et al. (2012) Urgent need for a common metric to make precipitation manipulation experiments comparable. New Phytologist 195: 518–522.

Contact Editor close
Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

How to Cite close
Araya, Yoseph Negusse, and Garcia‐Baquero, Gonzalo(Aug 2014) Ecology of Water Relations in Plants. In: eLS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester. http://www.els.net [doi: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0003201.pub2]