Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 28;11(1):545.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14300-5.

Low growth resilience to drought is related to future mortality risk in trees

Affiliations

Low growth resilience to drought is related to future mortality risk in trees

Lucía DeSoto et al. Nat Commun. .

Abstract

Severe droughts have the potential to reduce forest productivity and trigger tree mortality. Most trees face several drought events during their life and therefore resilience to dry conditions may be crucial to long-term survival. We assessed how growth resilience to severe droughts, including its components resistance and recovery, is related to the ability to survive future droughts by using a tree-ring database of surviving and now-dead trees from 118 sites (22 species, >3,500 trees). We found that, across the variety of regions and species sampled, trees that died during water shortages were less resilient to previous non-lethal droughts, relative to coexisting surviving trees of the same species. In angiosperms, drought-related mortality risk is associated with lower resistance (low capacity to reduce impact of the initial drought), while it is related to reduced recovery (low capacity to attain pre-drought growth rates) in gymnosperms. The different resilience strategies in these two taxonomic groups open new avenues to improve our understanding and prediction of drought-induced mortality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Spatial and climatic ranges of the study.
a Geographical distribution and b Whittaker biome classification for the study sites. The angiosperm (orange) and gymnosperm (green) tree species included in the analysis are depicted (see Supplementary Data 1 for the description of the populations).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Differences in resilience, resistance and recovery between now-dead and surviving trees.
a Differences in resilience between now-dead and surviving trees. Differences in b resistance and c recovery between now-dead and surviving trees as a function of the taxonomic group (angiosperms vs. gymnosperms). The data are presented as model-adjusted, back-transformed least-square means ± 95% confidence intervals (Table 1). Resilience, resistance and recovery indices were computed from tree-ring width (TRW) series of surviving (grey squares) and now-dead (red squares) trees. Asterisks indicate significant pairwise differences in least square means between now-dead and surviving trees (t or χ2 test in LMM: *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001). Panels are separated by taxonomic group only when differences between angiosperms and gymnosperms are significant (Table 1). Source data are available in Digital.CSIC repository (10.20350/digitalCSIC/10536).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Growth patterns before, during and after the drought event studied (year = 0) for angiosperms and gymnosperms.
Data are presented as the average of log ratio between tree-ring width (TRW) at a given year and the average growth for the 4-year pre-drought period for surviving (black lines) and now-dead (red lines) trees. Shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals of the means from bootstrapping (1000 resamplings). Source data are available in Digital.CSIC repository (10.20350/digitalCSIC/10536).

References

    1. Pan Y, et al. A large and persistent carbon sink in the world’s forests. Science. 2011;333:988–993. doi: 10.1126/science.1201609. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ilstedt U, et al. Intermediate tree cover can maximize groundwater recharge in the seasonally dry tropics. Sci. Rep. 2016;6:21930. doi: 10.1038/srep21930. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonan GB. Forests, climate, and public policy: a 500-year interdisciplinary Odyssey. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2016;47:97–121. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032359. - DOI
    1. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. How are the world’s forests changing? (FAO, 2016).
    1. Houghton RA, Nassikas AA. Negative emissions from stopping deforestation and forest degradation, globally. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017;38:42–49. - PubMed