Search

Non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) in plant tissue are frequently quantified to make inferences about plant responses to environmental conditions. Laboratories publishing estimates of NSC of woody plants use many different methods to evaluate NSC. We asked whether NSC estimates in the recent literature could be quantitatively compared among studies. We also asked whether any differences among laboratories were related to the extraction and quantification methods used to determine starch and sugar concentrations. These questions were addressed by sending sub-samples collected from five woody plant tissues, which varied in NSC content and chemical composition, to 29 laboratories. Each laboratory analyzed the samples with their laboratory-specific protocols, based on recent publications, to determine concentrations of soluble sugars, starch and their sum, total NSC. Laboratory estimates differed substantially for all samples. For example, estimates for Eucalyptus globulus leaves (EGL) varied from 23 to 116 (mean = 56) mg g(-1) for soluble sugars, 6-533 (mean = 94) mg g(-1) for starch and 53-649 (mean = 153) mg g(-1) for total NSC. Mixed model analysis of variance showed that much of the variability among laboratories was unrelated to the categories we used for extraction and quantification methods (method category R(2) = 0.05-0.12 for soluble sugars, 0.10-0.33 for starch and 0.01-0.09 for total NSC). For EGL, the difference between the highest and lowest least squares means for categories in the mixed model analysis was 33 mg g(-1) for total NSC, compared with the range of laboratory estimates of 596 mg g(-1). Laboratories were reasonably consistent in their ranks of estimates among tissues for starch (r = 0.41-0.91), but less so for total NSC (r = 0.45-0.84) and soluble sugars (r = 0.11-0.83). Our results show that NSC estimates for woody plant tissues cannot be compared among laboratories. The relative changes in NSC between treatments measured within a laboratory may be comparable within and between laboratories, especially for starch. To obtain comparable NSC estimates, we suggest that users can either adopt the reference method given in this publication, or report estimates for a portion of samples using the reference method, and report estimates for a standard reference material. Researchers interested in NSC estimates should work to identify and adopt standard methods., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Summary: Trees may survive prolonged droughts by shifting water uptake to reliable water sources, but it is unknown if the dominant mechanism involves activating existing roots or growing new roots during drought, or some combination of the two.To gain mechanistic insights on this unknown, a dynamic root‐hydraulic modeling framework was developed that set up a feedback between hydraulic controls over carbon allocation and the role of root growth on soil–plant hydraulics. The new model was tested using a 5 yr drought/heat field experiment on an established piñon‐juniper stand with root access to bedrock groundwater.Owing to the high carbon cost per unit root area, modeled trees initialized without adequate bedrock groundwater access experienced potentially lethal declines in water potential, while all of the experimental trees maintained nonlethal water potentials. Simulated trees were unable to grow roots rapidly enough to mediate the hydraulic stress, particularly during warm droughts. Alternatively, modeled trees initiated with root access to bedrock groundwater matched the hydraulics of the experimental trees by increasing their water uptake from bedrock groundwater when soil layers dried out.Therefore, the modeling framework identified a critical mechanism for drought response that required trees to shift water uptake among existing roots rather than growing new roots. See also the Commentary on this article by Santiago, 225: 599–600. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]