12.9.2012

1

The ability of birch to adapt to climateadapt to climate

changeMikko Anttonen

Metsäntutkimuslaitos Skogsforskningsinstitutet Finnish Forest Research Institute www.metla.fi

METLASuonenjoki

Contents

Climate change in FinlandHow will forests adaptAdaptability of Silver birch

How to take changing climate into account today?

12.9.2012

2

Climate Change

Climate is changing globally and it will affect everything. Major changes affecting tree growth include warming and changes in precipitation patterns

2010 – 2039 2070 - 2099CO2, ppm 434 655t change global, ˚ C 0.9 2.6t change FIN ˚ C 1 6 4 4

Looks good (?)

t change FIN, C 1.6 4.4Rainfall change FIN, % 5 17

averages, A1B scenario, reference 1971 – 2000

Effect of Climate Change on Forests

Longer growing season may increase forest productivity Some species like birch ma benefit moreSome species like birch may benefit moreMany risks related to climate change which can affect productivity.

12.9.2012

3

Challenges Caused by the Climate Change in Finland

What is expected in more details1. Temperature

Winter temperature will rise more than summerHeat spells during summer

2. RainfallIncrease especially during winterHeavy rains and uneven precipitation during summersummer

Water logging, heat stress, droughtFast changes: how will trees adapt?

Adaptability of Silver birch to Climate Change

Finnish Forest Research InstituteFinnish Academy of Sciences2010 20132010 – 2013Leader dos. Elina Vapaavuori

Mikko Anttonen (post doc) and Boy Possen (graduate student)

CollaboratorsProf. Elina Oksanen, University of Eastern FinlandProf. Toini Holopainen, University of Eastern FinlandProf. Ülo Niinemets, Estonian University of Life Sciences

12.9.2012

4

Aims of The Project

How will trees be able to adapt the fast changes caused by the climate change?Genetic ariation and phenot pic plasticit areGenetic variation and phenotypic plasticity are key factors for species survivalIncrease the understanding of genetic variation in adaptability of silver birch to changing climate1. Level of variation within a naturally regenerated y g

birch stand (Punkaharju, Finland)2. Variation in relation to adaptability to elevated

temperature and different soil moisture levels (controlled pot experiment)

Experiment 1: Within Population Variation

Common garden experiment , 1999, Punkaharju22 genotypes were randomly selected and clonedfrom a naturally regenerated birch stand nearbyfrom a naturally regenerated birch stand nearby15 genotypes in 4 blocks were selected based on above-ground biomass 2008Variation in relation to adaptability

12.9.2012

5

Experiment 2: Adaptability

Controlled experiment with same genotypesAmbient and Ambient + 1 temperaturesAmbient and Ambient + 1 temperaturesLimiting, optimal and excess waterHow do genotypes adapt?

Measurements

Several campaign during the growing season and continuous measurementsMan ph siological parametersMany physiological parameters

Photosynthesis Water useMorphologyGrowthStressStressPhenology

12.9.2012

6

Exp 1: Within Population Variation

Big differences in biomass production during 10 years of growthO tcome of gro th in ariable conditionsOutcome of growth in variable conditions

Higher biomass more adaptable?Traits explaining higher biomass

15 genotypes selected from a naturally regenerated birch stand were compared during 2 growing season (phenology 3 seasons) 4 and 3 times per season

Exp 1: Biomass Differences

0,4

40

45

r -1 )

Volume

HRGR (1999-2007)

0 1

0,2

0,3

15

20

25

30

35

hei

ght g

row

th ra

te (c

m c

m-1

year

Volu

me

(dm

3 )

0,0

0,1

0

5

10

23 19 5 26 3 12 6 30 17 24 22 16 15 7 2 25 18 14 8 20 4 9

Rel

ativ

e

Genotype

12.9.2012

7

Exp 1: Photosynthesis• Differences between genotypes in Pn generally small

25June 2011

10

15

20

Pn

(µm

ol C

O2

m-2

s-1 )

July 2011August 2011

0

5

23 19 26 3 12 17 24 22 16 2 25 18 14 8 4Genotype

Exp 1: Water Use Efficiency

• Genotypic differences in water use may be related to volume growth.

40

60

80

100

O2

m-2

s-1

/ mol

H2O

m-2

s-1 ) June 2011

July 2011August 2011

0

20

23 19 26 3 12 17 24 22 16 2 25 18 14 8 4

P n/g

s(µ

mol

CO

Genotype

12.9.2012

8

Exp 1: Leaves

• Small and light leaves may result in higher biomass– Small differences on leaf level may be important on a

canopy scale.

80

120

160

200S

LA (c

m2 /

g)20102011

0

40

Highest volume Intermediate Lowest volume

S

Growth group

Exp 1: Other Measured Parameters

No other evident differences that would correlate with biomass production (pending analyses)Phenolog meas rements ill be finished thisPhenology measurements will be finished this autumn

Does the length of the growing season have an effect (bud burst versus senescence)

Statistics models need still some fine tuning and all data together might reveal g g gsomething more

12.9.2012

9

Exp 2: Adaptability

Are genotypes with higher productivity (biomass) able to adapt better?

Controlled pot e perimentControlled pot experimentElevated temperature (+1 ˚C)Tree water levels (low, optimal, excess)Preliminary results support those from Exp 1

• All measured parameter and genotypes (no interactions) followed basically the same trend

Exp 2: Biomass 2011

interactions) followed basically the same trend• In ambient temperature conditions watering did not

have strong effect and in heated conditions normal watering led to higher biomass

Water Temp W x TTotal DW * (N > L = E) ns ***Stem DW ns ns ***Branch DW * (N > L = E) ns ***Leaf DW * (N > L = E) * (H > A) ***

12.9.2012

10

80

100

120 Total DW, g Ambient Heated

40

50

60 Stem DW, g Ambient Heated

Exp 2: Biomass 2011

0

20

40

60

Low Normal Excess0

10

20

30

Low Normal Excess

20

25 Branch DW, g

Ambient Heated

35

40

45 Leaves DW, g

Ambient Heated

0

5

10

15

Low Normal Excess0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Low Normal Excess

Exp 2: Genotype Differences

Category Parameter Min Max Max/MinPhotosynthesis Pn Ambient CO2 9.7 12.6 1.3

Pn Saturating CO2 12.64 15.72 1.2P A b / P S t 0 71 0 84 1 2Pn Amb / Pn Sat 0.71 0.84 1.2Fluorescence Yield 778 810 1.0

Water Leaf water potential -0.68 -0.89 1.3Conductance 0.35 0.64 1.9WUE 2.3 4.0 1.7Leaf water content 0.61 0.69 1.1

Morphology Single leaf area 42 71 1.7Single leaf DW 0.21 0.37 1.8Single leaf FW 0.60 1.08 1.8SLA 166 206 1.2Stomata 152 203 1 3Stomata 152 203 1.3Trichomes lower 203 514 2.5Trichomes upper 143 318 2.2Leaf thickness 0.09 0.12 1.2

Growth Diameter 12.6 14.1 1.1Height 122 161 1.3

Stress Ascorbic acid 0.14 0.18 1.3Lipid peroxidation 21.9 28.8 1.3

12.9.2012

11

Exp 2: Photosynthesis

• Net photosynthesis in ambient or saturating CO2 conditions or fluorescence yield parameter were y pnot affected by the treatments

• Total chlorophyll measurements show an interesting trend which will be further investigated

22.0

24.0

Total chlorophyll ‐ genotype 4

AL

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

6/26/2011 7/16/2011 8/5/2011 8/25/2011 9/14/2011

AN

AE

HL

HN

HE

• WUE– Low > Normal = Excess, P < 0.001, L/N = 1.55

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5WUE

Ambient Heated

Exp 2: Water use

Low Normal Excess, P 0.001, L/N 1.55– Heated > Ambient, P < 0.05, H/A = 1.12

• Conductance– Ambient > Heated, P < 0.001, A/H= 1.11– Normal > Excess > Low, P < 0.001, N/E = 1.11, N/L = 1.55

• Leaf water potential– Pressure bomb 1

1.2WP, MPa

Ambient Heated

0

0.5

1

1.5

Low Normal Excess

– Temperature * Water P < 0.001– Normal plants had highest leaf WC

Low keeps up with biomass productionwith efficient water control

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Low Normal Excess

12.9.2012

12

• Single leaf area– Normal watering and heating led to largest leaves

Exp 2: Leaf Morphology

g g g– Temperature, P < 0.05, H/A = 1.06– Water, P < 0.01, N/E = 1.08, N/L = 1.28

• Single leaf DW– Limited water led to lowest DW– Heating emphasised the differencebetween L and other treatments 0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4DW, g Ambient Heated

• SLA– L < N=E, P < 0.001, L/N = 1.16

Smaller leaves in low: protective adaptation?

0

0.05

0.1

Low Normal Excess

Exp 2: Other Measured Parameters

No differences between treatmentsSeveral analyses pendingData not ready from 2012Development of statistics models

12.9.2012

13

Conclusions

Changing climate challenges tree growth unlessthey are able to adaptThis porject aims to find mechanisms forThis porject aims to find mechanisms for adaptationThe focus has been in temperature and precipitationPreliminary results suggest that the ability to control water use and some leaf morphologicalcontrol water use and some leaf morphologicaltraits are important for adaptationIn general Silver birch seems to be growing welleven in challenging conditions

Mikko Anttonenmikko.anttonen@metla.fi

Elina Vapaavuorielina.vapaavuori@metla.fi