Focus on Water: Leaf Shrinkage with Dehydration: Coordination with Hydraulic Vulnerability and Drought Tolerance

Leaf shrinkage with dehydration has attracted attention for over 100 years, especially as it becomes visibly extreme during drought. However, little has been known of its correlation with physiology. Computer simulations of the leaf hydraulic system showed that a reduction of hydraulic conductance of the mesophyll pathways outside the xylem would cause a strong decline of leaf hydraulic conductance (K_leaf). For 14 diverse species, we tested the hypothesis that shrinkage during dehydration (i.e. in whole leaf, cell and airspace thickness, and leaf area) is associated with reduction in K_leaf at declining leaf water potential (Ψ_leaf). We tested hypotheses for the linkage of leaf shrinkage with structural and physiological water relations parameters, including modulus of elasticity, osmotic pressure at full turgor, turgor loss point (TLP), and cuticular conductance. Species originating from moist habitats showed substantial shrinkage during dehydration before reaching TLP, in contrast with species originating from dry habitats. Across species, the decline of K_leaf with mild dehydration (i.e. the initial slope of the K_leaf versus Ψ_leaf curve) correlated with the decline of leaf thickness (the slope of the leaf thickness versus Ψ_leaf curve), as expected based on predictions from computer simulations. Leaf thickness shrinkage before TLP correlated across species with lower modulus of elasticity and with less negative osmotic pressure at full turgor, as did leaf area shrinkage between full turgor and oven desiccation. These findings point to a role for leaf shrinkage in hydraulic decline during mild dehydration, with potential impacts on drought adaptation for cells and leaves, influencing plant ecological distributions.As leaves open their stomata to capture CO₂ for photosynthesis, water is lost to transpiration, which needs to be replaced by flow through the hydraulic system. The leaf hydraulic system has two components, which act essentially in series: the pathways for water movement through the xylem from the petiole to leaf minor veins, and those through the living bundle sheath and mesophyll cells to the sites of evaporation (Tyree and Zimmermann, 2002; Sack et al., 2004; Sack and Holbrook, 2006). The decline in leaf hydraulic conductance (K_leaf) with dehydration may thus depend on both components. The importance of the xylem component is well established. Vein xylem embolism and cell collapse have been observed in dehydrating leaves (Salleo et al., 2001; Cochard et al., 2004a; Johnson et al., 2009), and computer modeling and experimental work showed that species with high major vein length per leaf area (VLA; i.e. for the first three vein-branching orders) were more resistant to hydraulic decline, providing more pathways around embolisms (Scoffoni et al., 2011). However, the physical impacts of dehydration on the extraxylem pathways have not been studied, even though in turgid leaves these pathways account for 26% to 88% of leaf hydraulic resistance (i.e. of 1/K_leaf), depending on species (Sack et al., 2003a; Cochard et al., 2004b). The aim of this study was to determine whether leaf shrinkage during dehydration relates to the decline of K_leaf as well as the structural determinants of leaf shrinkage.The shrinkage of leaves with dehydration has drawn attention for over 100 years. Leaves shrink in their area (Bogue, 1892; Gardner and Ehlig, 1965; Jones, 1973; Tang and Boyer, 2007; Blonder et al., 2012) and, considered in relative terms, even more strongly in their thickness (Fig. 1; Meidner, 1952; Gardner and Ehlig, 1965; Downey and Miller, 1971; Syvertsen and Levy, 1982; Saini and Rathore, 1983; Burquez, 1987; McBurney, 1992; Sancho-Knapik et al., 2010, 2011). Leaves fluctuate in thickness daily and seasonally according to transpiration (Kadoya et al., 1975; Tyree and Cameron, 1977; Fensom and Donald, 1982; Rozema et al., 1987; Ogaya and Peñuelas, 2006; Seelig et al., 2012). Indeed, the relation of leaf thickness to water status is so tight that using leaf thickness to guide irrigation has led to water savings of up to 45% (Seelig et al., 2012).Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Sketches of a fully turgid leaf (A) versus a strongly dehydrated leaf (B; drawings based on leaf cross sections of sunflower in Fellows and Boyer, 1978). Note the strong reduction in leaf thickness, cell thickness, and intercellular airspaces in the dehydrated leaf. Epidermal cells are shrunk in the dehydrated leaf, inducing whole-leaf area shrinkage. Note that this sketch represents shrinkage for a typical drought-sensitive species. Many species such as oaks (Quercus spp.) will experience less thickness shrinkage and an increase in intercellular airspace (see “Discussion”). See online article for color version of this figure.]Previous studies of leaf shrinkage with progressive dehydration have tended to focus on single or few species. These studies showed that thickness declines with water status in two phases. Before the bulk leaf turgor loss point (TLP; leaf water potential Ψ_leaf] at TLP) is reached, the slope of leaf thickness versus Ψ_leaf or relative water content (RWC) is shallower than past TLP for most species (Meidner, 1955, Kennedy and Booth, 1958, Burquez, 1987, McBurney, 1992, Sancho-Knapik et al., 2010, 2011). This is because before TLP, declining Ψ_leaf is strongly driven by declines in turgor pressure, which have a relatively low impact on cell and airspace volume, whereas past the TLP, declining Ψ_leaf depends only on solute concentration, which increases in inverse proportion as cell water volume declines while airspaces may shrink or expand (Tyree and Hammel, 1972, Sancho-Knapik et al., 2011). However, the steepness of the slope of leaf thickness versus Ψ_leaf before TLP seems to vary strongly across species (Meidner, 1955; Kennedy and Booth, 1958; Fellows and Boyer, 1978; Burquez, 1987; Colpitts and Coleman, 1997; Sancho-Knapik et al., 2010).A high leaf cell volume and turgor is crucial to physiological processes (Boyer, 1968; Lawlor and Cornic, 2002). Shrinkage may affect cell connectivity and water transport (Sancho-Knapik et al., 2011). However, no studies have tested for a possible relationship of leaf shrinkage with the decline of K_leaf during dehydration. Such an association would arise if, across species, shrinkage occurred simultaneously with vein xylem embolism or if tissue shrinkage led to declines in the extraxylem hydraulic conductance.To refine our hypotheses, we modified a computer model of the leaf hydraulic system (Cochard et al., 2004b; McKown et al., 2010; Scoffoni et al., 2011) to predict the impact of losses of xylem and extraxylem conductance on the response of K_leaf to dehydration. We characterized the degree of leaf shrinkage in thickness, in the thickness of cells and airspaces within the leaf, and in leaf area for 14 species diverse in phylogeny, leaf traits, and drought tolerance. We hypothesized that loss of extraxylem hydraulic conductance should have a greater impact on K_leaf at less negative water potentials when xylem tensions are too weak to trigger embolism and induce dramatic declines in K_leaf. We hypothesized that species with greater degrees of shrinkage before TLP would experience greater loss of K_leaf. Furthermore, we hypothesized that species from moist habitats would have greater degrees of shrinkage.For insight into the mechanisms and consequences of leaf shrinkage, we also investigated the relationships of 18 indices of leaf shrinkage with a wide range of aspects of leaf structure and composition, including gross morphology, leaf venation architecture, parameters of pressure-volume curves, and leaf water storage. We hypothesized that, across species, shrinkage in whole leaf, cell, and intercellular airspace thickness would be lower for species with greater allocation to structural rigidity and osmotic concentration, and thus shrinkage would be positively correlated with a lower modulus of elasticity (ε), less negative osmotic pressure at full turgor (π_o), lower leaf mass per area (LMA), and lower leaf density. Additionally, we tested the longstanding hypothesis that species with higher major VLA and/or minor VLA (i.e. the fourth and higher vein-branching orders) would shrink less in area and/or thickness with dehydration (Gardner and Ehlig, 1965). Finally, we tested the ability of dehydrated leaves to recover in size with rehydration. We hypothesized that recovery would be greater for mildly than for strongly dehydrated leaves and that species with greater leaf shrinkage would be better able to recover from shrinkage.