Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drought tolerance in two perennial bunchgrasses used for restoration in the Intermountain West, USA

  • Published:
Plant Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An ideal restoration species for the semi-arid Intermountain West, USA would be one that grows rapidly when resources are abundant in the spring, yet tolerates summer’s drought. We compared two perennial C3, Triticeae Intermountain-native bunchgrasses, the widely occurring Pseudoroegneria spicata and the much less widespread Elymus wawawaiensis, commonly used as a restoration surrogate for P. spicata. Specifically, we evaluated seedlings of multiple populations of each species for biomass production, water use, and morphological and physiological traits that might relate to drought tolerance under three watering frequencies (WFs) in a greenhouse. Shoot biomass of E. wawawaiensis exceeded that of P. spicata regardless of WF. At low WF, E. wawawaiensis displayed 38% greater shoot biomass, 80% greater specific leaf area (SLA), and 32% greater precipitation use efficiency (PUE). One E. wawawaiensis population, E-46, displayed particularly high root biomass and water consumption at high WF. We suggest that such a plant material could be especially effective for restoration of Intermountain rangelands by preempting early-season weeds for spring moisture and also achieving high PUE. Our data explain how E. wawawaiensis has been so successful as a restoration surrogate for P. spicata and highlight the importance of measuring functional traits such as PUE and SLA when characterizing restoration plant materials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asay KH, Horton WH, Jensen KB, Palazzo AJ (2001) Merits of native and introduced Triticeae grasses on semiarid rangelands. Can J Plant Sci 81:45–52. doi:10.1080/713936115

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer JS (1995) Measuring the water status of plants and soils. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson JR, Barkworth ME (1997) Elymus wawawaiensis: a species hitherto confused with Pseudoroegneria spicata (Triticeae, Poaceae). Phytologia 83:312–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapin FS III, Autumn K, Pugnaire F (1993) Evolution of suites of traits in response to environmental stress. Am Nat 142:S78–S92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craufurd PQ, Wheeler TR, Ellis RH, Summerfield RJ, Williams JH (1999) Effect of temperature and water deficit on water-use efficiency, carbon isotope discrimination, and specific leaf area in peanut. Crop Sci 39:136–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daubenmire RF (1942) An ecological study of the vegetation of southeastern Washington and adjacent Idaho. Ecol Monogr 12:53–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández RJ, Reynolds JF (2000) Potential growth and drought tolerance of eight desert grasses: lack of a trade-off? Oecologia 123:90–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg D, Novoplansky A (1997) On the relative performance of competition in unproductive environments. J Ecol 85:409–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grime JP (2001) Plant strategies, vegetation processes, and ecosystem properties. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris GA (1967) Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum. Ecol Monogr 37:89–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris GA, Wilson AM (1970) Competition for moisture among seedlings of annual and perennial grasses as influenced by root elongation at low temperature. Ecology 51:530–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen R, Steffes L, Joy W, Brown P, Matzner S, Siemens DH (2008) Evolution of drought tolerance and defense: dependence of tradeoffs on mechanism, environment and defense switching. Oikos 117:231–244. doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16111.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt R, Cornelissen JHC (1997) Components of relative growth rate and their interrelations in 59 temperate plant species. New Phytol 135:395–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxman TE, Smith MD, Fay PA, Knapp AK, Shaw MR, Loik ME, Smith SD, Tissue DT, Zak JC, Weltzin JF, Pockmann WT, Sala OE, Haddad BM, Harte J, Kock GW, Schwinning S, Small EE, Williams DG (2004) Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency. Nature 429:651–654. doi:10.1038/nature02561

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Israelson OW, West FL (1922) Water holding capacity of irrigated soils. Utah Agric Exp Stn Res Bull 183:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • James JJ, Drenovsky RE (2007) A basis for relative growth rate differences between native and invasive forb seedlings. Rangeland Ecol Manage 60:395–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones HG (1992) Plants and microclimate: a quantitative approach to environmental plant physiology. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones TA, Nielson DC, Carlson JR (1991) Development of a grazing-tolerant native grass for revegetating bluebunch wheatgrass sites. Rangelands 13:147–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappen L, Valladares F (2007) Opportunistic growth and desiccation tolerance: the ecological success of poikilohydrous autotrophs. In: Pugnaire FI, Valladares F (eds) Functional plant ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 7–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer PJ, Boyer JS (1995) Water relations of plants and soils. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambers H, Chapin FS III, Pons TL (1998) Plant physiological ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert S (2006) Seed use by Bureau of Land Management. Available via DIALOG. http://www.nps.gov/plants/meetings/mohave2006/Lambert-Mohave2006.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2010

  • Monsen SB, Stevens R, Shaw NL (2004) Restoring western ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR 136, vol 2. U. S. Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado

  • Morrison KJ, Kelley CA (1981) Secar bluebunch wheatgrass. EB 0991. Washington State University, Cooperative Extension, Pullman

    Google Scholar 

  • Naeem S (2006) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in restored ecosystem: extracting principles for a synthetic perspective. In: Falk DA, Palmer MA, Zelder JB (eds) Foundation of restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogle D (2002a) Plant fact sheet: bluebunch wheatgrass. Available via DIALOG. http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_pssp6.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2010

  • Ogle D (2002b) Plant fact sheet: Snake River wheatgrass. Available via DIALOG. http://plants.usda.gov/factsheet/pdf/fs_elwa2.pdf. Accessed 17 Aug 2010

  • Pereira JS, Chaves MM (1993) Plant water deficits in Mediterranean ecosystems. In: Smith JAC, Griffiths H (eds) Plant water deficits: plant responses from cell to community. BIOS Scientific Publishers, Oxford, pp 237–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Garnier E (2007) Ecological significance of inherent variation in relative growth rate and its components. In: Pugnaire FI, Valladares F (eds) Functional plant ecology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 67–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorter H, Van der Werf A (1998) Is inherent variation in RGR determined by LAR at low irradiance and by NAR at high irradiance? A review of herbaceous species. In: Lambers H, Poorter H, Van Vuuren MMI (eds) Inherent variation in plant growth. Physiological mechanisms and ecological consequences. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 309–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez DA, Valladares F, Blasco A, Bellot J (2008) Effect of tussock size and soil water content on whole plant gas exchange in Stipa tenacissima L.: extrapolating from leaf versus modeling crown architecture. Env Exp Bot 62:376–388. doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryel RJ, Beyschlag W, Caldwell MM (1993) Foliage orientation and carbon gain in two tussock grasses as assessed with a new whole-plant gas-exchange model. Funct Ecol 7:115–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryser P (2006) The mysterious root length. Plant Soil 286:1–6. doi:10.1007/s11104-006-9096-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ryser P, Lambers H (1995) Root and leaf attributes accounting for the performance of fast- and slow-growing grasses at different nutrient supply. Plant Soil 170:251–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sack L, Grubb PJ (2002) The combined impact of deep shade and drought on the growth and biomass allocation of shade-tolerant woody seedlings. Oecologia 131:175–185. doi:10.1007/s00442-002-0873-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS (2003) SAS/STAT user’s guide, SAS Institute version 9.1, Cary, North Carolina

  • Songsri P, Jogloy S, Holbrook CC, Kesmala T, Vorasoot N, Akkasaeng C, Patanothai A (2009) Association of root, specific leaf area and SPAD chlorophyll meter reading to water use efficiency of peanut under different available soil water. Agr Water Manage 96:790–798. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2008.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westoby M, Cunningham SA, Fonseca CR, Overton JM, Wright IJ (1998) Phylogeny and variation in light capture area deployed per unit investment in leaves: designs for selecting study species with a view to generalizing. In: Lambers H, Poorter H, van Vuuren MMI (eds) Variation in plant growth rate and productivity of higher plants. Backhuys, Leiden, pp 539–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright GC, Rao NRC, Farquhar GD (1994) Water use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in peanut under water deficit conditions. Crop Sci 34:92–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Zhou G (2008) Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. J Exp Bot 59:3317–3325. doi:10.1093/jxb/ern185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Young JA, Allen FL (1997) Cheatgrass and range science: 1930–1950. J Range Manage 50:530–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Dale Nielson, Justin Williams, Brian Bell, Eamonn Leonard, Breanne Davis, Devin Vincent, and Tren Hagman for their technical support. We also thank Dr. Ron Ryel for his helpful advice and Susan Durham for her assistance with statistical analysis. We thank the two anonymous reviewers for improving the manuscript considerably.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jayanti Ray Mukherjee

    Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Program, Ecology Center, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Jayanti Ray Mukherjee

  2. Department of Wildland Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA

    Jayanti Ray Mukherjee & Peter B. Adler

  3. USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory, Logan, UT, USA

    Thomas A. Jones & Thomas A. Monaco

Authors
  1. Jayanti Ray Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas A. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter B. Adler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas A. Monaco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jayanti Ray Mukherjee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mukherjee, J.R., Jones, T.A., Adler, P.B. et al. Drought tolerance in two perennial bunchgrasses used for restoration in the Intermountain West, USA. Plant Ecol 212, 461–470 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-010-9837-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11258-010-9837-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation