Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2017, 65(2), 411-418 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201765020411

Hooker's or Warty Barberry? Physiological Background Analysis for Choosing the Right one into Ornamental Plantations Endangered by Drought

Peter Ferus1, Dominika Bo¹iaková1,2, Jana Konôpková1, Peter Ho»ka1, Jan-Hendrik Keet3
1 Mlyòany Arboretum, Institute of Forest Ecology SAS, Vieska nad ®itavou 178, 95152 Slepèany, Slovakia
2 Department of Botany and Genetics, University of Constantine the Philosopher, Nábre¾ie mláde¾e 91, 94974 Nitra, Slovakia
3 Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Matieland 7602, South Africa

Barberries as undemanding shrubs with high aesthetic value are often planted in city parks and street greeneries. However, severe urban environment combined with climate change puts pressure on these plants in terms of their ability to cope with drought. In order to avoid plantation fall-offs, a common garden experiment was carried out on the drought tolerance of two Asian barberry species, namely Hooker's barberry (Berberis hookeri Lem.) and warty barberry (Berberis verruculosa Hemsl. and Wils.). Higher leaf relative water content, postponed but more sensitive stomatal closure (decrease in stomatal conductivity for water) as well as osmotic adjustment (free proline accumulation) and antioxidant defence onset (total antioxidant activity of the hydrophilic phase), and faster photosynthetic pigment decomposition in Hooker's barberry transplants compared to warty barberry, point to better water management and advanced protection of leaf structures in this species under limited soil moisture. Moreover, warty barberry plants with half total leaf area suffered from drought earlier, because of enhanced soil water loss through evaporation. Thus, Hooker's barberry can be taken as more drought tolerant than its counterpart, therefore making it more suitable for plantings in areas that are prone to this environmental constraint.

Keywords: barberry, drought tolerance, leaf anatomy, stomatal conductivity, osmotic adjustment, total antioxidant activity
Grants and funding:

This work was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency under projects VEGA [2/0159/11] and VEGA [2/0183/14].

Prepublished online: April 30, 2017; Published: May 1, 2017  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Ferus, P., Bo¹iaková, D., Konôpková, J., Ho»ka, P., & Keet, J. (2017). Hooker's or Warty Barberry? Physiological Background Analysis for Choosing the Right one into Ornamental Plantations Endangered by Drought. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 65(2), 411-418. doi: 10.11118/actaun201765020411
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ACHTEN, W. M. J., MAES, W. H., REUBENS, B., MATHIJS, E., SINGH, V. P., VERCHOT, L. and MUYS, B. 2010. Biomass production and allocation in Jatropha curcas L. seedlings under different level of drought stress. Biomass and Bioenergy, 34: 667-676. DOI: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.01.010 Go to original source...
    2. AUGÉ, R. M., STODOLA, A. J. W., MOORE, J. L., KLINGEMAN, W. E. and DUAN, X. G. 2003. Comparative dehydration tolerance of foliage of several ornamental crops. Scientia Horticulturae, 98: 511-516. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4238(03)00037-2 Go to original source...
    3. BARROS, V. 2006. Global climate change [in Czech: Globální zmìna klimatu]. 1st Edition. Praha: Mladá fronta.
    4. BATES, L. S., WALDREN, R. P. and TEARI, D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39: 205-207. DOI: 10.1007/BF00018060 Go to original source...
    5. BEAN, W. J. 1970. Trees and shrubs. Hardy in British Islands. London: John Murray.
    6. BRÉDA, N., HUC, R., GRANIER, A. and DREYER, E. 2006. Temperate forest trees and stands under severe drought: a review of ecophysiological responses, adaptation processes and long-term consequences. Annals of Forest Science, 63: 625-644. DOI: 10.1051/forest:2006042 Go to original source...
    7. CAMERON, R., HARRISON-MURRAY, R., FORDHAM, M., WILKINSON, S., DAVIES, W., ATKINSON, C. and ELSE, M. 2008. Regulated irrigation of woody ornamentals to improve plant quality and precondition against drought stress. Annals of Applied Biology, 153: 49-61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2008.00237.x Go to original source...
    8. ENNAJEH, M., VADEL, A. M., COCHARD, H. and KHEMIRA, H. 2010. Comparative impacts of water stress on the leaf anatomy of a drought-resistant and a drought-sensitive olive cultivar. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology, 85(4): 289-294. DOI: 10.1080/14620316.2010.11512670 Go to original source...
    9. HOFMANN, M. H. A. 2010. List of names of woody plants. Wageningen: Lisse.
    10. HO«KA, P. and BARTA, M. 2012. Inventory of the living collections of the Mlyòany Arboretum SAS. Bratislava: Veda.
    11. HO«KA, P. and KONÔPKOVÁ, J. 2009. Past, presence and perspectives of evergreen and half-deciduous woody plant introduction in conditions of Mlyòany Arboreum SAS. In: Dendrological days in Mlyòany Arboretum SAS 2009. Vieska nad ®itavou: Mlyòany Arboretum, 16 - 21.
    12. JIANG, C., LUO, D. and WANG, L. 2011. Drought-resistant characteristics of leaf structures of five shrub in semi-arid region of Tibet. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 4.
    13. KOSMA, D. K., BOURDENX, B., BERNARD, A., PARSONS, E. P., LÜ, S., JOUBÈS, J. and JENKS, M. A. 2009. The impact of water deficiency on leaf cuticle lipids of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology, 151: 1918-1929. DOI: 10.1104/pp.109.141911 Go to original source...
    14. KRÓL, A., AMAROWICZ, R. and WEIDER, S. 2014. Changes in the composition of phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties of grapevine roots and leaves (Vitis vinifera L.) under continuous long-term drought stress. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 36(6): 1491 - 1499. DOI: 10.1007/s11738-014-1526-8 Go to original source...
    15. KULIKOV, G. V. and DOMANSKAYA, E. N. 1972. Studies on drought-resistance and frost-hardiness of evergreen barberries in the Crimea. The growth, development and resistance biology of ornamental wood plants. Trud. Gos. Ord. Trud. Kras. Znam. Nikit. Bot. Sada., 55(27): 27-42.
    16. LAFERRIÈRE, J. E. 1992. Cultural and environmental responses to drought among the mountain Pima. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 28(1-2): 1-9. DOI: 10.1080/03670244.1992.9991256 Go to original source...
    17. LEUZINGER, S., VOGT, R. and KÖRNER, C. 2010. Tree surface temperature in an urban environment. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 150: 56-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2009.08.006 Go to original source...
    18. LICHTENTHALER, H. K. 1987. Chlorophylls and carothenoids: Pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods in Enzymology, 148: 350-382. DOI: 10.1016/0076-6879(87)48036-1 Go to original source...
    19. LIU, C. C., LIU, Y. G., KE, G., FAN, D. Y., LI, G. Q. and ZHENG, Y. R. 2011. Effect of drought on pigments, osmotic adjustment and antioxidant enzymes in six woody plant species in karst habitats of southwestern China. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 71: 174-183. DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.11.012 Go to original source...
    20. LLORET, F., CASANOVAS, C. and PEÑUELAS, J. 1999. Seedling survival of Mediterranean shrubland species in relation to root:shoot ratio, seed size and water and nitorgen use. Functional Ecology, 13: 210-216. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2435.1999.00309.x Go to original source...
    21. LOEWENSTEIN, N. J. and PALLARDY, S. G. 1998. Drought tolerance, xylem sap abscisic acid and stomatal conductance during soil drying: a comparison of canopy trees of three temperate deciduous angiosperms. Tree Physiology, 18: 431-439. DOI: 10.1093/treephys/18.7.431 Go to original source...
    22. MUNNÉ-BOSCH, S., ALEGRE, L. 2004. Die and let live: leaf senecsence contributes to plant survival under drought stress. Functional Plant Biology, 31: 203-216. DOI: 10.1071/FP03236 Go to original source...
    23. NÌMEC B. 1962. Botanical microtechnique [in Czech: Botanická mikrotechnika]. Praha: ÈSAV.
    24. PELLEGRINI, N., RE, R., MIN, Y. and RICE-EVANS, C. 1999. Screening of dietary carotenoids and carotenoid-rich fruit extracts for antioxidant activities applying 2,2'azinobis (3-ethylenebenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic) acid radical cation decolorization assay. Methods in Enzymology, 299: 379-389. DOI: 10.1016/S0076-6879(99)99037-7 Go to original source...
    25. PERI, P. L., ARENA, M., MARTÍNEZ-PASTUR, G. and LENCINAS, M. V. 2011. Photosynthetic response to different light intensities, water status and leaf age of two Berberis species (Berberidaceae) of Patagonian steppe, Argentina. Journal of Arid Environment, 75: 1218-1222. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2011.06.003 Go to original source...
    26. PIETZARKA, U. 2016. Acceptance for urban trees: Environmental education programs. In: ROLOFF, A. (Ed.) Urban tree management for the sustainable development of green cities. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 262-270.
    27. ROLOFF, A., KORN, S. and GILLNER, S. 2009. The Climate-Species-Matrix select tree species for urban habitats considering climate change. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8: 295-308. DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2009.08.002 Go to original source...
    28. SLAVÍK, B. 1965. Methods in plant relations studies [in Czech: Metody studia vodního provozu rostlin]. Praha: ÈSAV.
    29. SOFO, A., MANFREDA, S., FIORENTINO, M. and XILOYANNIS, C. 2008. The olive tree: a paradigm for drought tolerance in Mediterranean climates. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12: 293-301. DOI: 10.5194/hess-12-293-2008 Go to original source...
    30. ©ESTÁK, Z. and ÈATSKÝ, J. 1966. Methods in photosynthetic production studies [in Czech: Metody studia fotosyntetické produkce rostlin]. Praha: Academia.
    31. TAN, X. 2013. Physiological characteristics and drought resistance evaluation of five common shrubs. Journal of Northwest Forestry University, 2.
    32. WONG, N. H. and CHEN, Y. 2010. The role of urban greenery in high density cities. In: NG, E. (Ed.) Designing high-density cities for social and environmental sustainability. London: Cromwell Press, 227-262.
    33. XU, Z. and ZHOU, G. 2008. Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. Journal of Experimental Botany, 59: 3317-3325. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ern185 Go to original source...
    34. XU Z., LIU J., XU J., ZHI T. and YIN X. 2012. The study on drought resistance of roof greening woody plants. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 1.
    35. ZOLLINGER, N., KJELGREN, R., CERNY-KOENIG, T., KOPP, K. and KOENIG, R. 2006. Drought responses of six ornamental herbaceous perennials. Scientia Horticulturae, 109: 267-274. DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2006.05.006 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content