Physiological response analysis for the diagnosis of drought and waterlogging damage in Prunus yedoensis

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters from OKJIP test.

Parameters	Description
Selected OJIP parameters
VJ	Relative variable fluorescence at the J-step
Vk	Relative variable fluorescence at the k-step
Mo	Approximated initial slope (in ms–1) of the fluorescence transient V = f(t)
ECo/ABS	Electron carriers per ABS at t = 0
Yields or flux ratios
ΦPO (=TRo/ABS)	Probability that an absorbed photon leads to reduction further than QA
ΦEO (=ETo/ABS)	Probability that an absorbed photon leads to electron transport further than QA
ΨO (=ETo/TRo)	probability that an absorbed photon leads to reduction of QA
RE0/ET0	Efficiency with which an electron can move from the reduced intersystem electron acceptors to the PSI end electron acceptors
Specific fluxes or activities per reaction center
ABS/RC	Absorption flux per reaction center
TR0/RC	Trapped energy flux per reaction center at t = 0
ET0/RC	Electron transport flux from QA to QB per reaction center at t = 0
DI0/RC	Energy dissipation flux per reaction center at t = 0
RE0/RC	Electron transport flux until PSI acceptors per reaction center at t = 0
Density of reaction centers
RC/CSo	Amount of active PSII RCs per CS at t = 0
Vitality indexes
PIabs	Performance index on absorption basis.
DFabs	Driving force on absorption basis.
SFIabs	The structure function index on absorption basis.

Figure 1. Changes of temperature (a), relative humidity (b), vapor pressure deficit (c) and soil water contents (d) during the experimental period.

Figure 2. Changes in maximum photosynthesis rate (a), stomatal transpiration rate (b), stomatal conductance (c), instantaneous transpiration efficiency (d), intrinsic water use efficiency (e) and ratio of intercellular to atmospheric CO₂ concentration (f) of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions. Each value is expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 5). DAT: days after treatment.

Table 2. Repeated measures ANOVA for maximum photosynthesis rate (A), stomatal transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (g_s), instantaneous transpiration efficiency (ITE), intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi) and ratio of intercellular to atmospheric CO₂ concentration (Ci/Ca) of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions.

source	A		E		gs		ITE		WUEi		Ci/Ca
	F	P	F	P	F	P	F	P	F	P	F	P
DAT	166.39	0.00**	14.69	0.00**	33.42	0.00**	17.16	0.00**	12.99	0.00**	11.85	0.00**
Treatment	237.72	0.00**	75.51	0.00**	59.31	0.00**	3.15	0.08 ^ns	3.34	0.07 ^ns	2.13	0.16 ^ns
D × T	60.55	0.00**	26.18	0.00**	28.91	0.00**	13.28	0.00**	15.82	0.00**	14.27	0.00**

Note. DAT: days after treatment. **p ≤ 0.001; ns: non-significance.

Table 3. Changes in maximum carboxylation rate (V_cmax), maximum electron transport rate (J_max) and CO₂ compensation point (Γ) of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions.

DAT	Vcmax (µmol m^−2 s^−1)			Jmax (µmol m^−2 s^−1)			r (µmol m^−2 s^−1)
	Control	DS	WL	control	DS	WL	control	DS	WL
1	74.7 ^ns	66.8^c	58.9^c	141.1^b	126.8^c	112.4^c	61.0 ^ns	58.6^a	58.9 ^ns
7	51.6	60.5^c	27.7^b	126.4^ab	128.1^c	57.6^b	57.9	57.4^a	79.9
14	84.6	23.4^b	23.4^a	158.3^b	37.0^b	11.3^a	74.8	105.4^b	233.0
21	43.8	1.5^a	n.d.	87.6^c	3.7^a	n.d.	73.1	243.6^c	n.d.

Note. DAT: days after treatment. Mean with the same letter in each column indicates not statistically different (p < 0.05) by Duncan's multiple range test (n = 3). ns: non-significance; n.d.: not detected.

Figure 3. Changes in water saturation deficits (a), height growth (b) and root collar growth (c) of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions. Each bar is expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Means with difference letters are significantly different by DMRT Test (p < 0.05). DAT: days after treatment; ns: non-significance; n.d.: not detected.

Figure 4. Visual damage of drought treatment (a–d) and waterlogging treatment (e–h) during the experimental period. DAT: days after treatment.

Table 4. Growth characteristics of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions.

Treatment	Dry mass production (g)				T/R rate (g·g^−1)	LWR (g·g^−1)	RWR (g·g^−1)
	Leaf	Shoot	Root	Total
Control	46.2^c	73.5^c	86.4^c	206.2^c	1.38^a	0.22 ^ns	0.42^c
DS	22.5^b	42.9^b	23.3^b	88.6^b	2.83^b	0.25	0.26^b
WL	13.5^a	26.9^a	8.7^a	49.0^a	4.66^c	0.27	0.18^a

Mean with the same letter in each column indicates not statistically different (p < 0.05) by Duncan's multiple range test (n = 5). ns: non-significance.

Table 5. Inorganic components in leaf and root of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions.

Treatment	Leaf					Root
	T-N (%)	Ca (g/kg)	Mg (g/kg)	K (g/kg)	Na (g/kg)	T-N (%)	Ca (g/kg)	Mg (g/kg)	K (g/kg)	Na (g/kg)
Control	1.41^a	20.51^b	2.62 ^ns	13.66^a	0.72 ^ns	0.79^a	8.46 ^ns	1.10^b	7.30^c	0.76^ab
DS	2.57^b	19.26^b	2.32	17.88^b	0.12	1.84^b	8.41	0.85^ab	6.14^b	1.26^b
WL	2.57^b	11.43^a	1.95	12.59^a	0.46	1.58^b	7.46	0.65^a	1.48^a	0.44^a

Mean with the same letter in each column indicates not statistically different (p < 0.05) by Duncan's multiple range test (n = 3). ns: non-significance.

Table 6. Changes in chlorophyll (Chl) and carotenoid (Car) contents of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions.

DAT	Chl (mg·g^−1)									Car (mg·g^−1)			Chl a/b
	A			b			a + b
	Control	DS	WL	Control	DS	WL	Control	DS	WL	Control	DS	WL	Control	DS	WL
1	22.9 ^ns	22.8^a	22.8^b	4.7 ^ns	4.6^a	4.6 ^ns	27.5 ^ns	27.4^a	27.4^b	5.5 ^ns	5.5^a	5.5^b	4.9^c	5.0^c	5.0 ^ns
7	22.3	26.0^ab	24.0^b	4.4	6.1^ab	5.9	26.6	32.1^ab	29.9^bc	5.4	6.3^a	6.1^b	5.1^c	4.4^b	4.1
14	20.8	23.1^a	24.8^b	5.1	5.4^a	6.7	25.9	28.5^a	31.5^bc	5.3	5.8^a	7.5^c	4.2^b	4.3^b	3.7
21	20.0	23.7^ab	12.0^a	5.7	7.1^b	4.4	25.7	30.8^ab	16.5^a	5.5	6.5^a	4.6^a	3.5^a	3.3^a	3.7
28	19.7	28.2^b	Death	4.7	7.5^b	Death	24.4	35.7^b	Death	5.7	7.6^b	Death	4.2^b	3.8^a	Death

Mean with the same letter in each column indicates not statistically different (p < 0.05) by Duncan's multiple range test (n = 5). ns: non-significance; DAT: days after treatment.

Figure 5. Changes in several chlorophyll fluorescence parameters (V_J (a)_, V_K (b), ABS/RC (c), DIo/RC (d), PI_abs (e), DF_abs (f), SFI_abs (g) and Drought factor index (h)) of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions. Each bar is expressed as the mean ± SD (n = 5). Means with difference letters are significantly different by DMRT Test (p < 0.05). DAT: days after treatment; ns: non-significance.

Figure 6. Radar plots of several chlorophyll fluorescence parameters (ECo/ABS, Mo, TRo/RC, ETo/RC, REo/RC, REo/ETo, Φ_PO, Φ_EO, Ψ_O and RC/CSo) of Prunus yedoensis under different water conditions. The values of the calculated parameters were shown as relative to those of the control (n = 5).