Modeling tree water deficit from microclimate: an approach to quantifying drought stress

Tree water deficit estimated by measuring water-related changes in stem radius (DeltaW) was compared with tree water deficit estimated from the output of a simple, physiologically reasonable model (DeltaW(E)), with soil water potential (Psi(soil)) and atmospheric vapor pressure deficit (VPD) as inputs. Values of DeltaW were determined by monitoring stem radius changes with dendrometers and detrending the results for growth, We followed changes in DeltaW and DeltaW(E) in Pinus sylvestris L. and Quercus pubescens Willd. over 2 years at a dry site (2001-2002; Salgesch, Wallis) and in Picea abies (L.) Karst. for 1 year at a wet site (1998; Davos, Graubuenden) in the Swiss Alps. The seasonal courses of DeltaW in deciduous species and in conifers at the same site were similar and could be largely explained by variation in DeltaW(E). This finding strongly suggests that DeltaW, despite the known species-specific differences in stomatal response to microclimate, is mainly explained by a combination of atmospheric and soil conditions. Consequently, we concluded that trees are unable to maintain any particular DeltaW. Either Psi(soil) or VPD alone provided poorer estimates of AWthan a model incorporating both factors. As a first approximation of DeltaW(E), Psi(soil) can be weighted so that the negative mean Psi(soil) reaches 65 to 75% of the positive mean daytime VPD over a season (Q. pubescens: similar to65%, P abies: similar to70%, P sylvestris: similar to75%). The differences in DeltaW among species can be partially explained by a different weighting of Psi(soil) against VPD. The DeltaW of P. sylvestris was more dependent on Psi(soil) than that of Q. pubescens, but less than that of P. abies, and was less dependent on VPD than that of P. abies and Q. pubescens. The model worked well for P. abies at the wet site and for Q. pubescens and P. sylvestris at the dry site, and may be useful for estimating water deficit in other tree species.

Drought Adaptation in Millets

Millets are major food and feed sources in the developing world especially in the semi-arid tropical regions of Africa and Asia. The most widely cultivated millets are pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.], finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn], foxtail millet [Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauvois], Japanese barnyard millet [Echinochloa esculneta (A. Braun) H. Scholz], Indian Barnyard millet [Echinochloa frumetacea Link], kodo millet [Paspalum scrobiculatum L.], little millet [Panicum sumatrense Roth.ex.Roem. & Schult.], proso millet [Panicum miliaceum L.], tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] and fonio or acha [Digitaria exilis (Kippist) Stapf and D. iburua Stapf]. Millets are resilient to extreme environmental conditions especially to inadequate moisture and are rich in nutrients. Millets are also considered to be a healthy food, mainly due to the lack of gluten (a substance that causes coeliac disease) in their grain. Despite these agronomic, nutritional and health-related benefits, millets produce very low yield compared to major cereals such as wheat and rice. This extremely low productivity is related to the challenging environment in which they are extensively cultivated and to the little research investment in these crops. Recently, several national and international initiatives have begun to support the improvement of diverse millet types.