The Effect of Environmental Factors on Photosynthesis and Transpiration Rates in Pinus sylvestris L. and Picea abies L. P. 50–62

Complete text of the article:

Download article (pdf, 0.9MB )

UDС

581,1:630*181:630*161

DOI:

10.37482/0536-1036-2026-4-50-62

Abstract

We compared photosynthesis and transpiration in pine and spruce trees growing in natural conditions with optimal soil moisture at the beginning of the growing season. The research was carried out at the Serebryanoborsk Forest District of the Institute of Forest Science of the Russian Academy of Sciences in the Moscow Region. The research relevance stems from the significant amount of dead spruce stands and the need for pine reforestation in these areas. There are few comparative studies of photosynthesis and transpiration in pine and spruce trees growing under similar conditions. Leaky open chambers were used to measure photosynthesis and transpiration. The rates of photosynthesis and transpiration in the needle shoots were measured based on the difference in the CO₂ and H₂O concentrations, respectively, between the air outside the chamber and the air exiting the chamber, the airflow velocity, and the horizontal surface area of the needles in the exposure chamber. The CO₂ and H₂O concentrations were measured using a LI-840 portable infrared gas analyzer (Li-Cor, USA). The air depletion by CO₂ in the chamber was, on average, 2 % lower than in the ambient air. The air flow was driven by diaphragm microcompressors (Sonic-388, China). The data showed that, on a mostly sunny day, the rate of photosynthesis in pine trees was more than 88 % higher than in spruce trees. On a cloudy day, the differences were significantly lower (20 %). On a mostly sunny and overcast days, the differences in transpiration rates between the two species were smaller; 18.5 and 20 %, respectively. The relationship between CO₂ exchange in pine and spruce and solar radiation and air temperature is similar; differences are observed only in terms of intensity, although in conditions of water stress, pine shows higher photosynthesis rates. The CO2 gas exchange intensity in pine trees under optimal forest growing conditions is nearly twice as high as that in spruce trees. The calculated data on photosynthesis and transpiration were close to the experimental values. The nature of the relationship between transpiration and other factors differs significantly more between pine and spruce. In pine, the differences are mainly due to solar radiation, whereas in spruce, they occur due to air temperature.

Authors

Alexander G. Molchanov, Doctor of Biology; ResearcherID: J-1392-2016, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0252-3599

Affiliation

Institute of Forest Science Russian Academy of Sciences, s. Uspenskoe, Moscow Region, Russia; a.georgievich@gmail.com

Keywords

pine, Pinus sylvestris L., spruce, Picea abies L., photosynthesis, transpiration, solar radiation, effect of solar radiation on photosynthesis, effect of solar radiation on transpiration, air temperature, air humidity

For citation

Molchanov A.G. The Effect of Environmental Factors on Photosynthesis and Transpiration Rates in Pinus sylvestris L. and Picea abies L. Lesnoy Zhurnal = Russian Forestry Journal, 2026, no. 4, pp. 50–62. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37482/0536-1036-2026-4-50-62

References

1. Alyabyev A.F. Drying of Spruce Forests in the Moscow Region. Lesnoy vestnik = Forestry Bulletin, 2013, no. 6, pp. 150–166. (In Russ.).

2. Bolondinsky V.K. Dynamics of CO2-Gas Exchange on Shoots of Scots Pine in the Middle Taiga Zone: Cand. Biol. Sci. Diss. Abs. Petrozavodsk, 2004. 28 p. (In Russ.).

3. Varlagin A.V. Transpiration at the Leaf, Tree and Community Levels in Conifers: Cand. Biol. Sci. Diss. Abs. Moscow, 2000. 36 p. (In Russ.).

4. Gninenko Yu.I., Khegai I.V. Dynamics of Shrinking Spruce Forests in the Moscow Region. Forestry information, 2018, no. 2, pp. 65–74. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24419/LHI.2304-3083.2018.2.07

5. Zheldak V.I. Conceptual Issues of Silvicultural Measures for Spruce Forests Sustainable Management. Vestnik of Volga State University of Technology. Series: Forest. Ecology. Nature Management, 2015, no. 4(28), pp. 5–22. (In Russ.).

6. Zarubina L.V., Konovalov V.N., Feklistov P.A., Klevtsov D.N., Kopytov V.V. Conifers Stand Condition Assessment in the Fellings in a Climate of the European North. Vestnik of Volga State University of Technology. Series: Forest. Ecology. Nature Management, 2015, no. 1, pp. 85–94. (In Russ.).

7. Malakhova E.G., Krylov A.M. The Fir Groves Drying in Klinsky Forestry of Moscow Oblast. Izvestia of Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2012, vol. 14, no. 1(8), pp. 1975–1978. (In Russ.).

8. Maslov A.D. Eight-Toothed Bark Beetle and Spruce Forests Drying. Moscow, VNIILM Publ., 2010. 138 p. (In Russ.).

9. Matveeva A.G. Study of the Drying of Spruce Stands in the Russian Far East. Scientists Notes of PNU, 2018, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 158–161. (In Russ.).

10. Molchanov A.G. Comparison of Phytomass of Birch and Pine Forests in the Similar Forest Growth Conditions. Forestry Research in the southern Taiga Subzone. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1977, pp. 51–60. (In Russ.).

11. Molchanov A.G. The CO2 Balance in Ecosystems of Pine and Oak Forests in Different Forest Areas. Tula, Grif i K Publ., 2007. 284 p. (In Russ.).

12. Molchanov A.G. Monitoring of Ecological and Physiological Parameters in Ecosystems. Serebryanoborsk Experimental Forestry: 65 Years of Forest Monitoring. Moscow, KMK Publ., 2010, pp. 112–129. (In Russ.).

13. Мolchanov A.G. CO2 of Stands in Natural Conditions. Photosynthetic Activity and Production Processes of Phytocenoses. Iss. 1. Orel, Orel SAU Publ., 2014, pp. 63–88. (In Russ.).

14. Molchanov A.G. The Ratio of Photosynthesis and Transpiration in Pine and Spruce under Different Environmental Conditions. Mathematical Modeling in Ecology: Proceedings of the 7th National Scientific Conference with International Participation. Pushchino, IFKhiBPP Publ., 2021, pp. 79–81. (In Russ.).

15. Molchanov A.G. Photosynthesis Intensity of Spruce, Pine and Oak Seedlings under Tree Canopy and in the Open Site in Different Water Supply Conditions. Lesovedenie = Forest Science, 2024, no. 6, pp. 649–660. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0024114824060069

16. Molchanov A.G., Belyaeva Y.A. Water Affecting Photosynthesis of Seedlings Growing in the Open Areas. Lesovedenie = Forest Science, 2024, no. 2, pp. 163–172. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0024114824020056

17. Molchanov A.G., Olchev A.V. CO2 Efflux from the Stem Surface of Scots Pine under Various Growing Conditions. Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Biological Series, 2020, no. 4, pp. 423–433. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.31857/S0002332920030054

18. Rakhi M.O. Equipment for Studying the Components of the Water Potential of Leaves. Plant Physiology, 1973, vol. 20, pp. 215–221. (In Russ.).

19. Senkina S.N. Transpiration and Stomatal Resistance of Scotch Pine in Different Growing Conditions. Lesnoy Zhurnal = Russian Forestry Journal, 2009, no. 6, pp. 45–52. (In Russ.).

20. Alexander J.D., Donnelly J.R., Shane J.B. Photosynthetic and Transpiration Responses of Red Spruce Understory Trees to Light and Temperature. Tree Physiology, 1995, vol. 15, iss. 6, pp. 393–398. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/15.6.393

21. Edwards N.N., Sollins P. Continuous Measurement of Carbon Dioxide Evolution from Partitioned Forest Floor Components. Ecology, 1973, vol. 54, iss. 2, pp. 406–412. https://doi.org/10.2307/1934349

22. Jackson G.E., Irvine J., Grace J. Xylem Cavitation in Scots Pine and Sitka Spruce Saplings During Water Stress. Tree Physiology, 1995, vol. 15, iss. 12, pp. 783–790. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/15.12.783

23. Linder S., Flower-Ellis J. Environmental and Physiological Constraints to Forest Yield. Responses of Forest Ecosystems to Environmental Change. Ed. by A. Teller, P. Mathy, J.N.R. Jef¬fers. Dordrecht, Springer, 1992, pp. 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2866-7_15

24. Maier-Maercker U. Dynamics of Change in Stomatal Response and Water Status of Picea abies During a Persistent Drought Period: A Contribution to the Traditional View of Plant Water Relations. Tree Physiology, 1998, vol. 8, iss. 4, pp. 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/18.4.211

25. Maseyk K.S., Green T.G.A., Klinac D. Photosynthetic Responses of New Zealand Sphagnum Species. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 1999, vol. 37, iss. 1, pp. 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.1999.9512621

26. Ottander C., Campbell D., Öquist G. Seasonal Changes in Photosyntem II Organization and Pigment Composition in Pinus sylvestris. Planta, 1995, vol. 197, pp. 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00239954

27. Physical and Physiological Forest Ecology. Ed. by P. Hary, K. Heliövaara, L. Kulmala. New York, Springer, 2013. 534 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5603-8