title: Photosynthetic responses of field-grown Pinus radiata trees to artificial and aphid-induced defoliation.
abstract: The phloem-feeding aphid Essigella californica represents a potential threat to the productivity of Pinus radiata plantations in south-eastern Australia. Five- and nine-year-old field trials were used to characterize the effects of artificial and natural aphid-induced (E. californica) defoliation, respectively, on shoot photosynthesis and growth. Photosynthetic capacity (A(max)) was significantly greater following a 25% (D25) (13.8 µmol m(-2) s(-1)) and a 50% (D50) (15.9 µmol m(-2) s(-1)) single-event upper-crown artificial defoliation, 3 weeks after defoliation than in undefoliated control trees (12.9 µmol m(-2) s(-1)). This response was consistently observed for up to 11 weeks after the defoliation event; by Week 16, there was no difference in A(max) between control and defoliated trees. In the D50 treatment, this increased A(max) was not sufficient to fully compensate for the foliage loss as evidenced by the reduced diameter increment (by 15%) in defoliated trees 36 weeks after defoliation. In contrast, diameter increment of trees in the D25 treatment was unaffected by defoliation. The A(max) of trees experiencing upper-crown defoliation by natural and repeated E. californica infestations varied, depending on host genotype. Despite clear differences in defoliation levels between resistant and susceptible genotypes (17 vs. 35% of tree crown defoliated, respectively), growth of susceptible genotypes was not significantly different from that of resistant genotypes. The observed increases in A(max) in the lower crown of the canopy following attack suggested that susceptible genotypes were able to partly compensate for the loss of foliage by compensatory photosynthesis. The capacity of P. radiata to regulate photosynthesis in response to natural aphid-induced defoliation provides evidence that the impact of E. californica attack on stem growth will be less than expected, at least for up to 35% defoliation.
authors.affiliation: Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry, Private Bag 12, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia. Alieta.Eyles@csiro.au
authors.forename: Alieta
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Eyles
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Elizabeth A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Pinkard
authors.forename: Ian
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Smith
authors.forename: Ross
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Corkrey
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Elms
authors.forename: Chris
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Beadle
authors.forename: Caroline
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Mohammed
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological / Q000502:physiology*; D000818:Animals; D001042:Aphids / Q000502:physiology*; D003678:Defoliants, Chemical; D014644:Genetic Variation; D005838:Genotype; D010788:Photosynthesis / Q000502:physiology*; D028223:Pinus / Q000378:metabolism* / Q000469:parasitology*; D018515:Plant Leaves / Q000254:growth & development / Q000378:metabolism / Q000469:parasitology; D018520:Plant Shoots / Q000254:growth & development; D014739:Victoria
chemical_list: D003678:Defoliants, Chemical