Back

Chiral monoterpene dynamics of shoots and roots of Norway spruce in response to drought

Daber, L. E.; Kreuzwieser, J.; Meischner, M.; Williams, J.; Werner, C.

2025-05-03 plant biology
10.1101/2025.05.02.651829 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Although chiral monoterpenes emitted by plants above- and belowground shape the chemical landscape of many ecosystems, their biosynthesis and emissions, especially in response to drought, are poorly understood. We imposed a 6-week drought on two-year old, potted saplings of Norway spruce and analysed chiral monoterpene emissions and tissue concentrations from needles and roots. Isotopically labelled pyruvate was used to compare tissue-specific contributions of de novo synthesis to chiral monoterpene concentrations. While de novo synthesis of (-)--pinene and both enantiomers of limonene was apparent in needle emissions, no label was incorporated in roots. Drought reduced chiral monoterpene emissions to 30% of control levels, but increased needle and root tissue concentrations by 150 and 230%, respectively. Aboveground monoterpene concentrations were dominated by (-)-limonene, whereas belowground concentrations mainly consisted of the (-)-enantiomers of -pinene, {beta}-pinene, {beta}-phellandrene and camphene. Chiral composition in needles shifted in response to drought but remained stable in roots. We conclude that chiral monoterpene composition is tissue-specific and likely related to tissue-specific functioning. Instead of being passively emitted from storage pools, our results suggest active control mechanisms regulating chiral monoterpene emissions under drought conditions. Our findings imply important ramifications for understanding the regulation of emissions in relation to storage pools and plant-environmental interactions. Summary StatementEmissions of chiral monoterpenes and their composition is tissue-specific and regulated independent from storage pools in Picea abies. Chiral monoterpene ratios shift aboveground in response to drought, but are not affected belowground.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Plant, Cell & Environment
78 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.7%
2
Tree Physiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.8%
3
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
9.7%
4
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
Plant Direct
81 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.9%
6
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
8
Plant Physiology
217 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.5%
9
Physiologia Plantarum
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.5%
10
Journal of Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
11
The Plant Journal
197 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
AoB PLANTS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
13
Annals of Botany
43 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.3%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 68%
1.2%
16
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 40%
0.9%
17
American Journal of Botany
41 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
18
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
BMC Plant Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
20
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Planta
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
Environmental and Experimental Botany
11 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
23
Plant and Soil
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
24
Biochemistry
130 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%