Arabidopsis species deploy distinct strategies to cope with drought stress

Abstract

O_LIBackground and Aims Water limitation is an important determinant of the distribution, abundance and diversity of plant species. Yet, little is known about how the response to limiting water supply changes among closely related plant species with distinct ecological preferences. Comparison of the model annual species A. thaliana to its close perennial relatives A. lyrata and A. halleri, can help disentangle the molecular and physiological changes contributing to tolerance and avoidance mechanisms, because these species must maintain tolerance and avoidance mechanisms to increase long-term survival, but they are exposed to different levels of water stress and competition in their natural habitat.\nC_LIO_LIMethods We conducted a dry-down experiment that mimics a period of missing precipitation. We quantified the covariation of progressive decrease in soil water content (SWC) with various physiological and morphological plant traits across a set of representative genotypes in Arabidopsis thaliana, A. lyrata and A. halleri. To quantify the degree of plant stress, transcriptome changes were also monitored.\nC_LIO_LIKey Results The analysis of trait co-variation demonstrates that the three species differ in the strategies they deploy to respond to drought stress. A. thaliana showed drought avoidance reaction but failed to survive wilting. A. lyrata efficiently combined avoidance and tolerance mechanisms. By contrast, A. halleri showed some degree of tolerance to wilting but it did not seem to protect itself from the stress imposed by drought. Transcriptome data collected just before plant wilting and after recovery corroborated the phenotypic analysis, with A. lyrata and A. halleri showing a stronger activation of recovery- and stress-related genes, respectively.\nC_LIO_LIConclusions We conclude that these three Arabidopsis species have evolved distinct strategies to face drought stress, and discuss the extent to which these strategic differences reflect their respective ecological priorities.\nC_LI