Abstract 
Leaf turgor loss point (TLP) has been proposed to be a key indicator of drought 
resistance in plants. Many terrestrial landscapes are facing increased stress with the increase in 
intensity and duration of drought due to climate change. One of the ecosystems expected to be 
heavily affected by increased drought are grasslands, which comprise a large majority of 
terrestrial landscapes. Forb species may be at risk of succumbing to drought than grasses, but 
forbs contribute to much of the biodiversity in these ecosystems. Identifying differences in leaf 
turgor loss point among forbs across different grasslands can help to determine their drought 
resistance. Through use of an osmometer, 61 forb species were collected across 3 different 
grassland sites in the United States (Flagstaff, Santa Rita, Jornada) to determine their TLP, and 
leaf dry matter content (LDMC). Sites that experience higher temperature and lower 
precipitation exhibited lower leaf TLP than sites lower temperature and higher precipitation. TLP 
is useful for indicating the range of drought resistance in grassland forbs and can be used to 
predict how a grassland communities respond to a drought. LDMC is strongly correlated with 
TLP, further identifying why specific survival strategies used by grassland forbs.  
 
  
1 
 
Differences of turgor loss point and leaf dry matter content across grassland forbs 
 
Introduction 
Plants trapped in their sessile lifestyles are faced with countless different stressors that 
effect their functionality and distribution. One stressor that has increasingly become more 
prevalent is that of drought; both increased temperatures and reduced water availability effect the 
survival of plants and the communities they compose. A drought, which can be defined by a 
prolonged period of time in which there is abnormally low water availability, whether through 
precipitation, ground, or surface water, affects the environment in a multitude of ways (USGS 
2020.) Economic loss, limited aboveground output (Naudts et al. 2010), shifting flora and fauna 
communities, and reduction in carbon uptake (Delzon 2015) are some of the expected outcomes 
from a drought (Zwiche et al. 2015, Beck et al. 2007.) Drought occurrence is expected to 
increase both in intensity and duration in the coming years (Jung et al. 2013, Cook 2019). 
Predicting how drought will affect plant communities found throughout a diverse range of 
ecosystems is difficult due to the how abiotic factors such as precipitation, wind, nutrient 
availability, and water availability affect what plant species form a community within an 
ecosystem. It can be difficult to accurately identify how a drought will affect plants in local 
communities and how different communities may have a better chance at overall survival due to 
community composition. Due to modes of drought resistance survival strategies varying among 
different plant species, even with plants found within the same ecosystem, it can be difficult to 
accurately predict how drought will affect plants.  
2 
 
The objective of this study is to determine how leaf turgor loss point and its relation to 
leafy dry matter content is different across grassland forbs. Identifying the relationship between 
turgor loss point and leaf dry matter content within forbs can help to identify survival strategies 
used in grasslands and what type of survival strategy is dominant in a community. Leafy dry 
matter content and turgor loss point can be beneficial in identifying the physiological reasons for 
the occurrence of forbs with different survival strategies across grasslands.  
A method that can be used to help understand response to drought is and leaf turgor loss 
point (πTLP) due to how heavily associated these traits are with drought resistance. Osmolarity is 
the measure of how concentrated solutes are in a solution and osmotic pressure, which is a 
function of osmolarity, is the pressure developed from the movement of solutes across a gradient 
(Caon 2008.) Osmotic pressure influences the opening and closing of stomata in plants to be able 
to regulate the internal pressure of cells. Another function of osmolarity which plays a key role 
in plant’s water usage and regulation is the osmotic potential which is the potential for water to 
move across a membrane, such as a leaf, caused by different concentrations of water and solutes 
in a plant (Caon 2008.) Osmotic potential gives insight how much water can be lost or retained in 
a plant.  
Turgor pressure in a plant is the internal water pressure needed to maintain cell structure 
and prevent dehydration of the cell; turgor loss point is the point in which the internal pressure 
that is used to maintain cell structure nears zero. At this point, turgor in cells cannot be 
maintained and cell rigidity is lost, and the process of wilting will begin. Turgor loss point is 
useful for determining the overall tolerance to drought of a plant (Sun et al. 2020). Plants will 
begin to wilt once turgor loss point has been passed, at which point it becomes increasingly 
3 
 
difficult to maintain cellular processes and survival due to the diminishing structural support 
from cells.  
Another trait seen in plants that help with survival is leaf dry matter content (LDMC.) 
This trait is less varied across plant species because it not dependent on leaf thickness or 
environmental influences such as soil nutrients and precipitation which can vary greatly across 
landscapes but instead is dependent on the method of survival that a plant uses (Wilson et al. 
1998.). LDMC is useful to predict plant survival strategies not only because of how it is less 
varied but it is also a great predictor for how much information can be obtained from LDMC 
values within a plant. A wide range of insights can be gained such as how a plant makes use of 
resources such as nutrients, allocation of resources for growth, survival strategy used, and 
indicate the productivity of a community (Wright et al. 1998, Pakeman 2014.)  
Lower TLP in a plant can allow water to be retained and moved throughout a plant longer 
when faced with reduced water availability, characteristic of higher leaf dry matter content 
(LDMC) in leaves from cell structure being thicker to provide a more rigid cells (Sun et al. 
2020.) Cells that are more rigid take longer to collapse from loss of internal pressure, allowing 
metabolic processes to continue much longer than if the plant had a less rigid cell structure. This 
method of low TLP and higher LDMC is commonly seen in plants that are drought tolerant as 
they are able to withstand harsh drought stress. Higher TLP in plants show different modes of 
survival as early stomata closure to better retain water (Sun et al. 2020). Plants with high TLP 
tend to have lower LDMC generally do poor in drought environments, characteristic of plants 
that are drought avoiders. These plants tend to wilt much sooner under reduced water availability 
because their cell structure is not rigid enough to withstand a loss of internal pressure for long 
4 
 
periods of time. Turgor loss point in a plant is important to understand the mode of survival that 
may be used under drought. 
Drought is a common occurrence throughout the world and directly affects water 
availability in plants and thus their survival. Biomes that most commonly experience droughts 
are arid and semi-arid biomes such as grasslands, sagebrush steppe, and deserts. Drought prone 
areas are susceptible to changes such as reduced water availability, increased annual 
temperatures, warmer winters, that will occur as a result of climate change (Griffin et al. 2019.) 
Arid and semi-arid regions roughly cover one-third of the Earth’s land (Fang et al. 2007) with 
grassland alone covering more than 30% of land. This makes critical biomes to understand due to 
the large amount of biodiversity that they host (Griffin et al. 2019). Drought events greatly 
impact a plant’s survival due to the restrictions of water availability, causing both early stomatal 
closures, desiccation, and reduced productivity. Plant species will respond to arid and drought 
conditions differently due to various survival strategies even if species have similar traits such as 
life history, leaf hairiness, or leaf thickness (Blum 2005). Within grassland, plants, specifically 
forbs, tend to be smaller in size, reduced leaf area to prevent rapid desiccation, and early 
blooming in order to cope with water and temperature stressors that commonly occur. The 
expected increase in drought occurrence and intensity as a result of climate change, it is 
important to understand how plants will react regarding their resilience to increased stressors and 
how that will affect community composition and ultimately ecosystem function (Wright et al. 
2015, Hoover et al. 2019, Rooijen 2015). 
Plants make use of one of three general strategies when faced with a drought. The first 
strategy is drought tolerance in which the plant resists dehydration and wilting during a drought. 
This is accomplished by maintaining turgor pressure through increased LDMC and lower 
5 
 
osmotic potential in order to prevent wilting at the cost of limited growth and production during 
the drought (Delzon 2015). Many plants in arid environments that face reoccurring droughts 
have adapted to tolerate the reduced water availability. Other plants may make use of drought 
avoidance strategies rather than drought tolerance, which are methods of survival that makes use 
of the water available by managing water loss through stomatal closure, change of metabolic 
rates, growth of root systems to uptake more water, and maintaining cell turgor (Delzon 2015, 
Basu et al. 2016). Lastly, the final method that plants use to survive drought is escapism. 
Categorized by plants that are not productive and instead dormmate during the drought due to a 
quick lifespan that allows for them not to be present to experience of the drought. (Delzon 2015, 
Basu et al. 2016). 
Plants have adapted to common occurring stressors through a variety of traits that help 
them to survive the reduced availability of water. Growth is limited by water reduction as the 
plant is no longer able to properly adjust its osmotic potential, resulting in carbohydrates and 
inorganic ions to build up within the plant (Claeys & Inzé 2013, Hoover et al. 2019). The buildup 
of carbohydrates has shown to be correlated with sudden decreased growth rate when water 
availability is reduced (Claeys & Inzé 2013). With increasing intensity and occurrence of 
reduced water availability, plants dedicate more of their metabolic processes to survive drought 
related stress instead of using the same metabolic processes to facilitate growth (Claeys & Inzé 
2013.) 
Decreasing metabolic rates is not the only method that plants have evolved in order to 
survive through the stresses that drought may cause. Physiological and morphological 
adaptations are also in place to further help overall tolerance and survival from stressors. In order 
to prevent wilting, which happens when plants are unable to retain the pressure in cells causing 
6 
 
the plant to lose pressure and internal structure, plants regulate the opening and closing of their 
stomata. This prevents water loss due to a change in air humidity or more commonly a change in 
the water potential in their leaves (Hoover et a. 2019). Stomal closure helps to minimize water 
loss but with faced with reduced water availability, the duration of closure is increased with 
lower water availability. The stomal closure does not only affect water movement and gas 
exchange in a plant but causes a cascade of adjustments of the organic solutes and ions within a 
plant (Chen & Jiang 2010). Adjustment of ions and solutes which increase in concentration 
occurs in a plant when stomata are closed for prolonged times help to further reduce water loss 
and continue metabolic processes (Chen & Jiang 2010).  
In grasslands, forbs contribute more diversity in the landscape than grasses and other 
flora, forb species present is upward to four times greater than grass species in many grasslands 
(Eviner 2016.) Many forbs found in grasslands have evolved adaptations to survive the arid 
conditions they grow in; reduced growing season, release of seeds earlier in the growing season 
for better chance of continuation of plant lineage, and increased nutrient uptake from roots are 
some of the adaptations forbs have evolved in order to survive and thrive in grasslands. 
Surviving in the harsh conditions present in grasslands with the common occurrence of drought, 
which commonly brings forth temperature and water availability extremes, is something forbs 
are adapted to handling with. Yet the increase of environmental extremes both in duration and 
intensity is something not all forbs are not equipped to handle. The biodiversity present in 
grasslands is threatened by extreme drought conditions which can see the loss of rare and 
uncommon species in local environments. Ecological changes occurring from a shifting plant 
community due to forbs inability to survive stressors such as drought can give insight on the 
7 
 
likelihood of soil erosion, desertification, fragmentation of a community, and loss of local 
species within an area (Fang et al. 2015). 
There are a variety of ways to predict the possible changes that may occur in an 
ecosystem as a result of stress. This is primarily done by examining a selection of traits of the 
plants and how certain stressors act upon the plant traits and at what point does a stressor become 
life threatening to survival of a plant. Functional traits are measurable traits that can be 
morphological, physiological, and even phenological which can be examined from a species 
level up to an ecosystem level (Malézieux et al. 2007.) Being able to understand how specific 
traits such as metabolite usage, the strength of membrane integrity, and osmolarity, can be 
studied to understand what types of stressors affect the trait’s function the most and in turn, the 
plant’s ability to survive. In the case of drought, plants that are found to have smaller and denser 
stomata (Hoover et al. 2019) can tolerate and survive reduced water availability better than 
plants with larger and more spread out stomata. Understanding specific traits of a plant can give 
insight into what will survive certain stressors; the plants with small, densely located stomata are 
less likely to be affected from drought and be lost locally from the stressor while plants with 
large, spread out stomata are more at risk of death and local extinction from the stressor (Griffin‐
Nolan et al. 2019). 
By understanding the relationship of turgor loss point that forbs possess and water 
availability within stressful environments, it can give better insight into community-level 
response to increasing stressors that specifically act on water within the plant. In addition to 
understanding community response, by looking at the different values of turgor loss point  
present in grassland forb species, we can understand the types of survival modes that are 
common within a specific grassland such as drought resistance, drought tolerance, or drought 
8 
 
escape. The relationship of these water bound traits in forbs will be useful to better understand 
for the future aspects of ecology with rising climate temperature, increased stressors both in 
duration and intensity, and biodiversity of forbs within grassland communities.  
This study’s focus is to identify how forb communities within grasslands differ from one 
another by using TLP and what are the underlying environmental influences for the differences 
of TLP. In addition to understanding how TLP is different across grasslands forbs, understanding 
the relationship between TLP and LDMC is important for identifying forb survival strategies 
within different grasslands.  
 
Methodology  
Field collection 
The forb samples were collected in three different locations within the United States 
during the summer growing season of 2019. The first location is the Jornada experiment range in 
New Mexico in the Chihuahuan Desert.  The Jornada Experiment Range sits at an elevation of 
1260 m with an annual mean precipitation of 246 mm and annual mean temperature is 14 C °. 
Santa Rita Experimental Range in Arizona, found within the Sonoran Desert. The experiment is 
at an elevation of 1150 m with an annual mean precipitation of 373.11 mm and an annual mean 
temperature of 9.07 C °. The final site in which samples were collected is from ponderosa pine 
woodland in Flagstaff, Arizona; the area is at an elevation of 2,130 m, experiencing annual mean 
precipitation of 555 mm and annual mean temperature of 7.9 C °.  
A total of 61 different species of forbs collected had five replicates with a few exceptions 
due to rarity. All traits measured were done at species levels rather than at ecosystem level. Each 
9 
 
species had the above ground tissue collected and placed immediately into a cooler to later be re-
hydrated to full turgor over 12 hours. Any damaged or wilting leaves were removed as they may 
not be able to represent the true osmotic potential and turgor loss point due to the trauma. After 
being rehydrated, the samples are then placed in a freezer at -18° C or lower until the samples 
can be measured using an osmometer.  
 
Data collection 
Samples were then placed within a freezer until they were ready to have their osmotic 
potential sampled within the lab. To measure osmotic potential, first a single leaf that has no 
signs of cuts, decay, or any damage is taken from a sample bag. The forb leaf is then punched 
approximately 15 times, avoiding puncturing the midvein of the leaf when possible. Avoidance 
of the midvein of the leaf was to ensure accurate osmolarity measurement across samples. The 
punctured area was then removed using a biopsy punched immediately after being puncturing 
then placed within the osmometer.  
Samples were measured using a VAPRO© Vapor Pressure Osmometer 5600 in different 
set time intervals. Repeated measurements were taken from samples until osmolarity values 
stabilized after reaching the lowest osmolarity value. An overall range of 0-5 minutes were used 
throughout the forb samples, but a majority of samples were measured in the 2-3-minute range. 
Determining the specific parameter needed to measure a sample’s osmotic potential was done 
using trial and error. While some species had exhibited trends allowing for duration of sample 
reading and time interval to be easy to determine after a few samples, other species duration of 
sample reading and time interval varied, causing difficulty in determining appropriate time to be 
10 
 
used for the osmometer. Overall time for the osmolarity value to stabilized varied greatly 
between species, ranging from 20 minutes upwards to 1.5 hours. A full reading from the 
osmometer included osmolarity readings that decreased until they hit the lowest reading from the 
recorded output sequence; the sample was considered a finished once the osmotic potential 
readings increased two consecutive times. Any readings that increased from the first value, 
stopped reading due to drying, or suddenly dropped to a continuous reading of 0 mmol/kg were 
not used in analysis.  
In addition to collecting osmolarity readings from each sample, leaf dry-matter content 
that was already collected and measured was used in addition to leaf osmotic potential and turgor 
loss point to explain some of the trends seen from analysis.   
Data analysis 
In order to get the most accurate osmolarity reading through the osmometer, the lowest 
value from the forb samples were used as they were the most representative of real-world 
osmolarity of the forb. The osmolarity data was then converted into osmotic potential for each 
sample, this was then converted into turgor loss point. All samples were then complied into 
species averages of turgor loss point to be used for analysis.  
Statistical analyses of data were all preformed using R software. We used histograms and 
linear models to understand the relationship between turgor loss point, leaf dry-matter content, 
precipitation, temperature, and site location. The histograms were used to compare turgor loss 
point across sites in order to identify any significant differences in turgor loss point between 
sites. Linear models were used to plot leaf turgor loss point against other environmental and 
plant traits in R. The environmental traits used to determine possible effects on turgor loss point 
11 
 
were mean annual precipitation (mm) and mean annual temperature (°C). Leaf dry matter content 
(LDMC) was used to determine if this plant trait had any possible correlation with turgor loss 
point seen throughout the site. Each histogram and linear model was graphed with a 95% 
confidence interval. 
 
Results and Discussion  
Turgor Loss Point (TLP)  
Analysis of the turgor loss point in forbs shows that there is a significant difference 
between the range and average of TLP of the overall grassland for each of three sites used (Fig. 
1). The differences between the average TLP of a site across each grasslands shows that the forb 
communities found utilize different water management strategies and survival strategies in order 
to survive within the harsh, semi-arid environments they reside in. Each site presents different 
ranges of the calculated TLP, demonstrating turgor loss point is not consistent for forb 
communities across semi-arid grasslands.  
12 
 
 
Figure 1: Comparison of turgor loss point between grasslands. Each boxplot represents a different site which is 
composed of the average turgor loss point (πTLP) value of each species. Flagstaff mean TLP was -2.45 was 
significantly greater than the other two sites, Jornada mean TLP of -2.9 and Santa Rita mean TLP of -2.93, with 
P<0.0001 
 
Despite average TLP being vastly different across the grassland sites, the differences in 
the average TLP in the sites is most likely due to the different forb species and their specific 
environmental requirements to grow, survive, and reproduce in. Mean annual temperature, mean 
annual precipitation, and occurrence and intensity of drought are varied across the grasslands. 
Difference in turgor loss point is most likely due to the composition of different species which 
make use of different survival strategies which affect osmotic rates. This is seen the significant 
differences between the average TLP and ranges seen with each site with a P<0.001 (Fig. 1). 
Forb species that had a mean TLP value that are less negative indicate that the species are able to 
tolerate milder environments on average. These milder grasslands such as Flagstaff experience 
13 
 
higher precipitation and lower temperature extremes making it easier to for plants to grow due to 
dedicating metabolic processes to growth rather than survival.  
The less negative TLP values of forbs also gives insight at some of the potential risks an 
ecosystem may face with the changing climate and particularly insight on forb species that may 
be at risk of becoming locally extinct. The lower TLP values indicate that a plant is more 
susceptible to wilting quickly when there is reduced water availability in the environment. 
Climate change concerns about the predicted increase of intense, widespread drought may cause 
the loss of more water reliant plants and from that, a loss of local biodiversity within grasslands.   
The box plot shows that turgor loss point (TLP) differs between each site both in range of 
TLP and average TLP seen in each site (Fig. 1). Flagstaff was the most significantly different 
from the others P < 0.05.  Despite each site being that of a grassland and experiencing similar 
common stressors such as drought occurrence and high temperatures (during the summer 
season), the TLP range indicates that plant species within those communities are using different 
survival strategies in order to live in the ecosystem. In order to better understand the relationship 
of both the range and averages of TLP seen in the grassland sites, looking at how environmental 
factors such as precipitation, temperature, or even other plant traits such as leaf dry-matter 
content (LDMC) can give more insight on the trend seen.  
14 
 
 
Figure 2: Temperature effect on turgor loss point. Each site was significantly different from each other by P<000.1. 
There is one outlier for the Santa Rita site due to reduced forb species used in comparison to Flagstaff and Jornada.  
 
The boxplots shows how the temperature of an environment is a good indicator of what 
TLP values will be seen within an environment. Forbs that have more negative TLP values are 
more commonly seen within grasslands that experience higher mean annual temperature while 
forbs with less negative TLP values are populate environments with cooler mean annual 
temperatures (Fig. 2). Turgor loss point is negatively correlated with annual mean temperature 
(Fig. 2). At sites with higher mean annual temperatures there are more forb species that have 
more negative TLP, indicating a possible shift towards more negative TLP as a more effective 
15 
 
survival method to survive arid and stressful environments. Forb species with more negative TLP 
can survive in the stressful grasslands because of the ability continue moving water throughout 
it’s body, allowing for increased resistance to desiccation and continuation of metabolic 
processes, even when the plant is water-stressed. 
Sites that experience lower annual mean temperatures are populated with more plant 
species that have less negative TLP values and very few species that have notably more negative 
TLP values (Fig. 2). Sites that experience lower temperatures on average having species with 
less negative TLP values can indicate the temperature acting within the environment is not as 
significantly impactful at sites with higher temperatures. The less stressful environment in regard 
to temperature means that desiccation rate is not as severe. Plants species with more negative 
TLP would be less commonly seen cooler grasslands due to the decreased stressors that can 
cause leaf desiccation. 
16 
 
 
Figure 3:  Effect of precipitation on turgor loss point. Flagstaff experienced a significant difference in TLP at 
P<0.001 in regard to annual mean precipitation than the two other sites of Jornada and Santa Rita. 
 
The relationship annual mean precipitation within an environment and its effect on the 
turgor loss point values seen in forb species, reveals another trend (Fig. 3). The boxplots that 
show TLP values against annual mean precipitation show a positive correlation; lower 
precipitation is correlated to more negative TLP values for forb species, while higher 
precipitation correlated to less negative TLP values been seen in forb species (Fig. 3). The trend 
is mostly likely due to the fact that plant species that are able to live within areas with increased 
precipitation will not have traits associated with withstanding drought; traits such TLP can be 
expected to be less negative in such areas. Sites that experience lower precipitation annually are 
17 
 
more prone to reduced water availability and drought, thus the occurrence of forb species with 
more negative TLP can be expected. 
Leaf dry-matter content (LDMC) 
By plotting LDMC and its relationship to TLP it is seen to have a strong, negative relationship 
with the functional trait TLP (Fig. 6). This relationship is reinforced by Griffin-Nolan et al 
(2019) in which they also found that LDMC is strongly correlated with osmotic potential at full 
turgor in herbaceous plants (Griffin-Nolan et al. 2019). Leaf dry-matter content and its 
association with turgor loss point show a better indicator for the overall survival in stressful 
conditions when both are taken into consideration together in conjunction to environment the 
forb species reside in.  
 
Figure 4: Leaf dry matter content effect on turgor loss point. Relationship between TLP and LDMC of forb species is 
significantly correlated at noted with a P<0.0001 across all 3 grassland sites. 
18 
 
Comparison of leaf dry-matter content against turgor loss point is more useful for 
identifying trends in a site’s than when looking at a single trait (Fig. 4). Looking at the trend of a 
single trait across sites’ environmental factors broad differences but fails to fully explain the 
overarching ranges TLP values of forb species that exist within a site. LDMC and TLP are 
strongly correlated with one another and this relationship further reinforces the trend of different 
survival strategies being dominant within grasslands. The strong relationship of the two plant 
traits helps to identify how important structure, nutrient acquisition and usage, and water usage 
are to live within a certain environment whether that be a less stressful environment or a harsher 
environment. Though plant traits tend to dictate which environment it grows in, an environment 
is not dictated by what plant survival strategy solely grows within it, plants with varying survival 
strategies are seen in each of the three grasslands but it is clear that some survival strategies are 
favored over others (Fig. 4.)  
Grassland sites that experience more intense stressors are composed of hardier forbs that 
are able to survive such conditions through a means of physical and biochemical processes that 
allow not only continued survival in drought conditions and maintain productivity longer. Forbs 
that have higher LDMC and more negative TLP to have a drought tolerant lifestyle compose a 
higher majority of forb species within arid grasslands; they are more likely to survive drought 
conditions due to their drought tolerance strategy (Fig. 4). This would allow for plant 
communities in more arid grasslands to maintain their biodiversity longer due to an increased 
number of forb species having drought tolerance as a mode of survival.  
Forb species in less arid grasslands notably have a higher concentration of forbs with less 
negative TLP and lower LDMC (Fig. 4). These forb species that utilize a more drought avoidant 
strategy may be more susceptible to increasing drought conditions, compromising the overall 
19 
 
biodiversity seen in the plant community due to inability to survive increasing drought stressors. 
Forbs in these sites are at a higher risk of local extinction due to mode of survival many utilize 
such as in Flagstaff where a large majority of forb species do not possess more negative TLP or 
higher LDMC content.  
 
Figure 5  Effect of precipitation on dry leaf matter content. Sites that experience higher annual mean precipitation have higher 
occurrence of forb species with lower LDMC. Sites with lower LDMC experience lower annual mean precipitation. 
 The relationship of LDMC seen in grassland forbs can be explained by looking at 
environmental factors and their relationship to LDMC, giving insight into which strategies forbs 
use to survive drought stress. Annual mean precipitation is negatively correlated with LDMC. 
Higher LDMC is seen in sites that receive lower water overall (Fig. 5). The reduced water 
availability within their environment favors plants species that have the dense internal structure 
20 
 
in order to delay turgor loss point in plants and begin wilting. Lower LDMC is seen in sites that 
experience wetter environments overall and where plants have more access to water (Fig. 5). In 
order to sustain metabolic processes without sacrificing nutrients to build more rigid membranes 
in order to better survive desiccation. 
 
Figure 6 Temperature effect on dry leaf matter content. Grassland sites that experience higher mean annual temperature have 
more forb species present with high LDMC than sites that experience lower annual mean temperatures. 
Mean annual temperature effects the overall range of LDMC seen in grassland forbs by 
site. LDMC is positively correlated with mean annual temperature. Forbs in sites with lower 
mean annual temperature tend to have lower LDMC (Fig. 6). This could be due to the reduced 
need for forbs in environments to survive the wilt causing stressors; reduced water availability is 
not as strong of a stressors as seen in lower temperature sites as in environments with higher 
temperature, so the risk of wilting is reduced. The opposite can be said for higher LDMC in 
grassland forbs which occur more often in sites that experience higher temperature. Increased 
21 
 
LDMC can help to reduce the point at which turgor loss occurs, thus preventing wilting and 
allowing for survival in more stressful environments. 
The specific environment forb species exist in does have an impact on the plant traits that 
are seen in a community. Comparing TLP and LDMC against each other by site shows how 
environmental factors such as precipitation and temperature allow for certain forb species to 
survive within more stressful conditions brought on from drought in environments than others 
due to their traits (Fig. 5). Forb species that reside in sites that experience more precipitation and 
less extreme temperature throughout the year will show species that have less negative TLP and 
lower LDMC due to the less strenuous conditions experienced (Fig. 5). Increased water 
availability and reduced desiccation rates due to both increased precipitation and decreased 
temperature allows for forbs with traits less suited to survive recurring drought conditions in less 
stressful sites such as Flagstaff.  
The other two sites, Jordana and Santa Rita, both showed an increase in forb species that 
had traits that allowed for better survival in the harsher conditions and stressors brought on by 
higher temperature and less precipitation. Traits such as increased rigidity of internal leaf 
membranes (higher LDMC) and more negative turgor loss point found in forbs were commonly 
found in higher abundance than in Flagstaff (Fig. 5.)  Forb species that use these traits are more 
often found in these sites with increased drought stressors and decreased annual mean 
precipitation. The range of forb species’ TLP and LDMC within grassland sites is the different 
survival strategies implemented by plants in these habitats. Forb species with survival strategies 
that differ from the dominant survival strategy still exist within these communities but are much 
less common (Fig. 4.)  
22 
 
All three of these methods that plants use in order to survive drought and the countless 
stressors it brings are important to understand, as plant communities are not solely comprised of 
plant species that make use of a single method. A grassland community is not filled completely 
with forb species that make use of only one survival strategies. However, communities can be 
composed of forbs that make use of all strategies but strongly favors one mode of survival more 
than others such, as drought tolerance in more arid environments and drought avoidance in less 
arid environments. 
Grassland sites that experience more intense stressors are composed of hardier forbs that 
are able to survive such conditions through a means of physical and biochemical processes that 
allow not only continued survival in drought conditions and maintain productivity longer. Forbs 
that have higher LDMC and more negative TLP to have a drought tolerant lifestyle compose a 
higher majority of forb species within arid grasslands; they are more likely to survive drought 
conditions due to their drought tolerance strategy (Fig. 6). This would allow for plant 
communities in more arid grasslands to maintain their biodiversity longer due to an increased 
number of forb species having drought tolerance as a mode of survival.  
Forb species in less arid grasslands notably have a higher concentration of forbs with less 
negative TLP and lower LDMC (Fig. 6). These forb species that utilize a more drought avoidant 
strategy may be more susceptible to increasing drought conditions, compromising the overall 
biodiversity seen in the plant community due to inability to survive increasing drought stressors. 
Forbs in these sites are at a higher risk of local extinction due to mode of survival many utilize 
such as in Flagstaff where a large majority of forb species do not possess more negative TLP or 
higher LDMC content.  
23 
 
In future studies to better understand the differences of drought resistance within 
grassland, usage of more grassland sites in diverse locations throughout the US should be used. 
This would allow more data to get a better understanding of the relationship between 
environmental factors and traits seen in forbs. Measuring other plant traits such as longevity, 
time of reproduction, leaf morphology, mycorrhizal type, and rooting depth can all further 
explain the differences of drought tolerance across sites and the species that comprise the 
communities at those sites.  
Conclusion  
 Forb species found in grasslands sites vary significantly from one another in their overall 
average turgor loss point. This is useful to understand due the expected increases in drought 
occurrence both in intensity and duration in the coming years due to climate change. Forbs make 
use of different survival strategies and this is seen by vastly different turgor loss point and leaf 
dry-matter content of species. Grassland sites that experience more stress due to increased 
temperature and decreased precipitation tend to be more populated with drought resistant forb 
species while grasslands that experience less environmental stress are populated with less 
drought resistant forb species.  
Turgor loss point is useful for understanding the differences between grassland 
communities and what modes of survival forbs tend to use in those grassland environments. 
Using leaf dry-matter content of forb leaves gives further insight to the relationship of turgor loss 
point and the trend of different survival strategies seen across different grasslands. The 
relationship shows how heavily correlated LDMC is with TLP and how both traits collectively 
contributes to the mode of survival seen in forbs. Understanding the differences between the forb 
24 
 
community, a group of plants that contribute to a majority of the biodiversity seen within 
grassland ecosystems, through leaf dry matter content and turgor loss to understand how forbs 
handle drought stress. Both traits are good predictors of function, productivity, and survival 
strategy of a plant which can be used to explain the trends of where forb species are found within 
an environment and the physiological reasons as to why.  
The use of both turgor loss point and leaf dry matter content to identify common plant 
survival strategies within a community is important because it can be used to identify the 
potential risks a forb community may face with the expected rise of climate warming. 
Identification of forb survival strategies through TLP and LDMC can be used to identify species 
that are at risk of having notable population loss or even local extinction by knowing what 
species cannot handle increased intensity and occurrence of drought stress. With grasslands 
occupying a large portion of the landscape and expected to be the most affected environments 
from climate warming, it is important to be able to use reliable functional traits to identify plant 
species that are at risk.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25 
 
Citations 
 
1. Bartlett, M. K., Scoffoni, C., & Sack, L. (2012). The determinants of leaf turgor loss 
point and prediction of drought tolerance of species and biomes: a global meta‐
analysis. Ecology Letters, 15(5), 393-405. 
2. Bartlett, M.K., Scoffoni, C., Ardy, R., Zhang, Y., Sun, S., Cao, K. and Sack, L. (2012), 
Rapid determination of comparative drought tolerance traits: using an osmometer to 
predict turgor loss point. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3: 880-888. 
doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00230.x 
3. Basu, S., Ramegowda, V., Kumar, A., & Pereira, A. (2016). Plant adaptation to 
drought stress. F1000Research, 5, F1000 Faculty Rev-1554. Usher, G. (1996). The 
Wordsworth dictionary of botany. Ware: Wordsworth Editions. 
4. Beck, E. H., Fettig, S., Knake, C., Hartig, K., & Bhattarai, T. (2007). Specific and 
unspecific responses of plants to cold and drought stress. Journal of Biosciences, 32(3), 
501-510. doi:10.1007/s12038-007-0049-5 
5. Blair, J., Nippert, J., & Briggs, J. (2013). Grassland Ecology. Ecology and the 
Environment, 1–30. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7612-2_14-1 
6. Blum, Abraham. (2005). Drought Resistance, Water-Use Efficiency, and Yield 
Potential—Are They Compatible, Dissonant, or Mutually Exclusive?. Australian 
Journal of Agricultural Research - AUST J AGR RES. 56. 10.1071/AR05069. 
7. Caon, Martin. (2008). Osmoles, osmolality and osmotic pressure: Clarifying the puzzle 
of solution concentration. Contemporary nurse. 29. 92-9. 10.5172/conu.673.29.1.92. 
8. Chen, H., & Jiang, J. G. (2010). Osmotic adjustment and plant adaptation to 
environmental changes related to drought and salinity. Environmental Reviews, 
18(NA), 309-319. 
9. Claeys, H., & Inzé, D. (2013). The agony of choice: How plants balance growth and 
survival under water-limiting Conditions1. Plant Physiology, 162(4), 1768-1779. 
doi:10.1104/pp.113.220921 
10. Craine, J. M., Ocheltree, T. W., Nippert, J. B., Towne, E. G., Skibbe, A. M., Kembel, 
S. W., & Fargione, J. E. (2013). Global diversity of drought tolerance and grassland 
climate-change resilience. Nature Climate Change, 3(1), 63-67. 
doi:10.1038/nclimate1634 
11. Delzon, S. (2015). New insight into leaf drought tolerance. Functional Ecology, 
29(10), 1247-1249. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12500 
12. Eviner, V. (2016). Grasslands. In MOONEY H., ZAVALETA E., & CHAPIN M. 
(Eds.), Ecosystems of California (pp. 449-478). Oakland, California: University of 
California Press. Retrieved April 26, 2020, from 
www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/j.ctv1xxzp6.28 
26 
 
13. Fang, Y., Fang, Y., Xiong, L., & Xiong, L. (2015). General mechanisms of drought 
response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants. Cellular 
and Molecular Life Sciences, 72(4), 673-689. doi:10.1007/s00018-014-1767-0 
14. Farrell, Claire & Szota, Chris & Arndt, Stefan. (2017). Does the turgor loss point 
characterize drought response in dryland plants?: Turgor loss point and drought 
tolerance. Plant, Cell & Environment. 40. 10.1111/pce.12948. 
15. Griffin-Nolan, R. J., Ocheltree, T. W., Mueller, K. E., Blumenthal, D. M., Kray, J. A., 
& Knapp, A. K. (2019). Extending the osmometer method for assessing drought 
tolerance in herbaceous species. Oecologia, 189(2), 353-363. doi:10.1007/s00442-019-
04336-w 
16. Griffin‐Nolan, RJ, Blumenthal, DM, Collins, SL, et al. Shifts in plant functional 
composition following long‐term drought in grasslands. J Ecol. 2019; 107: 2133– 
2148. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13252 
17. Griffin-Nolan, Robert & Ocheltree, Troy & Mueller, Kevin & Blumenthal, Dana & 
Kray, Julie & Knapp, Alan. (2019). Extending the osmometer method for assessing 
drought tolerance in herbaceous species. Oecologia. 189. 10.1007/s00442-019-04336-
w. 
18. Hoover, D. L., Koriakin, K., Albrigtsen, J., & Ocheltree, T. (2019). Comparing water-
related plant functional traits among dominant grasses of the Colorado plateau: 
Implications for drought resistance. Plant and Soil, 441(1), 207-218. 
doi:10.1007/s11104-019-04107-9 
19. Hoover, D.L., Koriakin, K., Albrigtsen, J. et al. Comparing water-related plant 
functional traits among dominant grasses of the Colorado Plateau: Implications for 
drought resistance. Plant Soil 441, 207–218 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-
019-04107-9 
20. Jung, V., Albert, C.H., Violle, C., Kunstler, G., Loucougaray, G. and Spiegelberger, T. 
(2014), Intraspecific trait variability mediates the response of subalpine grassland 
communities to extreme drought events. J Ecol, 102: 45-53. doi:10.1111/1365-
2745.12177 
21. Malézieux, E., Lamanda, N., Laurans, M., Tassin, J., & Gourlet-Fleury, S. (2007). 
Plant functional traits and types: Their relevance for a better understanding of the 
functioning and properties of agroforestry systems. CATIE. 
22. Naudts, K., Van den Berge, J., Janssens, I. A., Nijs, I., & Ceulemans, R. (2011). Does 
an extreme drought event alter the response of grassland communities to a changing 
climate? Environmental and Experimental Botany, 70(2), 151-157. 
doi:10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.08.013 
23. Naudts, K., Van den Berge, J., Janssens, I. A., Nijs, I., & Ceulemans, R. (2011). Does 
an extreme drought event alter the response of grassland communities to a changing 
climate? Environmental and Experimental Botany, 70(2-3), 151-157. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.08.013 
27 
 
24. Pakeman, Robin. (2014). Leaf Dry Matter Content Predicts Herbivore Productivity, but 
Its Functional Diversity Is Positively Related to Resilience in Grasslands. PloS one. 9. 
e101876. 10.1371/journal.pone.0101876. 
25. Sun, S, Jung, E‐Y, Gaviria, J, Engelbrecht, BMJ. Drought survival is positively 
associated with high turgor loss points in temperate perennial grassland species. Funct 
Ecol. 2020; 00: 1– 11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13522 
26. Tilman, D., & A. El Haddi. (1992). Drought and Biodiversity in Grasslands. 
Oecologia, 89(2), 257-264. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from 
www.jstor.org/stable/4219879 
27. Van Rooijen, N., De Keersmaecker, W., Ozinga, W., Coppin, P., Hennekens, S., 
Schaminée, J., . . . Honnay, O. (2015). Plant Species Diversity Mediates Ecosystem 
Stability of Natural Dune Grasslands in Response to Drought. Ecosystems, 18(8), 
1383-1394. Retrieved April 30, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/43677789 
28. Wilson EO, Peter FM, editors. Biodiversity. Washington (DC): National Academies 
Press (US); 1988. Chapter 19, Diversity in and Among Grasslands. 
29. Wright, Justin & Ames, Gregory & Mitchell, Rachel. (2016). The more things change, 
the more they stay the same? When is trait variability important for stability of 
ecosystem function in a changing environment. Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 371. 20150272. 10.1098/rstb.2015.0272. 
30. Wright, I., Reich, P., Westoby, M. et al. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. 
Nature 428, 821–827 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02403 
31. Yordanov, I., Velikova, V. & Tsonev, T. Plant Responses to Drought, Acclimation, 
and Stress Tolerance. Photosynthetica 38, 171–186 (2000). 
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007201411474 
32. Zwicke, M., Picon-Cochard, C., Morvan-Bertrand, A., Prud'homme, M., & Volaire, F. 
(2015). What functional strategies drive drought survival and recovery of perennial 
species from upland grassland? Annals of Botany, 116(6), 1001-1015. 
doi:10.1093/aob/mcv037 
 
28