Comparative ecophysiology of the leaf-succulents Augea capensis (C3) and Malephora purpureo-crocea (CAM) in the Knersvlakte, Succulent Karoo, South Africa

The generally accepted assumption that CAM is an important adaptation to the drought conditions in arid deserts is mainly based on studies in controlled environments comparing the respective photosynthetic pathways in plants of different morphology. Comparative long-term field studies on the ecophysiology of C3- and CAM succulents co-occurring in the same desert habitat are too rare to satisfactorily answer the old question whether the metabolic pathway or the succulence is more important to guarantee survival in such a harsh habitat. Thus, relevant ecophysiological parameters were repeatedly monitored on plants of the leaf succulents Augea capensis (C3) and Malephora purpureo-crocea (CAM), which commonly dominate a habitat in the Knersvlakte, Namaqualand, South Africa. Under identical conditions in the same habitat, carbon gain of the C3 species was higher than that of the CAM plant, but their WUE lower and maximum photosynthetic activity nearly the same. In M. purpureo-crocea, irrigation induced rapid whole day stomatal opening at drastically increased daytime but decreased night-time CO2-uptake, while respective responses of the C3 species were delayed. These different response dynamics were due to different rooting depth, root morphology and water acquisition strategy of the flat rooting CAM and the deep-rooting C3 species. This, however, may not explain the highly similar growth success. Anyway, the results verify that CAM provides no advantage over C3 for long-term survival in the same desert environment in morphologically similar succulents.

Automated summary

Comparative studies on C3 and CAM succulents in a desert region of South Africa found that under identical conditions, C3 plants had higher carbon gain compared to CAM plants, while their maximum photosynthetic activity was similar. The differences in response dynamics to irrigation were attributed to variations in rooting depth, morphology, and water acquisition strategy between the two plant types.