| Literature DB >> 22738296 |
Mónica Calvo-Polanco1, Jorge Señorans, Janusz J Zwiazek.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Flooding reduces supply of oxygen to the roots affecting plant water uptake. Some flooding-tolerant tree species including tamarack (Larix laricina (Du Roi) K. Koch) produce adventitious roots in response to flooding. These roots were reported to have higher hydraulic conductivity under flooding conditions compared with non-adventitious roots. In the present study, we examined structural and functional modifications in adventitious roots of tamarack seedlings to explain their flooding tolerance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22738296 PMCID: PMC3431261 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-12-99
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Seedlings dry weights, needle chlorophyll content (NC), net photosynthesis (NP), transpiration (E), water potential (WP), whole root system hydraulic conductance (K) and hydraulic conductivity (L) in flooded adventitious roots and non-flooded control roots of tamarack seedlings
| Root DW (g) | 13.8 ± 0.5 | 11.8 ± 1.2 |
| Shoot DW (g) | 26.5 ± 1.7 | 25.7 ± 3.5 |
| Total DW (g) | 39.5 ± 2.3 | 38.3 ± 4.7 |
| Shoot:Root Ratio | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 2.3 ± 0.3 |
| NC (mg g-1 DW) | 14.7 ± 1.0a | 9.4 ± 0.7b |
| NP (μmol CO2 m-2 s-1) | 5.6 ± 1.2 | 6.4 ± 1.5 |
| E (mmol H2O m-2 s-1) | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 |
| WP (MPa) | −0.78 ± 0.04 | −0.81 ± 0.05 |
| KTOT (kg MPa-1 s-1 × 10-5) | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.4 |
| LTOT (kg MPa-1 cm-3 s-1 × 10-7) | 2.0 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.1 |
Different letters within the same row indicate significant differences between flooded and non-flooded plants (t-test, p = 0.05). Values are means ± SE (n = 6 for KTOT and LTOT and n = 7 for the rest of the measurements).
Figure 1Arrhenius plots in individual roots of non-flooded tamarack seedlings and in adventitious roots of flooded tamarack seedlings. Means (n = 6) ± SE are shown.
Figure 2Roots in non-flooded tamarack seedlings (A) and adventitious roots in flooded plants (B) after six months of the flooding treatment.
Figure 3Cross sections of non-adventitious non-flooded roots (A,C) and flooded adventitious roots (B,D) showing reduced size of vascular bundles and poorly-developed endodermis in the adventitious root. The sections were taken at 0–0.2 cm from the root tip (A,B) and 1 cm from the root tip (C,D). The root sections were stained with Sudan IV (A,B) and berberine (C,D). The sections for Sudan IV were mounted on slides and examined under the light microscope. The sections for berberine were examined under the fluorescence microscope (Leica DMRXA Upright Microscope) with a green light filter I3 at 450–490 nm excitation and 510 nm emission. Epidermis (EP), Endodermis (EN) and xylem (XYL) structures are indicated with arrows.
Figure 4Cross sections of non-adventitious roots from control, non-flooded-plants (A,C) adventitious roots from flooded seedlings (B,D). The Safranin O and Fast Green FCF sections show starch accumulation in the cortical cells at 0.5 cm from the root tip (A,B). These sections were mounted on slides and examined under the light microscope. Immunolocalication of PIP1aquaporins (C,D) was carried out with sections taken at 0.5 cm from the root tip. The sections were examined under the fluorescence microscope (Leica DMRXA Upright Microscope) with a green light filter I3 at 450–490 nm excitation and 510 nm emission. Epidermis (EP), Endodermis (EN) and xylem (XYL) structures are indicated with arrows.