| Literature DB >> 22791828 |
Amelia Henry1, Andrew J Cal, Tristram C Batoto, Rolando O Torres, Rachid Serraj.
Abstract
Lowland rice roots have a unique physiological response to drought because of their adaptation to flooded soil. Rice root attributes that facilitate growth under flooded conditions may affect rice response to drought, but the relative roles of root structural and functional characteristics for water uptake under drought in rice are not known. Morphological, anatomical, biochemical, and molecular attributes of soil-grown rice roots were measured to investigate the genotypic variability and genotype×environment interactions of water uptake under variable soil water regimes. Drought-resistant genotypes had the lowest night-time bleeding rates of sap from the root system in the field. Diurnal fluctuation predominated as the strongest source of variation for bleeding rates in the field and root hydraulic conductivity (Lpr) in the greenhouse, and was related to expression trends of various PIP and TIP aquaporins. Root anatomy was generally more responsive to drought treatments in drought-resistant genotypes. Suberization and compaction of sclerenchyma layer cells decreased under drought, whereas suberization of the endodermis increased, suggesting differential roles of these two cell layers for the retention of oxygen under flooded conditions (sclerenchyma layer) and retention of water under drought (endodermis). The results of this study point to the genetic variability in responsiveness to drought of rice roots in terms of morphology, anatomy, and function.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22791828 PMCID: PMC3427995 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ers150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Multivariate effects on rice root functional parameters for water uptake; bleeding rate (field Exps 1a and 1b), root hydraulic conductivity (greenhouse Exps 2a and 2b), and aquaporin expression (greenhouse Exp 2c)
All aquaporin types were analysed together from Exp 2c. Only significant interactions among factors are shown here.
| Bleeding rate | Root hydraulic conductivity | Aquaporin expression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor |
| Factor |
| Factor |
|
| Field season | <0.001*** | Experiment | <0.001*** | Tissue | <0.001*** |
| Treatment | <0.001*** | Genotype | 0.698 | Time of day | <0.001*** |
| Genotype | <0.001*** | Treatment | <0.001*** | Treatment | <0.001*** |
| Date | <0.001*** | Time of day | 0.012* | Genotype | 0.014* |
| Field season×treatment | <0.001*** | Soil moisture | 0.906 | Tissue×time | <0.001*** |
| Field season×genotype | <0.001*** | Treatment×soil moisture | 0.037* | Tissue×treatment | <0.001*** |
| Treatment×genotype | 0.085 | Time ×treatment | <0.001*** | ||
| Treatment×date | <0.001*** | From stress treatments | Tissue×genotype | 0.011* | |
| Genotype×date | <0.001*** | Soil moisture | 0.025* | ||
| Field season×treatment×genotype | <0.001*** | Genotype×soil moisture | 0.057 | ||
| From stress treatments | |||||
| Soil water potential | <0.001*** | ||||
| Genotype×soil water potential | 0.043* | ||||
| Time of day | <0.001*** | ||||
| Treatment×time of day | 0.001** | ||||
Fig. 1. Soil water potential in the drought treatment at a depth of 30cm in the two field studies of this experiment (A and B), and corresponding overnight (17h) bleeding rates for Exp 1a [(C) control and (E) drought] and Exp 1b [(D) control and (F) drought]. Control treatments were maintained continuously flooded. Significance levels among genotypes are ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, and *P < 0.05. Letters are indicated next to genotype symbols to signify overall groupings for each treatment.
Fig. 2. Diurnal fluctuations in bleeding rates from field studies, as expressed per unit shoot biomass per hour of collection in (A) Exp 1b control and (B) Exp 1b drought stress. Significant differences among genotypes are *P < 0.05, and letters adjacent to symbols indicate significance levels at the time of measurement.
Fig. 3. Root hydraulic conductivity (Lp r) in greenhouse Exp 2a [(A) WW and (B) DD] and Exp 2b [(C) WW and (D) DD] as determined by collected exuded xylem sap at three applied pressures from 0.25MPa to 0.5MPa and normalized for root surface area, and leaf water potential (LWP) in Exp 2b [(E) WW and (F) DD] as determined by pressure chamber measurement in three leaves per plant at the time of Lp r measurement. Measurements of genotype KDML 105 were taken at a range of early to mid times of day. Significant differences are indicated by a * (P < 0.05) or ** above the symbols for differences between genotypes and above the lines for differences between times of day for single genotype.
Fig. 4. Response of root hydraulic conductivity (Lp r) in the drought stress treatments of greenhouse Exps 2a and 2b to variable soil moisture levels at the time of Lp r measurements.
Maximum root depth, total root length, and lateral roots (diameter <0.2mm) as a percentage of total root length in greenhouse Exps 2a and 2b
Values shown are means ±SE. Letters indicate significantly different genotypes within each treatment.
| Treatment | Genotype | Maximum root depth (cm) | Total root length (cm) | Lateral roots (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exp 2b | Exp 2a | Exp 2b | Exp 2a | Exp 2b | ||
| WW | Dular | 21.9±1.64 | 3496±296 a | 1382±152 | 79.4±0.8 | 71.0±1.2 |
| IR64 | 17.2±1.25 | 2668±248 b | 1323±128 | 81.2±0.5 | 71.5±0.9 | |
| KDML 105 | 17.8±1.88 | 1057±192 | 66.0±3.7 | |||
| DD | Dular | 34.7±1.65 | 2194±193 | 1460±168 | 81.8±0.8 a | 77.6±1.3 |
| IR64 | 30.7±1.66 | 2211±125 | 1387±157 | 79.1±0.8 b | 80.4±1.3 | |
| KDML 105 | 30.1±3.57 | 1099±181 | 75.1±0.8 | |||
| DD-75% | Dular | 36.0±3.89 | 667±94 | 71.9±1.5 b | ||
| IR64 | 31.6±2.18 | 637±129 | 79.9±1.5 a | |||
| KDML 105 | 29.3±5.52 | 716±147 | 74.1±1.1 b | |||
Fig. 5. Hierarchical clustering of samples based on aquaporin expression in greenhouse Exp 2c (A). The primary division was based on tissue. Mid-day drought-stressed root samples clustered away from other root samples (left box); morning leaf samples clustered together, regardless of drought treatment (right box). Hierarchical clustering of aquaporin gene expression in roots (B) divided into three main clusters.
Fig. 6. Root expression patterns of cluster 3 aquaporins from greenhouse Exp 2c with significant treatment×time×genotype interaction. Bars indicate the standard error.
Fig. 8. Diameters of root sections (A and B), stele (as a percentage of root diameter; C and D), late metaxylem vessels (E and F), and sclerenchyma cells (G and H) in nodal roots sectioned at the mid-point in greenhouse Exps 2b (seedling stage, severe drought stress) and 3 (mature plants, mild drought stress), respectively.
Traits observed in this study and their suggested roles in rice root water uptake under drought
| Trait | Trends observed | Suggested function for water uptake under drought |
|---|---|---|
| Morphological | ||
| Lateral root formation | Increased lateral root formation withdrought stress | Improved contact with shrinking water columns in the soil, differential conductivity due to differential anatomy/biochemistry compared with coarse roots |
| Nodal root diameter | Decreased under drought | Finer root formation to conserve resources |
| Anatomical | ||
| Proportion of root cross-sectional diameter represented by stele | Increased under drought | Prioritization of retaining water in vascular tissue rather than reducing radial oxygen loss as drought occurs |
| Diameter/number of xylem vessels | Decreased under severe drought | Reduced risk of xylem vessel cavitation |
| Width of/number of cells in the outer partof the root | Decreased under drought | Reduced impedance to water uptake from the soil, and/or senescence of outer cells due to stress |
| Sclerenchyma cell diameter | Increased under drought | Tightly packed cells not needed for retention of oxygen as drought occurs |
| Suberization of sclerenchyma layer | Decreased under drought stress | Effect on water uptake not apparent: probably most important for reducing radial oxygen loss under flooded conditions |
| Suberization of endodermis | Increased under drought stress | Important for water transport through retention of water in vascular cells during drought, rather than for water uptake |
| Aerenchyma formation | Decreased under drought | Effect on water uptake not apparent: probably most important for supplying oxygen under flooded conditions |
| Functional | ||
| Aquaporin expression | Mid- and late-day decrease under drought | Response to lowered transpirational demand, conservation of soil water |
| Diurnal fluctuations in root hydraulicconductivity and bleeding rate | All genotypes showed reduced levels at night, differential levels early and mid-day | Genotypes that time water uptake and transport to the shoots with periods of the day when transpiration is most efficient (i.e. morning) may have more efficient water use |
| Synchronization of diurnal changes in leaf water potential and root hydraulic conductivity | Differential trends between genotypes: Dularwas better synchronized than IR64 | Synchronization of root and leaf function may allow for more efficient water use |
Fig. 7. Nodal root anatomy at the longitudinal mid-point in greenhouse Exp 2b differed among treatments for most parameters measured, and among genotypes in terms of sclerenchyma cell diameter and stele as a percentage of root diameter. Suberization of the sclerenchyma layer decreased with drought, and suberization of the endodermis increased with drought. Genotypes shown on the left are Dular [(A) WW (well-watered control); (B) DD (drydown from field capacity); (C) DD-75% (drydown from 75% of field capacity)], IR64 [(D) WW, (E) DD, and (F) DD-75%], and KDML 105 [(G) WW, (H), DD, and (I) DD-75%]. Images A–I are shown at the same scale, which was a magnification of ×100, and the bar in I.represents 150 µm. Images on the right show differences in staining intensity of the suberin lamellae of the sclerenchyma layer [(J) WW and (K) DD-75%] and endodermis [(L) WW and (M) DD-75%] in KDML 105. Images J–M are shown on the same scale, and the bar in J represents 30 µm.