| Literature DB >> 26213419 |
Kemo Jin1, Jianbo Shen2, Rhys W Ashton3, Rodger P White3, Ian C Dodd4, Andrew L Phillips3, Martin A J Parry3, William R Whalley3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We were interested in the effect of impedance to root growth on root and shoot architecture of wheat. It is known that Rht-1 semi-dwarfing alleles decrease the degree of leaf stunting due to root impedance. We compared commercial wheat cultivars containing different Rht-1 alleles to determine whether leaf stunting caused by root impedance differed between cultivars. We investigated effects of impedance to root growth on the angular spread of roots.Entities:
Keywords: Leaf elongation; Rht alleles; Root growth angle; Root impedance
Year: 2015 PMID: 26213419 PMCID: PMC4509673 DOI: 10.1007/s11104-015-2462-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Soil ISSN: 0032-079X Impact factor: 4.192
Fig. 1A schematic representation of the experimental growth system (a), which shows the position of the capillary fringe to scale. Below the capillary fringe the sand is saturated. The length of the pots is 45 cm. The system in use is shown in the photograph (b). The hemispherical mesh basket (c) which was used to allow root growth angle to be recorded at harvest is in photograph (d). The size of the basket is 10 cm in diameter and 5 cm in depth. The cross on the top of the basket helped to keep the plant in the correct position at harvest
The data of shoot dry weight (g), number of tillers, number of primary roots and maximum root depth (cm) for control and impeded roots at the point of harvest
| Shoot Dry weight (g) | Number of tillers | Number of primary roots | Maximum root depth (cm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| control | impeded | control | impeded | control | impeded | control | impeded | |
| Avalon | 5.91 | 1.22 | 19.7 | 3.8 | 44.3 | 14.7 | 11.2 | 8.7 |
| Battalion | 5.55 | 1.63 | 18.3 | 5.3 | 39.7 | 17.8 | 12.8 | 6.7 |
| Cadenza | 5.65 | 0.7 | 14.5 | 2.2 | 42.9 | 13.5 | 11.9 | 6.5 |
| Robigus | 5.72 | 1.29 | 21.8 | 4.7 | 43.7 | 17.8 | 11.3 | 6.8 |
|
| ||||||||
| Treatment | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||
| Genotype | 0.593 | <0.001 | 0.632 | 0.828 | ||||
| Genotype x Treatment | 0.474 | 0.079 | 0.201 | 0.371 | ||||
The genotype x treatment interaction was also shown. Each value is the mean of four replicates. ANOVA was conducted with P Values for treatment (control and impeded), genotype and their interaction (Genotype x Treatment) reported
Mean angular spread of roots for control and impeded roots
| Wheat | Control | Impeded |
|---|---|---|
| Avalon | 57 | 43 |
| Battalion | 50 | 46 |
| Cadenza | 55 | 53 |
| Robigus | 57 | 32 |
The genotype x impedance interaction is significant at P = 0.057. An angle of 0° corresponds to a vertical root. The SED is 5.6°. The mean angular spread of roots for control and impeded roots was 55O and 43O (P = 0.002) respectively. There was no effect of cultivar (P = 0.302)
Fig. 2The distribution of root growth angles for non-impeded control roots and impeded roots. Data for all four wheat cultivars were pooled because the interaction between wheat cultivar and impedance was not significant
Fig. 3Root diameter size distribution as affected by root impedance. The effect of impedance on root diameter was significant at P < 0.001
Fig. 4Leaf area plotted against root length. The data were fitted to the curve . A common curve could be fitted to all data which accounted for 93.5 % of the variance (P < 0.001) with the following parameter values: A = 137.80 (+/- 9.59), B = 110.99 (+/-8.57) and R = 0.98904 (+/- 0.00217). Each point is an individual plant.
Fig. 5Leaf elongation in four cultivars with impeded roots compared with roots in mechanically weak sand (control). Data are means for the two experiments estimated by fitting a spline function to the data from both experiments. The standard error of differences (SED) from REML analysis is shown. The interaction between cultivar, leaf number, time was significant at P < 0.001 (18 df) and the main effect of root impedance and cultivar had a significant effect at P < 0.001
The final leaf length of leaves 3, 4, 5 and 6
| Impedance | Wheat | Leaf length (cm) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf 3 | Leaf 4 | Leaf 5 | Leaf 6 | ||
| Control | Avalon | 23.30 | 27.99 | 30.39 | 31.00 |
| Battalion | 23.30 | 28.46 | 30.08 | 29.57 | |
| Cadenza | 25.16 | 33.28 | 35.39 | 33.23 | |
| Robigus | 22.47 | 26.83 | 29.24 | 28.88 | |
| Impeded | Avalon | 18.30 | 19.04 | 18.55 | 17.97 |
| Battalion | 18.06 | 19.67 | 18.77 | 15.36 | |
| Cadenza | 16.20 | 15.26 | 13.84 | 12.24 | |
| Robigus | 18.40 | 20.02 | 20.37 | 19.08 | |
The SED to compare any two of the means in this table is 2.32 cm (P < 0.001, 18 df)