| Literature DB >> 27073036 |
Yao Zhang1, Yan Li2, Jiang-Bo Xie3.
Abstract
The response of plants to drought is controlled by the interaction between physiological regulation and morphological adjustment. Although recent studies have highlighted the long-term morphological acclimatization of plants to drought, there is still debate on how plant biomass allocation patterns respond to drought. In this study, we performed a greenhouse experiment with first-year seedlings of a desert shrub in control, drought and re-water treatments, to examine their physiological and morphological traits during drought and subsequent recovery. We found that (i) biomass was preferentially allocated to roots along a fixed allometric trajectory throughout the first year of development, irrespective of the variation in water availability; and (ii) this fixed biomass allocation pattern benefited the post-drought recovery. These results suggest that, in a stressful environment, natural selection has favoured a fixed biomass allocation pattern rather than plastic responses to environmental variation. The fixed 'preferential allocation to root' biomass suggests that roots may play a critical role in determining the fate of this desert shrub during prolonged drought. As the major organ for resource acquisition and storage, how the root system functions during drought requires further investigation. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.Entities:
Keywords: Allometry; biomass allocation pattern; drought; morphological adjustment; physiological regulation; recovery
Year: 2016 PMID: 27073036 PMCID: PMC4866650 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plw020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AoB Plants Impact factor: 3.276
Figure 1.Variations of predawn leaf potential (Ψpd) (A) and midday leaf potential (Ψm) (B) under control, drought and re-watered conditions. Data are means ± SD; n = 8. Lower case letters indicate groups that are significantly different from each other (P< 0.05).
Figure 2.Variations of light curves at 10 days (A), 15 days (B), 20 days (C), 25 days (D), 30 days (E) and 35 days (F) under control, drought and re-watered conditions. Data are means ± SD; n = 5. The relationship between net photosynthetic rate (Pn) and PPFDi was fitted by the exponential MnMolecular function , in which y is net photosynthetic rate, x is PPFDi, A is net photosynthetic rate at light saturation point, xc is PPFDi at light compensation point and k × A is apparent quantum efficiency of photosynthesis.
Figure 3.Variations of shoot (A) and root respiration (B) per unit of biomass under control, drought and re-watered conditions. Data are means ± SD; n = 8. Lower case letters indicate groups that are significantly different from each other (P< 0.05).
Figure 4.Variations of root : shoot ratio under control, drought and re-watered conditions. Data are means ± SD; n = 8. Lower case letters indicate groups that are significantly different from each other (P< 0.05). The small panel shows recovery percentages of drought seedlings on drought 20, 30 and 40 days, correspondingly.
Figure 5.Allometric analysis for biomass allocation. Standardized major axis regression was used to test the difference in slopes and intercepts at α = 0.01 among treatments: log10 root mass vs. log10 shoot mass (A), log10 root mass vs. log10 plant mass (B), log10 shoot mass vs. log10 plant mass (C) and log10 root : shoot ratio vs. log10 plant mass (D). Squares and grey straight lines represent control, circles and black straight lines represent drought and triangles and black dashed lines represent re-water.
Results for SMA slopes fitted within treatments in root mass vs. shoot mass, root mass vs. plant mass, shoot mass vs. plant mass and root : shoot ratio vs. plant mass. Testing for common slopes (where slopes are equal, P > 0.01) and intercept differences (where no differences in intercept, P > 0.01). R, root mass; S, shoot mass; M, plant mass; RS, root : shoot ratio; LR, likelihood ratio statistic; W, wald statistic. 1The fitted curves were compared only between the control and drought treatments. The reason is given in the ‘Fixed biomass allocation pattern’ section.
| Slopes (99 % confidence intervals) | LR, df, | Intercepts (99 % confidence intervals) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Drought | Re-water | ( | Control | Drought | ( | ||
| 1.52 (1.21, 1.91) | 1.67 (1.29, 2.18) | 1.26 (0.89, 1.78) | 2.94, 2, 0.23 | −1.21 (−1.49, −0.94) | −1.15 (−1.49, −0.81) | 5.57, 1, 0.021 | ||
| 1.49 (1.23, 1.79) | 1.56 (1.27, 1.91) | 1.33 (0.99, 1.78) | 1.40, 2, 0.50 | −1.28 (−1.52, −1.04) | −1.21 (−1.48, −0.94) | 5.49, 1, 0.021 | ||
| 0.97 (0.92, 1.03) | 0.93 (0.87, 1.01) | 1.06 (0.96, 1.16) | 1.50, 1, 0.221 | −0.04 (−0.09, 0.00) | −0.04 (−0.10, 0.02) | 4.97, 1, 0.031 | ||
| 1.00 (0.72, 1.38) | 1.02 (0.71, 1.48) | −1.20 (−1.79, −0.80) | 0.02, 1, 0.901 | −1.65 (−1.94, −1.37) | −1.50 (−1.83, −1.17) | 2.89, 1, 0.091 | ||