| Literature DB >> 28400562 |
Tingfa Dong1, Junyu Li1,2, Yongmei Liao1, Bin J W Chen3, Xiao Xu4.
Abstract
Recent studies have demonstrated that plants can determine the identity of neighbouring roots (e.g., self and non-self, kin and non-kin), but whether they can discriminate by sex remains an open question. Here, we predict that dioecious plants can modulate their root performance in response to local root conditions related to sex. Female and male Populus cathayana cuttings were planted in a greenhouse in root-owner (one individual without a root neighbour) or root-sharer pairs (two individuals with roots neighbouring each other) with equal amounts of nutrients and space per plant in three combinations (females-females, males-males or females-males); root morphology, biomass and allocation were investigated. P. cathayana root-sharers altered their root growth in same-sex but not in different-sex combinations. Females enhanced root growth and allocation but decreased root proliferation (greater diameter with reduced branching and specific root length) in the presence of a female root neighbour, while males reduced root growth but increased root morphological proliferation in contact with another male. Therefore, the effect of a neighbour of the same sex differed from that of a neighbour of the opposite sex, which suggests that these plants can recognize the sexual identity of their neighbours.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28400562 PMCID: PMC5429744 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00894-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Summary of the effects of root neighbour patterns (owner, intra-sex sharer or inter-sex sharer), sex (female or male) and their interactions on Populus cathayana root biomass and allocation and root morphological traits according to linear mixed models.
| Root neighbour pattern (N) | Sex (S) | N × S | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| df |
|
| df |
|
| df |
|
| |
| Root dry mass (g plant−1) | 2, 40 | 7.312 |
| 1, 40 | 36.342 |
| 2, 40 | 44.022 |
|
| Total dry mass (g plant−1) | 2, 40 | 11.549 |
| 1, 40 | 20.092 |
| 2, 40 | 2.263 | 0.109 |
| Root mass fraction | 2, 40 | 16.074 |
| 1, 40 | 6.870 |
| 2, 40 | 27.524 |
|
| Avg. root diameter (mm) | 2, 40 | 25.419 |
| 1, 40 | 0.000 | 0.994 | 2, 40 | 31.303 |
|
| Specific root length (m g−1) | 2, 40 | 7.631 |
| 1, 40 | 6.785 |
| 2, 40 | 34.647 |
|
| Root branching intensity | 2, 40 | 3.402 |
| 1, 40 | 30.618 |
| 2, 40 | 39.087 |
|
Significant effects (P < 0.05) are shown in bold.
Figure 1Effects of root neighbour combination treatments on root dry mass (a), total dry mass (b) and root mass fraction (ratio of root mass to total mass) (c) on female and male Populus cathayana cuttings grown in owner (no interplant roots; black bar) and sharing (with interplant roots from the same sex, grey bar; with interplant roots from the opposite sex, white bar) boxes. Each value is the mean ± SE (n = 10 in owner; n = 5 in intra-sex or inter-sex sharers). Bars with different letters are significantly different at the P < 0.05 level according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 2Effects of root neighbour combination treatments on average root diameter (a), specific root length (b) and root branching intensity (c) on female and male Populus cathayana cuttings grown in owner (no interplant roots; black bar) and sharing (with interplant roots from the same sex, grey bar; with interplant roots from the opposite sex, white bar) boxes. Each value is the mean ± SE (n = 10 in owner; n = 5 in intra-sex or inter-sex sharers). Bars with different letters are significantly different at the P < 0.05 level according to Tukey’s test.