| Literature DB >> 35812936 |
Shan-Shan Sun1,2,3,4, Xin-Ping Liu1, Xue-Yong Zhao1,3, Eduardo Medina-Roldánd5, Yu-Hui He1, Peng Lv1,2,3,4, Hong-Jiao Hu1,2.
Abstract
The frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events and severe drought are predicted to increase in semiarid areas due to global climate change. Plant morphological traits can reflect plant responses to a changing environment, such as altered precipitation or drought patterns. In this study, we examined the response of morphological traits of root, stem, leaf and reproduction meristems of annual herbaceous species to altered precipitation and drought patterns in a semiarid sandy grassland. The study involved a control treatment (100% of background precipitation) and the following six altered precipitation treatments: (1) P(+): precipitation increased by 30%, (2) P(++): precipitation increased by 60%, (3) P(-): precipitation decreased by 30%, (4) P(--): precipitation decreased by 60%, (5) drought 1 (D1): 46-day drought from May 1st to June 15th, and (6) drought 2 (D2): 46-day drought from July 1st to August 15th. P(++) significantly increased root length, flower length-to-width ratio, both P(+) and P(++) significantly increased stem length and flower number in the plant growing seasons, while all of them decreased under P(-) and P(--). The annual herbaceous plants marginally increased the number of second-level stem branches and stem diameter in order to better resist the severe drought stress under P(--). P(+) and P(++) increased the root, stem, leaf, and flower dry weight, with the flower dry weight accounting for a larger proportion than the other aboveground parts. Under D2, the plants used the limited water resources more efficiently by increasing the root-to-shoot ratio compared with P(-), P(--) and D1, which reflects biomass allocation to belowground increased. The linear mixed-effects models and redundancy analysis showed that the root-to-shoot ratio and the dry weight of various plant components were significantly affected by morphological traits and altered precipitation magnitude. Our results showed that the herbaceous species have evolved morphological trait responses that allow them to adapt to climate change. Such differences in morphological traits may ultimately affect the growing patterns of annual herbaceous species, enhancing their drought-tolerant capacity in semiarid sandy grassland during the ongoing climate change.Entities:
Keywords: altered precipitation patterns; annual herbaceous species; biomass allocation patterns; morphological traits; semiarid sandy grassland; severe drought stress
Year: 2022 PMID: 35812936 PMCID: PMC9260268 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.756950
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Figure 1Differences in soil water content at depths of 0–30 cm in precipitation manipulation experiment. CK: control (100% of background precipitation); P(+): 30% increase in precipitation; P(++): 60% increase in precipitation; P(-): 30% decrease in precipitation; P(--): 60% decrease in precipitation; D1: 46-day drought from May 1st to June 15th; D2: 46-day drought from July 1st to August 15th.
Figure 2Differences in (A) Root length. (B) Number of first-level root branches. (C) Number of second-level root branches. (D) Root surface area. (E) Specific root length. (F) Stem diameter. (G) Stem length. (H) Number of first-level stem branches. (I) Number of second-level stem branches of annual herbaceous plants in semiarid sandy grassland under altered precipitation and drought patterns. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences under different precipitation treatments; NS: not significant. CK: control (100% of background precipitation); P(+): 30% increase in precipitation; P(++): 60% increase in precipitation; P(-): 30% decrease in precipitation; P(--): 60% decrease in precipitation; D1: 46-day drought from May 1st to June 15th; D2: 46-day drought from July 1st to August 15th.
Figure 3Differences in (A) Leaf length-to-width ratio. (B) Leaf diameter. (C) Leaf number. (D) Flower length-to-width ratio. (E) Flower diameter. (F) Flower number. (G) Fruit/seed length-to-width ratio. (H) Fruit/seed diameter. (I) Fruit/seed number of annual herbaceous plants in semiarid sandy grassland under altered precipitation and drought patterns. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences under different precipitation treatments; NS: not significant. CK: control (100% of background precipitation); P(+): 30% increase in precipitation; P(++): 60% increase in precipitation; P(-): 30% decrease in precipitation; P(--): 60% decrease in precipitation; D1: 46-day drought from May 1st to June 15th; D2: 46-day drought from July 1st to August 15th.
Figure 4Differences in (A) Root dry weight. (B) Stem dry weight. (C) Leaf dry weight. (D) Flower dry weight. (E) Fruit/seed dry weight. (F) Root-to-shoot ratio of annual herbaceous plants in semiarid sandy grassland under altered precipitation and drought patterns. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences under different precipitation treatments; NS: not significant. CK: control (100% of background precipitation); P(+): 30% increase in precipitation; P(++): 60% increase in precipitation; P(-): 30% decrease in precipitation; P(--): 60% decrease in precipitation; D1: 46-day drought from May 1st to June 15th; D2: 46-day drought from July 1st to August 15th.
Explained proportions of variance in plant biomass allocation.
| Variable | % Explained | Axis 1 | Axis 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Explained variation (cumulative) | 69.91 | 74.44 | |||
| Explained fitted variation (cumulative) | 90.66 | 96.54 | |||
| Flower number | 56.8 | 0.002 | |||
| Flower diameter | 6.5 | 0.002 | |||
| Stem length | 2.6 | 0.006 | |||
| Stem diameter | 2.0 | 0.01 | |||
| Specific root length | 2.2 | 0.008 | |||
| Root surface area | 1.4 | 0.02 | |||
| Root length | 0.7 | 0.126 | |||
| Number of second-level root branches | 0.7 | 0.154 | |||
| Leaf number | 0.5 | 0.172 | |||
| Precipitation magnitude | 0.5 | 0.218 | |||
| Flower length-to-width ratio | 0.5 | 0.2 | |||
| Leaf diameter | 0.5 | 0.182 | |||
| Number of second-level stem branches | 0.4 | 0.266 | |||
| Root length density | 0.3 | 0.352 | |||
| Root branch intensity | 0.3 | 0.404 | |||
| Root diameter | 0.2 | 0.478 | |||
| Number of first-level stem branches | 0.5 | 0.234 | |||
| Number of first-level root branches | 0.5 | 0.228 |
Figure 5Relationships of (A) Number of first-level root branches. (B) Specific root length. (C) Stem length. (D) Number of first-level stem branches. (E) Number of second-level stem branches. (F) Leaf number. (G) Leaf diameter. (H) Flower diameter. (I) Flower number with root-to-shoot ratio under precipitation regime changes. Each point represents values at a given precipitation intensity. Black line represents the overall relationship from a linear mixed-effects model. The significant level: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.s
Figure 6Redundancy analysis (RDA) triplot of the root-to-shoot ratio (R/S), dry weight of root, stem, leaf, and flower, plant morphological traits, and precipitation magnitude (PM). FN: Flower number; FD: Flower diameter; SL: Stem length; SD: Stem diameter; SRL: Specific root length; RSA: Root surface area; RL: Root length; SRB: Number of second-level root branches; LN: Leaf number; FLWR: Flower length-to-width ratio; LD: Leaf diameter; SSB: Number of second-level stem branches; RLD: root length density; RBI: root branch intensity; RD: Root diameter; FRB: Number of first-level root branches; R/S: Root-to-shoot ratio; RDW: Root dry weight; SDW: Stem dry weight; LDW: Leaf dry weight; FDW: Flower dry weight.