4.0 Article

Comparison of Three Methods for Determination of Root Hydraulic Conductivity of Maize (Zea mays L.) Root System

Journal

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES IN CHINA
Volume 9, Issue 10, Pages 1438-1447

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1671-2927(09)60235-2

Keywords

hydraulic conductivity; Zea mays L.; root pressure probe; pressure chamber; high pressure flow meter

Funding

  1. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education, China [20093702120002]
  2. Shandong Province Postdoctoral Special Fund Innovative Projects, China [200903024]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three techniques of root pressure probe, pressure chamber and high pressure flow meter were used to measure the hydraulic conductivities (Lp(r)) of whole root systems of young maize (Zea mays L.) seedlings grown hydroponically under either drought or normal water conditions. Compared to normal water conditions, drought stress simulated by polyethylene glycol 6000 (osmotic potential=-0.2 MPa) reduced Lp(r) in the root system by over 50%. It indicated that water permeability in the roots decreased significantly when plants suffered from water shortages. Moreover, there was no significant difference (P<0.05) on the Lp(r) values in the root systems developed under a given water stress regime among the three techniques used. Therefore, all three methods are acceptable to study the hydraulic conductivity of maize seedling root systems. We have also highlighted some of the technical limitations of each method. It can be inferred that the root pressure probe is preferable for young maize seedlings because it is subtle and has the additional ability to determine solute transport properties, but the method is time consuming. Other advantages and disadvantages of each technique are discussed in order to acquaint researchers with basic information that could contribute to their choice of an appropriate technique for future studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available