4.7 Article

A method to estimate practical radial oxygen loss of wetland plant roots

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 279, Issue 1-2, Pages 119-128

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-005-0462-1

Keywords

oxygen; radial oxygen loss; root; Typha latifolia L

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The estimation of practical radial oxygen loss (ROL) of wetland plant roots was attempted in this study. We have devised a new method to measure ROL of wetland plant roots. The whole root system was bathed in an anoxic nutrient solution. Oxygen released from the root was removed immediately by introducing oxygen-free nitrogen gas (O-2 < 4 nmol L-1) to mimic natural habitats where released oxygen is consumed rapidly due to chemical and biological oxidation processes. Oxygen removed from the root-bathing chamber was simultaneously detected colorimetrically by use of the highly oxygen-sensitive anthraquinone radical anion (AQ(-)) in a cell outside the root-bathing chamber, which decolorized by a rapid reaction with oxygen. An emergent macrophyte Typha latifolia L. was incubated, and its ROL was measured by both the new method and one of the conventional methods, the closed chamber/electrode method, by which the ROL of Typha latifolia L. had not yet been measured. The new method succeeded in detecting the ROL, whereas the conventional method was not able to detect oxygen, due to the level being below the detection limit of the oxygen electrode. The oxygen supply via the seedlings of Typha latifolia L. was ca. 10 times higher compared with control measurements without plant. Light illumination significantly enhanced the ROL of Typha latifolia L. (0.33 nmol O-2 g(-1) root dry weight s(-1) under light and 0.18 nmol O-2 g(-1) root dry weight s(-1) in the dark). Theses values fall between those previously reported by the closed chamber/titanium citrate method and the open chamber/electrode method.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available