4.7 Review

Soil conditions and cereal root system architecture: review and considerations for linking Darwin and Weaver

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 64, 期 5, 页码 1193-1208

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ert043

关键词

Cereals; crop productivity; gravitropism; root architecture; root elongation; root branching; tropisms

资金

  1. Australian Centre for Agricultural Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Charles Darwin founded root system architecture research in 1880 when he described a root bending with gravity. Curving, elongating, and branching are the three cellular processes in roots that underlie root architecture. Together they determine the distribution of roots through soil and time, and hence the plants access to water and nutrients, and anchorage. Most knowledge of these cellular processes comes from seedlings of the model dicotyledon, Arabidopsis, grown in soil-less conditions with single treatments. Root systems in the field, however, face multiple stimuli that interact with the plant genetics to result in the root system architecture. Here we review how soil conditions influence root system architecture; focusing on cereals. Cereals provide half of human calories, and their root systems differ from those of dicotyledons. We find that few controlled-environment studies combine more than one soil stimulus and, those that do, highlight the complexity of responses. Most studies are conducted on seedling roots; those on adult roots generally show low correlations to seedling studies. Few field studies report root and soil conditions. Until technologies are available to track root architecture in the field, soil analyses combined with knowledge of the effects of factors on elongation and gravitropism could be ranked to better predict the interaction between genetics and environment (GE) for a given crop. Understanding how soil conditions regulate root architecture can be effectively used to design soil management and plant genetics that best exploit synergies from GE of roots.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据