4.5 Review

Competing neighbors: light perception and root function

期刊

OECOLOGIA
卷 176, 期 1, 页码 1-10

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00442-014-2983-x

关键词

Plant competition; Root growth; Signal transduction; Phytochrome; Neighbor perception

类别

资金

  1. graduate school of Production Ecology and Resource Conservation of Wageningen University
  2. Academy of Finland [137909, MTT: 21030085]
  3. Academy of Finland (AKA) [137909, 137909] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant responses to competition have often been described as passive consequences of reduced resource availability. However, plants have mechanisms to forage for favorable conditions and anticipate competition scenarios. Despite the progresses made in understanding the role of light signaling in modulating plant-plant interactions, little is known about how plants use and integrate information gathered by their photoreceptors aboveground to regulate performance belowground. Given that the phytochrome family of photoreceptors plays a key role in the acquisition of information about the proximity of neighbors and canopy cover, it is tempting to speculate that changes in the red:far-red (R:FR) ratio perceived by aboveground plant parts have important implications shaping plant behavior belowground. Exploring data from published experiments, we assess the neglected role of light signaling in the control of root function. The available evidence indicates that plant exposure to low R:FR ratios affects root growth and morphology, root exudate profiles, and interactions with beneficial soil microorganisms. Although dependent on species identity, signals perceived aboveground are likely to affect root-to-root interactions. Root systems could also be guided to deploy new growth predominantly in open areas by light signals perceived by the shoots. Studying interactions between above- and belowground plant-plant signaling is expected to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of plant competition.

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

4.5
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