4.8 Article

Roles of Morphology, Anatomy, and Aquaporins in Determining Contrasting Hydraulic Behavior of Roots

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 150, 期 1, 页码 348-364

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.108.134098

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grains Research and Development Corporation of Australia
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. Medical Research Council [G9900991B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The contrasting hydraulic properties of wheat (Triticum aestivum), narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius), and yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus) roots were identified by integrating measurements of water flow across different structural levels of organization with anatomy and modeling. Anatomy played a major role in root hydraulics, influencing axial conductance (L(ax)) and the distribution of water uptake along the root, with a more localized role for aquaporins (AQPs). Lupin roots had greater L(ax) than wheat roots, due to greater xylem development. L(ax) and root hydraulic conductance (L(r)) were related to each other, such that both variables increased with distance from the root tip in lupin roots. L(ax) and L(r) were constant with distance from the tip in wheat roots. Despite these contrasting behaviors, the hydraulic conductivity of root cells (Lp(c)) was similar for all species and increased from the root surface toward the endodermis. Lp(c) was largely controlled by AQPs, as demonstrated by dramatic reductions in Lp(c) by the AQP blocker mercury. Modeling the root as a series of concentric, cylindrical membranes, and the inhibition of AQP activity at the root level, indicated that water flow in lupin roots occurred primarily through the apoplast, without crossing membranes and without the involvement of AQPs. In contrast, water flow across wheat roots crossed mercury-sensitive AQPs in the endodermis, which significantly influenced L(r). This study demonstrates the importance of examining root morphology and anatomy in assessing the role of AQPs in root hydraulics.

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

4.8
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