4.7 Article

Morphological and physiological responses of Scots pine fine roots to water supply in a dry climatic region in Switzerland

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 541-550

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpn046

关键词

drought; fine root growth; fine root physiological and morphological properties; fine root standing crop; high- and low-productivity pines; ingrowth cores; irrigation; Pinus sylvestris

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent decades. Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) forests in inner-Alpine dry valleys of Switzerland have suffered from drought and elevated temperatures, resulting in a higher mortality rate of trees than the mean mortality rate in Switzerland. We investigated the responses of fine roots (standing crop, morphological and physiological features) to water supply in a Scots pine forest in the Rhone valley. Before irrigation started in 2003, low- and high-productivity Scots pine trees were selected based on their crown transparency. The fine root standing crop measured in spring from 2003 to 2005 was unaffected by the irrigation treatment. However, irrigation significantly enhanced the fine root standing crop during the vegetation period when values from spring, were compared with values from fall in 2005. Irrigation slightly increased specific root length but decreased root tissue density. Fine root O(2)-consumption capacity decreased slightly in response to the irrigation treatment. Using ingrowth cores to observe the responses of newly produced fine roots, irrigation had a significantly positive effect on the length of fine roots, but there were no differences between the low- and high-productivity trees. In contrast to the weak response to fine roots to the irrigation, the aboveground parts responded positively to irrigation with more dense crown. The lack of marked response of the fine root biomass to irrigation in the low- and high-productivity trees suggests that fine roots have a high priority for within-tree carbon allocation.

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