4.7 Article

Root carbon reserve dynamics in aspen seedlings: does simulated drought induce reserve limitation?

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 250-257

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpr012

关键词

carbon limitation; native percentage loss of conductivity; non-structural carbohydrates; Populus tremuloides; starch; xylem cavitation

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Forest Service
  2. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  3. Alberta Forestry Research Institute
  4. Alberta Ingenuity Equipment Grant
  5. Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta
  6. United States Forest Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a greenhouse study we quantified the gradual change of gas exchange, water relations and root reserves of aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) seedlings growing over a 3-month period of severe water stress. The aim of the study was to quantify the complex interrelationship between growth, water and gas exchange, and root carbon (C) dynamics. Various growth, gas exchange and water relations variables in combination with root reserves were measured periodically on seedlings that had been exposed to a continuous drought treatment over a 12-week period and compared with well-watered seedlings. Although gas exchange and water relations parameters significantly decreased over the drought period in aspen seedlings, root reserves did not mirror this trend. During the course of the experiment roots of aspen seedlings growing under severe water stress showed a two orders of magnitude increase in sugar and starch content, and roots of these seedlings contained more starch relative to sugar than those in non-droughted seedlings. Drought resulted in a switch from growth to root reserves storage which indicates a close interrelationship between growth and physiological variables and the accumulation of root carbohydrate reserves. Although a severe 3-month drought period created physiological symptoms of C limitation, there was no indication of a depletion of root C reserve in aspen seedlings.

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