4.7 Article

Differences in the Response to Acute Drought and Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands Infection in Quercus ilex L. Seedlings

期刊

FORESTS
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f9100634

关键词

biomass allocation; dehesas; drought; montados; oak decline; plant traits; root rot

类别

资金

  1. project QUERCUSAT - Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitivity [CGL2013-40790-R]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education (FPU fellowship) [FPU13/00231]
  3. project ESPECTRAMED - Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitivity [CGL2017-86161-R]
  4. project ENCINOMICA - Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitivity [BIO2015-64737-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The sustainability of dehesas is threatened by the Holm oak decline. It is thought that the effects of root rot on plant physiology vary depending on external stress factors. Plant growth and biomass allocation are useful tools to characterize differences in the response to drought and infection. The study of physiological responses together with growth patterns will clarify how and to what extent root rot is able to damage the plant. A fully factorial experiment, including drought and Phytophtora cinnamomi Rands infection as factors, was carried out with Quercus ilex L. seedlings. Photosynthesis, biomass allocation and root traits were assessed. Photosynthetic variables responded differently to drought and infection over time. The root mass fraction showed a significant reduction due to infection. P. cinnamomi root rot altered the growth patterns. Plants could not recover from the physiological effects of infection only when the root rot coincided with water stress. Without additional stressors, the strategy of our seedlings in the face of root rot was to reduce the biomass increment and reallocate resources. Underlying mechanisms involved in plant-pathogen interactions should be considered in the study of holm oak decline, beyond the consideration of water stress as the primary cause of tree mortality.

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