4.7 Review

Radial Oxygen Loss from Plant Roots-Methods

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10112322

关键词

methylene blue staining; microelectrodes; microsensors; root-sleeving electrodes; planar optodes

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  2. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [839542]
  3. Danish International Development Agency, DANIDA [19-03-KU]
  4. Research Fund Denmark [8021-00120B]
  5. [JP20H05912]
  6. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [839542] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Efficient internal aeration is crucial for root growth and plant survival in flooded soils. Root barriers are formed by many wetland species to restrict oxygen loss and enhance oxygen diffusion, while also preventing the entry of toxic compounds into the roots. Root oxygen loss is important for rhizosphere oxygenation and toxin oxidation.
In flooded soils, an efficient internal aeration system is essential for root growth and plant survival. Roots of many wetland species form barriers to restrict radial O-2 loss (ROL) to the rhizosphere. The formation of such barriers greatly enhances longitudinal O-2 diffusion from basal parts towards the root tip, and the barrier also impedes the entry of phytotoxic compounds produced in flooded soils into the root. Nevertheless, ROL from roots is an important source of O-2 for rhizosphere oxygenation and the oxidation of toxic compounds. In this paper, we review the methodological aspects for the most widely used techniques for the qualitative visualization and quantitative determination of ROL from roots. Detailed methodological approaches, practical set-ups and examples of ROL from roots with or without barriers to ROL are included. This paper provides practical knowledge relevant to several disciplines, including plant-soil interactions, biogeochemistry and eco-physiological aspects of roots and soil biota.

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