4.3 Article

Anatomical characteristics of individual roots within the fine-root architecture of Chamaecyparis obtusa (Sieb. & Zucc.) in organic and mineral soil layers

期刊

ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 754-758

出版社

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s11284-006-0184-8

关键词

absorptivity; Cupressaceae; fine-root architecture; mineral soil; organic layer; physical-stress tolerance

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nutrient availability and temporal variation of physical stress are usually higher in organic soil layers than in mineral soils. Individual roots within the fine-root system adjust anatomical, morphological, and turnover characteristics to soil conditions, for example nutrient availability and physical stresses. We investigated anatomical traits, including cork formation and passage and protoxylem cell numbers, in cross-sections of individual fine roots of the conifer Chamaecyparis obtusa (Siebold & Zucc.) growing under different soil conditions. The fine-root systems in different soil layers were compared by sampling ingrowth cores buried for 1 year and filled with organic and mineral soil substrates. The number of exodermal passage cells was lower in roots from organic soils than in those from mineral soils, suggesting that apical roots tend to be more stress-tolerant in the organic layer than in mineral soils. In contrast, both root tip and specific root tip density were higher in roots from organic soils than in those from mineral soil layers. The proportion of roots with two strands of protoxylem (diarch) was greater in organic (90%) than in mineral (25%) soils. Thus, although the absorptivity of individual apical roots decreases in organic layers, the absorptivity of the entire fine-root system of C. obtusa may be increased as a result of the increase in apical root density and the proportion of ephemeral roots. We found that the fine-root system had simultaneous plasticity in density, anatomy, and architecture in response to complex soil conditions.

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

4.3
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