4.7 Article

Effects of root medium pH on water transport in paper birch (Betula papyrifera) seedlings in relation to root temperature and abscisic acid treatments

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1173-1180

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/24.10.1173

关键词

activation energy; root hydraulic conductivity; stomatal conductance

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the effects of root medium pH on water transport in whole-plant and detached roots of paper birch (Betula papyrifera Marsh.). Exposure of seedling roots to pH 4 and 8 significantly decreased root hydraulic conductivity (L-P) and stomatal conductance (g(s)), compared with pH 6. When roots of solution-culture-grown (pH 6) seedlings were transferred to pH 4 or 8, their steady-state water flow (Q(v)) declined within minutes, followed by a decline in g(s). The root oxygen uptake rates were not significantly affected by the pH treatments. Treatment of roots with mercuric chloride resulted in a large decrease in Q(v) at pH 6; the extent of this decrease was similar to that brought about by pH 4 and 8. Lowering root temperature from 21 to 4 degreesC decreased Q(v) irrespective of medium pH. Low root temperatures did not offset the effects of medium pH 4 on Q(v) and the roots in this treatment had a high activation energy for water flow. Conversely, roots exposed to pH 8 had a low activation energy, similar to that at pH 6. When 2 muM abscisic acid, (+/-)-cis-trans-ABA, was added to the root medium, Q(v). increased in roots that were incubated at pH 6. It also increased slightly in roots incubated at pH 4, but not at pH 8. The increase at pH 4 and 6 was temperature-dependent, occurring at 21 degreesC, but not 4 degreesC. We suggest that the pH treatments are responsible for altering root water flow properties through their effects on the activity of water channels. These results support the concept that ABA effects on water channels are modulated by other, possibly metabolic- and pH-dependent factors.

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