4.7 Article

Consecutive submergence and de-submergence both impede growth of a riparian plant during water level fluctuations with different frequencies

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 155, 期 -, 页码 641-649

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2018.08.015

关键词

Acclimation; Alligator weed; De-submergence; Flooding; Fluctuation frequency; Submergence

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0505903, 2016YFC1201101]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2017ZY18, 2015ZCQ-BH-01]
  3. National Science Foundation of China [31670428, 31570413, 31500331]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Repeated exposure to submergence and de-submergence may induce acclimation in plants growing in riparian areas. However, the effect of each consecutive submergence and de-submergence event has not been evaluated separately. We subjected a riparian species Alternanthera philoxeroides to two different fluctuation frequencies: low fluctuation frequency (LFF) and high fluctuation frequency (HFF). Consecutive submergence and de-submergence had comparable negative effects on growth of A. philoxeroides, while they respectively down- and up regulated photosynthetic electron transport in both LFF and HFF. The submergence effects on growth were significantly smaller in the 2nd cycle than in the 1 st cycle of LFF, suggesting reduced tissue loss in the 2nd cycle as a result of acclimation. In HFF, the growth of A. philoxeroides was more strongly suppressed than in LFF. During de-submergence, biomass increased in both control and de-submerged plants in LFF, whereas growth recovery was not always seen in HFF. At the end of the experiment, the treatment plants in HFF had only 50% biomass of the corresponding plants in LFF. Although HFF enhances tissue loss during submergence and thus impairs growth recovery more strongly during de-submergence than LFF, both LFF and HFF induced photosynthetic, photoprotective or growth acclimation in A. philoxeroides.

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