Effects of waterlogging on growth, porosity and radial oxygen loss of three tree species

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00982

Abstract

Abstract:

Aims Flooding reduces soil oxygen content, and leads to oxygen deprivation in the root system of plants. Since oxygen is essential for mitochondrial respiration, this process cannot be maintained under anoxic conditions and must be replaced by other pathways. Our objective was to understand flooding adaptation mechanisms of baldcypress (Taxodium distichum), Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum) and pecan (Carya illinoensis) under waterlogged conditions.
Methods One-year seedlings of baldcypress, Chinese tallow tree and pecan were grown in pots, and three treatments were implemented: CK (control, common soil water content), WA (waterlogging, water level equal with soil surface) and FL (flooding, water level 8 cm above soil surface). Treatments lasted 65 days, and indexes of growth, porosity and root oxygen consumption were determined at different times after treatment.
Important findings We found that WA and FL treatments inhibited growth of both Chinese tallow tree and pecan,but biomass and biomass increment of baldcypress increased under WA condition, indicating that baldcypress was more tolerant to flooding. Root/shoot ratio of the three tree species increased significantly under WA and FL treatments, which was primarily due to the decrease of stem and leaf biomass. WA and FL treatments also stimulated aerenchyma formation in the roots, stems and leaves of the three tree species, thereby the porosity in the roots, stems and leaves of the three tree species increased significantly under WA and FL conditions. The aerenchyma formation and increased porosity enhanced O₂ diffusion to roots and rhizosphere. Our results indicate that baldcypress, Chinese tallow tree and pecan exhibit several adaptive mechanisms in response to waterlogging, including formation of new roots, aerenchyma formation, increased porosity of the roots, stems and leaves, and increased O₂ release into the rhizosphere.

Key words: porosity, radial oxygen loss, root O₂ consumption, waterlogging

WANG Gui-Bin, CAO Fu-Liang, WANG Yuan. Effects of waterlogging on growth, porosity and radial oxygen loss of three tree species[J]. Chin J Plant Ecol, 2012, 36(9): 982-991.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1258.2012.00982

https://www.plant-ecology.com/EN/Y2012/V36/I9/982

Figures/Tables 6

References 37

1	Armstrong J, Armstrong W ( 2001). Rice and phragmites: effects of organic acids on growth, root permeability, and radial oxygen loss to the rhizosphere. American Journal of Botany, 88, 1359-1370.
2	Armstrong J, Amtrong J, Beckett PM ( 1992). Phragmites australis: venturi- and humidity-induced pressure flows enhance rhizome aeration and rhizosphere oxidation. New Phytologist, 120, 197-207.
3	Armstrong W ( 1972). A re-examination of the functional significance of aerenchyma. Physiologia Plantarum, 27, 173-177.
4	Armstrong W (1979). Aeration in higher plants. In: Woolhouse HW ed. Advances in Botanical Research, Vol. 7. Academic Press, London. 225-332.
5	Armstrong W, Brandle R, Jackson MB ( 1994). Mechanisms of flood tolerance in plants. Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 43, 307-358.
6	Armstrong W, Drew MC (2002). Root growth and metabolism under oxygen deficiency. In: Waisel Y, Eshel A, Kafkafi U eds. Plant Roots: the Hidden Half 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York. 729-761.
7	Cao FL ( 曹福亮), Cai JF ( 蔡金峰), Wang GB ( 汪贵斌), Zhang WX ( 张往祥 ) ( 2010). Effects of waterlogging stress on the growth and photosynthesis of Sapium sebiferum. Scientia Silvae Sinicae (林业科学), 46(10), 57-61. (in Chinese with English abstract)
8	Colmer TD ( 2002). Aerenchyma and an inducible barrier to radial oxygen loss facilitate root aeration in upland, paddy and deep-water rice (Oryza sativa L.). Annals of Botany, 91, 301-309.
9	Dong HZ ( 董合忠), Li WJ ( 李维江), Tang W ( 唐薇), Li ZH ( 李振怀), Zhang DM ( 张冬梅 ) ( 2003). Effects of water- deficit and water-logging on some physiological characteristics of cotton seedlings. Acta Botanica Boreale- Occidentalia Sinica (西北植物学报), 23, 1695-1699. (in Chinese with English abstract)
10	Drew MC, Jackson MB, Giffard S ( 1979). Ethylene-promoted adventitious rooting and development of cortical air spaces (aerenchyma) in roots may be adaptive responses to flooding in Zea mays L. Planta, 147, 83-88.
11	Ferreira CS, Piedade MTF, Franco AC, Gonçalves JFC, Junk WJ ( 2009). Adaptive strategies to tolerate prolonged flooding in seedlings of floodplain and upland populations of Himatanthus sucuuba, a Central Amazon tree. Aquatic Botany, 90, 246-252.
12	Gibbs J, Greenway H ( 2003). Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. I. Growth, survival and anaerobic catabolism. Functional Plant Biology, 30, 1-47.
13	Jackson MB, Colmer TD ( 2005). Response and adaptation by plants to flooding stress. Annals of Botany, 96, 501-505.
14	Jackson MB, Drew MC (1984). Effects of flooding on growth and metabolism of herbaceous plants. In: Kozlowski TT ed. Flooding and Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York.
15	Kawase M ( 1981). Anatomical and morphological adaptations of plants to waterlogging. HortScience, 16, 8-12.
16	Kawase M, Whitmoyer RE ( 1980). Aerenchyma development in waterlogged plants. American Journal of Botany, 67, 18-22.
17	Kludze HK, DeLaune RD ( 1995). Straw application effects on methane and oxygen exchange and growth in rice. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 59, 824-830.
18	Kludze HK, DeLaune RD, Patrick WH ( 1993). Aerenchyma formation and methane and oxygen exchange in rice. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 57, 386-391.
19	Kolb RM, Joly CA ( 2009). Flooding tolerance of Tabebuia cassinoides: metabolic, morphological and growth responses. Flora, 204, 528-535.
20	Kozlowski TT ( 1997). Responses of woody plants to flooding and salinity. Tree Physiology Monograph, ( 1), 1-29.
21	Kreuzwieser J, Papadopoulou E, Rennenberg H ( 2004). Interaction of flooding with carbon metabolism of forest trees. Plant Biology, 6, 299-306.
22	Li SW, Pezeshki SR, Douglas Shields F Jr ( 2006). Partial flooding enhances aeration in adventitious roots of black willow ( Salix nigra) cuttings. Journal of Plant Physiology, 163, 619-628.
23	Liao WY ( 廖文燕), Gao HD ( 高捍东 ) ( 2011). Physiological responses of Pseudolarix kaempferi seedlings to waterlogging stress. China Forestry Science and Technology (林业科技开发), 25(3), 27-31. (in Chinese with English abstract)
24	Pezeshki SR ( 2001). Wetland plant responses to soil flooding. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 46, 299-312.
25	Pezeshki SR, Pardue JH, DeLaune RD ( 1996). Leaf gas exchange and growth of flood-tolerant and flood-sensitive tree species under low soil redox conditions. Tree Physiology, 16, 453-458.
26	Rijnders JGHM, Armstrong W, Darwent MJ, Blom CWPM, Voesenek LACJ ( 2000). The role of oxygen in submergence-induced petiole elongation in Rumex palustris: in situ measurements of oxygen in petioles of intact plants using micro-electrodes. New Phytologist, 147, 497-504.
27	Shimamura S, Mochizuki T, Nada Y, Fukuyama M ( 2003). Formation and function of secondary aerenchyma in hypocotyl, roots and nodules of soybean ( Glycine max) under flooded conditions. Plant and Soil, 251, 351-359.
28	Suralta RR, Yamauchi A ( 2008). Root growth, aerenchyma development, and oxygen transport in rice genotypes subjected to drought and waterlogging. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 64, 75-82.
29	Tessnow U, Baynes Y ( 1978). Experimental effects of Isoetes lacustins L. on the distribution of Eh, pH, Fe and Mn in lack sediment. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für Theoretische and Angewandte Limnologie, 20, 58-62.
30	Ueckert J, Hurek T, Fendrik I, Niemann EG ( 1990). Radial gas diffusion from roots of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and Kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth), and the effects of inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense Cd. Plant and Soil, 122, 59-65.
31	Visser EJW, Bögemann GM ( 2003). Measurement of porosity in very small samples of plant tissue. Plant and Soil, 253, 81-90.
32	Wang GB ( 汪贵斌), Cao FL ( 曹福亮), Zhang XY ( 张晓燕), Zhang WX ( 张往祥 ) ( 2010). Effects of waterlogging on the growth and energy-metabolic enzyme activities of different tree species. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology (应用生态学报), 21, 590-596. (in Chinese with English abstract) URL PMID
33	Watkin ELJ, Thomson CJ, Greenway H ( 1998). Root development and aerenchyma formation in two wheat cultivars and one triticale cultivar grown in stagnant agar and aerated nutrient solution. Annals of Botany, 81, 349-354.
34	Xiao Y, Jie ZL, Wang M, Lin GH, Wang WQ ( 2009). Leaf and stem anatomical responses to periodical waterlogging in simulated tidal floods in mangrove Avicennia marina seedlings. Aquatic Botany, 91, 231-237.
35	Yin DM, Chen SM, Chen FD, Guan ZY, Fang WM ( 2010). Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses of two Dendranthema species to waterlogging. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 68, 122-130.
36	Zhang LE ( 张留恩), Liao BW ( 廖宝文), Guan W ( 管伟 ) ( 2011). Effects of simulated tide inundation on seed germination and seedling growth of mangrove species Acanthus ilicifolius. Chinese Journal of Ecology (生态学杂志), 30, 2165-2172. (in Chinese with English abstract)
37	Zhang XL ( 张晓磊), Ma FY ( 马风云), Chen YT ( 陈益泰), Shi X ( 施翔), Sun HJ ( 孙海菁 ) ( 2010). Variation in growth and physiological characteristics of different Quercus avutissima provenances under water logging stress. Journal of Southwest Forestry University (西南林学院学报), 30(6), 16-33. (in Chinese with English abstract)

树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	生物量 Biomass (g·plant^-1)	生物量增量 Biomass increase (g·plant^-1)	相对生长率 Relative growth ratio (%)	根冠比 Root/shoot
落羽杉 T. distichum	对照 CK	81.2 ± 5.5^b	70.9 ± 4.2^b	730.9 ± 40.1^b	0.50 ± 0.04^c
	淹水 WA	109.6 ± 8.5^a	99.3 ± 5.8^a	964.1 ± 53.4^a	0.63 ± 0.03^b
	渍水 FL	55.4 ± 6.9^c	45.1 ± 2.6^c	437.9 ± 25.6^c	0.96 ± 0.05^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	对照 CK	202.6 ± 14.4^a	194.6 ± 9.8^a	2432.5 ± 150.3^a	0.27 ± 0.02^c
	淹水 WA	102.6 ± 7.9^b	94.6 ± 5.6^b	1182.5 ± 63.5^b	0.37 ± 0.02^b
	渍水 FL	57.6 ± 3.5^c	49.6 ± 3.1^c	620.0 ± 38.6^c	0.84 ± 0.04^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	对照 CK	97.9 ± 7.1^a	89.2 ± 5.6^a	1025.2 ± 63.2^a	1.34 ± 0.06^b
	淹水 WA	81.7 ± 8.4^b	73.0 ± 4.1^b	839.1 ± 48.7^b	2.41 ± 0.1^a
	渍水 FL	53.7 ± 6.7^c	45.0 ± 2.8^c	517.2 ± 34.6^c	2.85 ± 0.2^a

树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	生物量 Biomass (g·plant^-1)	生物量增量 Biomass increase (g·plant^-1)	相对生长率 Relative growth ratio (%)	根冠比 Root/shoot
落羽杉 T. distichum	对照 CK	81.2 ± 5.5^b	70.9 ± 4.2^b	730.9 ± 40.1^b	0.50 ± 0.04^c
	淹水 WA	109.6 ± 8.5^a	99.3 ± 5.8^a	964.1 ± 53.4^a	0.63 ± 0.03^b
	渍水 FL	55.4 ± 6.9^c	45.1 ± 2.6^c	437.9 ± 25.6^c	0.96 ± 0.05^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	对照 CK	202.6 ± 14.4^a	194.6 ± 9.8^a	2432.5 ± 150.3^a	0.27 ± 0.02^c
	淹水 WA	102.6 ± 7.9^b	94.6 ± 5.6^b	1182.5 ± 63.5^b	0.37 ± 0.02^b
	渍水 FL	57.6 ± 3.5^c	49.6 ± 3.1^c	620.0 ± 38.6^c	0.84 ± 0.04^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	对照 CK	97.9 ± 7.1^a	89.2 ± 5.6^a	1025.2 ± 63.2^a	1.34 ± 0.06^b
	淹水 WA	81.7 ± 8.4^b	73.0 ± 4.1^b	839.1 ± 48.7^b	2.41 ± 0.1^a
	渍水 FL	53.7 ± 6.7^c	45.0 ± 2.8^c	517.2 ± 34.6^c	2.85 ± 0.2^a

树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	组织孔隙度 Porosity (%)
树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	16 days	31 days	46 days	61 days
落羽杉 T. distichum	根 Root	对照 CK	18.25 ± 1.17^b	19.49 ± 1.43^b	19.07 ± 1.98^b	19.46 ± 1.39^b
		淹水 WA	21.22 ± 2.08^ab	31.43 ± 1.49^a	32.10 ± 0.90^a	33.68 ± 2.06^a
		渍水 FL	24.67 ± 1.66^a	33.37 ± 0.53^a	33.86 ± 0.91^a	34.44 ± 1.83^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	29.61 ± 1.14^bc	33.76 ± 2.95^b	35.63 ± 1.09^b	36.59 ± 1.90^b
		淹水 WA	31.57 ± 1.57^b	41.70 ± 1.21^ab	43.52 ± 2.04^a	42.68 ± 1.68^a
		渍水 FL	36.53 ± 2.04^a	43.09 ± 5.05^a	46.33 ± 5.10^a	47.09 ± 1.82^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	16.97 ± 1.12^c	18.64 ± 0.40^c	17.96 ± 0.80^b	19.29 ± 1.52^b
		淹水 WA	20.43 ± 0.71^b	22.99 ± 0.67^b	23.55 ± 1.26^a	27.68 ± 0.80^a
		渍水 FL	22.22 ± 0.75^a	24.59 ± 1.06^a	23.66 ± 1.03^a	26.19 ± 0.61^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	根 Root	对照 CK	5.95 ± 0.09^b	6.51 ± 0.85^b	6.81 ± 0.49^b	7.26 ± 0.68^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.76^a	9.18 ± 0.74^a	9.45 ± 0.45^a	9.50 ± 0.63^a
		渍水 FL	8.57 ± 0.44^a	9.11 ± 1.61^a	9.41 ± 1.13^a	9.40 ± 0.76^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	10.46 ± 1.00^b	10.69 ± 1.06^b	12.77 ± 1.03^b	11.34 ± 0.41^b
		淹水 WA	16.8 ± 0.49^a	17.88 ± 1.66^a	18.14 ± 0.44^a	18.31 ± 0.36^a
		渍水 FL	17.83 ± 1.47^a	17.80 ± 1.78^a	17.85 ± 1.49^a	18.09 ± 0.47^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	12.07 ± 0.80^c	12.55 ± 1.67^b	13.31 ± 1.40^b	13.41 ± 4.30^c
		淹水 WA	14.21 ± 0.49^b	15.95 ± 1.08^a	17.70 ± 1.83^a	17.27 ± 0.50^b
		渍水 FL	15.89 ± 0.23^a	14.60 ± 0.72^ab	18.28 ± 1.27^a	19.11 ± 0.87^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	根 Root	对照 CK	10.39 ± 0.78^c	11.40 ± 0.59^c	11.33 ± 0.83^b	10.95 ± 0.12^c
		淹水 WA	14.81 ± 0.55^b	15.82 ± 0.42^b	15.62 ± 1.09^a	15.93 ± 0.67^b
		渍水 FL	17.10 ± 0.91^a	17.19 ± 0.84^a	17.66 ± 1.84^a	17.41 ± 0.52^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	18.12 ± 0.94^b	18.36 ± 0.29^b	19.13 ± 0.23^b	19.36 ± 0.59^b
		淹水 WA	20.26 ± 0.86^b	24.91 ± 0.40^a	25.49 ± 1.03^a	25.70 ± 0.99^a
		渍水 FL	25.00 ± 2.50^a	25.61 ± 2.01^a	26.44 ± 0.58^a	26.77 ± 0.90^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	7.68 ± 0.63^b	7.31 ± 0.14^b	8.13 ± 0.30^b	8.09 ± 0.84^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.59^a	9.68 ± 0.53^a	12.21 ± 1.56^a	10.20 ± 1.62^ab
		渍水 FL	9.13 ± 0.28^a	9.67 ± 0.60^a	10.92 ± 0.99^a	11.36 ± 1.37^a

树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	组织孔隙度 Porosity (%)
树种 Tree species	器官 Organ	处理 Treatment	16 days	31 days	46 days	61 days
落羽杉 T. distichum	根 Root	对照 CK	18.25 ± 1.17^b	19.49 ± 1.43^b	19.07 ± 1.98^b	19.46 ± 1.39^b
		淹水 WA	21.22 ± 2.08^ab	31.43 ± 1.49^a	32.10 ± 0.90^a	33.68 ± 2.06^a
		渍水 FL	24.67 ± 1.66^a	33.37 ± 0.53^a	33.86 ± 0.91^a	34.44 ± 1.83^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	29.61 ± 1.14^bc	33.76 ± 2.95^b	35.63 ± 1.09^b	36.59 ± 1.90^b
		淹水 WA	31.57 ± 1.57^b	41.70 ± 1.21^ab	43.52 ± 2.04^a	42.68 ± 1.68^a
		渍水 FL	36.53 ± 2.04^a	43.09 ± 5.05^a	46.33 ± 5.10^a	47.09 ± 1.82^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	16.97 ± 1.12^c	18.64 ± 0.40^c	17.96 ± 0.80^b	19.29 ± 1.52^b
		淹水 WA	20.43 ± 0.71^b	22.99 ± 0.67^b	23.55 ± 1.26^a	27.68 ± 0.80^a
		渍水 FL	22.22 ± 0.75^a	24.59 ± 1.06^a	23.66 ± 1.03^a	26.19 ± 0.61^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	根 Root	对照 CK	5.95 ± 0.09^b	6.51 ± 0.85^b	6.81 ± 0.49^b	7.26 ± 0.68^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.76^a	9.18 ± 0.74^a	9.45 ± 0.45^a	9.50 ± 0.63^a
		渍水 FL	8.57 ± 0.44^a	9.11 ± 1.61^a	9.41 ± 1.13^a	9.40 ± 0.76^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	10.46 ± 1.00^b	10.69 ± 1.06^b	12.77 ± 1.03^b	11.34 ± 0.41^b
		淹水 WA	16.8 ± 0.49^a	17.88 ± 1.66^a	18.14 ± 0.44^a	18.31 ± 0.36^a
		渍水 FL	17.83 ± 1.47^a	17.80 ± 1.78^a	17.85 ± 1.49^a	18.09 ± 0.47^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	12.07 ± 0.80^c	12.55 ± 1.67^b	13.31 ± 1.40^b	13.41 ± 4.30^c
		淹水 WA	14.21 ± 0.49^b	15.95 ± 1.08^a	17.70 ± 1.83^a	17.27 ± 0.50^b
		渍水 FL	15.89 ± 0.23^a	14.60 ± 0.72^ab	18.28 ± 1.27^a	19.11 ± 0.87^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	根 Root	对照 CK	10.39 ± 0.78^c	11.40 ± 0.59^c	11.33 ± 0.83^b	10.95 ± 0.12^c
		淹水 WA	14.81 ± 0.55^b	15.82 ± 0.42^b	15.62 ± 1.09^a	15.93 ± 0.67^b
		渍水 FL	17.10 ± 0.91^a	17.19 ± 0.84^a	17.66 ± 1.84^a	17.41 ± 0.52^a
	茎 Stem	对照 CK	18.12 ± 0.94^b	18.36 ± 0.29^b	19.13 ± 0.23^b	19.36 ± 0.59^b
		淹水 WA	20.26 ± 0.86^b	24.91 ± 0.40^a	25.49 ± 1.03^a	25.70 ± 0.99^a
		渍水 FL	25.00 ± 2.50^a	25.61 ± 2.01^a	26.44 ± 0.58^a	26.77 ± 0.90^a
	叶 Leaf	对照 CK	7.68 ± 0.63^b	7.31 ± 0.14^b	8.13 ± 0.30^b	8.09 ± 0.84^b
		淹水 WA	8.96 ± 0.59^a	9.68 ± 0.53^a	12.21 ± 1.56^a	10.20 ± 1.62^ab
		渍水 FL	9.13 ± 0.28^a	9.67 ± 0.60^a	10.92 ± 0.99^a	11.36 ± 1.37^a

树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	处理时间 Treatment time (d)
树种 Tree species	处理 Treatment	16	31	46	61
落羽杉 T. distichum	对照 CK	0.32 ± 0.02^b	0.19 ± 0.02^b	0.29 ± 0.03^b	0.45 ± 0.03^b
	淹水 WA	1.00 ± 0.10^a	0.98 ± 0.12^a	1.06 ± 0.12^a	2.28 ± 0.34^a
	渍水 FL	1.16 ± 0.09^a	1.17 ± 0.18^a	1.11 ± 0.09^a	2.59 ± 0.29^a
乌桕 S. sebiferum	对照 CK	0.06 ± 0.01^b	0.04 ± 0.01^c	0.07 ± 0.02^b	0.10 ± 0.02^b
	淹水 WA	0.25 ± 0.03^a	0.57 ± 0.03^b	0.83 ± 0.11^a	0.78 ± 0.11^a
	渍水 FL	0.29 ± 0.03^a	0.91 ± 0.06^a	1.01 ± 0.20^a	0.76 ± 0.13^a
美国山核桃 C. illinoensis	对照 CK	0.06 ± 0.01^b	0.08 ± 0.02^b	0.10 ± 0.02^b	0.12 ± 0.02^b
	淹水 WA	0.49 ± 0.06^a	0.56 ± 0.10^a	0.59 ± 0.03^a	1.09 ± 0.17^a
	渍水 FL	0.66 ± 0.15^a	0.61 ± 0.11^a	0.69 ± 0.10^a	1.27 ± 0.15^a