, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 1163–1172 | Cite as

Contribution of root growth responses to leaf traits and relative growth rate of Populus alba under different water-table conditions

Original Paper


Water-table depth variations alter root growth response and may affect whole-plant growth in arid and semi-arid regions. We examined how root biomass allocation and root morphological traits affect the leaf physiological and morphological traits and whole-plant growth of Populus alba growing under different water tables. We exposed 1-year-old P. alba cuttings to contrasting soil–water conditions via water table changes in a greenhouse for 90 days. We examined relationships among net assimilation rate (NAR) and other growth components obtained from our published data for trees harvested every 30 days. Strongly negative correlations were found between RMR and root morphological traits. Root mass ratio had a strong negative relationship with LMR, and proportion of fine-root biomass per total root biomass was positively correlated with SLA and NAR. Both NAR and leaf area ratio were important determinants of variation in relative growth rate (RGR). Leaf mass ratio (LMR) and specific leaf area (SLA) were positively correlated with RGR; the correlation was stronger in the case of LMR. Along a water-table gradient, negative relationships between root growth responses are likely to indirectly influence RGR through changes in NAR, LMR, and SLA.


Biomass allocation Fine-root growth Leaf growth trait Water-table depth Whole-plant growth 



We thank Shigeo Katagiri, Faculty of Agriculture, Shimane University, and Mitsuhiro Inoue, Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, for their helpful comments on this study. We also thank Takeshi Taniguchi, Arid Land Research Center, Tottori University, for discussion and suggestion on the data analysis. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for the comments and suggestions on an earlier version of the manuscript.


  1. Arredondo JT, Johnson DA (1999) Root architecture and biomass allocation of three range grasses in response to nonuniform supply of nutrients and shoot defoliation. New Phytol 143:373–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batanouny KH (2001) Plants in the deserts of the Middle East. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. Bruhn D, Leverenz JW, Saxe H (2000) Effects of tree size and temperature on relative growth rate and its components of Fagus sylvatica seedlings exposed to two partial pressures of atmospheric [CO2]. New Phytol 146:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eissenstat DM, Wells CE, Yanai RD, Whitbeck JL (2000) Building roots in a changing environment: implications for root longevity. New Phytol 147:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans GC (1972) The quantitative analysis of plant growth. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Ganskopp DC (1986) Tolerances of sagebrush, rabbitbrush, and greasewood to elevated water tables. J Range Manag 39:334–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hendricks JJ, Hendrick RL, Wilson CA, Mitchell RJ, Pecot SD, Guo DL (2006) Assessing the patterns and controls of fine root dynamics: an empirical test and methodological review. J Ecol 94:40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Imada S, Yamanaka N, Tamai S (2008) Water table depth affects Populus alba fine root growth and whole plant biomass. Funct Ecol 22:1018–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kojima T (2003) Structural equation modeling and graphical modeling learned with Excel. Ohmsha, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. Kranjcec J, Mahoney JM, Rood SB (1998) The responses of three riparian cottonwood species to water table decline. For Ecol Manag 110:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lambers H, Poorter H (1992) Inherent variation in growth-rate between higher-plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv Ecol Res 23:187–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lambers H, Chapin FS, Pons TL (1998) Plant physiological ecology. Sringer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Loveys BR, Scheurwater I, Pons TL, Fitter AH, Atkin OK (2002) Growth temperature influences the underlying components of relative growth rate: an investigation using inherently fast- and slow-growing plant species. Plant Cell Environ 25:975–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mahoney JM, Rood SB (1991) A device for studying the influence of declining water table on poplar growth and survival. Tree Physiol 8:305–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Marron N, Bastien C, Sabatti M, Taylor G, Ceulemans R (2006) Plasticity of growth and sylleptic branchiness in two poplar families grown at three sites across Europe. Tree Physiol 26:935–946PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Marron N, Dillen SY, Ceulemans R (2007) Evaluation of leaf traits for indirect selection of high yielding poplar hybrids. Environ Exp Bot 61:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKenna MF, Shipley B (1999) Interacting determinants of interspecific relative growth: empirical patterns and a theoretical explanation. Écoscience 6:286–296Google Scholar
  19. Monclus R, Dreyer E, Villar M, Delmotte FM, Delay D, Petit JM, Barbaroux C, Thiec D, Brechet C, Brignolas F (2006) Impact of drought on productivity and water use efficiency in 29 genotypes of Populus deltoides × Populus nigra. New Phytol 169:765–777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Naumburg E, Mata-Gonzalez R, Hunter RG, McLendon T, Martin DW (2005) Phreatophytic vegetation and groundwater fluctuations: a review of current research and application of ecosystem response modeling with an emphasis on Great Basin vegetation. Environ Manag 35:726–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Grady AP, Worledge D, Battaglia M (2006) Above- and below-ground relationships, with particular reference to fine roots, in a young Eucalyptus globulus (Labill.) stand in southern Tasmania. Trees 20:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Poorter L (1999) Growth responses of 15 rain-forest tree species to a light gradient: the relative importance of morphological and physiological traits. Funct Ecol 13:396–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Poorter H, Lewis C (1986) Testing differences in relative growth rate: a method avoiding curve fitting and pairing. Physiol Plant 67:223–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poorter H, Remkes C (1990) Leaf area ratio and net assimilation rate of 24 wild species differing in relative growth rate. Oecologia 83:553–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reich PB, Walters MB, Tjoelker MG, Vanderklein D, Buschena C (1998) Photosynthesis and respiration rates depend on leaf and root morphology and nitrogen concentration in nine boreal tree species differing in relative growth rate. Funct Ecol 12:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reich PB, Buschena C, Tjoelker MG, Wrage K, Knops J, Tilman D, Machado JL (2003) Variation in growth rate and ecophysiology among 34 grassland and savanna species under contrasting N supply: a test of functional group differences. New Phytol 157:617–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rood SB, Braatne JH, Hughes FMR (2003) Ecophysiology of riparian cottonwoods: stream flow dependency, water relations and restoration. Tree Physiol 23:1113–1124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Scott ML, Shafroth PB, Auble GT (1999) Responses of riparian cottonwoods to alluvial water table declines. Environ Manag 23:347–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott ML, Lines GC, Auble GT (2000) Channel incision and patterns of cottonwood stress and mortality along the Mojave River, California. J Arid Environ 44:399–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shafroth PB, Stromberg JC, Patten DT (2000) Woody riparian vegetation response to different alluvial water table regimes. West N Am Nat 60:66–76Google Scholar
  31. Shipley B (2002) Trade-offs between net assimilation rate and specific leaf area in determining relative growth rate: relationship with daily irradiance. Funct Ecol 16:682–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shipley B (2006) Net assimilation rate, specific leaf area and leaf mass ratio: which is most closely correlated with relative growth rate? A meta-analysis. Funct Ecol 20:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simane B, Peacock JM, Struik PC (1993) Differences in developmental plasticity and growth-rate among drought-resistant and susceptible cultivars of durum-wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var durum). Plant Soil 157:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stromberg JC (2001) Restoration of riparian vegetation in the south-western United States: importance of flow regimes and fluvial dynamism. J Arid Environ 49:17–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thorne MA, Frank DA (2009) The effects of clipping and soil moisture on leaf and root morphology and root respiration in two temperate and two tropical grasses. Plant Ecol 200:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van der Werf A, van Nuenen M, Visser AJ, Lambers H (1993) Contribution of physiological and morphological plant traits to a species’ competitive ability at high and low nitrogen supply: a hypothesis for inherently fast- and slow-growing monocotyledonous species. Oecologia 94:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warren CR, Adams MA (2005) What determines interspecific variation in relative growth rate of Eucalyptus seedlings? Oecologia 144:373–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wright IJ, Westoby M (1999) Differences in seedling growth behaviour among species: trait correlations across species, and trait shifts along nutrient compared to rainfall gradients. J Ecol 87:85–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamamoto K (2003) LIA32. Available at
  40. Zhang X, Wu N, Li C (2005) Physiological and growth responses of Populus davidiana ecotypes to different soil water contents. J Arid Environ 60:567–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shogo Imada
    • 1
  • Norikazu Yamanaka
    • 1
  • Shigenobu Tamai
    • 1
  1. 1.Arid Land Research CenterTottori UniversityTottoriJapan

Personalised recommendations