Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 369, Issue 1–2, pp 467–477 | Cite as

Timelapse scanning reveals spatial variation in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) root elongation rates during partial waterlogging

  • Dorte Bodin Dresbøll
  • Kristian Thorup-Kristensen
  • Blair M. McKenzie
  • Lionel Xavier Dupuy
  • A. Glyn Bengough
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Root systems show considerable plasticity in their morphology and physiology in response to variability within their environment. Root elongation below a water-table was expected to slow due to hypoxia, whilst roots above the waterlogged zone were expected to compensate by increasing elongation rates.

Methods

Tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.) were grown in peat in root chambers (300 × 215 × 6 mm) with a transparent front. Root chambers were maintained in flatbed scanners tilted at 30° to vertical and scanned every 3 h before, during and after waterlogging the lower layer for 24 h or 5 days. Root elongation rates were calculated from the displacement of randomly selected root tips between successive scans. Oxygen content was determined in the waterlogged layer and plant and root parameters were determined at cessation of the experiment.

Results

Root elongation rates decreased rapidly when waterlogged. Growth rates of the waterlogged roots decreased, while growth rates of roots above the waterlogged zone increased. In 24 h waterlogged roots new lateral root growth occurred in the lower layer of the root chamber when water was drained while after 5 day waterlogging new root growth had to be initiated from roots above the waterlogged zone.

Conclusions

Plants increased growth rates in roots above the waterlogged zone probably as compensation for the suboptimal conditions in the waterlogged zone which eventually led to roots dying.

Keywords

Oxygen Anoxia Root tips Peat Growing media Automated imaging 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Helle Kjærsgaard Sørensen, Ruth Nielsen, Kaj Ole Didriksen and Connie Damgaard for skilful technical assistance. Funding was provided from The Danish Council for Independent Research | Technology and Production Sciences (Ref. no. 09-061045). The James Hutton Institute receives financial support from the Scottish Government.

References

  1. Bengough AG, Gordon DC, Al-Menaie H, Ellis RP, Allan D, Keith R, Thomas WTB, Forster BP (2004) Gel observation chamber for rapid screening of root traits in cereal seedlings. Plant Soil 262:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengough AG, McKenzie BM, Hallett PD, Valentine TA (2011) Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: a review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. J Exp Bot 62:59–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dat JF, Capelli N, Folzer H, Bourgeade P, Badot PM (2004) Sensing and signalling during plant flooding. Plant Physiol Biochem 42:273–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dresbøll DB, Thorup-Kristensen K (2012) Spatial variation in root system activity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in response to short and long-term waterlogging as determined by 15N uptake. Plant Soil 357:161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drew MC (1997) Oxygen deficiency and root metabolism: injury and acclimation under hypoxia and anoxia. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48:223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eavis BW (1972) Soil physical conditions affecting seedling root growth 3. Comparisons between root growth in poorly aerated soil and at different oxygen partial pressures. Plant Soil 37:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer WR, Flessa H, Schaller G (1989) pH values and redox potentials in microsites of the rhizosphere. Z Pflanzenernähr Bodenkd 152:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gersani M, Sachs T (1992) Development correlations between roots in heterogeneous environments. Plant Cell Environ 15:463–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gonzalez JA, Gallardo M, Hilal M, Rosa M, Prado FE (2009) Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning. Bot Stud 50:32–42Google Scholar
  10. Gregory PJ, Bengough AG, Grinev D, Schmidt S, Thomas WTB, Wojciechowski T, Young IM (2009) Root phenomics of crops: opportunities and challenges. Funct Plant Biol 36:922–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hammac WA, Pan WL, Bolton RP, Koenig RT (2011) High resolution imaging to assess oilseed species’ root hair responses to soil water stress. Plant Soil 339:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hargreaves CE, Gregory PJ, Bengough AG (2009) Measuring root traits in barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare and ssp. spontaneum) seedlings using gel chamber, soil sacs and X-ray microtomography. Plant Soil 316:285–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodge A (2009) Root decisions. Plant Cell Environ 32:628–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hodge A, Robinson D, Griffiths BS, Fitter AH (1999) Why plants bother: root proliferation results in increased nitrogen capture from an organic patch when two grasses compete. Plant Cell Environ 22(7):811–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kläring HP, Zude M (2009) Sensing of tomato plant response to hypoxia in the root environment. Sci Hortic 122:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laan P, Clement JMAM, Blom CWPM (1991) Growth and development of rumex roots as affected by hypoxic and anoxic conditions. Plant Soil 136:145–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Licausi F (2011) Regulation of the molecular response to oxygen limitations in plants. New Phytol 190:550–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKenzie BM, Bengough AG, Hallet PD, Thomas WTB, Forster B, McNicol JW (2009) Deep rooting and drought screening of cereal crops: a novel field-based method and its application. Field Crop Res 112:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morard P, Silvestre J (1996) Plant injury due to oxygen deficiency in the root environment of soilless culture: a review. Plant Soil 184:243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morard P, Lacoste L, Silvestre J (2000) Effect of oxygen deficiency on uptake of water and mineral nutrients by tomato plants in soilless culture. J Plant Nutr 23:1063–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pociecha E, Koscielniak J, Filek W (2008) Effects of root flooding and stage of development on the growth and photosynthesis of field bean (Vicia faba L. minor). Acta Physiol Plant 30:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Veen BW (1988) Influence of oxygen deficiency on growth and function of plant roots. Plant Soil 111:259–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Visser EJW, Voesenek LACJ (2004) Acclimation to soil flooding—sensing and signal-transduction. Plant Soil 274:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Volder A, Anderson LJ, Smart DR, Bloom AJ, Lakso AN, Eissenstat DM (2009) Estimating nitrogen uptake of individual roots in container- and field-grown plants using a 15N-depletion approach. Funct Plant Biol 36:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wojciechowski T, Gooding MJ, Ramsay L, Gregory PJ (2009) The effects of dwarfing genes on seedling root growth of wheat. J Exp Bot 60:2565–2573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yazdanbakhsh N, Fisahn J (2011) Stable diurnal growth rhythms modulate root elongation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Roots 5:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zhu J, Ingram PA, Benfey PN, Elich T (2011) From lab to field, new approaches to phenotyping root system architecture. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:310–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorte Bodin Dresbøll
    • 1
  • Kristian Thorup-Kristensen
    • 2
  • Blair M. McKenzie
    • 3
  • Lionel Xavier Dupuy
    • 3
  • A. Glyn Bengough
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Food Science, Faculty of Science and TechnologyAarhus UniversityAarslevDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenTaastrupDenmark
  3. 3.The James Hutton InstituteDundeeUK
  4. 4.Division of Civil EngineeringUniversity of DundeeDundeeUK

Personalised recommendations