Advertisement

Forestry Studies in China

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 67–73 | Cite as

Yellowing of disease? Or differentiating for adaptation? Study on Cinnamomum camphora ecotypes

  • Qing Li
  • Chun-jing ZouEmail author
  • Ying Xu
  • Shimizu Hideyuki
Research Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Presl is an evergreen broad-leaved tree of the Lauraceae family, widely distributed in the sub-tropical areas in the south of China and used as a virescent tree in urban gardens and streets in Shanghai for its beautiful shape and intensive stress-resistance. However, yellowing of C. camphora in recent years casts doubt about its significance. We believe the green-leaved and yellow-leaved C. camphora might be two different ecotypes, and tentatively refer to the green-leaved C. camphora as C. camphora f. viridis f. nov (CCV) and the yellow-leaved as C. camphora f. flavus f. nov (CCF). We studied their differences and arrived at the following conclusions: 1) compared with CCF, the area of lamina of CCV is significantly larger and the amount of chlorophyll (Chl) significantly higher; 2) the lamina and palisade tissues of CCV are significantly thicker than those of CCF, but its cuticle is significantly thinner; 3) the shape of the stomata of CCV is different from that of the CCF; the stomatal density and stomatal index of CCV are significantly lower than those of CCF. These results show that C. camphora might evolve adaptive differentiation in some aspects which can be used in virescence in urban streets and gardens.

Key words

Cinnamomum camphora ecotype differentiation chlorophyll stomatal parameters 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Addington R N, Donovan L A, Mitchell R J, Vose J M, Pecot S D, Jack S B, Hacke U G, Sperry J S, Oren R. 2006. Adjustments in hydraulic architecture of Pinus palustris maintain similar stomatal conductance in xeric and mesic habitats. Plant Cell Environ, 29: 535–545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandrov A. 1971. The occurrence of forms of Norway spruce based on branching habitat. Silvae Genet, 8: 204–208Google Scholar
  3. Ashraf M Y, Akhtar K, Sarwar G, Ashraf M. 2002. Evaluation of arid and semi-arid ecotypes of guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.) for salinity (NaCl) tolerance. J Arid Environ, 52: 473–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonal D, Barigah T S, Granier A, Guehl J M. 2000. Late-stage canopy tree species with extremely low δ13C and high stomatal sensitivity to seasonal soil drought in the tropical rainforest of French Guiana. Plant Cell Environ, 23: 445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brownlee C. 2001. The long and the short of stomatal density signals. Trends Plant Sci, 6: 441–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley T N. 2005. The control of stomata by water balance. New Phytol, 168: 275–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cai Y L, Wang X H, Song Y C. 1999. Anecoanatomical study on leaves of Cyclobalanopsis glauca populations in the eastern subtropical zone, China. Acta Ecol Sin, 19(6): 844–849 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  8. Chen H Y, Hu R G, Wang B Z, Chen W F, Liu W Y, Schröoder W, Frank P, Ulbrich N. 2002. Structural studies of an eukaryotic cambialistic superoxide dismutase purified from the mature seeds of camphor tree. Arch Biochem Biophys, 404: 218–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen S H, Zhang R G, Wang M. 2007. Study on comprehensive control to yellowing in Cinnamomum camphora. Modern Horticult, 9: 28–29 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  10. Deleuze C, Herve J C, Colin F, Ribeyrolles L. 1996. Modelling crown shape of Picea abies: Spacing effects. Can J For Res, 26: 1957–1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feinsinger P, Spears E E, Poole R W. 1981. A simple measure of niche breadth. Ecology, 62: 27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geburek T, Robitschek K, Milasowszky N. 2008. A tree of many faces: Why are there different crown types in Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.)? Flora, 203: 126–133Google Scholar
  13. Gregor J W. 1944. The ecotype. Biol Rev, 19: 20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hetherington A M, Woodward F I. 2003. The role of stomata in sensing and driving environmental change. Nature, 424: 901–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoover W S. 1986. Stomata and stomatal clusters in Begonia: Ecological response in two Mexican species. Biotropica, 18: 16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hsu F L, Chou C J, Chang Y C, Chang T T, Lu M K. 2006. Promotion of hyphal growth and underlying chemical changes in Antrodia camphorata by host factors from Cinnamomum camphora. Inter J Food Microbiol, 106: 32–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hufford K M, Mazer S J. 2003. Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends Ecol Evol, 18(3): 147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li C Y, Junttila O, Heino P, Palva E T. 2004. Low temperature sensing in silver birch (Betula pendula Roth) ecotypes. Plant Sci, 167: 165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li C Y, Yang Y Q, Junttila O, Palva E T. 2005. Sexual differences in cold acclimation and freezing tolerance development in sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) ecotypes. Plant Sci, 168: 1365–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lichtenthaler H K, Wellburn A R. 1983. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochem Soc Trans, 11: 591–592Google Scholar
  21. Liu C H, Mishra A K, Tan R X, Tang C, Yang H, Shen Y F. 2006. Repellent and insecticidal activities of essential oils from Artemisia princeps and Cinnamomum camphora and their effect on seed germination of wheat and broad bean. Bioresour Technol, 97: 1969–1973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu S H, Fu B Y, Xu H X, Zhu L H, Zhai H Q, Li Z K. 2007. Cell death in response to osmotic and salt stresses in two rice (Oryza sativa L.) ecotypes. Plant Sci, 172: 897–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lloyd D G. 1984. Variation strategies of plants in heterogeneous environments. Biol J Linn Soc, 21: 357–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lu G Q, Ma H. 1999. Analysis on yellowing in Cinnamomum camphora. Shanghai Highways, 3: 47 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. Lu S W, Xu X S, Shen M J. 1991. Botany. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 168 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  26. Macfarlane C, White D A, Adams M A. 2004. The apparent feed-forward response to vapour pressure deficit of stomata in droughted, field-grown Eucalyptus globulus Labill. Plant Cell Environ, 27: 1268–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muthumeenakshi S, Goldstein A L, Stewart A, Whipps J M. 2001. Molecular studies on intraspecific diversity and phylogenetic position of Coniothyrium minitans. Mycol Res, 105: 1065–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Núnez-Farfán J, Schlichting C D. 2001. Evolution in changing environments: the “synthethic” work of Clausen, Keck, and Hiesey. Q Rev Biol, 76: 433–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Qian J, Ma Y H, Ren W W, Zheng S Z. 2000. Comparative study on ecotype differentiation of Leymus chinensis in different geographic populations at molecular level. Acta Ecol Sin, 3(20): 440–443Google Scholar
  30. Shi M Y, Xu Z G. 2005. Pest and disease of Cinnamomum camphora and its control. Shanghai Agric Sci Technol, 3: 117–118 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  31. Siefermann-Harms D, Boxler-Baldoma C, von Wilpert K, Heumann H G. 2004. The rapid yellowing of spruce at a mountain site in the Central Black Forest (Germany). Combined effects of Mg deficiency and ozone on biochemical, physiological and structural properties of the chloroplasts. J Plant Physiol, 161: 423–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Siefermann-Harms D, Payer H D, Schramel P, Lütz C. 2005. The effect of ozone on the yellowing process of magnesium-deficient clonal Norway spruce grown under defined conditions. J Plant Physiol, 162: 195–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sun G Q, Li S H, Xia X N. 2001. Analysis of efficacy of Lüheng tiewang against the yellows of Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Presl. Forest Pest Dis, S1: 19–21 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  34. Szekeres M, Németh K, Koncz-Kálmán Z, Mathur J, Kauschmann A, Altmann T, Rédei G P, Nagy F, Schell J, Koncz C. 1996. Brassinosteroids rescue the deficiency of CYP90, a cytochrome P450, controlling cell elongation and de-etiolation in Arabidopsis. Cell, 85: 171–182CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Theunissen J D. 1997. Selection of suitable ecotypes within Digitaria eriantha for reclamation and restoration of disturbed areas in southern Africa. J Arid Environ, 35: 429–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tomlinson P B. 1983. Tree architecture. Am Sci, 71: 141–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Tuzet A, Perrier A, Leuning R. 2003. A coupled model of stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and transpiration. Plant Cell Environ, 26: 1097–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vaartaja O. 1959. Evidence of photoperiodic ecotypes in trees. Ecol Monogr, 29: 91–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Via S, Gomulklewicz R, de Jong G, Scheiner S M, Schlichting C D, van Tienderen P H. 1995. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: consensus and controversy. Trends Ecol Evol, 10: 212–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang K Y, Yang H R, Yu X H. 2006. Control to yellowing in Cinnamomum camphora in Hangzhou. Technol Market, 7: 41–43 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  41. Wang W X, Jia D H. 2007. Application of Cinnamomum camphora (Linn.) Presl. in garden greening. Northern Horticulture, 4: 144–145 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
  42. Wang X L, Wang J. 1989. Plant Morphology, Structure and Environment. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University Press, 1–90 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  43. Xu H C, Tang Q, Li C X. 1991. Growth performances of different ecotypes of Pinus tabulaeformis in deferent elevation sites in Beijing mountain area. Sci Silvae Sin, 27(6): 582–588 (in Chinese with English abstract).Google Scholar
  44. Xu W D, Zou C J. 1998. Sandy Forest Ecosystems of China. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  45. Yuan J K, Zhang Y. 2006. Comprehensive control techniques on yellowing in Cinnamomum camphora in Shanghai. Shanghai Agricul Sci Technol, 2: 89–90 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Zhang Y, Yuan J K. 2006. Research advance in pest Cinnamomum camphora. Shanghai Agricul Sci Technol, 3: 110 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  48. Zhang Y P. 2007. Problems of Cinnamomum camphora in virescence in urban street. Anhui For Sci Technol, 3: 39/41 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  49. Zhao J X. 2000. Virescence application of Cinnamomum camphora. Anhui Forest, 6: 27 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  50. Zhao X, Yang Y, Shen Z, Zhang H, Wang G, Gan Y. 2006. Stomatal clustering in Cinnamomum camphora. South Afric J Bot, 72: 565–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhu J K. 2001. Plant salt tolerance. Trends Plant Sci, 6(2): 66–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zou C J, Han S J, Xu W D. 2001. Modular dynamics and structure of Picea mongolica. J Wuhan Bot Res, 19(5): 369–376Google Scholar
  53. Zou C J, Ma Y L, Zhang C, Xu W D. 2006. Differentiation of apparent properties of three ecotypes Picea mongolica. Liaoning For Sci Technol, 3: 4–7 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Beijing Forestry University and Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qing Li
    • 1
  • Chun-jing Zou
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ying Xu
    • 1
  • Shimizu Hideyuki
    • 2
  1. 1.Shanghai Key Laboratory of Urbanization & Ecological Restoration, School of Life ScienceEast China Normal UniversityShanghaiP. R. China
  2. 2.National Institute for Environmental StudiesIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations