Exploring root developmental plasticity to nitrogen with a three-dimensional architectural model
- 705 Downloads
Background and aims
Root plasticity is a key process affecting the root system foraging capacity while itself being affected by the nutrient availability around the root environment. Root system architecture is determined by three types of plastic responses: chemotropism, spacing of lateral roots, hierarchy between laterals and their mother root.
We attempt a systematic comparison of the effect of each mechanism on the whole root plasticity when the root is grown under four distinct nutrient distribution scenarios using a functional-structural root model. Nutrient distributions included i) a completely random distribution, ii) a layered distribution, iii) a patch distribution, and iv) a gradient distribution. Root length, volume, total uptake, uptake efficiency as well as the soil profiles are given as model outputs.
Root uptake was more efficient in a soil with a gradient nutrient distribution and less so in a patch distribution for all mechanisms. In terms of mechanisms uptake was more efficient for the spacing (elongation) mechanism than the hierarchy (branching) mechanism.
Root mechanisms play a different role in the foraging of the root with chemotropism being a global tracking mechanism, whereas spacing and hierarchy are ways to proliferate in a zone with locally available nutrients.
KeywordsRoot plasticity 3D architecture Nutrient uptake Chemotropism Root growth strategies Functional-structural plant modelling (FSPM)
Functional-structural plant modelling
V. Sarlikioti was funded by a grant of French National Institute of Agronomic Research (INRA, EA department).
- Buck-Sorlin GH (2013) Functional-structural plant modeling. In: Dubitzky W, Wolkenhauer O, Cho K, Yokota H (eds) Encyclopedia of systems biology, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-9863-7
- Epstein E, Bloom AJ (2005) Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
- Fang S, Clark R, Liao H (2012) 3D quantification of plant root architecture in situ. Measuring roots. Springer Berlin 135–148. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-22067-8_9
- Henke M, Kurth W, Buck-Sorlin GH (2010) A general FSPM for prototyping, intercropping and education. In: DeJong T and Da Silva D (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Functional-Structural Plant Modeling, University of California, Davis, U.S.A., 12–17 September 2010, p 264Google Scholar
- Kniemeyer O (2008) Design and implementation of a graph grammar based language for functional-structural plant modelling. Dissertation, BTU CottbusGoogle Scholar
- Sarlikioti V, de Visser PHB, Buck-Sorlin GH, Marcelis LFM (2011) How plant architecture affects light absorption and photosynthesis in tomato: towards an ideotype for plant architecture using a functional-structural plant model. Ann Bot 108(6):1065–1073. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcr006 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Scott BJ, Robson AD (1991) The distribution of Mg, P and K in the split roots of subterranean clover. Ann Bot 67:251–256Google Scholar
- Vos J, Marcelis L, de Visser P, Struik P, Evers J (2007) Functional–structural plant modelling in crop production – Adding a dimension. In: Vos J, Marcelis L, de Visser P, Struik P, Evers J (eds) Functional–structural plant modelling in crop production. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wu QL (2012) Sensitivity analysis for functional-structural plant modeling. Dissertation, École Centrale ParisGoogle Scholar