Modulation of Morphological and Several Physiological Parameters in Sedum under Waterlogging and Subsequent Drainage

  • J. Zhang
  • D. J. Yin
  • S. X. Fan
  • S. G. Li
  • L. DongEmail author


A comparative study was undertaken to investigate the morphological and physiological differences between tolerant Sedum spectabile Boreau “Carl” and susceptible S. spectabile “Rosenteller” in response to simulated waterlogging for 36 days and subsequent drainage for 12 days. Although the stress induced visible leaf stress symptoms in both cultivars, symptoms occurred earlier and severe in the susceptible cultivar. In the S. spectabile “Carl”, adventitious roots emerged earlier from leaf scar. Waterlogging induced more acute decrease of plant height, canopy, leaf area, root length, shoot/root biomass in S. spectabile “Rosenteller”. Leaf chlorophyll, relative water content and water soluble carbohydrate concentration were comparatively more salient in S. spectabile “Carl”. The activities of SOD (superoxide dismutase), CAT (catalase), APX (ascorbate peroxidase) increased in both accessions after suffering of the stress, and all activities of them were more pronounced in S. spectabile “Carl”. In addition, the lower MDA content of S. spectabile “Carl” was lower than that of S. spectabile “Rosenteller” demonstrated that less oxidative damage was induced by waterlogging and drainage. All these results suggest that the greater relative waterlogging tolerance to withstand waterlogging stress up to 36 days and better recovery capacity after soil drainage of S. spectabile “Carl” appears to depend on the combination of morphological and metabolic responses.


Sedum spectabile waterlogging drainage lipid peroxidation antioxidant enzyme 



We thank the project, funded by the State Forestry Administration (Propagation, application demonstration and generalization of high resistant perennials (project no. 2016 (31)) and Shenzhen Techand Ecology & Environment Co., LTD (Development and application of cold-tolerant and drought-tolerant sedum spp. (THRD010)). We also thank Jianhua Hao for helping to provide site space. Jie Zhang and Dr. Li Dong designed and contributed to the bench experiments. Jie Zhang wrote the manuscript. Dejie Yin, Rui Jing, Haiyan Guan and Qiqi Qu assisted in the measurement of experiments. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This article does not contain any studies involving animals or human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Balakhnina, T.I., Plant responses to soil flooding, in Stress Responses in Plants, Tripathi, B.N. and Müller, M., Eds., Berlin: Springer, 2015, pp. 115–142.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu, M., Hulting, A., and Mallory-Smith, C., Comparison of growth and physiological characteristics between roughstalk bluegrass and tall fescue in response to simulated waterlogging, PLoS One, 2017, vol. 12: e0182035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Imaz, J.A., Giménez, D.O., Grimoldi, A.A., and Striker, G.G., The effects of submergence on anatomical, morphological and biomass allocation responses of tropical grasses Chloris gayana and Panicum coloratum at seedling stage, Crop Pasture Sci., 2017, vol. 63, pp. 1145–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans, D.E. and Gladish, D.K., Plant responses to waterlogging, in Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences, 2017, vol. 1, pp. 36–39.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loreti, E., Van, V.H., and Perata, P., Plant responses to flooding stress, Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 2016, vol. 33, pp. 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pucciariello, C. and Perata, P., New insights into reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide signalling under low oxygen in plants, Plant Cell Environ., 2017, vol. 40, pp. 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jackson, M.B. and Ismail, A.M., Introduction to the Special Issue: electrons, water and rice fields: plant response and adaptation to flooding and submergence stress, AoB Plants, 2015, vol. 7: plv078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu, X., Chen, M., Ji, J., Xu, Q., Qi, X., and Chen, X., Comparative RNA-seq based transcriptome profiling of waterlogging response in cucumber hypocotyls reveals novel insights into the de novo adventitious root primordia initiation, BMC Plant Biol., 2017, vol. 17: 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Le Provost, G., Lesur, I., Lalanne, C., da Silva, C., Labadie, K., Aury, J.M., Leple, J.C., and Plomion, C., Implication of the suberin pathway in adaptation to waterlogging and hypertrophied lenticels formation in pedunculate oak (Quercus robur L.), Tree Physiol., 2016, vol. 36, pp. 1330–1342.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wei, W., Li, D., Wang, L., Ding, X., Zhang, Y., Gao, Y., and Zhang, X., Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses to waterlogging of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.), Plant Sci., 2013, vol. 208, pp. 102–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jurczyk, B., Rapacz, M., Pociecha, E., and Koscielniak, J., Changes in carbohydrates triggered by low temperature waterlogging modify photosynthetic acclimation to cold in Festuca pratensis, Environ. Exp. Bot., 2016, vol. 122, pp. 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen, Y., Zhou, Y., Yin, T.F., Liu, C.X., and Luo, F.L., The invasive wetland plant Alternanthera philoxeroides shows a higher tolerance to waterlogging than its native congener Alternanthera sessilis, PLoS One, 2013, vol. 8: e81456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irfan, M., Hayat, S., Hayat, Q., Afroz, S., and Ahmad, A., Physiological and biochemical changes in plants under waterlogging, Protoplasma, 2010, vol. 241, pp. 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Amador, M.L., Sancho, S., Bielsa, B., Gomez-Aparisi, J., and Rubio-Cabetas, M.J., Physiological and biochemical parameters controlling waterlogging stress tolerance in Prunus before and after drainage, Physiol. Plant., 2012, vol. 144, pp. 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dvorak, B. and Volder, A., Green roof vegetation findings for North American ecoregions: a literature review, Landscape Urban Plann., 2010, vol. 96, pp. 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gabrych, M., Kotze, D.J., and Lehvavirta, S., Substrate depth and roof age strongly affect plant abundances on sedum-moss and meadow green roofs in Helsinki, Finland, Ecol. Eng., 2016, vol. 86, pp. 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Durhman, A.K., Rowe, D.B., and Rugh, C.L., Effect of watering regimen on chlorophyll fluorescence and growth of selected green roof plant taxa, Hortscience, 2006, vol. 41, pp. 1623–1628.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Habibi, G. and Hajiboland, R., Comparison of photosynthesis and antioxidative protection in Sedum album and Sedum stoloniferum (Crassulaceae) under water stress, Photosynthetica, 2012, vol. 50, pp. 508–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garnier, E., Shipley, B., Roumet, C., and Laurent, G., A standardized protocol for the determination of specific leaf area and leaf dry matter content, Funct. Ecol., 2001, vol. 15, pp. 688–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knudson, L.L., Tibbitts, T.W., and Edwards, G.E., Measurement of ozone injury by determination of leaf chlorophyll concentration, Plant Physiol., 1977, vol. 60: 606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arbona, V., Hossain, Z., Lopez-Climent, M.F., Perez-Clemente, R.M., and Gomez-Cadenas, A., Antioxidant enzymatic activity is linked to waterlogging stress tolerance in citrus, Physiol. Plant., 2008, vol. 132, pp. 452–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang, X., Chang, L., Wang, B., Wang, D., Li, P., Wang, L., Yi, X., Huang, Q., Peng, M., and Guo, A., Comparative proteomics of Thellungiella halophila leaves under different salinity revealed chloroplast starch and soluble sugar accumulation played important roles in halophyte salt tolerance, Mol. Cell. Pro-teomics, 2013, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 2174–2195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakano, Y. and Asada, K., Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate-specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts, Plant Cell Physiol., 1981, vol. 22, pp. 867–880.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hossain, Z., López-Climent, M.F., Arbona, V., Pérez-Clemente, R.M., and Gómez-Cadenas, A., Modulation of the antioxidant system in Citrus under waterlogging and subsequent drainage, J. Plant Physiol., 2009, vol. 166, pp. 1391–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yang, L., Zeng, H., Zhu, X., and Liao, F., Research of water stress on four kinds of plants such as Sedum yvesii, etc., Hunan For. Sci. Technol., 2016, vol. 43, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Phukan, U.J., Mishra, S., Timbre, K., Luqman, S., and Shukla, R.K., Mentha arvensis exhibit better adaptive characters in contrast to Mentha piperita when subjugated to sustained waterlogging stress, Protoplasma, 2014, vol. 251, pp. 603–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gibberd, M.R., Gray, J.D., Cocks, P.S., and Colmer, T.D., Waterlogging tolerance among a diverse range of Trifolium accessions is related to root porosity, lateral root formation and 'aerotropic rooting', Ann. Bot., 2001, vol. 88, pp. 579–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yin, D.M., Chen, S.M., Chen, F.D., Guan, Z.Y., and Fang, W.M., Morpho-anatomical and physiological responses of two Dendranthema species to waterlogging, Environ. Exp. Bot., 2010, vol. 68, pp. 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Zhang
    • 1
  • D. J. Yin
    • 1
  • S. X. Fan
    • 1
  • S. G. Li
    • 2
  • L. Dong
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Beijing Key Laboratory of Ornamental Plants Germplasm Innovation & Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Center for Floriculture, Beijing Laboratory of Urban and Rural Ecological Environment, School of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Shenzhen Techand Ecology and Environment Co., LTDShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations