Changes in physiological and morphological traits of roots and shoots of wheat in response to different depths of waterlogging

By A. Malik, Timothy D. Colmer, H. Lambers, M. Schortemeyer. 2001

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The growth reduction of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during and after waterlogging stress depends on the depth of water from the soil surface. In a pot experiment with 3-week-old plants, soil was waterlogged for 14 d at the surface, or at 100 or 200 mm below the surface, and pots were then drained to assess recovery. A fully drained treatment kept at field capacity served as control. During waterlogging, the relative growth rate of roots decreased more than that of shoots (by 6-27% for shoots, by 15-74% for roots), and plant growth was reduced proportionally as the water level was increased. Light-saturated net photosynthesis was reduced by 70-80% for the two most severe waterlogging treatments, but was little affected for plants in soil waterlogged at 200 mm below the surface. The number of adventitious roots formed per stem in plants grown in waterlogged soil increased up to 1.5 times, but the number of tillers per plant was reduced by 24-62%. The adventitious roots only penetrated 85-116 mm below the water level in all waterlogging treatments. Adventitious root porosity was enhanced up to 10-fold for plants grown in waterlogged soil, depending on water level and position along the roots. Porosity also increased in basal zones of roots above the water level when the younger tissues had penetrated the waterlogged zone. Fourteen days after draining the pots, growth rates of plants where the soil had been waterlogged at 200 mm below the surface had recovered, while those of plants in the more severely waterlogged treatments had only partially recovered. These findings show that the depth of waterlogging has a large impact on the response of wheat both during and after a waterlogging event so that assessment of recovery is essential in evaluating waterlogging tolerance in crops.

Subfields: Ecology, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c92eaca3436e850567433baec539b2f72dac50cd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Waterlogging stress in plants: A review (2012, background): “However, other factors such as reduced chlorophyll contents, leaf senescence and reduced leaf area are also held responsible for decreased rates of photosynthesis (Malik et al., 2001).”
Growth and physiological responses of six barley genotypes to waterlogging and subsequent recovery (2004, background): “Some investigators (Krizek 1982; Malik et al. 2001) suggested that the ability to recover from transient waterlogging or hypoxia of the root system was crucial to evaluate the waterlogging tolerance of a plant.”
Flooding Stress on Plants: Anatomical, Morphological and Physiological Responses (2012, background): “In the short term, photosynthesis can drop as a result of a restriction of CO2 uptake due to stomata closing (Jackson & Hall, 1987; Huang et al., 1994; 1997; Pezeshki & DeLaune, 1998; Malik et al., 2001; Striker et al., 2005; Mollard et al., 2010).”
Identifying the critical period for waterlogging on yield and its components in wheat and barley (2014, background): “…of waterlogging on wheat or barley focused on specific stages of the crop cycle such as seedling (Musgrave 1994; Huang and Johnson 1995; Robertson et al. 2009), initial vegetative phases (Malik et al. 2001, 2002; Collaku andHarrison 2002) or grain filling (Hossain et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011).”
The State of the Art in Modeling Waterlogging Impacts on Plants: What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know (2020, background): “One or two weeks after waterlogging ceases, root growth rates recover to similar rates as in the control plants, but the negative effect of waterlogging on shoots may last longer (Malik et al., 2001; Pang et al., 2004).”
An overview of plant responses to soil waterlogging (2008, background): “3), which functionally replace basal roots (Bacanamwo and Purcell 1999; Gibberd et al. 2001; Malik et al. 2001).”
Nutritional and chlorophyll fluorescence responses of lucerne (Medicago sativa) to waterlogging and subsequent recovery (2005, background): “the stressed lucerne plants fell either into the deficient or marginal range according to Reuter and Robinson (1997). Nitrogen concentrations in waterlogged leaf tissue were 2.”