Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions ›› 2016, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (3): 196-204.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1226.2016.00196

• ARTICLES • Previous Articles    

The adaptive significance of differences of root morphology, anatomy and physiology from three ecotypes of reed (Phragmites communis Trin.)

YuBing Liu, XinRong Li, ZhiShan Zhang, XiaoJun Li, Jin Wang   

  1. 1. Shapotou Desert Research & Experiment Station, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China;
    2. Key Laboratory of Stress Physiology and Ecology in Cold and Arid Regions of Gansu Province, Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China
  • Received:2015-09-21 Revised:2016-05-16 Published:2018-11-23
  • Contact: Ph.D.,YuBing Liu,Professor of Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute,Chinese Academy of Sciences.No.320,West Donggang Road,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China.Tel:+86-0931-4967199;
  • Supported by:
    This study was financially supported by the State Key Development Program for Basic Research of China (973 Program,Grant No.2013CB429904) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.91125029).

Abstract: Reeds are widely distributed in drought and high salt conditions of northwestern China.Leaf epidermal micromorphology,anatomy,chloroplast ultrastructure and physio-chemical characteristics due to long-term adaptation in the natural habitats of common reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) contrasted considerably among three different ecotypes:dune reed (DR),Gobi salt reed (GSR) and swamp reed (SR).The main objective of the present study is to determine the adapting characteristics of morphology,anatomy and physiological responses of thin roots in DR,GSR and SR.The results show that root length density was higher in SR and few root hairs were observed in DR.Cross-section anatomical features show that each ecotype has an endodermis and exodermis,while cortex thickness and proportion of root cortical aerenchyma and stele in root structure varied among the three ecotypes.The stele and xylem share a larger area in DR compared to GSR and SR.GSR has a large proportion of the cortex with radialized distribution of aerenchyma cells spacing,and the cortex has a peripheral,mechanically stiff ring in the exodermis.SEM and TEM microscope images show that GSR has a sclerenchyma ring with high lignification in the exodermis.The physio-chemical parameters show that GSR had a higher level of stress tolerance than DR.These findings indicate that developed water-absorbing tissues were largely distributed in the root structure of DR,and a main framework with supporting function spacing with aerenchyma was dominant in GSR in the long term adaptation to their natural habitats,respectively.

Key words: Phragmites communis, ecotype, root morphology, cross-section anatomy, physio-chemical parameters

Barnabas AD, 1991. Thalassodendron ciliatum (Forssk.) Den Hartog:root structure and histochemistry in relation to apoplastic transport. Aquatic Botany, 40:129-143.
Barnabas AD, 1994. Anatomical, histochemical and ultrastructural features of the seagrass Phyllospadix scouleri Hook. Aquatic Botany, 49:167-182.
Baruch Z, Merida T, 1995. Effects of drought and flooding on root anatomy in four tropical forage grasses. International Journal of Plant Science, 156:514-521.
Chen KM, Wang F, Wang YH, et al., 2006. Anatomical and chemical characteristics of foliar vascular bundles in four reed ecotypes adapted to different habitats. Flora, 201:555-569.
Chen KM, Gong HJ, Wang SM, et al., 2007. Antioxidant defense system in Phragmites communis Trin. ecotypes. Biologia Plantarum, 51:754-758.
Chen GC, Zhang CL, 1991. Comparative studies on morphological characteristics and stem anatomy in different ecotypes of reed(Phragmites communis Trin.). Journal of Lanzhou University(Natural Science), 27:91-98.
Enstone DE, Peterson CA, Ma FS, 2003. Root endodermis and exodermis:structure, function, and responses to the environment. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 21:335-351.
Erb M, Lenk C, Degenhardt J, et al., 2009. The underestimated role of roots in defense against leaf attackers. Trends of Plant Science, 14:653-659.
Gowda VRP, Henry A, Yamauchi A, et al., 2011. Root biology and genetic improvement for drought avoidance in rice. Field Crops Research, 122:1-13.
Haslam SM, 1970. Variation of population types in Phragmites communis Trin. Annals Botany, 34:147-158.
Haslam SM, 1975. The performance of Phragmites communis Trin.Annals Botany, 39:881-888.
Huang B, Fry JD, 1998. Root anatomical, physiological, and morphological responses to drought stress for tall fescue cultivars. Crop Science, 38:1017-1022.
Huck MG, Klepper B, Taylor HM, 1970. Diurnal variations in root diameter. Plant Physiology, 45:529-530.
Kashiwagi J, Krishnamurthy L, Crouch JH, et al., 2006. Variability of root length density and its contributions to seed yield in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under terminal drought stress.Field Crops Research, 95:171-181.
Kawase M, 1981. Anatomical and morphological adaptation of plants to waterlogging. HortScience, 16:30-34.
Levitt J, 1980. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stress:volume II. Water, radiation, Salt, and Other Stress. New York:Academic Press, pp. 339.
Liu Y, Li X, Liu M, et al., 2012. Responses of three different ecotypes of reed (Phragmites communis Trin.) to their natural habitats:Leaf surface micro-morphology, anatomy, chloroplast ultrastructure and physio-chemical characteristics. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 51:159-167.
Manschadi AM, Hammer GL, Christopher JT, et al., 2008. Genotypic variation in seedling root architectural traits and implications for drought adaptation in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).Plant and Soil, 303:115-129.
Matsuda K, Rayan A, 1990. Anatomy:a key factor regulating plant tissue response to water stress. In:Kafterman F (ed.). Environmental Injury to Plants. San Diego:Academic Press, pp. 290.
Matoh T, Matsushita N, Takahashi E, 1988. Salt tolerance of the reed plants Phragmites communis. Physiologia Plantarum, 72:8-14.
Monshausen GB, Gilroy S, 2009. The exploring root-root growth responses to local environmental conditions. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 12:766-772.
Nobel PS, Huang B, 1992. Hydraulic and structural-changes for lateral roots of two desert succulents in response to soil drying and rewetting. International Journal of Plant Science, 153:163-170.
Pitman WD, Holt EC, Conrad BE, et al., 1983. Histological differences in moisture-stressed and non stressed kleingrass forage. Crop Science, 23:793-795.
Sharp RE, Davies WJ, 1985. Root growth and water uptake by maize plants in drying soil. Journal of Experimental Botany, 36:1441-1456.
Tomlinson PB, 1969. On the morphology and anatomy of the turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum (Hydrocharitaeae). II. Anatomy and development of the root in relation to function. Bulletin of Marine Science, 19:57-71.
Vadez V, 2014. Root hydraulics:The forgotten side of roots in drought adaptation. Field Crops Research, 165:15-24.
Zhu XY, Wang SM, Zhang CL, 2003. Responses of different ecotypes of reed growing in the Hexi Corridor to natural drought and salinity. Plant Physiology Communications, 39:371-376.
No related articles found!
Full text



No Suggested Reading articles found!