Crop Science Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published in Crop Sci 28:275-278 (1988)
© 1988 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Barta, A. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Barta, A. L.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Barta, A. L.

Response of Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil to Shoot Removal and Root Anoxia

A. L. Barta*

Department of Agronomy, Ohio Agric. Res. and Develop. Ctr., The Ohio State Univ., Wooster, OH 44691.

* Corresponding author.

Shoot removal may accentuate potential plant injury when roots are under stress. Flood-intolerant alfalfa (Medicago sativa L) and flood-tolerant birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) partition differing amounts of photoassimilate to roots during shoot regrowth, which may affect their ability to withstand stress. The objective of this study was to characterize plant response (growth and chemical composition) when root anoxia (severe hypoxia) and partial shoot removal were applied concurrently. Seedling plants (4–5 wk-old) were grown in a growth chamber using nutrient solution. Alfalfa and trefoil roots were subjected to anoxia or O2 aeration (control) with shoots either clipped to 60- to 70-mm stubble height or left unclipped. Root treatments were up to 5 d in duration. Alfalfa displayed greater damage (as measured by shoot dry matter accumulation) in response to root anoxia than did trefoil under both shoot treatments. Root anoxia significantly reduced root dry matter accumulation only in nonclipped plants, indicating that clipping had a more deleterious effect on root dry matter than did anoxia treatment. Both clipping and root anoxia had significant effects on root carbohydrates. A large increase in root sucrose concentration in response to anoxia was noted in alfalfa but not trefoil. Reducing sugar concentration declined in response to anoxia and clipping in alfalfa roots but only to clipping in trefoil roots. Root starch concentration increased in alfalfa and decreased in trefoil in response to root anoxia. There were no significant interactions between root aeration and shoot clipping in either species. Differential supply of photoassimilate did not appear to contribute to the differential tolerance to root anoxia displayed by these species. The data indicated that increased utilization of sugars may be important in trefoil's greater flooding tolerance.

Key Words: Medicago sativa L. • Lotus corniculatus L. • Waterlogging • Carbohydrates • Fermentation


Contribution from the Ohio Agric. Res. and Develop. Ctr. Journal Article no. 63–87.

Received for publication April 10, 1987.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
G. G. Striker, P. Insausti, and A. A. Grimoldi
Flooding Effects on Plants Recovering from Defoliation in Paspalum dilatatum and Lotus tenuis
Ann. Bot., May 22, 2008; (2008) mcn083v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Crop Sci.Home page
C. Dhont, Y. Castonguay, P. Nadeau, G. Belanger, and F.-P. Chalifour
Alfalfa Root Carbohydrates and Regrowth Potential in Response to Fall Harvests
Crop Sci., May 1, 2002; 42(3): 754 - 765.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Journal of
Environmental Quality
Copyright © 1988 by the Crop Science Society of America.