Biomass partitioning of plants under soil pollution stress.
Journal
Communications biology
ISSN: 2399-3642
Titre abrégé: Commun Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101719179
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 04 2022
19 04 2022
Historique:
received:
09
07
2021
accepted:
23
03
2022
entrez:
20
4
2022
pubmed:
21
4
2022
medline:
22
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Polluted sites are ubiquitous worldwide but how plant partition their biomass between different organs in this context is unclear. Here, we identified three possible drivers of biomass partitioning in our controlled study along pollution gradients: plant size reduction (pollution effect) combined with allometric scaling between organs; early deficit in root surfaces (pollution effect) inducing a decreased water uptake; increased biomass allocation to roots to compensate for lower soil resource acquisition consistent with the optimal partitioning theory (plant response). A complementary meta-analysis showed variation in biomass partitioning across published studies, with grass and woody species having distinct modifications of their root: shoot ratio. However, the modelling of biomass partitioning drivers showed that single harvest experiments performed in previous studies prevent identifying the main drivers at stake. The proposed distinction between pollution effects and plant response will help to improve our knowledge of plant allocation strategies in the context of pollution.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35440753
doi: 10.1038/s42003-022-03307-x
pii: 10.1038/s42003-022-03307-x
pmc: PMC9018880
doi:
Substances chimiques
Soil
0
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.44j0zpcgc']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
365Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
New Phytol. 2012 Jan;193(1):30-50
pubmed: 22085245
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2021 Jan 1;207:111500
pubmed: 33254388
Environ Pollut. 2008 Nov;156(2):290-6
pubmed: 18362044
Chemosphere. 2000 Jul;41(1-2):191-6
pubmed: 10819201
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2006 May;81(2):259-91
pubmed: 16573844
Environ Pollut. 1997;97(3):265-73
pubmed: 15093364
Chemosphere. 2019 Mar;219:482-492
pubmed: 30551115
Commun Biol. 2022 Apr 19;5(1):365
pubmed: 35440753
New Phytol. 2017 Feb;213(3):1274-1286
pubmed: 27735064
Ann Bot. 2019 Nov 27;124(6):917-932
pubmed: 30596881
Chemosphere. 2015 Apr;124:110-5
pubmed: 25496734
Plant Physiol. 1987 Jul;84(3):796-802
pubmed: 16665524
Trends Ecol Evol. 2006 Nov;21(11):606-13
pubmed: 16843566
New Phytol. 2020 Jul;227(2):365-375
pubmed: 32175592
J Environ Public Health. 2013;2013:158764
pubmed: 23843802
Front Plant Sci. 2012 Dec 05;3:259
pubmed: 23227027
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019 May 15;172:308-316
pubmed: 30716666
Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Jan 20;49(2):750-9
pubmed: 25514502
Front Plant Sci. 2013 Nov 05;4:442
pubmed: 24204374
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2015 May;22(10):7495-507
pubmed: 25874421
Oecologia. 1998 Jul;115(3):351-358
pubmed: 28308426
New Phytol. 2015 Nov;208(3):736-49
pubmed: 26197869
Ecotoxicology. 2019 Jul;28(5):507-519
pubmed: 31025155
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 12;113(15):4098-103
pubmed: 27035971
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2011 Oct;74(7):2013-9
pubmed: 21798598
Plant Physiol. 1979 Nov;64(5):770-3
pubmed: 16661051
Ecol Lett. 2007 Dec;10(12):1135-42
pubmed: 17922835
Sci Total Environ. 2014 Oct 15;496:510-522
pubmed: 25108253
Trends Plant Sci. 2007 Mar;12(3):98-105
pubmed: 17287141
Microb Ecol. 2006 Oct;52(3):426-35
pubmed: 16897301
Phytochemistry. 2007 Jan;68(1):139-46
pubmed: 17078985
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009 Apr;59(Pt 4):850-5
pubmed: 19329619
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2013 Mar;37(2):112-29
pubmed: 22568555
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 Aug;27(22):27831-27848
pubmed: 32399870
J Exp Bot. 2001 Feb;52(355):329-39
pubmed: 11283178