Abstract
summary Our objectives were (1) to determine if arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis could modify leaf response to non‐hydraulic root‐to‐shoot communication of soil drying in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench, and (2) to compare the sensitivity of leaf growth and stomatal conductance ( C s ) to the non‐hydraulic signal. Seedlings were grown in a greenhouse with root systems split among four pots. Treatments were applied in a 2 (colonized or not colonized by Glomus intraradices Schenck & Smith) × 2 (roots severed or dried) × 4 (roots in 0, 1, 2 or 3 pots dried or severed) experimental design. Plants with roots in three pots dried or severed showed reduced leaf elongation, C δ and leaf water potential (Ψ) compared with fully watered (control) plants and thus were probably hydraulically affected by root treatment. Drying of severing roots in one pot did not affect leaf elongation, C δ or Ψ in either mycorrhizal or non‐mycorrhizal plants. In non‐mycorrhizal plants having two pots dried, final leaf area and total leaf length were reduced by 18 and 10%, respectively, relative to controls. Stomatal conductance of these half‐dried non‐mycorrhizal plants remained unchanged, suggesting that the decrease in leaf growth was not hydraulically induced. Non‐mycorrhizal plants having roots severed in two pots continued to have leaf growth similar to that of the controls, suggesting that growth reductions in half‐dried non‐mycorrhizal plants did not result from a reduction in root water gathering capacity. Mycorrhizal symbiosis appeared to eliminate inhibition of leaf growth that was not hydraulically induced, because mean leaf area and total leaf length were not reduced in half‐dried mycorrhizal plants, relative to controls. However, final leaf area of mycorrhizal plants having one or two pots dried was negatively correlated with the product of drying rod mass and the time for which roots were exposed to mild drought, suggesting that mycorrhizal plants were also susceptible to growth inhibition that was not hydraulically induced. Reductions in leaf extension rate that were not hydraulically induced, when viewed as a function of actual soil matric potential, were similar in mycorrhizal and non‐mycorrhizal plants, suggesting that the differences in overall growth inhibition between half‐dried mycorrhizal and non‐mycorrhizal plants may have been related to differences in soil drying rate.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Drying or severing roots in three pots reduced leaf elongation, stomatal conductance and leaf water potential versus watered controls.
- Treatment
- roots in three pots dried or severede0
- Outcome
- leaf elongation, C δ and leaf water potential (Ψ)e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- fully watered (control) plantse0
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Plants with roots in three pots dried or severed showed reduced leaf elongation, C δ and leaf water potential (Ψ) compared with fully watered (control) plants”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Drying or severing roots in one pot did not alter leaf elongation, conductance or water potential.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drying of severing roots in one pot did not affect leaf elongation, C δ or Ψ in either mycorrhizal or non‐mycorrhizal plants”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
In non-mycorrhizal plants, drying roots in two pots reduced final leaf area by 18% versus controls.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In non‐mycorrhizal plants having two pots dried, final leaf area and total leaf length were reduced by 18 and 10%, respectively, relative to controls”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
In non-mycorrhizal plants, drying roots in two pots reduced total leaf length by 10% versus controls.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In non‐mycorrhizal plants having two pots dried, final leaf area and total leaf length were reduced by 18 and 10%, respectively, relative to controls”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal conductance of half-dried non-mycorrhizal plants remained unchanged.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stomatal conductance of these half‐dried non‐mycorrhizal plants remained unchanged”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Root severing in two pots did not reduce leaf growth in non-mycorrhizal plants versus controls.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Non‐mycorrhizal plants having roots severed in two pots continued to have leaf growth similar to that of the controls”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Half-dried mycorrhizal plants had no reduction in mean leaf area or total leaf length versus controls.
- Treatment
- half‐dried mycorrhizal plantse0
- Outcome
- mean leaf area and total leaf lengthe0
- Direction
- not reducede0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mean leaf area and total leaf length were not reduced in half‐dried mycorrhizal plants, relative to controls”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Final leaf area in mycorrhizal plants with one or two pots dried was negatively correlated with drying root mass times drought exposure.
- Treatment
- one or two pots driede0
- Outcome
- final leaf areae0
- Direction
- negatively correlatede0
- Qualifier
- product of drying rod mass and the time for which roots were exposed to mild droughte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“final leaf area of mycorrhizal plants having one or two pots dried was negatively correlated with the product of drying rod mass and the time for which roots were exposed to mild drought”
t0“sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-hydraulic leaf extension reductions as a function of soil matric potential were similar with and without mycorrhiza.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reductions in leaf extension rate that were not hydraulically induced, when viewed as a function of actual soil matric potential, were similar in mycorrhizal and non‐mycorrhizal plants”
t0“sorghum”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · growth · SorghumResults differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →processing · growth · SorghumPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →processing · physiology: water · SorghumResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.