Skip to main content
NCBI home page
AoB Plants logoLink to AoB Plants
. 2020 Jul 26;12(5):plaa036. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plaa036

Quantifying the influence of water deficit on root and shoot growth in wheat using X-ray Computed Tomography

A M Khalil 1,2, E H Murchie 1, S J Mooney 1,✉
Editor: Patrick Mitchell
PMCID: PMC7469715  PMID: 32905427

Abstract

The potential increased frequency and severity of drought associated with environmental change represents a significant obstacle to efforts aimed at enhancing food security due to its impact on crop development, and ultimately, yield. Our understanding of the impact of drought on crop growth in terms of plant aerial tissues is much more advanced than knowledge of the below-ground impacts. We undertook an experiment using X-ray Computed Tomography that aimed to support measurements of infrared gas exchange from plant shoots with quantification of 3D root architecture traits and the associated soil structural characteristics. Winter wheat (cv. Zebedee) was assessed at two early growth stages (14 and 21 days) under four water treatments (100, 75, 50 and 25 % of a notional field capacity (FC) and across two soil types (sandy loam and clay loam)). Plants generally grew better (to a larger size) in sandy loam soil as opposed to clay loam soil, most likely due to the soil structure and the associated pore network. All plants grew poorly under extreme water stress and displayed optimal growth at 75 % of FC, as opposed to 100 %, as the latter was most likely too wet. The optimal matric potential for root and shoot growth, inferred from the water release curve for each soil type, was higher than that for photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration suggesting root and shoot growth was more affected by soil water content than photosynthesis-related characteristics under water deficit conditions. With incidences of drought likely to increase, identification of wheat cultivars that are more tolerant of these conditions is important. Studies that consider the impact of water stress on both plant shoots and roots, and the role of the soil pore system such as this offer considerable potential in supporting these efforts.

Keywords: Drought, photosynthesis, root architecture, stomatal conductance, water deficit, X-ray Computed Tomography

The likelihood of increased drought associated with environmental change represents a significant obstacle for enhancing food security due to its impact on crop development and yield. We used 3D X-ray imaging to measure root architecture traits in wheat under different drying regimes and across two soil types along with traditional measures of plant aerial tissues. Root and shoot growth was more affected by soil water content than photosynthesis-related characteristics under water deficit conditions. With incidences of drought likely to increase, identification of wheat cultivars that are more tolerant of these conditions is important.

Introduction

Water stress has a negative effect on plant growth and can sharply decrease plant productivity (Pan et al. 2002). Roots play a key role in water and nutrient supply for plants. However, the physiochemical and biological status of the surrounding soil can have a significant effect on their activity, particularly the relationship between root development and soil pore structure, which is both complex and relatively unexplored (Carminati et al. 2010; Mooney et al. 2012).

Roots are morphologically and functionally structured for water, mineral and nutrient absorption from the soil by apoplastic and/or symplastic traits. Reduction in plant output is mainly observed when plants are exposed to water deficiency during long periods, which affects almost all physiological processes, involving growth (McDonald and Davies 1996), stomatal conductance and photosynthesis (Flexas et al. 2004). During drought (i.e. substantial and sustained reduction in soil water availability), plant aerial tissues (leaves and stems) can be significantly inhibited in growth, while the roots continuously grow to explore the soil volume for water and nutrients (Sharp and Davies 1989). The regulation of shoot–root interactions has been a subject of intense study but many aspects remain unexplored partly due to the difficulty of studying the dynamics of complex root systems when embedded in soil.

Water shortage is a global problem affecting the development of agricultural crops and the maintenance of food production (Jaleel et al. 2007). Increases or decreases in temperature and water availability specifically affect wheat productivity and photosynthetic efficiency (Wang et al. 2008). In wheat, grain yield is the function of the number of plants per ha, the number of fertile tillers per plant, the number of grains per spike and individual grain weight. Yield is affected directly or indirectly by water shortage through these components (Fábián et al. 2011). Drought at the last two stages, double ridge to anthesis and anthesis to maturity (GS2 and GS3), is a frequent phenomenon resulting in wheat yield loss (Pradhan et al. 2012). However, drought and/or heat stress during early growth stages has been well studied and also impacts on productivity (Madhu and Hatfield 2013; Saeidi et al. 2015). Water deficit imposed during the vegetative stage reduces biomass, grain yield and the number of grains per spike.

Photosynthesis is very sensitive to water deficit and has a direct impact on growth. During the onset of drought, a reduction in stomatal conductance can reduce availability of CO2 for photosynthesis and but can, in more severe conditions, be followed by a subsequent inhibition of underlying biochemical processes such as Rubisco carboxylation and electron transport activity, relative water content and even pigment content (Cui et al. 2015; Saeidi et al. 2015; Flexas et al. 2018). It is clear therefore that strategies for enhancing and conserving soil water act to maintain leaf gas exchange and substantially contribute to biomass, the capacity for grain filling and ultimately, the yield of wheat (Xue et al. 2006; Lan-Ping et al. 2011).

There is a need to determine the effects of water deficit (during periods of vegetative and reproductive growth) on the links between root growth and shoot function. In particular, there is a paucity of knowledge on relationships between 3D root structure, leaf gas exchange traits and growth and whether there remains genetic variation among wheat genotypes for such traits that will enable improved photosynthesis, water use efficiency and drought tolerance (Liu et al. 2016)

New developments in imaging technologies, such as X-ray micro-Computed Tomography (μCT), to visualize the roots of plants grown in soil have shown much promise (e.g. Tracy et al. 2010; Aravena et al. 2011; Schmidt et al. 2012). Whilst many studies have examined the impact of water stress on shoot and root growth and photosynthesis, no previous study has visualized the root systems of wheat under drought conditions to measure undisturbed root characteristics in 3D when grown in soil and linked such observations with shoot properties, in particular, photosynthetic gas exchange.This study aimed to investigate the impact of water stress on root and shoot growth in wheat in different soil textural types. We hypothesized that there is a ‘sweet spot’ in soil water content, between 100 and 25 % of field capacity (FC) where wheat root and shoot growth and development parameters are optimized. It was also hypothesized that root and shoot growth under water deficiency would perform better in a clay loam than in a sandy loam soil due to enhanced water retention under stress. Finally, as X-ray μCT imagery was used to visualize root architecture and exposure to X-rays has the potential for negative impacts on plant growth, we assessed both non-scanned and scanned samples hypothesizing that X-ray imaging (using the parameters in this experiment) would not negatively impact on plant growth.

Materials and Methods

Sample preparation and X-ray μCT

Soil from a Newport series sandy loam (FAO Class brown soil) and a Worcester series clay loam soil (FAO Class argillic pelosol) was collected from two adjacent fields both under winter wheat at the University of Nottingham experimental farm at Bunny, Nottinghamshire, UK (52.8633°N, 1.1394°W). An independent on-farm survey undertaken at the same time suggested there were no significant differences in the available nutrient status between the soils. The soil was air-dried and sieved to <2 mm before being uniformly packed into columns (15 cm height × 5 cm diameter) in an air-dried state to a representative field bulk density of 1.24 g cm−3. Four moisture treatments were chosen to represent a range of saturated, field and dry conditions namely 100, 75, 50 and 25 % of a notional FC, i.e. the soil water content 48 h after drainage from saturation. Four replicates were prepared for each soil type and treatment combination to give a total of 64 columns, of which 32 were μCT scanned at two time intervals (14 and 21 days). An equal number of columns in the treatment structure were prepared but not scanned to assess for any potential effects on the plants by exposure to X-rays during scanning process. After packing, all columns were water-saturated from the base upwards and then drained to reach to different levels of FC (100 %, i.e. 2 days after drainage) and further drained to reach the following levels, after which they were maintained at that level: 75, 50, and 25 % FC. In some cases there was a minor (<1–2 mm) drop in the length of the soil column due to settling however this was variable between treatments thus it was not adjusted for to ensure all columns were treated equally. Seeds of the winter wheat Zebedee (Redigo Deter) were germinated for 48 h before being planted 5 mm below the soil surface. Thereafter, they were placed in a growth room under conditions of 28/22 °C day/night with a 16-h photoperiod at 50 % relative humidity (RH). All columns were placed in a transpired propagator to maintain high RH levels during germination and seedling growth. They were weighed daily and sufficient water was added to maintain soil moisture content at the four predetermined moisture contents. Details of the exact water content, examples of representative matric potentials derived from a water release curve for the same soil texture [seeSupporting Information—Fig. S1] and other relevant soil properties including soil elemental analysis expressed as total concentrations are given in Table 1. The columns were X-ray scanned at Day 14 and 21 after germination using a Phoenix Nanotom® (GE Measurement & Control Solutions, Wunstorf, Germany) μCT scanner set at 110 kV and 130 μA, with a 0.15-mm copper filter and an image averaging of 3. Voxel resolution was set at 55 μm and each scan took 32.5 min to complete. For each column, 1300 image projections were collected on all sampling dates and each image volume had a file size of ~2 GB. Thereafter, these images were reconstructed using datos|x 2.2 software.

Table 1.

Selected soil physical and chemical properties for the two soil textures. The values of volumetric water content (VWC), matric potential (ψ) (−kPa) at different water content (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC), the percentage of the sand, silt, the clay, Organic Matter by Loss on Ignition, pH and nutrient content for the sandy loam and the clay loam soils in Newport and Worcester. Note that matric potential values (ψ) were approximated from the water release curve for the specific soil type and not directly measured. Soil nutrients expressed as total concentrations.

Soil properties Sandy loam Clay loam
VWC (g g−1) at 100 % FC 0.42 0.45
VWC (g g−1) at 75 % FC 0.32 0.34
VWC (g g−1) at 50 % FC 0.21 0.23
VWC (g g−1) at 25 % FC 0.11 0.11
Ψ (−kPa) at 100 % FC 5 30
Ψ (−kPa) at 75 % FC 10 150
Ψ (−kPa) at 50 % FC 90 1200
Ψ (−kPa) at 25 % FC 800 1500
% sand 79 38
% silt 4 31
% clay 17 31
Organic Matter by Loss on Ignition (%) 3.9 4.8
pH 6.9 7.7
Carbon (mg kg−1 soil) 17 355 26 768
Nitrogen (mg kg−1 soil) 1486 1505
Phosphorus (mg kg−1 soil) 778 797
Potassium (mg kg−1 soil) 10 384 20 659
Magnesium (mg kg−1 soil) 2352 14 150
Sulphur (mg kg−1 soil) 2258 2058
Sodium (mg kg−1 soil) 1479 3423
Calcium (mg kg−1 soil) 2071 13 150
Open in a new tab

Image processing and analysis

Root systems were non-destructively segmented from the grey-scale μCT images using the Region Growing selection tool in VG StudioMAX software as described by Tracy et al. (2012). The root system models segmented from the μCT image data were used for quantitative determination of total root volume and mean root diameter. Region Growing classifies voxels in a certain grey-value range from a starting seed point. Tolerance values were adjusted to ensure that only root material was included in the growing region of interest from the original seed points. The mean root diameter was measured by the distance measurement tool. As the study was concerned with the interaction between roots and soil, the soil pore characteristics were also measured in addition to root measurements by setting an automatic threshold (the Li algorithm) to segment the pores by selection of the volume of air space for the given spatial resolution (i.e. water-filled pores are not measured by this approach) using ImageJ (Rasband 2018).

Plant measurements

Photosynthesis (A), stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration (T) were measured the day before and after scanning by infrared gas analysis (LI-6400XT Portable Photosynthesis System, Licor, Lincoln, NE, USA). Measurements took place within the growth room. The settings were as follows: cuvette (block) temperature 30 °C, sample CO2 400 μmol mol−1, 50 % (ambient) RH, flow rate 500 μmol s−1 and 1500 μmol m−2 s−1 (saturating) photosynthetically active radiation. Leaves were placed in the cuvette for 2–3 min and allowed to stabilize before measurements were made.

The columns were X-ray scanned during the light part of the photoperiod in randomized order to ensure that all four treatment combinations were equally exposed to any diurnal variation in root growth that may have occurred. After µCT scanning, the columns were dismantled, the roots were washed from the soil and analysed using WinRHIZO®2002c scanning equipment and software to calculate total root volume and mean root diameter (at a 1 pixel = 0.69 mm resolution). The images obtained were collected to compare with the X-ray μCT images. Root and shoot dry weights were also measured by placing in an oven at 75 °C temperature for 24 h.

Statistical analysis

The results were analysed by general analysis of variance (ANOVA) including water, soil types and their interaction as explanatory variables using Genstat 15.1. All data were first tested for normality and transformed if appropriate. In addition, regression analysis was used to test the relationship between the two root system visualization methods (WinRHIZO and X-ray CT).

Results

Root characteristics

Total root volume.

Total root volume by µCT at 14 days post-germination reduced significantly with decreasing soil moisture content (from 75 to 25 % FC) in both soil types (sandy loam and clay loam) (Pwater < 0.01, Psoil > 0.05, Psoil * water > 0.05) (Fig. 1A; Table 2). At 21 days post-germination, total root volume by µCT also dropped dramatically with declining soil water content (from 75 to 25 % FC) in the sandy loam and clay loam (Psoil < 0.01, Pwater < 0.001) (Fig. 1B). The soil * water interaction was significant (Psoil * water < 0.01). Similar trends were found for WinRHIZO®-derived total root volume which decreased greatly with decreasing soil water content in the sandy loam and clay loam (Pwater < 0.05, Psoil * water < 0.05) (Fig. 2). Total root volume in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam soil (Psoil < 0.01) (Figs 1B and 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The effect of water stress on total volume and mean root diameter by X-ray CT in wheat variety Zebedee grown in the sandy loam and clay loam soils types 14 (A) and 21 (B) days after germination. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4). General analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed soil × water interaction on total root volume at 21 days (B) at P < 0.01 and mean root diameter at both dates at P < 0.05. Vertical bar (1) represents standard errors of difference (SED) between means where interaction is significant.

Table 2.

P-values by general analysis of variance (ANOVA) for all variables of wheat variety Zebedee grown at different water content (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in the sandy loam and the clay loam soil types 14 (A) and 21 (B) days after germination.

Measurements/treatment Soil Water Soil * water
A
 Total root volume (X-ray) P > 0.05 P < 0.01 P > 0.05
 Mean root diameter (X-ray) P < 0.001 P > 0.05 P < 0.05
 Photosynthesis P < 0.05 P > 0.05 P > 0.05
 Stomatal conductance P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 Transpiration P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.05
 inWUE P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P > 0.05
 iWUE P < 0.001 P = 0.001 P < 0.001
 Shoot length P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 Air-filled porosity P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.05
 Volumetric water content P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.001
Measurements/treatment Soil Water Soil * water
B
 Total root volume (X-ray) P < 0.01 P < 0.001 P < 0.01
 Mean root diameter (X-ray) P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P < 0.05
 Total root volume (WinRHIZO) P < 0.01 P < 0.05 P < 0.05
 Mean root diameter (WinRHIZO) P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P < 0.05
 Photosynthesis P > 0.05 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 Stomatal conductance P < 0.01 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 Transpiration P > 0.05 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 inWUE P < 0.05 P > 0.05 P < 0.05
 iWUE P > 0.05 P > 0.05 P < 0.01
 WUE (shoot dry weight/total water applied) P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 WUE (root dry weight/total water applied) P < 0.01 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 WUE (total dry weight/total water applied) P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 Shoot dry weight P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P < 0.05
 Root dry weight P > 0.05 P > 0.05 P > 0.05
 Shoot length P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P < 0.001
 Total dry weight P < 0.001 P < 0.05 P > 0.05
 Air-filled porosity P < 0.001 P < 0.001 P > 0.05
 Volumetric water content P < 0.01 P < 0.001 P < 0.001
Open in a new tab
Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

The effect of water stress on total volume and mean diameter of root by WinRHIZO in wheat variety Zebedee grown in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils types 21 days after germination. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4). General analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed soil × water interaction on total root volume and mean root diameter at P < 0.05. Vertical bar (1) represents standard errors of difference (SED) between means where interaction is significant.

Mean root diameter.

Mean root diameter in the sandy loam soil was significantly greater than in clay loam soil. Mean root diameter by µCT at 14 days post-germination did not significantly increase with decreasing soil water content in the sandy loam and clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Pwater > 0.05, Psoil * water < 0.05) (Fig. 1A). At 21 days post-germination, mean root diameter by µCT increased significantly in the sandy loam and clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Pwater < 0.05, Psoil * water < 0.05) (Fig. 1B). Identical trends were found by WinRHIZO® analysis with mean root diameter increasing significantly with decreasing soil water content in the sandy loam and clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Pwater < 0.05, Psoil * water < 0.05) (Fig. 2). Mean root diameter in the sandy loam soil was significantly greater than in the clay loam (Psoil < 0.001) (Figs 1 and 2).

Photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration

At 14 days post-germination, light-saturated photosynthesis (A) showed numerically small differences between the soil types; however, it was consistently greater in clay loam than in the sandy loam and showed a significant difference at 100 and 25 % FC (Psoil < 0.05, Psoil * water > 0.05) (Fig. 3A). At 14 days there were no significant differences in photosynthesis with respect to soil water content in both the sandy loam and clay loam (Pwater > 0.05). However, at 21 days the pattern was clear with a large progressive, significant decline between 100 and 25 % FC (Pwater < 0.001, Psoil > 0.05, Psoil * water > 0.05) (Fig. 3B). Trends in changes in A were similar to those of stomatal conductance (gs) but the magnitude of change was greater in the latter resulting in significant differences. At 14 days after germination gs reduced significantly with decreasing soil water content in both soil types (Pwater < 0.001). Notably, stomatal conductance in the clay loam was significantly greater than in the sandy loam at 14 days (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water > 0.05) and 21 days (Psoil < 0.01, Psoil * water > 0.05) (Fig. 3A and B). The effect of the water stress at 21 days after germination on gs was similar to that at 14 days post-germination. Transpiration (T) changes largely followed those of gs (Fig. 3A and B). These data indicate that the imposition of water stress resulted in partial closure of stomata, particularly at 21 days, and consequentially leaf conductance and photosynthetic carbon gain were reduced.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

The effect of water stress on photosynthesis (A), stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration (T) of wheat variety Zebedee 14 (column A) and 21 (column B) days post-germination and after scanning in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils types. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4). General analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed soil × water interaction on photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration at P < 0.05 at 14 days in (column A). Vertical bar (1) represents standard errors of difference (SED) between means where interaction is significant.

Intrinsic and instantaneous water use efficiency

To investigate the impact of different levels of water stress on leaf water use efficiency of wheat plants at 14 and 21 days after germination, leaf intrinsic water use efficiency (inWUE) and instantaneous WUE (iWUE) was calculated as A/gs and A/T, respectively. Notably, the inWUE 14 days after germination in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water > 0.05) largely due to the lower gs in the former. Similarly, inWUE at 21 days after germination in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam, except at 25 % FC was lower (Psoil < 0.05, Psoil * water < 0.05) (Fig. 4B). The trends for inWUE according to soil water content were similar between time points but varied according to soil type. In the sandy loam it was lower at 100 and 75 % FC compared to 50 and 25 % FC. Clay loam showed a different pattern, declining between 100 % and 75 % and 50 %, though at the 14-day time point it increased at 25 % (Pwater < 0.05) (Fig. 4A). Instantaneous WUE at 14 days post-germination increased with decreasing soil water content in the sandy loam from 100 to 50 % FC, then it decreased to 25 % FC. In the clay loam, it reduced significantly with reducing soil water content from 100 to 75 % FC, then it increased to 25 % FC (Pwater = 0.001). Instantaneous WUE in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water < 0.001) (Fig. 4A). The soil * water interaction was significant for iWUE 21 days post-germination (Psoil * water < 0.01). There was no significant difference between both soil types and water stress levels (Pwater > 0.05, Psoil > 0.05) (Fig. 4B).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Intrinsic WUE and iWUE of wheat variety Zebedee 14 (A) and 21 (B) days post-germination and after scanning grown under different moisture content (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils types. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4). General analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed soil × water interaction on inWUE at P < 0.05 in (B) and iWUE at P < 0.001 in (A) and at P < 0.01 in (B). Vertical bar (1) represents standard errors of difference (SED) between means where interaction is significant.

Shoot and root mass

Measurements of dry weight and gross morphology indicated substantial differences in the influence of soil type. Shoot dry weight in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water < 0.05) (Fig. 5). Total dry weight in sandy loam was also significantly greater than in clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water > 0.05) and the same applied to shoot length (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water > 0.05). There were fewer differences in root dry weight but there was a clear difference in the investment into roots, root to shoot ratio at 21 days post-germination in the clay loam was significantly greater (Psoil < 0.001, Pwater > 0.05, Psoil * water > 0.05) (Fig. 5). These differences are consistent with the higher water use efficiency in sandy soil but not with the measurements of A. Examples of images of Zebedee wheat leaves under different soil water content (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils at 21 days after germination are shown in Supporting Information—Fig. S2.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

The effect water stress on shoot, root and total dry weight, shoot length and root to shoot ratio (dry weight) of wheat variety Zebedee 21 days post-germination grown under different moisture content (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in the sandy loam and the clay loam soil. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4). General analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed soil × water interaction on shoot, root and total dry weight, shoot length and root to shoot ratio (dry weight) at P < 0.05. Vertical bar (1) represents standard errors of difference (SED) between means where interaction is significant.

The influence of soil water was more pronounced in the sandy loam soil than clay loam (Fig. 5). Shoot dry weight at 21 days post-germination decreased significantly with reducing soil water content in sandy loam, while it decreased only slightly in the clay loam (Pwater < 0.05). Root dry weight decreased greatly with reducing soil water content in the sandy loam, while it decreased slightly in the clay loam from 75 to 25 % FC (Pwater > 0.05, Psoil > 0.05, Psoil * water > 0.05). Total dry weight decreased significantly with decreasing soil water content in the sandy loam, while it increased slightly in the clay loam from 100 to 50 % FC, then it decreased to 25 % FC (Pwater < 0.05). Shoot length at 14 days after germination in both soil types declined significantly with decreasing soil water content (Pwater < 0.001). Shoot length at 21 days post-germination in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water < 0.001) and also decreased significantly with decreasing soil water content in both soil types (Pwater < 0.001).

Whole-plant water use efficiency

Water use efficiency (based on shoot and root dry weight) increased significantly with decreasing soil water content in both soil types (Pwater < 0.001, Psoil * water > 0.05). Water use efficiency in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil < 0.01 for water use efficiency (based on shoot and root dry weight, respectively)) (Fig. 6) which demonstrates some similarities with the leaf gas exchange values. Water use efficiency based on total dry weight at 21 days post-germination increased significantly with decreasing soil water content in both soil types. It increased in the sandy loam from 100 to 75 % FC, then it slightly reduced to 50 % FC, then it increased to 25 % FC. Similarly, in the clay loam, it increased significantly from 100 to 25 % FC (Pwater < 0.001). Water use efficiency in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water > 0.05) (Fig. 6).

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

Water use efficiency (based on shoot, root and total dry weight) of wheat variety Zebedee grown under different moisture content (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) 21 days after germination in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4). General analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed soil × water interaction on water use efficiency.

Soil physical properties

Air-filled porosity (as determined by X-ray imagery at a resolution of 55 µm) at 14 and 21 days post-germination increased significantly with decreasing soil water content in both soil types (Pwater < 0.001) [seeSupporting Information—Fig. S3]. Air-filled porosity at this scale in the sandy loam was significantly greater than in the clay loam soil (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water < 0.05) at 14 and 21 days (Psoil < 0.001, Psoil * water > 0.05) [seeSupporting Information—Fig. S3]. Volumetric water content (by weight) in the clay loam was significantly greater than in the sandy loam soil at all levels of water stress in both soil types, except at 100 % FC when it was lower at 14 days (Psoil < 0.001) and at 21 days (Psoil < 0.01) post-germination. The soil * water interaction was significant for volumetric water content (Psoil * water < 0.001) [seeSupporting Information—Fig. S3].

Effect of X-ray exposure on plant growth

As the use of µCT is rapidly expanding in studies of this nature, we considered it important to investigate the potential effect of X-ray exposure on root traits; therefore, WinRHIZO-derived root data were compared between scanned and non-scanned plants. No significant nor noticeable effect of X-ray exposure was observed on wheat plants following scanning (P > 0.05). Scanned root systems had an average total root volume of 991 cm3 compared to 985 cm3 for non-scanned plants (P > 0.05). Root diameter was c. 0.36 mm for both scanned and non-scanned plants, respectively (P > 0.05) [seeSupporting Information—Fig. S4]. Photosynthesis parameters were measured on plants before and after scanning and no significant nor observable effect of X-ray exposure on photosynthesis parameters was associated with scanning (P > 0.05). Photosynthesis was 11.95 and 12.12 µmol m−2 s−1 before and after scanning (P > 0.05). Stomatal conductance averaged 157.2 and 162.1 mmol m−2 s−1 before and after scanning plants, respectively (P > 0.05). Transpiration of plants before and after scanning also averaged 3.7 and 3.8 µmol m−2 s−1[seeSupporting Information—Fig. S5].

Discussion

Drought is an important environmental factor limiting crop growth and yield. We found severe water stress (at 25 % FC) significantly negatively affected total root volume in both soils (sandy loam and clay loam) as hypothesized. There was also a significant soil * water interaction for total root volume probably due to the differential responses to water stress, as shown by root architecture (Fig. 7). Soil texture is highly influential for root architecture, impacting the mechanical impedance (physical stress) on root elongation through the soil, as well as affecting the availabilities of water, oxygen and nutrients (Gregory 2006; Helliwell et al. 2019). We hypothesised Zebedee would grow better in clay loam rather than sandy loam soil due to higher water availability. However, we observed the converse, which could be due to the formation of cracks in clay soil (Whitmore and Whalley 2009) promoting evaporation although we saw no clear evidence of this in the CT images. Another influencing factor might be increased soil hardness and strength (Whalley et al. 2006, 2008) associated with soil drying. As soil strength increases, root elongation rate decreases due to increased resistance of soil particles to displacement. Strong soil is a serious problem as it can restrict access of roots, typically at depth to water and nutrients (Clark et al. 2003) and decreases plants growth. It is important to note the soils in this study were not field structured, but repacked and as a result, the clay loam soil sieved to <2 mm contained a larger portion of macropores than likely to exist in the field, which would have contributed to increased drainage and reduced water retention.

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Open in a new tab

CT images of the roots of Zebedee 14 (CT1) and 21 (CT2) days after germination grown under water deficit (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils and root systems (at 21 days) of the same plants after extraction and analysis using WinRHIZO® equipment compared to CT2 images. Scale bars represent 10 and 20 mm.

Mean root diameter in the sandy loam soil was thicker than in the clay loam which is most likely due to the soil strength/bulk density of the soil. Although the soils were originally packed the same bulk density (1.24 g cm−3), this may have changed over the course of the experiment in response to the water treatment and root development. Thicker root diameters in the sandy soils over clay loam soils have been reported previously (Tracy et al. 2013). Mean root diameter at 100 % FC increased sharply from 100 to 75 % FC, while it was slightly increased from 75 to 25 % FC which is more likely due to water stress. Aggarwal et al. (2006) also found greater root diameters in drier soil conditions, whereas Muñoz-Romero et al. (2010) suggested root diameter can decrease during dry conditions. Smaller root diameters in drier conditions can occur due to greater resistance to penetration (Muñoz-Romero et al. 2010), which is important because Clark et al. (2008) showed good root penetration was consistently associated with greater root diameter. Thick roots have a greater capability for water absorption from deeper soil layers (Yambao et al. 1992) and confer greater water deficiency tolerance through root branching (which is associated with root thickness) (Fitter 1991). Thick roots persevere for longer periods and produce more and larger root branches, therefore increasing water absorption capacity (Ingram et al. 1994).

The number of main roots decreased significantly with reducing soil water content (Fig. 7). Water deficiency has a negative effect on plant growth and development and sharply decreases plant productivity (Pan et al. 2002). Gao et al. (2007) also showed water deficit hinders total root and shoot function and decreases root–shoot interactions. A more serious water deficit leads to a longer period of unstable growth for a plant. Rewatering can subsequently enhance root–shoot interactions, increase dry matter accumulation rate and prolong the duration of instable growth (Gao et al. 2007). Root to shoot ratio increased with worsening water deficit and was significantly greater in the clay loam rather than sandy soil. This suggests dry climate genotypes (where sandy soils are often more prevalent) might have stronger drought resistance through a well-developed root system (Wu and Bao 2011). Longer roots have been shown to be very important for crop yield under water stress conditions (Ali et al. 2009) though Khan et al. (2010) found shoot growth was more affected than root length by water stress. The reason for increased root to shoot ratio could be due to limited supply of water and nutrients; hence, root growth occurs at the expense of shoot (Khan et al. 2010).

The notional FC (100 % FC) used in this study had a negative impact on root and shoot growth mostly likely due to excessive soil moisture. High soil water content leads to hypoxia as oxygen is needed in the soil for roots to respire (Yavas et al. 2012). Shoot and root characteristics values suggest 75 % FC was optimal in comparison to other water stress levels (100, 50 and 25 %). As FC is affected by so many factors, it cannot be considered as a constant; hence, this result is not surprising.

Drought is a significant environmental restriction which limits the ability of crop photosynthesis to contribute to biomass, and ultimately, yield (Shao et al. 2005; Huang et al. 2009; Zheng et al. 2010). Therefore, we extend the functional implications of root architecture by relating it to shoot gas exchange characteristics. Photosynthesis (A), stomatal conductance (gs) and transpiration (T) are highly dependent on root supply of water and nutrients and here were significantly and negatively affected by water stress conditions. Moreover, we noted higher values of gs in clay loam versus sandy loam soil, which is important to acknowledge as most previous studies on the effect of water stress on wheat growth have been performed on a single soil type/texture. Higher values of A, gs and T in the clay loam soil indicate more light per unit leaf area could be utilized for carbohydrate production under these conditions of water stress (Wu and Bao 2011), although we note the effect on gs and T was substantially greater than that of A and most pronounced at lower soil water contents.

Photosynthetic efficiency can be affected substantially by water availability (Wang et al. 2008) which is typically a complex response to soil water, atmospheric humidity and temperature. A versus gs responses are not fixed and it is common to observe a reduction in gs before any severe retardation of A occurs resulting in an increase in iWUE (e.g. Caine et al. 2019). We see this in terms of the differences between soil types and water availability and it can be considered as a first stage in drought progression when mild water deficiency occurs beyond which stomata will limit leaf conductance and gas diffusion to an extent that severely limits photosynthetic rate. It is also possible the transpiration rate here may have contributed to some partial depletion of soil water in between regulated watering events. Other non-stomatal effects can limit photosynthesis exist at severe water stress such as Rubisco deactivation and photoinhibition (Santos et al. 2009; Yu et al. 2009; Souza et al. 2010). It is unclear whether the latter effects would be present here.

The observation of a lower gs which does not, under these conditions, affect A is quite important in terms of crop water use efficiency and drought tolerance. For example, recent work has shown that restricting gs in cereal species by lowering stomatal density helps to conserve soil water and maintain long-term photosynthesis during periods of soil water deficit (Hughes et al. 2017; Mohammed et al. 2019).

By inference from the soil water release curve [seeSupporting Information—Fig. S1], we propose the optimal matric potential for root and shoot growth was ~−10 kPa (0.32 g g−1) in the sandy loam and −150 kPa (0.34 g g−1) in the clay loam soil at 75 % FC. However, this differs for photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration; −5 kPa (0.42 g g−1) in the sandy loam and −30 kPa (0.45 g g−1) in the clay loam soil at 100 % FC (Table 1). This suggests root and shoot growth is more affected by soil water content than photosynthesis-related characteristics during water deficit conditions. However, the difference in photosynthesis was not significant between 100 and 75 % FC and only significant between 100 and 50 % FC for clay loam. This disconnect might arise from the fact that the photosynthesis measurements were made at the leaf level but that growth rate results from whole-plant gas exchange. Leaf area was higher for the sandy loam plants [seeSupporting Information—Fig. S2] meaning that the plants would intercept more light and could attain a higher growth rate with the same or even lower photosynthetic rate per unit leaf area. Other physiological processes might be important such as low rate of respiration which might have hindered the plant growth. However, Batool et al. (2015) reported Abelmoschus esculentus had a higher rate of photosynthesis at mild water stress level (60 % FC), but the highest biomass was recorded at low water stress level (100 % FC). This might be due to the high respiration rate which hindered biomass accumulation though differences might be plant-specific. In contrast, Akhkha et al. (2011) found water deficit affected the photosynthesis rates in different wheat cultivars, but to varying extents. Their study indicated moderate water stress (50 % FC) did not affect drought-tolerant wheat cultivars, and the impact on photosynthesis efficiency was most observable in drought-sensitive cultivars. Further, differences in soil nutrient status between the contrasting soil textures cannot be discounted as also exerting some influence on plant growth.

In general, µCT offers an advantage in 3D visualization of the root system architecture (RSA) in addition to the ability to measure the associated soil pore characteristics. However, the disadvantage we observed here is that considerably less of the lateral roots in comparison to the WinRHIZO images are revealed (Fig. 7). Whilst it is possible to undertake imaging at a higher resolution than used in this study and thus potentially visualize more roots, this usually results in the compromise of having to examine a smaller sample size and most likely a shorter growth period (e.g. Tracy et al. 2012). In contrast, data obtained from WINRHIZO typically provides more information on the fine roots although some (i.e. an unquantifiable amount) of these are lost in the soil removal process, in addition no geometrical information concerning how the roots and soil interact is given, nor structural information regarding the soil. However, such advantages and disadvantages might be specific to plant type as Galdos et al. (2020) recently demonstrated that X-ray CT proved more effective in visualizing the fine roots in selected forage grasses compared with WinRHIZO.

Despite the disadvantages of CT imagery for studies of this kind, there has been a surge in related publications in recent years (e.g. Keyes et al. 2013; Burr-Hersey et al. 2017; Flavel et al. 2017; Helliwell et al. 2019). An interesting aspect of the application of µCT in such studies is the ability to visualize root growth in soil over time via repeated scanning such as in Tracy et al. (2013); however, this increases the possibility of damage to the plant via the exposure to radiation (Zappala et al. 2013). In this study, the plants were only subjected to two scanning events and the scan times were kept as short as possible to achieve the optimum image quality (c. 30 min). No evidence of any damage to the plants from exposure to X-rays was observed. However, as future experiments are likely to consider multiple and longer scans due to larger sample sizes, the assessment for potential X-ray damage compromising experiments should be undertaken routinely.

Conclusions

Total root volume for the wheat cv. Zebedee decreased significantly due to water stress while the mean root diameter increased significantly. Plant function, assessed by photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration, decreased significantly with decreasing soil water content. Contrasting results were observed depending on soil texture with photosynthesis in plants grown in a clay loam soil significantly greater than in sandy loam soil. Our notional 100 % FC in this experiment was most almost certainly too wet for optimal growth conditions leading to anoxia. However, the impact of water stress on the precise RSA is not well known, and in this study the root architecture in sandy soil was more developed in terms of lateral root formation than in clay loam which was the converse to our hypothesis. As we recorded no negative effects to repeated X-ray imaging of wheat, we propose our approach should be considered for further experiments to examine the response of different drought-resistant wheat varieties to contrasting water stress conditions though non-scanned samples should retained as a precaution against possible radiation damage.

Supporting Information

The following additional information is available in the online version of this article—

Figure S1. Water release curve for the sandy loam and clay loam soils fitted to the Van Genuchten-Mualem model.

Figure S2. Leaves of wheat under different moisture content (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils 21 days after germination. Scale bar represents 20 mm.

Figure S3. Volumetric water content 14 (A) and 21 (B) and air filled porosity 14 (C) and 21 (D) days post germination in the sandy loam and the clay loam soils. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4). General analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed soil x water interaction on volumetric water content at both dates. Vertical bar (1) represents standard errors of difference (SED) between means where interaction is significant at P < 0.001.

Figure S4. Impact of X-ray CT on root growth in wheat variety Zebedee. Zebedee at 21 days was grown under four levels of water stress (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in sandy loam and clay loam soil types. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4).

Figure S5. Impact of X-ray CT on shoot growth in wheat variety Zebedee. Zebedee at 21 days was grown under four levels of water stress (100, 75, 50 and 25 % FC) in sandy loam and clay loam soil types. Bars indicate means ± SD (n = 4).

plaa036_suppl_Supplementary_Figures
Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, docx)

Data Availability

Data are available from the following link: doi:10.17639/nott.7063.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the technical assistance provided by Drs Craig Sturrock and Brian Atkinson at the Hounsfield Facility, University of Nottingham.

Sources of Funding

A.M.K. was supported by funds from the Ministry of higher education in Kurdistan region of Iraq. This project was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BBSRC; BB/R004633].

Contributions by the Authors

The work was planned by A.M.K., E.H.M. and S.J.M. Experimental and data analysis was performed by A.M.K. Manuscript preparation was undertaken by A.M.K., E.H.M. and S.J.M.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Literature Cited

  1. Aggarwal P, Choudhary KK, Singh AK, Chakraborty D. 2006. Variation in soil strength and rooting characteristics of wheat in relation to soil management. Geoderma 136:353–363. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akhkha A, Boutraa T, Alhejely A. 2011. The rates of photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, dark respiration, proline and abscicic acid (ABA) in wheat (Triticum durum) under water deficit conditions. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 13:215–221. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali MA, Abbas A, Niaz S, Zulkiffal M, Ali S. 2009. Morpho-physiological criteria for drought tolerance in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) at seedling and post-anthesis stages. International Journal of Agricultural Biology 11:674–680. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aravena JE, Berli M, Ghezzehei TA, Tyler SW. 2011. Effects of root-induced compaction on rhizosphere hydraulic properties—X-ray microtomography imaging and numerical simulations. Environmental Science & Technology 45:425–431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Batool A, Taj S, Rashid A, Khalid A, Qadeer S, Saleem AR, Ghufran MA. 2015. Potential of soil amendments (biochar and gypsum) in increasing water use efficiency of Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench. Frontiers in Plant Science 6:733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burr-Hersey JE, Mooney SJ, Bengough AG, Mairhofer S, Ritz K. 2017. Developmental morphology of cover crop species exhibit contrasting behaviour to changes in soil bulk density, revealed by X-ray computed tomography. PLoS One 12:e0181872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caine RS, Yin X, Sloan J, Harrison EL, Mohammed U, Fulton T, Biswal AK, Dionora J, Chater CC, Coe RA, Bandyopadhyay A, Murchie EH, Swarup R, Quick WP, Gray JE. 2019. Rice with reduced stomatal density conserves water and has improved drought tolerance under future climate conditions. The New Phytologist 221:371–384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carminati A, Moradi AB, Vetterlein D, Vontobel P, Lehmann E, Weller U, Vogel H-J, Oswald SE. 2010. Dynamics of soil water content in the rhizosphere. Plant and Soil 332:63–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark LJ, Price AH, Steele KA, Whalley WR. 2008. Evidence from near-isogenic lines that root penetration increases with root diameter and bending stiffness in rice. Functional Plant Biology 35:1163–1171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark L, Whalley W, Barraclough P. 2003. How do roots penetrate strong soil? In: Abe J, ed. Roots: the dynamic interface between plants and the Earth. Dordrecht: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cui Y, Tian Z, Zhang X, Muhammad A, Han H, Jiang D, Cao W, Dai T. 2015. Effect of water deficit during vegetative growth periods on post-anthesis photosynthetic capacity and grain yield in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 37:1–10. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fábián A, Jäger K, Rakszegi M, Barnabás B. 2011. Embryo and endosperm development in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) kernels subjected to drought stress. Plant Cell Reports 30:551–563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Flavel RJ, Guppy CN, Rabbi SMR, Young IM. 2017. An image processing and analysis tool for identifying and analysing complex plant root systems in 3D soil using non-destructive analysis: root1. PLoS One 12:e0176433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Flexas J, Bota J, Loreto F, Cornic G, Sharkey T. 2004. Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C3 plants. Plant Biology 6:269–279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Flexas J, Carriquí M, Nadal M. 2018. Gas exchange and hydraulics during drought in crops: who drives whom? Journal of Experimental Botany 69:3791–3795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fitter A. 1991. Characteristics and functions of root systems. Plant Roots: The Hidden Half 2:1–29. [Google Scholar]
  17. Galdos MV, Brown E, Rosolem CA, Pires LF, Hallett PD, Mooney SJ. 2020. Brachiaria species influence nitrate transport in soil by modifying soil structure with their root system. Scientific Reports 10:5072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gao Z-H, Chen X-Y, Luo Y-P. 2007. The equilibrium and growth stability of winter wheat root and shoot under different soil water conditions. Agricultural Sciences in China 6:597–606. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gregory P. 2006. Roots, rhizosphere and soil: the route to a better understanding of soil science? European Journal of Soil Science 57:2–12. [Google Scholar]
  20. Helliwell JR, Sturrock CJ, Miller AJ, Whalley WR, Mooney SJ. 2019. The role of plant species and soil condition in the structural development of the rhizosphere. Plant, Cell & Environment 42:1974–1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang X, Xiao X, Zhang S, Korpelainen H, Li C. 2009. Leaf morphological and physiological responses to drought and shade in two Populus cathayana populations. Biologia Plantarum 53:588–592. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hughes J, Hepworth C, Dutton C, Dunn JA, Hunt L, Stephens J, Waugh R, Cameron DD, Gray JE. 2017. Reducing stomatal density in barley improves drought tolerance without impacting on yield. Plant Physiology 174:776–787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ingram K, Bueno F, Namuco O, Yambao E, Beyrouty C. 1994. Rice root traits for drought resistance and their genetic variation. In: Rice roots: nutrient and water use. International Rice Research Conference, Los Baños (Filipinas), 1992. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jaleel CA, Manivannan P, Sankar B, Kishorekumar A, Sankari S, Panneerselvam R. 2007. Paclobutrazol enhances photosynthesis and ajmalicine production in Catharanthus roseus. Process Biochemistry 42:1566–1570. [Google Scholar]
  25. Keyes SD, Daly KR, Gostling NJ, Jones DL, Talboys P, Pinzer BR, Boardman R, Sinclair I, Marchant A, Roose T. 2013. High resolution synchrotron imaging of wheat root hairs growing in soil and image based modelling of phosphate uptake. The New Phytologist 198:1023–1029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Khan AS, Allah SU, Sadique S. 2010. Genetic variability and correlation among seedling traits of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under water stress. International Journal of Agricultural Biology 12:247–250. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lan-Ping L, Zhen-Wen Y, Dong W, Zhang Y-L, Yu S. 2011. Effects of plant density and soil moisture on photosynthetic characteristics of flag leaf and accumulation and distribution of dry matter in wheat. Acta Agronomica Sinica 37:1049–1059. [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu E, Mei X, Yan C, Gong D, Zhang Y. 2016. Effects of water stress on photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter translocation and WUE in two winter wheat genotypes. Agricultural Water Management 167:75–85. [Google Scholar]
  29. Madhu M, Hatfield JL. 2013. Dynamics of plant root growth under increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. Agronomy Journal 105:657–669. [Google Scholar]
  30. McDonald A, Davies W. 1996. Keeping in touch: responses of the whole plant to deficits. Advances in Botanical Research 22:229. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mohammed U, Caine RS, Atkinson JA, Harrison EL, Wells D, Chater CC, Gray JE, Swarup R, Murchie EH. 2019. Rice plants overexpressing OsEPF1 show reduced stomatal density and increased root cortical aerenchyma formation. Scientific Reports 9:5584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mooney SJ, Pridmore T, Helliwell J, Bennett M. 2012. Developing X-ray computed tomography to non-invasively image 3-D root systems architecture in soil. Plant and Soil 352:1–22. [Google Scholar]
  33. Muñoz-Romero V, Benítez-Vega J, López-Bellido RJ, Fontán JM, López-Bellido L. 2010. Effect of tillage system on the root growth of spring wheat. Plant and Soil 326:97–107. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pan X, Wang Y, Wang G, Cao Q, Wang J. 2002. Relationship between growth redundancy and size inequality in spring wheat populations mulched with clear plastic film. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica 26:177–184. [Google Scholar]
  35. Pradhan GP, Prasad PVV, Fritz AK, Kirkham MB, Gill BS. 2012. Effects of drought and high temperature stress on synthetic hexaploid wheat. Functional Plant Biology 39:190–198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Rasband WS. 2018. ImageJ. Bethesda, MD: U.S. National Institutes of Health; https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/ (1 June 2018). [Google Scholar]
  37. Saeidi M, Ardalani S, Jalali-Honarmand S, Ghobadi M-E, Abdoli M. 2015. Evaluation of drought stress at vegetative growth stage on the grain yield formation and some physiological traits as well as fluorescence parameters of different bread wheat cultivars. Acta Biologica Szegediensis 59:35–44. [Google Scholar]
  38. Santos M, Ribeiro R, Machado E, Pimentel C. 2009. Photosynthetic parameters and leaf water potential of five common bean genotypes under mild water deficit. Biologia Plantarum 53:229–236. [Google Scholar]
  39. Schmidt S, Bengough AG, Gregory PJ, Grinev DV, Otten W. 2012. Simulating root–soil contact from 3D X-ray microtomographs. European Journal of Soil Science 63:776–786. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shao H, Liang Z, Shao M, Wang B. 2005. Changes of some physiological and biochemical indices for soil water deficits among 10 wheat genotypes at seedling stage. Colloidal Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 42:107–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sharp RE, Davies WJ. 1989. Regulation of growth and development of plants growing with a restricted supply of water. In: Jones HG, Flowers TL, Jones MB, eds. Plants under stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71–93. [Google Scholar]
  42. Souza BD, Meiado MV, Rodrigues BM, Santos MG. 2010. Water relations and chlorophyll fluorescence responses of two leguminous trees from the Caatinga to different watering regimes. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 32:235–244. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tracy SR, Black CR, Roberts JA, Mooney SJ. 2013. Exploring the interacting effect of soil texture and bulk density on root system development in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Environmental and Experimental Botany 91:38–47. [Google Scholar]
  44. Tracy SR, Black CR, Roberts JA, Sturrock C, Mairhofer S, Craigon J, Mooney SJ. 2012. Quantifying the impact of soil compaction on root system architecture in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) by X-ray micro-computed tomography. Annals of Botany 110:511–519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Tracy SR, Roberts JA, Black CR, McNeill A, Davidson R, Mooney SJ. 2010. The X-factor: visualizing undisturbed root architecture in soils using X-ray computed tomography. Journal of Experimental Botany 61:311–313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang F, Wang G, Li X, Huang J, Zheng J. 2008. Heredity, physiology and mapping of a chlorophyll content gene of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Plant Physiology 165:324–330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Whalley W, Clark L, Gowing D, Cope R, Lodge R, Leeds-Harrison P. 2006. Does soil strength play a role in wheat yield losses caused by soil drying? Plant and Soil 280:279–290. [Google Scholar]
  48. Whalley WR, Watts CW, Gregory AS, Mooney SJ, Clark LJ, Whitmore AP. 2008. The effect of soil strength on the yield of wheat. Plant and Soil 306:237–247. [Google Scholar]
  49. Whitmore AP, Whalley WR. 2009. Physical effects of soil drying on roots and crop growth. Journal of Experimental Botany 60:2845–2857. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wu X, Bao W. 2011. Influence of water deficit and genotype on photosynthetic activity, dry mass partitioning and grain yield changes of winter wheat. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6:5567–5574. [Google Scholar]
  51. Xue Q, Zhu Z, Musick JT, Stewart BA, Dusek DA. 2006. Physiological mechanisms contributing to the increased water-use efficiency in winter wheat under deficit irrigation. Journal of Plant Physiology 163:154–164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Yambao EB, Ingram KT, Real JG. 1992. Root xylem influence on the water relations and drought resistance of rice. Journal of Experimental Botany 43:925–932. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yavas I, Unay A, Aydin M. 2012. The waterlogging tolerance of wheat varieties in western of Turkey. Thescientificworldjournal 2012:529128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Yu D, Kim S, Lee H. 2009. Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to photosynthesis in field-grown grapevine cultivars. Biologia Plantarum 53:133–137. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zappala S, Helliwell JR, Tracy SR, Mairhofer S, Sturrock CJ, Pridmore T, Bennett M, Mooney SJ. 2013. Effects of X-ray dose on rhizosphere studies using X-ray computed tomography. PLoS One 8:e67250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Zheng Y, Wu J, Cao F, Zhang Y. 2010. Effects of water stress on photosynthetic activity, dry mass partitioning and some associated metabolic changes in four provenances of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss). Photosynthetica 48:361–369. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

plaa036_suppl_Supplementary_Figures
Click here for additional data file. (1.7MB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the following link: doi:10.17639/nott.7063.

Articles from AoB Plants are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES