Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T12:46:44.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species and clonal variation in growth responses to waterlogging and submersion in the genus Salix

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2011

J. E. G. Good ,
J. D. Winder ,
E. Sellers  and
T. G. Williams
J. E. G. Good
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bangor Research Unit, University College of North Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UP, Wales, U.K.
J. D. Winder
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bangor Research Unit, University College of North Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UP, Wales, U.K.
E. Sellers
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bangor Research Unit, University College of North Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UP, Wales, U.K.
T. G. Williams
Affiliation:
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Bangor Research Unit, University College of North Wales, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2UP, Wales, U.K.
Get access

Synopsis

The responses of clones of a range of willow species to waterlogging and total submersion were compared in glasshouse experiments using specially constructed perspex tanks. Up to 13 weeks of waterlogging had little effect on form and growth rates of above-ground parts of two clones of Salix caprea L. and one clone of S. cinerea L. A second clone of S. cinerea responded differently to the other three clones by significantly increasing its leaf area and stem dry weight, suggesting that it is likely to be more tolerant of waterlogging.

Plant parts below the waterline in the waterlogging treatment responded very differently to the same parts on control plants. All waterlogged plants developed hypertrophied lenticels within four weeks, followed by significant increases in stem diameter. In each clone most of the pre-existing root system died by the end of the waterlogging treatment. All clones formed adventitious roots which varied considerably between the species and to a lesser extent between clones within each species. In S. cinerea many short, fine, much-branched roots grew vertically upwards until they reached the water surface. In S. cinerea clone 90 they originated from both the pre-existing woody roots and from the hypertrophied lenticels on the submerged portions of the stems. In S. cinerea clone 12 they developed only from the hypertrophied lenticels. New roots produced by waterlogged S. caprea clones were long, sparsely branched and floated on or near the surface of the water. As in S. cinerea clone 90 they originated from both the pre-existing woody roots and the submerged hypertrophied lenticels. Whereas roots of the control plants of all clones were mostly ectomycorrhizal, those of the waterlogged plants had no mycorrhizae. In a second waterlogging experiment S. × sericans, S. viminalis and S. fragilis produced adventitious roots more like those of S. caprea than S. cinerea. Plants of all clones removed from the waterlogging treatment after 16 days and kept with their soil at field capacity thereafter produced many new roots from their old root balls. After 32 days waterlogging no such recovery occurred.

Total submersion caused much more severe damage to the aerial parts of all tested species than waterlogging. After eight days submersion the shoot tips of S. fragilis were beginning to rot and by day 25 those of S. × sericans and S. viminalis were rotting too. Subsequently shoots developed from axillary buds which remained unaffected by rot throughout the experiment. In S. cinerea shoot growth ceased after eight days and terminal buds were formed which remained dormant but healthy throughout the experiment. Submersion caused progressive loss of pre-existing leaves in all species. Some newly formed leaves of each species developed epinastic deformities after > 16 days of submersion. All species except S. cinerea showed significant reductions in root dry weight after 32 days of submersion.

In a second submersion experiment responses of three clones each of S. purpurea and S. viminalis were compared. Shoot growth was reduced significantly in four of the six clones after 14 days. No further reductions occurred in the next 14 days of submersion. Root dry weight also decreased, but it took 28 days of submersion to produce the greatest effect. The faster growing clones of each species were more adversely affected by submersion in terms of both reduced shoot growth and root growth than those which grew more slowly.

Considerable intraspecific variability in responses to waterlogging and submersion have been shown in these experiments by clones not selected for their variation in flooding tolerance. This suggests that selection and breeding could lead to the development of flood-tolerant cultivars of species such as S. cinerea and S. caprea which are not noted for their ability to withstand inundation.

Type
Invited papers
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Section B: Biological Sciences , Volume 98: Willow , 1992 , pp. 21 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abeles, F. B., 1973. Ethylene in plant biology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, W., 1979. Aeration in higher plants. Advances in Botanical Research 7, 226–332.Google Scholar
Barclay, A. M., & Crawford, R. M. M., 1982. Plant growth and survival under strict anaerobiosis. Journal of Experimental Botany 33, 541–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, M. F., & Grace, J. B., 1990. Relationships between flooding tolerance, life history, and short-term competitive performance in three species of Polygonum. American Journal of Botany 77, 381–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catlin, P. B., Martin, G. C., & Olsson, E. A., 1977. Differential sensitivity of Juglans hindsii J. regia, Paradox hybrid and Pterocarpa stenoptera to waterlogging. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 102, 101–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childers, N. F., & White, D. G., 1942. Influences of submergence of roots on transpiration, apparent photosynthesis and respiration of young apple trees. Plant Physiology 17, 603–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chirkova, T. V., & Gutman, T. S., 1972. Physiological role of branch lenticels in willows and poplar under conditions of root anaerobiosis. Soviet Plant Physiology 19, 289–95.Google Scholar
Clapham, A. R., Tutin, T. G., & Moore, D. M., 1987. Flora of the British Isles, 3rd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clemens, J., Kirk, A. M., & Mills, P. D., 1978. The resistance of waterlogging of three Eucalyptus species, effect of flooding and of ethylene related growth substances on E. robusta, E. grandis, and E. saligna. Oecologia 34, 125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coutts, M. P., 1981. Effects of waterlogging on water relations of actively growing and dormant Sitka spruce seedlings. Annals of Botany 47, 747–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, R. M. M., 1982. Physiological responses to flooding. In Encyclopedia of plant physiology, Vol. 12B, pp. 453–77. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Crawford, R. M. M., 1989. Studies in plant survival. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Dexter, B. D., 1967. Flooding of Rover Red Gum, Eucalyptus camaldulensis. Forestry Commission of Victoria Bulletin 20.Google Scholar
Fjell, I., 1987. Structure and development of adventitious roots in Salix caprea and S. caprea x S. viminalis. Nordic Journal of Botany – Section of Structural Botany, 7, 311–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadgil, P. D., 1972. Effects of waterlogging on mycorrhizae of radiata pine and Douglas fir. New Zealand Journal of Forest Science 2, 222–6.Google Scholar
Gill, C. J. 1970. The flooding tolerance of woody species. Forestry Abstracts 31, 671–88.Google Scholar
Good, J. E. G., Bellis, J. A., & Munro, R. C., 1978. Clonal variation in rooting of softwood cuttings of woody perennials occurring naturally on derelict land. International Plant Propagator's Society Combined Proceedings 28, 192–201.Google Scholar
Good, J. E. G., Williams, T. G., & Moss, D., 1985. Survival and growth of selected clones of birch and willow on restored opencast coal sites. Journal of Applied Ecology, 22, 995–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, J. E. G., & Williams, T. G., 1986. Growth responses of selected clones of birch (Betula pendula Roth., B. pubescens Ehrh.) and willow (Salix caprea L., S. anerea L.) to nitrogen in solution culture. Plant and Soil, 92, 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, J. B., 1987. The impact of preemption of the zonation of two Typha species along lakeshores. Ecological Monographs 58, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Hall, T. F., & Smith, G. E., 1955. Effects of flooding on woody plants. West Sandy Dewatering Project, Kentucky Reservoir. Journal of Forestry 53, 281–5.Google Scholar
Harris, M. D., 1975. Effects of initial flooding on forest vegetation at two Oklahoma lakes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 30, 294–5.Google Scholar
Head, G. C., 1973. Shedding of roots. In Shedding of plant parts, pp. 237–93, ed. Kozlowski, T. T. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, E. G., 1966. Sand water culture methods used in the study of plant nutrition. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Technical Communication 22. Farnham (England): Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau.Google Scholar
Hook, D. D., 1983. Adaptions to flooding with fresh water. In Flooding and plant growth, pp. 265–94, ed. Kozlowski, T. T. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hook, D. D., Brown, C. L., & Kormanik, P. P., 1971. Inductive flood tolerance in Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica var bifolia (Walt.) Sarg.). Journal of Experimental Botany 22, 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosner, J. F., & Boyce, S. G., 1962. Tolerance to water saturated soil of various bottomland hardwoods. Forest Science 8, 180–6.Google Scholar
Jackson, W. T., 1955. The role of adventitious roots in recovery of shoots following flooding of the original root system. American Journal of Botany 42, 816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karschon, R., & Zohar, Y., 1972. Effects of flooding on ecotypes of Eucalyptus viminalis. Leaflet, Division of Forestry, Ilanot. 45Google Scholar
Kozlowski, T. T., 1982. Water supply and tree growth. II Flooding. Forestry Abstracts 43, 145–61.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, T. T., 1985. Soil aeration, flooding, and tree growth. Journal of Arboriculture 11, 85–96.Google Scholar
Kramer, P. J., 1951. Causes of injury to plants resulting from flooding of the soil. Plant Physiology 26, 722–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levitt, J., 1980. Responses of plants to environmental stresses, 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Minore, D., 1968. Effects of artificial flooding on seedling survival and growth of six Northwest tree species. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research Note PNW-92.Google Scholar
Newsome, R. D., Kozlowski, T. T., & Tang, Z. C., 1982. Responses of Ulmus americana seedlings to flooding of soil. Canadian Journal of Botany 60, 1688–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, J. S., & Kozlowski, T. T., 1977. Variation among woody angiosperms in response to flooding. Physiologia Plantarum 41, 184–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, R. N., & Beardsell, D. V., 1973. Waterlogging of fruit trees. Horticultural Abstracts 45, 534–48.Google Scholar
Russell, R. S., 1977. Plant root systems: their function and interaction with the soil. London: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
Sena Gomes, A. R., & Kozlowski, T. T., 1980a. Growth responses and adaptations of Fraxinus pensilvanica seedlings to flooding. Plant Physiology 66, 267–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sena Gomes, A. R., & Kozlowski, T. T., 1980b. Responses of Melaleuca quinqenesima seedlings to flooding. Physiologia Plantarum 49, 373–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Z. C., & Kozlowski, T. T., 1982. Some physiological and growth responses of Betula papyrifera seedlings to flooding. Physiologia Plantarum 55, 415–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, Z. C., & Kozlowski, T. T., 1983. Responses of Pinus banksiana and Pinus resinosa seedlings to flooding. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 13, 633–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsukahara, H., & Kozlowski, T. T., 1984. Effects of flooding on Larix leptolepis seedlings. Journal of the Japanese Forestry Society 66, 333–6.Google Scholar
Yelonsky, G., 1964. The tolerance of trees to poor soil aeration. Abstract of thesis in Dissertation Abstracts 25, 734–5.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, P. W.. & Hitchcock, A. E., 1933. Initation and stimulation of adventitious roots caused by unsaturated hydrocarbon gases. Contributions to the Boyce Thomson Institute 5, 351–69.Google Scholar