Fine-Root Responses of Two Maple and Two Magnolia Species to Waterlogging

Literature Cited

1. ↵
   1. Akbari H,
   2. Levinson RM,
   3. Miller WA,
   4. Berdahl PH.

   2005. Potentials of urban heat island mitigation. In: Santamouris M, editor. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on passive and low energy cooling for the built environment. PALENC 2005; 2005 May 19–21; Santorini, Greece. Imerovigli, Santorini (Greece): Heliotopos Conferences. p. 11–22. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/20j676c9
2. ↵
   1. Armstrong W.

   1980. Aeration in higher plants. In: Woolhouse HW, editor. Advances in botanical research. Volume 7. Cambridge (MA, USA): Academic Press. p. 225–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2296=(08)60089-0

   OpenUrl
3. ↵
   1. Baldwin DS,
   2. Mitchell AM.

   2000. The effects of drying and re-flooding on the sediment and soil nutrient dynamics of lowland river–floodplain systems: A synthesis. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management. 16(5):457–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1646(200009/10)16:5<457::AID-RRR597>3.0.CO;2-B

   OpenUrl
4. ↵
   1. Bhusal N,
   2. Adhikari A,
   3. Lee M,
   4. Han A,
   5. Han AR,
   6. Kim HS.

   2022. Evaluation of growth responses of six gymnosperm species under long-term excessive irrigation and traits determining species resistance to waterlogging. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 323:109071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.109071

   OpenUrl
5. ↵
   1. Buchel HB,
   2. Grosse W.

   1990. Localization of the porous partition responsible for pressurized gas transport in Alnus glutinosa (L.) Gaertn. Tree Physiology. 6(3):247–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/6.3.247

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. ↵
   1. Camisón Á,
   2. Martín MÁ,
   3. Dorado FJ,
   4. Moreno G,
   5. Solla A.

   2020. Changes in carbohydrates induced by drought and waterlogging in Castanea sativa. Trees. 34:579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-019-01939-x

   OpenUrl
7. ↵
   1. Christensen JH,
   2. Christensen OB.

   2007. A summary of the PRUDENCE model projections of changes in European climate by the end of this century. Climatic Change. 81:7–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9210-7

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
8. ↵
   1. Christmann A,
   2. Grill E,
   3. Huang J.

   2013. Hydraulic signals in long-distance signaling. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 16(3):293–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2013.02.011

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
9. ↵
   1. Colmer TD.

   2003. Aerenchyma and an inducible barrier to radial oxygen loss facilitate root aeration in upland, paddy and deep-water rice (Oryza sativa L.). Annals of Botany. 91(2):301–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf114

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
10. ↵
    1. Dale AG,
    2. Frank SD.

    2017. Warming and drought combine to increase pest insect fitness on urban trees. PLOS One. 12(3):e0173844. https://doi.org/10.1371/joumal.pone.0173844

    OpenUrlPubMed
11. ↵
    1. Dreyer E.

    1994. Compared sensitivity of seedlings from 3 woody species (Quercus robur L, Quercus rubra L and Fagus sylvatica L) to water-logging and associated root hypoxia: Effects on water relations and photosynthesis. Annals of Forest Science. 51(4):417–428. http://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19940407

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Frye J,
    2. Grosse W.

    1992. Growth responses to flooding and recovery of deciduous trees. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C. 47(9-10):683–689. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-1992-9-1008

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    1. Fujita S,
    2. Noguchi K,
    3. Tange T.

    2020. Root responses of five Japanese afforestation species to waterlogging. Forests. 11(5):552. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050552

    OpenUrl
14. ↵
    1. Glenz C,
    2. Schlaepfer R,
    3. Iorgulescu I,
    4. Kienast F.

    2006. Flooding tolerance of Central European tree and shrub species. Forest Ecology and Management. 235(1-3):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2006.05.065

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Grote R,
    2. Samson R,
    3. Alonso R,
    4. Amorim JH,
    5. Cariñanos P,
    6. Churkina G,
    7. Fares S,
    8. Thiec DL, Niinemets Ü,
    9. Mikkelsen TN,
    10. Paoletti E,
    11. Tiwary A,
    12. Calfapietra C.

    2016. Functional traits of urban trees: Air pollution mitigation potential. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 14(10):543–550. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1426

    OpenUrl
16. ↵
    1. Haase D,
    2. Hellwig R.

    2022. Effects of heat and drought stress on the health status of six urban street tree species in Leipzig, Germany. Trees, Forests and People. 8:100252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2022.100252

    OpenUrl
17. ↵
    1. Habibi F,
    2. Liu T,
    3. Shahid MA,
    4. Schaffer B,
    5. Sarkhosh A.

    2023. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses of fruit trees to root zone hypoxia. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 206:105179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2022.105179

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. Herrera A,
    2. Tezara W,
    3. Marín O,
    4. Rengifo E.

    2008. Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations of photosynthesis in trees of a tropical seasonally flooded forest. Physiologia Plantarum. 134(1):41–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2008.01099.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
19. ↵
    1. Hirons A,
    2. Thomas PA.

    2017. Applied tree biology. 1st Ed. Hoboken (NJ, USA): Wiley-Blackwell. https://www.perlego.com/book/991918/applied-tree-biology-pdf
20. ↵
    1. Jaiswal A,
    2. Srivastava JP.

    2018. Changes in reactive oxygen scavenging systems and protein profiles in maize roots in response to nitric oxide under waterlogging stress. Indian Journal of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 55:26–33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324088819

    OpenUrl
21. ↵
    1. Kreuzwieser J,
    2. Rennenberg H.

    2014. Molecular and physiological responses of trees to waterlogging stress. Plant, Cell & Environment. 37(10):2245–2259. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12310

    OpenUrlCrossRef
22. ↵
    1. Kundzewicz ZW,
    2. Kanae S,
    3. Seneviratne SI,
    4. Handmer J,
    5. Nicholls N,
    6. Peduzzi P,
    7. Mechler R,
    8. Bouwer LM,
    9. Arnell N,
    10. Mach K,
    11. Muir-Wood R,
    12. Brakenridge GR,
    13. Kron W,
    14. Benito G,
    15. Honda Y,
    16. Takahashi K,
    17. Sherstyukov B.

    2014. Flood risk and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Hydrological Sciences Journal. 59(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.857411

    OpenUrlCrossRef
23. ↵
    1. Li M,
    2. López R,
    3. Venturas M,
    4. Pita P,
    5. Gordaliza GG,
    6. Gil L,
    7. Rodríguez-Calcerrada J.

    2015. Greater resistance to flooding of seedlings of Ulmus laevis than Ulmus minor is related to the maintenance of a more positive carbon balance. Trees. 29:835–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-015-1163-x

    OpenUrl
24. ↵
    1. Lopez OR,
    2. Kursar TA.

    2003. Does flood tolerance explain tree species distribution in tropical seasonally flooded habitats? Oecologia. 136:193–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-003-1259-7

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
25. ↵
    1. MacAdam JW,
    2. Nelson CJ,
    3. Sharp RE.

    1992. Peroxidase activity in the leaf elongation zone of tall fescue: I. spatial distribution of ionically bound peroxidase activity in genotypes differing in length of the elongation zone. Plant Physiology. 99(3):872–878. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.99.3.872

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
26. ↵
    1. Martínez-Alcántara B,
    2. Jover S,
    3. Quiñones A,
    4. Forner-Giner MA,
    5. Rodríguez-Gamir J,
    6. Legaz F,
    7. Primo-Millo E,
    8. Iglesias DJ.

    2012. Flooding affects uptake and distribution of carbon and nitrogen in citrus seedlings. Journal of Plant Physiology. 169(12):1150–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjplph.2012.03.016

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
27. ↵
    1. McDonald MP,
    2. Galwey NW,
    3. Colmer TD.

    2008. Similarity and diversity in adventitious root anatomy as related to root aeration among a range of wetland and dryland grass species. Plant, Cell & Environment. 25(3):441–451. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0016-8025.2001.00817.x

    OpenUrl
28. ↵
    1. Meinen C,
    2. Hertel D,
    3. Leuschner C.

    2009. Root growth and recovery in temperate broad-leaved forest stands differing in tree species diversity. Ecosystems. 12:1103–1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9271-3

    OpenUrlCrossRef
29. ↵
    1. Montagnoli A,
    2. Terzaghi M,
    3. Baesso B,
    4. Santamaria R,
    5. Scippa GS,
    6. Chiatante D.

    2016. Drought and fire stress influence seedling competition in oak forests: Fine-root dynamics as indicator of adaptation strategies to climate change. REFORESTA. 1(1):86–105. https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.1.06.6

    OpenUrl
30. ↵
    1. Niinemets Ü.

    2010. Responses of forest trees to single and multiple environmental stresses from seedlings to mature plants: Past stress history, stress interactions, tolerance and acclimation. Forest Ecology and Management. 260(10):1623–1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.07.054

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
31. ↵
    1. Niinemets Ü,
    2. Valladares F.

    2006. Tolerance to shade, drought, and waterlogging of temperate northern hemisphere trees and shrubs. Ecological Monographs. 76(4):521–547. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9615(2006)076[0521:TTSDAW]2.0.CO;2

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
32. ↵
    1. Nowak DJ.

    2006. Institutionalizing urban forestry as a “biotechnology” to improve environmental quality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 5(2):93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2006.04.002

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Ow LF,
    2. Ghosh S,
    3. Yusof ML.

    2019. Effects of waterlogged soil on N-uptake by flood tolerant and sensitive containerised tree seedlings. The International Journal of Urban Forestry. 41(3):172–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071375.2019.1642049

    OpenUrl
34. ↵
    1. Parent C,
    2. Crèvecoeur M,
    3. Capelli N,
    4. Dat JF.

    2011. Contrasting growth and adaptive responses of two oak species to flooding stress: Role of non-symbiotic haemoglobin. Plant, Cell & Environment. 34(7):1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02309.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
35. ↵
    1. Pezeshki SR,
    2. Chambers JL.

    1985. Stomatal and photosynthetic response of sweet gum (Liquidambarstyraciflua ) to flooding. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 15(2):371–375. https://doi.org/10.1139/x85-059

    OpenUrl
36. ↵
    1. Repo T,
    2. Domisch T,
    3. Kilpeläinen J,
    4. Piirainen S,
    5. Silvennoinen R,
    6. Lehto T.

    2020. Dynamics of fine-root production and mortality of Scots pine in waterlogged peat soil during the growing season. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 50(5):510–518. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2019-0163

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Roman LA,
    2. Battles JJ,
    3. McBride JR.

    2016. Urban tree mortality: A primer on demographic approaches. Newtown Square (PA, USA): USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station. General Technical Report NRS-158. 24 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-158
38. ↵
    1. Saeki I,
    2. Dick CW,
    3. Barnes BV,
    4. Murakami N.

    2011. Comparative phylogeography of red maple (Acer rubrum L.) and silver maple (Acer saccharinum L.): Impacts of habitat specialization, hybridization and glacial history. Journal of Biogeography. 38(5):992–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2010.02462.x

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
39. ↵
    1. Saglio PH.

    1985. Effect of path or sink anoxia on sugar translocation in roots of maize seedlings. Plant Physiology. 77(2):285–290. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.77.2.285

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
40. ↵
    1. Salvatierra A,
    2. Toro G,
    3. Mateluna P,
    4. Opazo I,
    5. Ortiz M,
    6. Pimentel P.

    2020. Keep calm and survive: Adaptation strategies to energy crisis in fruit trees under root hypoxia. Plants. 9(9):1108. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9091108

    OpenUrlPubMed
41. ↵
    1. Sargent CS.

    1922. Manual of the trees of North America (exclusive of Mexico). 2nd Ed. Cambridge (MA, USA): The Riverside Press. 941 p.
42. ↵
    1. Schmull M,
    2. Thomas FM.

    2000. Morphological and physiological reactions of young deciduous trees (Quercus robur L., Q. petraea [Matt.] Liebl., Fagus sylvatica L.) to waterlogging. Plant and Soil. 225:227–242. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026516027096

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
43. ↵
    1. Shi F,
    2. Pan Z,
    3. Dai P,
    4. Shen Y,
    5. Lu Y,
    6. Han B.

    2023. Effect of waterlogging stress on leaf anatomical structure and ultrastructure of Phoebe sheareri seedlings. Forests. 14(7):1294. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14071294

    OpenUrl
44. ↵
    1. Takahashi H,
    2. Yamauchi T,
    3. Colmer TD,
    4. Nakazono M.

    2014. Aerenchyma formation in plants. In: van Dongen JT, Licausi F, editors. Low-oxygen stress in plants: Oxygen sensing and adaptive responses to hypoxia. Plant Cell Monographs, volume 21. Wien (Austria): Springer Vienna. p. 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-1254-0_13

    OpenUrl
45. ↵
    1. Turner-Skoff JB,
    2. Cavender N.

    2019. The benefits of trees for livable and sustainable communities. Plants, People, Planet. 1(4):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.39

    OpenUrl
46. ↵
    1. Ulmer JM,
    2. Wolf KL,
    3. Backman DR,
    4. Tretheway RL,
    5. Blain CJ,
    6. O’Neil-Dunne JPM,
    7. Frank LD.

    2016. Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription. Health & Place. 42:54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.08.011

    OpenUrlPubMed
47. ↵
    1. Wang XM,
    2. Wang XK,
    3. Su YB,
    4. Zhang HX.

    2019. Land pavement depresses photosynthesis in urban trees especially under drought stress. Science of The Total Environment. 653:120–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.281

    OpenUrlPubMed
48. ↵
    1. Welinder KG.

    1992. Superfamily of plant, fungal and bacterial peroxidases. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 2(3):388–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-440X(92)90230-5

    OpenUrlCrossRef
49. ↵
    1. Wickham H.

    2016. Data analysis. In: Hornik K, Parmigiani G, editors. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. 2nd Ed. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing. p. 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4_9
50. ↵
    1. Wiström B,
    2. Emilsson T,
    3. Sjöman H,
    4. Levinsson A.

    2023. Experimental evaluation of waterlogging and drought tolerance of essential Prunus species in central Europe. Forest Ecology and Management. 537:120904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2023.120904

    OpenUrl
51. ↵
    1. Yamauchi T,
    2. Shimamura S,
    3. Nakazono M,
    4. Mochizuki T.

    2013. Aerenchyma formation in crop species: A review. Field Crops Research. 152:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.12.008

    OpenUrl
52. ↵
    1. Zhang SZ,
    2. Hua BZ,
    3. Zhang F.

    2008. Induction of the activities of antioxidative enzymes and the levels of malondialdehyde in cucumber seedlings as a consequence of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) infestation. Arthropod-Plant Interactions. 2:209–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-008-9044-5

    OpenUrl
53. ↵
    1. Zwack JA,
    2. Graves WR,
    3. Townsend AM.

    1999. Variation among red and freeman maples in response to drought and flooding. HortScience. 34(4):664–668. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.34.4.664

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text