Advertisement

Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 346–354 | Cite as

Effect of Shading on Biomass and N Mass Partitioning in Paddy Rice Seedlings through Allometric Analysis

  • F. Zhang
  • J. Li
  • X. L. Wang
  • W. Mao
  • H. Zhang
  • J. Guo
  • J. W. LiEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

An allometric analysis of biomass and N mass allocation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) seedlings under non-shaded (100% of full sunlight) and shaded (30% of full sunlight) treatments were conducted. The allometric slopes and the intercepts were estimated using standardized major axis regression. Results indicated that biomass was preferentially allocated to stems during plant ontogeny, and leaves and roots were isometric when rice seedlings were not shaded. Under shade, however, more biomass was allocated to leaves and stems. N mass allocation was also altered by shading in that more N mass was allocated to the aerial shoots, and plants accumulated less N mass when shaded. Our study revealed that both biomass and N mass were in accordance with the optimal partitioning theory.

Keywords

optimal partitioning theory ontogeny paddy rice standardized major axis regression 

References

  1. Aikio, S., Rämö, K., Manninen, S. 2009. Dynamics of biomass partitioning in two competing meadow plant species. Plant Ecol. 205:129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bahn, M., Lattanzi, F.A., Hasibeder, R., Wild, B., Koranda, M., Danese, V., Brüggemann, N., Schmitt, M., Siegwolf, R., Richter, A. 2013. Responses of belowground carbon allocation dynamics to extended shading in mountain grassland. New Phytol. 198:116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernacchi, C.J., Thompson, J.N., Coleman, J.S., Mcconnaughay, K.D.M. 2007. Allometric analysis reveals relatively little variation in nitrogen versus biomass accrual in four plant species exposed to varying light, nutrients, water and CO2. Plant Cell Environ. 30:1216–1222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bloom, A.J., Mooney, H.A. 2003. Resource limitation in plants – an economic analogy. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16:363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, G.C. 1972. The Quantitative Analysis of Plant Growth. University of California Press, California, USA.Google Scholar
  6. Gedroc, J.J., McConnaughay, K.D.M., Coleman, J.S. 1996. Plasticity in root/shoot: optimal, ontogenetic, or both? Func. Ecol. 10:44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geng, Y.P., Pan, X.Y., Xu, C.Y., Zhang, W.J., Li, B., Chen, J.K. 2007. Plasticity and ontogenetic drift of biomass allocation in response to above- and below-ground resource availabilities in perennial herbs: a case study of Alternanthera philoxeroidesL. Ecol. Res. 22:255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lemaire, G., Salette, J. 1984. Relation entre dynamique de croissance et dynamique de prelevement d’azote pour un peuplement de graminees fourrageres. I. Etude de l’effet du milieu (Relationship between growth and nitrogen uptake in a pure grass stand. I. Environmental effects). Agronomie 4:423–430. (in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McConnaughay, K.D.M., Coleman, J.S. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581–2593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Normand, F., Bissery, C., Damour, G., Lauri, P.-E. 2008. Hydraulic and mechanical stem properties affect leaf–stem allometry in mango cultivars. New Phytol. 178:590–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Poorter, H., Niklas, K.J., Reich, P.B., Oleksyn, J., Poot, P., Mommer, L. 2012. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems, and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environment control. New Phytol. 193:30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Poorter, H., Jagodzinski, A.M., Ruiz-Peinado, R., Kuyah, S., Luo, Y., Oleksyn, J., Usoltsev, V.A., Buckley, T.N., Reich, P.B., Sack, L. 2015. How does biomass distribution change with size and differ among species? An analysis for 1200 plant species from five continents. New Phytol. 208:736–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sadras, V.O., Lemaire, G. 2014. Quantifying crop nitrogen status for comparisons of agronomic practices and genotypes. Field Crop. Res. 164:54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Semchenko, M., Zobel, K. 2005. The effect of breeding on allometry and phenotypic plasticity in four varieties of oat (Avena sativaL.). Field Crop. Res. 93:151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Warton, D.I., Wright, I.J., Falster, D.S., Westoby, M. 2006. Bivariate line fitting methods for allometry. Biol. Rev. 81:259–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. West, G.B., Brown, J.H., Enquist, B.J. 1997. A general model for the origin of allometric scaling laws in biology. Science 276:122–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2017

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Zhang
    • 1
  • J. Li
    • 1
  • X. L. Wang
    • 1
  • W. Mao
    • 1
  • H. Zhang
    • 1
  • J. Guo
    • 2
  • J. W. Li
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Xinjiang Vocation & Technology College of CommunicationsUrumuqiChina
  2. 2.Xinjiang Academy of ForestryUrumuqiChina
  3. 3.Shanghai Academy of Environmental SciencesShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations