PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12651537

Can differences in root responses to soil drying and compaction explain differences in performance of trees growing on landfill sites?

Abstract

Two tropical woody species, Acacia confusa Merrill and Litsea glutinosa (Lour.) C.B. Robinson, were grown under controlled conditions in PVC pipes filled with John Innes No. 2 soil. To investigate root distribution, physiological characteristics and hydraulic conductivity, four soil treatments were imposed-well-watered and noncompacted (control), well-watered and compacted; unwatered and noncompacted, and unwatered and compacted. In L. glutinosa, rooting depth and root elongation were severely restricted when soil bulk density increased from around 1.12 to 1.62 g cm(-3), whereas soil compaction had little effect on these parameters in A. confusa. As soil drying progressed, root water potential and osmotic potential declined more slowly in L. glutinosa than in A. confusa. Both the soil drying and compaction treatments significantly stimulated the accumulation of root abscisic acid (ABA) in both species. Soil drying damaged the root cell membrane of A. confusa, but had little influence on the root cell membrane of L. glutinosa. Soil drying had a greater effect on root hydraulic conductivity (L(p)) in L. glutinosa than in A. confusa, whereas the effect of soil compaction on L(p) was less in L. glutinosa than in A. confusa. Soil drying enhanced the effects of soil compaction on root L(p). We conclude that soil drying and compaction have large species-specific effects on the distribution, growth and physiology of roots. The relationships of these root properties to the species' ability to tolerate unfavorable soil conditions were examined.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jiansheng Liang, Jianhua Zhang, Gilbert Y. S. Chan, M. H. Wong. 1999. Can differences in root responses to soil drying and compaction explain differences in performance of trees growing on landfill sites?. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys%2F19.9.619

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗