Pampered inside, pestered outside? Differences and similarities between plants growing in controlled conditions and in the field
-
- Hendrik Poorter
- Plant Sciences (IBG‐2) Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH D‐52425 Jülich Germany
-
- Fabio Fiorani
- Plant Sciences (IBG‐2) Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH D‐52425 Jülich Germany
-
- Roland Pieruschka
- Plant Sciences (IBG‐2) Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH D‐52425 Jülich Germany
-
- Tobias Wojciechowski
- Plant Sciences (IBG‐2) Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH D‐52425 Jülich Germany
-
- Wim H. van der Putten
- Terrestrial Ecology Netherlands Institute for Ecology Droevendaalsesteeg 10 6708 PB Wageningen the Netherlands
-
- Michael Kleyer
- Landscape Ecology Group Institute of Biology and Environmental Sciences University of Oldenburg D‐26111 Oldenburg Germany
-
- Uli Schurr
- Plant Sciences (IBG‐2) Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH D‐52425 Jülich Germany
-
- Johannes Postma
- Plant Sciences (IBG‐2) Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH D‐52425 Jülich Germany
書誌事項
- 公開日
- 2016-10-26
- 権利情報
-
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor
- http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1
- DOI
-
- 10.1111/nph.14243
- 公開者
- Wiley
この論文をさがす
説明
<jats:title>Summary</jats:title><jats:p>Plant biologists often grow plants in growth chambers or glasshouses with the ultimate aim to understand or improve plant performance in the field. What is often overlooked is how results from controlled conditions translate back to field situations. A meta‐analysis showed that lab‐grown plants had faster growth rates, higher nitrogen concentrations and different morphology. They remained smaller, however, because the lab plants had grown for a much shorter time. We compared glasshouse and growth chamber conditions with those in the field and found that the ratio between the daily amount of light and daily temperature (photothermal ratio) was consistently lower under controlled conditions. This may strongly affect a plant's source : sink ratio and hence its overall morphology and physiology. Plants in the field also grow at higher plant densities. A second meta‐analysis showed that a doubling in density leads on average to 34% smaller plants with strong negative effects on tiller or side‐shoot formation but little effect on plant height. We found the <jats:italic>r</jats:italic><jats:sup>2</jats:sup> between lab and field phenotypic data to be rather modest (0.26). Based on these insights, we discuss various alternatives to facilitate the translation from lab results to the field, including several options to apply growth regimes closer to field conditions.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:table-wrap position="anchor"> <jats:table frame="void"> <jats:col/> <jats:col/> <jats:col/> <jats:thead> <jats:tr> <jats:th/> <jats:th>Contents</jats:th> <jats:th/> </jats:tr> </jats:thead> <jats:tbody> <jats:tr> <jats:td/> <jats:td>Summary</jats:td> <jats:td/> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>I.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0002">Introduction</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>839</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>II.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0003">Phenotypic differences between lab‐ and field‐grown plants</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>839</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>III.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0004">The shoot environment</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>841</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>IV.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0008">The root environment</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>845</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>V.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0012">Effects of plant density</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>847</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>VI.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0013">Consistency among species or genotypes in ranking between lab and field</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>848</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>VII.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0014">Translation of lab results to the field</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>849</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td>VIII.</jats:td> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0026">Conclusions</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>851</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td/> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0027">Acknowledgements</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>851</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td/> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-sec-0028">Author contributions</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>852</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td/> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-bibl-0001">References</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>852</jats:td> </jats:tr> <jats:tr> <jats:td/> <jats:td><jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="#nph14243-app-0001">Appendix A1</jats:ext-link></jats:td> <jats:td>854</jats:td> </jats:tr> </jats:tbody> </jats:table> </jats:table-wrap></jats:p>
収録刊行物
-
- New Phytologist
-
New Phytologist 212 (4), 838-855, 2016-10-26
Wiley

