Limits...
Sub-zero cold tolerance of Spartina pectinata (prairie cordgrass) and Miscanthus × giganteus: candidate bioenergy crops for cool temperate climates.

Friesen PC, Peixoto Mde M, Lee DK, Sage RF - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

Bottom Line: Photosynthesis and electrolyte leakage measurements in spring and summer demonstrate that S. pectinata leaves have greater frost tolerance in the field.These results indicate M. × giganteus will be unsuitable for production in continental interiors of cool-temperate climate zones unless freezing and frost tolerance are improved.By contrast, S. pectinata has the freezing and frost tolerance required for a higher-latitude bioenergy crop.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3B2 r.sage@utoronto.ca patrick.friesen@utoronto.ca.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The relationship between % relative conductivity and treatment temperature for rhizomes of Miscanthus × giganteus and three genotypes of Spartina pectinata harvested on (A) 21 November 2013 (the autumn harvest), (B) 2 February2014 (the winter harvest) and (C) 28 April 2014 (the spring harvest). Mean ±SE, n=10–12 rhizomes per treatment temperature, except for M. × giganteus in the winter (n=1–11). Miscanthus × giganteus (●); S. pectinata accessions: ‘Red River’ (∆), ‘IL-102’ (□), ‘Summerford’ (◊). Solid curves represent best-fit sigmoidal responses. Dashed lines show intersection of LEL50 and LT50 values for each sampling time. Miscanthus × giganteus (single-dash); S. pectinata genotypes: ‘Red River’ (dash-dot), ‘IL-102’ (triple-dash), ‘Summerford’ (double-dash). In (C), where the intersection of the LEL50 and LT50 did not closely correspond to a solid regression curve, the two points that bracket the sharp transition in the %RC versus temperature response are connected with a dashed line.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493780&req=5

Figure 4: The relationship between % relative conductivity and treatment temperature for rhizomes of Miscanthus × giganteus and three genotypes of Spartina pectinata harvested on (A) 21 November 2013 (the autumn harvest), (B) 2 February2014 (the winter harvest) and (C) 28 April 2014 (the spring harvest). Mean ±SE, n=10–12 rhizomes per treatment temperature, except for M. × giganteus in the winter (n=1–11). Miscanthus × giganteus (●); S. pectinata accessions: ‘Red River’ (∆), ‘IL-102’ (□), ‘Summerford’ (◊). Solid curves represent best-fit sigmoidal responses. Dashed lines show intersection of LEL50 and LT50 values for each sampling time. Miscanthus × giganteus (single-dash); S. pectinata genotypes: ‘Red River’ (dash-dot), ‘IL-102’ (triple-dash), ‘Summerford’ (double-dash). In (C), where the intersection of the LEL50 and LT50 did not closely correspond to a solid regression curve, the two points that bracket the sharp transition in the %RC versus temperature response are connected with a dashed line.

Mentions: The response of rhizome electrolyte leakage to treatment temperature was markedly different between S. pectinata and M. × giganteus. In M. × giganteus, %RC rose sharply as treatment temperatures fell below −3°C, while in the three S. pectinata genotypes, %RC showed a gradual increase below −10°C during the autumn and winter, and below −6°C at the time of the spring harvest (Fig. 4). Using our LT50 values, we estimated the %RC value that corresponded to 50% mortality (LEL50), and observed it was near 30% in all S. pectinata genotypes and near 47% for M. × giganteus in both the autumn/winter and spring trials (Supplementary Figs S4, S5). We then estimated the temperature that corresponded to these LEL50 values to obtain an independent estimate of the lethal cold threshold for S. pectinata and M. × giganteus rhizomes. In the autumn for both species, and winter for S. pectinata, best-fit sigmoidal regressions corresponded well to the intersection of the LEL50 values and the LT50 values (Fig. 4A, B). This indicates that the sigmoidal fit was a good approximation of the threshold response. However, the intersect of the LEL50 and LT50 values did not correspond well to the sigmoidal fit for the winter response of M. × giganteus and the spring responses for both species (Fig. 4B, C). In these three cases, a straight line connecting the two data points bracketing the threshold portion of the response provided better correspondence with the intersect of the LEL50 and LT50 values. The range of temperatures corresponding to the LEL50 estimated using best-fit regressions or straight lines were near −23°C for S. pectinata harvested in November and February, and between −7°C and −10°C for S. pectinata harvested in April. For M. × giganteus, the range of temperatures corresponding to the LEL50 estimated using best-fit regressions or straight lines was −4°C to −6°C for M. × giganteus at all sample dates (Fig. 4B, C).


Sub-zero cold tolerance of Spartina pectinata (prairie cordgrass) and Miscanthus × giganteus: candidate bioenergy crops for cool temperate climates.

Friesen PC, Peixoto Mde M, Lee DK, Sage RF - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

The relationship between % relative conductivity and treatment temperature for rhizomes of Miscanthus × giganteus and three genotypes of Spartina pectinata harvested on (A) 21 November 2013 (the autumn harvest), (B) 2 February2014 (the winter harvest) and (C) 28 April 2014 (the spring harvest). Mean ±SE, n=10–12 rhizomes per treatment temperature, except for M. × giganteus in the winter (n=1–11). Miscanthus × giganteus (●); S. pectinata accessions: ‘Red River’ (∆), ‘IL-102’ (□), ‘Summerford’ (◊). Solid curves represent best-fit sigmoidal responses. Dashed lines show intersection of LEL50 and LT50 values for each sampling time. Miscanthus × giganteus (single-dash); S. pectinata genotypes: ‘Red River’ (dash-dot), ‘IL-102’ (triple-dash), ‘Summerford’ (double-dash). In (C), where the intersection of the LEL50 and LT50 did not closely correspond to a solid regression curve, the two points that bracket the sharp transition in the %RC versus temperature response are connected with a dashed line.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4493780&req=5

Figure 4: The relationship between % relative conductivity and treatment temperature for rhizomes of Miscanthus × giganteus and three genotypes of Spartina pectinata harvested on (A) 21 November 2013 (the autumn harvest), (B) 2 February2014 (the winter harvest) and (C) 28 April 2014 (the spring harvest). Mean ±SE, n=10–12 rhizomes per treatment temperature, except for M. × giganteus in the winter (n=1–11). Miscanthus × giganteus (●); S. pectinata accessions: ‘Red River’ (∆), ‘IL-102’ (□), ‘Summerford’ (◊). Solid curves represent best-fit sigmoidal responses. Dashed lines show intersection of LEL50 and LT50 values for each sampling time. Miscanthus × giganteus (single-dash); S. pectinata genotypes: ‘Red River’ (dash-dot), ‘IL-102’ (triple-dash), ‘Summerford’ (double-dash). In (C), where the intersection of the LEL50 and LT50 did not closely correspond to a solid regression curve, the two points that bracket the sharp transition in the %RC versus temperature response are connected with a dashed line.
Mentions: The response of rhizome electrolyte leakage to treatment temperature was markedly different between S. pectinata and M. × giganteus. In M. × giganteus, %RC rose sharply as treatment temperatures fell below −3°C, while in the three S. pectinata genotypes, %RC showed a gradual increase below −10°C during the autumn and winter, and below −6°C at the time of the spring harvest (Fig. 4). Using our LT50 values, we estimated the %RC value that corresponded to 50% mortality (LEL50), and observed it was near 30% in all S. pectinata genotypes and near 47% for M. × giganteus in both the autumn/winter and spring trials (Supplementary Figs S4, S5). We then estimated the temperature that corresponded to these LEL50 values to obtain an independent estimate of the lethal cold threshold for S. pectinata and M. × giganteus rhizomes. In the autumn for both species, and winter for S. pectinata, best-fit sigmoidal regressions corresponded well to the intersection of the LEL50 values and the LT50 values (Fig. 4A, B). This indicates that the sigmoidal fit was a good approximation of the threshold response. However, the intersect of the LEL50 and LT50 values did not correspond well to the sigmoidal fit for the winter response of M. × giganteus and the spring responses for both species (Fig. 4B, C). In these three cases, a straight line connecting the two data points bracketing the threshold portion of the response provided better correspondence with the intersect of the LEL50 and LT50 values. The range of temperatures corresponding to the LEL50 estimated using best-fit regressions or straight lines were near −23°C for S. pectinata harvested in November and February, and between −7°C and −10°C for S. pectinata harvested in April. For M. × giganteus, the range of temperatures corresponding to the LEL50 estimated using best-fit regressions or straight lines was −4°C to −6°C for M. × giganteus at all sample dates (Fig. 4B, C).

Bottom Line: Photosynthesis and electrolyte leakage measurements in spring and summer demonstrate that S. pectinata leaves have greater frost tolerance in the field.These results indicate M. × giganteus will be unsuitable for production in continental interiors of cool-temperate climate zones unless freezing and frost tolerance are improved.By contrast, S. pectinata has the freezing and frost tolerance required for a higher-latitude bioenergy crop.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 3B2 r.sage@utoronto.ca patrick.friesen@utoronto.ca.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus