Limits...
Magnetic resonance imaging of sugar beet taproots in soil reveals growth reduction and morphological changes during foliar Cercospora beticola infestation.

Schmittgen S, Metzner R, Van Dusschoten D, Jansen M, Fiorani F, Jahnke S, Rascher U, Schurr U - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

Bottom Line: However, during this period, the volumetric growth of the taproot had already started to decrease.Additionally, inoculated plants showed a reduction of the increase in width of inner cambial rings while the width of outer rings increased slightly compared with non-inoculated plants.This response partly compensated for the reduced development of inner rings that had a vascular connection with Cercospora-inoculated leaves.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institut für Bio-und Geowissenschaften, IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, D-52425 Jülich, Germany simone.schmittgen@julumni.fz-juelich.de s.jahnke@fz-juelich.de.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

MRI images of a HS plant. The taproot of the sugar beet is shown in isosurfaces and cross-sections at 11 weeks (A, D), 17 weeks (B, E), and 25 weeks after sowing (C, F). (D, E, F) In the cross-sections, the thickness of the innermost cambial ring (no. 1) is marked with a black line; the outermost one with a white arrow. The scale of the isosurfaces and cross-sections is indicated by the white line (2cm). Taproots grew out of the field of view (70×70mm2) 16 weeks after sowing; therefore, two measurements per taproot, one set above the other, had to be conducted to capture the root system (B, C). The two MRI projections were concatenated together by image analysis.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4585413&req=5

Figure 3: MRI images of a HS plant. The taproot of the sugar beet is shown in isosurfaces and cross-sections at 11 weeks (A, D), 17 weeks (B, E), and 25 weeks after sowing (C, F). (D, E, F) In the cross-sections, the thickness of the innermost cambial ring (no. 1) is marked with a black line; the outermost one with a white arrow. The scale of the isosurfaces and cross-sections is indicated by the white line (2cm). Taproots grew out of the field of view (70×70mm2) 16 weeks after sowing; therefore, two measurements per taproot, one set above the other, had to be conducted to capture the root system (B, C). The two MRI projections were concatenated together by image analysis.

Mentions: The increase in taproot volume was due to beet-specific secondary thickening (Fig. 3A–C). In addition to taproot volume measurements, the development of the width of cambial rings was also measured from the MRI images (Fig. 3D–F). In these cross-sections, darker zones represented the xylem and phloem separated by a narrow bright ring, the cambium. The broader, light grey rings in between were identified as sugar-storing parenchyma, as described in Metzner et al. (2014). The thickness of a cambial ring consisted of the summed width of the respective cambium, xylem, phloem, and storage parenchyma.


Magnetic resonance imaging of sugar beet taproots in soil reveals growth reduction and morphological changes during foliar Cercospora beticola infestation.

Schmittgen S, Metzner R, Van Dusschoten D, Jansen M, Fiorani F, Jahnke S, Rascher U, Schurr U - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

MRI images of a HS plant. The taproot of the sugar beet is shown in isosurfaces and cross-sections at 11 weeks (A, D), 17 weeks (B, E), and 25 weeks after sowing (C, F). (D, E, F) In the cross-sections, the thickness of the innermost cambial ring (no. 1) is marked with a black line; the outermost one with a white arrow. The scale of the isosurfaces and cross-sections is indicated by the white line (2cm). Taproots grew out of the field of view (70×70mm2) 16 weeks after sowing; therefore, two measurements per taproot, one set above the other, had to be conducted to capture the root system (B, C). The two MRI projections were concatenated together by image analysis.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4585413&req=5

Figure 3: MRI images of a HS plant. The taproot of the sugar beet is shown in isosurfaces and cross-sections at 11 weeks (A, D), 17 weeks (B, E), and 25 weeks after sowing (C, F). (D, E, F) In the cross-sections, the thickness of the innermost cambial ring (no. 1) is marked with a black line; the outermost one with a white arrow. The scale of the isosurfaces and cross-sections is indicated by the white line (2cm). Taproots grew out of the field of view (70×70mm2) 16 weeks after sowing; therefore, two measurements per taproot, one set above the other, had to be conducted to capture the root system (B, C). The two MRI projections were concatenated together by image analysis.
Mentions: The increase in taproot volume was due to beet-specific secondary thickening (Fig. 3A–C). In addition to taproot volume measurements, the development of the width of cambial rings was also measured from the MRI images (Fig. 3D–F). In these cross-sections, darker zones represented the xylem and phloem separated by a narrow bright ring, the cambium. The broader, light grey rings in between were identified as sugar-storing parenchyma, as described in Metzner et al. (2014). The thickness of a cambial ring consisted of the summed width of the respective cambium, xylem, phloem, and storage parenchyma.

Bottom Line: However, during this period, the volumetric growth of the taproot had already started to decrease.Additionally, inoculated plants showed a reduction of the increase in width of inner cambial rings while the width of outer rings increased slightly compared with non-inoculated plants.This response partly compensated for the reduced development of inner rings that had a vascular connection with Cercospora-inoculated leaves.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Institut für Bio-und Geowissenschaften, IBG-2: Plant Sciences, Wilhelm-Johnen-Straße, D-52425 Jülich, Germany simone.schmittgen@julumni.fz-juelich.de s.jahnke@fz-juelich.de.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus