Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 52, No. 90001, pp. 381-401,
March 2001
© 2001 Oxford University Press
Roots: evolutionary origins and biogeochemical significance
1 Division of Environmental and Applied Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK
2 Department of Earth Sciences, Cardiff University, PO Box 914, Cardiff CF1 3YE, UK
Received 1 June 2000; Accepted 20 September 2000
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionWhat is a root?The functions of roots...The biogeochemical context of...The early (Palaeozoic) evolution...Implications for plants and...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Roots, as organs distinguishable developmentally and anatomically from shoots (other than by occurrence of stomata and sporangia on above-ground organs), evolved in the sporophytes of at least two distinct lineages of early vascular plants during their initial major radiation on land in Early Devonian times (c. 410–395 million years ago). This was some 15 million years after the appearance of tracheophytes and c. 50 million years after the earliest embryophytes of presumed bryophyte affinity. Both groups are known initially only from spores, but from comparative anatomy of extant bryophytes and later Lower Devonian fossils it is assumed that, during these times, below-ground structures (if any) other than true roots fulfilled the functions of anchorage and of water and nutrient acquisition, despite lacking an endodermis (as do the roots of extant Lycopodium spp.). By 375 million years ago root-like structures penetrated almost a metre into the substratum, greatly increasing the volume of mineral matter subject to weathering by the higher than atmospheric CO2 levels generated by plant and microbial respiration in material with restricted diffusive contact with the atmosphere. Chemical weathering consumes CO2 in converting silicates into bicarbonate and Si(OH)4. The CO2 consumed in weathering ultimately came from atmospheric CO2 via photosynthesis and respiration; this use of CO2 probably accounts for most of the postulated 10-fold decrease in atmospheric CO2 from 400–350 million years ago, with significant effects on shoot evolution. Subsequent evolution of roots has yielded much-branched axes down to 40 µm diameter, a lower limit set by long-distance transport constraints. Finer structures involved in the uptake of nutrients of low diffusivity in soil evolved at least 400 million years ago as arbuscular mycorrhizas or as evaginations of ‘roots’ (‘root hairs’).
Key words: Devonian, endodermis, phylogeny, Silurian, weathering.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionWhat is a root?The functions of roots...The biogeochemical context of...The early (Palaeozoic) evolution...Implications for plants and...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The evolution of ‘the root’ has attracted much less attention than that of ‘the shoot’. This is particularly true of the evolutionary origin of the root, where the limited economic significance of the lower vascular plants is one of the factors constraining consideration of this topic. Furthermore, roots may be less readily fossilized than shoots, and the fossil record is, as we shall see, not very helpful. The position was well put in the following quotation from Gifford and Foster. ‘The differentiation between distinct root and shoot systems in most living vascular plants is of considerable interest from an evolutionary viewpoint. It is now rather generally agreed that this differentiation did not exist in such Devonian land plants as Horneophyton and Rhynia. In these archaic organisms portions of the underground system of stems apparently served physiologically as roots. It seems reasonable to postulate that roots were acquired later in the evolution of vascular plants. However, the steps in the evolutionary divergence of roots from primitive shoots, which led to the acquisition of a root cap, a prevalent internal or endogenous origin of roots, and the retention of a primitive type of vascular system, are unfortunately obscure today’ (Gifford and Foster, 1987
). More recently, Fitter and Moyersoen wrote, ‘Complex root systems have been a feature of land plants for a long time, although the fossil record is unclear as to exactly how long’ (Fitter and Moyersoen, 1996). This review considers root evolution by attempting to define the root and, in so doing, delimiting its difference from the shoot, and by considering the functions of the roots of extant plants and cases in which ‘root’ functions are performed by non-root structures. The article then considers the fossil history of vascular plants and the environment in which they evolved, the time at which true roots first appear in the fossil record, and the role of roots and root-like structures which fulfil root functions in modifying global biogeochemistry and its influence on shoot evolution.
|
What is a root? |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionWhat is a root?The functions of roots...The biogeochemical context of...The early (Palaeozoic) evolution...Implications for plants and...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
The anatomical and morphological material assembled here comes from many sources (Bell, 1991
; Bierhorst, 1971; Cutter, 1971; Eames, 1936; Eames and MacDaniels, 1947; Esau, 1953; Fahn, 1974; Gifford and Foster, 1987; Goebel, 1930; Groff and Kaplan, 1988; Raven, 1977, 1984a, b, 1986, 1993, 1995a, 1997).
Roots are axial multicellular structures of the sporophytes of vascular plants which usually occur underground, have strictly (root cap notwithstanding) apical elongation growth, and generally have gravitropic responses which range from positive gravitropism to diagravitropism, combined with negative phototropism. Developmentally, the apical meristem of one (most lower vascular plants) to many (all seed plants) dividing cells produces a root cap acropetally and initials of the stele, cortex and epidermis basipetally. The branching of roots involves the endogenous origin of new root apical meristems in the pericycle or, in many ferns (e.g. Marsilea), the endodermis of the parent root. The lateral roots emerge from the pericycle through the endodermis or from the endodermis (when present, as it usually is), then pass through the cortex and the epidermis. Roots do not have superficial production of cells or tissues other than unicellular enations (root hairs). The primary stele of roots is generally a protostele (i.e. a solid cylinder of xylem, with or without parenchyma cells), often with convolutions of the stele–pericycle interface to produce an actinostele. There are roots which have a central pith with peripheral vascular tissue within the endodermis; examples are most monocotyledonous angiosperms. Roots do not have the segmentation of the axis between (superficial) leaves on the stem which is typical of shoots (
stems plus leaves plus sporangia and their modifications such as strobili and flowers and their derivatives, seeds and fruits) to produce internodes between nodes. Roots arise from the embryonic axis, from other roots or stems; the latter is where all roots originate in non-seed vascular plants.
The root cap is thought to be a source of lubrication to the growing root apex, and a means of causing adherence of mature roots to soil particles via the production of mucilage, while living detached root cap cells (root border cells) may act as a means of manipulating the microbiota of the rhizosphere (McCully, 1999; Hawes et al., 2000). The root cap is also involved in graviperception.
Shoots, which are the other organ system of vascular plants, contrast with roots by being typically above-ground and their gravitropism ranges from negatively gravitropic to diagravitropic. The shoot apical meristem does not produce a (root) cap. The branching of shoots, including the production of leaves, is superficial (exogenous). The primary vascular tissue is sometimes a protostele, more usually a siphonostele or dictyostele (i.e. both with a pith, and a more or less dissected hollow cylinder of vascular tissue). An endodermis is less frequently present in shoots than in roots. Shoots growing in air can (as can the much less common aerial roots) have intercalary as well as apical elongation growth since they do not have the buckling problems which below-ground organs with intercalary growth would have as they grow through a much more resistant medium than air (Gill and Tomlinson, 1975). Shoots with intercalary growth growing negatively gavitropically, or diagravitropically can have problems with posture maintenance since by definition an extension zone must rely on a hydrostatic rather than a rigid skeletal system; aerial roots which grow downwards have no such problems. Shoots can generally give rise to roots (as well as shoots); roots more rarely give rise to shoots (Groff and Kaplan, 1988).
The distinguishing features of the roots (as compared to the shoots) of vascular plants are thus the occurrence of a root cap, a more defined lineage of cells from the apical cell(s) to tissues in the more mature parts of the roots, the essentially universal occurrence of an endodermis, a protostele (sometimes with a pith) and endogenous origin of lateral roots from roots (Table 1). Many root systems show localized root proliferation in response to spatial variability in resource availability (Robinson, 1996; Robinson et al., 1991, 1998; Zhang and Forde, 1998).
|
Groff and Kaplan, in their excellent critical review of the concept of roots versus shoots in vascular plants (Groff and Kaplan, 1988
; see also Goebel, 1930), very wisely discourage the use of the term ‘adventitious’ as applied to roots, since it can imply that the production of roots by stems is always abnormal, whereas it is the norm in many plants. Similarly, the use of ‘primary’ is discouraged in the context of root systems, since it can mean either ‘the first root’ or ‘the persistent root’ (Groff and Kaplan, 1988). These authors also counsel that the production of shoots from roots is not to be regarded as anomalous.
In the context of production of shoots by roots, it is instructive to consider N2-fixing leguminous root nodules; these are essentially shoot-like structures which are produced by the roots of many members of the Fabaceae in the presence of appropriate rhizobia (Sprent, 1989; Mathesius et al., 1998; Gualtieri and Bisseling, 2000). The legume nodules develop from primordia that are initiated in the cortex and have peripheral vascular bundles and central symbiotic tissue. However, it is important to note that some legumes can form rhizobial nodules on shoot (stem) tissue as well as on roots (Parsons et al., 1993, 1995). Furthermore, the same rhizobial signal molecules (Nod factors) can induce the production of N2-fixing nodules on the roots of the non-leguminous angiosperm Parasponia (Ulmaceae); these nodules are root-like with central vascular tissue and peripheral (cortical) symbiotic tissue, although they have no root cap tissue (Gualtieri and Bisseling, 2000). These rhizobial nodules of Parasponia have developmental and anatomical similarities to the actinorhizal (Frankia-containing) N2-fixing nodules of members of the Rosid 1 clade families Rosaceae, Eleagnaceae, Rhamnaceae, Betulaceae, Casuarinaceae, Myricaceae, Coriariaceae, and Datiscaceae (noting that the rhizobially nodulating families Fabaceae and Ulmaceae are also in the Rosid 1 clade): (Gualtieri and Bisseling, 2000). Thus, actinorhizal nodules have central vascular and peripheral symbiotic tissue, and originate from root pericycle tissue, but lack a root cap (Gualtieri and Bisseling, 2000).
These examples of the production of shoots by roots mean that the phylogeny and the ontogeny of roots do not abolish their potential to produce shoot tissue.
Finally, Groff and Kaplan (Groff and Kaplan, 1988) recall the concepts of allorhizy and homorhizy (Goebel, 1930). Allorhizy denotes the development of shoot and root at opposite ends of the embryonic axis, as in extant seed plants, while homorhizy denotes root development which is lateral with respect to the longitudinal axis of the embryo, as in extant lower vascular plants. Later this study returns to Goebel's concepts in the context of the monophyletic or polyphyletic origin of roots (Goebel, 1930).
|
The functions of roots in extant plants in relation to the capabilities of other below-ground plant structures |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionWhat is a root?The functions of roots...The biogeochemical context of...The early (Palaeozoic) evolution...Implications for plants and...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
What do roots do in extant plants?
In addressing this question it is necessary to examine the occurrence of roots in extant plants, and of how the functions of roots are fulfilled in rootless plants in habitats where root functions are needed. The traditionally recognized root functions are anchorage (Niklas, 1992
; Ennos, 1993; Ennos and Fitter, 1992; Berntson, 1994), and the uptake and longitudinal movement of water and mineral nutrients (Clarkson, 1985; Varney and Canny, 1993; Marschner, 1995). Even when roots are well developed some of these root functions may be partly performed by other structures. Thus, in rhizomatous plants, the below-ground rhizome may have had a role in anchoring the plant, while the fungal components of mycorrhizas may supplement or replace root hairs as the root components which increase the area of absorptive surface per unit of below-ground biomass (see below) (Clarkson, 1985; Caldwell and Richards, 1986; Fitter, 1987, 1996; Moteetee et al., 1996; Smith and Read, 1997; Blackwell, 2000; Redecker et al., 2000).
There are clearly constraints on the optimization of the various functions of roots in relation to the resource costs of producing and maintaining the roots as a function of their structure and, especially, their diameter. Thus, the absorptive (and anchorage) functions are maximized per unit of root biomass by small root diameter (Silberbush and Barber, 1983; Boot, 1989; Clarkson, 1985). However, the analysis of Silberbush and Barber showed that an even more important root attribute in maximizing the uptake of slowly-diffusing solutes is root elongation rate (Silberbush and Barber, 1983). Thus, for a nutrient such as phosphate in well-aerated soil, with phosphate binding to oxidized iron minerals, and a very low diffusion coefficient for the solute in soil, root elongation rate is very important in determining uptake of phosphate since it determines access to unexploited volumes of soil. However, Table 2 shows that, for the range of diameters of below-ground roots for which data are available, the larger diameter roots have the most rapid elongation rate. While there seems to be no mechanistic basis for this correlation, its existence shows that root diameter and root elongation rate are not independent variables, at least for the plants (all cultivated grasses) in Table 2. It is of interest that the correlation of extension rate and root diameter for cereals in Table 2 contrasts with hypotheses and data on slow-growing ‘magnolioid’ roots with a diameter up to 1.5 mm in the absence of secondary thickening and with a great dependence on mycorrhizas in the flowering plants (Baylis, 1975; St John, 1980). These are contrasted with faster-extending, smaller-diameter ‘graminoid’ roots with a greater potential to produce root hairs and less dependence on mycorrhizas (Baylis, 1975).
|
A further correlation with root diameter is that roots of smaller diameter may have higher construction costs and maintenance costs on a unit biomass basis than do larger diameter roots (Eissenstaadt and Yanai, 1997
). This adds to the costs of producing and maintaining small diameter roots to set against the benefit, in nutrient-uptake terms, of a large surface area per unit biomass and the constraint on nutrient-uptake capacity due to their lower growth rate. Smaller diameter roots are also more likely to be determinate in their growth and to live for a shorter time than is the case for roots of larger diameter (Eissenstadt and Yanai, 1997; Skene, 1998, 2000). This also impacts on the mechanical effectiveness of roots, with the increased surface area for functional contact per unit biomass of smaller roots offset, in terms of mechanical benefit per unit construction cost, by their shorter lifespan.
After absorption of nutrient solutes and water by a root zone, the major fraction of the nutrients and water is transported axially toward the shoot in the xylem. Growth and maintenance of roots requires that photosynthate moves to them in the phloem. In both xylem and phloem mass flow of solution occurs along the conduits, and the Hagen-Poiseiulle equation shows that the flux of solution along a conduit under a given hydrodynamic driving force is proportional to the fourth power of the radius of the conduit (Fitter, 1987; Varney and Canny, 1993; Varney et al., 1991; Raven, 1999a, b). This constraint on axial flow in very small conduits imposes a lower limit on the diameter of roots, in that a root functional in axial conduction must have at least one xylem element and one phloem element, each with more than a certain minimum radius (Raven, 1999a, b).
Roots must also (with very few exceptions) have living cells in the stele associated with the xylem and phloem conducting elements, an endodermis, one or more layers of cortex, and an epidermis (Peterson, 1992; Damus et al., 1997; Aloni et al., 1998; Peterson and Cholewa, 1998; Raven, 1999a, b). In addition to these constraints on the minimum number of living cells in the radius of a root, there are also constraints on the minimum size of each of these living cells imposed by cost-benefit and other considerations (Raven, 1999a, b). Taken together, these constraints mean that the smallest radius of indeterminate roots of extant plants (20–25 µm; Fitter, 1987; McCully, 1999; Varney and McCully, 1991) can be rationalized, in functional terms, with roots of rather smaller radius possible if there is no endodermis (Damus et al., 1997).
While endodermis has been cited as an essential functional feature of roots, it is noted that the extant Lycopodium lacks an endodermis in its roots (but not in its shoots) (Damus et al., 1997), and that well-preserved fossil sporophytes of vascular plants (and other polysporangiophytes) do not have identifiable endodermis until the Carboniferous (Walton, 1940; Raven, 1984b, 1994b). Furthermore, such physiological work as has been performed on Arabidopsis thaliana mutants lacking a root endodermis (e.g. with mutation in the SHORT-ROOT (shr) gene) shows no significant functional impact on Ca transport to the shoot (Benfey et al., 1993; Scheres and Benfey, 1999; White et al., 2000).
This argument, as to the minimum size of multicellular underground absorptive and anchoring organs, has been couched in the context of the functional anatomy of roots. However, there seems to be no reason why stem (i.e. shoot components) structures could not be miniaturized to the same extent as the smallest extant roots, provided that they had a protostelic structure of their vascular tissue (Raven, 1999a). Clearly, an endodermis could be accommodated in such a small shoot radius just as is the case for roots. However, there seem to be no known below-ground shoot structures with as small a radius as these very small-radius roots. Any such small-radius stems with an endodermis occurring below ground could only with difficulty be distinguished from roots except for the absence of a root cap (Table 1
), since these very small-radius structures are probably too small to branch, and thus be distinguished by exogenous rather than endogenous branching. Such small-radius stems would certainly have to be protostelic (Table 1).
Structure and function of root hairs and mycorrhizas
There are potential advantages in having diameters of nutrient-absorbing structures which are less than that consistent with the structure of roots. The argument here is an extension of that used above for roots. The uptake of a nutrient with low concentration and low diffusion coefficients in soil (e.g. phosphate in aerobic soils) has a higher uptake rate per unit biomass if that biomass is allocated to structures of smaller diameter (Silberbush and Barber, 1983; Clarkson, 1985; Boot, 1989; Harrison and van Buuven, 1995; Allaway and Ashford, 1996; Ashford et al., 1996; Eissenstadt and Yanai, 1997; Gilroy and Jones, 2000; Hodge et al., 2000; von Wirén et al., 2000).
Based on the orders of magnitude of the diameters of roots, root hairs and mycorrhizal hyphae in Read (Read, 1999; p. 171) a 2 µm diameter mycorrhizal hypha would have a 100 times greater surface area per unit biomass (volume), and a 20 µm diameter root hair 10 times greater surface area per unit biomass (volume), than a 200 µm diameter root. While these very small diameter ‘unicellular’ structures have advantages in terms of acquisition of resources such as phosphate by their increased surface area per unit biomass, they may have corresponding costs. One is that axial fluxes of solutes by cytoplasmic streaming may scale with cell diameter (Table 3). Another is that root hairs and mycorrhizas have a slow elongation rate (and thus a slow rate of exploitation of unexplored volumes of soil) (Table 2) and (at least for most root hairs) a short life-span, thus limiting the quantity of nutrient acquired per unit resource allocated to the structure (Eissenstadt and Yanai, 1997), at least as far as components (e.g. walls of root hairs) which cannot be recovered by the plant by disassembly and translocation to the longer lived parts of the plant are concerned (see below).
|
Rootless rhizophytes: the function of roots performed by non-root structures in rootless organisms
Putting anchoring and absorbing structures into a wider context, it is important to remember that vascular plants rooted in soil on land belong to the large life form category known as rhizophytes (Raven, 1981, 1983, 1984a, b, 1986; Raven et al., 1998). These organisms, with plant structures in the soil or sediment which are large relative to the grain size of the soil or sediment, include a wide range of structures produced by photosynthetic organisms other than the roots (and root hairs and mycorrhizas) of terrestrial sporophytes of vascular plants. Even among the extant sporophytes of terrestrial vascular plants some (Psilotum, Tmesipteris) lack roots despite living in soil or epiphytically; here shoot structures with ‘root hairs’ and mycorrhizas are functional replacements for roots.
Roots are retained by most vascular plant sporophytes after they have moved back to live in water, even when they cease to be rhizophytes. Thus, while Utricularia and Ceratophyllum lack roots, the Lemnaceae usually retain roots despite being much-reduced pleustophytes (free-floating plants: Raven, 1981, 1999a), while the freshwater Podostemaceae and certain seagrasses (Phyllospadix spp.; some specimens of Amphibolis spp.) are haptophytes, with their roots modified as holdfasts with no special role in nutrient uptake, since haptophytes are benthic plants attached to substrata of a grain size much larger than the attaching organ, and often larger than the whole organism (Raven, 1981, 1999a). Among these extant vascular plant sporophytes the absence of roots is apparently a derived condition.
The free-living gametophytes of the homosporous free-sporing vascular plants are also rhizophytes, with the anchoring and absorptive structures comprising just the rhizoids (analogous to root hairs) of photosynthetic representatives, while non-photosynthetic taxa have fungal associates analogous to mycorrhizas (Raven, 1981, 1986, 1999a). No multicellular below-ground structures have been found in the gametophytes of now extinct Lower Devonian vascular plants (or of close, now extinct, polysporangiophyte relatives of the early vascular plants) with many homoiohydric features, i.e. an endohydric conducting system, cuticle, stomata and intercellular gas spaces (Taylor and Taylor, 1993; Remy et al., 1997).
The vascular plants (tracheophytes) are embryophytes; the other extant embryophytes are at the bryophyte grade of organization, and include the mosses, liverworts and hornworts (Gray, 1985; Kenrick and Crane, 1997). Here the sporophyte phase retains its early parasitism on the gametophyte phase throughout its life, so anchoring to, and absorption from, non-living substrata is essentially a gametophyte function in bryophytes.
While many aquatic, and some terrestrial, bryophytes are haptophytic, a majority are rhizophytic. The gametophyte phase of bryophytes often comprises multicellular structures on the land surface, with below-ground structures (rhizoids) comprising cylindrical evaginations of cells of the lower epidermis (sometimes with transverse walls). However, the Polytrichaceae and some other mosses have diageotropic rhizomes at or just below soil level as parts of axes continuing as leafy aerial shoots; the rhizomes bear rhizoids. Furthermore, the occurrence of below-ground positively gravitropic multicellular (parenchymatous) cylindrical branched structures in Takakia and Haplomitrium has been demonstrated (Grubb, 1970). While both genera were formerly regarded as liverworts, Takakia is now considered to be a moss (Smith and Davison, 1993; Kenrick and Crane, 1997). These ‘roots’ of bryophyte gametophytes lack a root cap, although the ‘roots’ become mucilage-covered in dry conditions (Grubb, 1970). Takakia and Haplomitrium ‘roots’ have a central cylinder of elongate cells, but, unlike the corresponding cells in the shoots of these plants, the central elongate ‘root’ cells are alive at maturity (Grubb, 1970) and so do not strictly function in the endohydric conducting system of these organisms. Grubb suggests that the superficial origin of branches in these ‘roots’ of bryophytes resembles that of the rhizospheres in the sporophyte phase of the vascular plant Selaginella, and that endogenous origin of branches is not a good criterion of the ‘root’ rather than ‘shoot’ nature of a structure (Grubb, 1970). The occurrence and roles of mycorrhizas in embryophytes of the bryophyte grade of evolution have been discussed; arbuscular mycorrhizas are common in the gametophytes of extant liverworts (Read et al., 2000).
Among the algae, the extant class of the Chlorophyta which is most closely related to ancestors of the Embryophyta is the Charophyceae. While probably not the nearest extant relatives of the embryophytes, the Characeae (Chara, Nitella, etc.) are rhizophytic aquatic plants which can have shoots up to 1 m long and have rhizoids penetrating several mm into sediments. These rhizoids are only one cell wide by one to several cells long, and are clearly involved in nutrient uptake (Raven, 1981, 1991). Many marine green macroalgae in the class Ulvophyceae, and some freshwater members of the Chlorophyceae, are also rhizophytes, usually with unicellular rhizoids. Most other benthic macroalgae are haptophytes. Many lichens are also, via the rhizines of the mycobiont, rhizophytes (Raven, 1981, 1986).
Julian et al. have used the term ‘root’ to denote a structure of the vestimentiferan Lamellibrachia which is embedded in anoxic sediments, and which seems to be involved in uptake of hydrogen sulphide by this animal with its chemolithotrophic symbionts (Julian et al., 1999).
These comparative analyses of the ‘rooting’ structures of rhizophytes (and quasi-rhizophytes such as Lamellibrachia) show that at least some of the classic root functions of the roots of sporophytes of terrestrial vascular plants are shared with the rhizoids or more complex structures of other phases in the tracheophyte life cycle, or other (non-tracheophyte) higher taxa of plants. The special role of rooting structures in water uptake is less significant in submerged aquatic plants where there is no transpiratory water loss, which accounts for up to 97% of the water taken up from the soil by C3 plants on land. Furthermore, some specialized functions of roots demand the complexity of roots, or at least (parenchymatous) structures which are at least three cells in diameter. Examples are cluster roots (Marschner, 1995; Skene, 1998), epidermal transfer cells related to the external Fe3+ reduction mode of Fe acquisition found in almost all vascular plants tested (grasses are an exception) (Marschner, 1995), and the production of N2-fixing nodules involving rhizobia or Frankia which need a minimal size for the required plumbing (carbohydrate input; organic N removal) and O2-protective structures (Raven et al., 1994; Thumfort et al., 1994).
However, some important attributes of resource acquisition by higher plant roots can apply to morphologically simpler, and smaller-radius, absorptive structures, including rhizoids, root hairs and mycorrhizas. An example is apical alkalinization (increasing Mo availability and decreasing Al toxicity) and more basal acidification (favouring P and Fe availability) resulting from longitudinally and radially circulating currents carried by (buffered) H+ (Raven, 1989, 1991, 1995b, 1998, 2000a; Plassard et al., 1999). This could not directly apply to marine ulvophycean green algae with their currents carried by Cl- (Raven, 1991). Furthermore, acidification of the whole rhizosphere by production of intracellular organic acids followed by K+/H+ exchange across the plasmalemma, or by organic acid (and, to a much smaller extent, amino acid) secretion across the plasmalemma, can occur even when NO3- is the N source and the expectation from N assimilation alone is for rhizosphere alkalinization (Bertrand et al., 1999; Darrah, 1993; Jones and Darrah, 1993; Jones et al., 1994; Kirk et al., 1994; Neumann and Römheld, 1999; Raven et al., 1980, 1990; Raven, 1995a, 2000a). Such acidification can aid P and Fe acquisition (Raven, 2000a). This organic acid excretion and H+ excretion (paralleling organic anion retention by roots) in more mature root zones accentuates the H+ efflux from circulating currents, just as alkalinization resulting from the organic anion efflux from root apices (related to offsetting Al toxicity) accentuates the alkalinization resulting from the H+ influx due to circulating currents carried by (buffered) H+. Kochian notes that alkalinization of the rhizosphere around the root apex does not invariably reduce Al toxicity (Kochian, 1995; cf. Raven, 2000a).
Finally, and as a link to the next section of this paper, the role of (aerial) shoots in nutrient acquisition (and release) must be mentioned. There has been a comprehensive review of land plant mineral nutrient acquisition from outside the pedosphere (Clarkson et al., 1986), including uptake of nutrient solutes by aerial shoots and other above-ground structures (Parsons et al., 1993, 1995). While not generally as important as the uptake of nutrients by the shoots of submerged rhizophytes, such uptake by land plants can be significant. This uptake by extant land plants often involves air-borne nutrients resulting from the activities of other land biota (or biota which evolved on land), for example, solutes leached from plant structures higher in the canopy in the case of understorey bryophytes, and uptake of gaseous NH3 from seabird colonies or (anthropogenically) intensive animal production units (Raven and Yin, 1998). Accordingly, the earliest terrestrial biota would not have had access to the range and quantity of air-borne nutrients that are found today (Raven and Yin, 1998).
It is of interest that nutrient solutes which run off the canopy can induce rooting (Herwitz, 1991; Atger and Edelin, 1994).
|
The biogeochemical context of the early embryophytes |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionWhat is a root?The functions of roots...The biogeochemical context of...The early (Palaeozoic) evolution...Implications for plants and...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Embryophytes evolved from charophycean green algae possibly as much as 510 million years ago (Gray, 1985
; Edwards et al., 1998; Kenrick and Crane, 1997; Edwards, 2000; Strother, 2000; Wellman and Gray, 2000). The earliest (mid-Ordovician) fossil evidence as to the structure of the early embryophytes consists entirely of spores which were probably aerially dispersed (Gray, 1985; Edwards et al., 1998) and it appears that embryophytes evolved on land, possibly on the margins of drying pools, from relatively small algal ancestors (Stebbins and Hill, 1980; Graham, 1993).
The land surface inhabited by the earliest embryophytes was one that was already inhabited by photosynthetic organisms and by organisms which consumed, pre- and post-mortem, these photolithotrophs. There is geochemical evidence consistent with organisms living on land back to 1.2 billion years ago, i.e. in the Meso-Proterozoic (Horodyski and Knauth, 1994; cf. Keller and Wood, 1993; Shear, 1991; see also Rye and Holland, 2000). The argument here is based on the weathering of rock surfaces. The rate of weathering depends on temperature, the presence of water, and the concentration of CO2 in this rock-surface water. The rate of weathering on land surfaces between 800 and 1200 million years old is said (Horodyski and Knauth, 1994), to have exceeded the rate expected from the likely atmospheric CO2 concentration equilibrated with surface water, with the atmospheric CO2 estimated from the greenhouse considerations and the lower radiation output from the sun 800–12 000 million years ago than is the case today. While there are no fossils of the actual organisms involved, evidence from marine deposits shows that cyanobacteria and (prasinophycean) green algae were present in the sea, and could have been primary producers on land as well (Raven, 1995a, 1997, 1998; Golubic and Seong-Joo, 1999). Parasites, grazers and decomposers could have been viruses, bacteria, archea, and (possibly) fungi; Raven (1997).
The biological ‘CO2 pump’ from the atmosphere to water in fissures in the rock surface would have taken the form of primary producers (cyanobacteria; green algae?) on the rock surface where light supply was sufficient to allow photosynthesis. Transport of organic material into the fissures on the rock could have occurred as particles (dead cells gravitationally falling into crevices, motile protists, or fungal filaments, moving into the crevices; and soluble organic material released from dead, including virally lysed, cells percolating into crevices). Subsequent metabolism, with respiratory or fermentative CO2-production, could have led to a CO2 build-up as diffusive CO2 movement to the atmosphere only equals net CO2 production in the rock crevices when a significant concentration difference is established between the sites of CO2 generation and the water-atmosphere interface. This build-up of CO2 means that CO2 consumption in rock weathering becomes an increasingly significant competitor with diffusive CO2 loss to the atmosphere. The impact of cyanobacteria and algae in the weathering of mineral surfaces today has been discussed (Vestal, 1993; Walton, 1993; Wynn-Williams, 1993).
The chemistry by which CO2 is removed in weathering of silicates can be represented as (equation (1)):
 | (1) |
–4):
 | (2) |
 | (3) |
 | (4) |
.
Equations (1–4) occur over time scales of millions to tens of millions of years. The exogenic C cycle is completed by magmatic and volcanic processes in the Earth's crust. Here CaMg(CO3)2, CaCO3 and SiO2 produced in equations (2–4) are converted to the starting points (other than H2O) for equation (1) as follows:
 | (5) |
Any CaCO3 which reaches the surface of the land is weathered according to equation (6):
 | (6) |
Weathering of rocks of varying mineralogy has a very wide range of chemical effects (Berner and Berner, 1996), but it generally increases the solubility of many of the plant nutrients found in rocks, for example, potassium, magnesium, calcium, phosphate, and sulphate among the macronutrients. The atmosphere 1200 million years ago contained oxygen (all from photosynthesis in the sea) at perhaps 1% or more of the present level, and would have immobilized the micronutrient iron as ferric oxides, hydroxides and carbonates; the ferric oxides, with aluminium oxide also produced by weathering, immobilize phosphate. Iron and phosphate could be remobilized by organic acids and reductants produced by biota and, in the case of iron, by siderophores produced by many bacteria (including cyanobacteria) (Raven, 1997). In addition to sources from weathering on land, sulphur could have been supplied via the atmosphere from oxidation products of dimethylsulphide produced by marine biota (Lovelock et al., 1972).
Nitrogen is a plant nutrient present in very small amounts from rock weathering relative to other nutrient elements when viewed in the context of the ratio of elements found in optimally nourished plants. The large pool of N2 in the atmosphere can only be accessed biologically by prokaryotes; there is the possibility that bacteria (including cyanobacteria) and archea could have been fixing N2 on land in the Proterozoic (Raven and Yin, 1998; Golubic and Seong-Joo, 1999). The co-occurrence of N2 and O2 in the Meso- and Neo-Proterozoic atmosphere permitted the generation of biologically significant quantities of oxidized combined nitrogen in electrical storms (Raven and Yin, 1998).
Work on extant terrestrial cyanobacteria, algae and chemo-organotrophic microbes on rocks (Vestal, 1993; Walton, 1993; Wynn-Williams, 1993) suggests that their influence on weathering is less than that caused by lichens. However, lichens were not present in the Proterozoic; the earliest known fossil lichen is from the Rhynie Chert (Lower Devonian) in the form of a lichen with a cyanobacterial photobiont and a glomalean mycobiont with no present-day analogues (Taylor et al., 1997). The ascomycetes and basidiomycetes, which are the fungal components of extant lichens, are not known as fossils until the Upper Silurian (based on microfossils: Sherwood-Pike and Gray, 1985; Taylor, 1994) and the Carboniferous-Permian, respectively, although molecular–genetic evidence, combined with zygomycete fossils, suggests an origin of filamentous fungi 600 million years ago (Simon et al., 1993; Simon, 1996; Blackwell, 2000; Redecker et al., 2000). The present form of lichens probably evolved in the Permo-Triassic as peltigeralean lichens (Hawksworth, 1988) although the earliest known fossils of lichens involving fungi other than zygomycetes are only 50 million years old.
These considerations suggest that a skeletal soil could have been present as much as 1.2 billion years ago. The presence of O2 in the atmosphere at this time would have had direct (metabolism, including respiration and active oxygen species production) and indirect (UV-B screening via stratospheric O3, and restrictions on P and Fe availability) effects on land biota.
The authors do not wish to over-emphasize the extent to which the marine biota and the microbial terrestrial biota had modified the terrestrial habitat in ways which might have facilitated the establishment of a rhizophytic terrestrial embryophyte flora. However, it is likely that the land surface was preconditioned to some extent as a habitat which the early embryophytes could further modify upon their evolution perhaps 510 million years ago. The use of geochemical proxies (in this case the Fe(CO3)OH content of goethite) to estimate the rock surface (‘soil’) CO2 concentration (Yapp and Poths, 1992, 1994) on land 440 million years ago is consistent with high primary productivity, which at once permits (via CO2 input) and requires (to support productivity) high rates of weathering or, at least, of recycling of nutrients from biota. The high productivities suggested (Yapp and Poths, 1994) requires quite complex plant structures (Raven, 1997, 1998), for which the only fossil evidence is the aerially dispersed spores (Gray, 1985). Suggestions that spores of potentially mycorrhizal glomalean fungi occur in Ordovician deposits (Blackwell, 2000; Redecker et al., 2000) require reconsideration in view of the mineralogical context.
A further point about the high productivities suggested (Yapp and Poths, 1994) in the Ordovician concerns the impact on atmospheric CO2. Increased weathering rates tend to draw down atmospheric CO2, depending on the land area covered by these high-productivity plants. This has implications for the later discussion on the role of deeper rooting in the Devonian CO2 drawdown shown by the Geocarb II model of Berner (Berner, 1994), since one of the inputs to the model is the plant-induced CO2 drawdown (Raven, 1998).
|
The early (Palaeozoic) evolution of embryophytes and the origin of roots |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionWhat is a root?The functions of roots...The biogeochemical context of...The early (Palaeozoic) evolution...Implications for plants and...ConclusionsReferences |
|---|
Silurian
Edwards et al. (Edwards, 1993
, 1994; Edwards et al., 1998) discuss the evidence as to the vegetative morphology and anatomy of the earliest embryophytes known from remains other than spores (Banks, 1970; Chaloner, 1970; Spicer, 1989; Kenrick and Crane, 1997; Bateman et al., 1998; Shear, 1991). These Silurian fossils are generally composed of branching parenchymatous axes, and appear to represent the sporophyte phase of the life cycle, based on the occurrence of sporangia or, where these are not present, the absence of antheridia and archegonia, or of a structure representing a young sporophyte parasitic on a gametophyte, as is always the case for bryophytes and homosporous free-sporing tracheophytes. That these two latter indicators of the gametophyte nature of a fossil can be preserved is shown by Lower Devonian fossils with well-preserved antheridia and archegonia or vegetative structures which are more complex than any extant gametophyte (see below) (Taylor and Taylor, 1993), and a liverwort-like fossil with gametophyte and (possibly) an attached sporophyte (Edwards et al., 1995).
The clearly sporophytic (i.e. sporangia-bearing) fossils from the Silurian have, in many of the cases where preservation is adequate to show the structures if indeed they were present, one or more of the four essential attributes of homoiohydry, i.e. an endohydric conducting system, cuticle, stomata, and some underground structures. Preservation of Silurian fossils examined so far is never adequate to show if the fifth attribute of homoiohydry, i.e. intercellular gas spaces, occurred. The full suite of five structures permits water (and nutrient solute) supply to aerial axes when enough soil water is available to supply the transpiring surface with liquid water at a rate sufficient to support the transpiratory loss of water vapour found during rapid photon and CO2 absorption in photosynthesis. By stomatal closure organisms with these attributes can maintain cellular hydration for shorter or longer periods (depending on, for example, the water conductance of the cuticle plus epicuticular wax) when soil water supply is inadequate to make good the transpiratory water vapour loss when stomata are open. Stomatal closure prevents net CO2 fixation, and thus trades death from thirst for the potential of death by starvation, but by tiding the plant over periods of limited soil water supply as a hydrated vegetative entity the plant can grow on land and yet not be tolerant of desiccation in the vegetative state. For as yet imperfectly understood reasons the combination of homoiohydry and vegetative desiccation intolerance seems to be essential for any terrestrial plant which has structures more than about a metre above ground level (Raven, 1993, 1995a, 1997, 1998).
It must be emphasized that in most of these Silurian sporophytes the occurrence of all of the attributes of homoiohydry in a given (form) genus or species is very much the exception rather than the rule. Even for one of the most complex known (Upper) Silurian sporophytes, the (probable) lycophyte Baragwanathia, cuticle, stomata, tracheids, and (probably) intercellular gas spaces are known from above-ground structures in Lower Devonian specimens (but not so far from the less well preserved Upper Silurian fossils) (Hueber, 1983), but we have little knowledge of the underground structures which, it is widely believed, such plants must have possessed if they were to have been adequately anchored, and to have had a sufficient capacity for uptake of water and soil-derived nutrients (Driese and Mora, 2001). The aerial shoot of Baragwanathia had microphyllous leaves, with sporangia whose mode of attachment (to the upper leaf surface or to the axis just above leaf insertion with no evidence of any consistent relation between microphyll and sporangium) is still enigmatic. Any below-ground axes of Baragwanathia would be expected to lack the stomata, microphylls and sporangia as well as the overt cuticle. Without these features, and with generally imperfect preservation of the anatomy of Baragwanathia (at least in comparison with the Rhynie Chert fossils), how would such an axis system be recognized as being from Baragwanathia? It is clear from the size of the erect aerial axes of Baragwanathia that substantial below-ground structures would be needed.
Lower Devonian
In the Lower Devonian there are fossil localities with exceptional preservation, for example, the Rhynie Chert, and also localities with important evidence of the earliest rooting structures (Driese and Mora, 2001; Gensel et al., 2000; Hotton et al., 2001). Here a range of embryophyte sporophytes and gametophytes is found. The sporophytes have branched aerial axes (i.e. are polysporangiophytes: Kenrick and Crane, 1997) which are endohydric, but do not always have true xylem (i.e. water conducting cells with unevenly but regularly thickened walls typical of tracheids); an example of an endohydric plant without true xylem is Nothia aphylla (Kerp et al., 2001). Regardless of whether they have true xylem, these sporophyte axes have intercellular spaces, cuticle and stomata, and sporangia. Among those with true xylem are representatives with smooth axes (Rhynia gwynne-vaughanii) and, with microphylls, the lycophyte sensu lato Asteroxylon mackiei. Aglaophyton (and some other Rhynie plants) have underground axes bearing rhizoids; these axes have arbuscular mycorrhizas, but mycorrhizas also occur on above-ground axes (Nicolson, 1975; Pirozynski and Malloch, 1975; Pirozynski and Dalpé, 1989; Simon et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1995; Simon, 1996; Smith and Read, 1997). The occurrence of rhizoids may not always be an indicator of the subterranean nature of axes, since rhizoids of Rhynia are borne on hemispherical projections near the base of presumed aerial axes (Edwards, 1993). Edwards also points out that Asteroxylon sporophytes have anatomical differences (e.g. in the shape of the stele) between leafy aerial and smooth subterranean axes, but that distinction of the smooth axes as roots is not possible on the basis of endogenous branching, since the frequent branching by the smooth axes is always exogenous (Edwards, 1993). In the single known example of an Asteroxylon leafy shoot with endogenous branching it is not clear whether the branch is leafy or smooth (Edwards, 1993). In any case there is Grubb's warning about the use of endogenous branching as an infallible test of the root nature of an organ (Grubb, 1970), although his tracheophyte example, i.e. the extant Selaginella, is perhaps contentious (Bierhorst, 1971; Gifford and Foster, 1987; Lu and Jernstedt, 1996).
Fossils of other Lower Devonian embryophyte sporophytes, i.e. those from sites other than the Rhynie Chert, also have strong indications of the occurrence of roots, or at least structures with considerable similarity to roots. Thus, Rayner (Rayner, 1984) has suggested that the lycophyte (sensu lato) Drepanophycus spinaeformis had roots on the basis of the branching pattern and the attitude in the sediment of the smooth axes in relation to the bedding plane (Schweitzer, 1980). However, there is no anatomical evidence (e.g. endogenous branching) to support this view. Li and Edwards have re-investigated Drepanophycus spinaeformis from the Lower Devonian of Yunnan Province, southern China (Li and Edwards, 1995). This material, now named Drepanophycus qujingensis (Li and Edwards, 1995), was shown to have roots, i.e. structures borne by both fertile and sterile leafy shoots, which branch dichotomously at least five times. The roots appear to be inserted randomly, and the largest branching root system extends up to 30 mm from the stem. The diameter of the roots is about 3 mm at their attachment and rapidly decrease with branching; the smallest branches recovered have a diameter of less than 0.7 mm (Fig. 37D of Li and Edwards, 1995), and it is likely that the unpreserved, more apical, portions had an even smaller diameter. It is of interest that these roots were borne on leafy axes which were presumably above-ground but were probably prostrate, as the rooting system itself extends down into the rock, at an angle to the bedding plane in which the leafy axes were exposed.
The published information on roots or root-like structures in the early Devonian (Pragian-Emsian) (Gensel et al., 2001) has been reviewed, and new data presented on Lower Devonian fossils from Bathurst Island, Arctic Canada, and from New Brunswick and Gaspé, Canada. These plants with root-like structures are zosterophyllophytes or lycophytes sensu lato. Rooting structures in these fossils were identified by the following five characteristics granted that the aerial axes that bear the rooting structures have emergences or microphylls (Gensel et al., 2001). (1) The rooting structures are attached to aerial ones, but have no emergences or microphylls. (2) The rooting structures are generally much narrower in diameter, and shorter, than are the aerial axes that bear them. (3) The rooting structures are either unbranched or are irregularly branched; this contrasts with the more predictable branching of the aerial axes. (4) The rooting structures may have a sinuous or delicate appearance. (5) The rooting structures proceed in a direction opposite to that in which the aerial axes grow. These authors point out that characteristics 2–5 are also applicable to plants with naked axes, and that the rooting structures show no evidence of root caps or indisputable root hairs; furthermore, the anatomy of the rooting structures is not yet known.
The Bathurst Island fossils (Gensel et al., 2000) comprise Drepanophycus and Bathurstia spp. with aerial axis-borne rooting structures scattered along what appear to be trailing or rhizomatous structures, or forming parts of the so-called ‘K-branching’ structures, and Zosterophyllum sp. nov. with tufted rooting structures which occur as descending naked axes from plants with dense aggregations of branching aerial shoot systems. The Quebec and New Brunswick fossils comprise Crenaticaulis verruculosus and Sawdonia ornata: C. verruculosus has smooth, spinous, slender (0.5 mm wide) rooting structures departing at right angles to aerial or rhizomatous axes in regions where there are otherwise no branches (Gensel et al., 2001). Sawdonia ornata fossils have structures like the putative rooting structures of C. verruculosus in close association to aerial axes, but not attached to the S. ornata aerial axes. The association of the root-like structures with S. ornata is rendered more likely because S. ornata is essentially the only species present at that level in the bedding sequence. Furthermore, Rayner interprets structures associated with H-shaped branching Scottish Emsian specimens of Sawdonia ornata as root-like or as rhizophores (Rayner, 1983). These S. ornata specimens have one of the usually basipetally directed, smooth laterals produced at H-shaped branching which differs from the usual spiny branches; sometimes there is a short spineless projection in the position normally occupied by this longer structure (Rayner, 1983).
The discussion above shows that the evidence for roots in Lower Devonian fossil sporophytes is based on the occurrence of smooth subterranean axes with branching patterns similar to extant roots, and with a simpler xylem morphology (protostele) than the actinostele in aerial parts of plants such as Asteroxylon. Where the origin of branches in these underground axes is known, it is superficial. There is no evidence of a root cap, although this is not a commonly fossilized structure; an exception is the well-preserved root cap of the Pennsylvanian (Upper Carboniferous) marattaciou