Growth, ion content, gas exchange, and water relations of wheat genotypes differing in salt tolerances

被引:130
作者
El-Hendawy, SE
Hu, YC
Schmidhalter, U
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, Dept Plant Sci, D-85350 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany
[2] Suez Canal Univ, Fac Agr, Dept Agron, Ismailia, Egypt
来源
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH | 2005年 / 56卷 / 02期
关键词
mineral elements; photosynthesis; plant growth; salinity; salt tolerance;
D O I
10.1071/AR04019
中图分类号
S [农业科学];
学科分类号
09 ;
摘要
Although the mechanisms of salt tolerance in plants have received much attention for many years, genotypic differences influencing salt tolerance still remain uncertain. To investigate the key physiological factors associated with genotypic differences in salt tolerance of wheat and their relationship to salt stress, 13 wheat genotypes from Egypt, Australia, India, and Germany, that differ in their salt tolerances, were grown in a greenhouse in soils of 4 different salinity levels ( control, 50, 100, and 150 mM NaCl). Relative growth rate (RGR), net assimilation rate (NAR), leaf area ratio (LAR), photosynthesis, chlorophyll content (SPAD value), and leaf water relations were measured at Days 45 and 60 after sowing. Mineral nutrient content in leaves and stems was determined at Day 45 and final harvest. Salinity reduced RGR, NAR, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, water and osmotic potentials, and K+ and Ca2+ content in stems and leaves at all times, whereas it increased leaf respiration, and Na+ and Cl- content in leaves and stems. LAR was not affected by salinity and the effect of salinity on SPAD value was genotype-dependent. Growth of salt-tolerant genotypes (Sakha 8, Sakha 93, and Kharchia) was affected by salinity primarily due to a decline in photosynthetic capacity rather than a reduction in leaf area, whereas NAR was the more important factor in determining RGR of moderately tolerant and salt-sensitive genotypes. We conclude that Na+ and Cl- exclusion did not always reflect the salt tolerance, whereas K+ in the leaves and Ca2+ in the leaves and stems were closely associated with genotypic differences in salt tolerance among the 13 genotypes even at Day 45. Calcium content showed a greater difference in salt tolerance among the genotypes than did K+ content. The genotypic variation in salt tolerance was also observed for the parameters involved in photosynthesis, and water and osmotic potentials, but not for turgor pressure.
引用
收藏
页码:123 / 134
页数:12
相关论文
共 54 条
[41]   VARIATION IN GROWTH AND ION ACCUMULATION BETWEEN 2 SELECTED POPULATIONS OF TRIFOLIUM-REPENS L DIFFERING IN SALT TOLERANCE [J].
ROGERS, ME ;
NOBLE, CL .
PLANT AND SOIL, 1992, 146 (1-2) :131-136
[42]  
SAS Institute, 2000, SAS US GUID VERS 4 0
[43]   SODIUM ACCUMULATION IN LEAVES OF TRITICUM SPECIES THAT DIFFER IN SALT TOLERANCE [J].
SCHACHTMAN, DP ;
MUNNS, R .
AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY, 1992, 19 (03) :331-340
[44]   SAP PRESSURE IN VASCULAR PLANTS - NEGATIVE HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE CAN BE MEASURED IN PLANTS [J].
SCHOLANDER, PF ;
HAMMEL, HT ;
BRADSTREET, ED ;
HEMMINGSEN, EA .
SCIENCE, 1965, 148 (3668) :339-+
[45]   MAINTENANCE RESPIRATION AND CARBON BALANCE OF PLANTS AT LOW-LEVELS OF SODIUM-CHLORIDE SALINITY [J].
SCHWARZ, M ;
GALE, J .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY, 1981, 32 (130) :933-941
[46]   EFFECTS OF SALT STRESS ON THE GROWTH, ION CONTENT, STOMATAL BEHAVIOR AND PHOTOSYNTHETIC CAPACITY OF A SALT-SENSITIVE SPECIES, PHASEOLUS-VULGARIS L [J].
SEEMANN, JR ;
CRITCHLEY, C .
PLANTA, 1985, 164 (02) :151-162
[47]  
SEMIKHATOVA OA, 1993, RUSS PLANT PHYSIOL+, V40, P490
[48]   Osmolyte accumulation: can it really help increase crop yield under drought conditions? [J].
Serraj, R ;
Sinclair, TR .
PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT, 2002, 25 (02) :333-341
[49]   Ionic and osmotic components of salt stress specifically modulate net ion fluxes from bean leaf mesophyll [J].
Shabala, S .
PLANT CELL AND ENVIRONMENT, 2000, 23 (08) :825-837
[50]   Effect of calcium on root development and root ion fluxes in salinised barley seedlings [J].
Shabala, S ;
Shabala, L ;
Van Volkenburgh, E .
FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY, 2003, 30 (05) :507-514