Accumulation of osmoprotectants in wheat cultivars of different drought tolerance

Szegletes, Zsolt; Erdei, László; Tari, Irma; Cseuz, L.

doi:10.1007/bf03543622

Cited by 45 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The increase in total soluble sugars as a response to water stress was also observed in Solanum lycocarpum (Chaves Filho & Stacciarini-Seraphin, 2001), Schizolobium amazonicum and Schizolobium parahyba (Carvalho, 2005). According to Szegletes et al (2000), the accumulation of soluble sugars and starch, besides providing advantages from the point of view of lower osmotic potential and the maintenance of turgidity, serves as carbon and nitrogen reserves for the immediate resumption of growth once environmental conditions become more favorable.The low soluble sugars in the roots of hydroponic lettuce can be the result of the partially ammoniacal nutrition (12.5%) of the composition of nutritive solution (Furlani, 1997), since the absorbed ammonium could be immediately incorporated in the roots, increasing the demand for photoassimilates (Cometti et al, 2004). Both adaxial and abaxial sides of lettuce leaves had stomata, therefore characterizing lettuce as amphistomatic.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Physiological differences of ‘Crocantela’ lettuce cultivated in conventional and hydroponic systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional soil and hydroponic growing systems have inherent differences in water and nutritional availability. These differences may affect plant physiological development and biochemistry. The objective of this study was to evaluate lettuce (Lactica sativa) cv. ‘Crocantela’development in either a hydroponic system or in soil through analyses of vegetative growth; chlorophyll abundance; and sugar and starch content. We evaluated the dry mass (DM), fresh mass (FM), number of leaves (LN), stomatal density and contents of chlorophyll, carotenoids, sugars and starch. Due to the improved nutritional conditions, especially in relation to macronutrients, plants grown in hydroponic system presented significant differences in chlorophyll a (0.4481 mg/g), b (0.1233 mg/g) and total chlorophyll content (0.5714 mg/g), as well as greater biomass when compared to plants cultivated in pots (FM: 342.69 g; DM: 21.13 g; NL: 17.75 g). The lower water availability for plants cultivated in pots influenced the increase in carbohydrate concentration and stomatal density in leaves (adaxial: 45.83 stomates/mm2; abaxial: 64.75 stomates/mm2) of lettuce plants.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Physiological differences of ‘Crocantela’ lettuce cultivated in conventional and hydroponic systems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Jones (1992), several mechanisms exist by which plants can maintain their physiological activity when they are subjected to water stress. One of these mechanisms is called osmotic adjustment, which is due to the accumulation of osmotically active substances (such as glycinebetaine, sorbitol and proline) in plant leaves in response to water stress treatment (Büssis et al 1998;Hernandez et al 2000;Szegletes et al 2000). As a result of osmotic adjustment, turgor can be maintained in tomato leaves, particularly when drought is imposed slowly.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photosynthetic, Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Tomato Plants to Polyethylene Glycol‐Induced Water Deficit

Zgallaï

Steppe

Lemeur

2005

JIPB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polyethylene glycol (PEG 6000)-induced water deficit causes physiological as well as biochemical changes in plants. The present study reports on the results of such changes in hydroponically grown tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv. Nikita). Plants were subjected to moderate and severe levels of water stress (i.e. water potentials in the nutrient solution of -0.51 and -1.22 MPa, respectively). Water stress markedly affected the parameters of gas exchange. Net photosynthetic rate (Pn) decreased with the induction of water stress. Accordingly, a decrease in the transpiration rate (E) was observed. The ratio of both (Pn/E) resulted in a decrease in water use efficiency. One of the possible reasons for the reduction in Pn is structural damage to the thylakoids, which affects the photosynthetic transport of electrons. This was indicated by an increase in non-photochemical quenching and a reduction in the quantum yield of photosystem II. Furthermore, a decrease in both leaf water potential and leaf osmotic potential was observed, which resulted in a significant osmotic adjustment during stress conditions. Analysis of the physiological responses was complemented with a study on changes in proline content. In stressed plants, a 10-fold increase in proline content was detected compared with control plants. It is clear that water stress tolerance is the result of a cumulative action of various physiological and biochemical processes, all of which were affected by PEG 6000-induced water stress.

show abstract

“…Studies have shown that genotypes of salt-tolerant plants generally have enhanced or higher constitutive activity of antioxidant enzymes under salt stress, showing increased activity of antioxidant enzymes and antioxidant contents in response to salt stress, compared to sensitive-cultivars [23,24].In order to obtain a deeper understanding of the selection of salt-tolerant genotypes, the mechanisms behind the effects of salt on the growth, morphology, physiology, and antioxidative responses of plants must first be identified [25,26]. Salt may affect plant growth indirectly by decreasing the rate of photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, and transpiration, and thereby cause declines in growth [27]. Indeed, under saline conditions, a substantial reduction in photosynthesis has been associated with a decrease in total chlorophyll content and distortion in chlorophyll ultrastructure [28].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to obtain a deeper understanding of the selection of salt-tolerant genotypes, the mechanisms behind the effects of salt on the growth, morphology, physiology, and antioxidative responses of plants must first be identified [25,26]. Salt may affect plant growth indirectly by decreasing the rate of photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, and transpiration, and thereby cause declines in growth [27]. Indeed, under saline conditions, a substantial reduction in photosynthesis has been associated with a decrease in total chlorophyll content and distortion in chlorophyll ultrastructure [28].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Salt Tolerance in Doubled Haploid Wheat Lines

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving salt tolerance of genotypes requires a source of genetic variation and multiple accurate selection criteria for discriminating their salt tolerance. A combination of morpho-physiological and biochemical parameters and multivariate analysis was used to detect salt tolerance variation in 15 wheat lines developed by doubled haploid (DHL) technique. They were then compared with the salt-tolerant check cultivar Sakha 93. Salinity stress was investigated at three salinity levels (0, 100, and 200 mM NaCl) for 25 days. Considerable genetic variation was observed for all traits, as was high heritability (>60%) and genetic gain (>20%). Principal component analysis indicated the ability of nine traits (root number, root length, root dry weight, shoot length, shoot dry weight, specific root length, relative water content, membrane stability index, and catalase) to identify differences in salinity tolerance among lines. Three traits (shoot length, shoot dry weight, and catalase) were indicative of salt-tolerance, indicating their importance in improving and evaluating salt tolerant genotypes for breeding programs. The salinity tolerance membership index based on these three traits classified one new line (DHL21) and the check cultivar (Sakha 93) as highly salt-tolerant, DHL25, DHL26, DHL2, DHL11, and DHL5 as tolerant, and DHL23 and DHL12 as intermediate. Discriminant function analysis and MANOVA suggested differences among the five groups of tolerance. Among the donor genotypes, Sakha 93 remained the donor of choice for improving salinity tolerance during the seedling stage. The tolerated lines (DHL21, DHL25, DHL26, DHL2, DHL11, and DHL5) could be also recommended as useful and novel genetic resources for improving salinity tolerance of wheat in breeding programs.

show abstract

Accumulation of osmoprotectants in wheat cultivars of different drought tolerance

Cited by 45 publications

References 27 publications

Physiological differences of ‘Crocantela’ lettuce cultivated in conventional and hydroponic systems

Physiological differences of ‘Crocantela’ lettuce cultivated in conventional and hydroponic systems

Photosynthetic, Physiological and Biochemical Responses of Tomato Plants to Polyethylene Glycol‐Induced Water Deficit

Detecting Salt Tolerance in Doubled Haploid Wheat Lines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About