4.7 Article

Genotypic differences in phosphorus acquisition and the rhizosphere properties of Brassica napus in response to low phosphorus stress

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 320, Issue 1-2, Pages 91-102

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-008-9873-0

Keywords

Low-P; Brassica napus L; P efficiency; Rhizosphere properties; P fractions

Funding

  1. National Basic Research and Development Program [2005CB120905]
  2. National 863 High Technology Program [2006AA10A112]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education China [20050504009]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genotypic differences in acquiring immobile P exist among species or cultivars within one species. We investigated the P-efficiency mechanisms of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) in low P soil by measuring plant growth, P acquisition and rhizosphere properties. Two genotypes with different P efficiencies were grown in a root-compartment experiment under low P (P15: 15 mg P kg(-1)) and high P (P100: 100 mg P kg(-1)) treatments. The P-efficient genotype produced more biomass, and had a high seed yield and high P acquisition efficiency under low P treatment. Under both P treatments, both genotypes decreased inorganic P (Pi) and organic P (Po) fractions in the rhizosphere soil. However there was no decrease in NaHCO3-Po at P100. For the P15 treatment, the concentrations of NaHCO3-Po and NaOH-Po were negatively correlated with soil acid phosphatase activity. The P-efficient genotype 102 differed from the P-inefficient genotype 105 in the following ways. In the rhizosphere the soil pH was lower, acid phosphatase activity was higher, and depletion of P was greater. Further the depletion zones were wider. These results suggested that improving P efficiency based on the character of P efficiency acquisition in P-efficient genotype would be a potential approach for maintaining rapeseed yield potential in soils with low P bioavailability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available