4.0 Article

Phosphate forms in plant and their internal buffering in five soybean cultivars

Journal

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
Volume 29, Issue 2, Pages 249-257

Publisher

SOC BRASILEIRA DE CIENCIA DO SOLO
DOI: 10.1590/S0100-06832005000200010

Keywords

phosphorus; phosphate fractions; phosphorus deprivation; nutritional stress

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Differences among plants in their ability to support nutritional stress periods may be caused by a differential vacuole capacity of ion storage and release and may also depend on the intensity of nutrient re-translocation under such conditions. In five soybean cultivars, submitted to eight days of P deprivation, the dry matter production and the contents of three phosphorus (P) forms inorganic (Pi), organic (Po), and acid-soluble total (Pts) of different plant organs were determined. Pi release velocity (RSPi) was estimated as the tangent to the equations obtained for Pi f(t) at the point t = 2 days (the mean point in the period of greatest Pi decrease), considering that -delta Pi/delta t expresses the rate of Pi release. The internal Pi buffering capacity (IBCPi) was calculated as the inverse of the RSPi. Cultivars' differences in size of the non-metabolic Pi pool, RSPi, and the ability to transport Pi from less to more actively metabolizing regions were evaluated. The preferential Pi source and sink compartments under limited P absorption conditions were also evaluated. The cultivar Santa Rosa showed the highest Pi storage ability when the external supply was high, and a more intensive release under low P supply conditions than IAC8 and UFV1. The cultivar Uberaba was superior to Doko in its ability to store and use Pi. In all cultivars, upper leaves and roots were the main sink of Pi stored in the middle and lower leaves. Roots and upper leaves showed larger RSPi and lower IBCPi values than middle and lower leaves.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available