4.5 Article

Comparison of European with West Asian and North African winter barleys in tolerance to boron toxicity - Tolerance of winter barleys to boron toxicity

Journal

EUPHYTICA
Volume 123, Issue 3, Pages 307-314

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1015047523382

Keywords

boron toxicity; Hordeum vulgare; landraces; seedling test; toxicity symptoms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three plastic-house experiments were conducted to compare the tolerance of European with West Asian and North African (WANA) winter barleys to boron (B) toxicity. Experiment I screened 24 winter barley entries with diverse origins. Experiment III tested 420 random accessions from seven European and seven WANA countries. Plants were screened in a soil mixed with boric acid (50 mg B/kg) and foliar B-toxicity symptom scores were recorded. Lower scores indicated higher B-toxicity tolerance. In Experiment II, five lines/varieties from each of the European and WANA groups were grown in pots with two soil B levels (0 and 25 mg B/kg). The West Asian landrace barleys had a lower mean B-toxicity symptom score than the European ones. The Syrian landrace variety normally grown in drier areas had a lower score than the Syrian landrace variety grown in wetter areas. Dry weights of the European and WANA groups were not different without adding B, but dry weight under 25 mg B/kg was lower for the European group than the WANA group. European accessions had a higher mean B-toxicity symptom score than the WANA accessions. Iranian and Afghan accessions had the lowest mean scores among countries. These results support the hypothesis that European winter barley varieties and accessions are less tolerant to B toxicity than those WANA accessions and varieties developed from local landraces. The lower B-toxicity tolerance could be a factor adversely affecting the performance of European winter barley varieties in the highlands of WANA.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available