4.7 Article

Morphological and physiological responses of two chrysanthemum cultivars differing in their tolerance to waterlogging

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages 87-93

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2009.06.006

Keywords

Waterlogging; Chrysanthemum; Anaerobic respiration enzyme; Antioxidant enzyme; Ethylene

Funding

  1. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University of Chinese Ministry of Education [NCET-06-0489]
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China [2006BAD01A1806]
  3. Shanghai Agricultural Committee [2006, 4-3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Responses to waterlogging of a tolerant chrysanthemum cultivar ('53-4') were compared with those of a susceptible one ('13-13'). just 4 days of waterlogging were enough to induce wilting and leaf chlorosis in '13-13', but there was no visual damage to the leaves of '53-4' after 8 days of treatment. After 20 clays, only a small number of adventitious roots had emerged from '13-13' sterns, but many vigorous adventitious roots had formed in '53-4'. Waterlogging induced increases in the activity of alcohol dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.1), pyruvate decarboxylase (EC 4.1.1.1) and lactate dehydrogenase (EC 1.1.1.27) in both cultivars, but the increases in '13-13' were more pronounced than in '53-4'. On the other hand, the activity of superoxide dismutase (EC 1.15.1.1), ascorbate peroxidase (EC) and catalase (EC 1.11.1.6) was higher in '53-4' than in '13-13'. Leaves of '13-13' had a higher content of malondialdehyde, and the amount of this stress indicator in '53-4' was stable throughout the waterlogging period. Ethylene production was enhanced by waterlogging in both cultivars, but peak ethylene production occurred 2 days earlier in the tolerant cultivar, and was 3-fold higher than in the susceptible one. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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