4.5 Article

Comparison of the response of ion distribution in the tissues and cells of the succulent plants Aloe vera and Salicornia europaea to saline stress

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE
卷 172, 期 6, 页码 875-883

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jpln.200900122

关键词

NaCl stress; seedlings; growth; ion homeostasis; aqueous cells; ion transport

资金

  1. Hi-Tech Reasearch Development Program of China [2007AA091702]
  2. Jiangsu Science Foundation for postdoctoral support [0701015C]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30600086]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There exists a great variability among plant species regarding their sensitivity and resistance to high salinity in soil, and most often this variability is related with the ability of a particular plant species to regulate ion homeostasis and transport. In this study, we have investigated the effects of NaCl on growth rate, water status, and ion distribution in different cells and tissues of two succulent plants, Aloe vera and Salicornia europaea. Our results showed that the growth of A. vera seedlings was significantly decreased in response to salinity. However, the growth of S. europaea seedlings was greatly stimulated by high concentrations of NaCl. Under saline conditions, S. europaea seedlings maintained K+ and Ca2+ uptake in roots and showed a higher root-to-shoot flux of Na+ and Cl- as compared to A. vera. Despite great accumulation of Na+ and Cl- in photosynthetically active shoot cells in S. europaea, its growth was enhanced, indicating S. europaea is capable of compartmentalizing salt ions in the vacuoles of shoot cells. Aloe vera seedlings, however, showed a low transport rate of Na+ and Cl- to leaves and suppressed uptake of K+ and Ca2+ in roots during NaCl treatment. Our results also implicate that A. vera may be able to accumulate Na+ and Cl- in the metabolically inactive aqueous cells in leaves and, as a result, the plant can survive and can maintain growth under saline conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据