4.5 Article

Difference in response to aluminum stress among Tibetan wild barley genotypes

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION AND SOIL SCIENCE
卷 174, 期 6, 页码 952-960

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jpln.201100148

关键词

Al resistance; acid stress; root elongation; Tibet annual wild barley

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171488, 30630047]
  2. Special Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of China [FANEDD 200556]
  3. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation for Outstanding Young Scientists [R306202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wild barley (Hordeum sp.) germplasm is rich in genetic diversity and provides a treasure trove of useful genes for crop improvement. We carried out a comprehensive program combining short-term hydroponic screening via hematoxylin-staining of root-regrowth procedure and filter paperbased evaluation of diverse germplasm in response to Al/acid stress using 105 annual Tibetan wild barley and 45 cultivated barley genotypes. Root elongation among the 105 Tibetan wild barley genotypes varied significantly after Al exposure, ranging from 62.9% to 80.0% in variation coefficients and 4.35 to 4.45 in diversity index. These genotypic differences in Al resistance were fairly consistent in both the hydroponic and filter paperbased evaluations: XZ16, XZ166, and XZ113 were selected as Al-resistant genotypes, and XZ61, XZ45, and XZ98 as Al-sensitive wild genotypes. Furthermore, significantly lower Al concentrations in roots and shoots were detected in the three selected Al-resistant genotypes than in the three sensitive genotypes in the filter paperbased experiment. Meanwhile, XZ16 was the least affected by Al toxicity in regard to reduced SPAD value (chlorophyll meter readings), plant height, root length, dry biomass, tillers per plant, and chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) in the long-term hydroponic experiment compared with the Al-resistant cultivated barley cv. Dayton, while XZ61 had the severest stress symptoms.

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