4.1 Article

Influence of stress history on the response of the dioecious plant Urtica dioica L. to abiotic stress

期刊

PLANT ECOLOGY & DIVERSITY
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 45-54

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17550874.2011.557400

关键词

dioecious plant; herbaceous perennial; maturity; plant stress responses; reproduction; sex-related differences; Urtica dioica

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Innovation of the Spanish Government [BFU2009-07294, BFU2009-06045, CSD2008-00040]
  2. Generalitat de Catalunya
  3. Spanish Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Reaching maturity is thought to affect plant responses to stress, but few studies have examined thus far how stress periods during the juvenile phase can alter the response of plants in a mature stage, particularly in dioecious plants. Aims: This study tested the hypothesis that sex and stress history can alter the response of Urtica dioica plants to abiotic stress. Methods: Stress indicators (water content, chlorophylls, the Fv/Fm ratio and the extent of lipid peroxidation) were measured in leaves of juvenile and mature plants exposed to a combination of water and nutrient deficit, with an emphasis on evaluating the effects of stress during the juvenile phase on the stress response of mature plants. Results: Stress treatment during the juvenile phase affected plant response to stress during the mature phase. Leaves of reproductive shoots were the most sensitive to stress history, as shown by increases in lipid peroxidation in leaves of reproductive shoots relative to non-reproductive ones. Leaves of both shoot types responded similarly in males and females, which showed no significant differences in any of the parameters measured. Conclusions: Stress history appears to determine the response of mature U. dioica plants to abiotic stress, plants with a stress history showing acclimation to subsequent stress, leaves of non-reproductive shoots of both males and females being more stress tolerant and allowing plant survival under severe stress.

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

4.1
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