4.7 Article

Growth promotion and inhibition of the Amazonian wild rice species Oryza grandiglumis to survive flooding

期刊

PLANTA
卷 240, 期 3, 页码 459-469

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-014-2100-8

关键词

Deepwater rice; Ethylene response factor; Floating rice; Internode elongation; Oryza; Submergence-tolerance

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [24580022]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24580022] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Asian cultivated rice (Oryza sativa), distinct mechanisms to survive flooding are activated in two groups of varieties. Submergence-tolerant rice varieties possessing the SUBMERGENCE1A (SUB1A) gene display reduced growth during flash floods at the seedling stage and resume growth after the flood recedes, whereas deepwater rice varieties possessing the SNORKEL1 (SK1) and SNORKEL2 (SK2) genes display enhanced growth based on internodal elongation during prolonged submergence at the mature stage. In this study, we investigated the occurrence of these growth responses to submergence in the wild rice species Oryza grandiglumis, which is native to the Amazon floodplains. When subjected to gradual submergence, adult plants of O. grandiglumis accessions showed enhanced internodal elongation with rising water level and their growth response closely resembled that of deepwater varieties of O. sativa with high floating capacity. On the other hand, when subjected to complete submergence, seedlings of O. grandiglumis accessions displayed reduced shoot growth and resumed normal growth after desubmergence, similar to the response of submergence-tolerant varieties of O. sativa. Neither SUB1A nor the SK genes were detected in the O. grandiglumis accessions. These results indicate that the O. grandiglumis accessions are capable of adapting successfully to flooding by activating two contrasting mechanisms as the situation demands and that each mechanism of adaptation to flooding is not mediated by SUB1A or the SK genes.

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

4.7
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