4.5 Article

Differential tolerance to water deficit in two acai' (Euterpe oleracea Mart.) plant materials

期刊

ACTA PHYSIOLOGIAE PLANTARUM
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11738-016-2301-9

关键词

Drought; Growth; Photosynthesis; Water use efficiency; Water potential

资金

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES, Brasilia, Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two acai plant materials (BRS-PA cultivar and Hideo ecotype) were subjected to differential irrigation to examine its potential tolerance to water deficit. Seedlings were grown for 45 days under irrigation replacing different volumes of water required to the soil reaches field capacity (FC). The irrigations replaced 100% FC (control treatment), 70% FC, and 40% FC (water deficit treatments). The Hideo ecotype showed more significant decreases in leaf water potential than BRS-PA. The former showed lower net CO2 assimilation rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration and instantaneous water use efficiency, particularly under irrigation of 70% FC. In Hideo, the decreases in A mediated by water deficit were coupled to chlorophyll (Chl) degradation. In BRS-PA, the A and Chl content were decreased only under 40% FC. Starch content was unchanged between plant materials irrigated with 70% FC; however, it was decreased in Hideo seedlings irrigated with 40% FC. Accumulation of total soluble carbohydrates, glucose, and fructose has occurred in Hideo ecotype under 70% FC and in both plant materials under 40% FC. The water deficit caused more striking decreases in Hideo growth than in BRS-PA, especially by reducing leaf dry matter, root dray matter (under 70% FC), and both total and specific leaflet areas. Under irrigation with 40% FC, plant material differences in growth variables were negligible. The results indicate that BRS-PA cultivar tolerate mild water deficit (70% FC) more satisfactorily than Hideo; however, both plant materials were equally sensitive to more severe water deficit (40% FC).

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