4.7 Review

Adaptation of Foxtail Millet (Setaria italica L.) to Abiotic Stresses: A Special Perspective of Responses to Nitrogen and Phosphate Limitations

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00187

关键词

foxtail millet; abiotic stresses; nitrogen limitation; phosphate starvation; transporter

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31972491, 31772385]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amongst various environmental constraints, abiotic stresses are increasing the risk of food insecurity worldwide by limiting crop production and disturbing the geographical distribution of food crops. Millets are known to possess unique features of resilience to adverse environments, especially infertile soil conditions, although the underlying mechanisms are yet to be determined. The small diploid genome, short stature, excellent seed production, C-4 photosynthesis, and short life cycle of foxtail millet make it a very promising model crop for studying nutrient stress responses. Known to be a drought-tolerant crop, it responds to low nitrogen and low phosphate by respective reduction and enhancement of its root system. This special response is quite different from that shown by maize and some other cereals. In contrast to having a smaller root system under low nitrogen, foxtail millet enhances biomass accumulation, facilitating root thickening, presumably for nutrient translocation. The low phosphate response of foxtail millet links to the internal nitrogen status, which tends to act as a signal regulating the expression of nitrogen transporters and hence indicates its inherent connection with nitrogen nutrition. Altogether, the low nitrogen and low phosphate responses of foxtail millet can act as a basis to further determine the underlying molecular mechanisms. Here, we will highlight the abiotic stress responses of foxtail millet with a key note on its low nitrogen and low phosphate adaptive responses in comparison to other crops.

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