4.0 Article

Germination responses of Lycium humile, an extreme halophytic Solanaceae: understanding its distribution in saline mudflats of the southern Puna

期刊

ACTA BOTANICA BRASILICA
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 540-548

出版社

SOC BOTANICA BRASIL
DOI: 10.1590/0102-33062020abb0034

关键词

Andes; halophyte; Lycium humile; Puna; salinity; salt tolerance; Solanaceae

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)-Argentina (PIP) [11220170100147CO]
  3. Secretaria de Ciencia y TecnologiaUNC [411-18]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although knowledge about halophytic Solanaceae is scarce, it is known that several species within genus Lycium tolerate salinity. Lycium humile grows in highly saline soils in mudflats near saline Andean lakes. This study evaluated the germination responses of L. humile under different scarification methods, photoperiods, temperatures and saline conditions and, simultaneously, tested seedling survival under different iso-osmotic conditions. Dormancy and germination were found to be regulated by interactions with different factors, with the highest germination percentages being obtained by immersion in sulfuric acid, with a temperature of 25 degrees C and a temperature regime of 5/25 degrees C, under which seeds were neutrally photoblastic. As osmotic potential of saline solutions decreased, germination also decreased drastically but the seedling survival percentage was higher than 30 % at 600 mM NaCl. No seeds germinated in any of the polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions and no seedling survival was observed from -1.2 MPa PEG solutions. More than 90 % of seeds incubated in NaCl were able to recover germination after being transferred to distilled water, independently of NaCl treatments. We concluded that the effects of extreme environmental conditions on germination responses and seed tolerance to salinity may determine the occurrence and restricted distribution of L. humile.

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

4.0
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