4.7 Article

Seasonality and Phosphate Fertilization in Carbohydrates Storage: Carapa guianensis Aubl. Seedlings Responses

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 11, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants11151956

关键词

water availability; phosphor; plant biomass; carbohydrate allocation; C. guianensis

资金

  1. Fundacao Amazonia de Amparo a Estudos e Pesquisas-FAPESPA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The application of phosphate fertilizer and the evaluation period had an impact on the carbohydrate concentration of Carapa guianensis Aubl. seedlings. The phosphorus content varied with time in different plant parts, and the plants accumulated carbohydrates during the dry season but had lower dry matter production.
The low availability of phosphorus and water in soil can promote the remobilization of carbohydrates in the plant, releasing energy to mitigate stress. In this context, our objective was to analyze the production and allocation of carbohydrates in plants of Carapa guianensis Aubl. submitted to different doses of phosphate fertilization, during the rainy and dry seasons, in the western region of Para. We used three phosphorus dosages (0, 50, 250 kg ha(-1)) as treatments. We evaluated the plants during the dry and wet seasons. We quantified dry matter production, phosphorus content, total soluble sugars, reducing sugars, sucrose, and starch. Phosphate fertilization and different evaluation periods influenced carbohydrate concentrations (p < 0.05) in plants. The highest levels of P in the leaves were registered in October and, in the roots the content decreased with the passage of time in all treatments. The control had higher dry matter production in leaves and stems. During the dry season, there was an accumulation of carbohydrates in plants and a low production of dry matter. Soluble sugars and sucrose tended to be allocated to the stem, reducing sugars to the leaves and starch to the roots, in most periods. In general, C. guianensis seedlings were not very responsive to phosphorus addition.

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