4.7 Article

Size selectivity of aqueous pores in stomatous cuticles of Vicia faba leaves

期刊

PLANTA
卷 221, 期 5, 页码 648-655

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-005-1480-1

关键词

chemical inducers; foliar nutrients; ion permeability; pesticides; penetration; promoters; stomata; trichomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Size selectivity of aqueous pores in Vicia leaf cuticles was investigated by measuring the penetration of calcium salts into the abaxial surface of detached leaves. Molecular weights of salts ranged from 111 g mol(-1) to 755 g mo(-1). Penetration in light at 20 degrees C and 100% humidity was a first order process and rate constants of penetration ranged from 0.39 h(-1)(CaCl2) to 0.058 h(-1)supercript stop (Ca-lactobionate). Penetration was a first order process in the dark as well, but the rate constants were smaller by a factor of 1.82. Plotting logarithmatised rate constants versus anhydrous molecular weights resulted in straight lines both in light and in the dark. The slopes per hour were very similar and the average slope was -1.2x10(-3) mol g(-1). Hence, size selectivity was not affected by stomatal opening, and in light or darkness permeability of Vicia cuticles decreased by a factor of 2.9 when molecular weight increased from 100 g mol(-1) to 500 g mol(-1). Silver nitrate was preferentially precipitated as silver chloride in guard cells, glandular trichomes and at the base of trichomes. It was concluded that these precipitates mark the location of aqueous pores in Vicia leaf cuticles. The size selectivity of aqueous pores in Vicia leaf cuticles is small compared to that observed in poplar leaf cuticles, in which permeability decreased by a factor of 7-13 for the same range of molecular weights. It is also much smaller than size selectivity of the lipophilic pathway in cuticles. These findings suggest that active ingredients of pesticides, growth regulators and chemical inducers with high molecular weights penetrate leaves at higher rates when formulated as ions.

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