4.7 Article

Tolerance of crop plants to oxygen deficiency stress: fermentative activity and photosynthetic capacity of entire seedlings under hypoxia and anoxia

期刊

PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
卷 117, 期 4, 页码 508-520

出版社

BLACKWELL MUNKSGAARD
DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2003.00051.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigates the reactions of rice, wheat and maize to anoxia (plants without access to oxygen) and hypoxia (roots with very limited access to oxygen). We studied the adaptations of these intact crop plants because they are known to differ widely in their tolerance to oxygen deficiency. In hypoxia, there was an accumulation of sugars, especially in wheat and maize, although both flood-sensitive species significantly increased the activities of fermentative and glycolytic enzymes, clearly more than in rice. In rice, avoiding an oxygen limitation due to the effective aeration system (30% of root cross-sectional area) may have accounted for only a minor metabolic reaction to hypoxia. In anoxia, maize and wheat quickly lost viability and nearly all photosynthetic capacity, while most rice leaves stayed turgid and green, losing only 50% of the photosynthetic capacity. A strong metabolic arrest under anoxia was obvious for the sucrolytic, glycolytic and fermentative enzymes in all tested species, but was most pronounced in rice. Of the 14 enzymes studied, rice showed the lowest activity increase in hypoxia for 11 enzymes, and the strongest activity decrease in anoxia for 8 enzymes. However, rice was able even under anoxia to keep a 1/4 of the ATP level of the aerated control, while it was at the detection limit in maize and wheat. It appears that in anoxic rice, the switch to metabolic dormancy and maintenance of basic shoot meristems diminishes the needs for energy and substrate. Additionally, rice already has lower sugar demand under hypoxia, and sugar supply appears to be sustained under anoxia by a functioning anaerobic amylase and by the photosynthetically active shoot.

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