4.5 Article

Plant growth-promoting bacteria as a tool to improve salinity tolerance in sweet pepper

期刊

FUNCTIONAL PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 82-90

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/FP11173

关键词

Azospirillum; Capsicum annuum L.; growth analysis; nitrogen; salt stress

资金

  1. European Social Fund
  2. Probelte SA
  3. IMIDA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To characterise the effect of bacterial inoculants (Azospirillum brasilense and Pantoea dispersa) on the response of sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) to saline stress, plants were exposed to 0, 40, 80 and 120 mM NaCl in solution. The effect on plant growth; leaf gas exchange; NO3-, Cl-, K+ and Na+ accumulation; and chlorophyll fluorescence and content were investigated. Total plant DW was reduced significantly by salinity but when inoculants were applied, DW was increased. Inoculated plants showed higher DW accumulation in the roots. Salinity levels up to 80 mM NaCl did not affect the net assimilation rate in inoculated plants but 40 mM NaCl was enough to reduce this parameter in non-inoculated plants. The leaf area ratio was not modified substantially by inoculation. The leaf Cl-concentration of inoculated plants was reduced at the highest salinity, compared with control plants, and NO3- concentration increased markedly. A higher K+ : Na+ ratio was found in inoculated plants. Leaf photosynthesis and stomatal conductance were impaired significantly at moderate, but not low, salinity, the effect of inoculation being enough to maintain higher stomatal conductance under higher stress. The photochemical efficiency of PSII and the relative chlorophyll content were not affected by the inoculants. Thus, the effects of the inoculants on the response to salinity were due mainly to stomatal regulation of photosynthesis rather than effects on biochemical limitations on photosynthesis. These results indicate the benefits of these bacterial inoculants in ameliorating the deleterious effect of NaCl in a salt-sensitive crop like sweet pepper.

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

4.5
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