Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 176, Issue 2, pp 307–316 | Cite as

Wheat genotypes differ in Zn efficiency when grown in chelate-buffered nutrient solution

I. Growth
  • Zdenko Rengel
  • Robin D. Graham
Research Article

Abstract

Ten Triticum aestivum and two Triticum turgidum conv. durum genotypes were grown in chelate-buffered nutrient solution at Zn supplies ranging from deficient to sufficient (free Zn activities from 2 to 200 pM, pZn from 11.7 to 9.7). The critical level of Zn ion activity in solution for healthy growth of wheat plants was around 40 pM. Genotypes differed in the growth response: those classified as Zn-efficient suffered less reduction of shoot growth and did not change the rate of root growth at a Zn supply quite deficient for Zn-inefficient genotypes. Root growth of Zn-inefficient genotypes increased at deficient Zn supply. The shoot/root ratio was the most sensitive parameter of Zn efficiency; Zn-efficient genotypes showed less reduction in the ratio when grown at deficient compared to sufficient Zn supply. Classification of wheat genotypes into Zn-efficient and Zn-inefficient groups after screening in chelate-buffered nutrient solution corresponded well with classification obtained in field experiments on Zn-deficient soil.

Key words

chelate deficiency genotypic differences growth screening Triticum zinc 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bell P F, Chaney R L and Angle J S 1991 Free metal activity and total metal concentrations as indices of micronutrient availability to barley [Hordeum vulgare (L.) ‘Klages’]. Plant and Soil 130, 51–62.Google Scholar
  2. Bell R W, Kirk G J, Plaskett D and Loneragan J F 1990 Diagnosis of zinc deficiency in peanut (Arachis hypogea) by plant analysis. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 21, 273–285.Google Scholar
  3. Cakmak I and Marschner H 1988 Increase in membrane permeability and exudation in roots of zinc deficient plants. J. Plant Physiol. 132, 356–361.Google Scholar
  4. Cakmak I, Marschner H and Bangerth F 1989 Effect of zinc nutritional status on growth, protein metabolism and levels of indole-3-acetic acid and other phytohormones in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Exp. Bot. 40, 405–412.Google Scholar
  5. Chaney R L, Bell P F and Coulombe B A 1989 Screening strategies for improved nutrient uptake and utilization by plants. HortScience 24, 565–572.Google Scholar
  6. Dang Y P, Edwards D G, Dalal R C and Tiller K G 1993 Identification of an index tissue to predict zinc status of wheat. Plant and Soil 154, 161–167.Google Scholar
  7. Freeden A L, Rao I M and Terry N 1989 Influence of phosphorus nutrition on growth and carbon partitioning in Glycine max. Plant Physiol. 89, 225–230.Google Scholar
  8. GENSTAT 5 Committee 1989 GENSTAT 5. Reference Manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Graham R D, Ascher J S and Hynes S C 1992 Selecting zinc-efficient cereal genotypes for soils of low zinc status. Plant and Soil 146, 241–250.Google Scholar
  10. Graham R D and Rengel Z 1993 Genotypic variation in zinc uptake and utilization by plants. In Zinc in Soils and Plants. Ed. A DRobson. pp 107–118. Kluwer Academic Publishers, dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. Grundon N J 1987 Hungry Crops: A Guide to Nutrient Deficiencies in Field Crops. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane 242p.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson M B 1993 Are plant hormones involved in root to shoot communication? Adv. Bot. Res. 19, 103–187.Google Scholar
  13. Laurie S H, Tancock N P, McGrath S P and Sanders J R 1991 Influence of complexation on the uptake by plants of iron, manganese, copper and zinc. I. Effect of EDTA in a multi-metal and computer simulation study. J. Exp. Bot. 42, 509–513.Google Scholar
  14. Loneragan J F, Grunes D L, Welch R M, Aduayi E A, Tengah A, Lazar V A and Cary E E 1982 Phosphorus accumulation and toxicity in leaves in relation to zinc supply. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 345–352.Google Scholar
  15. MacNair M R 1993 The genetics of metal tolerance in vascular plants. New Phytol. 124, 541–559.Google Scholar
  16. Nable R O and Webb M J 1993 Further evidence that zinc is required throughout the root zone for optimal plant growth and development. Plant and Soil 150, 247–253.Google Scholar
  17. Norvell W A, Dabkovska-Naskret H and Cary E E 1987 Effect of phosphorus and zinc fertilization on the solubility of Zn2+ in two alkaline soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51, 584–588.Google Scholar
  18. Norvell W A and Welch R M 1993 Growth and nutrient uptake by barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv Herta): Studies using an N-(2-hydroxyethyl)ethylenedinitrilotriacetic acid-buffered nutrient solution technique. I. Zinc ion requirements. Plant Physiol. 101, 619–625.Google Scholar
  19. Paivoke A 1983 The long term effect of zinc on growth and development, chlorophyll content and nitrogen fixation in the garden pea. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 20, 205–213.Google Scholar
  20. Parker D R 1993 Novel nutrient solutions for zinc nutrition research: buffering free zinc2+ with synthetic chelators and P with hydroxyapatite. In Plant Nutrition-from Genetic Engineering to Field Practice. Ed. N JBarrow. pp 677–680. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  21. Parker D R, Aguilera J J and Thomason D N 1992 Zinc-phosphorus interactions in two cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) grown in chelator-buffered nutrient solutions. Plant and Soil 143, 163–177.Google Scholar
  22. Parker D R, Norvell W A and Chaney R L 1995 GEOCHEM-PC-A chemical speciation program for IBM and compatible personal computers. In Chemical Equilibrium and Reaction Models. Eds. R HLoeppert, A PSchwab and SGoldberg. ASA, SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. pp 253–269.Google Scholar
  23. Rengel Z 1990 Competitive Al3+ inhibition of net Mg2+ uptake by intact Lolium multiflorum roots. II. Plant age effects. Plant Physiol. 93, 1261–1267.Google Scholar
  24. Rengel Z and Graham R D 1995a Importance of seed Zn content for wheat growth on Zn-deficient soil. I. Vegetative growth. Plant and Soil 173, 259–266.Google Scholar
  25. Rengel Z and Graham R D 1995b Wheat genotypes differ in Zn efficiency when grown in the chelate-buffered nutrient solution. II. Nutrient uptake. Plant and Soil 176, 317–324.Google Scholar
  26. Rengel Z and Jurkic V 1992 Genotypic differences in wheat Al tolerance. Euphytica 62, 111–117.Google Scholar
  27. Reuter D J and Robinson J B 1986 Plant Analysis. An Interpretation Manual. Inkata Press, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  28. Sillanpää M and Vlek P L G 1985 Micronutrients and the agroecology of tropical and Mediterranean regions. Fert. Res. 7, 151–167.Google Scholar
  29. Webb M J and Loneragan J F 1988 Effect of zinc deficiency on growth, phosphorus concentration, and phosphorus toxicity of wheat plants. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 52, 1676–1680.Google Scholar
  30. Webb M J and Loneragan J F 1990 Zinc translocation to wheat roots and its implications for a phosphorus/zinc interaction in wheat plants. J. Plant Nutr. 13, 1499–1512.Google Scholar
  31. Welch R M and Norvell W A 1993 Growth and nutrient uptake by barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv Herta): Studies using an N-(2-hydroxyethyl)ethylenedinitrilotriacetic acid-buffered nutreint solution technique. I. Role of zinc in the uptake and root leakage of mineral nutrients. Plant Physiol. 101, 627–631.Google Scholar
  32. Yang X, Römheld V and Marschner H 1994 Application of chelatorbuffered nutrient solution technique in studies on zinc nutrition in rice plant (Oryza sativa L.). Plant and Soil 163, 85–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zdenko Rengel
    • 1
  • Robin D. Graham
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Science, Waite Agricultural Research InstituteUniversity of AdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations