Plant and Soil

, Volume 155, Issue 1, pp 493–496 | Cite as

Screening sorghum for tolerance to excess manganese in solution culture

  • W. G. Mgema
  • R. B. Clark
Article

Abstract

This study was conducted to define traits to screen sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) genotypes for tolerance to excess Mn. Visual Mn toxicity symptoms, net and total root lengths, shoot and root dry matter yields, and shoot and root Mn concentrations were determined for plants grown in nutrient solutions (pH 4.5) at different levels of Mn (0, 3, 6, 9 and 12 mM above the initial 18 μM) to assess plant responses to excess Mn. Dry matter yields showed greatest variability among genotypes, and was an effective trait to evaluate sorghum for tolerance to excess Mn. Reductions in dry matter yields did not occur until Mn levels were above 3 mM. Levels of Mn between 3 and 6 mM could effectively be used to screen sorghum for genotypic differences to excess Mn. Manganese levels above 6 mM were too severe to allow good genotypic differentiation. Of genotypes tested, NB9040 and Wheatland showed good tolerance and SC283 and ICA-Nataima were sensitive to excess Mn.

Key words

acid soil tolerance dry matter yield Mn toxicity root length Sorghum bicolor visual toxicity symptoms 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrew C S, Hegarty M P 1969 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 20, 687–696.Google Scholar
  2. Carter O G, Rose I A, Reading P F 1975 Crop Sci. 15, 730–732.Google Scholar
  3. Clark R B 1977 Plant and Soil 47, 653–662.Google Scholar
  4. Clark R B 1982 J. Plant Nutr. 5, 1039–1057.Google Scholar
  5. clark R B, Frank K D, Zaifnejad M, Denning J L 1992 Communb. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 23, 569–583.Google Scholar
  6. Clark R B, Pier P A, Knudsen D, Maranville J W 1981 J. Plant Nutr. 3, 357–374.Google Scholar
  7. Foy C D 1983 Iowa State J. Res. 57, 355–391.Google Scholar
  8. Foy C D, Chaney R L, White M C 1978 Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 29, 511–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Furlani P R, Clark R B 1981 Agron. J. 73, 587–594.Google Scholar
  10. Heenan D P, Carter O G 1975 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 967–974.Google Scholar
  11. Knudsen D, Clark R B, Denning J L, Pier P A 1981 J. Plant Nutr. 3, 61–75.Google Scholar
  12. Lohnis M 1951 Plant and Soil 3, 193–222.Google Scholar
  13. Macfie S M, Taylor G J 1989 Can. J. Bot. 67, 3394–3400.Google Scholar
  14. Macfie S M, Taylor G J, Briggs K G, Hoddinott J 1989 Can. J. Bot. 67, 1305–1308.Google Scholar
  15. Moroni J S, Briggs K G, Taylor G J 1991 Plant and Soil 136, 1–9.Google Scholar
  16. Newman E J 1966 J. Appl. Ecol. 3, 133–145.Google Scholar
  17. Reuter D J 1986 In Plant Analysis-An Interpretation Manual. Eds D J Reuter, J B Robinson. pp. 38–99. Inkata Press, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  18. SAS User's Guide 1985 Statistics, 5th Ed. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  19. Tennant D 1975 J. Ecol. 63, 995–1001.Google Scholar
  20. Van Wambeke A 1976 In Plant Adaptation to Mineral Stress in Problem Soils. Ed. M J Wright. pp. 15–24. Cornell Univ. Agr. Exp. Stn., Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. G. Mgema
    • 1
  • R. B. Clark
    • 2
  1. 1.ARI, MlinganoTangaTanzania
  2. 2.Appalachian Soil and Water Conservation Research LaboratoryU.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceBeckleyUSA

Personalised recommendations