, Volume 78, Issue 3, pp 239–243 | Cite as

Aiuminium tolerance of durum wheat germplasm

  • T. Cosic
  • M. Poljak
  • M. Custic
  • Z. Rengel


Aluminium tolerance of Macedonian durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. conv. durum (Desf.) MacKey) germplasm was evaluated in nutrient solutions containing 0, 74 or 148 μM of total Al. Relative root length (148 μM Al/0 Al) of various genotypes ranged from 41 to 72% (from moderately sensitive to moderately tolerant to Al). No genotype with Al tolerance close to that of very tolerant T. aestivum cultivar Atlas-66 was found. Seed Ca concentration was positively (r=0.64, P≤0.05) and seed Fe concentration negatively (r=−0.71, P≤0.05) related to the relative root growth. Such a significant correlation was not obtained for seed concentrations of other nutrients or seed protein content.

Key words

aluminium durum wheat germplasm root growth screening seed calcium tolerance Triticum turgidum conv. durum 



Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference


relative root length, in % (74 μM total Al/0 μM Al)


relative root length, in % (148 μM total Al0 μM Al)


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aniol, A., 1990. Genetics of tolerance to aluminium in wheat (Triticum aestivum L. Thell). Plant Soil 123: 223–227.Google Scholar
  2. Berzonsky, W.A., 1992. The genomic inheritance of aluminum tolerance in ‘Atlas 66’ wheat. Genome 35: 689–693.Google Scholar
  3. Bolan, N.S., M.J., Hedley & R.E., White, 1991. Processes of soil acidification during nitrogen cycling with emphasis on legume based pastures. Plant Soil 134: 53–63.Google Scholar
  4. Briggs, K.G. & J.M., Nyachiro, 1988. Genetic variation of aluminum tolerance in Kenyan wheat cultivars. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19: 1273–1284.Google Scholar
  5. Carmer, S.G. & W.M., Walker, 1985. Pairwise multiple comparisons of treatment means in agricultural research. J. Agron. Educ. 14: 19–26.Google Scholar
  6. Carver, B.F., W.P., Inskeep, N.P., Wilson & R.L., Westerman, 1988. Seedling tolerance to aluminum toxicity in hard red winter wheat germplasm. Crop Sci. 28: 463–467.Google Scholar
  7. Coventry, D.R. & W.J., Slattery, 1991. Acidification of soil associated with lupins grown in a crop rotation in north-eastern Victoria. Austr. J. Agric. Res. 42: 391–397.Google Scholar
  8. Foy, C.D., 1983. Plant adaptation to mineral stress in problem soils. Iowa State J. Res. 57: 355–391.Google Scholar
  9. Foy, C.D., 1988. Plant adaptation to acid, aluminum-toxic soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19: 959–987.Google Scholar
  10. Foy, C.D. & A.R.da, Silva, 1991. Tolerances of wheat germplasm to acid subsoil. J. Plant Nutr. 14: 1277–1295.Google Scholar
  11. Gavuzzi, P., G., Delogu, G., Boggini, N.Di, Fonzo & B., Borghi, 1993. Identification of bread wheat, durum wheat and barley cultivars adapted to dry areas of Southern Italy. Euphytica 68: 131–145.Google Scholar
  12. GENSTAT Committee, 1989. GENSTAT 5. Reference Manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Graham, R.D. & Z., Rengel, 1993. Genotypic variation in zinc uptake and utilization. In: A.D., Robson (Ed.) Zinc in Soils and Plants, pp. 107–118. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Haug, A. & C.R., Caldwell, 1985. Aluminum toxicity in plants: The role of the root plasma membrane and calmodulin. In: J.B.St., John, E., Berlin & P.C., Jackson (Eds) Frontiers of Membrane Research in Agriculture, pp. 359–381. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa.Google Scholar
  15. Joppa, L.R., 1993. Chromosome engineering in tetraploid wheat. Crop Sci. 33: 908–913.Google Scholar
  16. Josephides, C.M., 1993. Analysis of adaptation of barley, triticale, durum and bread wheat under Mediterranean conditions. Euphytica 65: 1–8.Google Scholar
  17. Kochian, L.V., 1991. Mechanism of micronutrient uptake and translocation in plants. In: J.J., Mortvedt, F.R., Fox, L.M., Shuman & R.M., Welch (Eds) Micronutrients in Agriculture, 2nd ed., pp. 229–296. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Inc., Madison, Wis.Google Scholar
  18. Little, R., 1988. Plant soil interactions at low pH. Problem solving-genetic approach. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19: 1239–1257.Google Scholar
  19. Macck, J. & Z. Rengel, 1992. Aluminum tolerance of Triticum durum germplasm. Agron. Abst. p. 283.Google Scholar
  20. Mahler, R.L., A.R., Halvorson & F.E., Koehler, 1985. Long-term acid-ification of farmland in northern Idaho and eastern Washington. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 16: 83–95.Google Scholar
  21. Motzo, R., G., Attene & M., Deidda, 1993. Genotypic variation in durum wheat root systems at different stages of development in a Mediterranean environment. Euphytica 66: 197–206.Google Scholar
  22. Pecetti, L., P., Annicchiarico & A.B., Damania, 1992. Biodiversity in a germplasm collection of durum wheat. Euphytica 60: 229–238.Google Scholar
  23. Rengel, Z., 1992. Role of calcium in aluminium toxicity. New Phytol. 121: 499–513.Google Scholar
  24. Rengel, Z. & V., Jurkic, 1992. Genotypic differences in wheat Al tolerance. Euphytica 62: 111–117.Google Scholar
  25. Rengel, Z. & V., Jurkic, 1993. Evaluation of Triticum aestivum germplasm from Croatia and Yugoslavia for aluminium tolerance. Euphytica 66: 111–116.Google Scholar
  26. Ritchey, K.D., D.G.M., Sousa & G.C., Rodrigues, 1989. Inexpensive biological tests for soil calcium deficiency and aluminum toxicity. Plant Soil 120: 273–282.Google Scholar
  27. Takagi, H., H. Namoi & K. Murakami, 1983. Exploration of aluminium tolerance genes in wheat. Proc. 6th Inter. Wheat Genetics Symp., pp. 143–146. Kyoto, Japan.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, G.J., 1991. Current views of the aluminum stress response: The physiological basis of tolerance. Curr. Top. Plant Biochem. Physiol. 10: 57–93.Google Scholar
  29. Westerman, R.L., (Ed.) 1990. Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, 3rd ed., Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Inc., Madison, Wis.Google Scholar
  30. Zale, J.M. & K.G., Briggs, 1988. Aluminum tolerance in Canadian spring wheats. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19: 1259–1272.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Cosic
    • 1
  • M. Poljak
    • 1
  • M. Custic
    • 1
  • Z. Rengel
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for AgroecologyFaculty of AgricultureZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Plant Science, Waite Agricultural Research InstituteUniversity of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations