Protoplasma

, Volume 57, Issue 1–4, pp 619–627 | Cite as

Does plasmolysis increase the drought tolerance of plant cells?

  • H. R. Oppenheimer
  • B. Jacoby
Article
Received:

Summary

Iljin's experiments withRhoeo discolor, cabbage and red beet which seemed to demonstrate increased drought resistance of plasmolysed tissue have been repeated, but his results could not be confirmed. The tissue plasmolysed in sucrose solutions, died either during stepwise plasmolysis and deplasmolysis or else later on, during exposure to unsaturated air within one or two days, even at the highest humidities. Iljin's error was apparently produced by a wrong interpretation of his tests of viability: the plasma of his dead cells did not disintegrate and retained anthocyanin by tonoplast plasmolysis.

Plasmolysis proved harmful to all three objects investigated.

In view of these results and earlier criticism of Iljin's analogous experiments on frost resistance by others, all experimental evidence produced in support of Iljin's mechanical theory of drought resistance should be reexamined.

Keywords

Sucrose Plant Cell Experimental Evidence Drought Tolerance Dead Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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.

Bibliography

  1. Abel, W. O., 1956: Die Austrocknungsresistenz der Laubmoose. S. B. Wien. Akad. Wiss., math.-nat. Kl., Abt. I,165, 619–707.Google Scholar
  2. Bärlund, H., 1929: Permeabilitätsstudien an Epidermis-Zellen vonRhoeo discolor. Aota Bot. Fenn.5, 1–117.Google Scholar
  3. Biebl, R., 1938: Trockenresistenz und osmotische Empfindlichkeit der Meeresalgen verschieden tiefer Standorte. Jb. wiss. Bot.86, 350–386.Google Scholar
  4. Cholnoky, B. J., 1952: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Plasmolemmas. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.65, 369–373.Google Scholar
  5. Fitting, H.. 1915: Untersuchungen über die Aufnahme von Salzen in die lebende Zelle. Jb. wiss. Bot.56, 1–64.Google Scholar
  6. Hansteen-Cranner, B., 1919: Beiträge zur Biochemie und Physiologie der Zellwand und der plasmatischen Grenzschichten. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.37, 380–391.Google Scholar
  7. Hodgman, C. D., R. C. Weast, and S. M. Selby, 1959/60: Handbook of chemistry and physics, 41st ed. Chemie. Rubber Publ. Comp. Cleveland, Ohio, p. 2499.Google Scholar
  8. Höfler, K., 1942: Über die Austrocknungsfähigkeit des Protoplasmas. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.60, 94–107.Google Scholar
  9. —, 1952: Zur Kenntnis der Plasmahautschichten. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.65, 391–399.Google Scholar
  10. —, H. Migsch und W. Rottenberg, 1941: Über die Austrocknungsresistenz landwirtschaftlicher Kulturpflanzen. Forschungsdienst12, 50–61.Google Scholar
  11. Iljin, W. S., 1927: Über die Austrocknungsfähigkeit des lebenden Protoplasmas der vegetativen Pflanzenzellen. Jb. wiss. Bot.66, 947–964.Google Scholar
  12. —, 1930: Die Ursachen der Resistenz von Pflanzenzellen gegen Austrocknen. Protoplasma70, 387–414.Google Scholar
  13. —, 1953: Causes of death of plants as a consequence of loss of water: conservation of life in desiccated tissues. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club80, 166–177.Google Scholar
  14. Kessler, B., 1961: Nucleic acids as factors in drought resistance of higher plants. Recent Advances in Botany. Montreal 1153–1159.Google Scholar
  15. Küster, E., 1910: Über Veränderungen der Plasmaoberfläche bei Plasmolyse. Z. Bot.2, 689–717.Google Scholar
  16. —, 1924: Experimentelle Physiologie der Pflanzenzelle. Abderhaldens Handb. biol. Arbeitsmeth. XI,1, 961–1058.Google Scholar
  17. Lepeschkin, 1927: Über den Zusammenhang zwischen mechanischen und chemischen Schädigungen des Protoplasmas und die Wirkungsart einiger Schutzstoffe. Protoplasma2, 239–270.Google Scholar
  18. Levitt, J., 1956: The Hardiness of Plants. Academic Press Inc., New York 1956.Google Scholar
  19. —, C. Y. Sullivan, N. O. Johannson, and R. M. Pettit, 1961: Sulfhydryls — a new factor in frost resistance. I. Changes in SH-content during frost hardening. Plant Physiol.36, 611–616.Google Scholar
  20. Levitt, J., C. Y. Sullivan, and N. O. Johannson, 1962: Sulfhydryls — a new factor in frost resistance. III. Relation of SH increase during hardening to protein, glutathione, and glutathione-oxidizing activity. Plant Physiol.37, 266–271.Google Scholar
  21. Oppenheimer, H. R., 1932: Zur Kenntnis der hochsommerlichen Wasserbilanz mediterraner Gehölze. Ber. dtsch. bot. Ges.50a, 185–245.Google Scholar
  22. —, and A. H. Halevy, 1962: Anabiosis ofCeterach officinarum Lam. et DC. Bull. Res. Counc. Israel Sect. D.11, 127–147.Google Scholar
  23. Reinhardt, M. O., 1899: Plasmolytische Studien zur Kenntnis des Wachstums der Zellmembran. Schwendener-Festschrift, Berlin: Borntraeger, 41 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Scarth, 1926: The influence of external osmotic pressure and of disturbance of the cell surface on the permeability of Spirogyra for acid dyes. Protoplasma1, 204–213.Google Scholar
  25. Schmutz, W., C. Y. Sullivan, and J. Levitt, 1961: Sulfhydryls — a new factor in frost resistance. II. Relation between Sulfhydryls and relative resistance of 15 wheat varieties. Plant Physiol.36, 617–620.Google Scholar
  26. Seifriz, W., 1958: The physical chemistry of protoplasm. Encycl. Plant. Physiol.1, 340–382.Google Scholar
  27. Siminovitch, D., and G. W. Scarth, 1938: A study of the mechanism of frost injury to plants. Canad. J. Res. (Sect. C)16, 467–481.Google Scholar
  28. Stocker, O., 1948: Beiträge zu einer Theorie der Dürreresistenz. Planta (Berlin)35, 445–466.Google Scholar
  29. Stuckey, I. M., and O. F. Curtis, 1938: Ice formation and the death of plants by freezing. Plant. Physiol.13, 815–833.Google Scholar
  30. Vries, H. de, 1884a: Zur plasmolytischen Methodik. Bot. Ztg.42, 289.Google Scholar
  31. —, 1884b: Eine Methode zur Analyse der Turgorkraft. Jb. wiss. Bot.14, 427.Google Scholar
  32. Waisel, Y., H. Kohn, and J. Levitt, 1962: Sulfhydryls — a new factor in frost resistance. IV. Relation of GSH-oxidizing activity to flower induction and hardiness. Plant. Physiol.37, 272–276.Google Scholar
  33. Weber, F., 1931: Plasmolyse-Resistenz und Permeabilität bei Narkose. Protoplasma14, 179–191.Google Scholar
  34. Weis, A., 1926: Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Plasmahaut. Planta1, 145–186.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1963

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. R. Oppenheimer
    • 1
  • B. Jacoby
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture of the Hebrew UniversityRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations