Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 162, Issue 1, pp 99–106 | Cite as

Relationship between plant phosphorus status and the kinetics of arsenate influx in clones ofdeschampsia cespitosa (L.) beauv. that differ in their tolerance to arsenate

  • Andrew A. Meharg
  • Mark R. Macnair
Article

Abstract

Uptake kinetics of arsenate were determined in arsenate tolerant and non-tolerant clones of the grassDeschampsia cespitosa under differing root phosphorus status to investigate the mechanism controlling the suppression of arsenate influx observed in tolerant clones. Influx was always lower in tolerants compared to non-tolerants. Short term influx of arsenate by the high affinity uptake system in both tolerant clones was relatively insensitive to root phosphorus status. This was in contrast to the literature where the regulation of the phosphate (arsenate) uptake system is normally much more responsive to plant phosphorus status. The low affinity uptake system in both tolerant and non-tolerant clones, unlike the high affinity uptake system, was more closely regulated by root phosphate status and was repressed to a much greater degree under increasing root phosphorus levels than the high affinity system.

Key words

arsenate tolerance Deschampsia cespitosa phosphorus nutrition uptake kinetics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen S E 1974 Chemical analysis of Ecological Materials. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  2. Asher C J and Reay P F 1979 Arsenic uptake by barley seedlings. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 6, 459–466.Google Scholar
  3. Beever R E and Burns D W J 1980 Phosphorus uptake storage and utilization by fungi. Adv. Bot. Res. 8,127–219.Google Scholar
  4. Brown T A and Schrift A 1982 Selenium: toxicity and tolerance in higher plants. Biol. Abst. 57, 59–84.Google Scholar
  5. Chapin F S 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. System. 11, 233–260.Google Scholar
  6. Clarkson D T and Lüttge U 1989 Mineral nutrition: divalent cations, transport and compartmentation. Prog. Bot. 51, 93–112.Google Scholar
  7. Clarkson D T and Lüttge U 1991 Mineral nutrition: Inducible and repressible nutrient transport systems. Prog. Bot. 52, 93–112.Google Scholar
  8. Clarkson D T and Scattergood C B 1982 Growth and phosphate transport in barley and tomato plants during the development of, and recovery from, phosphate-stress. J. Exp. Bot. 33, 865–875.Google Scholar
  9. Cogliatti D H and Clarkson D T 1983 Physiological changes in, and phosphate uptake by potato plants during development of, and recovery from phosphate deficiency. Physiol. Plant. 58, 287–294.Google Scholar
  10. De Vos C H R, Vonk M J, Vooijs R and Schat H 1992. Glutathione depletion due to copper induced phytochelatin synthesis causes oxidative damage inSilene cucubalus. Plant Physiol. 98, 853–858.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein E 1976. Kinetics of ion transport and the carrier concept. In Transport in Plants II. Part B, Tissues and Organs, Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology. Eds. U Lüttge and M G Pitmann, pp 70–94. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Huang J H, Shaff J E, Grunes D L and Kochian L V 1992. Aluminum effects on calcium fluxes at the root apex of aluminum-tolerant and aluminum-sensitive wheat cultivars. Plant Physiol. 98, 230–237.Google Scholar
  13. Lee R B 1982. Selectivity of kinetics of ion uptake by barley plants following nutrient deficiency. Ann. Bot. 50, 429–449.Google Scholar
  14. Lefebvre D and Glass D M 1982 Regulation of phosphate influx in barley roots: Effects of phosphate deprivation and reduction of influx with provision of orthophosphate. Physiol. Plant. 54, 199–206.Google Scholar
  15. McPharlin I R and Bieleski R L 1987 Phosphate uptake bySpirodela andLemna during early stages of phosphate deficiency. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 14, 561–572.Google Scholar
  16. Marquardt D W 1963 An algorithm for least-squares estimation of nonlinear parameters. J. Soc. Indust. Appl. Math. 11, 431–441.Google Scholar
  17. Meharg A A and Macnair M R 1990. An altered phosphate uptake system in arsenate tolerantHolcus lanatus. New Phytol. 116, 29–35.Google Scholar
  18. Meharg A A and Macnair M R 1991a Uptake, accumulation and translocation in arsenate tolerant and non-tolerantHolcus lanatus L. New Phytol. 117, 225–231.Google Scholar
  19. Meharg A A and Macnair M R 1991b The mechanisms of arsenate tolerance inDeschampsia cespitosa L. andAgrostis capillaris L.: Adaptation of the arsenate uptake system. New Phytol. 119, 291–297.Google Scholar
  20. Meharg A A and Macnair M R 1992a Suppression of the high affinity phosphate uptake system: a mechanism of arsenate tolerance inHolcus lanatus L.. J. Exp. Bot. 43, 519–524.Google Scholar
  21. Meharg A A and Macnair M R 1992b Polymorphism physiology of arsenate tolerance inHolcus lanatus L. from an uncontaminated site. Plant and Soil 146, 219–225.Google Scholar
  22. Meharg A A and Macnair M R 1993 Phosphorus nutrition of arsenate tolerant and non-tolerantHolcus lanatus L. (Poaceae) growing on arsenic contaminated and uncontaminated sites. J. Environ. Qual. (In press).Google Scholar
  23. Silver S and Misra T K 1988 Plasmid-mediated heavy metal resistances. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 42, 717–743.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Verkleij J A C and Schat H 1990 Mechanisms of metal tolerance in plants.In Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects. Ed. A J Y Shaw. pp 179–193, CRC Press, Florida.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew A. Meharg
    • 1
  • Mark R. Macnair
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesHatherly Laboratories Prince of Wales RoadExeterUK

Personalised recommendations