Advertisement

Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 350–357 | Cite as

In vitro screening of mulberry (Morus spp.) for salinity tolerance

  • K. Vijayan
  • S. P. Chakraborti
  • P. D. Ghosh
Biotic and Abiotic Stress

Abstract

An efficient in vitro screening method has been developed for mulberry (Morus spp. ) to screen salinity-tolerant genotypes from a large population. Axillary buds from field-grown plants were cultured on MS medium containing five different concentrations (0.0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00%) of sodium chloride (NaCl) in order to study the shoot growth pattern. Rooting was also tested at four different concentrations of NaCl (0.0%, 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.3.%). NaCl has been found to inhibit the growth and development of mulberry shoots and roots in vitro. The survivability of the axillary buds of the genotypes tested was reduced from 83.7% for the controls to 6.1% in 1.0% NaCl. The average number of roots developed by the genotypes ranged from 11.9 (controls) to 0.2 (0.3% NaCl). Out of the 63 genotypes tested, only seven—Rotundiloba, English black, Kolitha-3, Berhampore-A, Kajli, BC259 and C776—developed roots in 0.3% NaCl. Root growth was also reduced drastically from 1.8 cm for the controls to 0.1 cm in 0.3% NaCl. To test the reproducibility of the results in soil, five tolerant and two susceptible genotypes, identified in this in vitro study, were selected and tested under ex vitro conditions. The significant correlation coefficients obtained between the performances of these genotypes under both types of cultural conditions revealed that in vitro screening of mulberry through axillary bud culture is an easy and efficient method to identify salt-adapted genotypes within a limited space and time period.

Keywords

Mulberry In vitro screening Axillary buds Salt tolerance 

Abbreviations

BA

6-Benzylaminopurine

dS m-1

Deci-Siemens per meter

EC

Electric conductivity

NAA

α-Naphthaleneacetic acid

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to Dr. B. Saratchandra, Director, CSR&TI, Berhampore and Dr. B.N. Roy, Deputy Director, MBG section, CSR&TI, Berhampore for providing the required facilities to carry out the work. Similarly, the help rendered by Dr. K.K. Das, CSR&TI, Berhampore for statistical analysis of the data is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Bernstein L, Hayward HE (1958) Physiology of salt tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 9:25–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cano AE, Perez-Alfocea F, Moreno V, Caro M, Bolarin MC (1998) Evaluation of salt tolerance in cultivated and wild tomato species through in vitro shoot apex culture. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 53:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chandler SF, Paek KY, Pua EC, Ragolsky E, Mandal BB, Thrope TA (1988) The effectiveness of selection for salinity tolerance using in vitro shoot culture. Bot Gaz 149:166–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Das BC, Krishnaswami S (1965) Some observations on interspecific hybridization in mulberry. Indian J Seric 4:1-4Google Scholar
  5. Dracup M (1991) Increasing salt tolerance of plants through cell culture requires understanding of tolerance mechanisms. Aust J Plant Physiol 18:1-15Google Scholar
  6. Filippone E (1985) In vitro growth and differentiation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) tissue on high level of NaCl. Genet Agrar 39:323Google Scholar
  7. Flowers TJ, Troke PF, Yeo AR (1977) The mechanism of salt tolerance in halophytes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 28:89–121Google Scholar
  8. Fukuda T, Sudo M, Matuda M, Hayashi T, Kurose T, Florrin YHM (1959) Formation of silk protein during the growth of silkworm larvae Bombyx mori L. Proc 4th Int Congr Biochem (Insect) 12:90–112Google Scholar
  9. Ghosal SS, Bajaj YPS (1984) Isolation of sodium chloride resistant cell lines in some grain legumes. Indian J Exp Biol 22:209–214Google Scholar
  10. Greenway H, Munns R (1980) Mechanism of salt tolerance in nonhalophytes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 31:149–190Google Scholar
  11. Hossain M, Rahaman SM, Joarder OI (1991) Isolation of sodium chloride-resistant genotypes in some mulberry cultivars. Bull Seric Res 2:67–73Google Scholar
  12. Hu CY, Wang PJ (1983) Meristem, shoot tip and bud cultures. In: Evans DA, Sharp WR, Ammirato PV, Yammada Y (eds) Hand book of cell culture. MacMillan, New York, pp 177–227Google Scholar
  13. Jain RK, Dhawan RS, Sharma DR, Chowdhury JB (1988) Selection and characterization of NaCl tolerant cell cultures of bringal (Solanum melongena L.) Indian Plant Physiol 31:431–433Google Scholar
  14. Kirti PB, Hadi Kumar PA, Chopra VL (1991) Production of sodium chloride-tolerant Brassica juncea plants by in vitro selection at the somatic embryo level. Theor Appl Genet 83:233–237Google Scholar
  15. Li NJ, Filippone E, Cardi T, Console R (1988) In vitro and in vivo evaluation of tolerance to salt in tomato. Genet Agrar 42:79Google Scholar
  16. Machii H, Koyama A, Yamanouchi H (1999) A list of genetic mulberry resources maintained at National Institute of Sericulture and Entomological sciences. Misc Publ Natl Seric Entomol Sci 26:1-77Google Scholar
  17. Martinez CA, Maestri M, Lani EG (1996) In vitro salt tolerance and proline accumulation in andean potato (Solanum spp.) differing in frost resistance. Plant Sci 116:177–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morpurgo R (1988) Correlations between in vivo and in vitro potato clones grown under alt stress conditions. Genet Agrar 42:85–86Google Scholar
  19. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  20. Perez-Alfocea F, Estan MT, Caro M, Bolarin MC (1993) Response of tomato cultivars to salinity. Plant Soil 50:203–211Google Scholar
  21. Raghunath MK, Chakraborti SP, Narayan P, Roy BN, Sen SK (1992) Micropropagation of superior hybrids through axillary bud culture in mulberry (Morus L. ). Cell Chromos Res 15:12–16Google Scholar
  22. Ray D, Mondal LN, Pain AK, Mondal S (1973) Effect of NPK and Farm Yard Manure on the yield and nutritive values of mulberry leaf. Indian J Seric 12:7-12.Google Scholar
  23. Salim M (1989) Effects of salinity and relative humidity on growth and ionic relations of plants. New Phytol 113:13–20Google Scholar
  24. Sumaryati S, Negrutiu I, Jocabs M (1992) Characterization and regeneration of salt and water stress mutant from protoplast culture of Nicotiana plumbaginafolia (viviani). Theor Appl Genet 83:613–619Google Scholar
  25. Tikader A, Shamsuddin M, Vijayan K, Pavankumar T (1995) Survival potential in different varieties of mulberry (Morus species). Indian J Agric Sci 5:133–135Google Scholar
  26. Tikader A, Vijayan K, Roy B N, Pavan Kumar T (1996) Studies on propagation efficiency of mulberry (Morus spp.) at ploidy levels. Sericologia 36:345–349Google Scholar
  27. Vijayan K, Chakraborti SP, Roy BN (1998) Regeneration of plantlets through callus culture in mulberry. Indian J Plant Physiol 3:310–313Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Vijayan
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. P. Chakraborti
    • 1
  • P. D. Ghosh
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Central Sericultural Research and Training InstituteBerhamporeIndia
  2. 2.SeriBiotech RLCSB campusKodathiIndia
  3. 3.Department of BotanyUniversity of KalyaniNadiaIndia

Personalised recommendations