Plant and Soil

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 337–346 | Cite as

Differing efficiencies of potassium utilization in strains of Snapbeans,Phaseolus Vulgaris L.

  • P. F. Shea
  • G. C. Gerloff
  • W. H. Gabelman
Article

Summary

The capacities of sixty-six strains of snapbeans to grow in potassium-deficient media were compared in nutrient culture experiments. Marked differences were observed, particularly in the severity of potassium-deficiency symptoms. From this initial screening, two of the most efficient strains and three of the most inefficient were selected for detailed nutritional and genetic studies. The unusual capacity of some strains to produce normal growth under potassium deficiency was not due to greater seed size or to greater size and competitive ability of the root systems. Marked differences in the strains persisted even when grown in separate culture tanks and with differences in seed content of potassium compensated for in the total potassium supply. Variations in efficiency of potassium utilization were not associated with higher levels of potassium in efficient plants, and they did not appear to be associated with substitution of sodium for potassium. The importance of this investigation in indicating the possibilities for developing strains and varieities of crop plants particularly adapted for low-fertility soils or other unusual nutritional environments is discussed briefly.

Keywords

Potassium Seed Size Initial Screening Competitive Ability Great Size 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bollard, E. G. and Butler, G. W., Mineral nutrition of plants. Annual Rev. Plant Physiol.17, 77–112 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dessureaux, L. and Ouellette, G. J., Tolerance of alfalfa to manganese toxicity in sand culture. Can. J. Soil Sci.38, 8–13 (1958).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Epstein, E. and Jeffries, R. L., The genetic basis of selective ion transport in plants. Annual Rev. Plant Physiol.15, 169–184 (1964).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerloff, G. C., Comparative mineral nutrition of plants. Annual Rev. Plant Physiol.14, 107–124 (1963).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gregory, R. P. G. and Bradshaw, A. D., Heavy metal tolerance in populations ofAgrostis tenuis Sibth. and other grasses. New Phytologist64, 131–143 (1965).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnson, C. M., Stout, P. R., Broyer, T. C., and Carlton, A. B., Comparative chlorine requirements of different plant species. Plant and Soil8, 337–353 (1957).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jowett, D., Populations ofAgrostis spp. tolerant of heavy metals. Nature182, 816–817 (1958).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jowett, D., Population studies on lead-tolerantAgrostis tenuis. Evolution18, 70–80 (1964).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Munns, D. N., Johnson, C. M., and Jacobson, L., Uptake and distribution of manganese in oat plants. I. Varietal variation. Plant and Soil19, 115–126 (1963).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neenan, M., The effects of soil acidity on the growth of cereals with particular reference to the differential reaction of varieties thereto. Plant and Soil12, 324–338 (1960).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schauble, C. E. and Barber, S. A., Magnesium immobility in the nodes of certain corn inbreds. Agron. J.50, 651–653 (1958).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shea, P. F., Gabelman, W. H. and Gerloff, G. C., The inheritance of efficiency in potassium utilization in snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. (in press).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Snaydon, R. W. and Bradshaw, A. D., Differential response to calcium within the speciesFestuca ovina L. New Phytologist60, 219–234 (1961).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Snaydon, R. W., The growth and competitive ability of contrasting natural populations ofTrifolium repens L. on calcareous and acid soils. J. Ecol.50, 439–447 (1962).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Snaydon, R. W. and Bradshaw, A. D., The performance and survival of contrasting natural populations of white clover when planted into an uplandFestuca/Agrostis sward. J. Brit. Grassland Soc.17, 113–118 (1962).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vose, P. B., Varietal differences in plant nutrition. Herbage Abstracts33, 1–13 (1963).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wall, J. R. and Andrus, C. F., The inheritance and physiology of boron response in the tomato. Am. J. Botany49, 758–762 (1962).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff 1968

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. F. Shea
    • 1
  • G. C. Gerloff
    • 1
  • W. H. Gabelman
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Horticulture and BotanyUniversity of WisconsinMadison

Personalised recommendations