Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 327–330 | Cite as

Modification of the salinity response of wheat by the genome ofElytrigia elongatum

  • R. Storey
  • Robin D. Graham
  • K. W. Shepherd
Short Communications

Summary

Triticum aestivum cv. Chinese Spring wheat,Elytrigia elongatum (tall wheatgrass), and theTriticum-Elytrigia amphiploid were grown in complete nutrient culture containing, in addition, 0, 40, 80 and 120 mM NaCl. The 3 genotypes responded quite differently to increasing salinity; the Na concentration of wheat shoots increased in direct proportion to the increase in salinity of the external medium whereas the Elytrigia response was interpreted as showing high affinity for Na at low external Na (40 mM) but comparative exclusion of Na at high salinities (120 mM). In contrast, Na levels of the amphiploid were less than those of either wheat or Elytrigia under both low and high salinities. Thus the amphiploid behaved like wheat at 40 mM NaCl but more like Elytrigia at 120 mM NaCl because Na transport to the amphiploid shoot was restricted over the whole salinity range. The K concentration of the amphiploid shoot at high salinities was significantly greater than the K concentrations of either wheat or Elytrigia.

Key words

Amphiploid Elytrigia Genome Salinity Triticum aestivum Wheat Wheatgrass 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abel G H 1969 Crop Sci. 9, 697–698.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albert R and Popp M 1977 Oecologia 27, 157–170.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dewey D R 1960 Agron. J. 52, 631–635.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dewey D R 1962 Crop Sci. 2, 403–407.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elzam O E and Epstein E 1969 Agrochimica 13, 187–195.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gorham J et al. 1980 Plant Cell and Environment 3, 309–318.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenway H 1965 Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 18, 63–79.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenway H and Rogers A 1963 Plant and Soil 18, 21–30.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunt O J 1965 Crop Sci. 5, 407–409.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knott D R 1968In Proceedings of Third International Wheat Genetics Symposium. Eds. K W Finlay and K W Shepherd, pp 204–212.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marcar N E 1980 M. Sc. Thesis, La Trobe University, Australia.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGuire P E and Dvorak J 1981 Crop Sci. 21, 702–705.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shannon M C 1970 Agron. J. 70, 719–722.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Storey R and Wyn Jones R G 1978 Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 5, 801–816.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Storey R and Wyn Jones R G 1979 Plant Physiol. 63, 156–162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Storey
    • 1
  • Robin D. Graham
    • 1
  • K. W. Shepherd
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agronomy, Waite Agricultural Research InstituteThe University of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations