Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of background solution on root responses to aluminium inHolcus lanatus L.

  • Short Communications
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Of three background solutions tested, 0.5 g dm−3 Ca(NO3)2·4H2O, full strength and 0.1 strength Long Ashton solution, the latter was the most suitable for screening for A1 tolerance inHolcus lanatus L.

On the basis of solution pH fluxes, precipitation of Al compounds and apparent toxicity of Al, it was concluded that equimolar concentrations of nitrate and ammonium nitrogen was more suitable as the N source than nitrate alone when screening in acidic solutions (cationic Al) but the reverse was true for screening in alkaline solutions (anionic Al).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Bartlett R G and Riego D C 1972 Soil Sci. 114, 194–200.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chadwick M J and Salt J K 1969 Nature 224, 186.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clarkson D T 1966 J. Ecol. 54, 167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clarkson D T 1969In Ecological Aspects of the Mineral Nutrition of Plants Ed. I H Rorison. British Ecological Society Symposium 9. p 381–397 Blackwell Sci. Publ. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Clymo R S 1962 J. Ecol. 50, 707–731.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Davies M S and Snaydon R W 1973 J. Appl. Ecol. 10, 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Foy C D et al. 1965 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29, 64–67.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Foy C D et al. 1978 Ann. Rev. Pl. Physiol 29 511–566.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Frolich E et al. 1966In Current Topics in Plant Nutrition Ed. A Wallace Univ. California, Los Angeles p 120–126.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Garland C J and Wilkins D A 1981 New Phytol. 87, 581–593.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Grime J P and Hodgson J G 1969 In Ecological aspects of the Mineral Nutrition of Plants. Ed. I H Rorison p 67–99 British Ecological Symposium 9. Blackwell Sci. Publ. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Grime J P and Hunt R 1975 J. Ecol. 63, 393–422.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Grinsted M J et al. 1982 New Phytol. 91, 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Haynes R J and Goh K M 1978 Biol. Rev. 53, 465–510.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hedley M J et al. 1982 New Phytol. 91, 31–44.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hewitt E J 1966 Sand and Water Culture Methods used in the study of Plant Nutrition. 2nd Ed. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jones L H 1961 Plant and Soil 13, 297–310.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jones R G W and Lunt O R 1967 Bot. Rev. 33, 407–426.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jowett D 1964 Evolution 18, 70–80.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kerridge P C et al. 1971 Agron. J. 63, 586–591.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lee J A and Stewart G R 1978 Adv. Bot. Res. 6, 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lycklama J C 1963 Acta Bot. Neerl. 12, 361–423.

    Google Scholar 

  23. McCain S 1981 PhD Thesis Univ. of Wales.

  24. McGrath S P and Rorison I H 1982 New Phytol. 91, 443–452.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mengel K and Kirkby E A 1979 Principles of Plant Nutrition. 2nd Ed. International Potash Institute, Bern, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Minotti P L et al. 1969 Crop Sci. 9, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mugwira L M and Elgawhary S M 1979 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43, 736–740.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Munns D N 1965 Aust. J. Agric. Res. 16, 743–755.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nelson L R and Keisling T C 1980 Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 11, 451–458.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Nye P H 1981 Plant and Soil 61, 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rhue R D and Grogan C O 1977 Agron J. 69, 755–760.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Rorison I H 1980In Effects of Acid Precipitation on Terrestrial Ecosystems. Ed. T C Hutchinson 283–304 Plenum Publishing Corp. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sartain J B and Kamprath E J 1978 Agron. J. 70, 17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Skeen J R 1929 Soil Sci. 27, 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Smiley R W 1974 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 38, 795–799.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Smith F A and Raven J A 1979 Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 30, 289–311.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wilkins D A 1957 Nature, London 100, 37–38.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wilkins D A 1978 New Phytol. 80, 623–633.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Williams P J 1975In Ecology of Resource Degradation and Renewal. Ed. M J Chadwick and G T Goodman, pp 259–274 Blackwell Sci. Publ. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wright M J (Ed) 1976 Plant Adaptation to Mineral Stress in Problem Soils Cornell Univ. Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCain, S., Davies, M.S. The influence of background solution on root responses to aluminium inHolcus lanatus L.. Plant Soil 73, 425–430 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02184320

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02184320

Key words

Navigation