Plant and Soil

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 21–30 | Cite as

Effects of growth period, plant age and changes in solution aluminium concentrations on aluminium toxicity in wheat

  • D. M. Wheeler
Research Article

Abstract

The effects of growth period (time between transplanting and harvesting), plant age at which aluminium (Al) was added to solution, changes in Al concentration, and solution culture techniques (monitoring and adjusting solution Al concentrations thrice weekly or weekly replacement of the solutions) were investigated using a low ionic strength (2.7×10−3M) solution culture technique. The wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars Waalt (Al-tolerant) and Warigal (Al-sensitive), or the near isogenic lines bred from these cultivars (RR for the Al-tolerant line and SS for the Al-sensitive line) were grown. In all experiments and treatments, Al additions were required to maintain the nominal concentration. The decline in solution Al concentrations was partially attributed to formation of an Al-hydroxy-phosphate precipitate with an Al:P molar ratio of 2.8 to 4.0. Increasing the growth period from 14 to 28 days increased Al sensitivity in Warigal but not in Waalt. When plants were exposed to Al for the same time, increasing the age of the plants that Al was added to solution decreased sensitivity to Al. Differential Al tolerance between the two lines was evident when solutions were monitored thrice weekly or replaced weekly. However, the Al concentration required to reduce relative yield by a given amount when the solutions were replaced weekly was about twice that when the solutions were monitored. With a constant growth period of 28 days, increasing solution Al concentrations for 3 or more days resulted in decreased yields at harvest. The exact effect depended on the cultivar, plant part (tops or roots), when solution Al concentrations were increased and the duration of the increase. For example, increasing Al concentrations from 5 μM to 20 μM for 10 days reduced yield in the RR line by approximately 50% in the tops and 30% in the roots beyond the effect of 5 M but had no effect in the SS line due to yields already being low at 5 μM. Adding 10 μM Al to solution for 6 days at the beginning of the experiment reduced yield by 25% in the RR line and 50% in the SS line. In contrast, adding 10 μM Al for 6 days in the middle of the growth cycle had no effect on the RR line but reduced yield by approximately 25% in the SS line. These results show that growth period, the age of the plants at which Al is added and the technique used (monitored or weekly replacement) all need to be considered when comparing results from different experiments. These results also show that the Al concentrations in solution need to be regularly monitored in long term experiments.

Key words

aluminium growth period phosphorus plant age root length root width solution culture techniques Triticum aestivum variation wheat 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alva A K 1986 Effects of varying phosphorus additions on aluminium in solutions. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 17, 1281–1297.Google Scholar
  2. Alva A K, Edwards D G, Asher C J and Blamey F P C 1986 Effects of phosphorus/aluminium molar ratio and calcium concentration on plant response to aluminium toxicity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50, 133–137.Google Scholar
  3. Blamey F P C, Edwards D G and Asher C J 1983 Effects of aluminium, OH:Al and P:Al molar ratios, and ionic strength on soybean root elongation in solution culture. Soil Sci. 136, 97–207.Google Scholar
  4. Edmeades D C, Wheeler D M, Blamey F P C and Christie R A 1991 Calcium and magnesium amelioration of aluminium toxicity in Al-sensitive and Al-tolerant wheat.In Plant-Soil Interactions at Low pH. Eds. R JWright, V CBaligar and R PMurrmann. pp 755–761. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  5. Edmeades D C, Wheeler D M and Clinton O 1985 The chemical composition and ionic strength of soil solutions from New Zealand topsoils. Aust. J. Soil Res. 23, 151–165.Google Scholar
  6. Hairiah K, VanNoordwijk M, Stulen I and Kuiper P J C 1992 Aluminium avoidance byMucuna pruriens. Physiol. Plant. 86, 17–24.Google Scholar
  7. Jan F 1993 Effects of a pregrowth period in Al-free nutrient solution on macronutrient composition of two upland cultivars with various Al sensitivity. Physiol. Plant. 88, 123–128.Google Scholar
  8. Parker D R, Kinraide T B and Zelazny L W 1989 On the phytotoxicity of polynuclear hydroxy-aluminium complexes. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53, 789–796.Google Scholar
  9. Thawornwong N and VanDiest A 1974 Influences of high acidity and aluminium on the growth of lowland rice. Plant and Soil 41, 141–159.Google Scholar
  10. Upsdell M P 1985 Bayesian inference for functions. PhD Thesis, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Wheeler D M and Upsdell M P 1994 Flexi 2.2 Bayesian Smoother Reference Manual. New Zealand Pastoral Agricultural Research Institute Ltd., Hamilton, New Zealand. 324 p.Google Scholar
  12. Wheeler D M 1993 Effect of nitrogen source and aluminium on the growth of two wheat cultivars known to differ in aluminium tolerance. Plant-Soil Interactions at Low pH: Principles and Management. Eds. R A Date, N J Grundon, G E Rayment and M E Probert (In press).Google Scholar
  13. Wheeler D M and Edmeades D C 1993 Effect of ionic strength in the presence and absence of aluminium on yield in wheat. Plant-Soil interactions at Low pH: Principles and Management. Eds. R A Date, N J Grundon, G E Rayment and M E Robert (In press).Google Scholar
  14. Wheeler D M, Edmeades D C, Christie R A and Gardner R C 1992a Effect of aluminium on the growth of 34 plant species: A summary of results obtained in low ionic strength solution culture. Plant and Soil 146, 61–66.Google Scholar
  15. Wheeler D M, Edmeades D C, Smith D R and Wedderburn M E 1992b Screening ryegrass for aluminium tolerance. Plant and Soil 146, 9–19.Google Scholar
  16. Wheeler D M and Follett J M 1991 Effect of aluminium on onions, asparagus and squash. J. Plant Nutr. 14, 897–912.Google Scholar
  17. White R E 1976 Studies on mineral ion absorption by plants. III. The interaction of aluminium, phosphate and pH on the growth ofMedicago sativa. Plant and Soil 46, 195–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. M. Wheeler
    • 1
  1. 1.New Zealand Agricultural Pastoral Research Institute Ltd.Ruakura Research CentreHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations