Advertisement

Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, Volume 36, Issue 5, pp 1261–1269 | Cite as

The influence of salinity on cell ultrastructures and photosynthetic apparatus of barley genotypes differing in salt stress tolerance

  • Jabeen Zahra
  • Hussain Nazim
  • Shengguan Cai
  • Yong Han
  • Dezhi Wu
  • Binlin Zhang
  • Shamsi Imran Haider
  • Guoping Zhang
Original Paper

Abstract

A hydroponic experiment was conducted to elucidate the difference in growth and cell ultrastructure between Tibetan wild and cultivated barley genotypes under moderate (150 mM NaCl) and high (300 mM NaCl) salt stress. The growth of three barley genotypes was reduced significantly under salt stress, but the wild barley XZ16 (tolerant) was less affected relative to cultivated barley Yerong (moderate tolerant) and Gairdner (sensitive). Meanwhile, XZ16 had lower Na+ and higher K+ concentrations in leaves than other two genotypes. In terms of photosynthetic and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters, salt stress reduced maximal photochemical efficiency (F v/F m), net photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (Gs), and intracellular CO2 concentration (Ci). XZ16 showed relatively smaller reduction in comparison with the two cultivated barley genotypes. The observation of transmission electron microscopy found that fundamental cell ultrastructure changes happened in both leaves and roots of all barley genotypes under salt NaCl stress, with chloroplasts being most changed. Moreover, obvious difference could be detected among the three genotypes in the damage of cell ultrastructure under salt stress, with XZ16 and Gairdner being least and most affected, respectively. It may be concluded that high salt tolerance in XZ16 is attributed to less Na+ accumulation and K+ reduction in leaves, more slight damage in cell ultrastructure, which in turn caused less influence on chloroplast function and photosynthesis.

Keywords

Barley Cell ultrastructure Salt stress Tolerance 

Abbreviations

Ci

Intercellular CO2 concentration

FDA

Fluorescence diacetate

Fv/Fm

Maximal photochemical efficiency of PSII

PI

Propidium iodide

PPFD

Photosynthetic photon flux density

SPAD

Soil–plant analysis development

TEM

Transmission electron microscopy

Tr

Transpiration rate

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. (31330055, 31301246 and 31171544), Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (No. Z3110054). We thank professor Dongfa Sun of Huazhong Agriculture University for his kind help in providing Tibetan wild barley.

References

  1. Cachorro P, Olmos E, Ortiz A, Cerda A (1995) Salinity-induced changes in the structure and ultrastructure of bean root cells. Biol Plant 37:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cai S, Wu DZ, Zahra J, Yuqing H, Yechang H, Zhang GP (2013) Genome-wide association analysis of aluminum tolerance in cultivated and tibetan wild barley. PLoS One 8:e69776PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen ZH, Newman I, Zhou MX, Mendham N, Zhang GP, Shabala S (2005) Screening plants for salt tolerance by measuring K+ flux: a case study for barley. Plant Cell Environ 28:1230–1246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chow WS, Ball MC, Manderson J (1990) Growth and photosynthetic responses of spinach to salinity: implications of K nutrition for salt tolerance. Aust J Plant Physiol 17:563–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cuin TA, Shabala S (2005) Exogenously supplied compatible solutes rapidly ameliorate NaCl-induced potassium efflux from barley root. Plant Cell Physiol 46:1924–1934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dai HX, Shan WN, Zhao J, Zhang GP, Li CD, Zhang GP, Wu FB (2011) Difference in response to aluminum stress among Tibetan wild barley genotypes. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 174:952–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dai F, Nevo E, Wu DZ, Comadran J, Zhou MX, Zhang GP (2012) Tibet is one of the centers of domestication of cultivated barley. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:16969–16973PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dionisio-Ses ML, Tobita S (2000) Effects of salinity on sodium content and photosynthetic responses of rice seedlings differing in salt tolerance. J Plant Physiol 157:54–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epimashko S, Meckel T, Fischer SE, Lüttge G, Thiel G (2004) Two functionally different vacuoles for static and dynamic purposes in one plant mesophyll leaf cell. Plant J 37:294–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flowers TJ, Yeo AR (1981) Variability in the resistance of sodium chloride salinity within rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties. New Phytol 88:363–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Genty B, Briantais JM, Baker NR (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim Biophys Acta 990:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gorai M, Neffati M (2007) Germination responses of (Reaumuria vermiculata) to salinity and temperature. Ann Appl Biol 151:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorham J, Wyn JRG (1983) Solute distribution in (Suaeda maritima). Planta 157:344–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA, Zhu JK, Bohnert HJ (2000) Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 51:463–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Havaux M (1993) Rapid photosynthetic adaptation to heat stress triggered in potato leaves by moderately elevated temperatures. Plant Cell Environ 16:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katsuhara M, Kawasaki T (1996) Salt stress induced nuclear and DNA degradation in meristematic cells of barley roots. Plant Cell Physiol 37:169–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Koyro HW (1997) Ultrastructural and physiological changes in root cells of Sorghum plant (Sorghum bicolor x S. sudanensis cv. Sweet Sioux) induced by NaCl. J Exp Bot 48:693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mitsuya S, Takeoka Y, Miyake H (2000) Effects of sodium chloride on foliar ultrastructure of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas Lam) plantlets grown under light and dark conditions in vitro. J Plant Physiol 157:661–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munns R (2002) Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ 25:239–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 59:651–681Google Scholar
  21. Omoto E, Taniguchi M, Miyake H (2010) Effects of salinity stress on the structure of bundle sheath and mesophyll chloroplasts in NAD-malic enzyme and PCK type C4 plants. Plant Prod Sci 13:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pajerowski JD, Dahl KN, Zhong FL, Sammak PJ, Discher DE (2007) Physical plasticity of the nucleus in stem cell differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15619–15624PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parida AK, Das AB, Mittra B (2003) Effects of NaCl stress on the structure, pigment complex composition, and photosynthetic activity of mangrove Bruguiera parviflora chloroplasts. Photosynthetica 41:191–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Qiu L, Wu DZ, Ali S, Cai SG, Dai F, Zhang GP (2011) Evaluation of salinity tolerance and analysis of allelic function of HvHKT1 and HvHKT2 in Tibetan wild barley. Theor Appl Genet 122:695–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shabala S (2003) Regulation of potassium transport in leaves: from molecular to tissue level. Ann Bot 92:627–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shavrukov Y (2013) Salt stress or salt shock: which genes are we studying? J Exp Bot 64:119–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shuang W, Tobias B, Kimberly LG (2012) Mechanical fixation techniques for processing and orienting delicate samples, such as the root of Arabidopsis thaliana, for light or electron microscopy. Nat Protocol 7:1113–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sze H, Schumacher K, Müller ML, Padmanaban S, Taiz L (2002) A simple nomenclature for a complex proton pump: VHA genes encode the vacuolar H+-ATPase. Trends Plant Sci 7:157–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wu DZ, Qiu L, Xu L, Ye LZ, Chen MX, Zhang GP (2011) Genetic variation of HvCBF genes and their association with salinity tolerance in Tibetan annual wild barley. PLoS One 6:e22938PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wu DZ, Cai SG, Chen M, Ye LZ, Chen ZG, Wu FB, Zhang GP (2013) Tissue metabolic responses to salt stress in wild and cultivated barley. PLoS One 8:e55431PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yamane K, Kawasaki M, Taniguchi M, Miyake H (2003) Differential effect of NaCl and polyethylene glycol on the ultrastructure of chloroplasts in rice seedlings. J Plant Physiol 160:573–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yamane K, Mitsuya S, Taniguchi W, Miyake H (2012) Salt-induced chloroplast protrusionis the process of exclusion of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase from chloroplasts into cytoplasm in leaves of rice. Plant Cell Environ 35:1663–1671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang HX, Blumwald E (2001) Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit. Nat Biotechnol 19:765–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zhao J, Sun HY, Dai HX, Zhang GP, Wu FB (2010) Difference in response to drought stress among Tibet wild barley genotypes. Euphytica 172:395–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu JK (2001) Plant salt tolerance. Trends Plant Sci 6:66–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jabeen Zahra
    • 1
  • Hussain Nazim
    • 1
  • Shengguan Cai
    • 1
  • Yong Han
    • 1
  • Dezhi Wu
    • 1
  • Binlin Zhang
    • 1
  • Shamsi Imran Haider
    • 1
  • Guoping Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Agronomy Department, Key Laboratory of Crop Germplasm Resource of Zhejiang Province, Institute of Crop Science, College of Agriculture and BiotechnologyZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations