Euphytica

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 7–14 | Cite as

Comparison of shoot dry weight, Na+ content and δ13C values of ari-e and other semi-dwarf barley mutants under salt-stress

  • H. Pakniyat
  • L.L. Handley
  • W.T.B. Thomas
  • T. Connolly
  • M. Macaulay
  • P.D.S. Caligari
  • B.P. Forster
Article

Abstract

Four breviaristatum (short awned and semi-dwarf) barley mutants; ari-e.1, ari-e.119, ari-e.156 and ari-e.228 were compared with other semi-dwarf mutants; Golden Promise, Alf, Pallas and Diamant along with their non-mutant parents; Bonus, Foma, Maythorpe, Bomi and Valticky, for response to salt stress. Plants were exposed to hydroponic salt treatments (NaCl at 25 and 175 mol m-3) for 4 weeks, after which response was measured in terms of shoot dry weight, sodium content and δ13C. In general ari-e mutants and Golden Promise had significantly lower Na+ contents than the other mutants. They also had significantly more negative δ13C values than the other lines in stressed (175 mol m-3 NaCl) conditions. There was a positive correlation (r = 0.71, p < 0.01) between shoot Na+ and δ13C values so that δ13C became less negative with increasing Na+ content. Shoot dry weights were compared to shoot Na+ and δ13C values. The ari-e and Golden Promise mutants showed less reduction in dry matter production in salt stress relative to the control treatment than all the other lines. The data suggest that ari-e mutants and Golden Promise are better adapted to salt stressed environments than the other lines examined. Tests for gibberellic acid sensitivity revealed that ari-e mutants and Golden Promise responded weakly to GA3, while other dwarf mutants Pallas, Diamant and Alf along with their parents Bonus, Foma, Maythorpe, Valticky and Bomi were highly sensitive. Our results support previous findings that ari-e mutants and the GPert mutant are allelic.

Barley ari-e mutants salt tolerance Na+ content δ13gibberellic acid hydroponics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barua, U.M., K.J. Chalmers, W.T.B. Thomas, C.A. Hackett, V. Lea, P. Jack, B.P. Forster, R. Waugh & W. Powell, 1993. Molecular mapping of genes determining height, time to heading and growth habit in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Genome 36: 1080–1087.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Borg, G., 1959. Svalöf's original Pallas barley (Sv. 04032), a new 2-row spring barley produced by X-ray treatment of Svalöf's Bonus barley. Sveriges Utsadesfor. Tidskr: 72–96.Google Scholar
  3. Bouma, J., 1967. New variety of spring barley, ‘Diamant’ in Czechoslovakia. In: Induzierte Mutationen und ihre Nutzung, Erwin Baur Gedächtnisvorlesungen IV, 1966, Abh Dt Akad Wiss Berl Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  4. Ehdaie, B., A.E. Hall, G.D. Farquhar, H.T. Nguyen & J.G. Waines, 1991. Water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in wheat. Crop Science 31: 1282–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farquhar, G.D. & R.A. Richards, 1984. Isotopic composition of plant carbon correlates with water-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Aust J Plant Physiol 11: 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forster, B.P., 1992. Genetic engineering for salt tolerance in Triticeae. In: W. Powell, J.R. Hillman & J.A. Raven (Eds) Opportunities and Problems in Plant Biotechnology. Proceedings of The Royal Society of Edinburgh, 99B(3/4): 89–106.Google Scholar
  7. Forster, B.P., H. Pakniyat, M. Macaulay, W. Matheson, M.S. Phillips, W.T.B. Thomas & W. Powell, 1994. Variation in the leaf sodium content of Hordeum vulgare (barley) cultivar Maythorpe and its derived mutant cv. Golden Promise. Heredity 73: 249–253.Google Scholar
  8. Franckowiak, J.D., 1991. Allelism tests among selected semidwarf barleys. Barley Genetics Newsletter 21: 17–23.Google Scholar
  9. Greenway, H. & R. Munn, 1980. Mechanisms of salt tolerance in non-halophytes. Ann Rev Pl Physiol 31: 149–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gale, M.D. & C.N. Law, 1977. The identification and exploitation of Norin 10 dwarfing gene. Rep Plant Breed Inst Cambridge 1976: 21–35.Google Scholar
  11. Gorham, J., E. Budrewicz, R.G. Wyn Jones, 1985. Salt tolerance in the Triticeae: growth and solute accumulation in leaves of Thinopyrum bessarabicum. J Exp Bot 36: 1021–1031.Google Scholar
  12. Haahr, V. & D. von Wettstein, 1976. Studies of an induced high yielding dwarf-mutant of spring barley. In: H. Gaul (Ed.) Barley Genetics III. Verlag Karl Thiemig, Munich: 215–218.Google Scholar
  13. Hanson, P.R., J.A. McVittie & J.L. Smalley, 1980. Seedling response to exogenous gibberellic acid in spring barley. Z Pflanzenzüchtg 84: 115–121.Google Scholar
  14. Handley, L.L., M.J. Daft, J. Wilson, C.M. Scrimgeour, K. Ingleby & M.A. Sattar, 1993. Effects of the Ecto-and VA-mycorrhizas (Hydnangium carneum and Glomus clarum) on the δ15N and δ13C values of Eucalyptus globulus and Ricinus cummunis. Plant, Cell Env 16: 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kucera, J., U. Lundqvist & A. Gustafsson, 1975. Induction of breviaristatum mutants in barley. Hereditas 80: 263–278.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laurie, D.A., N. Pratchett, C. Romero, E. Simpson & J.W. Snape, 1993. Assignment of the denso dwarfing gene to the long arm of chromosome 3 (3H) of barley by use of RFLP markers. Plant Breeding 111: 198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pakniyat, H., M. Macaulay & B.P. Forster, 1994. A salt tolerant mutation in Barley. In: Scottish Crop Research Institute Annual Report 1993: 40–42.Google Scholar
  18. Persson, G., 1969. An attempt to find suitable genetic markers for dense ear loci in barley. Hereditas 62: 25–96.Google Scholar
  19. Persson, G. & Hagberg, A., 1969. Induced variation in quantitive characters in barley. Morphology and cytogenetics of erectoides mutants. Hereditas 61: 115–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sigurbjornsson, B. & A. Micke, 1969. Progress in mutation breeding. In: Induced Mutation in Plants. Proc Symp Nature, Induction and Utilization of Mutation in Plants, Intern Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna: 673–697.Google Scholar
  21. Steel, R.G. & J.H. Torrie, 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, a Biometrical Approach. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
  22. Taeb, M., R.M.D. Koebner, B.P. Forster & C.N. Law, 1992. Association between genes controlling flowering time and shoot sodium accumulation in the Triticeae. Plant and Soil 146: 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomas, W.T.B., W. Powell & W. Wood, 1984. The chromosomal location of the dwarfing gene present in the spring barley variety Golden Promise. Heredity 53: 177–183.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Pakniyat
    • 1
  • L.L. Handley
    • 1
  • W.T.B. Thomas
    • 1
  • T. Connolly
    • 2
  • M. Macaulay
    • 1
  • P.D.S. Caligari
    • 3
  • B.P. Forster
    • 1
  1. 1.Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, DundeeScotlandU.K
  2. 2.Biomathematics and Statistics ScotlandScottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, DundeeScotlandU.K
  3. 3.Department of Agricultural Botany, School of Plant SciencesThe University of Reading, ReadingEnglandU.K

Personalised recommendations