Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 199, Issue 2, pp 251–260 | Cite as

Differences in lead tolerance between Allium cepa plants developing from seeds and bulbs

  • E. Michalak
  • M. Wierzbicka
Article

Abstract

Tolerance to lead of three of Allium cepa L. varieties grown from seeds and bulbs was compared. In all cases plants developing from bulbs were found more tolerant to lead than those developing from seeds. During 10 days of exposure to lead, the difference in the tolerance index between adventitious and seedling roots was 24% on average (7-61% depending on the plant variety and the dose of lead), which was significant. In all cases, the seedlings contained more lead in their tissues than the plants that had developed from bulbs. This observation may explain a difference in lead tolerance between these developmental phases of Allium cepa.

adventitious roots Allium cepa lead tolerance index 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Antosiewicz D M 1992 Adaptation of plants to environment polluted with heavy metals. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 61, 281–299.Google Scholar
  2. Antosiewicz D M 1993 Mineral status of dicotyledonous crop plants in relation to their constitutional tolerance to lead. Environ. Exp. Bot. 33, 575–589.Google Scholar
  3. Antosiewicz D M 1995 The relationships between constitutional and inducible Pb-tolerance and tolerance to mineral deficits in Biscutella laevigata and Silene inflata. Environ. Exp. Bot. 35, 55–69.Google Scholar
  4. Antosiewicz D M 1997 The role of a plant ‘physiotope’ in its defence against toxic effect of lead. Physiol. Plant. (In press).Google Scholar
  5. Baker A J M 1981 Accumulators and excluders-strategies in the response of plants to heavy metals. J. Plant Nutr. 3, 643–654.Google Scholar
  6. Baker A J M and Walker P L 1990 Ecophysiology of metal uptake by tolerant plants. In Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionaiy Aspects. Ed. A J Shaw. pp 155–173. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  7. Baker A J M and Walker P L 1989 Physiological responses of plants to heavy metals and the quantification of tolerance and toxicity. Bioavailability 1, 7–17.Google Scholar
  8. Barceló J, Poschenrieder C, Ańdreu J and Grunsé B 1986a Cadmium-induced decrease of water stress resistance in bush bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Contender). I. Effects of Cd on water potential, relative water content, and cell wall elasticity. J. Plant Physiol., 125, 17–25.Google Scholar
  9. Barceló J, Poschenrieder C and Grunsé B 1986b Water relations of chromium. VI. Treated bush bean plants (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Contender) under both normal and water stress conditions. J. Exp. Bot. 37, 178–187.Google Scholar
  10. Bazzaz F A, Rolfe G L and Windle P 1974 Differing sensitivity of corn and soybean photosynthesis and transpiration to lead contamination. J. Environ. Qual. 3, 156–158.Google Scholar
  11. Bazzaz F A, Carlson R W and Rolfe G L 1975 Inhibition of corn and sunflower photosynthesis by lead. Physiol. Plant 34, 326–329.Google Scholar
  12. Burzyński M 1985 Influence of lead on chlorophyll content and on initial steps of its synthesis in greening cucumber seedlings. Acta. Soc. Bot. 54, 95–105.Google Scholar
  13. Burzyński M 1987 The uptake and transpiration of water and the accumulation of lead by plants growing on lead solutions. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 56, 271–280.Google Scholar
  14. Czarnowska K and Gworek B 1987 Heavy metals in soils in Central and Northern Poland. Rocznik Glebozn. 38, 41–57.Google Scholar
  15. Ernst W H O 1975 Physiology of heavy metal resistance in plants. International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Oct. 27–31. pp 121–136.Google Scholar
  16. Gerber G B, Léonard A and Jacquet P 1980 Toxicity, mutagenecity and teratogenicity of lead. Mutat. Res. 76, 115–141.Google Scholar
  17. Heinrichs H and Mayer R 1977 Distribution and cycling of major and trace elements in two central European forest ecosystems. J. Environ. Qual. 6, 402.Google Scholar
  18. Hong S, Candelone J P, Turetta C, Boutron C F 1996 Changes in natural lead, copper, zinc and cadmium concentrations in central Greenland ice from 8250 to 149,100 years ago: their association with climatic changes and resultant variations of dominant source contributions. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 143, 233–244.Google Scholar
  19. Kabata-Pendias A and Pendias H 1992 Trace elements in soils and plants. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  20. Koeppe D E 1981 Lead: understanding the minimal toxicity of lead in plants. In Effects of heavy metal pollution on plants, Vol. 2. Ed. N.W. Lepp. pp 55–76. Applied Science Publishers, Borking.Google Scholar
  21. Levitt J 1972 Salts and other stress. In Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses. pp 489–530. Academic Press, New York, San Francisco, London.Google Scholar
  22. Macnair M R 1990 The genetics of metal tolerance in natural populations. In Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants: Evolutionary Aspects. Ed. A J Shaw. pp 235–253. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
  23. Mengel K and Kirkby E A 1980 Principles of Plant Nutrition. International Potash Institute, Worblaufen-Bern/Swizerland.Google Scholar
  24. Podbielkowski Z, Podbielkowska M 1992 Adaptation of plants to environment. Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne, Warsaw (in Polish).Google Scholar
  25. Poskuta J, Parys E and Romanowska E 1987 The effects of lead on the gaseous exhange and photosynthetic carbon metabolism of pea seedlings. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 56, 127–137.Google Scholar
  26. Poskuta J, Parys E, Romanowska E, Gajdis-Gujdan H and Wróblewska B 1988 The effect of lead on photosynthesis, 14C distribution among photoassimilates and transpiration of maize seedlings. Acta. Soc. Bot. Pol. 57, 149–155.Google Scholar
  27. Przymusiński R and Woźny A 1985 The reactions of lupin to the presence of lead in the medium. Biochem. Physiol. Pflanzen. 180, 309–318.Google Scholar
  28. Qureshi J A, Hardwick K and Collin H A 1986 Intracellular localization of lead in a lead tolerant and sensitive clone of Antoxanthum odoratum. J. Plant Physiol. 122, 357–364.Google Scholar
  29. Rauser W E 1995 Phytochelatines and related peptides. Plant Physiol. 109, 1141–1149.Google Scholar
  30. Rusiecki W and Kubikowski P 1969 Contemporary toxicology. Państwowy Zaklad Wydawnictw Lekarskich, Warszawa. 670 p. (in Polish).Google Scholar
  31. Sapek A 1979 Methods in chemical analysis of meadow vegetation soil and water. Institute for Land Reclamation and Grassland Farming. Falenty (in Polish).Google Scholar
  32. Schat H and Ten Bookum W M 1992 Genetic control of copper tolerance in Silene vulgaris. Heredity 68, 219–229.Google Scholar
  33. Schat H, Vooijs R and Kuiper E 1996 Identical major gene loci for heavy metal tolerances that have independently evolved in different local populations and subspecies of Silene vulgaris. Evolution 50, 1888–1895.Google Scholar
  34. Strebeyko P 1967 An introduction to Plant Physiology. PWRiL, Warszawa (in Polish).Google Scholar
  35. Tomaszewska B, Tukendorf A, Baralkiewicz D 1996 The synthesis of phytochelatins in lupin roots treated with lead ions. Sci. Legumes 3, 206–217.Google Scholar
  36. Thomsett A B and Thurman D A 1988 Molecular biology of metal tolerances of plants. Plant Cell Environ. 11, 383–394.Google Scholar
  37. Tukendorf A, Skórzyńska-Polit E, Baszyński T 1997 Homophytochelatin accumulation in Cd-treated runner bean plants is related to their growth stage. Plant Science 129, 21–28.Google Scholar
  38. Wierzbicka M 1987a Lead accumulation and its translocation barriers in roots of Allium cepa L. — autoradiographic and ultrastructural studies. Plant Cell Environ. 10, 17–26.Google Scholar
  39. Wierzbicka M 1987b Lead translocation and localization in Allium cepa L. roots. Can. J. Bot. 65, 1857–1860.Google Scholar
  40. Wierzbicka M 1987c An improved method of preparing onion bulbs for the Allium test. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 56, 43–53.Google Scholar
  41. Wierzbicka M 1988 Mitotic disturbances induced by low doses of inorganic lead. Caryologia 41, 143–160.Google Scholar
  42. Wierzbicka M 1989 Disturbances in cytokinesis caused by inorganic lead. Environ. Exp. Bot. 29, 123–133.Google Scholar
  43. Wierzbicka M 1994 The resumption of metabolic activity in Allium cepa L. roots tips during treatment with lead salts. Environ. Exp. Bot. 34, 173–180.Google Scholar
  44. Wierzbicka M 1995 How lead loses its toxicity to plants. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 64, 81–90.Google Scholar
  45. Wierzbicka M 1998 Lead in the apoplast of Allium cepa L. root tips — ultrastructural studies. Plant Science (In press).Google Scholar
  46. Wierzbicka M and Antosiewicz D 1988 Allium test-some questions. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 57, 201–215.Google Scholar
  47. Wierzbicka M and Antosiewicz D 1993 How lead can easily enter food chain-a study of plant roots. Sci. Total. Environ. (Suppl.-part I) 423–429.Google Scholar
  48. Wierzbicka M and Panufnik D 1998 The adaptation of Silene vulgaris to the growth on a calamine waste heap (S. Poland). Environ. Pollut. (In press).Google Scholar
  49. Wilkins D A 1957 A technique for the measurement of lead tolerance in plants. Nature 180, 37–38.Google Scholar
  50. Wilkins D A 1978 The measurement of tolerance to edaphic factors by means of root growth. New Phytol. 80, 623–633.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Michalak
    • 1
  • M. Wierzbicka
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental Plant Pollution Laboratory, Department of Morphogenesis, Institute of Plant Experimental BiologyUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations