Plant and Soil

, Volume 250, Issue 2, pp 183–191 | Cite as

Salinity induced differences in growth, ion distribution and partitioning in barley between the cultivar Maythorpe and its derived mutant Golden Promise

  • Wenxue Wei
  • Paul E. Bilsborrow
  • Paul Hooley
  • Daron A. Fincham
  • Enzo Lombi
  • Brian P. Forster
Article

Abstract

Dry matter changes and ion partitioning in two near isogenic barley cultivars Maythorpe (relatively salt sensitive) and Golden Promise (relatively salt tolerant) were studied in response to increasing salinity. Although the growth of both cultivars was significantly reduced by exposure to NaCl, the effect was greater in Maythorpe, whilst Golden Promise maintained an increased ratio of young to old leaf blade. Golden Promise maintained significantly lower Na+ concentrations in young expanding tissues compared with Maythorpe. Partitioning of Cl was evident in that both varieties maintained lower Cl concentrations in mesophyll than in epidermal cells. Golden Promise maintained higher K+/Na+ and Ca2+/Na+ ratios in young leaf blade and young sheath tissues than Maythorpe when exposed to salt. Differences in ion partitioning and the maintenance of higher K+ and Ca2+ to Na+ ratios, especially in young growing and recently expanded tissues, would appear to be important mechanisms contributing to the improved salt tolerance of Golden Promise.

ari-e.GP barley (Hordeum vulgaregrowth ion distribution salinity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apse M P, Aharon G S, Snedden W A and Blumwald E 1999 Salt tolerance conferred by overexpression of a vacuolar Na+/H+ antiport in Arabidopsis. Science 285, 1256–1258.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein N, Lauchli A and Silk W 1993 Kinematics and dynamics of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) leaf development at various NaCl salinities. Plant Physiol. 103, 1107–1114.Google Scholar
  3. Botella M A, Martinez V, Pardines J and Cerda A 1997 Salinity induced potassium deficiency in maize plants. J. Plant Nutr. 150, 200–205.Google Scholar
  4. Boursier P, Lynch J, Lauchlia and Epstein E 1987 Chloride partitioning in leaves of salt-stressed sorghum, maize, wheat and barley. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 14, 463–473.Google Scholar
  5. Epstein E, Norlyn J D, Rush D W, Kingsbury R W, Kelly D B, Cunningham G A and Wrona A F 1980 Saline culture of crops: a genetic approach. Science 210, 399–404.Google Scholar
  6. Epstein E 1998 How calcium enhances plant salt tolerance. Science 280, 1906–1907.Google Scholar
  7. Forster B P, Pakniyat H, Macaulay M, Matheson W, Phillips M S, Thomas W T B and Powell W 1994 Variation in the leaf sodium content of the Hordeum vulgare (barley) cultivar Maythorpe and its derived mutant cv. Golden Promise. Heredity. 73, 249–253.Google Scholar
  8. Fricke W, Leigh RA and Tomos A D 1994 Epidermal solute concentrations and osmolality in barley leaves studied at the single-cell level. Changes along the leaf blade, during leaf ageing and NaCl stress. Planta 192, 317–323.Google Scholar
  9. FrickeW, Leigh RA and Tomos A D 1996 The intercellular distribution of vacuolar solutes in the epidermis and mesophyll of barley leaves changes in response to NaCl. J. Exp. Bot. 47, 1413–1426.Google Scholar
  10. Gorham J, McDonnell E and Wyn Jones R G 1985 Salt tolerance in the Triticeae: Growth and solute accumulation in leaves of Thinopyrum bessarabicum. J. Exp. Bot. 36, 1021–1031.Google Scholar
  11. Gorham J 1990a Salt tolerance in the Triticeae: K/Na discrimination in synthetic hexaploid wheats. J. Exp. Bot. 41, 623–627.Google Scholar
  12. Gorham J 1990b Salt tolerance in the Triticeae: ion discrimination in rye and triticale. J. Exp. Bot. 41, 609–614.Google Scholar
  13. Greenway H 1962 Plant responses to saline substrates. I. Growth and ion uptake of several varieties of Hordeum during and after sodium chloride treatment. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 15, 16–38Google Scholar
  14. Greenway H and Munns R 1980 Mechanisms of salt tolerance in non-halophytes. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31, 149–190.Google Scholar
  15. Hasegawa P M, Bressan R A and Zhu J K 2000 Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 51, 463–499.Google Scholar
  16. Huang C X and Van Steveninck R F M 1989 Maintenance of low Cl- concentrations in mesophyll cells of leaf blades of barley seedlings exposed to salt stress. Plant Physiol. 90, 1440–1443.Google Scholar
  17. Huang J and Redman R E 1995 Responses of growth, morphology and anatomy to salinity and calcium supply in cultivated and wild barley. Can. J. Bot. 73, 1859–1866.Google Scholar
  18. Küpper H, Lombi E, Zhao F J and McGrath S P 2000 Cellular compartmentation of cadmium and zinc in relation to other elements in the hyperaccumulator Arabidopsis halleri. Planta 212, 75–84.Google Scholar
  19. Leigh RA and Storey R 1993 Intercellular compartmentation of ions in barley leaves in relation to potassium nutrition and salinity. J. Exp. Bot. 44, 755–762.Google Scholar
  20. Liu J and Zhu J K 1998 A calcium sensor homologue required for plant salt tolerance. Science 280, 1943–1945.Google Scholar
  21. Lynch J and Lauchli A 1985 Salt stress disturbs the calcium nutrition of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). New Phytol. 99, 345–354.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch J, Thiel G and Lauchli A 1988 Effects of salinity on the extensibility and Ca availability in the expanding region of growing barley leaves. Bot. Acta 101, 355–361.Google Scholar
  23. Miflin B 2000 Crop improvement in the 21st century. J. Exp. Bot. 51, 1–8.Google Scholar
  24. Munns R 1985 Na+, K+ and Cl- in xylem sap flowing to shoots of NaCl treated barley. J. Exp. Bot. 36, 1032–1042.Google Scholar
  25. Munns R, Fisher D B and Tonnet M L 1986 Na+ and Cl-transport in the phloem from leaves of NaCl-treated barley. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13, 757–766.Google Scholar
  26. Munns R 1993 Physiological processes limiting plant growth in saline soils: some dogmas and hypotheses. Plant Cell Envir. 16, 15–24.Google Scholar
  27. Neumann P 1997 Salinity resistance and plant growth revisited. Plant Cell Envir. 20, 1193–1198.Google Scholar
  28. Pakniyat H, Thomas W T B, Caligari P D S and Forster B P 1997 Comparison of salt tolerance of GPert and non-GPert barleys. Plant Breeding 116, 189–191.Google Scholar
  29. Rausch T, Kirsch M, Low R, Lehr A, Liereck R and Zhigang A 1996 Salt stress responses of higher plants: the role of proton pumps and Na+/H+-antiporters. J. Plant Physiol. 148, 425–433.Google Scholar
  30. Rawson H M, Long M J and Munns R 1988 Growth and development in NaCl-treated plants. I. Leaf Na+ and Cl- concentrations do not determine gas exchange of leaf blades in barley. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15, 519–527.Google Scholar
  31. Schachtman D P, Bloom A J and Dvorak J 1989 Salt-tolerant Triticum XLophopyrum derivatives limit the accumulation of sodium and chloride ions under saline-stress. Plant Cell Envir. 12, 47–55.Google Scholar
  32. Schachtman D P and Liu W H 1999 Molecular pieces to the puzzle of the interaction between potassium and sodium uptake in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 4, 281–287.Google Scholar
  33. Wei W, Bilsborrow P E, Hooley P, Fincham D A and Forster B P 2001 Variation between two near isogenic barley (Hordeum vulgare) cultivars in expression of the B subunit of the vacuolar ATPase in response to salinity. Hereditas 135, 227–231.Google Scholar
  34. Wolf O and Jeschke W D 1986 Sodium fluxes, xylem transport of sodium, and K/Na selectivity in roots of seedlings of Hordeum vulgare cv. California Mariout and Hordeum distichon cv. Villa. Ibid. 125, 243–256.Google Scholar
  35. Wolf O, Munns R, Tonnet M L and Jeschke W D 1991 The role of the stem in the partitioning of Na+ and K+ in salt-treated barley. J. Exp. Bot. 42, 697–704.Google Scholar
  36. Zhao F J, McGrath S P and Crossland A R 1994 Comparison of three wet digestion methods for the determination of plant sulphur by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (ICDAES). Comm. Soil Science Plant Anal. 25, 407–418.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang H and Blumwald E 2001 Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit. Nature Biotech. 19, 765–768.Google Scholar
  38. Zhu J K 2001 Plant salt tolerance. Trends Plant Sci. 6, 66–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenxue Wei
    • 1
  • Paul E. Bilsborrow
    • 1
  • Paul Hooley
    • 1
  • Daron A. Fincham
    • 1
  • Enzo Lombi
    • 2
  • Brian P. Forster
    • 3
  1. 1.Biosciences DivisionUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  2. 2.Scottish Crop Research Institute, InvergowrieDundeeUK
  3. 3.School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, University of Newcastle-upon-TyneUK

Personalised recommendations