Retranslocation of Zn from leaves as important factor for zinc efficiency of rice genotypes

  • R. Hajiboland
  • B. Singh
  • V. Römheld
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Plant and Soil Sciences book series (DPSS, volume 92)

Abstract

Zinc (Zn) retranslocation from mature to growing leaves and its dependence on Zn nutritional status were studied in a Znefficient and a Zn-inefficient rice genotype. Plants were precultured in nutrient solution with low Zn supply and afterwards loaded either with unlabelled Zn 65Zn or for 48 h. Zn-loaded plants were grown for further 16 to 20 d in a chelator-buffered (HEDTA) nutrient solution at low (2 pM) and adequate (130 pM) levels of free Zn2+ activity. Zn retranslocation took already place from individual, not yet fully expanded leaves into youngest leaves after emergence. This Zn retranslocation from source to sink leaves was higher under low Zn supply and higher in the Zn-efficient (up to 61%) than in the Zninefficient genotype (up to 47%). In addition, the transition from a sink to a source leaf for Zn retranslocation took place 2–3 d earlier under low than adequate Zn supply. This data indicates that besides Zn acquisition by roots mobility and retranslocation of Zn within rice plants have to be considered as important factor in genotypical differences for Zn efficiency.

Key words

Oryza sativa rice genotypes utilisation efficiency zinc efficiency zinc retranslocation 

References

  1. Cakmak I, Sari N, Marschner H, Ekiz H, Kalayci M, Yilmaz A and Braun HJ 1996 Plant Soil 180, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cakmak I, Torum B, Erenoglu B, Öztürk L, Marschner H, Kalayci M, Ekiz H and Yilmaz A 1998 Euphytica 100, 349–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dong B, Rengel Z and Graham RD 1995 J. Plant Nutr. 18, 2761–2773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Erenoglu B, Römheld V and Cakmak I 2001 Proc. XIV Intern. Plant Nutr. Colloquium, this issue.Google Scholar
  5. Erenoglu B, Cakmak I, Marschner H, Römheld V, Eker S, Daghari H, Kaöyci M and Ekiz H 1996 J. Plant Nutr. 19, 1569–1580.Google Scholar
  6. Erenoglu B, Cakmak I, Römheld V, Derici R and Rengel Z 1999 Pant Soil 209, 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Forno DA, Yoshida S and Asher CJ 1975 Plant Soil 42, 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham RD, Ascher JS and Hynes SC 1992 Plant Soil 146, 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Loneragan IF 1991 In Copper in Soils and Plants. Eds JF Loneragan AD Robson and RD Graham. pp 165–188. Academic Press Sydney.Google Scholar
  10. Rengel Z and Graham RD 1996 J. Exp. Bot. 47, 217–226.Google Scholar
  11. Rengel Z and Römheld V 2000 Plant Soil 222, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Yang X, Römheid V and Marschner H 1993 Plant Soil 155/156, 441–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zhang C, Römheld V and Marschner H 1995 J. Plant Physiol. 146, 268–272.Google Scholar
  14. Zhang C and Römheld V and Marschner H 1996 Plant Soil 182, 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Hajiboland
    • 1
  • B. Singh
    • 2
  • V. Römheld
    • 2
  1. 1.Botany DepartmentTabriz UniversityTabrizIran
  2. 2.Institut für Pflanzenernährung (330)Universität HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations