| Literature DB >> 25140348 |
Junhua Liu1, Jiangbao Xia2, Yanming Fang3, Tian Li2, Jingtao Liu2.
Abstract
The present study was designed to clarify the effects of salinity and water intercross stresses on the growth and physiobiochemical characteristics of Tamarix chinensis seedlings by pots culture under the artificial simulated conditions. The growth, activities of SOD, POD, and contents of MDA and osmotic adjusting substances of three years old seedlings of T. chinensis were studied under different salt-drought intercross stress. Results showed that the influence of salt stress on growth was greater than drought stress, the oxidation resistance of SOD and POD weakened gradually with salt and drought stresses intensified, and the content of MDA was higher under severe drought and mild and moderate salt stresses. The proline contents increased with the stress intensified but only significantly higher than control under the intercross stresses of severe salt-severe drought. It implied that T. chinensis could improve its stress resistance by adjusted self-growth and physiobiochemical characteristics, and the intercross compatibility of T. chinensis to salt and drought stresses can enhance the salt resistance under appropriate drought stress, but the dominant factors influencing the physiological biochemical characteristics of T. chinensis were various with the changing of salt-drought intercross stresses gradients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25140348 PMCID: PMC4130323 DOI: 10.1155/2014/765840
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Effects of Tamarix chinensis growth and biomass conditions with different salt and drought stresses treatment.
| Treatment | Plant height (cm) | Main root | Stem basal | Overground | Underground | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water condition | Salinity | |||||
| High soil moisture (mild drought) | CK | 85.93 ± 7.65b | 14.54 ± 1.25a | 0.51 ± 0.12a | 13.12 ± 2.89b | 5.01 ± 0.97b |
| 0.4% | 115.76 ± 10.28a | 15.58 ± 1.67a | 0.63 ± 0.26a | 18.01 ± 3.35a | 9.52 ± 2.71a | |
| 1.2% | 87.29 ± 5.96b | 11.56 ± 1.87b | 0.37 ± 0.14b | 9.04 ± 3.02c | 4.13 ± 1.85b | |
| 2.5% | — | — | — | — | — | |
|
| ||||||
| Low soil moisture (severe drought) | CK | 85.70 ± 5.37b | 11.51 ± 1.12b | 0.47 ± 0.14a | 12.89 ± 1.18b | 4.86 ± 0.92b |
| 0.4% | 98.58 ± 4.72a | 12.57 ± 1.25b | 0.49 ± 0.22a | 15.67 ± 1.37a | 7.03 ± 1.15a | |
| 1.2% | 74.43 ± 5.01c | 15.68 ± 1.67a | 0.35 ± 0.09b | 6.95 ± 1.86c | 3.72 ± 0.89b | |
| 2.5% | 86.24 ± 3.97b | 10.89 ± 1.02b | 0.36 ± 0.08b | 5.26 ± 0.98c | 2.63 ± 0.76c | |
The different letters within the same row indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level. “—”stands for plant individual death.
Figure 2The changes of MDA contents under different salt and drought stresses. The different letters within the same treatment indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level. The “∗” stands for the significant difference at 0.01 level between two treatment under the same salt stress.
Figure 1The changes of SOD and POD activity under different salt and drought stresses. The different letters within the same treatment indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level. The “∗” stands for the significant difference at 0.01 level between two treatments under the same salt stress.
Figure 3The changes of proline contents under different salt and drought stresses. The different letters within the same treatment indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level. The “∗” stands forthe significant difference at 0.01 level between two treatments under the same salt stress.