Effects of Sodium Chloride on Water Status and Growth of Sugar Beet

Milford, G. F. J.; Cormack, W. F.; Durrant, M. J.

doi:10.1093/jxb/28.6.1380

Cited by 38 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous experiments with sugar beet have also found i/r t to decrease primarily in response to a decreasing potential in the rooting medium Lawlor & Milford, 1973;Milford et al 1977;Biscoe, 1972). The minimum \jr l measured in each of these investigations was generally around -1-5 MPa, i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Response of the components of sugar beet leaf water potential to a drying soil profile

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For many field-grown crops, including sugar beet, there is little information on the seasonal changes in leaf water potential and its components as the soil dries. Therefore, seasonal changes in leaf water, osmotic and turgor potentials of sugar beet were measured in two seasons, in crops that experienced differing degrees of soil moisture stress. In 1983 potentials of crops exposed to early and late droughts were compared with those of irrigated crops, and in 1984 measurements were made in a non-irrigated crop. In the irrigated crop the midday leaf water potential changed little during the season, except in response to fluctuating evaporative demand. In the drought and non-irrigated treatments there was a sharp fall in leaf water potential as soon as the soil water potential decreased. The size of the midday leaf water potential was primarily determined by soil dryness. However, the leaf water potential did not decrease below about -1-5 MPa in either year. The leaf osmotic potential declined at the same time as the leaf water potential, but the extent to which this happened differed in the two years. Only in the 1984 non-irrigated crop did the osmotic potential continue to decrease as the soil dried, suggesting that osmotic adjustment had taken place in 1984 but not in 1983. Thus higher turgor was maintained in the 1984 crop than in the 1983 drought-affected crops. Some turgors were recorded as apparently negative in 1983.Since the leaf water potential declined to a minimum of about -15 MPa, the soil water potential minima were also about -1-5 MPa. However, deeper soil was not dried to this extent, suggesting that the extra resistance for water uptake from deep soil was limiting or the rooting density was too low.The pattern of recovery of leaf water potential overnight suggested that the rhizosphere resistance to water movement was small, even as the soil dried. However, measurement of stem water potentials in 1984 indicated that a significant resistance to water flow existed within the aerial part of sugar beet plants. This shows that the use of the water potential in leaves as an estimate of that in stems or roots can be misleading.-a n d t h e t u r S o r P o t e n t i a l ' f v (Wallace, Clark & McGowan, 1983). Generally only f t and f, can be The flow of water from the soil to the atmosphere easily measured and \jr p is obtained by difference, via the plant is driven by a water potential gradient Turgor is considered to be a more appropriate between the leaf and the soil. The magnitude of the indicator of plant water status than i/r,, as many water potential gradient depends on the relative plant processes are turgor-dependent (Hsaio et al. rates of water absorption from the soil and water loss 1976). Use of i/r, alone ignores the possibility of from the leaf. Evaporation from the leaf lowers leaf osmotic adjustment which may allow positive turgor water potential and this change is transmitted via to be maintained even when i/r t becomes low. the xylem to the root, and hence to the soil.There is limited in...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Response of the components of sugar beet leaf water potential to a drying soil profile

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the species examined, the Chenopodiaceae, including the important crops spinach, beet, and sugar beet, have received particularly detailed attention, both in terms of physiological and field investigation (Larson and Pierre 1953;Lehr and Wybenga 1955;Tinker 1965;El-Sheikh et al 1967;Draycott et al 1970;Judel and Kuhn 1975;Draycott and Durrant 1976;Jeschke 1977;Milford et al 1977;Durrant et al 1978;Draycott and Bugg 1982;Flowers and Läuchli 1983;Nunes et al 1984;Pessarakli and Tucker 1985;Peck et al 1987;Magat and Goh 1990;Haneklaus et al 1998;Subbarao et al 1999a, b). Beneficial effects in this family are pronounced, and this may well relate to their ecological habit as ruderal, r-strategic, species (Desplanque et al 1999), capable of substantial growth rates and physiological flexibility in response to rapidly changing environments.…”

Section: Sodium As a Nutrientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sodium as nutrient and toxicant

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Sodium (Na + ) is one of the most intensely researched ions in plant biology and has attained a reputation for its toxic qualities. Following the principle of Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim (Paracelsus), Na + is, however, beneficial to many species at lower levels of supply, and in some, such as certain C4 species, indeed essential. Scope Here, we review the ion's divergent roles as a nutrient and toxicant, focusing on growth responses, membrane transport, stomatal function, and paradigms of ion accumulation and sequestration. We examine connections between the nutritional and toxic roles throughout, and place special emphasis on the relationship of Na + to plant potassium (K + ) relations and homeostasis. Conclusions Our review investigates intriguing connections and disconnections between Na + nutrition and toxicity, and concludes that several leading paradigms in the field, such as on the roles of Na + influx and tissue accumulation or the cytosolic K + /Na + ratio in the development of toxicity, are currently insufficiently substantiated and require a new, critical approach.

show abstract

“…Beets have a natural tolerance to salt . Their response is genotype dependant (Marschner et al ., 1981 ;Milford et al ., 1977 ;Heuer & Plaut, 1989) . When growing on saline media, both sodium and chloride are accumulated in the shoot (Lessani & Marschner, 1978 ;Heuer & Plaut, 1989) .…”

Section: Other Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%