2001
DOI: 10.1093/jexbot/52.354.153
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Leaf ureide degradation and N2 fixation tolerance to water deficit in soybean1

Abstract: Accumulation of ureides in leaves is associated with the sensitivity of N(2) fixation in soybean to soil water deficit. Consequently, ureide degradation in leaves may be a key to increasing soybean tolerance to dry soils. Previous research indicated that allantoic acid degradation is catalysed by different enzymes in cultivars Maple Arrow and Williams. The enzyme found in Williams requires manganese as a cofactor. The first objective of this study was to determine if the two degradation pathways were associate… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
34
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
2
34
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, transpiration dropped upon progressive soil drying in relatively dryer soil in the sensitive lines than in the tolerant ones. Genotypic differences in the decline in transpiration has also been reported in several crops including soybean (Vadez and Sinclair, 2001;Hufstetler et al 2007), and groundnut (Bhatnagar-Mathur et al 2007). Our results here were, however, different from those in pearl millet where tolerant lines had a decline of transpiration in dryer soils than sensitive lines (Kholova et al 2010a).…”
Section: Differences In Ftsw Thresholdsmentioning
confidence: 78%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, transpiration dropped upon progressive soil drying in relatively dryer soil in the sensitive lines than in the tolerant ones. Genotypic differences in the decline in transpiration has also been reported in several crops including soybean (Vadez and Sinclair, 2001;Hufstetler et al 2007), and groundnut (Bhatnagar-Mathur et al 2007). Our results here were, however, different from those in pearl millet where tolerant lines had a decline of transpiration in dryer soils than sensitive lines (Kholova et al 2010a).…”
Section: Differences In Ftsw Thresholdsmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Both the reduction/stoppage of leaf expansion and/or the closure of stomata at high soil moisture thresholds would slow down soil water depletion and would be beneficial in the case of long drought spells. Genotypic differences exist in leaf gas exchange response to water stress in several crops such as maize (Ray and Sinclair, 1997), soybean (Vadez and Sinclair, 2001;Hufstetler et al 2007), and groundnut (Bhatnagar-Mathur et al 2007), although data in chickpea indicate it does not (Leport et al, 1999).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…plants were allowed to lose no more than 70/100 g each day at the vegetative/reproductive stage (see the experimental design below). Therefore, any transpiration in excess of 70/100 g was added back to the pots, as previously described (Vadez and Sinclair, 2001). The experiment was terminated when, for a given genotype, the transpiration of WS plants was <10% of that of WW plants.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The difference in re-watering was related to the pot size and allowed the imposition of relatively similar kinetics of stress imposition in these pots varying in size and therefore in water availability. Any transpiration in excess of these maximum daily water losses allowed was added back to the pots, as previously described (Vadez and Sinclair, 2001). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous work in several crops shows genotypic differences in how leaf gas exchange responds to water stress, with certain genotypes being capable of sustaining plant transpiration until the soil becomes fairly dry, whereas others react with a decline in transpiration when the soil is still relatively wet. This has been documented in maize (Ray and Sinclair, 1997), soybean (Vadez and Sinclair, 2001; Hufstetler et al, 2007), and groundnut (Bhatnagar-Mathur et al , 2007). The relevance of either type of behaviour for performance under drought conditions in the field would depend on the pattern of drought: a decline in transpiration at high soil moisture would allow some water saving and would be beneficial in the case of long drought spells, but the related decrease in light capture and carbon fixation would eventually be reflected in a yield penalty in conditions of short drought spells.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%