Search Results
Abstract
Two greenhouse studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between water stress and N2 fixation among drought-resistant and susceptible cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] genotypes. In both experiments, seeds were planted in 7.6-liter black polyethylene pots containing composted sawdust medium and were inoculated with Rhizobium. Throughout the experiments, flowers were removed to maintain vegetative growth. Water stress treatments were imposed by withholding water, while the control plants were watered as needed. The treatments were applied 58 and 56 days after planting (DAP) in the first and 2nd experiments, respectively. In both experiments, leaf water potential (LWP), shoot fresh weight (SFW), shoot dry weight (SDW), root fresh weight (RFW), nodule fresh weight (NW), nodule number (NN), and plant specific activity (PSA) by both in situ and destructive acetylene reduction methods were measured. Repeated observations of in situ acetylene reduction were made 58, 63, and 71 DAP in the first experiment. All other variables were measured 77 to 78 DAP in the first experiment. Single observations of all variables, including in situ and destructive acetylene reduction were made 56, 67, and 81 DAP in the 2nd experiment. Results suggested that resistant genotypes are capable of maintaining LWP and biomass production (as measured by SDW and SFW) during water stress. In addition, the effect of water stress on N2 fixation was far greater than the influence of genotype when genotypes were selected for relative drought resistance. Path analysis revealed that LWP is correlated to N2 fixation in water-stressed plants, and improvement of plant water status via drought resistance should increase N2 fixation potential under drought conditions. Therefore, breeding for drought resistance in conjunction with N2 fixation may be more beneficial than breeding strictly for N2 fixation potential without regard for environmental adaptation. The in situ method of acetylene reduction was found to be useful for detecting physiological changes due to water stress and estimating its genotypic N2 fixation potential.
, G.C. 1969 Leaf water potential of differentially salinized plants Plant Physiol. 44 1378 1382 10.1104/pp.44.10.1378 Kiyosue, T. Yoshiba, Y. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Shinozaki, K. 1996 A nuclear gene encoding mitochondrial proline dehydrogenase, an
; Pfaffl 2001 ) and normalized relative to the geometric mean of ACT7 (actin 7) and DIM1 (thioredoxin-like protein YLS8) ( Mafra et al. 2012 ). Leaf water potential. During the first week of May 2020 (1 week before harvest), 10 fruit per tree were
.H.B.A. de Souza, J. P. 2009 Growth, photosynthesis and leaf water potential in young plants of Copaifera langsdorffii Desf. (Caesalpiniaceae) under contrasting irradiances Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 21 197 208 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677
.0031-9317.2004.0173.x Sengupta, A. Berkowitz, G.A. Pier, P.A. 1989 Maintenance of photosynthesis at low leaf water potential in wheat - Role of potassium status and irrigation history Plant Physiol. 89 1358 1365 doi: 10.1104/Pp.89
transpiring leaves. Here, this precondition is usually met and thus the common (but slightly careless) terminology has arisen where we talk of measuring leaf water potential with a pressure bomb. This being the case, some of the indirect fruit pressure
-009-0044-9 Santos, M.G. Ribeiro, R.V. Machado, E.C. Pimentel, C. 2009 Photosynthetic parameters and leaf water potential of five common bean genotypes under mild water deficit Biol. Plant. 53 229 236 doi: 10.1007/s10535-009-0044-9 10.1007/BF00396077 Seemann, J