Original
Research
EVALUATION OF SALT
AND HEAVY METAL STRESS FOR SEEDLING TRAITS IN WHEAT
ASIF S, ALI Q, *MALIK A
Institute of Molecular Biology and
Biotechnology, The University of Lahore, Lahore, Pakistan
Corresponding
author email: saba.chattha50@gmail.com,
arifuaf@yahoo.com
(Received 6th
January 2020; Accepted 29th March 2020)
Keywords:
Triticum aestivum, salinity, heavy metals, germplasm, root length, shoot
length
Wheat
main crop of Pakistan because is used as staple food and attains supreme
position during the country's agricultural policy construction. The specimen
has been cultivated in the field of eighty lac hectares exhibiting a decline in
production as last year it was cultivated on nine million hectares. However, an
estimated 24.2 million tons of bumper wheat crop has increased by 3.9 percent
over 23.3 million tons last year's crop (Mazher et al., 2007). Pakistan's
domestic average remains very small relative to other wheat-producing nations.
Considering the impacted part of the salt is situated within the control
channel region, and may enhance the salt tolerance of wheat may lead
significantly to improving output per hectare, as well as Pakistan's success in
wheat manufacturing with other nations. Reduced growth and productivity is the
eventual result of decrease of plant nutrients or excess of hazardous or
harmful material. These inhibiting growth conditions has a higher impact on
life cycle of plant. Distinguishing the environmental conditions is very hard
as the other stress element is also involved during the stress event. Plants
are exposed to various kinds of abiotic pressures: excess of salt, excess or shortage
of water and inadequacies in nutrients. Salt stress is very prevalent amongst
the abiotic stresses that affect plant health (Pessarakli et al., 1991). Across globe, it is estimated that more than eight
Mha of salinity are influenced mainly by sodium (434 Mha) or others (397 Mha),
which is more than six half of the world's ground region (FAO, 2005). However,
due to irrigation and land clearing, both sodium and most natural salinity has
become a big percentage of grown property lately salty. UNEP and FAO report
that approximately 0.45 billion farms of 230 million farms of irrigated soil
are salinized (FAO, 2005). 15 percent irrigated soil out of total area under
cultivation is yielding much higher about one fifth of the world's complete
requirement (Munns 2005).
A greater number
of living and non-living elements that narrow and eventually affect crop
development and output. Dry spell, weather, salinity and timber extraction are
prominent biotic factors and abiotic factors. Excess of water and salt are among
the most significant issues factor affecting plant output in today's world's
irrigated soil. These issues are the primary barriers to poor crop efficiency
in different regions of Pakistan.
Salinization is
among the main soil degeneration variables that noxiously reduce plant growth
and efficiency throughout the world. Approximately 7% of the complete region of
the globe is influenced by water (Szabolcs, 1989). The scenario is further
worsened worldwide, with salinization increasing by 10% worldwide, especially
in nations where unnatural irrigation is vital agricultural support (Flowers
and Hajibagheri, 2004). In North Indian Plain, the British governor improved
issues linked to salt with the introduction and spread of the irrigation
scheme. Pakistan is one of the countries in this area with the world's biggest
adjacent ground irrigation scheme. This is the area where the per capita
magnitude of soil assets is restricted, vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic
disturbances, and susceptible to degradation due to predicted climate change
and increased demographic stress.
In
the water, salts prevent crop development for two purposes. Firstly, the
capacity of the plant to handle water is decreased, thus reducing crop
development. This is a salinity deficiency or osmotic consequence. Secondly, in
the documents, salts can reach the transpiration column of crops that develop
and harm cells, as well as decrease plant growth leaching. This is a
salinity-specific ion surplus impact on development speed (Munns, 2005). It
contributes to a salinity reaction of the crop in two phases. In the first stage, crops under
drought and physiological reaction impacted by outside salinity and compelled
crops are similar to the reaction to drought stress. Sodium chloride
accumulates in surplus quantities that hinder development instead of
accommodating this development of increasing tissue spaces when they come to
xylem. Which are mostly supplied in phloem, in the event of meristematic
tissue, acids were effectually avoided (Munns, 2002). Subsequently next phase,
affected to a greater degree by the salinity factory inside the plant. In
the previous documents, salt is deposited in the excess by crops: a very
elevated amount of NaCl outcomes in a continuous transition of salt to the flow
of transpiration over a lengthy time of time and is left to decay. Maybe the
vacuolar ability to weigh the toxic salt species is triggered by congestion.
For plant survival mortality rate is very critical. On other side reason of
dehydration is might they construct in cell wall (Munns et al., 2005). If mortality is greater than average of emerging new
leaves it will difficult for plant to survive. It is seen there is rise in manufacturing of “ROS i.e. O-,
O-2, H2O2 and OH” in cell. manufacturing of
these radicals mainly occuring in areas located in peroxisome, chloroplast and
mitochondrial electron transport chain. Plants also modified themselves against
injurious effects of ROS. Main defending system of plants are mostly
antioxidant enzymes such as CAT, POD and SOD.
Superoxide
anion (O-2) radicals resulting from environmental stress variables such as
plant salinity will be catalyzed by SOD to H2O2 and
oxygen (O2). As a result of this dismutation response, CAT converts
H2O2 into air (H2O) and O2 which demonstrates very toxic impacts in
living systems. Not like CAT, POD by oxidation of co-substrate i.e. decaying H2O2
by flavonoids or tannins. In plants, CAT occur in microbody
(peroxisomes and glyoxisomes) and its main purpose is to erase H2O2
produce during β-oxidation and photorespiration of fatty acids. Adding in
it, higher plants have many different PODs involved in various processes, such
as salt stress, and these are found in the cell wall, cytosol and vacuoles. Many physical (engineering), Biological and
chemical method are initiated for production on such soils. Due to limitation
in environment and economic reasons cohesive use of these methods is
imperative. Foliar or basal application of fertilizers has obtained much focus
for minimizing hazardous impact of salt content (Raza et al., 2006). An
exogenous implementation of potassium in corn (Akram et al., 2007), Ca in fruit
(Awada et al., 1995), along with action of nitrogen on beans (Save et al., 1994)
improved the antagonistic impact of salt content.
Materials and
methods
Seeds
of three varieties (Inqalab-91, Faisalabad-2008, Anaj-2006) of wheat were
collected from market. Pots, peat moss soil, seeds, falcons, water, spatula,
permanent marker, scotch tape, weighing balance and UV spectrophotometer were
used as equipment. NaCl, CuSO4 and ethanol were used as reagents. Forty-five
seeds from each variety were sown in seedling trays filled with soil and silt
media. Experiment was done under controlled environmental conditions in Lab,
Department of biotechnology University of Lahore, where average temperature was
kept at 20±5oC during day and 12±3oC at night during the
experimental period. While relative humidity was kept in a range of 50-85%.
Ideal moisture levels for germination along with seedling development was kept
with regular irrigation. To, T1, T2, T3, T4,
T5, T6, T7 and T8 were
denoted as control, 1M NACL, 0.5 M NACL, 1M CuSO4, 0.5M CuSO4,
T1+T3, T1+T4, T2+T3 and
T2+T4, respectively.
Procedure
·
Sow the seeds in
the pots filled with peat moss soil.
·
Once at the 4th
leaf stage the data of the plants was collected, then the treatment
was initiated, once the plant reached the 4th leave stage.
·
After the treatment data was initiated again
·
Again, apply the
treatments after 7 days of first spray
·
Take the results
after three days
·
Spectrophotometric
analysis of leaf, stem and root
Parameters to be
evaluated
Plant were selected
from each pot for absolute growth studies, for this purpose, following method
will be adopted.
Root, stem and leaf length (cm)
Length of root,
stem and leaf was measured on centimeter scale by using meter rod.
Root, stem and leaf fresh weight (g)
Root, stem and leaf
fresh weight was measured in “grams” by using electric balance.
Root, stem and leaf dry weight (g)
After weighing the
fresh weight, samples were kept for 24h at biotechnology lab of UOL. After it,
dry weight of root, stem and leaf was measured by using electric balance.
Spectrophotometric Analysis
Spectrophotometry
is scientific method used for estimating solutes level in a certain mixture by
amounting light percentage absorbed in such solutes. It’s a very precise and
trustful method because various liquids have variant ability to absorb
different wavelengths at different intensities. Results are amounted by evaluating
light that passes through the mixtures, we can ascertain specific mixed
ingredients in solution and can also measure their level in these mixtures.
Because of such abilities it is used for analyzing different mixtures in
laboratory.
Using spectrophotometer
Generally, these
machines are need to warm up for better working yielding precise results.
Therefore, turn on machine and stable it for a period of fifteen minutes
earlier then using treatment.
Clean the cuvettes
Two types of
cuvettes can be used for running samples, glass cuvettes or disposable ones so
if one is using spectrophotometer in lab one can use disposable cuvettes so it
is not necessary to clean. While using reusable cuvettes, these should be
properly cleaned before any use by using distilled water.
Cuvettes should
be handled with very care because these are very costly specially when they are
makeup of glass or quartz. Particularly quartz cuvettes are mainly produced for
using UV-visible spectrophotometer.
Some other point
should also be taken care mainly handling cuvette, take care before touching
sides of glass tube because light have to pass through these. If these are
touched, please clean these sides with tissues.
Load the proper volume of the sample into the
cuvette
Glass tubes or
cuvettes used in spectrophotometer are mostly of 1 ml in size while test tubes
are mostly of 5 ml. For much the time, wavelength is passing through the
solution, precise results were obtained.
In
case work is done with help of micropipette sample should be taken with new tip
every time.
Use control
Solution
Control
solution termed as blank, it only contains solution made of chemicals without
plant sample or test sample. If one uses salt in water, blank should only
contain water. One other thing is also kept in mind that blank solution is also
of same volume as test sample and reading is taken in same size cuvette as that
of test sample.
Clean the
outside surface of cuvette
Before
keeping the cuvette in spectrophotometer for analysis one should clean it as
much possible as it can to prevent intervention resulting from dirt or dust
particles. For this purpose, use a soft tissue paper and clean all water drops
or any dust on cuvette.
Running the
experiment
Select
and confirm wavelength needed for running experiment and getting results from
experiment, it is recommended to use one wavelength for getting more precise
results. Some other care to be taken is that color of light should be absorbed
by test chemical and its solute whose concentration has to be measured.
•
Wavelength
will be selected and confirmed by experimenter
•
Sample
color and wavelength color should be different for getting more accurate
results because same color wavelength will be reflected totally
Calibrate the
machine with the blank
Initially
put the blank sample in cuvette and run the spectrophotometer after closing
lid. On spectrophotometer screen, different varying values will start to appear
depending upon intensity of light received and detected. After a stable value
has been obtained record value and auto zero by pressing that button
·
Digital
spectrophotometers are also calibrated by using similar method. After reading
set blank to autozero by using that specific button
·
This
will help as after removing blank sample the calibrated value will be constant
and still in that place so ultimately when other samples will be used and run
for examination this absorbance value will automatically ahead of that blank
value and that will be minus from calibrated auto zero or blank value
Place the test
samples in machine
After
successful measurement of blank samples now place the test samples in
cuvette.
·
After
proper calibration of machine by using blank, reading will be zero
·
In
case it is not zero run the blank again
·
In
case of still dealing with issues make call to assistance or machine dealer to
check out it
Measuring test
sample absorbance
After
removing blank sample, keep the test sample in spectrophotometer holder in a
way that it stands upright. Wait for ten seconds until reading become constant
then note the values. This absorbance value is also termed as optical density
(OD).
·
More
the light pass through sample less will be received and absorbed by solution
·
If
results are out of range or not appropriate please dilute the sample and
measure again
·
Repeat
the whole process for at least three times for every sample and make a mean of
all these
Statistical Analysis
Results were
statistically evaluated by variance method (Steel et at, 1997). The other
proposed techniques were Regression, correlation and skewness.
Root length
The
average root length under all treatments was recorded as 3.2907±0.1903cm. The
coefficient of variation was 10.01%. The results indicated that the highest
root length was found under the treatment of control and 1M NACL (4cm) followed
by T1+T3 (3.6833cm), T2+T3 (3.3cm),
0.5M CuSO4 (3.2cm), T1+T4 (3.1cm), T2 +T4
(3cm). 0.5M NACL (2.75cm) and 1M CuSO4 (2.58cm). Among
varietal comparison it was assessed that wheat cultivar “Inqlab-91” performed
better followed by “Faisalabad-2008” while “Anaj-2006” concluded as least
performing cultivar in regard of leaf width.
Stem length
maximum
avg. stem length (6.6 cm) was recorded by “Anaj-2006” trailed by “Inqlab-91”
and “Faisalabad-2008” with avg. value of 6.05 cm and 5.30 cm respectively.
Whereas interaction of salinity treatment with wheat cultivars depicts most
severe impact of 1mM CuSO4 application in “Inqlab-91” recording 2 cm
stem length followed by 0.5mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 treatment in both
“Inqlab-91” and “Anaj-2006” yielding out 3 cm stem length. results showed that
1mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 treatment have shown most severe results as
compared to other salt and heavy metals applied.
Leaf length
The
average leaf length of wheat was recorded as 16.452 ± 0.211cm under all
treatments of wheat. The results were consistent and reliable because of low
coefficient of variation (3.86%). The highest
leaf length (25.667cm) was found under control the treatment of control while followed by treatment of 1M NACL (21.167cm) while
T1+T4
(21.367cm) 0.5M CuSO4 and T2+T4 (19.800cm), 0.5M NACL (18.800cm), T1+T3
(8.167cm), T2+T3 (7.33cm), and the lowest leaf length (5.667cm) was
found under the treatment of 1M CuSO4. Whereas among
varietal comparison it was assessed that wheat cultivar “Anaj-2006” performed
better followed by “Faisalabad-2008” while “Inqlab-91” concluded as least
performing cultivar in regard of leaf length.
Leaf width
The average leaf width was recorded as 0.4±0.0277cm.
The results were less consistent because the coefficient of variation was high
(12.01%). The highest leaf width was found under the treatment of control and T1+T4
(0.4833cm) followed by 1M NACL (0.4500cm), 0.5M CuSO4 (0.4500cm), T2+T4 (0.4500),
0.5M NACL (0.4167cm), T1+T3 (0.3167cm) 1M
CuSO4 (0.2667cm). while the lowest leaf width was found
under the treatment of T2+T3 (0.1833cm). Moreover,
results regarding interaction of genotypes and treatment have exhibited that
application of 0.5 mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 have caused damage by
reducing leaf width in all three wheat cultivars by recording 0.2 cm in
“Anaj-2006” and “Faisalabad-2008” while 0.3 cm width in “Inqalab-91”
respectively.
Leaf area
With
respect to leaf area, varietal performance was significant and “Inqlab-91”
performed quite better whereas “Anaj-2006” and “Faisalabad-2008” have
homogenous performance. regarding impact of salinity treatment on leaf area
concludes 1mM CuSo4 as most severe levels as it recorded minimum
leaf area in all wheat cultivars. minimum leaf area were recorded in 1mM CuSO4,
1mM Nacl+ 1mM CuSO4 application in “Inqlab-91”, “Anaj-2006” and
“Faisalabad-2008”
Fresh leaf
weight
The
varietal evaluation assessment showed that wheat cultivar “Inqlab-91” performed
better followed by “Faisalabad-2008” while “Anaj-2006” concluded as least
performing cultivar in regard of fresh leaf weight. While regarding impact of
salinity treatment by 1mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 was damaging as it
recorded minimum fresh leaf width (0.101 g) followed by 0.5mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 recording 0.1006 g of fresh leaf width.
Whereas the interaction of salinity treatment with wheat cultivars depicts most
severe impact by 0.5mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 application in “Inqlab-91”,
“Anaj-2006” and “Faisalabad-2008”
Fresh root
weight
1mM
NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 was most devastating as it recorded minimum fresh
root weight (0.1003 g) followed by 1mM CuSo4 recording (0.1007 g) of root fresh weight
(Table 4.20). Moreover the salt processing and wheat cultivars are inter-linked
which clearly depicts substantial outcome as minimum fresh root weight (0.1001,
0.1002 and 0.1003 cm) was assessed in case of “Anaj-2006” and “Faisalabad-2008”
by application of 1mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4, 0.5mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4, in
“Faisalabad-2008” respectively. wheat cultivar “Faisalabad-2008” performed
better followed by “Inqlab-91” while “Anaj-2006” concluded as least performing
cultivar in regard of fresh root weight.
Fresh stem
weight
The average stem
weight under all the treatment was 0.1026g. The coefficient of variation
was 0.89%. Results showed that wheat cultivar “Anaj-2006” performed better
followed by “Faisalabad-2008” while “Inqlab-91” concluded as least performing cultivar
in regard of fresh stem weight. While regarding impact of salinity treatment by
1mM CuSo4 was damaging as it recorded minimum fresh shoot width
(0.1009 g) followed by 0.5mM NaCl (0.101 g) of fresh shoot weight.
Dry root weight
The
average dry root weight was recorded as 0.0187g. The coefficient of variation
was 4.37%. results show that1mM NaCl + 1mM CuSo4 as most severe
because it yields minimum dry root weight (0.014 g) followed by 1mM CuSo4 recording (0.019 g) of root dry weight
(Table 4.29). Moreover the salt processing and wheat cultivars are inter-linked
which clearly depicts substantial outcome as lowest RDW (0.050 g) was
compromised in 1mM NaCl + 0.5mM CuSo4
treated plants
Dry stem weight
The
coefficient of variation was 15.64%. The maximum stem dry weight (0.009 g) was
attained after 1mM CuSo4 application in both wheat cvs. “Anaj-2006”
and “Inqlab-91”. Whereas the interaction of salinity treatment with wheat
cultivars has concluded that in general salinity application have resulted in
reduced stem growth and assimilate accumulation thus lowering stem dry weight.
In general, 0.5mM NaCl + 1mM CuSO4 treatment have resulted in
minimum stem dry weight in all three wheat cultivars
Dry leaf weight
Overall
wheat cultivar “Inqlab-91” performed quite better whereas “Anaj-2006” and
“Faisalabad-2008” have homogenous performance. 1mM NaCl + 1mM CuSo4 was
most devastating as it recorded minimum fresh root weight followed by 0.5mM
NaCl + 1mM CuSo4. Moreover, the salt processing and wheat cultivars
are inter-linked which clearly depicts substantial outcome as higher leaf dry
weight (0.055 g) compromised in control treatments. While among treated plants,
results expressed that higher leaf dry weight was found in case of application
of lower doses of salinity application as 1mM NaCl application has recorded
good leaf dry weight (0.043-0.047g) in “Inqlab-91” and “Anaj-2006”
Leaf
spectrophotometry
The
results indicated that the average carotenoids in leaves were recorded as 0.3098
The coefficient of variation was 17.67%. it was assessed that wheat cultivar
“Inqlab-91” performed better followed by “Faisalabad-2008” while “Anaj-2006”
concluded as least performing cultivar in regard of photometry of leaf. While
regarding impact of salinity treatment on photometry of leaf depicts was most
devastating as it recorded minimum leaf phoyometric residual contents in 1mM
CuSo4 of leaf in “Anaj-2006”. Moreover the salt processing and wheat
cultivars are inter-linked which clearly depicts substantial outcome which were
assessed in case of “Inqalab-91” and “Faisalabad-2008” by application of 1mM
NaCl and 1mM CuSO4 respectively
Stem
spectrophotometry
It was found that the average
carotenoids in stem were 0.608mg/g fresh leaf weight in wheat seedlings under
treatments of water. It was observed that there was low coefficient of
variation (1.39%).
Anaj-2006 showed minimum salt accumulation. While regarding impact of salinity
treatment on stem photometry analysis reveals that most devastating treatment
was 1mM CuSo4 as maximum salts were observed under this treatment. Moreover,
relation among salt processing and wheat cultivars clearly depicts substantial
outcomes which were assessed in case of “Anaj-2006” and “Faisalabad-2008” by
application of 1mM NaCl respectively
Root
spectrophotometry
It was found that there was very low
coefficient of variation (3.88%). among all wheat cultivar “Anaj-2006”,
“Faisalabad-2008” and “Inqlab-91” followed respectively regarding their
performance for salt accumulation in roots. Among these, best results were
obtained in “Anaj-2006” as its root have depicted lowest values of salts
storage in their roots. While regarding impact of salinity treatment on root
photometry analysis reveals that most devastating treatment was 1mM NaCl + 1mM
CuSo4 as maximum salts accumulates were observed under this
treatment. Moreover, relation among salt processing and wheat cultivars clearly
depicts substantial outcomes which were assessed in case of “Anaj-2006” and
“Faisalabad-2008” by application of 1mM NaCl respectively.
Root shoot
length ratio
The maximum root shoot length ratio was
found under 1M NaCl + 1mM CuSo4 treatment in all wheat cvs.
“Anaj-2006”, “Inqlab-91” and “Faisalabad-2008”. Whereas the results regarding
salinity treatment have depicted combine application of 1M NaCl + 1mM CuSo4
have resulted in higher root shoot length ratio thus affects plant growth and
productivity. Among varietal comparison, “Faisalabad-2008” recorded highest
values for root shoot ratio after treated with salt and heavy metals.
Salinity,
a severe environmental threat which is reducing growth, yield and quality of
produce. Salinity among one of main abiotic factors is worsening condition due
to excessive use of ground water pumping as irrigation water. The detrimental
consequence of salinity can differ depending on environmental circumstances (Acosta-Motos
et al., 2014;
salt stress causes reduction of avg. leaf area. While, shortened leaf
size is the main and initial reaction of glycophytes reacted with salt stress
(Munns and Termaat, 1986). Whereas, decrease of canopy size may also be
reflected as resistance strategy to reduce loss of water and solutes happening
through transpiration even under closed stomatal conditions (Save et al.,
1994). This can also enhance preservation of hazardous atoms in roots, and
avoiding their entry in aerial potions. Under salinity circumstances,
properties of cell wall become altered also the leaf turgor pressure and
reduction of photosynthesis thus limiting leaf area (Ruiz-Sánchez et al.,
2000). Stem growth is severely affected by excess salt levels. While reduction
of leaf and stem size results in overall reduction of all aerial part sizes and
general plant height (Rodríguez et al., 2005). alteration in cell turgor
pressure of roots have been observed when grown under salinized media thus will
ultimately affects stomatal closure leading to reduction of photosynthesis.
While this reduction can also be due to loss of chlorophyll contents under
saline conditions. Shoot and leaf weight have been
witnessed much loss under saline conditions in comparison to control. Munns,
(1992) revealed that old leaves senescence is encouraged by excessive salt
accumulation which reduces carbohydrates supply along with PGR’s to new growing
regions thus affecting overall growth and minimizing growth. Presently
available wheat germplasm in Pakistan should be exploited for breeding purposes
in order to yield suitable cultivars for diverse areas of the country. Presently
evaluated wheat cultivars exhibit morphological diversity in different aspects
i.e. grain weight and yield, plant height and taste.
Among
tested varieties, Inqlab-91 and Anaj-2006 performed better under salt stress as
compared to Faisalabad-2008 and these two could be utilized under saline
situations in Pakistan. There is a dare need to start wide-ranging varietal
improvement program for the upgradation of wheat cultivars in Pakistan.
Morphological, biochemical and molecular characterization has provided the
basic information thus facilitating researchers to achieve clear objective. Therefore,
a research trial was conducted to evaluate wheat germplasm against salinity
stress. Three wheat cultivars; Inqalab-91, Anaj-2006 and Faisalabad-2008 was
grown for evaluation against salinity stress under lab conditions. Different
vegetative and physiological parameters were recorded to determine hazardous
effects of salinity upon wheat cultivars
Results
conclude that treatment (salt and heavy metal dose), germplasm and their
interaction have significant effect. Among parameters evaluated it was assessed
that upon single and combine application of NaCl and CuSO4, CuSO4 application have recorded in reducing growth
parameters. While the combine application of NaCl + CuSO4 also led to impose detrimental effects on plant growth and
development behavior.
Conflict of
Interest
Acosta-Motos,
JR, Álvarez S, Barba-Espín G, Hernández JA, Sánchez-Blanco MJ. (2014). Salts
and nutrients present in regenerated waters induce changes in water relations,
antioxidative metabolism, ion accumulation and restricted ion uptake in Myrtus
communis L. plants. Plant. Physiol. Biochem, 85: 41-50.
Akram
M.S., Athar H.R., Ashraf .M. (2007). Improving growth and yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) by foliar
application of potassium hydroxide (KOH) under salt stress. Pak. J. Bot. 39, 2223-2230.
Cassaniti,
C., Romano, D., Flowers, T.J. (2012). The response of ornamental plants to
saline irrigation water. In Irrigation Water Management, Pollution and
Alternative Strategies; Garcia Garizabal, I., Ed.; InTech Europe: Rijeka,
Croatia, 132–158
FAO. (2005). Framework for soil reclamation and restart of cultivation, Aceh Indonesia 2, 1- 16.
Flowers, T.J.
and M.A. Hajibagheri. (2001). Salinity tolerance in Hordeum vulgare: ion
concentrations in root cells of cultivars differing in salt tolerance. Plant
and Soil, 23, 1-9.
Li X, An P,
Inanaga S, Eneji AE, Tanabe K (2006). Salinity and defoliation effects on
soybean growth. J. Plant Nutr. 29, 1499-1508
Mazher,
A.M., Fatma El-Quesni, E.M., Farahat, M.M. (2007). Responses of ornamental
plants and woody trees to salinity. World J. Agric. Sci. 3, 386–395
Munns,
R. (1992). A leaf elongation assay detects an unknown growth inhibitor in xylem
sap from wheat and barley. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 19, 127–135
Munns, R.
(2002). Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ., 25, 239-250.
Munns,
R. and A. Termaat. (1986). Whole plant response to salinity. Aust. J. Plant
Physiol. 13, 143–160.
Munns,
R. and Tester, M. (2008). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Ann. Rev. Plant
Biol. 59, 651–681.
Pessarakli,
M., J.T. Huber. (1991). Biomass production and protein synthesis by alfalfa
under salt stress. J. Plant Nutr., 14 (3),
283-293.
Raza,
S.H., H.R., Athar, and M. Ashraf. (2006). Influence of exogenously applied
glycinebetaine on the photosynthetic capacity of two differently adapted wheat
cultivars under salt stress. Pak. J. Bot. 38
(2), 341-351.
Rodríguez,
P.; Torrecillas, A.; Morales, M.A.; Ortuńo, M.F.; Sánchez-Blanco, M.J. Effects
of NaCl salinity and water stress on growth and leaf water relations of
Asteriscus maritimus plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. (2005), 53, 113–123
Ruiz-Sánchez,
M.C., Domingo, R., Torrecillas, A., Pérez-Pastor, A. Water stress
preconditioning to improve drought resistance in young apricot plants. Plant
Sci. (2000), 156, 245–251.
Savé,
R.; Olivella, C.; Biel, C.; Adillón, J.; Rabella, R. (1994). Seasonal patterns
of water relationships, photosynthetic pigments and morphology of Actinidia
deliciosa plants of the Haywards and Tomouri cultivars. Agronomie. 2, 121–126.
Szabolcs,
I. (1989). Salt affected Soils. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Steel RGD,
Torrie JH, Dickey DA (1997). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A
biometrical approach
(3rd ed.).
McGraw Hill Inc. New York, USA.
and
ionic distribution response of three bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.)
Verdc.) landraces grown under saline conditions. International Journal of
Botany. 6(1), 53-8.
Tuncturk
M, Tunçtürk R, Yaar F (2008). Changes in micronutrients, dry weight and plant
growth of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) cultivars under salt stres. Afr. J.
Biotechnol. 7(11), 1650-1654.
Tang,
X., X. Mu, H. Shao, H. Wang and M. Brestic. (2015). Global plant-responding
mechanisms to salt stress: Physiological and molecular levels and implications
in biotechnology. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 35,
425–437
Wagenet,
R.J., R. R., Rodriguez, W. F., Campbell, and D. L., Turner.(1983). Fertilizer
and salty water effects on Phaseolus. Agron. J. 75, 161-166.
Zhang
L, Ma H, Chen T, Pen J, Yu S, et al. (2014) Morphological and Physiological
Responses of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum
L.) Plants to Salinity. PLoSONE 9(11):
e112807.
Steudle,
E. (2000). Water uptake by roots: Effects of water deficit. J. Exp. Bot., 51, 1531–1542.
Table 1:
Analysis of variance for various traits of wheat under salt and heavy metal
stress conditions
Source |
Leaf length |
Leaf width |
Stem length |
Root length |
Fresh leaf weight |
Fresh stem weight |
Fresh root weight |
Leaf dry weight |
Stem dry weight |
Root dry weight |
Leaf photometry |
Stem photometry |
Root photometry |
Leaf area |
Root shoot length ratio |
Replication |
2.16 |
3.009E-36 |
3.5780 |
0.8313 |
1.746E-06 |
4.091E-07 |
7.407E-10 |
8.167E-08 |
3.130E-06 |
5.934E-06 |
0.00271 |
1.25E-05 |
6.69E-06 |
0.441 |
0.00001 |
Genotype |
35.325* |
0.02667 |
7.7269* |
15.0902 |
1.180E-04* |
1.824E-06* |
2.175E-05* |
1.015E-05 |
1.027E-05* |
9.522E-05* |
0.02387 |
2.005E-04* |
7.17E-05 |
22.3919* |
0.50789* |
Treatments |
320.50* |
0.0450 |
69.7046* |
1.5617 |
0.00252* |
7.292E-06* |
1.478E-05* |
1.212E-05 |
1.701E-05* |
0.00246* |
0.00536 |
1.304E-04* |
3.712E-05* |
95.2948* |
0.44429* |
Genotype×
Treatments |
5.467* |
0.00292 |
11.4156* |
3.7023 |
1.684E-04* |
5.645E-06* |
2.492E-06* |
6.296E-06 |
5.410E-06* |
1.710E-04* |
0.00373 |
1.335E-04* |
3.614E-05* |
1.2931 |
0.12849* |
Error |
0.401 |
0.00231 |
0.1372 |
0.1086 |
7.838E-07 |
8.410E-07 |
8.818E-09 |
7.974E-08 |
2.073E-07 |
1.569E-06 |
0.003 |
7.11E-07 |
4.88E-06 |
0.8432 |
0.00824 |
Grand
mean |
16.419 |
0.4000 |
5.9907 |
3.2907 |
0.1285 |
0.1026 |
0.1025 |
2.68E-03 |
2.91E-03 |
0.0287 |
0.3098 |
0.068 |
0.0569 |
7.1578 |
0.6730 |
CV |
3.86 |
12.01* |
6.18* |
10.01* |
0.69* |
0.89* |
0.09* |
10.52* |
1.564* |
4.37* |
17.67* |
1.39* |
3.88* |
12.83* |
13.49* |
Standard
error |
0.3657 |
0.0277 |
0.2138 |
0.1903 |
5.111E-04 |
5.295E-04 |
5.421E-05 |
1.630E-04 |
2.629E-04 |
7.233E |
0.0316 |
4.868E-04 |
7.362E-04 |
0.3061 |
0.0303 |
Table 2. Pair-wise mean comparisons for
various traits of wheat under salt and heavy metal stress conditions
Treatments |
Leaf length |
Leaf width |
Stem length |
Root length |
Fresh leaf weight |
Fresh stem weight |
Fresh root weight |
Leaf dry weight |
Stem dry weight |
Root dry weight |
Leaf photo-metry |
Stem photometry |
Root photometry |
Leaf area |
Root shoot length ratio |
T control |
25.667 A |
0.4833 A |
14.000 A |
4.0000 A |
0.1485 A |
0.1025 ABC |
0.1044 A |
4.43E-03 A |
2.50E-03 BCD |
0.0485 A |
0.3233 C |
0.0585 C |
0.0562 BC |
12.400 A |
0.2977 D |
T 1 |
21.167 B |
0.4500 A |
6.350 C |
4.0000 A |
0.1382 D |
0.1020 BCD |
0.1032 C |
3.23E-03 BC |
2.00E-03 D |
0.0382 C |
0.3525 A |
0.0560 D |
0.0560 BC |
9.517 BC |
0.6278 C |
T 2 |
18.800 C |
0.4167 A |
8.000 B |
2.7500 CD |
0.1437 BC |
0.1031 ABC |
0.1033 C |
3.28E-03 BC |
2.62E-03 BCD |
0.0437 B |
0.3165 D |
0.0638 B |
0.0577 AB |
7.870 C |
0.4722 CD |
T 3 |
5.667 E |
0.2833 B |
3.000 F |
2.5833 D |
0.1019 F |
0.1041 A |
0.1007 E |
2.47E-03 D |
6.83E-03 A |
0.0019 E |
0.3125 D |
0.0697 A |
0.0605 A |
1.692 D |
0.8893 B |
T 4 |
19.800 C |
0.4500 A |
5.967 C |
3.2000 BCD |
0.1430 C |
0.1028 ABC |
0.1036 B |
3.58E-03 B |
2.33E-03 CD |
0.0430 B |
0.2765 E |
0.0565 D |
0.0530 C |
8.947 BC |
0.5220 C |
T 5 |
8.167 D |
0.3167 B |
3.117 EF |
3.6833 AB |
0.1013 F |
0.1015 CD |
0.1003 F |
2.50E-04 E |
3.13E-03 BC |
0.0014 E |
0.2520 E |
0.0640 B |
0.0607 A |
2.658 D |
1.2070 A |
T 6 |
21.367 B |
0.4833 A |
4.917 D |
3.1000 BCD |
0.1332 E |
0.1033 ABC |
0.1030 D |
2.92E-03 CD |
2.92E-03 BC |
0.0332 D |
0.3043 D |
0.0563 D |
0.0557 BC |
10.367 B |
0.5753 C |
T 7 |
7.33 D |
0.2667 B |
3.817 E |
3.3000 BC |
0.1023 F |
0.1005 D |
0.1005 F |
4.67E-04 E |
5.33E-04 E |
0.0035 E |
0.3177 D |
0.0633 B |
0.0572 ABC |
2.000 D |
0.8700 B |
T 8 |
19.800C |
0.450 A |
4.750 D |
3.0000 CD |
0.1448 B |
0.1033 AB |
0.1035 B |
3.52E-03 B |
3.33E-03 B |
0.0448 B |
0.3330 B |
0.0592 C |
0.0550 BC |
8.970 BC |
0.5953 C |
Standard Error |
0.2111 |
0.016 |
0.1235 |
0.1099 |
2.951E-04 |
3.057E-04 |
3.130E-05 |
9.413E-05 |
1.518E-04 |
4.176E-04 |
0.0183 |
2.810E-04 |
7.362E-04 |
0.3061 |
0.0303 |
Genotype |
Leaf
length |
Leaf
width |
Stem
length |
Root
length |
Fresh
leaf weight |
Fresh
stem weight |
Fresh
root weight |
Leaf
dry weight |
Stem
dry weight |
Root
dry weight |
Leaf
photometry |
Stem
photometry |
Root
photometry |
Leaf
area |
Root
shoot length ratio |
INQLAB-91 |
18.022 A |
0.4444 A |
6.6111 A |
3.9944 A |
0.1303 A |
0.1029 A |
0.1032 A |
3.14E-03 A |
3.78E-03 A |
0.0303 A |
0.3340 A |
0.0641 A |
0.0586 A |
8.4150 A |
0.7804 A |
FAISALBAD
– 2008 |
15.800 B |
0.3778 B |
6.0556 B |
3.6222 B |
0.1298 A |
0.1025 A |
0.1031 A |
3.09E-03 A |
2.48E-03 B |
0.0298 A |
0.3275 A |
0.0610 B |
0.0574 A |
6.7711 B |
0.7591 A |
ANAJ
- 2006 |
15.433 B |
0.3778 B |
5.3056 C |
2.2556 C |
0.1256 B |
0.1023 A |
0.1012 B |
1.82E-03 B |
2.47E-03 B |
0.0261 B |
0.2679 B |
0.0574 C |
0.0547 B |
6.2872 B |
0.4794 B |
Table 3. Mean comparison of wheat genotypes
for various traits under salt and heavy metal stress conditions