The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exogenous Proline Effects on Photosynthetic Performance and Antioxidant Defense System of Young Olive Tree
Abstract
The ability of exogenous compatible solutes, such as proline, to counteract salt inhibitory effects in olive plants ( Olea europaea L. cv. Chemlali) was investigated. Two-year-old olive trees were subjected to different saline water irrigation levels supplied or not with exogenous proline. Leaf water relations (relative water content, water potential), photosynthetic activity, and leaf chlorophyll content decreased under either saline water level. The proline supplement mitigated the reduction of growth and photosynthetic activity under salt stress, and the mitigating effect of proline was different among treatments. The increment rate of leaf relative water content (RWC) in the presence of 25 and 50 mM proline was 4.45 and 6.67%, respectively, in comparison to values recorded in SS1-treated plants (plants irrigated with water containing 100 mM NaCl). In SS2 (200 mM NaCl) plus proline-treated plants, this increase was 1.14 times for 25 mM proline and 1.19 times for 50 mM proline higher than those recorded in severe salt stress treatment (SS2). In response to salt stress, Chemlali olive plants seem to activate a complex antioxidative defense system that was displayed via the increase of activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) and the decrease of polyphenol oxidase (PPO) under either salt stress treatment. The exogenous application of proline improved the antioxidative enzyme activities of salt-stressed olive plants. Indeed, in young or old leaf tissues, the highest levels of these antioxidant enzymes activities were recorded in (SS2 + P2)-treated plants (plants irrigated with water containing 200 mM NaCl plus 50 mM proline). In young leaves, this increase was 2.11, 2.96, and 2.76 times, respectively, for SOD, APX, and CAT enzyme activities in comparison to their respective activities in control plants (nonstressed plants irrigated with fresh water). In old leaves, this increase was 2, 2.41, and 2.48 times, respectively, for the various enzymes. If compared to high water salinity-treated plants (SS2), this increase was 1.1, 1.3, and 1.4 times in young leaves, respectively, for SOD, APX, and CAT activities. From these results, the proline supplements seem to improve olive salt tolerance by amelioration of some antioxidative enzyme activities, photosynthetic activity, and, so, plant growth and the preservation of a suitable plant water status under salinity conditions. More to the point, the decrease of soluble sugars contents in proline treated-plants revealed the important osmoprotectant effect played by the added proline in such a way that limited the need of salt-stressed plants for soluble sugars synthesis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies
Bates, L. S., Waldren, R. P., & Teare, I. D. (1973) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/bf00018060 · Cited by 20,967
Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance
Munns, R., & Tester, M. (2008) · Annual Review of Plant Biology · doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 · Cited by 13,792
Cited by
Gupta, B., & Huang, B. (2014) · International Journal of Genomics · doi:10.1155/2014/701596 · Cited by 2,105
Proline: a key player in plant abiotic stress tolerance
Kaur, G., & Asthir, B. (2015) · Biologia plantarum · doi:10.1007/s10535-015-0549-3 · Cited by 706
Atta, K., Mondal, S., Gorai, S., Singh, A. P., Kumari, A., Ghosh, T., Roy, A., Hembram, S., Gaikwad, D. J., Mondal, S., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1241736 · Cited by 523
Metadata
- Authors
- Ben Ahmed, C., Ben Rouina, B., Sensoy, S., Boukhriss, M., & Ben Abdullah, F.
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2010-03-08
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 4216-4222
- ISSN
- 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5118
- OpenAlex
- W2052877988
- Cited by
- 247
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.