The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The response of barley to salinity stress differs between hydroponic and soil systems
Abstract
Many studies on salinity stress assume that responses in hydroponics mimic those in soil. However, interactions between the soil solution and the soil matrix can affect responses to salinity stress. This study compared responses to salinity in hydroponics and soil, using two varieties of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). The responses to salinity caused by high concentrations of Na+ and Cl– were compared to assess any consistent differences between hydroponics and soil associated with a cation and an anion that contribute to salinity stress. Concentrated nutrient solutions were also used to assess the effects of osmotic stress. The effects of salinity differed between the hydroponic and soil systems. Differences between barley cultivars in growth, tissue moisture content and ionic composition were not apparent in hydroponics, whereas significant differences occurred in soil. Growth reductions were greater under hydroponics than in soil at similar electrical conductivity values, and the uptake of Na+ and Cl– was also greater. The relative importance of ion exclusion and osmotic stress varied. In soil, ion exclusion tended to be more important at low to moderate levels of stress (EC at field capacity up to 10 dS m–1) but osmotic stress became more important at higher stress levels. High external concentrations of Cl– had similar adverse effects as high concentrations of Na+, suggesting that Cl– toxicity may reduce growth. Fundamental differences in salinity responses appeared between soil and solution culture, and the importance of the different mechanisms of damage varies according to the severity and duration of the salt stress.
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
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
Factors affecting CO 2 assimilation, leaf injury and growth in salt-stressed durum wheat
James, R. A., Rivelli, A. R., Munns, R., & Caemmerer, S. V. (2002) · Functional Plant Biology · doi:10.1071/fp02069 · Cited by 330
Cited by
Soil processes affecting crop production in salt-affected soils
Rengasamy, P. (2010) · Functional Plant Biology · doi:10.1071/fp09249 · Cited by 868
Self-citationCobb, J. N., DeClerck, G., Greenberg, A., Clark, R., & McCouch, S. (2013) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00122-013-2066-0 · Cited by 666
Tavakkoli, E., Rengasamy, P., & McDonald, G. K. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erq251 · Cited by 620
Self-citationNew phenotyping methods for screening wheat and barley for beneficial responses to water deficit
Munns, R., James, R. A., Sirault, X. R. R., Furbank, R. T., & Jones, H. G. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erq199 · Cited by 422
Metadata
- Authors
- Tavakkoli, E., Rengasamy, P., & McDonald, G. K.
- Venue
- Functional Plant Biology
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2010-07-02
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 621-633
- ISSN
- 1445-4408 (ISSN-L)
- 1445-4416
- OpenAlex
- W2061982371
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.92
- 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.