Cited by 35Plant Stress Responses and ToleranceGenetics and Plant BreedingTurfgrass Adaptation and Management

Growth And Stomatal Responses Of Bread Wheat Genotypes In Tolerance To Salt Stress

Open access
Afrasyab Rahnama, Poustini, Kazem, Tavakkol-Afshari, Reza, Tavakoli, Afshin·2010·Zenodo

Abstract

Plant growth is affected by the osmotic stress as well as toxicity of salt in leaves. In order to study of salt stress effects on stomatal conductance and growth rate and relationship between them as wells osmotic and Na+-specific effects on these traits, four bread wheat genotypes differing in salt tolerance were selected. Salinity was applied when the leaf 4 was fully expanded. Sodium (Na+) concentrations in flag leaf blade at 3 salinity levels (0, 100 and 200 mM NaCl) were measured. Salt-tolerant genotypes showed higher stomatal conductance and growth rate compared to salt-sensitive ones. After 10 and 20 days exposure to salt, stomatal conductance and relative growth rate were reduced, but the reduction was greater in sensitive genotypes. Growth rate was reduced severely in the first period (1-10 days) of salt commencements and it was due to osmotic effect of salt not Na+ toxicity. In the second period (11-20 days) after salt treatment growth reduced only when salt accumulated to toxic concentrations in the leaves. A positive relationship between stomatal conductance and relative growth rate showed that stomatal conductance can be a reliable indicator of growth rate, and finally can be considered as a sensitive indicator of the osmotic stress. It seems 20 days after salinity, the major effect of salt, especially at low to moderate salinity levels on growth properties was due to the osmotic effect of salt, not to Na+-specific effects within the plant.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.5281/zenodo.1078157

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All these stresses reduce photosynthetic rate by stress-induced stomatal or nonstomatal limitations.

    “All these stresses reduce the photosynthetic rate by stress-induced stomatal or nonstomatal limitations (Saibo et al. 2009, Rahnama et al. 2010).”

    From Photosynthesis under stressful environments: An overview (2013) · cites this paper as Rahnama et al. 2010

    The Introduction states that photosynthesis in salt-stressed plants is limited by both stomatal and non-stomatal factors. It addresses salinity, but does not establish that all the stresses referred to in the citing sentence have those effects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Stresses lead to a considerable reduction in photosynthetic performance mediated through stress-induced stomatal or nonstomatal limitations.

    “It is now evident that stresses lead to the considerable reduction in photosynthetic performance mediated through stress-induced stomatal or nonstomatal limitations (Athar and Ashraf 2005, Rahnama et al. 2010, Taiz and Zeiger 2010).”

    From Photosynthesis under stressful environments: An overview (2013) · cites this paper as Rahnama et al. 2010

    The Introduction states that photosynthesis in salt-stressed plants is limited by both stomatal and non-stomatal factors. It supports the claim for salt stress, but does not establish the same conclusion for stresses generally. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Munns, R., and M. Tester, 2008: Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology 59, 651-81.
  2. Cramer, G.R., G.L. Alberico., and C. Schmidt, 1994: Salt tolerance is not associated with the sodium accumulation of two maize hybrids. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 21, 675-692.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rahnama, A., Poustini, K., Tavakkol-Afshari, R., & Tavakoli, A.
Venue
Zenodo
Publisher
Zenodo
Published
2010-11-27
Volume
4
Issue
11
Pages
787-792
OpenAlex
W2281008331
Cited by
35
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
  • World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and Biotechnological Engineering
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Stress Responses and Tolerance
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetics and Plant Breeding
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Turfgrass Adaptation and Management
Keywords
wheat, salt stress, stomatal conductance, relative growth rate, osmotic stress, sodium toxicity, salt tolerance, genotypic variation, NaCl salinity

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