4.5 Article

Physiological responses to lead and PEG-simulated drought stress in metallicolous and non-metallicolous Matthiola (Brassicaceae) species from Iran

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 150, 期 -, 页码 1011-1021

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2022.09.016

关键词

Antioxidant enzyme; Co-tolerance; Drought stress; Pb; Matthiola flavida; Osmotic adjustment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effects of drought stress and lead pollution on two plant species and found that lead had a greater impact on the metallicolous species Matthiola flavida compared to the non-metallicolous species M. incana.
Plants growing on quarry tailings at the Irankouh Pb/Zn mine encounter both drought stress and high levels of Pb. To better understand the role of drought and Pb in plant adaptation to Pb/Zn quarry tailings, we compared effects of drought stress (simulated by polyethylene glycol - PEG) and Pb, individually and in concert, to determine how these stressors affected two plant species: the metallicolous species Matthiola flavida (M) and the non-metallicolous congener, M. incana (NM). Plants were exposed to Pb (Pb(NO3)(2)) and three levels of PEG-6000 (0, -0.25, and -0.75 MPa) in a complete factorial design. Pb had non-significant effects on growth and oxidative stress but enhanced levels of osmoprotectants and phenol compounds in the M species M. flavida, whereas in M. incana the effect of Pb was non-significant on the same variables (except for anthocyanins and the osmoprotectants, proline and glycine betaine). Compared to M. incana, the M species M. flavida was tolerant of Pb, showing strongly reduced root-to-shoot translocation and enhanced Pb accumulation in the root (especially when under drought stress), which reduced toxic effects of Pb in the shoot. Tolerance of Pb by the M species M. flavida was aided by the accumulation of reducing sugars and phenolic compounds, as well as by greater catalase activity. (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of SAAB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据