4.4 Article

Responses of tropical legumes from the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest to simulated acid rain

期刊

PROTOPLASMA
卷 254, 期 4, 页码 1639-1649

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00709-016-1054-z

关键词

Paubrasilia echinata; Libidibia ferrea var. leiostachya; Leaf; Plant anatomy; Pollution

资金

  1. CNPq [309480/2015-9]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the morphological and anatomical effects of simulated acid rain on leaves of two species native to the Brazilian Atlantic Rainforest: Paubrasilia echinata and Libidibia ferrea var. leiostachya. Saplings were subjected to acid rain in a simulation chamber during 10 days for 15 min daily, using H2SO4 solution pH 3.0 and, in the control, deionized water. At the end of the experiment, fragments from young and expanding leaves were anatomically analyzed. Although L. ferrea var. leiostachya leaves are more hydrophobic, rain droplets remained in contact with them for a longer time, as in the hydrophilic P. echinata leaves, droplets coalesce and rapidly run off. Visual symptomatology consisted in interveinal and marginal necrotic dots. Microscopic damage found included epicuticular wax flaking, turgor loss and epidermal cell shape alteration, hypertrophy of parenchymatous cells, and epidermal and mesophyll cell collapse. Formation of a wound tissue was observed in P. echinata, and it isolated the necrosis to the adaxial leaf surface. Acid rain increased thickness of all leaf tissues except spongy parenchyma in young leaves of L. ferrea var. leiostachya, and such thickness was maintained throughout leaf expansion. To our knowledge, this is the first report of acidity causing increase in leaf tissue thickness. This could represent the beginning of cell hypertrophy, which was seen in visually affected leaf regions. Paubrasilia echinata was more sensitive, showing earlier symptoms, but the anatomical damage in L. ferrea var. leiostachya was more severe, probably due to the higher time of contact with acid solution in this species.

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

4.4
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