4.6 Article

Pea growth and symbiotic activity response to Nod factors (lipo-chitooligosaccharides) and soil compaction

期刊

APPLIED SOIL ECOLOGY
卷 72, 期 -, 页码 181-186

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.06.012

关键词

Pisum sativum L.; Signal molecule; Plant biomass; Root nodules; Nitrogenase activity; Plant nitrogen content

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Growth and symbiotic activity of legumes are reduced by high soil compaction and mediated by Nod factors (LCO, lipo-chitooligosaccharides) application. Our objective was to assess the combined effects of soil compaction and Nod factors application on growth and symbiotic activity of pea. The experiment was two factorial and included soil compaction (1.30 g cm(-3) - not compacted (control) and 1.55 g cm(-3) - compacted soil), and Nod factors concentration (control without addition of Nod factors and use of 260 nM Nod solution) for each soil compaction. The soil (Haplic Luvisol) was packed into pots, pea (Pisum sativum L.) seeds were soaked with Nod factors solution or water and then plants were grown for 46 days. This study has shown that soil compaction and treatments of pea seeds with Nod factors influenced pea growth and symbiotic activity. Soil compaction significantly reduced pea growth parameters, namely plant height, dry mass, leaf area, root mass and root length and symbiotic parameters, namely mass of nodules, dry mass of an individual nodule, nitrogenase activity and total nitrogen content in plant in comparison to the non-compacted treatment. Treatment of seeds with Nod factors generally improved nearly all of the above parameters. Nitrogenase activity per pot and total plant nitrogen content were significantly reduced by soil compaction and increased by application of Nod factors in plants grown in not compacted soil. Our results demonstrate that increased symbiotic activity resulting from Nod factors addition may mitigate adverse effect of soil compaction on plant growth. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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