Loading content, please wait..
loading..
Logo
Version 3.22
or
Publication Type J
Authors Selvakesavan, RK; Dhanya, NN; Thushara, P; Abraham, SM; Jayaraj, RSC; Balasubramanian, A; Deeparaj, B; Sudha, S; Rani, KSS; Bachpai, VKW; Ganesh, D; Diagne, N; Laplaze, L; Gherbi, H; Svistoonoff, S; Hocher, V; Franche, C; Bogusz, D; Nambiar-Veetil, M
Author Full Name Selvakesavan, R. K.; Dhanya, N. N.; Thushara, P.; Abraham, S. M.; Jayaraj, R. S. C.; Balasubramanian, A.; Deeparaj, B.; Sudha, S.; Rani, K. S. Sowmiya; Bachpai, V. K. W.; Ganesh, D.; Diagne, N.; Laplaze, L.; Gherbi, H.; Svistoonoff, S.; Hocher, V.; Franche, C.; Bogusz, D.; Nambiar-Veetil, M.
Title Intraspecies variation in sodium partitioning, potassium and proline accumulation under salt stress in Casuarina equisetifolia Forst
Source SYMBIOSIS
Language English
Document Type Article; Proceedings Paper
Conference Title 18th International Meeting on Frankia and Actinorhizal Plant (ACTINO)
Conference Date AUG 24-27, 2015
Conference Location Montpellier, FRANCE
Author Keywords Abiotic stress tolerance; Coastal forestry; Salt tolerant trees; Waste landmanagement; Sodium potassium ratio
Keywords Plus SIEB. EX SPRENG.; SALINITY TOLERANCE; HORDEUM-VULGARE; NA+ TRANSPORT; PLANTS; GENOTYPES; CHLORIDE; GROWTH; L.; METABOLISM
Abstract Casuarina equisetifolia Forst., a member of the Casuarinaceae family, is widely planted in coastal areas due to its ability to function as potential barrier against wind and waves. Significant variation has been reported in the ability of C. equisetifolia to grow under salinity stress. In the present study, 82 clones of C. equisetifolia were assessed for their response to 50 mM incremental NaCl concentrations ranging from 50 mM to 550 mM in Hoagland's solution and clones with contrasted salt tolerance were identified. Several earlier reports attribute salt sensitivity in Casuarina species to the toxic effect of sodium. Intraclonal variation in the levels of sodium accumulation was therefore analysed. However, sodium content in the shoots and roots, showed little correlation (0.351 and -0.171) with salt tolerance in C. equisetifolia. Similarly, sodium to potassium ratio in the shoots and roots of NaCl treated and untreated clones also did not show correlation with mortality although certain tolerant clones exhibited selectivity of potassium over sodium under salt stress. Analysis of the shoot to root ratio of sodium however, showed better correlation (0.448) with salt tolerance, suggesting that restricted translocation of sodium to shoots and its relative retention in roots might play a crucial role in the salt tolerant clones of C. equisetifolia, and that shoot to root ratio of sodium could be a better parameter for salt tolerance in C. equisetifolia clones. The higher salt tolerance observed in certain clones despite higher sodium accumulation or shoot to root ratio of sodium suggests the presence of different multiple adaptive mechanisms that may be operating in different clones to help protect the cells from the toxic effects of sodium. The tolerant clone, TNIPT 4, which accumulated high concentrations of Na+, had low shoot to root ratio of Na+, and also a higher constitutive as well as NaCl induced accumulation of the compatible osmolyte, proline. The study thus emphasizes the need for characterising the genetic components involved in sodium transport, proline metabolism and other mechanisms contributing to salinity tolerance. The identified clones with contrasted stress tolerance mechanisms would thus be a valuable resource for transcriptomic, proteomic and metabolomic exploration in addition to their utility for field evaluation in flooded and coastal saline tracts.
Author Address [Selvakesavan, R. K.; Dhanya, N. N.; Thushara, P.; Abraham, S. M.; Jayaraj, R. S. C.; Balasubramanian, A.; Deeparaj, B.; Sudha, S.; Rani, K. S. Sowmiya; Bachpai, V. K. W.; Diagne, N.; Nambiar-Veetil, M.] Inst Forest Genet & Tree Breeding, Div Plant Biotechnol, Forest Campus, Coimbatore 641002, Tamil Nadu, India; [Dhanya, N. N.] Nirmala Coll Women, Dept Bioinformat, Coimbatore 641018, Tamil Nadu, India; [Jayaraj, R. S. C.] Rain Forest Res Inst, Jorhat 785010, Assam, India; [Ganesh, D.] Madurai Kamraj Univ, Sch Biotechnol, Dept Plant Biotechnol, Madurai 625021, Tamil Nadu, India; [Diagne, N.] CNRA, ISRA, Bambey, Senegal; [Diagne, N.; Laplaze, L.; Svistoonoff, S.] Ctr Rech Bel Air, Lab Commun Microbiol, Lab Mixte Int Adaptat Plantes & Microorganismes A, Dakar, Senegal; [Laplaze, L.; Gherbi, H.; Svistoonoff, S.; Hocher, V.; Franche, C.; Bogusz, D.] IRD, UMR DIADE, 911 Ave Agropolis,64501, F-34394 Montpellier 5, France; [Gherbi, H.; Svistoonoff, S.; Hocher, V.] Univ Montpellier, Supagro, IRD, UMR LSTM,INRA,CIRAD, Campus Int Baillarguet, F-34398 Montpellier 5, France
Reprint Address Nambiar-Veetil, M (reprint author), Inst Forest Genet & Tree Breeding, Div Plant Biotechnol, Forest Campus, Coimbatore 641002, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail Address nvmathish@yahoo.com
ResearcherID Number Laplaze, Laurent/I-5435-2016
ORCID Number Laplaze, Laurent/0000-0002-6568-6504
Cited References Apse MP, 2007, FEBS LETT, V581, P2247, DOI 10.1016/j.febslet.2007.04.014; Apse PM, 1999, SCI, V285, P1256; ASWATHAPPA N, 1986, AUST J PLANT PHYSIOL, V13, P533; AYALA F, 1995, INT J PLANT SCI, V156, P197, DOI 10.1086/297241; Balasubramanian A, 2001, THESIS; Bartels D, 2013, FUNCT PLANT BIOL, V40, P819, DOI 10.1071/FP12299; BATES LS, 1973, PLANT SOIL, V39, P205, DOI 10.1007/BF00018060; Batista-Santos P, 2015, PLANT PHYSIOL BIOCH, V96, P97, DOI 10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.07.021; Carter JL, 2006, NEW PHYTOL, V169, P123, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01552.x; Chinnusamy V, 2005, CROP SCI, V45, P437; CLEMENS J, 1983, AUST J BOT, V31, P1; Deinlein U, 2014, TRENDS PLANT SCI, V19, P371, DOI 10.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.001; Duro N, 2016, PLANT SOIL, V398, P327, DOI 10.1007/s11104-015-2666-3; DUTT S K, 1991, Egyptian Journal of Soil Science, V31, P57; El-Hendawy SE, 2005, EUR J AGRON, V22, P243, DOI 10.1016/j.eja.2004.03.002; ELLAKANY MH, 1983, AUST FOREST RES, V13, P11; El-Lakany MH, 1984, AUST J PLAN, V11, P471; Fakhrfeshani M, 2015, J PLANT MOL BREED, V3, P1; FAO, 2008, FAO LAND PLANT NUTR; Glenn EP, 1999, CRIT REV PLANT SCI, V18, P227, DOI 10.1016/S0735-2689(99)00388-3; GREENWAY H, 1962, AUST J BIOL SCI, V15, P39; Henderson SW, 2014, BMC PLANT BIOL, V14, DOI 10.1186/s12870-014-0273-8; Hoagland DR, 1950, CALIF AGRIC EXP STA, V347; Hong-Bo Shao, 2006, Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, V53, P113, DOI 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2006.08.008; Iyer S, 1998, PLANT PHYSIOL, V116, P203, DOI 10.1104/pp.116.1.203; Jaarsma R, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0060183; Jayaraj R. S. C., 1998, Sylva Plus, V6, P14; Jayaraj RSC, 2014, 5 INT CAS WORKSH MAM, P46; Khan A., 2014, SCI TECH DEV, V33, P88; Kavi Kishor PB, 2013, PLANT CELL ENVIRON, V37, P12157; Mahmood K, 2011, PAK J BOT, V43, P1651; Maser P, 2002, FEBS LETT, V531, P157, DOI 10.1016/S0014-5793(02)03488-9; Munns R, 2008, ANNU REV PLANT BIOL, V59, P651, DOI 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911; NABIL M, 1995, PHYSIOL PLANTARUM, V93, P217, DOI 10.1034/j.1399-3054.1995.930202.x; Platten JD, 2006, TRENDS PLANT SCI, V11, P372, DOI 10.1016/j.tplants.2006.06.001; REDDELL P, 1986, AUST J BOT, V34, P435, DOI 10.1071/BT9860435; Reddy ASN, 2001, PLANT SCI, V160, P381, DOI 10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00386-1; Ren ZH, 2005, NAT GENET, V37, P1141, DOI 10.1038/ng1643; RUSH DW, 1976, PLANT PHYSIOL, V57, P162, DOI 10.1104/pp.57.2.162; Saqib M, 2005, PLANT SCI, V169, P959, DOI 10.1016/j.plantsci.2005.07.001; Singh AL, 2008, AUST J CROP SCI, V1, P69; SPSS Inc. Released, 2007, SPSS WIND VERS 16 0; Sunarpi H. T., 2005, PLANT J, V44, P928, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1365-313X.2005.02595.X; Tammam AA, 2008, AUST J CROP SCI, V1, P115; Tani C, 2006, SOIL SCI PLANT NUTR, V52, P21, DOI 10.1111/j.1747-0765.2006.00005.x; Tester M, 2003, ANN BOT-LONDON, V91, P503, DOI 10.1093/aob/mcg058; Tomar OS, 1984, ANN REP; VANDERMOEZEL PG, 1989, LANDSCAPE URBAN PLAN, V17, P331, DOI 10.1016/0169-2046(89)90087-X; Wang K, 2011, AFR J BIOTECHNOL, V10, P2886; Watanabe S, 2000, PLANT CELL TISS ORG, V63, P199, DOI 10.1023/A:1010619503680; Witcombe JR, 2008, PHILOS T R SOC B, V363, P703, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2007.2179; Yeo A, 1999, SCI HORTIC-AMSTERDAM, V78, P159; Yokota S, 2003, J FOR RES, V8, P89, DOI [10.1007/s103100300010, DOI 10.1007/S103100300010]; Zhang HX, 2001, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V98, P12832, DOI 10.1073/pnas.231476498
Cited Reference Count 54
Times Cited 1
Total Times Cited Count (WoS, BCI, and CSCD) 1
Publisher SPRINGER
Publisher City DORDRECHT
Publisher Address VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS
ISSN 0334-5114
29-Character Source Abbreviation SYMBIOSIS
ISO Source Abbreviation Symbiosis
Publication Date NOV
Year Published 2016
Volume 70
Issue 1-3
Beginning Page 117
Ending Page 127
Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1007/s13199-016-0424-9
Page Count 11
Web of Science Category Microbiology
Subject Category Microbiology
Document Delivery Number DT8SS
Unique Article Identifier WOS:000381764800014
Plants associated with this reference

LEGAL NOTICES — This website is protected by Copyright © The University of Sussex, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. The eHALOPH database is protected by Database Right and Copyright © The University of Sussex and other contributors, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. This database is based on an earlier work by James Aronson.
THIS WEBSITE AND THIS DATABASE ARE PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND YOU USE THEM AND RELY ON THEM AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Contact email: halophytes@sussex.ac.uk
Credits – Tim Flowers, Joaquim Santos, Moritz Jahns, Brian Warburton, Peter Reed