Comparative analysis for understanding salinity tolerance mechanism in Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea L.)
- 43 Downloads
This study reports a comparison of differential physiological and biochemical changes in two Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea L.) cultivars viz. CS-52 (salinity tolerant) and Ashirwad (salinity susceptible) after 15 days of gradual increase in NaCl concentration in the nutrient solution. The increase in the NaCl concentration in the nutrient solution was as follows: 25 mM for 2 days, 50 mM for 2 days, 75 mM for 2 days, 100 mM for 2 days, 125 mM for 2 days, and 150 mM for 5 days. After 15 days of salinity stress, we observed a sharp decline in dry matter content and leaf area in Ashirwad. These effects were, however, less pronounced in CS-52. Under high salinity conditions, CS-52 maintained a better physiological status as determined by higher relative water content, higher water use efficiency, and lower leaf temperature and electrolytic leakage ratio, compared to Ashirwad. CS-52 was also observed to be more efficient regarding gas-exchange parameters (stomatal conductance and transpiration) and photosynthetic capacity. Moreover, salt-induced changes in accumulation and distribution patterns, and the ratios of major macro- and microelements were recorded to be more favorable in CS-52 compared to Ashirwad. The study also revealed that salinity-induced relative changes in the concentrations and compositions of biomolecules such as lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates, and structural rearrangements in the side chains of proteins were less prominent in CS-52 indicating better preparedness and thus more adaptability of CS-52 towards salinity.
KeywordsIndian Mustard Salinity stress Water relations Mineral nutrition FT–IR spectroscopy
We sincerely acknowledge Director, ICAR-Directorate of Rapeseed-Mustard Research, Bharatpur, 321 303, Rajasthan (India), for providing financial support and the facilities to carry out this research work.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Aziz EE, Gad N, Khaled SM (2011) Effect of cobalt on growth and chemical composition of peppermint plant grown in newly reclaimed soil. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 5:628–633Google Scholar
- El-Gamal IM (2000) Interaction between cobalt and salinity on the plant growth. ICEHM2000, Cairo Univ., EgyptGoogle Scholar
- Fridovich I (1986) Superoxide dismutases. In: Meister A (ed) Advances in enzymology and related areas of molecular biology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 61–97Google Scholar
- Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Grattan SR, Grieve CM (1999) Mineral nutrient acquisition and response by plants grown in saline environments. In: Pessarakli M (ed) Handbook of plant and crop stress. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 203–229Google Scholar
- Hewitt EJ (1966) Sand and water culture methods used in the study of plant nutrition, Technical Communication No. 22, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. Eastern Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Hirpara KD, Ramoliya PJ, Patel AD, Pandey AN (2005) Effect of salinization of soil on growth and macro- and micro-nutrient accumulation in seedlings of Butea monosperma (Fabaceae). Ann Biol 27:3–14Google Scholar
- Naumann D, Helm D, Labischinski H, Giesbrecht P (1991) The characterization of microorganisms by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT–IR). In: Nelson WH (ed) Modern techniques for rapid microbiological analysis. VCH, New York, pp 43–96Google Scholar
- Noreen Z, Ashraf M, Akram NA (2010) Salt-induced regulation of some key antioxidant enzymes and physio-biochemical phenomena in five diverse cultivars of turnip (Brassica rapa L.). J Agron Crop Sci 196:273–285Google Scholar
- Sharma P, Sardana V, Banga SS (2013) Salt tolerance of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) at germination and early seedling growth. Environ Exp Biol 11:39–46Google Scholar
- Tozlu I, Moore GA, Guy CL (2002) Effects of increasing NaCl concentration on stem elongation, dry mass production, and macro- and micro-nutrient accumulation in Poncirustri foliata. Aust J Plant Physiol 27:35–42Google Scholar