Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning

Autores
González, Juan Antonio; Gallardo, Miriam; Hilal, Mirna Beatriz; Rosa, Mariana Daniela; Prado, Fernando Eduardo
Año de publicación
2009
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants responded differently to drought and waterlogging. Plant and root dry weights (DW) were lower in both drought and waterlogging conditions than in well-watered conditions, but the lowest values were obtained under waterlogging. However, the root weight ratio (RWR: root dry weight per unit of plant dry weight) did not show significant changes in any treatments. Leaf area (LA) and specific leaf area (SLA) were higher in drought than in waterlogging, but drought and control treatments showed no significant differences. Conversely, specific leaf weight (SLW) and relative water content (RWC) were higher under waterlogging than drought. However, between control and waterlogging conditions, no a significant difference in RWC values emerged. In addition, the number of leaves and height of plants remained unchanged in all treatments. The lowest content of total chlorophyll, chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b was observed in waterlogging conditions while between control and drought treatments there were no significant differences. Chlorophyll a/b ratio remained unchanged in all treatments. Leaf nitrogen content, expressed per unit of leaf dry weight (Nm), was lower in control plants and remained unchanged under drought and waterlogging conditions. However, when it was expressed per unit of leaf area (Na), waterlogging produced the highest value. In addition, soluble protein content was also higher in waterlogging than in control and drought conditions. Proline content was higher under drought than in control and waterlogging conditions; however, there was no a significant difference between control and waterlogging treatments. Between control and drought treatments there were no differences in starch, sucrose or fructose contents. Glucose and total soluble sugar contents were higher under drought than in well-watered conditions. However, the highest amounts of soluble sugars and starch were found in waterlogging. Relationships between soil water surplus and quinoa growth are discussed
Fil: González, Juan Antonio. Fundación Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Gallardo, Miriam. Fundación Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Hilal, Mirna Beatriz. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Rosa, Mariana Daniela. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Prado, Fernando Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina
Materia
Chenopodium quinoa
drought
dry matter partitioning
nitrogen
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/77973
Acceder
id CONICETDig_8b9fb7aa2d02b7e5af150a13ae04865b
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/77973
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioningGonzález, Juan AntonioGallardo, MiriamHilal, Mirna BeatrizRosa, Mariana DanielaPrado, Fernando EduardoChenopodium quinoadroughtdry matter partitioningnitrogenhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants responded differently to drought and waterlogging. Plant and root dry weights (DW) were lower in both drought and waterlogging conditions than in well-watered conditions, but the lowest values were obtained under waterlogging. However, the root weight ratio (RWR: root dry weight per unit of plant dry weight) did not show significant changes in any treatments. Leaf area (LA) and specific leaf area (SLA) were higher in drought than in waterlogging, but drought and control treatments showed no significant differences. Conversely, specific leaf weight (SLW) and relative water content (RWC) were higher under waterlogging than drought. However, between control and waterlogging conditions, no a significant difference in RWC values emerged. In addition, the number of leaves and height of plants remained unchanged in all treatments. The lowest content of total chlorophyll, chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b was observed in waterlogging conditions while between control and drought treatments there were no significant differences. Chlorophyll a/b ratio remained unchanged in all treatments. Leaf nitrogen content, expressed per unit of leaf dry weight (Nm), was lower in control plants and remained unchanged under drought and waterlogging conditions. However, when it was expressed per unit of leaf area (Na), waterlogging produced the highest value. In addition, soluble protein content was also higher in waterlogging than in control and drought conditions. Proline content was higher under drought than in control and waterlogging conditions; however, there was no a significant difference between control and waterlogging treatments. Between control and drought treatments there were no differences in starch, sucrose or fructose contents. Glucose and total soluble sugar contents were higher under drought than in well-watered conditions. However, the highest amounts of soluble sugars and starch were found in waterlogging. Relationships between soil water surplus and quinoa growth are discussedFil: González, Juan Antonio. Fundación Miguel Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Gallardo, Miriam. Fundación Miguel Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Hilal, Mirna Beatriz. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Rosa, Mariana Daniela. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; ArgentinaFil: Prado, Fernando Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; ArgentinaAcad Sinica2009-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/77973González, Juan Antonio; Gallardo, Miriam; Hilal, Mirna Beatriz; Rosa, Mariana Daniela; Prado, Fernando Eduardo; Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning; Acad Sinica; Botanical Studies; 50; 1; 8-2009; 35-421817-406XCONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/content/2009/1/Bot501-05.pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T10:11:06Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/77973instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 10:11:06.75CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
title Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
spellingShingle Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
González, Juan Antonio
Chenopodium quinoa
drought
dry matter partitioning
nitrogen
title_short Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
title_full Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
title_fullStr Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
title_full_unstemmed Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
title_sort Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv González, Juan Antonio
Gallardo, Miriam
Hilal, Mirna Beatriz
Rosa, Mariana Daniela
Prado, Fernando Eduardo
author González, Juan Antonio
author_facet González, Juan Antonio
Gallardo, Miriam
Hilal, Mirna Beatriz
Rosa, Mariana Daniela
Prado, Fernando Eduardo
author_role author
author2 Gallardo, Miriam
Hilal, Mirna Beatriz
Rosa, Mariana Daniela
Prado, Fernando Eduardo
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Chenopodium quinoa
drought
dry matter partitioning
nitrogen
topic Chenopodium quinoa
drought
dry matter partitioning
nitrogen
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1.6
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/1
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants responded differently to drought and waterlogging. Plant and root dry weights (DW) were lower in both drought and waterlogging conditions than in well-watered conditions, but the lowest values were obtained under waterlogging. However, the root weight ratio (RWR: root dry weight per unit of plant dry weight) did not show significant changes in any treatments. Leaf area (LA) and specific leaf area (SLA) were higher in drought than in waterlogging, but drought and control treatments showed no significant differences. Conversely, specific leaf weight (SLW) and relative water content (RWC) were higher under waterlogging than drought. However, between control and waterlogging conditions, no a significant difference in RWC values emerged. In addition, the number of leaves and height of plants remained unchanged in all treatments. The lowest content of total chlorophyll, chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b was observed in waterlogging conditions while between control and drought treatments there were no significant differences. Chlorophyll a/b ratio remained unchanged in all treatments. Leaf nitrogen content, expressed per unit of leaf dry weight (Nm), was lower in control plants and remained unchanged under drought and waterlogging conditions. However, when it was expressed per unit of leaf area (Na), waterlogging produced the highest value. In addition, soluble protein content was also higher in waterlogging than in control and drought conditions. Proline content was higher under drought than in control and waterlogging conditions; however, there was no a significant difference between control and waterlogging treatments. Between control and drought treatments there were no differences in starch, sucrose or fructose contents. Glucose and total soluble sugar contents were higher under drought than in well-watered conditions. However, the highest amounts of soluble sugars and starch were found in waterlogging. Relationships between soil water surplus and quinoa growth are discussed
Fil: González, Juan Antonio. Fundación Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Gallardo, Miriam. Fundación Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Hilal, Mirna Beatriz. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Rosa, Mariana Daniela. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
Fil: Prado, Fernando Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina
description Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants responded differently to drought and waterlogging. Plant and root dry weights (DW) were lower in both drought and waterlogging conditions than in well-watered conditions, but the lowest values were obtained under waterlogging. However, the root weight ratio (RWR: root dry weight per unit of plant dry weight) did not show significant changes in any treatments. Leaf area (LA) and specific leaf area (SLA) were higher in drought than in waterlogging, but drought and control treatments showed no significant differences. Conversely, specific leaf weight (SLW) and relative water content (RWC) were higher under waterlogging than drought. However, between control and waterlogging conditions, no a significant difference in RWC values emerged. In addition, the number of leaves and height of plants remained unchanged in all treatments. The lowest content of total chlorophyll, chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b was observed in waterlogging conditions while between control and drought treatments there were no significant differences. Chlorophyll a/b ratio remained unchanged in all treatments. Leaf nitrogen content, expressed per unit of leaf dry weight (Nm), was lower in control plants and remained unchanged under drought and waterlogging conditions. However, when it was expressed per unit of leaf area (Na), waterlogging produced the highest value. In addition, soluble protein content was also higher in waterlogging than in control and drought conditions. Proline content was higher under drought than in control and waterlogging conditions; however, there was no a significant difference between control and waterlogging treatments. Between control and drought treatments there were no differences in starch, sucrose or fructose contents. Glucose and total soluble sugar contents were higher under drought than in well-watered conditions. However, the highest amounts of soluble sugars and starch were found in waterlogging. Relationships between soil water surplus and quinoa growth are discussed
publishDate 2009
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2009-08
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/77973
González, Juan Antonio; Gallardo, Miriam; Hilal, Mirna Beatriz; Rosa, Mariana Daniela; Prado, Fernando Eduardo; Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning; Acad Sinica; Botanical Studies; 50; 1; 8-2009; 35-42
1817-406X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/77973
identifier_str_mv González, Juan Antonio; Gallardo, Miriam; Hilal, Mirna Beatriz; Rosa, Mariana Daniela; Prado, Fernando Eduardo; Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning; Acad Sinica; Botanical Studies; 50; 1; 8-2009; 35-42
1817-406X
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/content/2009/1/Bot501-05.pdf
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Acad Sinica
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Acad Sinica
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842270145387429888
score 13.13397

Publicaciones similares