Display options
Cite
Rozema J, Cornelisse D, Zhang Y, et al. Comparing salt tolerance of beet cultivars and their halophytic ancestor: consequences of domestication and breeding programmes. AoB Plants. 2014;7doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plu083.
Rozema, J., Cornelisse, D., Zhang, Y., Li, H., Bruning, B., Katschnig, D., Broekman, R., Ji, B., & van Bodegom, P. (2014). Comparing salt tolerance of beet cultivars and their halophytic ancestor: consequences of domestication and breeding programmes. AoB PLANTS, 7. https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plu083
Rozema, Jelte, et al. "Comparing salt tolerance of beet cultivars and their halophytic ancestor: consequences of domestication and breeding programmes." AoB PLANTS vol. 7 (2014). doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/plu083
Rozema J, Cornelisse D, Zhang Y, Li H, Bruning B, Katschnig D, Broekman R, Ji B, van Bodegom P. Comparing salt tolerance of beet cultivars and their halophytic ancestor: consequences of domestication and breeding programmes. AoB Plants. 2014 Dec 09;7. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plu083. PMID: 25492122; PMCID: PMC4381740.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

AoB Plants. 2014 Dec 09;7. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plu083.

Comparing salt tolerance of beet cultivars and their halophytic ancestor: consequences of domestication and breeding programmes.

AoB PLANTS

Jelte Rozema, Danny Cornelisse, Yuancheng Zhang, Hongxiu Li, Bas Bruning, Diana Katschnig, Rob Broekman, Bin Ji, Peter van Bodegom

Affiliations

  1. Systems Ecology, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands [email protected].
  2. Systems Ecology, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. Chang 'an Agricultural Institute, Dong Ying, Shandong, PR China.

PMID: 25492122 PMCID: PMC4381740 DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plu083

Abstract

Salt tolerance of higher plants is determined by a complex set of traits, the timing and rate of evolution of which are largely unknown. We compared the salt tolerance of cultivars of sugar beet and their ancestor, sea beet, in hydroponic studies and evaluated whether traditional domestication and more recent breeding have changed salt tolerance of the cultivars relative to their ancestor. Our comparison of salt tolerance of crop cultivars is based on values of the relative growth rate (RGR) of the entire plant at various salinity levels. We found considerable salt tolerance of the sea beet and slightly, but significantly, reduced salt tolerance of the sugar beet cultivars. This indicates that traditional domestication by selection for morphological traits such as leaf size, beet shape and size, enhanced productivity, sugar content and palatability slightly affected salt tolerance of sugar beet cultivars. Salt tolerance among four sugar beet cultivars, three of which have been claimed to be salt tolerant, did not differ. We analysed the components of RGR to understand the mechanism of salt tolerance at the whole-plant level. The growth rate reduction at higher salinity was linked with reduced leaf area at the whole-plant level (leaf area ratio) and at the individual leaf level (specific leaf area). The leaf weight fraction was not affected by increased salinity. On the other hand, succulence and leaf thickness and the net assimilation per unit of leaf area (unit leaf rate) increased in response to salt treatment, thus partially counteracting reduced capture of light by lower leaf area. This compensatory mechanism may form part of the salt tolerance mechanism of sea beet and the four studied sugar beet cultivars. Together, our results indicate that domestication of the halophytic ancestor sea beet slightly reduced salt tolerance and that breeding for improved salt tolerance of sugar beet cultivars has not been effective.

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company.

Keywords: Beta; breeding; cultivar; domestication; growth analysis; saline agriculture; salt tolerance; sea beet; sugar beet.

References

  1. Trends Plant Sci. 2008 Aug;13(8):421-9 - PubMed
  2. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2008;59:651-81 - PubMed
  3. New Phytol. 2008;179(4):945-63 - PubMed
  4. New Phytol. 2005 Sep;167(3):645-63 - PubMed
  5. AoB Plants. 2014 May 20;6:null - PubMed
  6. New Phytol. 2008;179(4):964-74 - PubMed
  7. Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Mar 11;30(4):360-4 - PubMed
  8. Science. 2008 Dec 5;322(5907):1478-80 - PubMed
  9. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol. 1997 Jun;48:223-250 - PubMed
  10. Plant Physiol. 1989 Jul;90(3):814-9 - PubMed
  11. J Exp Bot. 2004 Feb;55(396):307-19 - PubMed
  12. Ann Bot. 2002 Oct;90(4):485-8 - PubMed
  13. Biol Lett. 2013 Feb 27;9(2):20130029 - PubMed
  14. Biotechnol Adv. 2009 Nov-Dec;27(6):744-52 - PubMed
  15. Ann Bot. 2003 Apr;91(5):503-27 - PubMed
  16. J Environ Biol. 2005 Jul;26(3):487-93 - PubMed

Publication Types