À propos de cet article
Article Category: Original Article
Publié en ligne: 26 avr. 2021
Pages: 135 - 145
Reçu: 21 déc. 2020
Accepté: 15 mars 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2021-0010
Mots clés
© 2021 María del Carmen Rodríguez-Hernández et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Figure 1
Growth parameters of quinoa cv. ‘Titicaca’ subjected to different salt conditions. Means (n = 10) ± SD were compared with Duncan test.
| Treatment | Shoot DW (g · plant−1) | Leaf DW (g · plant−1) | Root DW (g · plant−1) | Leaf area (cm2) | Shoot height (cm) | Root length (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 2.04 ± 0.30 a | 1.09 ± 0.27 a | 0.47 ± 0.10 a | 375.61 ± 60.67 a | 24.75 ± 2.32 a | 74.25 ± 8.99 a |
| 50 mM | 1.72 ± 0.31 ab | 1.23 ± 0.43 a | 0.37 ± 0.07 b | 368.97 ± 68.47 a | 23.25 ± 3.56 a | 56.38 ± 7.79 b |
| 100 mM | 1.38 ± 0.12 bc | 1.06 ± 0.37 a | 0.37 ± 0.02 b | 358.86 ± 31.38 a | 25.36 ± 1.91 a | 55.88 ± 7.26 b |
| 200 mM | 1.12 ± 0.11 c | 0.94 ± 0.20 a | 0.33 ± 0.06 b | 120.36 ± 46.84 b | 20.07 ± 0.73 b | 41.13 ± 7.89 c |
Leaf photosynthetic pigment concentration of quinoa cv. ‘Titicaca’ subjected to different salt conditions. Means (n = 10) ± SD were compared with Duncan test.
| Treatment | Photosynthetic pigments (mg · g−1 leaf DW) | |
|---|---|---|
| Chlorophylls | Carotenoids | |
| Control | 23.42 ± 1.99 a | 4.38 ± 0.40 a |
| 50 mM | 22.85 ± 0.97 a | 4.31 ± 1.49 a |
| 100 mM | 22.68 ± 1.45 a | 3.27 ± 0.76 ab |
| 200 mM | 15.45 ± 2.87 b | 2.57 ± 0.47 b |
Foliar concentration of nutrients in quinoa cv. ‘Titicaca’ subjected to different salt conditions. Means (n = 5) ± SD were compared with Duncan test
| Treatment | Mg (mg · g−1 DW) | K (mg · g−1 DW) | P (mg · g−1 DW) | Ca (mg · g−1 DW) | Fe (mg · g−1 DW) | Mn (mg · g−1 DW) | Zn (mg · g−1 DW) | Na (mg · g−1 DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 9.23 ± 0.59 a | 95.19 ± 6.04 a | 5.79 ± 0.35 b | 23.96 ± 1.49 a | 72.24 ± 3.14 a | 85.24 ± 12.88 a | 90.37 ± 10.77 bc | 1.52 ± 0.06 d |
| 50 mM | 9.10 ± 0.69 a | 89.38 ± 13.24 ab | 6.29 ± 0.18 ab | 16.83 ± 1.56 b | 71.40 ± 4.30 a | 78.60 ± 2.59 a | 106.59 ± 17.04 ab | 29.86 ± 5.91 c |
| 100 mM | 8.62 ± 0.38 a | 81.70 ± 4.52 bc | 6.85 ± 0.89 a | 13.14 ± 0.32 c | 63.35 ± 9.25 ab | 75.03 ± 2.08 a | 129.35 ± 14.85 a | 49.44 ± 9.72 b |
| 200 mM | 6.74 ± 0.36 b | 69.47 ± 4.30 c | 3.39 ± 0.12 c | 10.90 ± 1.04 d | 53.25 ± 5.67 b | 48.33 ± 1.34 b | 68.09 ± 10.46 c | 63.26 ± 6.07 a |
Salt glands in leaves of quinoa cv. ‘Titicaca’ subjected to different salt conditions. Means (n = 5 plants, 15 leaves) ± SD were compared with Duncan test.
| Salt gland density (gland number · cm−2) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Adaxial surface | Abaxial surface |
| Control | 339.08 ± 87.66 bx | 368.90 ± 53.55 bx |
| 50 mM | 418.06 ± 100.64 abx | 416.80 ± 91.44 abx |
| 100 mM | 427.27 ± 98.20 abx | 477.45 ± 105.99 ax |
| 200 mM | 497.60 ± 132.24 ax | 523.75 ± 151.20 ax |
Leaf RWC and stem and root water potential (ψ) of quinoa cv. ‘Titicaca’ subjected to different salt conditions. Means (n = 5) ± SD were compared with Duncan test.
| Treatment | RWC (%) | Stem ψ (MPa) | Root ψ (MPa) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 74.53 ± 5.52 a | −0.25 ± 0.05 a | −0.13 ± 0.05 a |
| 50 mM | 72.20 ± 6.18 a | −0.44 ± 0.05 b | −0.23 ± 0.05 b |
| 100 mM | 72.03 ± 7.74 a | −0.74 ± 0.18 c | −0.23 ± 0.05 b |
| 200 mM | 59.96 ± 2.90 b | −0.76 ± 0.05 c | −0.30 ± 0.07 c |