We studied the effect of aluminium ions on morphometric traits and water status of common buckwheat. A screening study of stomatal parameters at leaf epidermis generated under aluminium-acid stress was carried out. Addition of aluminium to the growth medium led to decrease in stomatal density on both leaf sides and partial or total stomatal closure. It was revealed that relative water content of plant tissues was similar to the control level. Though linear dimensions of underground and aerial parts were decreased, no significant changes of fresh phytomass were observed.

Keywords: Fagopyrum esculentum, morphometric analysis, water status, aluminium-acid stress, adaptation, aluminium resistance

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 1.15M

1. Bergmann D.C. Current Opinion in Plant Biol., 2004, 7(1): 26—32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2003.10.001
2. Chaves M.M., Maroco J.P., Pereira J.S. Functional Plant Biol., 2003, 30(3): 239—264. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP02076
3. Comstock J.P. J. Exp. Bot., 2002, 53(367): 195—200. https://doi.org/10.1093/jexbot/53.367.195
4. Elagoz V., Han S.S., Manning W.J. Environ. Pollut., 2006, 140(1): 395—405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.08.024
5. Greger M., Johansson M. Physiol. Plant., 2006, 86(3): 465—473. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1992.tb01345.x
6. Hede A.R., Skovmand B., Lopez-Cesati. Application of physiology in wheat breeding, Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT, 2001, P. 172—182.
7. Hrekov V.O., Panasenko V.M. Stan rodiuchosti gruntiv Ukrainy za danymy VIII turu ahrokhimichnoi pasportyzatsii zemel silskohospodarskoho pryznachennia, K.: Minahropolityky, Tsentrderzhrodiuchist, 2009, 48 s.
8. Humeniuk I.D., Musatenko L.I. Ukr. botan. zhurn., 2006, 63(5): 699—712.
9. Kaznina N.M., Titov A.F., Lajdinen G.F., Batova Yu.V. Trudy Karelskogo nauchn. centra RAN, 2011, 3(1): 57—61.
10. Koshkin E.I. Fiziologiya ustoychivosti selskohozyaystvennykh kultur, M.: «Drofa», 2010, 610 s.
11. Lomax B.H., Woodward F.I., Leitch I.J., Knight C.A., Lake J.A. New Phytol., 2009, 181(2): 311—314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02700.x
12. Marba N., Duarte C.M., Agusti S. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 2007, 104(40): 15777—15780. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0703476104
13. Orcen N., Nazarian Gh., Gharibkhani M. Pol. J. Environ. Stud., 2013, 22(5), P. 1441—1447.
14. Özyiğit I.I., Akinci Ş. Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cl., 2009, 37(1): 108—115.
15. Parshykova T.V. Fiziologiia roslyn. Praktykum, Lutsk: VMA «Teren», 2010, 416 s.
16. Pompelli M.F., Martins S.C., Celin E.F., Ventrella M.C., DaMatta F.M. Braz. J. Biol., 2010, 70(4): 1083—1088. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842010000500025
17. Rout G.R., Samantaray S., Das P. Agronomie, 2001, 21(1): 3—21. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2001105
18. Shen R.F., Chen R.F., Ma J.F. Plant and Soil, 2006, 284(1-2): 265—271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-0044-x
19. Zaharov V.M., Baranov A.S., Borisov V.I. Zdorov'e sredy: metody ocenki, M.: Centr ekol. politiki, 2000, 68 s.
20. Zhang X., Liu P., Yang Y.S., Xu G. Bot. Stud., 2007, 48(1): 435—444.
21. Zhao X.J., Sucoff E., Stadelmann E.J. Plant Physiol., 1987, 83(1): 159—162. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.83.1.159
22. Zheng S.J., Ma J.F., Matsumoto H. Plant Physiol., 1998, 117(3): 745—751. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.117.3.745
23. Zhu R., Macfie S.M., Ding Z. J. Exp. Bot., 2005, 56(421): 2831—2838. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eri275
24. Zhuk O.I. Visn. Kharkiv. nats. un-tu im. V.N. Karazina. Ser. biol., 2010, 11(905): 212—216.
25. Zlobin Yu.A, Skliar V.H., Bondarieva L.M., Kyrylchuk K.S. Chornomor. botan. zhurn., 2009, 5(1): 5—22.