The response of contrasting tomato genotypes to combined heat and drought stress

Copyright © 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of plant physiology. - 1979. - 202(2016) vom: 01. Sept., Seite 75-82
1. Verfasser: Nankishore, Alliea (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: Farrell, Aidan D
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2016
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Journal of plant physiology
Schlagworte:Journal Article Chlorophyll fluorescence Climate change Heat stress Leaf temperature Plant breeding Water stress Water 059QF0KO0R Chlorophyll 1406-65-1
LEADER 01000naa a22002652 4500
001 NLM262896567
003 DE-627
005 20231224202708.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231224s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1016/j.jplph.2016.07.006  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed24n0876.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM262896567 
035 |a (NLM)27467552 
035 |a (PII)S0176-1617(16)30126-2 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Nankishore, Alliea  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The response of contrasting tomato genotypes to combined heat and drought stress 
264 1 |c 2016 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 10.04.2017 
500 |a Date Revised 07.12.2022 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a Copyright © 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. 
520 |a Efforts to maximize yields of food crops can be undermined by abiotic stress factors, particularly those related to climate change. Here, we use a range of physiological methods to detect the individual and combined effects of heat and drought stress on three contrasting varieties of tomato: Hybrid 61, Moskvich, and Nagcarlang. Seedlings were acclimated under the following treatment regimes: CONTROL (25-36°C; well-watered), DRY (25-36°C; 20% field capacity), HOT (25-42°C; well-watered) and HOT+DRY (25-42°C; 20% field capacity). In each treatment, stomatal conductance, leaf temperature, chlorophyll content, and several chlorophyll fluorescence variables (both in situ and in vitro following a heat shock treatment) were measured. Plants from the HOT treatment remained statistically similar to the CONTROL plants in most of the measured parameters, while those from the DRY treatment and especially the HOT+DRY treatment showed clear effects of abiotic stress. Hybrid 61 showed considerable resilience to heat and drought stress compared to the other varieties, with significantly cooler leaves (one day after treatments imposed) and significantly higher Fv/Fm values both in situ and in vitro. The genotypic differences in resilience to heat stress were only apparent under water-limited conditions, highlighting the need to consider leaf temperature rather than air temperature when testing for tolerance to heat stress. The most effective parameters for discriminating genotypic variation in heat and drought stress were in vitro Fv/Fm and chlorophyll content 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a Chlorophyll fluorescence 
650 4 |a Climate change 
650 4 |a Heat stress 
650 4 |a Leaf temperature 
650 4 |a Plant breeding 
650 4 |a Water stress 
650 7 |a Water  |2 NLM 
650 7 |a 059QF0KO0R  |2 NLM 
650 7 |a Chlorophyll  |2 NLM 
650 7 |a 1406-65-1  |2 NLM 
700 1 |a Farrell, Aidan D  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of plant physiology  |d 1979  |g 202(2016) vom: 01. Sept., Seite 75-82  |w (DE-627)NLM098174622  |x 1618-1328  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:202  |g year:2016  |g day:01  |g month:09  |g pages:75-82 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2016.07.006  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 202  |j 2016  |b 01  |c 09  |h 75-82