Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 31;9(11):1472.
doi: 10.3390/plants9111472.

The Influence of Soil Acidity on the Physiological Responses of Two Bread Wheat Cultivars

Brigitta Tóth  1 , Csaba Juhász  2 , Maryke Labuschagne  3 , Makoena Joyce Moloi  3
Affiliations

The Influence of Soil Acidity on the Physiological Responses of Two Bread Wheat Cultivars

Brigitta Tóth et al. Plants (Basel). .

Abstract

The recent study was conducted to examine the influence of acidic soil on the activities of ascorbate (APX) and guaiacol peroxidase (POD), proline, protein as well as malon-dialdehyde (MDA) content, in two commercial spring wheat cultivars (PAN3497 and SST806) at different growth stages (tillering and grain filling). A cultivar effect was significant only for MDA content, while the treatment effect was highly significant for proline, protein, and MDA. The sampling time effect was significant for most characteristics. MDA, antioxidative capacity, as well as protein content increased with maturity. At grain filling, MDA and proline contents were significantly higher at pH 5 than pH 6 and 7 for both cultivars, with the highest content in SST806. Similarly, SST806 had significantly higher APX and POD when growing at pH 5. There were no significant differences in protein content at grain filling between either genotype or treatments affected by low pH. This study showed that growth stage and soil pH influence the rate of lipid peroxidation as well as the antioxidative capacity of wheat, with a larger effect at grain filling, at pH 5. Although SST806 had higher proline, POD, and APX content than PAN3497 at this growth stage, this coincided with a very high MDA content. This shows that the high antioxidative capacity observed here, was not associated with a reduction of lipid peroxidation under low soil pH. Further research should, therefore, be done to establish the role of the induced antioxidant system in association with growth and yield in wheat.

Keywords: antioxidative enzyme activity; low pH; proline; protein; wheat.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The MDA content of PAN3497 and SST806 grown at three soil pH levels (pH 7, 6, and 5), with two sampling times (tillering and grain filling). Values are the averages of three biological and technical repetitions ± SE. Significant difference compared to pH 7: * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The APX activity of PAN3497 and SST806 grown at three soil pH levels (pH 7, 6, and 5), with two sampling times (tillering and grain filling). Values are the averages of three biological and technical repetitions ± SE. Significant difference compared to pH 7: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 3
Figure 3
The peroxidase (POD) activity of PAN3497 and SST806 grown at three soil pH levels (pH 7, 6, and 5), with two sampling times (tillering and grain filling). Values are the averages of three biological and technical repetitions ± SE. Significant difference compared to pH 7: *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Proline content in leaves of PAN3497 and SST806 grown at three soil pH levels (pH 7, 6, and 5), with two sampling times (tillering and grain filling). Values are the averages of three biological and technical repetitions ± SE. Significant difference compared to pH 7: *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Protein content in leaves of PAN3497 and SST806 grown at three soil pH levels (pH 7, 6, and 5), with two sampling times (tillering and grain filling). Each value is the mean ± standard error of three biological and technical replicates. Significant difference compared to pH 7: ** p < 0.001.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Arraiza M.P., Santamarta J.C., Ioras F., García-Rodríguez J.L., Abrudan I.V., Korjas H., Borála G., editors. Climate Change and Restoration of Degraded Land. Colegio de Ingenieros de Montes; Madrid, Spain: 2014.
    1. Schoenholtz S., Miegroet H.V., Burger J. A review of chemical and physiological properties as indicators of forest soil quality. Challenges and opportunities. Ecol. Manag. 2000;138:335–356.
    1. Von Uexkull H.R., Mutert E. Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant Soil. 1995;171:1–15. doi: 10.1007/BF00009558. - DOI
    1. Venter A., Herselman J.E., VanderMerwe G.M.E., Steyn C., Beukes D.J. Developing soil acidity maps for South Africa; Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Soil Plant Interactions at Low pH; Bergville, South Africa. 12–16 March 2001; p. 21.
    1. Roberts V.G., Smeda Z. The distribution of soil fertility constraints in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Plant Soil Interactions at low pH; Bergville, South Africa. 12–16 March 2001; p. 12.

LinkOut - more resources