Type of Anion Largely Determines Salinity Tolerance in Four Rumex Species

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of various salts composed of different cations (Na⁺, K⁺) and anions (chloride, nitrate, nitrite) on growth, development and ion accumulation in three Rumex species with accessions from sea coast habitats (Rumex hydrolapathum, Rumex longifolius and Rumex maritimus) and Rumex confertus from an inland habitat. Plants were cultivated in soil in an experimental automated greenhouse during the autumn-winter season. Nitrite salts strongly inhibited growth of all Rumex species, but R. maritimus was the least sensitive. Negative effects of chloride salts were rather little-pronounced, but nitrates resulted in significant growth stimulation, plant growth and development. Effects of Na⁺ and K⁺ at the morphological level were relatively similar, but treatment with K⁺ salts resulted in both higher tissue electrolyte levels and proportion of senescent leaves, especially for chloride salts. Increases in tissue water content in leaves were associated with anion type, and were most pronounced in nitrate-treated plants, resulting in dilution of electrolyte concentration. At the morphological level, salinity responses of R. confertus and R. hydrolapathum were similar, but at the developmental and physiological level, R. hydrolapathum and R. maritimus showed more similar salinity effects. In conclusion, the salinity tolerance of all coastal Rumex species was high, but the inland species R. confertus was the least tolerant to salinity. Similarity in effects between Na⁺ and K⁺ could be related to the fact that surplus Na⁺ and K⁺ has similar fate (including mechanisms of uptake, translocation and compartmentation) in relatively salt-tolerant species. However, differences between various anions are most likely related to differences in physiological functions and metabolic fate of particular ions.

Keywords: chloride; coastal plants; dock species; electrolyte accumulation; halophytes; ion accumulation; nitrate; nitrite; salinity tolerance; water content.

Figure 1

Effect of salinity treatments on soil extract electrical conductivity after cultivation of different Rumex species. Electrical conductivity was measure in 1:50 soil/water (w/v) extract. Data are means ± SE from 5 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments and species.

Figure 2

Relative effect of salinity treatments on leaf dry mass (A) and root dry mass (B) of different Rumex species. Data are means ± SE from 5 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.

Figure 3

Relative changes in biomass partitioning in Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salinity treatments.

Figure 4

Relative changes in number of leaves (A) and changes in leaf chlorophyll concentration (B) under the effect of various salinity treatments in different Rumex species. Data are means ± SE from 5 replicates. For (A), different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species. For (B), different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments and species.

Figure 5

Changes in water content in different plant parts of Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salinity treatments. Data are means ± SE from 5 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.

Figure 6

Changes in Na⁺ concentration on dry mass (DM) basis in different parts of Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salts. Data are means ± SE from 3 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.

Figure 7

Changes in Na⁺ concentration on tissue water basis in different parts of Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salts. Data are means ± SE from 3 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.

Figure 8

Changes in K⁺ concentration on dry mass (DM) basis in different parts of Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salts. Data are means ± SE from 3 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.

Figure 9

Changes in K⁺ concentration on tissue water basis in different parts of Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salts. Data are means ± SE from 3 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.

Figure 10

Changes in summed Na⁺ + K⁺ concentration on tissue water basis in different parts of Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salts. Data are means ± SE from 3 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.

Figure 11

Changes in tissue electrical conductivity on tissue water basis in different parts of Rumex confertus (A), Rumex hydrolapathum (B), Rumex longifolius (C) and Rumex maritimus (D) plants under the effect of various salts. Data are means ± SE from 3 replicates. Different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between treatments for a particular Rumex species.