Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 37 issue 2 (june 2003) : 128 - 131

INFLUENCE OF SALINITY ON SODIUM, POTASSIUM AND PROLINE CONTENT IN WHEAT (TRITICUMAESTIVUM L.) LEAVES AND ITS MITIGATION THROUGH PRESOAKING TREATMENTS

Narendra K. Roy, Ashwani K. Srivastava, S.G. Sharma, A.K. Singh
1Department of Botany and Plant Physiology. Rajendra Agricultural University. Bihar, Pusa - 848 125. India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Roy K. Narendra, Srivastava K. Ashwani, Sharma S.G., Singh A.K. (2024). INFLUENCE OF SALINITY ON SODIUM, POTASSIUM AND PROLINE CONTENT IN WHEAT (TRITICUMAESTIVUM L.) LEAVES AND ITS MITIGATION THROUGH PRESOAKING TREATMENTS. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 37(2): 128 - 131. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The experiment was conducted to understand the influence of salinity and presoaking treatments on the level of proline, sodium and potassium content in UP 262 cultivar of wheat seedlings during early growth stages. In leaves the proline and sodium content increased significantly with rise in levels of salt stress. Potassium content in shoots exhibited an increasing trend whereas the reverse was noted in roots with increasing salt stress levels. Potassium content was higher in shoots as compared to roots. However, presoaking treatments resulted a decrease in the amount of proline content as compared to control. The presoaking treatments alleviates the salt stress by modulation of osmotically active low molecular compounds like proline

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Alia Prasad, K.V.S.K. and Pardha Saradhi, P. (1995). Phytochemistry, 39: 45-47.
    2. Basu, R.N. et a/. (1985). Seed Res., 13: 39-46.
    3. Bates, L.S. etal (1973). Pl Soil, 39: 205-207.
    4. Chiang, H.H. and Dandekar, A.M. (1995). Pl Cell Environ., 18: 1280-1290.
    5. Delauney, A.J. and Verma, D.P.S. (1993). Pl J., 4: 215-223.
    6. Dregne, H.E. and Mojallali, H. (1968). Bull NewMex. Agric. Exp. Stn., 541: 16.
    7. Hagedorn, C.H. and Phang, J.M. (1986). Arch. Biochem. Biophys., 248: 166-174.
    8. Helal, H.M. and Mengel, K. (1979). Pl. Soil, 51: 457-462.
    9. Hua, X.J. et al (1997). Pl Physiol, 114: 1215-1224.
    10. Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. p. 151-153.
    11. Kavi Kishor, P.B. etal (1995). Pl Physiol, 108: 1387-1394.
    12. Koch, K. and Mengel, K. (1974). J. Sci. FoodAgric., 25: 465-471.
    13. Lloyd, A. et al (1990). Physiol Pl., 78: 236-246.
    14. Palfi, G. etal (1974). Pylon., 32: 121-127.
    15. Qadar, Ali et al (1983). Indian J. Pl Physiol 26(1): 93-98.
    16. Savitskaya, N.N. (1976). In : The Physiology and Biochemistry of Drought Resistance in Plant (Paleg, L.G. and . Aspinall, D. ed.) Academic Press, Sydney, New York p. 205-241.
    17. Sharma, S.K. (1995). IndianJ. Pl Physiol, 38: 233-235.
    18. Solomon, A. etal (1994). Physiol. Pl, 90: 198-204.
    19. Stewart, C.R. and Boggess, S.F. (1978). Pl Physiol, 61: 654-657.
    20. Van Rensburg L.; Kruger, G.H.J. and Kruger, H. (1993). J. Pl Physiol, 141: 188-194.
    21. Venekamp, J.H. (1989). Physiol Pl, 70: 381-388.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)