Abstract
Species and cultivar differences in boron (B) uptake at low B availability and tolerance to high external B are known for many species but mechanisms explaining such differences remain obscure. Here we contrast B uptake and distribution between two cultivars of tomato and celery that differ significantly in their susceptibility to B deficiency. The celery cultivar S48-54-1 and tomato cultivar ‘Brittle’ are known to be more susceptible to B deficiency (inefficient) than the closely related cultivars ‘Emerson Pascal’ and ‘Rutgers’ (efficient), respectively. B uptake and distribution was also compared in two wheat lines differing in tolerance to B excess (‘Chinese Spring’, sensitive and Lophopyrum Amphiploid, tolerant). Results showed that there is no significant difference in either the specific uptake rate (IM) of 10B or the relative growth rate (RGR) between the efficient cultivar (Emerson Pascal) and less efficient cultivar (S48-54-1) of celery. However, the distribution of 10B among plant organs (leaves, stems and roots) of Emerson Pascal was different from S48-54-1. In Emerson Pascal more than 63% of accumulated B was present in the shoots while in S48-54-1 only 45% of accumulated B was present in shoots. In tomato plants, in addition to differences in B distribution among plant organs between the efficient (Rutgers) and less efficient (Brittle) cultivars, the specific uptake rate of 10B was significantly higher in the efficient cultivar. In wheat, the tolerant line (Amphiploid) took up less B than the less tolerant cultivar (Chinese Spring), and the pattern of B distribution among plant organs was different with a greater percentage of B found in roots of Chinese Spring compared to Amphiploid. Differences in sensitivity to B deficiency and excess amongst cultivars and species were a consequence of either reduced B uptake as in wheat (Amphiploid), a restriction in B translocation from roots to shoot as in celery (S48-54-1) or a combination of both process as in tomato (Brittle).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown P H and Hu H 1994. Boron uptake by sunflower, squash and cultured tobacco cells. Physiol. Plant. 91, 435–441.
Brown J C and Jones W E 1971 Differential transport of boron in Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Physiol. Plant. 25, 279–282.
Darvill A, McNeil M, Alberschein P and Delmer D P 1980 The primary cell wall of flowering plants. In The Biochemistry of Plants. Ed. N E Tolbert. pp 91–161. A comprehensive treatise. Academic Press, New York.
Hoagland D R and Arnon D I 1950 The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. California Department of Agriculture experimental Station Circular 347.
Hu H and Brown P 1994 Localization of boron in cell walls of squash and tobacco and its association with pectin. Plant Physiol. 105, 681–689.
Hu H, Brown P H and Labavitch J M 1996 Species variability in boron requirement is correlated with cell wall pectin. J. Exp. Bot. 47, 227–232.
Hu H and Brown P H 1997 Absorption of boron by plant roots. In Boron in Plants and Soils. Eds. R Bell, B Dell and P H Brown. Chapter 4. Kluwer Academic Press. (In press).
Huang C and Graham R D 1990 Resistance of wheat genotypes to boron toxicity is expressed at cellular level. Plant Soil 126, 295–300.
Jones Jr J B, Wolf B and Mill HA 1991 Plant analysis handbook. A practical sampling preparation, Analysis and interpretation guide. pp 127–189. Micro-Macro Publishing Inc, Athens Georgia.
Marschner H 1995 Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed. pp 379–396. Academic Press, London.
Matoh T, Ishigaki K, Ohno K and Azuma J 1993 Isolation and characterization of a boron-polysaccharide complex from radish roots. Plant Cell Physiol. 34, 639–642.
Matoh T, Kawaguchi S and Kobayashi M 1996 Ubiquity of a borater-hamnogalacturonan II complex in the cell walls of higher plants. Plant Cell Physiol. 37, 636–640.
Nable R O 1988 Effects of boron toxicity amongst several barley wheat cultivars, a preliminary examination of the resistance mechanism. Plant Soil 112, 45–52.
Nable R O 1991 Distribution of boron within barley genotypes with differing susceptibilities to boron toxicity. J. Plant Nutr. 14, 453–461.
Nable R O, Lance R C M and Cartwright B 1990 Uptake of boron and silicon by barley genotypes with differing susceptibilities to boron toxicity. Ann. Bot. 66, 83–90.
Nable R O and Paul G 1991 Mechanism and genetics of tolerance to boron toxicity in plants. Current Topics Plant Biochem. Physiol. 10, 257–273.
Paull J G, Rathjen A J and Cartwright B 1991 Tolerance to high concentrations of boron for the amphiploid of Triticum aestivum × Agropyron elongatum. Plant Soil 133, 297–299.
Paull J G, Nable R O, Lake A W H, Materne M A and Rathjen A J 1992 Response of annual medics (Medicago ssp) and field peas (Pisum sativum) to high concentration of boron: genetic variation and the mechanism of tolerance. Austr. J. Agri. Res. 43, 203–213.
Pope D T and Munger H M 1953 The inheritance of susceptibility to boron deficiency. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 26, 481–486.
SAS (1985) SAS user's guide: Statistics. pp 433–506. SAS Institute Inc., Cry, NC.
Schumann G E 1969 Boron tolerance of Tall Wheatgrass. Agr. J. 61, 445–447.
Shelp B J 1993 Physiology and biochemistry of boron in plants. In Boron and its Role in Crop Production. Ed. U C Gupta. pp 53–85. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Skok J 1957 The substitution of complexing substances for boron in plant growth. Plant Physiol. 32, 308–312.
Wall J R and Andrus C F 1962 The inheritance and physiology of boron response in tomato. Am. J. Bot. 49, 758–762.
Williams R F 1948 The effect of phosphorus supply on the rate of intake of phosphorus and nitrogen and upon certain aspects of phosphorus metabolism in gramineous plants. Austr. J. Sci Res. B1, 333–361.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bellaloui, N., Brown, P.H. Cultivar differences in boron uptake and distribution in celery (Apium graveolens), tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Plant and Soil 198, 153–158 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004343031242
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004343031242