Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author
González, Juan Antonio
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.contributor.author
Gallardo, Miriam
dc.contributor.author
Hilal, Mirna Beatriz
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.contributor.author
Rosa, Mariana Daniela
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.contributor.author
Prado, Fernando Eduardo
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.date.available
2019-06-11T19:46:59Z
dc.date.issued
2009-08
dc.identifier.citation
González, Juan Antonio; Gallardo, Miriam; Hilal, Mirna Beatriz; Rosa, Mariana Daniela; Prado, Fernando Eduardo; Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning; Acad Sinica; Botanical Studies; 50; 1; 8-2009; 35-42
dc.identifier.issn
1817-406X
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/77973
dc.description.abstract
Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants responded differently to drought and
waterlogging. Plant and root dry weights (DW) were lower in both drought and waterlogging conditions than in well-watered conditions, but the lowest values were obtained under waterlogging. However, the root weight ratio (RWR: root dry weight per unit of plant dry weight) did not show significant changes in any treatments. Leaf area (LA) and specific leaf area (SLA) were higher in drought than in waterlogging, but
drought and control treatments showed no significant differences. Conversely, specific leaf weight (SLW) and relative water content (RWC) were higher under waterlogging than drought. However, between control and waterlogging conditions, no a significant difference in RWC values emerged. In addition, the number of leaves and height of plants remained unchanged in all treatments. The lowest content of total chlorophyll,
chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b was observed in waterlogging conditions while between control and drought treatments there were no significant differences. Chlorophyll a/b ratio remained unchanged in all treatments. Leaf nitrogen content, expressed per unit of leaf dry weight (Nm), was lower in control plants and remained
unchanged under drought and waterlogging conditions. However, when it was expressed per unit of leaf area (Na), waterlogging produced the highest value. In addition, soluble protein content was also higher in waterlogging than in control and drought conditions. Proline content was higher under drought than in control
and waterlogging conditions; however, there was no a significant difference between control and waterlogging treatments. Between control and drought treatments there were no differences in starch, sucrose or fructose contents. Glucose and total soluble sugar contents were higher under drought than in well-watered conditions.
However, the highest amounts of soluble sugars and starch were found in waterlogging. Relationships between soil water surplus and quinoa growth are discussed
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language.iso
eng
dc.publisher
Acad Sinica
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.subject
Chenopodium Quinoa
dc.subject
Drought
dc.subject
Dry Matter Partitioning
dc.subject
Nitrogen
dc.subject.classification
Otras Ciencias Biológicas
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias Biológicas
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS NATURALES Y EXACTAS
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.title
Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.date.updated
2019-06-10T13:43:06Z
dc.journal.volume
50
dc.journal.number
1
dc.journal.pagination
35-42
dc.journal.pais
China
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.journal.ciudad
Taipei (China)
dc.description.fil
Fil: González, Juan Antonio. Fundación Miguel Lillo; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Gallardo, Miriam. Fundación Miguel Lillo; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Hilal, Mirna Beatriz. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Rosa, Mariana Daniela. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina
dc.description.fil
Fil: Prado, Fernando Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán; Argentina
dc.journal.title
Botanical Studies
![Se ha confirmado la validez de este valor de autoridad por un usuario](/themes/CONICETDigital/images/authority_control/invisible.gif)
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/content/2009/1/Bot501-05.pdf
Archivos asociados