Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author
González, Juan Antonio  
dc.contributor.author
Gallardo, Miriam  
dc.contributor.author
Hilal, Mirna Beatriz  
dc.contributor.author
Rosa, Mariana Daniela  
dc.contributor.author
Prado, Fernando Eduardo  
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  
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  
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias Biológicas  
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS NATURALES Y EXACTAS  
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  
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  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/content/2009/1/Bot501-05.pdf