Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T10:53:56.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of alfalfa genotypes to different concentrations of mobile aluminium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2021

A. Liatukienė Open the ORCID record for A. Liatukienė [Opens in a new window]  and
R. Skuodienė
A. Liatukienė*
Affiliation:
Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Institute of Agriculture, Instituto al. 1, Kėdainiai distr., 58344, Lithuania
R. Skuodienė
Affiliation:
Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Vėžačiai Branch, Klaipėda distr., 96216, Lithuania
*
Author for correspondence: A. Liatukienė, E-mail: aurelija.liatukiene@lammc.lt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The morphological traits of alfalfa under acid soil conditions with different mobile aluminium (Al) concentrations were investigated. The study site was Vėžaičiai Branch of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, 55°70 N, 21°49 E. The experiment featuring the 30 most Al-tolerant alfalfa accessions (populations and cultivars), determined from laboratory trials was established on a Bathygleyic Dystric Retisol in 2018. In 2019 and 2020, the biological and morphological traits were evaluated: plant regrowth, plant height before flowering, wintering, leafiness, stem thickness, plant vigour, stem density, seed yield and resistance to spring black stem leaf spot. The resistance of alfalfa to mobile Al toxicity was determined using a filter-based screening method of selection cycles C1 and C2. The accessions grown in the soil with mobile Al (20.6–23.4 mg/kg) showed better tolerance to Al toxicity in the cycle C2. The hypocotyl tolerance index of these accessions was better at 8, 16, 32 and 64 mm AlCl3 concentrations in the cycle C2. The correlation analysis showed strong significant positive and negative relationships between the morphological traits. A cluster analysis showed that the accessions, grown in the soil with mobile Al (20.6–23.4 mg/kg) were the most resistant to Al toxicity in the cycle C2. These accessions produced a better seed yield and demonstrated lower values of morphological traits compared to cluster 2. Also, these accessions are considered as tolerant to mobile Al toxicity and might be used as donors in breeding for Al toxicity tolerance.

Keywords

Acid soilAl toxicitydiseasemorphological traitsselection
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 159 , Issue 5-6 , July 2021 , pp. 363 - 372
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annicchiarico, P and Pagnotta, MA (2012) Agronomic value and adaptation across climatically contrasting environments of Italian red clover landraces and natural populations. Grass Forage Science 67, 597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P, Nazzicari, N, Li, X, Wei, Y, Pecetti, L and Brummer, EC (2015) Accuracy of genomic selection for alfalfa biomass yield in different reference populations. BMC Genomics 16, 1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barone, P, Rosellini, D, LaFayete, P, Bouton, J, Veronesi, F and Parrott, W (2008) Bacterial citrate synthase expression and soil aluminium tolerance in transgenic alfalfa. Plant Cell Reports 27, 893–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basafa, M and Taherian, M (2009) A study of agronomic and morphological variations in certain alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) ecotypes of the cold region of Iran. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 8, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodzon, Z (2004) Correlations and heritability of the characters determining the seed yield of the long-raceme alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Journal of Applied Genetics 45, 49–59.Google Scholar
Bolaños-Aquilar, ED, Huyghe, C, Julier, B and Ecalle, C (2000). Genetic variation for seed yield and its components in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) populations. Agronomie 20, 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolaños-Aquilar, ED, Huyghe, C, Ecalle, C, Hacquet, J and Julier, B (2002) Effect of cultivar and environment on seed yield in alfalfa. Crop Science 42, 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhaiov, V, Horenskyy, V and Liatukienė, A (2018) The response of Medicago sativa to aluminium toxicity under laboratory and field conditions. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 105, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fageria, NK, Baligar, VC and Li, YC (2009) Differential soil acidity tolerance of tropical legume cover crops. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 4, 1148–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulding, KWT (2016) Soil acidification and the importance of liming agricultural soils with particular reference to the United Kingdom. Soil Use Management 32, 390–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haling, RE, Simpson, RJ, Culvenor, RA, Lambers, H and Richardson, AE (2011) Effect of soil acidity, soil strength and macropores on root growth and morphology of perennial grass species differing in acid-soil resistance. Plant Cell and Environment 34, 444–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hwang, SF, Wang, H, Gossen, BD, Chang, KF, Turnbull, DG and Howard, RJ (2006) Impact of foliar diseases on photosynthesis, protein content and seed yield of alfalfa and efficacy of fungicide application. European Journal of Plant Pathology 115, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idupulapati, MR, John, WM, Stephen, EB and Walter, JH (2016) Root adaptations to soils with low fertility and aluminium toxicity. Annals of Botany 118, 593–605.Google Scholar
Khu, DM, Reyno, R, Brummer, EC and Monteros, MJ (2012) Screening methods for aluminum tolerance in alfalfa. Crop Science 52, 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khu, DM, Reyno, R, Han, Y, Zhao, PX, Bouton, JH, Brummer, EC and Monteros, MJ (2013) Identification of aluminum tolerance quantitative trait loci in tetraploid alfalfa. Crop Science 53, 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochian, LV, Hoekenga, OA and Piñeros, MA (2004) How do crop plants tolerate acid soils? Mechanisms of aluminium tolerance and phosphorous efficiency. Annual Review of Plant Biology 55, 459–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leyronas, C, Broucqsault, LM and Raynal, G (2004) Common and newly identified foliar diseases of seed-producing lucerne in France. Plant Disease 88, 1213–1218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcinkonis, S and Tripolskaja, L (2008) The soil acidity parameters of soils with stopped liming. Latvian Journal of Agronomy 11, 250–549.Google Scholar
Motuzas, AJ, Buivydaitė, V, Vaisvalavilčius, R and Šleinys, R (2009) Dirvotyra. Vilnius, Lithuania: Enciklopedija.Google Scholar
Pan, XB, Zhu, C and Cheng, C (2008) Assessment of techniques for screening alfalfa cultivars for screening alfalfa cultivars for aluminium tolerance. Euphytica 164, 541–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popović, S, Tucak, M, Čupić, T and Kovačević, V (2009) Influence of liming on yields of alfalfa hay. Agriculture 15, 29–32.Google Scholar
Rahman, MA, Lee, SH, Ji, HC, Kabir, AH, Jones, CS and Lee, KW (2018) Importance of mineral nutrition for mitigating aluminum toxicity in plants on acidic soils: currents status and opportunities. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 19, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, IM (2014) Advances in improving adaptation of common bean and Brachiaria forage grasses to abiotic stresses in the tropics. In Pessarakli, M (ed.), Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press, pp. 847–889.Google Scholar
Repsiene, R and Karcauskiene, D (2016) Changes in the chemical properties of acid soil and aggregate stability in the whole profile under longterm management history. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B – Soil & Plant Science 66, 671–676.Google Scholar
Rousk, J, Brookes, PC and Bååth, E (2009) Contrasting soil pH effects on fungal and bacterial growth suggest functional redundancy in carbon mineralization. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75, 1589–1596.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simko, I and Piepho, HP (2012) The area under the disease progress stairs: calculation, advantage, and application. Analytical and Theoretical Plant Pathology 102, 381–389.Google ScholarPubMed
Slepetys, J and Slepetiene, A (2020) Seed maturation and harvesting time of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.). Grassland Science in Europe 25, 138–140.Google Scholar
Staugaitis, G and Vaišvila, Z (2015) Inovatyvūs Dirvotyros ir Agrochemijos Mokslo Sprendimai. Kaunas, Lithuania: Lithuanian Center for Agrarian and Forest Sciences (in Lithuanian).Google Scholar
Stevović, V, Đurović, D, Đukić, D, Lazarević, B and Tomić, D (2010) Alfalfa response to low soil pH and liming. Journal for the Improvement of Animal Husbandry. XII International Symposium on Forage Crops of Republic of Serbia, Biotechnology in Animal Husbandary, book 2, 26, pp. 261–268. Kruševac, SERBIA: Forage Crops Basis of the Sustainable Animal Husbandry Development.Google Scholar
Tomić, D, Stevović, V, Đurović, D, Bokan, N, Popović, B and Knežević, J (2018) Forage yield of grass-cover, mixture on an acid soil in the third year after soil liming. Journal of Central European Agriculture 19, 463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touil, L, Guesmi, F, Fares, K, Zagrouba, C and Ferchivhi, A (2009) Mineral composition and genetic variability of some Mediterranean populations of the cultivated alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) supported by morphological markers. Asian Journal Plant Sciences 8, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucak, M, Popović, S, Čupić, T, Krizmanić, G, Španić, V, Šimić, B and Megalič, V (2014) Agro-morphological and forage quality traits of selected alfalfa populations and their application in breeding. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 19, 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, S, Ren, X, Huang, B, Wang, G, Zhou, P and An, Y (2016) Aluminium-induced reduction of plant growth in alfalfa (Medicago sativa) is mediated by interrupting auxin transport and accumulation in roots. Scientific Reports 6, 1–13.Google ScholarPubMed
WRB IUSS Working Group (2014) World Reference Base for Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Reports 106. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Yang, ZB, Rao, IM and Horst, WJ (2013) Interaction of aluminium and drought stress on root growth and crop yield on acid soils. Plant and Soil 372, 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar