This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Web of Science (15) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Naidu, B. P. Articles by Paleg, L. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Naidu, B. P. Articles by Paleg, L. G. Agricola Articles by Naidu, B. P. Articles by Paleg, L. G.

Environmental and Stress Physiology

Variability in Proline-Accumulating Ability of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Cultivars Induced by Vapor Pressure Deficit ¹

Department of Horticulture, Viticulture and Oenology, Waite Agricultural Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, SA 5064 Australia

This work was undertaken in an effort to reconcile the conflicting proline-accumulating responses of the barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars, Excelsior and Proctor, reported by Singh et al. (1972) and Hanson et al. (1976). It deals with the effects of different vapor pressure deficits (VPD) during growth and subsequent drought stress on several barley cultivars. A higher VPD (1.2 kilopascals) during Clipper seedling growth resulted in higher solute-accumulating ability, seemingly independently of leaf water potential, than a lower VPD (0.12 kilopascals). The higher VPD during stress also resulted in higher solute contents, and this response may be more closely related to leaf water potential. When the responses of Excelsior and Proctor were examined in detail, it was found that the relative proline-accumulating ability of the two cultivars was dependent upon the VPD under which they were grown. At low VPD, Proctor accumulated significantly more proline than did Excelsior; whereas at higher VPD, Excelsior accumulated more proline than did Proctor. The crossover occurred at a VPD of about 0.72 kilopascals. This reversal of cultivar response was enhanced by multiplying seed under the two VPD extremes. Glycinebetaine accumulation did not demonstrate the crossover effect, although the concentration of this compound in all cultivars also depended on the VPD prevailing during growth and/or stress. Solute levels, in general, were more closely related to the decrease in relative water content than to a decrease in leaf water potential. It is concluded that the conflicting proline-accumulating responses of Excelsior and Proctor could be explained by these findings.

¹ B.P.N. was supported by a University of Adelaide Postgraduate Research Scholarship and by an Australian Research Council grant to L.G.P.