Screening some tomato commercial cultivars from Thailand for salinity tolerance

Asian Journal of Plant Sciences

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 788-794

  Chookhampaeng, Sumalee ^a   Pattanagul, Wattana ^b   Theerakulpisut, Piyada ^b,c  

^a MAHASARAKHAM UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b KHON KAEN UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^c Khon Kaen University   (Thailand)

Author keywords

Ca2+ Na+; Ionic regulation; K+ Na+; Lycopersicon esculentum; Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium; Na; NaCl; Salt tolerance

Indexed keywords

LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM; LYCOPERSICON PIMPINELLIFOLIUM;

EID: 34548620920     PISSN: 16823974     EISSN: 18125697     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3923/ajps.2007.788.794     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Alian, A., A. Altman and B. Heuer, 2000. Genotypic difference in salinity and water stress tolerance of fresh market tomato cultivars. Plant Sci., 152: 59-65.
2. Anonymous, 2001. Saline Soil in the Northeast. 8th Edn., Department of Land Development. Ministry of Agricultural and Cooperatives, Thailand.
3. Asch, F., M. Dingkuhn, K. Dörffling and K. Miezan, 2000. Leaf K/Na ratio predicts salinity induced yield loss in irrigated rice. Euphytica, 113: 109-118.
4. Asíns, M.J., M.P. Breto and E.A. Carbonell, 1993. Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species II. Genetic effects and search for associated traits. Theor. Applied Genet., 86: 769-774.
5. Bolarín, M.C., M.T. Estañ, M. Caro, R. Romero-Aranda and J. Cuartero, 2001. Relationship between tomato fruit growth and fruit osmotic potential under salinity. Plant Sci., 160: 1153-1159.
6. Bremner, J.M., 1960. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method J. Agric. Sci., 55: 11-33.
7. Cruz, V. and J. Cuartero, 1990. Effects of Salinity at Different Developmental Stages of Six Genotypes of Tomato (Lycopersicon sp.). In: Cuartero, J., M.L. Gomez-Guillamon and R. Fernández-Muñoz (Eds.), Eucarpia Tomato 90. Proceedings 11th Eucarpia Meeting on Tomato Genetics and Breeding. Málaga, Spain, pp: 81-86.
8. Cuartero, J., A.R. Yeo and T.J. Flowers, 1992. Selection of donors for salt-tolerance in tomato using physiological traits. New Phytologist, 121: 63-69.
9. Cuartero, J. and R. Fernández-Muñoz, 1999. Tomato and salinity. Sci. Hortic., 78: 83-125.
10. Dasgan, H.Y., H. Aktas, K. Abak and I. Cakmak, 2002. Determination of screening techniques to salinity tolerance in tomatoes and investigation of genotype responses. Plant Sci., 163: 695-703.
11. Flowers, T.J. and A.R. Yeo, 1995. Breeding for salinity resistance in crop plants: Where next? Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 22: 875-884.
12. Foolad, M.R., 1996. Genetic analysis of salt tolerance during vegetative growth in tomato Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Plant Breed., 115: 245-250.
13. Francois, L.E. and E.V. Maas, 1994. Crop Responses and Management on Salt-Affected Soils. In: Handbook of Plant and Crop Stress. Pessarakli, M. (Ed.), Marcel Dekker, New York, pp: 149-181.
14. Houshmand, S., A. Arzanib, S.A.M. Maibodyb and M. Feizi, 2005. Evaluation of salt-tolerant genotypes of durum wheat derived from in vitro and field experiments. Field Crop Res., 91: 345-354.
15. Juan, M., R.M. Rivero, L. Romero and J.M. Ruiz, 2005. Evaluation of some nutritional and biochemical indicators in selecting salt-resistant tomato cultivars. Environ. Exp. Bot., 54: 193-201.
16. Monforte, A.J., M.J. Asíns and E.A. Carbonell, 1997. Salt tolerance in Lycopersicon species. VI. Genotype-by-salinity interaction in quantitative trait loci detection: Constitutive and response QTLs. Theor. Applied Genet., 95: 706-713.
17. Munns, R., 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ., 25: 239-250.
18. Tal, M. and M.C. Shannon, 1983. Salt tolerance in the wild relatives of cultivated tomato: Responses of Lycopersicon esculentum L. cheesmanii, L. peruvianum, Solanum pennelli and F1 hybrids to high salinity. Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 10: 109-117.
19. + antiport in root plasma membrane of a glycophytic and halophytic species of tomato. Plant Sci., 107: 147-157.
20. Zhu, J.K., 2002. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 53: 247-273.