HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in JEQ 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 Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sánchez-Blanco, M. J. Articles by Torrecillas, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sánchez-Blanco, M. J. Articles by Torrecillas, A. Agricola Articles by Sánchez-Blanco, M. J. Articles by Torrecillas, A. Related Collections Crop Growth and Development Crop Physiology & Metabolism Water Content Other Environmental Contamination Plant and Environment Interactions

Contrasting Physiological Responses of Dwarf Sea-Lavender and Marguerite to Simulated Sea Aerosol Deposition

^a Centro de Edafología y Biología Aplicada del Segura (CSIC), P.O. Box 4195, E-30080 Murcia, Spain and Unidad Asociada al CSIC de Horticultura Sostenible en Zonas Aridas (UPCT-CEBAS)
^b Centro de Edafología y Biología Aplicada del Segura (CSIC), P.O. Box 4195, E-30080 Murcia, Spain and Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Agrícolas (INCA), Gaveta Postal 1, 32700 San José de Las Lajas, La Habana, Cuba

View larger version (45K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Leaf water potential (l), leaf turgor potential (p), and leaf osmotic potential at full turgor (100%) measured at midday on marguerite (A. coronopifolium) and dwarf sea-lavender (L. pectinatum) plants under control, S1, S2, and S3 treatments, at the end of the application period (t1) and 15 d later (t2). Each histogram represents the mean of five plants. Vertical bars on each histogram represent the standard error.

View larger version (37K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Leaf stomatal conductance (gl) and photosynthesis rate (Pn) in marguerite (A. coronopifolium) and dwarf sea-lavender (L. pectinatum) plants under control, S1, S2, and S3 treatments, at the end of the application period (t1) and 15 d later (t2). Each histogram represents the mean of five plants. Vertical bars on each histogram represent the standard error.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Relationship between leaf stomatal conductance (gl) and photosynthesis rate (Pn) levels at midday in marguerite (A. coronopifolium) plants under control (Pn = 0.04gl + 3.45; r2 = 0.84, significant at the 0.001 probability level [***]), S1 (Pn = 0.04gl + 0.70; r2 = 0.96***), S2 (Pn = 0.02gl + 1.54; r2 = 0.87***), and S3 treatments (Pn = 0.01gl + 4.15; r2 = 0.75***) during the experimental period.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Relationship between leaf stomatal conductance (gl) and photosynthesis rate (Pn) levels at midday in dwarf sea-lavender (L. pectinatum) plants under control (Pn = 0.04gl + 0.56; r2 = 0.92, significant at the 0.001 probability level [***]), S1 (Pn = 0.03gl + 1.19; r2 = 0.95***), S2 (Pn = 0.04gl + 0.005; r2 = 0.95***), and S3 treatments (Pn = 0.05gl - 0.13; r2 = 0.86***) during the experimental period.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationship between relative water content (RWC) and photosynthesis rate (Pn) levels at midday in marguerite (A. coronopifolium) plants under control (Pn = 0.98RWC - 75.35; r2 = 0.92, significant at the 0.001 probability level [***]), S1 (Pn = 0.60RWC - 43.74; r2 = 0.79***), S2 (Pn = 0.39RWC - 30.30; r2 = 0.80***), and S3 treatments (Pn = 0.31RWC - 20.54; r2 = 0.61***) during the experimental period.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Relationship between relative water content (RWC) and photosynthesis rate (Pn) levels at midday in dwarf sea-lavender (L. pectinatum) plants under control (Pn = 0.07RWC - 1.68; r2 = 0.94, significant at the 0.001 probability level [***]), S1 (Pn = 0.13RWC - 7.6; r2 = 0.92***), S2 (Pn = 0.11RWC - 6.0; r2 = 0.94***), and S3 treatments (Pn = 0.06RWC - 1.52; r2 = 0.95***) during the experimental period.