Back to all available

Development of a simple-rapid assay for screening of salinity-tolerant hydrangeas

agricultural-science
plant-science
soil-science

Abstract

Background.

Hydrangea is an important ornamental plant and has numerous genetic resources. When evaluating the salinity tolerance of whole plants among numerous samples by pot trial assays, it incurs high management costs. In this study, we developed a simple-rapid assay for screening of salinity-tolerant hydrangeas that could help to reduce the number of plant samples.

Methodology.

We performed an assay using detached leaves that absorb salt water from the cut edge of their petioles.

Results.

This assay could detect differences in the necrotic degree of salinity-stressed leaves between different hydrangea species, cultivars, and wild populations of H. macrophylla. Also, the salinity tissue tolerance was reflected in the overall salinity tolerance of the whole plant.

Conclusions.

These results suggested that the assay is useful to select salinity-tolerant candidates among numerous genetic resources. However, several factors could affect necrosis in the salinity-stressed leaves in this assay, including sampling season and incubator climate conditions, so these factors need to be considered when comparing samples.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].