Rice Science ›› 2017, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (3): 155-162.DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2017.05.001
• Orginal Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Golam Kibria Mohammad1, Hossain Mahmud1, Murata Yoshiyuki2, Anamul Hoque Md1()
Received:
2016-09-28
Accepted:
2016-12-29
Online:
2017-05-28
Published:
2017-03-03
Golam Kibria Mohammad, Hossain Mahmud, Murata Yoshiyuki, Anamul Hoque Md. Antioxidant Defense Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance in Rice Genotypes[J]. Rice Science, 2017, 24(3): 155-162.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
Treatment | Shoot fresh weight | Shoot dry weight | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | ||
Control | 43.12 a | 32.56 a | 30.29 a | 28.78 a | 10.71 a | 7.57 a | 7.43 a | 5.67 a | |
20 mmol/L NaCl | 29.84 b | 26.57 b | 23.78 b | 25.42 b | 7.07 b | 6.73 b | 4.83 b | 5.53 a | |
40 mmol/L NaCl | 16.72 c | 18.20 c | 16.76 c | 23.36 b | 4.32 c | 4.53 c | 3.79 c | 4.20 b | |
60 mmol/L NaCl | 6.32 d | 14.22 d | 12.43 d | 15.45 c | 1.43 d | 2.86 d | 2.51 d | 2.96 c | |
SE | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.13 | |
Treatment | Root fresh weight | Root dry weight | |||||||
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | ||
Control | 19.58 a | 19.05 a | 18.32 a | 17.09 a | 7.49 a | 5.64 a | 6.39 a | 5.92 a | |
20 mmol/L NaCl | 16.63 b | 17.58 b | 12.46 b | 15.40 b | 4.46 b | 5.08 b | 4.62 b | 4.88 b | |
40 mmol/L NaCl | 11.76 c | 13.57 c | 10.86 c | 10.21 b | 2.61 c | 2.59 c | 3.12 b | 3.22 c | |
60 mmol/L NaCl | 4.45 d | 6.29 d | 6.82 d | 7.28 c | 1.73 d | 1.54 d | 1.78 c | 1.91 d | |
SE | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.14 | |
The means with the same letter in a column show insignificant difference at the 0.05 level (n = 4). |
Table 1 Effects of salinity on fresh weight and dry weight in salt-sensitive and salt-tolerant rice genotypes. g
Treatment | Shoot fresh weight | Shoot dry weight | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | ||
Control | 43.12 a | 32.56 a | 30.29 a | 28.78 a | 10.71 a | 7.57 a | 7.43 a | 5.67 a | |
20 mmol/L NaCl | 29.84 b | 26.57 b | 23.78 b | 25.42 b | 7.07 b | 6.73 b | 4.83 b | 5.53 a | |
40 mmol/L NaCl | 16.72 c | 18.20 c | 16.76 c | 23.36 b | 4.32 c | 4.53 c | 3.79 c | 4.20 b | |
60 mmol/L NaCl | 6.32 d | 14.22 d | 12.43 d | 15.45 c | 1.43 d | 2.86 d | 2.51 d | 2.96 c | |
SE | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.13 | |
Treatment | Root fresh weight | Root dry weight | |||||||
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | ||
Control | 19.58 a | 19.05 a | 18.32 a | 17.09 a | 7.49 a | 5.64 a | 6.39 a | 5.92 a | |
20 mmol/L NaCl | 16.63 b | 17.58 b | 12.46 b | 15.40 b | 4.46 b | 5.08 b | 4.62 b | 4.88 b | |
40 mmol/L NaCl | 11.76 c | 13.57 c | 10.86 c | 10.21 b | 2.61 c | 2.59 c | 3.12 b | 3.22 c | |
60 mmol/L NaCl | 4.45 d | 6.29 d | 6.82 d | 7.28 c | 1.73 d | 1.54 d | 1.78 c | 1.91 d | |
SE | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.41 | 0.29 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.14 | |
The means with the same letter in a column show insignificant difference at the 0.05 level (n = 4). |
Treatment | Plant height (cm) | Root length (cm) | Number of tillers per hill | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | |||
Control | 62.5 a | 66.5 a | 65.5 a | 64.5 a | 27.5 a | 25.5 a | 26.5 a | 27.0 a | 13 a | 13 a | 15 a | 16 a | ||
20 mmol/L NaCl | 60.0 b | 63.0 b | 61.0 b | 63.5 a | 17.5 b | 21.0 b | 18.5 b | 22.5 b | 12 b | 12 b | 14 a | 15 b | ||
40 mmol/L NaCl | 51.0 c | 60.0 c | 55.5 c | 54.0 b | 14.5 c | 15.5 c | 16.5 c | 18.0 c | 8 c | 9 c | 10 c | 12 c | ||
60 mmol/L NaCl | 45.0 d | 58.5 c | 52.0 d | 49.0 c | 12.5 d | 14.0 c | 13.0 d | 16.0 c | 6 d | 8 d | 8 d | 11 d | ||
SE | 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.5 | 0.36 | 0.45 | 0.5 | 0.54 | 0.62 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.26 | ||
The means with the same letter in a column show insignificant difference at the 0.05 level (n = 4). |
Table 2 Effects of salinity on plant traits in different rice genotypes.
Treatment | Plant height (cm) | Root length (cm) | Number of tillers per hill | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | |||
Control | 62.5 a | 66.5 a | 65.5 a | 64.5 a | 27.5 a | 25.5 a | 26.5 a | 27.0 a | 13 a | 13 a | 15 a | 16 a | ||
20 mmol/L NaCl | 60.0 b | 63.0 b | 61.0 b | 63.5 a | 17.5 b | 21.0 b | 18.5 b | 22.5 b | 12 b | 12 b | 14 a | 15 b | ||
40 mmol/L NaCl | 51.0 c | 60.0 c | 55.5 c | 54.0 b | 14.5 c | 15.5 c | 16.5 c | 18.0 c | 8 c | 9 c | 10 c | 12 c | ||
60 mmol/L NaCl | 45.0 d | 58.5 c | 52.0 d | 49.0 c | 12.5 d | 14.0 c | 13.0 d | 16.0 c | 6 d | 8 d | 8 d | 11 d | ||
SE | 0.61 | 0.45 | 0.5 | 0.36 | 0.45 | 0.5 | 0.54 | 0.62 | 0.34 | 0.27 | 0.34 | 0.26 | ||
The means with the same letter in a column show insignificant difference at the 0.05 level (n = 4). |
Treatment | Chlorophyll a | Chlorophyll b | Total chlorophyll | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | |||
Control | 4.53 a | 3.88 c | 4.18 b | 4.08 b | 5.19 a | 5.48 a | 5.16 a | 4.98 a | 9.72 a | 9.36 a | 9.37 a | 9.06 a | ||
20 mmol/L NaCl | 4.56 a | 4.01 b | 4.21 b | 4.10 b | 5.02 a | 4.97 b | 4.95 a | 4.90 b | 9.61 a | 8.98 b | 9.16 a | 9.00 a | ||
40 mmol/L NaCl | 4.11 b | 4.42 a | 4.34 a | 4.21 a | 4.22 b | 3.62 c | 4.26 b | 4.69 c | 8.33 b | 8.04 c | 8.60 b | 8.90 a | ||
60 mmol/L NaCl | 3.60 c | 3.67 d | 3.44 c | 4.19 a | 2.38 c | 2.69 d | 1.96 c | 4.68 c | 5.98 c | 6.36 d | 5.40 c | 8.87 a | ||
SE | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.07 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.34 | 0.21 | ||
The means with the same letter in a column show insignificant difference at the 0.05 level (n = 4). |
Table 3 Effects of salinity on chlorophyll content in different rice genotypes. mg/g
Treatment | Chlorophyll a | Chlorophyll b | Total chlorophyll | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | BRRI dhan 28 | BRRI dhan 47 | BINA dhan 8 | BINA dhan 10 | |||
Control | 4.53 a | 3.88 c | 4.18 b | 4.08 b | 5.19 a | 5.48 a | 5.16 a | 4.98 a | 9.72 a | 9.36 a | 9.37 a | 9.06 a | ||
20 mmol/L NaCl | 4.56 a | 4.01 b | 4.21 b | 4.10 b | 5.02 a | 4.97 b | 4.95 a | 4.90 b | 9.61 a | 8.98 b | 9.16 a | 9.00 a | ||
40 mmol/L NaCl | 4.11 b | 4.42 a | 4.34 a | 4.21 a | 4.22 b | 3.62 c | 4.26 b | 4.69 c | 8.33 b | 8.04 c | 8.60 b | 8.90 a | ||
60 mmol/L NaCl | 3.60 c | 3.67 d | 3.44 c | 4.19 a | 2.38 c | 2.69 d | 1.96 c | 4.68 c | 5.98 c | 6.36 d | 5.40 c | 8.87 a | ||
SE | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.07 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.34 | 0.21 | ||
The means with the same letter in a column show insignificant difference at the 0.05 level (n = 4). |
Fig. 1. Effects of salinity on proline content, enzyme activities and K+/Na+ ratio in different rice genotypes (Mean ± SD, n = 4).( CAT, Catalase; POX, Guaiacol peroxidase; APX, Ascorbate peroxidase. Means with different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.)
1 | Abeer A R, Fatma A F, Afaf M H.2013. Physiological and biochemical responses of salt tolerant and salt-sensitive wheat and bean cultivars to salinity.J Biol Earth Sci, 3(1): 72-88. |
2 | Ashraf M, Foolad M R.2007. Roles of glycinebetaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress tolerance.Environ Exp Bot, 59(2): 206-216. |
3 | Banu M N A, Hoque M A, Watanabe-Sugimoto M, Matsuoka K, Nakamura Y, Shimoishi Y, Murata Y.2009. Proline and glycinebetaine induce antioxidant defense gene expression and suppress cell death in cultured tobacco cells under salt stress.J Plant Physiol, 166(2): 146-156. |
4 | Banu M N A, Hoque M A, Watanable-Sugimoto M, Islam M M, Uraji M, Matsuoka K, Nakamura Y, Murata Y.2010. Proline and glycinebetaine ameliorated NaCl stress via scavenging of hydrogen peroxide and methylglyoxal but not superoxide or nitric oxide in tobacco cultured cells.Biosci Biotechnol Biochem, 74(10): 2043-2049. |
5 | Bates L S, Waldren R P, Teare I D.1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies.Plant Soil, 39(1): 205-207. |
6 | Boscaiu M, Lull C, Llinares J, Vicente O, Boria H.2012. Proline as a biochemical marker in relation to the ecology of two halophyticJuncus species. J Plant Ecol, 6(2): 177-186. |
7 | Chen X Q, Yu B J.2007. Ionic effects of Na+ and Cl- on photosynthesis in glycine max seedlings under isoosmotic salt stress.J Plant Physiol Mol Biol, 33(4): 294-300. |
8 | Dadkhah A R, Stewart W S, Griffith H.2001. Effects of salinity on yield and root quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). J Exp Bot, 52: 31. |
9 | Darwish E, Testerink C, Khalil M, El-Shihy O, Munnik T.2009. Phospholipid signaling responses in salt-stressed rice leaves.Plant Cell Physiol, 50(5): 986-997. |
10 | Demirel T, Turkan I.2005. Comparative lipid peroxidation, antioxidant defence systems and proline content in roots of two rice cultivars differing in salt tolerance.Environ Exp Bot, 53(3): 247-257. |
11 | Dogan M.2011. Antioxidative and proline potentials as a protective mechanism in soybean plants under salinity stress.Afr J Biotechnol, 10(32): 5972-5978. |
12 | El-Shabrawi H, Kumar B, Kaul T, Reddy M K, Singla-Pareek S L, Sopory S K.2010. Redox homeostasis, antioxidant defense, and methylglyoxal detoxification as markers for salt tolerance in Pokkali rice.Protoplasma, 245(1): 85-96. |
13 | Gomez K A, Gomez A A.1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore: John Wiley and Sons: 139-240. |
14 | Hasanuzzaman M, Alam M M, Rahman A, Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Fujita M.2014. Exogenous proline and glycine betaine mediated upregulation of antioxidant defense and glyoxalase systems provides better protection against salt-induced oxidative stress in two rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties. Biom Res Int, 2014: 757219. |
15 | Hasegawa P M, Bressan R A, Zhu J K, Bohnert H J.2000. Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity.Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol, 51: 463-499. |
16 | Hoque M A, Okuma E, Banu M N A, Nakamura Y, Shimoishi Y, Murata Y.2007a. Exogenous proline mitigates the detrimental effects of salt stress more than exogenous betaine by increasing antioxidant enzyme activities.J Plant Physiol, 164(5): 553-561. |
17 | Hoque M A, Banu M N A, Okuma E, Amako K, Nakamura Y, Shimoishi Y, Murata Y.2007b. Exogenous proline and glycinebetaine increase NaCl-induced ascorbate-glutathione cycle enzyme activities, and proline improves salt tolerance more than glycinebetaine in tobacco Bright Yellow-2 suspension-cultured cells. J Plant Physiol, 164(11): 1457-1468. |
18 | Hoque M A, Banu M N A, Nakamura Y, Shimoishi Y, Murata Y.2008. Proline and glycinebetaine enhance antioxidant defense and methylglyoxal detoxification systems and reduce NaCl- induced damage in cultured tobacco cells.J Plant Physiol, 165(8): 813-824. |
19 | Islam M M, Hoque M A, Okuma E, Banu M N A, Shimoishi Y, Nakamura Y, Murata Y.2009. Exogenous proline and glycinebetaine increase antioxidant enzyme activities and confer tolerance to cadmium stress in cultured tobacco cells.J Plant Physiol, 166(15): 1587-1597. |
20 | Kumar S G, Reddy A M, Sudhakar C.2003. NaCl effects of proline metabolism in two high yielding genotypes of mulberry (Morus alba L.) with contrasting salt tolerance. Plant Sci, 165(6): 1245-1251. |
21 | Lutts S, Kinet J M, Bouharmont J.1996. Effects of salt stress on growth mineral nutrition and proline accumulation in relation to osmotic adjustment in rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars differing in salinity tolerance. Plant Growth Regul, 19(3): 207-218. |
22 | Mattioli R, Marchese D, D’ Angeli S, Altamura M M, Costantino P, Trovato M.2008. Modulation of intracellular proline levels affects flowering time inflorescence architecture inArabidopsis. Plant Mol Biol, 66(3): 277-288. |
23 | Meloni D A, Oliva M A, Martinez C A, Cambraia J.2003. Photosynthesis and activity of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase and glutathione reductase in cotton under salt stress.Environ Exp Bot, 49(1): 69-76. |
24 | Mittler R, Merquiol E, Hallak-Herr E, Rachmilevitch S, Kaplan A, Cohen M.2001. Living under a ‘dormant’ canopy: A molecular acclimation mechanism of the desert plantRetama raetam. Plant J, 25(4): 407-416. |
25 | Mittova V, Tal M, Volokita M, Guy M.2003. Up-regulation of the leaf mitochondrial and peroxisomal antioxidative systems in response to salt induced oxidative stress in the wild salt tolerant tomato species (Lycopersicon pennellii). Plant Cell Environ, 26(6): 845-856. |
26 | Momayezi M R, Rahman Z A, Mosa H M, Ismail M R.2010. Effect of chloride and sulfate salinity on nutrient uptake in Iranian rice (Oryza sativa L.). In: 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. Brisbane, Australia: 36-39. |
27 | Noctor G, Foyer C H.1998. Ascorbate and glutathione: Keeping active oxygen under control.Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol, 49(1): 249-279. |
28 | Parida A K, Das A B.2005. Salt tolerance and salinity effects on plants: A review.Ecotox Environ Safety, 60(3): 324-349. |
29 | Porra R J, Thompson W A, Kriedemann P E.1989. Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: Verification of the concentration of chlorophyll II standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy.Biochim Biophys Acta, 975(3): 384-394. |
30 | Radi A A, Farghaly F A, Hamada A M.2013. Physiological and biochemical responses of salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive wheat and bean cultivars to salinity.J Biol Earth Sci, 3(1): 72-88. |
31 | Roy C A, Basu S.2008. Over expression of an abiotic stress responsive plant protein in bacteriaE. coli. Afr J Plant Biotechnol, 7: 3231-3234. |
32 | Saeedipour S.2013. Relationship of grain yield, ABA and proline accumulation in tolerant and sensitive wheat cultivars as affected by water stress.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 83(3): 311-315. |
33 | Shannon M C, Grieve C M.1998. Tolerance vegetable crop to salinity.Sci Hort, 78(1/2/3/4): 5-38. |
34 | Sharma S S, Dietz K J.2006. The significance of amino acids and amino acid-derived molecules in plant responses and adaptation to heavy metal stress.J Exp Bot, 57(4): 711-726. |
35 | Shereen A, Mumtaz S, Raza S, Khan M A, Solangi S.2005. Salinity effects on seedling growth and yield components of different inbred rice line.Pak J Bot, 37(1): 131-139. |
36 | SRDI.2010. Saline Soils of Bangladesh. Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh: 1-60. |
37 | Sripinyowanich S, Klomsakul P, Boonburapong B, Bangyeekhun T, Asami T, Gu H Y, Buaboocha T, Chadchawan S.2013. Exogenous ABA induces salt tolerance in indica rice (Oryza sativa L.): The role of OsP5CS1 and OsP5CR gene expression during salt stress tolerance in indica rice(Oryza sativa L.). Environ Exp Bot, 86: 94-105. |
38 | Tuna A L, Kaya C, Dikilitas M, Higgs D.2008. The combined effects of gibberellic acid and salinity on some antioxidant enzyme activities, plant growth parameters and nutritional status in maize plants.Environ Exp Bot, 62(1): 1-9. |
39 | Vaidyanathan H, Sivakumar P, Chakrabarty R, Thomas G.2003. Scavenging of reactive oxygen species in NaCl-stressed rice (Oryza sativa L.) differential response in salt-tolerant and sensitive varieties. Plant Sci, 165(6): 1411-1418. |
40 | Zhu J K.2001. Plant salt tolerance.Trends Plant Sci, 6(2): 66-71. |
41 | Zhu J K.2003. Regulation of ion homeostasis under salt stress.Curr Opin Plant Biol, 6(5): 441-445. |
42 | (Managing Editor: Li Guan) |
[1] | LI Qianlong, FENG Qi, WANG Heqin, KANG Yunhai, ZHANG Conghe, DU Ming, ZHANG Yunhu, WANG Hui, CHEN Jinjie, HAN Bin, FANG Yu, WANG Ahong. Genome-Wide Dissection of Quan 9311A Breeding Process and Application Advantages [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 7-. |
[2] | JI Dongling, XIAO Wenhui, SUN Zhiwei, LIU Lijun, GU Junfei, ZHANG Hao, Tom Matthew HARRISON, LIU Ke, WANG Zhiqin, WANG Weilu, YANG Jianchang. Translocation and Distribution of Carbon-Nitrogen in Relation to Rice Yield and Grain Quality as Affected by High Temperature at Early Panicle Initiation Stage [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 12-. |
[3] | Prathap V, Suresh KUMAR, Nand Lal MEENA, Chirag MAHESHWARI, Monika DALAL, Aruna TYAGI. Phosphorus Starvation Tolerance in Rice Through a Combined Physiological, Biochemical and Proteome Analysis [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 8-. |
[4] | Serena REGGI, Elisabetta ONELLI, Alessandra MOSCATELLI, Nadia STROPPA, Matteo Dell’ANNO, Kiril PERFANOV, Luciana ROSSI. Seed-Specific Expression of Apolipoprotein A-IMilano Dimer in Rice Engineered Lines [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 6-. |
[5] | Sundus ZAFAR, XU Jianlong. Recent Advances to Enhance Nutritional Quality of Rice [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 4-. |
[6] | Kankunlanach KHAMPUANG, Nanthana CHAIWONG, Atilla YAZICI, Baris DEMIRER, Ismail CAKMAK, Chanakan PROM-U-THAI. Effect of Sulfur Fertilization on Productivity and Grain Zinc Yield of Rice Grown under Low and Adequate Soil Zinc Applications [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 9-. |
[7] | FAN Fengfeng, CAI Meng, LUO Xiong, LIU Manman, YUAN Huanran, CHENG Mingxing, Ayaz AHMAD, LI Nengwu, LI Shaoqing. Novel QTLs from Wild Rice Oryza longistaminata Confer Rice Strong Tolerance to High Temperature at Seedling Stage [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 14-. |
[8] | LIN Shaodan, YAO Yue, LI Jiayi, LI Xiaobin, MA Jie, WENG Haiyong, CHENG Zuxin, YE Dapeng. Application of UAV-Based Imaging and Deep Learning in Assessment of Rice Blast Resistance [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 10-. |
[9] | Md. Forshed DEWAN, Md. AHIDUZZAMAN, Md. Nahidul ISLAM, Habibul Bari SHOZIB. Potential Benefits of Bioactive Compounds of Traditional Rice Grown in South and South-East Asia: A Review [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 5-. |
[10] | Raja CHAKRABORTY, Pratap KALITA, Saikat SEN. Phenolic Profile, Antioxidant, Antihyperlipidemic and Cardiac Risk Preventive Effect of Chakhao Poireiton (A Pigmented Black Rice) in High-Fat High-Sugar induced Rats [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(6): 11-. |
[11] | Nazaratul Ashifa Abdullah Salim, Norlida Mat Daud, Julieta Griboff, Abdul Rahim Harun. Elemental Assessments in Paddy Soil for Geographical Traceability of Rice from Peninsular Malaysia [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 486-498. |
[12] | Monica Ruffini Castiglione, Stefania Bottega, Carlo Sorce, Carmelina SpanÒ. Effects of Zinc Oxide Particles with Different Sizes on Root Development in Oryza sativa [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 449-458. |
[13] | Ammara Latif, Sun Ying, Pu Cuixia, Noman Ali. Rice Curled Its Leaves Either Adaxially or Abaxially to Combat Drought Stress [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 405-416. |
[14] | Liu Qiao, Qiu Linlin, Hua Yangguang, Li Jing, Pang Bo, Zhai Yufeng, Wang Dekai. LHD3 Encoding a J-Domain Protein Controls Heading Date in Rice [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 437-448. |
[15] | Lu Xuedan, Li Fan, Xiao Yunhua, Wang Feng, Zhang Guilian, Deng Huabing, Tang Wenbang. Grain Shape Genes: Shaping the Future of Rice Breeding [J]. Rice Science, 2023, 30(5): 379-404. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||