Salt Damage to Northern White-Cedar and White Spruce
Keywords:
Salt damage, <i>Thuja occidentalis</i>, <i>Picea glauca</i>, morphology, anatomy, leaves, twigsAbstract
Five-year-old transplants of northern white-cedar and white spruce were treated with tap water applied to the soil and with various concentrations of sodium chloride in distilled water, applied either to the soil or to the foliage. Observations were made on the gross morphological effects and anatomical effects of the treatments. Morphological damage included discoloration and loss of foliage. The most significant anatomical damage included fragmented cuticle, disrupted stomata, collapsed cell walls, disorganized or disintegrated protoplasts, coarsely granular cytoplasm, disintegrated chloroplasts, disintegrated nuclei and disorganized phloem. While there appeared to be no outstanding anatomical differences between the effects of soil versus foliar applications, both species did show somewhat less damage by soil-applied than by foliar-applied salt. It was not possible to conclusively assign the cause of morphological or anatomical damage to indirect effects, such as water deficiency or to ion toxicity of the salt. However, the results did suggest that northern white-cedar may be somewhat more salt-tolerant than white spruce.References
Bernstein, L. 1964. Salt tolerance of plants. USDA, Agric. Inf. Bull. No. 283.nBernstein, L., L. E. Francois, and R. A. Clark. 1972. Salt tolerance of ornamental shrubs and ground covers. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 97(4):550-556.nHayward, H. E., and C. H. Wadleigh. 1949. Plant growth on saline and alkali soils. Adv. Agron. 2:1-38.nHeggestad, H., F. Santamour, and L. Bernstein. 1972. Plants that will withstand pollution and reduce it. In Landscape for living-the yearbook of agriculture. House Document No. 229, Supt. of Documents, Washington, D.C.nJouansen, D. A. 1940. Plant microtechnique. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York.nLangille, A. R. 1974. Salt toxicity of conifers, final report. Maine Dep. Transportation Materials and Research Technical Paper 74-5.nLevitt, J. 1972. Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Academic Press, New York.nLumis, G. P. 1973. Absorption and translocation of highway deicing salt by white pine (Finns strobus L.). Abstract, 70th Annual Meeting, Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 8(3) sec. 2: 272-273.nMercado, B. T. 1970. On the NaCl resistance of Beta vulgaris and Zea mays. Protoplasma, 69(2): 151-170.nMonk, R. W., and H. H. Wiebe. 1961. Salt tolerance and protoplasmic salt hardiness of various woody and herbaceous ornamental plants. Plant Physiol. 36(4):478-482.nNieman, R. H. 1965. Expansion of bean leaves and its suppression by salinity. Plant Physiol. 40(1):156-161.nPoljakoff-Mayber, A., and J. Gale (Eds.). 1975. Plants in saline environments. Springer-Verlag, New York.nPrior, G. A. 1967. A study of salt pollution of soil by highway salting. In Highway Research Record Report No. 193 on Environmental Considerations in Use of Deicing Chemicals. Highway Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Pp. 8-12.nRichards, L. A. (ed.). 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Handb. No. 60.nSthogonov, B. P. 1962. Physiological basis of salt tolerance of plants as affected by various types of salinity. (In Russian with English translation.) Akademia Nauk USSR (Moscow).nWaisel, Y. 1972. Biology of halophytes. Academic Press, New York.nWesting, A. H. 1966. Sugar maple decline: an evaluation. Econ. Bot. 20(2): 196-212.nWesting, A. H. 1969. Plants and salt in the roadside environment. Phytopathology, 59 (9):1174-1181.nWyman, D. 1939. Salt water injury of woody plants resulting from the hurricane of September 20, 1938. Arnold Arbor., Bull. Popular Information, IV(7):45-52.nZelazny, L. W. 1968. Salt tolerance of roadside vegetation. In Proceedings of the symposium: pollutants in the roadside environment. Univ. of Connecticut, Storrs. Pp. 50-56.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
