Effects of exogenous nitric oxide on wild barley (Hordeum brevisubulatum) under salt stress

Figures & data

Table 1. The experimental design.

Treatments	Treatment composition
CK	Hoagland nutrient solution
S	300 mmol·L^-1 NaCl
T1	300 mmol·L^-1 NaCl + 50 µmol·L^-1 SNP
T2	300 mmol·L^-1 NaCl + 100 µmol·L^-1 SNP
T3	300 mmol·L^-1 NaCl + 200 µmol·L^-1 SNP
T4	300 mmol·L^-1 NaCl + 300 µmol·L^-1 SNP
T5	300 mmol·L^-1 NaCl + 500 µmol·L^-1 SNP

Note: All treatments (CK, S, and T1–T5) in other tables and figures are in accordance with the description in Table 1.

Figure 1. Effects of salt (S) and salt + SNP treatment (T) on plant height (HT), fresh weight (FW) and dry weight (DW) in two wild barley cultivars.

The gray bars indicate Saertu wild barley variety, and the white bars indicate the wild-type barley variety. Bars showed as mean values ± SD (n = 3). CK, non-treated control; T1–T5, see Table 1. Same lowercase letters indicate non-significant differences.

Table 2. Effects of salt stress and NO on photosynthetic pigment content in both cultivars according to split-plot analysis of variance.

Species	Treatments	Photosynthetic pigments (mg/g)
		Chla	Chlb	Chla+b	Car
Wild-type barley	CK	1.58 ± 0.03a	0.50 ± 0.02a	2.08 ± 0.03a	0.45 ± 0.02a
	S	1.34 ± 0.10d	0.41 ± 0.01b	1.75 ± 0.10c	0.39 ± 0.01c
	T1	1.48 ± 0.01bc	0.42 ± 0.02b	1.90 ± 0.01b	0.43 ± 0.01b
	T2	1.54 ± 0.04ab	0.43 ± 0.03b	1.97 ± 0.42b	0.44 ± 0.01ab
	T3	1.52 ± 0.05abc	0.42 ± 0.01b	1.94 ± 0.04b	0.43 ± 0.04b
	T4	1.47 ± 0.02bc	0.35 ± 0.01c	1.91 ± 0.16c	0.39 ± 0.02c
	T5	1.45 ± 0.02c	0.33 ± 0.02c	1.81 ± 0.06c	0.38 ± 0.02c
Saertu wild barley	CK	1.66 ± 0.02a	0.44 ± 0.04a	2.09 ± 0.03a	0.44 ± 0.02a
	S	1.55 ± 0.03b	0.37 ± 0.03a	1.91 ± 0.06b	0.39 ± 0.01c
	T1	1.57 ± 0.04ab	0.39 ± 0.02a	1.96 ± 0.05ab	0.42 ± 0.01b
	T2	1.63 ± 0.08ab	0.41 ± 0.03a	2.04 ± 0.05ab	0.43 ± 0.01ab
	T3	1.63 ± 0.05ab	0.36 ± 0.10a	1.99 ± 0.10ab	0.40 ± 0.02c
	T4	1.58 ± 0.05ab	0.33 ± 0.23a	1.92 ± 0.02ab	0.39 ± 0.01c
	T5	1.53 ± 0.13b	0.33 ± 0.08a	1.86 ± 0.17b	0.38 ± 0.02c

Note: Mean values ± SD (n = 3). Same lower-case letters within a column indicate statistically non-significant differences according to analysis of variance.

Figure 2. Effects of salt (S) and Salt + SNP treatment (T) on Malondialdehyde (MDA) Concentration in two wild barley cultivars.

The gray bars indicate Saertu wild barley variety, and the white bars indicate the wild-type barley variety. Bars showed as mean values ± SD (n = 3). CK, non-treated control; T1–T5, see Table 1. Same lowercase letters indicate non-significant differences.

Figure 3. Effects of salt (S) and Salt + SNP treatment (T) on SOD, APX, POD and CAT in two wild barley cultivars.

The gray bars indicate Saertu wild barley variety, and the white bars indicate the wild-type barley variety. Bars showed as mean values ± SD (n = 3). CK, non-treated control; T1–T5, see Table 1. Same lowercase letters indicate non-significant differences.

Figure 4. Effects of Salt (S) and Salt + SNP treatment (T) on water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) and Protein Content in two wild barley cultivars.

The gray bars indicate Saertu wild barley variety, and the white bars indicate the wild-type barley variety. Bars showed as mean values ± SD (n = 3). CK, non-treated control; T1–T5, see Table 1. Same lowercase letters indicate non-significant differences.

Figure 5. Effects of Salt (S) and Salt + SNP treatment (T) on Na⁺ and K⁺ Content in in two wild barley cultivars.

The gray bars indicate Saertu wild barley variety, and the white bars indicate the wild-type barley variety. Bars showed as mean values ± SD (n = 3). CK, non-treated control; T1–T5, see Table 1. Same lowercase letters indicate non-significant differences.

Data availability

The data that support the findings reported in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.