Effects of contrasting shade treatments on the carbon production and antioxidant activities of soybean plants

Functional Plant Biology - Tập 47 Số 4 - Trang 342 - 2020
Muhammad Ali Raza1, Ling Feng1, Nasır Iqbal1, Imran Khan2, Tehseen Ahmad Meraj1, Zeng Jin Xi1, Muhammd Naeem1, Saeed Ahmed3, Muhammad Tayyab Sattar1,4, Yuan Kai Chen1, Chen Hui Huan1, Mukhtar Ahmed5,6, Feng Yang1, Wenyu Yang1
1College of Agronomy, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, PR China
2Department of Grassland Science, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, PR China.
3College of Food Science, Sichuan Agricultural University, Yaan 625014, PR China
4Institute of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, PR China
5Department of Agricultural Research for Northern Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea, Sweden
6Department of Agronomy, Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Tóm tắt

In China, maize-soybean relay-intercropping system follow the two main planting-patterns: (i) traditional relay-intercropping; maize-soybean equal row planting, where soybean experience severe maize shading on both sides of plants, and (ii) modern relay-intercropping; narrow-wide row planting, in this new planting pattern only one side of soybean leaves suffer from maize shading. Therefore, in this study, changes in morphological traits, cytochrome content, photosynthetic characteristics, carbon status, and the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT) and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) were investigated at 30 days after treatment (DAT) in shade-tolerant soybean variety Nandou-12 subjected to three different types of shading conditions; normal light (NL, all trifoliate-leaves of soybean plants were under normal light); unilateral shade (US, all right-side trifoliate-leaves of soybean plants from top to bottom were under shade while all the left-side of trifoliate-leaves from top to bottom were in normal light); bilateral shade (BS, all trifoliate-leaves of soybean plants were under complete shade). Compared with BS, US conditions decreased plant height and increased stem diameter, leaf area, and biomass at 30 DAT. Biomass distribution rates to stem, petiole and leaves, and photosynthetic characteristics were markedly improved by the US at all sampling stages, which proved to be a better growing condition than BS with respect to shade tolerance. The enhanced net photosynthesis and transpiration rates in the left-side leaves (LS) of soybean plants in US, when compared with the LS in BS, allowed them to produce higher total soluble sugar (by 70%) and total soluble protein (by 17%) at 30 DAT which reduce the adverse effects of shading at right-side leaves (RS) of the soybean plants. Similarly, soybean leaves under US accumulated higher proline content in US than the leaves of BS plants. Soybean leaves grown in shading conditions (LS and RS of BS and RS of US) developed antioxidative defence-mechanisms, including the accelerated activities of SOD, POD, APX, and CAT. Comparatively, soybean leaves in US displayed lower activity levels of the antioxidative enzymes than the leaves of BS plants, showing that soybean plants experienced less shade stress in US as compared with BS treatment. Overall, these results indicate that the association of improved photosynthetic characteristics, sugar and protein accumulation and optimum antioxidative defences could be an effective approach for growing soybean in intercropping environments.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

AbdElgawad, 2015, Plant Science, 231, 1, 10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.11.001

Ahmed, 2018, Agronomy, 8, 282, 10.3390/agronomy8120282

Amiard, 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 12968, 10.1073/pnas.0503784102

Amirjani, 2010, American Journal of Plant Physiology, 5, 350, 10.3923/ajpp.2010.350.360

Apel, 2004, Annual Review of Plant Biology, 55, 373, 10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141701

Asada, 1999, Annual Review of Plant Biology, 50, 601, 10.1146/annurev.arplant.50.1.601

Ballaré, 2017, Plant, Cell & Environment, 40, 2530, 10.1111/pce.12914

Bates, 1973, Plant and Soil, 39, 205, 10.1007/BF00018060

Blokhina, 2003, Annals of Botany, 91, 179, 10.1093/aob/mcf118

Bradford, 1976, Analytical Biochemistry, 72, 248, 10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3

Chaki, 2008, Plant & Cell Physiology, 50, 265, 10.1093/pcp/pcn196

Corpas, 2008, Plant & Cell Physiology, 49, 1711, 10.1093/pcp/pcn144

Echer, 2015, Biologia Plantarum, 59, 366, 10.1007/s10535-015-0484-3

Fan, 2018, PLoS One, 13

Feng, 2019, PLoS One, 14

Feng, 2019, Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 1952, 10.3389/fpls.2018.01952

Gommers, 2013, Trends in Plant Science, 18, 65, 10.1016/j.tplants.2012.09.008

Grace, 1996, Plant Physiology, 112, 1631, 10.1104/pp.112.4.1631

Hansen, 1975, Analytical Biochemistry, 68, 87, 10.1016/0003-2697(75)90682-X

Iqbal, 2019, Frontiers in Physiology, 10, 786, 10.3389/fphys.2019.00786

Khalid, 2019, Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 17, 2551, 10.15666/aeer/1702_25512569

Kurepin, 2015, Plant Growth Regulation, 77, 179, 10.1007/s10725-015-0049-7

Lawlor, 2009, Annals of Botany, 103, 561, 10.1093/aob/mcn244

Li, 2014, Caoye Xuebao, 23, 198

Li, 2014, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology. B, Biology, 137, 31, 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2014.04.022

Liao, 2005, Photosynthetica, 43, 111, 10.1007/s11099-005-1115-6

Lichtenthaler, 1981, Photosynthesis Research, 2, 115, 10.1007/BF00028752

Lichtenthaler, 2007, Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 45, 577, 10.1016/j.plaphy.2007.04.006

Lin, 2002, Plant Science, 163, 627, 10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00173-5

Logan, 1996, Plant, Cell & Environment, 19, 1083, 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1996.tb00215.x

Logan, 1998, Journal of Experimental Botany, 49, 1881, 10.1093/jxb/49.328.1881

McCarthy-Suárez, 2011, Biologia Plantarum, 55, 485, 10.1007/s10535-011-0114-7

Miller, 2010, Plant, Cell & Environment, 33, 453, 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02041.x

Park, 2017, Environmental and Experimental Botany, 136, 41, 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2016.12.013

Porra, 1989, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics, 975, 384, 10.1016/S0005-2728(89)80347-0

Possart, 2014, Plant Science, 217?218, 36, 10.1016/j.plantsci.2013.11.013

Raza, 2018, Agronomy, 8, 149, 10.3390/agronomy8080149

Raza, 2019, PeerJ, 7, 10.7717/peerj.7262

Raza, 2019, Annals of Applied Biology, 175, 54, 10.1111/aab.12514

Raza, 2019, Food and Energy Security, 8, 10.1002/fes3.170

Raza, 2019, Scientific Reports, 9, 13453, 10.1038/s41598-019-49858-8

Raza, 2019, Field Crops Research, 244, 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107647

Raza, 2019, Scientific Reports, 9, 4947, 10.1038/s41598-019-41364-1

Rhizopoulou, 1991, Journal of Experimental Botany, 42, 627, 10.1093/jxb/42.5.627

Riazi, 1985, Journal of Experimental Botany, 36, 1716, 10.1093/jxb/36.11.1716

Seemann, 1989, Plant Physiology, 91, 379, 10.1104/pp.91.1.379

Siringam, 2011, African Journal of Biotechnology, 10, 1340

Slewinski, 2010, Plant Science, 178, 341, 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.01.010

10.1016/j.febslet.2007.01.006

Valladares, 2008, Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 39, 237, 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173506

Verhoeven, 2005, Physiologia Plantarum, 123, 428, 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2005.00471.x

Wu, 2017, Scientific Reports, 7, 9259, 10.1038/s41598-017-10026-5

Xie, 2017, Nature Communications, 8, 348, 10.1038/s41467-017-00404-y

Xu, 2013, Photosynthetica, 51, 139, 10.1007/s11099-013-0010-9

Yan, 2010, Plant Production Science, 13, 367, 10.1626/pps.13.367

Yang, 2014, Field Crops Research, 155, 245, 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.08.011

Yang, 2018, Environmental and Experimental Botany, 150, 79, 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2018.03.008

Zheng, 2011, Photosynthetica, 49, 426, 10.1007/s11099-011-0055-6

Zhu, 2017, PLoS One, 12

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Functional Plant Biology

Tập 47 Số 4

342

Thông tin tác giả