Evaluation of anatomical and physiological traits of Solanum pennellii Cor. associated with plant yield in tomato plants under water-limited conditions.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 09 2020
29 09 2020
Historique:
received:
12
04
2020
accepted:
04
09
2020
entrez:
30
9
2020
pubmed:
1
10
2020
medline:
26
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although intensively studied, few works had looked into S. pennellii's ability to cope with water-deficit conditions from a breeding point of view. In this study, we assessed potential traits of S. pennellii, that had previously been linked to high yields in other plant species, under long-term water-limited conditions and made a parallel with plant yield. For this purpose, the drought-resistant tomato genotypes IL 3-5 and IL 10-1, and the drought-sensitive IL 2-5 and IL 7-1 at seed level, together with both parents the S. pennellii accession LA 716 and the cultivar M82 were kept at 50 and 100% ASW throughout the growing season. Our findings confirm the superiority of LA 716 under water-limited conditions compared to the other S. lycopersicum genotypes in terms of plant water status maintenance. Percentual reduction on plant yield was higher in IL 3-5 and IL 10-1 than in M82 plants, indicating no correlation between drought resistance on germination and plant productive stages. A strong positive correlation was found between fruit yield and A, g
Identifiants
pubmed: 32994541
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73004-4
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-73004-4
pmc: PMC7524713
doi:
Substances chimiques
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16052Références
Dorais, M., Ehret, D. L. & Papadopoulos, A. P. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochem. Rev. 7, 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-007-9085-x (2008).
doi: 10.1007/s11101-007-9085-x
Fanasca, S. et al. Evolution of nutritional value of two tomato genotypes grown in soilless culture as affected by macrocation proportions. HortScience 41, 1584–1588. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.41.7.1584 (2006).
doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.41.7.1584
Frusciante, L. et al. Antioxidant nutritional quality of tomato. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 51, 609–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200600158 (2007).
doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200600158
pubmed: 17427261
Savic, S. et al. Deficit irrigation technique for reducing water use of tomato under polytunnel conditions. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 12, 597–607. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/12.4.960 (2011).
doi: 10.5513/JCEA01/12.4.960
Dai, A. Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633 (2013).
doi: 10.1038/nclimate1633
Marengo, J. A., Tomasella, J. & Nobre, C. A. Climate change and water resources. In Waters of Brazil: strategic analysis (eds Bicudo, C. E. M. et al.) 171–186 (Springer, Berlin, 2017).
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41372-3_12
Fobes, J. F., Mudd, J. B. & Marsden, M. P. Epicuticular lipid accumulation on the leaves of Lycopersicon pennellii (Corr.) D’Arcy and Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Plant Physiol. 77, 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.77.3.567 (1985).
doi: 10.1104/pp.77.3.567
pubmed: 16664099
pmcid: 1064565
Kahn, T. L., Fender, S. E., Bray, E. A. & O’Connell, M. Characterization of expression of drought- and abscisic acid-regulated tomato genes in the drought-resistant species Lycopersicon pennellii. Plant Physiol. 103, 597–605. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.2.597 (1993).
doi: 10.1104/pp.103.2.597
pubmed: 12231965
pmcid: 159020
Torrecillas, A., Guillaume, C., Alarcón, J. J. & Ruiz-Sánchez, M. C. Water relations of two tomato species under water stress and recovery. Plant Sci. 105, 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-9452(94)04048-6 (1995).
doi: 10.1016/0168-9452(94)04048-6
Moyle, L. C. & Muir, C. D. Reciprocal insights into adaptation from agricultural and evolutionary studies in tomato. Evol. Appl. 3, 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00143.x (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00143.x
pubmed: 25567935
pmcid: 3352507
Rocha, D. K. et al. Seleção de genótipos de tomateiro submetidos ao estresse hídrico em função da expressão de características fisiológicas. Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Agrarias 11, 80–84. https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v11i2a5369 (2016).
doi: 10.5039/agraria.v11i2a5369
Rick, C. M. Potential genetic resources in tomato species: clues from observations in native habitats. In Genes, Enzymes, and Populations. Basic Life Sciences, 2edn edn (ed. Srb, A. M.) 255–269 (Springer, Berlin, 1973).
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4684-2880-3_17
Bolger, A. et al. The genome of the stress-tolerant wild tomato species Solanum pennellii. Nat. Genet. 46, 1034–1038. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3046 (2014).
doi: 10.1038/ng.3046
pubmed: 25064008
pmcid: 7036041
Kebede, H., Martin, B., Nienhuis, J. & King, G. Leaf anatomy of two Lycopersicon species with contrasting gas exchange properties. Crop Sci. 34, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400010019x (1994).
doi: 10.2135/cropsci1994.0011183X003400010019x
Eshed, Y. & Zamir, D. An introgression line population of Lycopersicon pennellii in the cultivated tomato enables the identification and fine mapping of yield- associated QTL. Genetics 141, 1147–1162 (1995).
pubmed: 8582620
pmcid: 1206837
Gur, A. & Zamir, D. Unused natural variation can lift yield barriers in plant breeding. PLoS Biol. 2, 1610–1615. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020245 (2004).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020245
Schauer, N. et al. Comprehensive metabolic profiling and phenotyping of interspecific introgression lines for tomato improvement. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1192 (2006).
doi: 10.1038/nbt1192
pubmed: 16531992
Liu, Y.-S. et al. There is more to tomato fruit colour than candidate carotenoid genes. Plant Biotechnol. J. 1, 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-7652.2003.00018.x (2003).
doi: 10.1046/j.1467-7652.2003.00018.x
pubmed: 17156032
Fridman, E., Carrari, F., Liu, Y.-S., Fernie, A. R. & Zamir, D. Zooming in on a quantitative trait for tomato yield using interspecific introgressions. Science 305, 1786–1789. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1101666 (2004).
doi: 10.1126/science.1101666
pubmed: 15375271
Tieman, D. M. et al. Identification of loci affecting flavour volatile emissions in tomato fruits. J. Exp. Bot. 57, 887–896. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj074 (2006).
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj074
pubmed: 16473892
Yang, S. et al. Identification of QTLs for red fruit firmness using the wild tomato species Solanum pennellii LA716 introgression lines. Plant Breed. 135, 728–734. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12423 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/pbr.12423
de Silva, F. M. O. et al. The genetic architecture of photosynthesis and plant growth-related traits in tomato. Plant Cell Environ. 41, 327–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13084 (2018).
doi: 10.1111/pce.13084
Muir, C. D., Pease, J. B. & Moyle, L. C. Quantitative genetic analysis indicates natural selection on leaf phenotypes across wild tomato species (Solanum sect . Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Genetics 198, 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.169276 (2014).
doi: 10.1534/genetics.114.169276
pubmed: 25298519
pmcid: 4256776
Coneva, V. et al. Genetic architecture and molecular networks underlying leaf thickness in desert-adapted tomato Solanum pennellii. Plant Physiol. 175, 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.00790 (2017).
doi: 10.1104/pp.17.00790
Santana, M. J., Vieira, T. A., Barreto, A. C. & Cruz, O. C. Resposta do tomateiro irrigado a níveis de reposição de água no solo. Irriga 15, 443–454. https://doi.org/10.15809/irriga.2010v15n4p443 (2010).
doi: 10.15809/irriga.2010v15n4p443
Portaria no 553 de 30 de agosto de 1995 do MAPA. at https://www.agencia.cnptia.embrapa.br/Repositorio/portaria+553_95_000gl3vxjrx02wx5ok0xkgyq582yfj4l.pdf (1995).
Gameiro, A. H., Filho, J. V. C., Rocco, C. D. & Rangel, R. Estimativa de perdas no suprimento de tomates para processamento industrial no Estado de Goiás. Informações Econômicas 37, 7–16 (2007).
Arena, C. et al. Eco-physiological screening of different tomato genotypes in response to high temperatures: a combined field-to-laboratory approach. Plants 9, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9040508 (2020).
doi: 10.3390/plants9040508
Rigano, M. M. et al. Eco-physiological response to water stress of drought-tolerant and drought-sensitive tomato genotypes. Plant Biosyst. 150, 682–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2014.989286 (2016).
doi: 10.1080/11263504.2014.989286
Egea, I. et al. The drought-tolerant Solanum pennellii regulates leaf water loss and induces genes involved in amino acid and ethylene/jasmonate metabolism under dehydration. Sci. Rep. 8, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21187-2 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21187-2
Melo, F. S. et al. Densidade estomática em genótipos convencionais versus Solanum pennelli. Hortic. Bras. 31, 1826–1830 (2014).
Lawlor, D. W. & Tezara, W. Causes of decreased photosynthetic rate and metabolic capacity in water-deficient leaf cells: a critical evaluation of mechanisms and integration of processes. Ann. Bot. 103, 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn244 (2009).
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn244
pubmed: 19155221
pmcid: 2707350
Pinheiro, C. & Chaves, M. M. Photosynthesis and drought: can we make metabolic connections from available data?. J. Exp. Bot. 62, 869–882. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq340 (2011).
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq340
pubmed: 21172816
Urban, L., Aarrouf, J. & Bidel, L. P. R. Assessing the effects of water deficit on photosynthesis using parameters derived from measurements of leaf gas exchange and of chlorophyll a fluorescence. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.02068 (2017).
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.02068
Flexas, J. & Medrano, H. Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Ann. Bot. 89, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf027 (2002).
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcf027
pubmed: 12099349
pmcid: 4233792
Haupt-Herting, S. & Fock, H. P. Exchange of oxygen and its role in energy dissipation during drought stress in tomato plants. Physiol. Plant. 110, 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2000.1100410.x (2000).
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2000.1100410.x
Rao, N. K. S., Bhatt, R. M. & Sadashiva, A. T. Tolerance to water stress in tomato cultivars. Photosynthetica 38, 465–467. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010902427231 (2000).
doi: 10.1023/A:1010902427231
Sermons, S. M., Seversike, T. M., Sinclair, T. R., Fiscus, E. L. & Rufty, T. W. Temperature influences the ability of tall fescue to control transpiration in response to atmospheric vapour pressure deficit. Funct. Plant Biol. 39, 979–986. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP12172 (2012).
doi: 10.1071/FP12172
pubmed: 32480847
Blum, A. Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Res. 112, 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.03.009 (2009).
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.03.009
Chaves, M. M. et al. How plants cope with water stress in the field? Photosynthesis and growth. Ann. Bot. 89, 907–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf105 (2002).
doi: 10.1093/aob/mcf105
pubmed: 12102516
pmcid: 4233809
Blum, A., Mayer, J. & Gozlan, G. Infrared thermal sensing of plant canopies as a screening technique for dehydration avoidance in wheat. Field Crops Res. 5, 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(82)90014-4 (1982).
doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(82)90014-4
Araus, J. L. et al. Environmental factors determining carbon isotope discrimination and yield in durum wheat under mediterranean conditions. Crop Sci. 43, 170–180. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.1700 (2003).
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2003.1700
Mvumi, C., Marais, D., Ngadze, E., du Toit, E. S. & Tsindi, A. Effect of moringa extract on the leaf anatomy and yield potential of tomato infected by Alternaria solani. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 35, 389–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2018.1446223 (2018).
doi: 10.1080/02571862.2018.1446223
Pandey, R. K., Herrera, W. A. T., Villegas, A. N. & Pendleton, J. W. Drought response of grain legumes under irrigation gradient: III plant growth. Agron. J. 76, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600040011x (1984).
doi: 10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600040011x
Ennajeh, M., Vadel, A. M., Cochard, H. & Khemira, H. Comparative impacts of water stress on the leaf anatomy of a drought-resistant and a drought-sensitive olive cultivar. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 85, 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2010.11512670 (2010).
doi: 10.1080/14620316.2010.11512670
Souza, P. U. et al. Biometric, physiological and anatomical responses of Passiflora spp. to controlled water deficit. Sci. Hortic. 229, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.10.019 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.10.019
Galmés, J. et al. Leaf responses to drought stress in Mediterranean accessions of Solanum lycopersicum : anatomical adaptations in relation to gas exchange parameters. Plant,Cell Environ. 36, 920–935. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12022 (2013).
doi: 10.1111/pce.12022
White, J. W. & Montes-R, C. Variation in parameters related to leaf thickness in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Field Crops Res. 91, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.05.001 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2004.05.001
Jumrani, K., Bhatia, V. S. & Pandey, G. P. Impact of elevated temperatures on specific leaf weight, stomatal density, photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence in soybean. Photosynth. Res. 131, 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11120-016-0326-y (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s11120-016-0326-y
pubmed: 28025729
Sexton, P. J., Peterson, C. M., Boote, K. J. & White, J. W. Early-season growth in relation to region of domestication, seed size, and leaf traits in common bean. Field Crops Res. 52, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(96)03452-1 (1997).
doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(96)03452-1
Chang, S., Chang, T., Song, Q., Zhu, X. G. & Deng, Q. Photosynthetic and agronomic traits of an elite hybrid rice Y-Liang-You 900 with a record-high yield. Field Crops Res. 187, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.10.011 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.10.011
Mog, B. & Nayak, M. G. Leaf morphological and physiological traits and their significance in yield improvement of fifteen cashew varieties in West Coast Region of Karnataka. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 7, 1455–1469. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.707.173 (2018).
doi: 10.20546/ijcmas.2018.707.173
Hufstetler, E. V., Boerma, H. R., Carter, T. E. Jr. & Earl, H. J. Genotypic variation for three physiological traits affecting drought tolerance in soybean. Crop Sci. 47, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.04.0243 (2007).
doi: 10.2135/cropsci2006.04.0243
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S. & Pons, T. L. Plant Physiological Ecology (Springer, Berlin, 1998).
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4757-2855-2
Boyer, J. S., Chin Wong, S. & Farquhar, G. D. CO2 water vapor exchange across leaf cuticle (epidermis) at various water potentials. Plant Physiol. 114, 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.1.185 (1997).
doi: 10.1104/pp.114.1.185
pubmed: 12223698
pmcid: 158293
Riederer, M. & Schreiber, L. Protecting against water loss: analysis of the barrier properties of plant cuticles. J. Exp. Bot. 52, 2023–2032. https://doi.org/10.1093/jexbot/52.363.2023 (2001).
doi: 10.1093/jexbot/52.363.2023
pubmed: 11559738
Vogg, G. et al. Tomato fruit cuticular waxes and their effects on transpiration barrier properties: functional characterization of a mutant deficient in a very-long-chain fatty acid b-ketoacyl-CoA synthase. J. Exp. Bot. 55, 1401–1410. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh149 (2004).
doi: 10.1093/jxb/erh149
pubmed: 15133057
Parsons, E. P. et al. Fruit cuticle lipid composition and fruit post-harvest water loss in an advanced backcross generation of pepper (Capsicum sp.). Physiol. Plant. 146, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2012.01592.x (2012).
doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.2012.01592.x
pubmed: 22309400
Li, T. et al. TaCER1-1A is involved in cuticular wax alkane biosynthesis in hexaploid wheat and responds to plant abiotic stresses. Plant Cell Environ. 42, 3077–3091. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13614 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/pce.13614
pubmed: 31306498
Lee, S. B., Kim, H., Kim, R. J. & Suh, M. C. Overexpression of arabidopsis MYB96 confers drought resistance in Camelina sativa via cuticular wax accumulation. Plant Cell Rep. 33, 1535–1546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-014-1636-1 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s00299-014-1636-1
pubmed: 24880908
Riederer, M. & Schneider, G. The effect of the environment on the permeability and composition of Citrus leaf cuticles II. Composition of soluble cuticular lipids and correlation with transport properties. Planta 180, 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00193990 (1990).
doi: 10.1007/BF00193990
pubmed: 24201939
Bi, H. et al. The impact of drought on wheat leaf cuticle properties. BMC Plant Biol. 17, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-017-1033-3 (2017).
doi: 10.1186/s12870-017-1033-3
Duursma, R. A. et al. On the minimum leaf conductance: its role in models of plant water use, and ecological and environmental controls. New Phytol. 221, 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15395 (2019).
doi: 10.1111/nph.15395
pubmed: 30144393
Quisenberry, J. E., Roark, B. & McMichael, B. L. Use of transpiration decline curves to identify drought-tolerant cotton germplasm. Crop Sci. 2, 918–922. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200050004x (1982).
doi: 10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200050004x
Jefferson, P. G., Johnson, D. A. & Asay, K. H. Epicuticular wax production, water status and leaf temperature in triticeae range grasses of contrasting visible glaucousness. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69, 513–519. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps89-062 (1989).
doi: 10.4141/cjps89-062
Kerstiens, G. Cuticular water permeability and its physiological significance. J. Exp. Bot. 47, 1813–1832. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/47.12.1813 (1996).
doi: 10.1093/jxb/47.12.1813
Van Genuchten, M. T. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 892. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x (1980).
doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
Seki, K. SWRC fit—a non-linear fitting program with a water retention curve for soils having unimodal and bimodal pore structure. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 4, 407–437. https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-4-407-2007 (2007).
doi: 10.5194/hessd-4-407-2007
Bernardo, S., Soares, A. A. & Mantovani, E. C. Manual de irrigação. (Editora UFV, 2019).
Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Bradstreet, E. D. & Hemmingsen, E. A. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339–346. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.148.3668.339 (1965).
doi: 10.1126/science.148.3668.339
pubmed: 17832103
Johansen, D. A. Plant Microtechnique (McGraw-Book, New York City, 1940).
O’Brien, T. P. & McCully, M. E. The Study of Plant Structure Principles and Select Methods (Termarcarphi, Pty, Ltda, Melbourne, 1981).
Sack, L. &Scoffoni, C. Minimum epidermal conductance (g