Physiological and biochemical responses of Kinnow mandarin grafted on diploid and tetraploid Volkamer lemon rootstocks under different water-deficit regimes.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
12
11
2020
accepted:
09
02
2021
entrez:
8
4
2021
pubmed:
9
4
2021
medline:
14
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Water shortage is among the major abiotic stresses that restrict growth and productivity of citrus. The existing literature indicates that tetraploid rootstocks had better water-deficit tolerance than corresponding diploids. However, the associated tolerance mechanisms such as antioxidant defence and nutrient uptake are less explored. Therefore, we evaluated physiological and biochemical responses (antioxidant defence, osmotic adjustments and nutrient uptake) of diploid (2x) and tetraploid (4x) volkamer lemon (VM) rootstocks grafted with kinnow mandarin (KM) under two water-deficit regimes. The KM/4xVM (VM4) and KM/2xVM (VM2) observed decrease in photosynthetic variables, i.e., photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration rate (E), leaf greenness (SPAD), dark adopted chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm), dark adopted chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv´/Fm´), relative water contents (RWC) and leaf surface area (LSA), and increase in non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) under both water-deficit regimes. Moreover, oxidative stress indicators, i.e., malondialdehyde (MDA) and hydrogen peroxide, and activities of antioxidant enzymes, i.e., superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APx), glutathione reductase (GR) were increased under both water-deficit regimes. Nonetheless, increase was noted in osmoprotectants such as proline (PRO) and glycine betaine (GB) and other biochemical compounds, including antioxidant capacity (AC), total phenolic content (TPC) and total soluble protein (TSP) in VM2 and VM4 under both water-deficit regimes. Dry biomass (DB) of both rootstocks was decreased under each water-deficit condition. Interestingly, VM4 showed higher and significant increase in antioxidant enzymes, osmoprotectants and other biochemical compounds, while VM2 exhibited higher values for oxidative stress indicators. Overall, results indicated that VM4 better tolerated water-deficit stress by maintaining photosynthetic variables associated with strong antioxidant defence machinery as compared to VM2. However, nutrient uptake was not differed among tested water-deficit conditions and rootstocks. The results conclude that VM4 can better tolerate water-deficit than VM2. Therefore, VM4 can be used as rootstock in areas of high-water deficiency for better citrus productivity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33831006
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247558
pii: PONE-D-20-35646
pmc: PMC8031453
doi:
Substances chimiques
Plant Proteins
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Oxidoreductases
EC 1.-
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Retracted Publication
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0247558Commentaires et corrections
Type : RetractionIn
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Plant Physiol. 2020 Jan;244:153071
pubmed: 31756571
Plant Physiol. 1983 Jan;71(1):177-81
pubmed: 16662781
BMC Genomics. 2008 Jun 16;9:287
pubmed: 18558001
Planta. 2017 Jun;245(6):1067
pubmed: 28456836
Ann Bot. 2009 Feb;103(4):551-60
pubmed: 18662937
Arch Biochem Biophys. 1968 Apr;125(1):189-98
pubmed: 5655425
Plant Cell Environ. 2013 Apr;36(4):856-68
pubmed: 23050986
Plant Physiol. 2012 Dec;160(4):1741-61
pubmed: 23115250
Oecologia. 2009 Aug;161(1):15-24
pubmed: 19449035
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 22;9(12):e115380
pubmed: 25531435
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2019 Feb;135:372-384
pubmed: 30616112
Pharmacogn Mag. 2010 Jul;6(23):198-203
pubmed: 20931079
Plant Sci. 2001 Jan 5;160(2):315-321
pubmed: 11164603
Planta. 1976 Jan;133(1):21-5
pubmed: 24425174
PLoS One. 2014 Dec 26;9(12):e115746
pubmed: 25541723
Physiol Plant. 2019 Feb;165(2):134-143
pubmed: 29635753
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2010 Dec;48(12):909-30
pubmed: 20870416
Plant Cell Rep. 2007 Jul;26(7):937-44
pubmed: 17318461
Plant Physiol. 1977 Feb;59(2):309-14
pubmed: 16659839
C R Biol. 2008 Sep;331(9):703-10
pubmed: 18722990
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2013 Feb;63:49-60
pubmed: 23232247
Planta. 1987 Apr;170(4):489-504
pubmed: 24233012
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2015 Jul;22(14):10375-94
pubmed: 25921757
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2011 Feb;49(2):178-85
pubmed: 21159517
Front Plant Sci. 2017 Jun 07;8:953
pubmed: 28638395