| Literature DB >> 25844114 |
Zhaowen Mo1, Wu Li2, Shenggang Pan1, Timothy L Fitzgerald3, Feng Xiao4, Yongjian Tang4, Yilei Wang4, Meiyang Duan1, Hua Tian1, Xiangru Tang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fragrant rice, including Thai jasmine and Indian basmati varieties, is highly valued by consumers globally. 2-acetyl-1-proline (2-AP) is the major compound responsible for the aromatic character of fragrant rice. Previously, environmental factors such as water management and salinity have been proven to influence 2-AP levels in fragrant rice; assessing the effect of additional environmental factors on 2-AP concentration is therefore eminent. The level of solar radiation (solar intensity; SI) to which a crop is exposed can affect growth, yield and grain quality, and other photosynthetic and physiological characteristics. In this study the effect of shading (i.e. the reduction of SI) on yield, quality, and 2-AP concentration in two elite Chinese fragrant rice varieties, 'Yuxiangyouzhan' and 'Nongxiang 18', has been investigated. Furthermore, accumulation of the plant stress response molecules proline and gamma-aminobutyric acid, which have also been implicated in pathways leading to 2-AP production, was assessed to study shading effects on these compounds in fragrant rice, and to further possibly determine fluxes in biochemical pathways leading to 2-AP accumulation.Entities:
Keywords: 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline; Aromatic rice; Proline; Shading treatment; Yield; γ-aminobutyric acid
Year: 2015 PMID: 25844114 PMCID: PMC4384914 DOI: 10.1186/s12284-015-0040-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rice (N Y) ISSN: 1939-8425 Impact factor: 4.783
Effect of shading treatment on yield, yield related traits, total dry weight, and harvest index
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuxiangyouzhan | ||||||||
| S0 | 263.33 a | 185.09 a | 84.48 a | 21.27 a | 863.14 a | 1611.0 a | 53.613 a | |
| S1 | 190.00 c | 162.63 a | 51.61 c | 19.51 b | 494.04 c | 1021.0 c | 48.311 b | |
| S2 | 250.00 ab | 165.47 a | 63.38 b | 19.58 b | 660.66 b | 1328.5 b | 49.602 b | |
| S3 | 218.33 bc | 179.61 a | 64.74 b | 20.04 b | 523.69 c | 1100.4 c | 47.512 b | |
| mean | 230.42 | 173.20* | 66.05 | 20.10 | 635.38 | 1265.2 | 49.759* | |
| Nongxiang 18 | ||||||||
| S0 | 284.42 a | 148.41 a | 85.61 a | 25.46 a | 655.19 a | 1453.8 a | 44.783 a | |
| S1 | 261.67 a | 126.64 a | 53.32 c | 22.94 b | 457.25 b | 1100.4 b | 41.495 a | |
| S2 | 290.00 a | 129.09 a | 66.01 b | 23.07 b | 639.96 a | 1394.9 a | 45.841 a | |
| S3 | 273.33 a | 148.32 a | 81.76 a | 24.84 a | 638.35 a | 1376.3 a | 46.084 a | |
| mean | 277.35* | 138.11 | 71.68 | 24.08* | 597.68 | 1331.4 | 44.551 | |
Means in the same column followed by different lower case letters for the same variety differ significantly at P = 0.05 by LSD tests. Means of the two varieties followed by asterisk for the same detected index difer significant at P = 0.05 by LSD tests.
Effect of shading treatment on grain quality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuxiangyouzhan | |||||||||
| S0 | 83.81 a | 73.00 ab | 70.25 a | 9.53 c | 23.43 c | 7.47 ab | 23.33 b | 8.63 b | |
| S1 | 83.56 a | 72.66 bc | 69.99 a | 10.23 b | 23.67 c | 7.37 b | 14.33 c | 7.33 b | |
| S2 | 83.62 a | 72.29 c | 68.29 b | 10.40 a | 24.90 b | 7.57 a | 32.00 a | 18.17 a | |
| S3 | 83.71 a | 73.14 a | 70.48 a | 9.23 d | 25.97 a | 7.40 ab | 18.67 bc | 7.70 b | |
| mean | 83.67* | 72.77* | 69.75* | 9.85* | 24.49* | 7.45* | 22.08* | 10.46* | |
| Nongxiang 18 | |||||||||
| S0 | 81.97 a | 68.40 b | 64.43 b | 8.43 d | 19.20 a | 6.60 a | 4.33 b | 1.30 b | |
| S1 | 82.43 a | 69.21 ab | 64.29 b | 9.17 a | 18.23 a | 6.60 a | 2.33 c | 0.71 c | |
| S2 | 81.64 a | 68.58 b | 64.57 b | 8.97 b | 18.50 a | 6.63 a | 13.67 a | 3.00 a | |
| S3 | 82.52 a | 69.77 a | 66.39 a | 8.60 c | 18.50 a | 6.53 a | 2.33 c | 0.73 c | |
| mean | 82.14 | 68.99 | 64.92 | 8.79 | 18.61 | 6.59 | 5.67 | 1.44 | |
Means in the same column followed by different lower case letters for the same variety differ significantly at P = 0.05 by LSD tests. Means of the two varieties followed by asterisk for the same grain quality trait difer significant at P = 0.05 by LSD tests.
Figure 1Effect of shading treatment on grain 2-AP content in grains. Vertical bars with different lower case letters above are significantly different at P = 0.05 by LSD tests. Capped bars represent SD.
Figure 2Effect of shading treatment on grain GABA content in grains. Vertical bars with different lower case letters above are significantly different at P = 0.05 by LSD tests. Capped bars represent SD.
Figure 3Effect of shading treatment on proline content in grains. Vertical bars with different lower case letters above are significantly different at P = 0.05 by LSD tests. Capped bars represent SD.
Figure 4Effect of shading treatment on total nitrogen content in grains. Vertical bars with different lower case letters above are significantly different at P = 0.05 by LSD tests. Capped bars represent SD.
Correlation coefficients among 2-AP, GABA, total nitrogen, and proline content in grains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuxiangyouzhan | ||||
| 2-AP content | 1 | 0.8326** | 0.5460 | −0.5557 |
| GABA content | 0.8326** | 1 | 0.6926 | −0.3402 |
| Proline content | 0.5460 | 0.6926 | 1 | −0.2272 |
| Total nitrogen content | −0.5557 | −0.3402 | −0.2272 | 1 |
| Nongxiang 18 | ||||
| 2-AP content | 1 | 0.5442 | 0.5356 | −0.1758 |
| GABA content | 0.5442 | 1 | 0.3565 | 0.3836 |
| Proline content | 0.5356 | 0.3565 | 1 | 0.3267 |
| Total nitrogen content | −0.1758 | 0.3836 | 0.3267 | 1 |
Significant correlations at **p < 0.01.
Effect of shading treatment on the relative content (%) volatile compounds in grains
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| (E)-2-Hexenal | 0.58c | 1.76a | 1.67a | 1.17b | 1.29 | 1.15b | 2.16a | 1.86a | 1.55ab | 1.68* |
| 1-Hexanol | 1.45a | 1.12a | 1.65a | 1.69a | 1.48 | 2.10ab | 2.55a | 2.21ab | 1.78b | 2.16 |
| Heptanal | 15.73a | 19.84a | 17.97a | 16.28a | 17.45 | 25.11ab | 22.99b | 24.14ab | 25.91a | 24.51* |
| 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline | 18.06b | 18.07b | 18.08b | 22.93a | 19.29* | 10.84b | 14.22a | 14.17a | 13.11a | 13.08 |
| Octane | 7.26a | 7.22a | 5.91b | 5.83b | 6.55 | 7.00ab | 7.47a | 6.25bc | 6.01c | 6.68* |
| 1-Heptanol | 1.29a | 1.07a | 0.85a | 0.86a | 1.02 | 1.06a | 0.98a | 1.29a | 1.02a | 1.09 |
| 1-Octen-3-ol | 1.96a | 2.16a | 3.43a | 1.80a | 2.34 | 2.12a | 1.94a | 1.87a | 2.08a | 2.00 |
| Octanal | 11.92b | 14.81a | 13.56ab | 11.60b | 12.97 | 13.36b | 13.62b | 13.26b | 15.24a | 13.87* |
| Benzyl alcohol | 0.24b | 0.74a | 0.38ab | 0.61ab | 0.52 | 0.20b | 0.78a | 0.27b | 0.82a | 0.49 |
| Benzeneacetaldehyde | 5.31a | 3.95a | 4.00a | 5.53a | 4.70 | 4.16ab | 4.90a | 4.16ab | 3.73b | 4.23 |
| 3,8-Dimethylundecane | 12.08a | 9.62a | 9.81a | 13.36a | 11.22 | 9.46b | 12.16a | 12.22a | 8.67b | 10.63 |
Means in the same row followed by different lower case letters for the same variety differ significantly at P = 0.05 by LSD tests. Means of the two varieties followed by asterisk for the same compound difer significant at P = 0.05 by LSD tests.