| 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: FragrantEntities:
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.