| Literature DB >> 26735490 |
Miguel G Ximénez-Embún1, Félix Ortego1, Pedro Castañera1.
Abstract
Climate change will bring more drought periods that will have an impact on the irrigation practices of some crops like tomato, from standardEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26735490 PMCID: PMC4703393 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145275
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Water stress status (well watered, mild and moderate drought) of tomato plant.
Drought induction was started 7 days before mite infestation and was continued until the end of the experiment [10 days post infestation (dpi)]. It is expressed as percentages of saturation weight (SW) and volumetric soil water content (Ɵ). The turgor loss point was established as 40% of SW.
Fig 2Effect of moderate drought at mite infestation and at 4 and 10 days post infestation (dpi) on: a) tomato stomatal conductance (gs); b) maximum quantum yield of PSII photochemistry (Fv/Fm); c) stem length; d) plant aerial dry weight.
Data are mean ± SE. * indicates a statistically significant difference within each time (Three-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc test, P<0.05).
Fig 3Performance of T. evansi in the moderate (a,b&c) and mild (d,e,f) drought stress experiments.
The number of eggs (a&d), total mobile forms (b&e) and leaf damaged area (c&f) on control and drought stressed (mild or moderate) tomato plants at 4 and 10 days post infestation (dpi) were measured. Data are mean ±SE. * indicates a statistically significant difference within each time (Two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc test, P<0.05).
Effect of moderate drought and T. evansi infestation on key nutrients in tomato leaves at 4 and 10 days post infestation.
| Non-infested | Infested | ANOVA (p<0.05) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Drought | Control | Drought | ||
| 6.7±0.1a | 5.7±0.2b | 5.8±0.2b | 5.7±0.1b | D;I; D*I | |
| 31±2ab | 26±3b | 35±2a | 25±2b | D | |
| 1.0±0.2 | 1.2±0.2 | 1.0±0.1 | 1.1±0.2 | - | |
| 5.9±0.1 | 6.4±0.2 | 6.5±0.3 | 6.3±0.2 | - | |
| 3.3±0.1b | 3.9±0.3a | 4.2±0.1a | 4.3±0.2a | I | |
| 6.3±0.2a | 5.7±0.1b | 5.9±0.2ab | 5.3±0.1b | D | |
| 40±5a | 19±4b | 27±6ab | 15±2b | D | |
| 0.9±0.2 | 1.7±0.3 | 1.2±0.3 | 1.8±0.4 | D | |
| 6.3±0.1 | 6.4±0.1 | 6.1±0.2 | 6.6±0.2 | - | |
| 3.2±0.2c | 4.8±0.3a | 3.7±0.1cb | 4.3±0.3ab | D;D*I | |
(1) Data, as % of dry weight, are mean ± SE. D (drought) and I (mites infestation) indicate significant factors in the Two-Way ANOVA. Different lower case letters within rows indicates significant differences (Newman-Keuls test at p<0.05).
Fig 4Levels of free amino acids in tomato leaves subjected to moderate drought stress and T. evansi infestation at 10 days post infestation (dpi).
Data represent the ratio ± SE of the different treatments with respect to non-infested control plants at 10 dpi. = [(Treatment−Control 10dpi) / Control 10dpi]. The division between essential and nonessential amino acids is based on a study with the closely related species Tetranychus urticae [32]. * Indicates significant difference of the treatment with the control determined by Dunnet post hoc test p<0.05.
Effect of moderate drought and T. evansi infestation on plant defense proteins in tomato leaves at 4 and 10 days post infestation.
| Non-infested | Infested | ANOVA (p<0.05) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Drought | Control | Drought | ||
| Papain | 48±2ab | 64±2a | 31±5c | 45±5b | D;I |
| Cathepsin B | 49±3 | 62±6 | 63±8 | 66±4 | - |
| Trypsin | 40±8 | 44±2 | 49±8 | 43±2 | - |
| Chymotrypsin | 61±7a | 45±6b | 64±2a | 63±4a | I |
| Polyphenol oxidases | 1.1±0.1b | 2.1±0.1a | 2.5±0.2a | 2.6±0.3a | D;I;D*I |
| Peroxidases | 2.7±0.2b | 5±0.5a | 6.8±1.1a | 5.1±0.2a | I; D*I |
| Papain | 57±3c | 81±3a | 71±4b | 86±3a | D;I |
| Cathepsin B | 40±5c | 60±7b | 63±6b | 83±5a | D;I |
| Trypsin | 37±3ab | 54±4a | 31±8b | 52±5a | D |
| Chymotrypsin | 69±4 | 65±6 | 74±6 | 77±4 | - |
| Polyphenol oxidases | 2.2±0.1b | 2.5±0.4b | 3.7±0.5a | 3±0.4ab | I |
| Peroxidases | 4.3±0.5b | 4±0.5b | 8.1±0.9a | 5.8±0.6b | D; I |
(1) PPO: nmol hydrolyzed Cathecol/ mg Protein*min
(2) POD: nmol hydrolyzed Guaiacol/ mg Protein*min.
Data are mean ± SE. D (drought) and I (mites infestation) indicate significant factors in the Two-Way ANOVA. Different lower case letters within rows indicates significant differences (Newman-Keuls test at p<0.05).
Enzymatic activities in T. evansi feeding on moderate drought-stressed or control tomato plants for 10 days.
| Control | Drought-stressed | |
|---|---|---|
| 55±2 | 69±5 | |
| 7.8±1.0 | 8.7±1.1 | |
| 1.9±0.2 | 1.8±0.2 | |
| 13±2 | 5.5±0.4 | |
| 0.29±0.03 | 0.20±0.02 | |
| 23±3 | 24±3 | |
| 162±7 | 130±8 | |
| 1774±146 | 1397±216 | |
| 197±30 | 179±17 | |
| 0.2±0.02 | 0.2±0.01 | |
Data are mean ± SE.
* indicates statistically significant difference between treatments (t-student, p<0.05).
(1) μg/mg fresh weight,
(2) nmol substrate hydrolyzed per min and mg of protein,
(3) nmol CDNB conjugated per min and mg of protein,
(4) nmol cytochrome c reduced per min and mg of protein.
Fig 5Performance of T. evansi with regard to the number of eggs laid (a) and leaf damaged area (b), on leaf disks treated with L-proline.
Concentrations applied are equivalent to the one estimated on drought-stressed tomato plants at 4 and 10 days post infestation. Data are mean ±SE. Different letters indicate significant differences (One-way ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc test, P<0.05).