| Literature DB >> 26906410 |
Yuhang Chen1,2, Li Liu3, Qiaosheng Guo4, Zaibiao Zhu5, Lixia Zhang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prunella vulgaris L. is a medical plant cultivated in sloping, sun-shaded areas in China. Recently, owing to air-environmental stress, especially drought stress strongly inhibits plant growth and development, the appropriate fertilizer supply can alleviate these effects. However, these is little information about their effects on P. vulgaris growing in arid and semi-arid areas with limited water and fertilizer supply.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26906410 PMCID: PMC4765097 DOI: 10.1186/s40659-016-0069-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biol Res ISSN: 0716-9760 Impact factor: 5.612
Fig. 1Diurnal variations of environmental photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and ambient CO2 concentration (Ca) (a); air temperature (Ta) and air relative humidity (RH) (b) from 09:00 to 19:00 on the measuring day
Chlorophyll (Chl) a and b contents, Chl a + b content, carotenoid (Car) content of P. vulgaris seedlings under different water (W) and fertilization (F) supply regimes
| Treatment | Chl | Chl | Chl | Car |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1/F0 | 0.40 ± 0.06 d | 0.16 ± 0.03 d | 0.57 ± 0.10 d | 0.10 ± 0.01 d |
| W1/F1 | 0.86 ± 0.09 b | 0.34 ± 0.04 b | 1.19 ± 0.13 b | 0.20 ± 0.02 b |
| W1/F2 | 0.61 ± 0.10 c | 0.25 ± 0.04 c | 0.86 ± 0.14 c | 0.15 ± 0.02 c |
| W2/F0 | 0.42 ± 0.01 d | 0.17 ± 0.00 d | 0.58 ± 0.02 d | 0.12 ± 0.00 d |
| W2/F1 | 1.03 ± 0.10 a | 0.41 ± 0.03 a | 1.45 ± 0.13 a | 0.24 ± 0.02 a |
| W2/F2 | 1.00 ± 0.04 a | 0.40 ± 0.02 a | 1.40 ± 0.06 a | 0.21 ± 0.01 b |
| Water (W) | 43.68** | 43.83** | 44.24** | 28.78** |
| Fertilization (F) | 120.30** | 116.13** | 120.52** | 89.46** |
| W × F | 14.24** | 12.91** | 14.01** | 3.51 |
W1 and W2 correspond to soil water contents between 45–50 and 70–75 % of the field water capacity, respectively; F0: no fertilization, F1: 0.12 g N + 0.2 g P2O5 + 0.1 g K2O kg−1 soil, F2: 0.24 g N + 0.4 g P2O5 + 0.2 g K2O kg−1 soil. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments at P < 0.05 (ANOVA)
Mean ± SD, fresh mass (FM). n = 6, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01
Fig. 2Diurnal variations in leaf transpiration (Tr) (a), stomatal conductance (Gs) (b), intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) (c) of P. vulgaris exposed to two soil water (W) conditions and three levels of fertilizer (F), n = 6–8. F0: no fertilization, F1: 0.12 g N + 0.2 g P2O5 + 0.1 g K2O kg−1 soil, F2: 0.24 g N + 0.4 g P2O5 + 0.2 g K2O kg−1 soil
Statistical tests of the effects of three fertilization levels on Tr, Gs, Ci, Ls, Pn, and WUEi of P. vulgaris seedlings at various measuring times and soil water availabilities
| Treatment % | 09:00 | 11:00 | 13:00 | 15:00 | 17:00 | 19:00 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effects of fertilization supply on Tr | ||||||
| 45–50 | – | – | * | * | * | * |
| 70–75 | * | * | – | * | – | – |
| Effects of fertilization supply on Gs | ||||||
| 45–50 % | * | * | * | * | – | * |
| 70–75 % | * | * | – | – | * | * |
| Effects of fertilization supply on Ci | ||||||
| 45–50 | * | – | – | * | * | * |
| 70–75 | * | * | * | * | * | – |
| Effects of fertilization supply on Ls | ||||||
| 45–50 | * | – | – | * | * | * |
| 70–75 | * | * | * | * | * | – |
| Effects of fertilization supply on Pn | ||||||
| 45–50 | * | * | * | * | * | * |
| 70–75 | * | * | * | * | * | – |
| Effects of fertilization supply on WUEi | ||||||
| 45–50 | * | * | * | – | – | * |
| 70–75 | * | * | – | * | * | – |
The seedlings were exposed to two soil water conditions (non-limiting soil water content and medium drought, corresponding to soil water contents between 70–75 % and 45–50 % of the field water capacity, respectively) and three levels of fertilization (F0: no fertilizer, F1: 0.12 g N + 0.2 g P2O5 + 0.1 g K2O kg−1 soil, F2: 0.24 g N + 0.4 g P2O5 + 0.2 g K2O kg−1 soil; n = 6 for each treatment)
* Significant differences between fertilization treatments at a specific time of day for a particular soil water content (ANOVA, P < 0.05), – indicates no significant difference
Fig. 3Stomatal limitation values (Ls) (a), net photosynthetic rate (Pn) (b), and leaf instantaneous water use efficiency (WUEi) (c) of P. vulgaris exposed to two soil water (W) conditions and three levels of fertilizer (F), n = 6–8. F0: no fertilization, F1: 0.12 g N + 0.2 g P2O5 + 0.1 g K2O kg−1 soil, F2: 0.24 g N + 0.4 g P2O5 + 0.2 g K2O kg−1 soil
The maximum quantum yield of photosystem 2 (PS2) photochemistry (Fv/Fm), effective quantum yield of PS2 (ФPS2), photochemical quenching (qP), non-photochemical quenching (qN), effective quantum yield of photochemical energy conservation in PS2 (Fv′/Fm′) and electron transport rate (ETR) of P. vulgaris seedlings under different water (W) and fertilization (F) regimes
| Treatment | Fv/Fm | ФPS2 | QP | QN | Fv′/Fm′ | ETR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1/F0 | 0.80 ± 0.03 b | 0.18 ± 0.02 c | 0.46 ± 0.06 c | 1.82 ± 0.06 ab | 0.39 ± 0.01 e | 90.45 ± 4.26 c |
| W1/F1 | 0.84 ± 0.01 a | 0.26 ± 0.01 b | 0.62 ± 0.02 ab | 1.91 ± 0.04 a | 0.43 ± 0.01 cd | 131.12 ± 3.74 b |
| W1/F2 | 0.82 ± 0.01 a | 0.24 ± 0.04 b | 0.58 ± 0.05 b | 1.91 ± 0.14 a | 0.41 ± 0.03 de | 114.19 ± 20.03 b |
| W2/F0 | 0.80 ± 0.01 b | 0.26 ± 0.01 b | 0.58 ± 0.01 b | 1.64 ± 0.03 c | 0.45 ± 0.02 bc | 92.56 ± 9.95 c |
| W2/F1 | 0.84 ± 0.01 a | 0.32 ± 0.01 a | 0.68 ± 0.00 a | 1.75 ± 0.03 bc | 0.48 ± 0.01 a | 168.02 ± 7.14 a |
| W2/F2 | 0.83 ± 0.01 a | 0.30 ± 0.05 a | 0.56 ± 0.17 b | 1.69 ± 0.07 c | 0.45 ± 0.02 ab | 150.70 ± 22.53 a |
| Water (W) | 0.69 | 56.76** | 19.77** | 69.68** | 110.67** | 38.14** |
| Fertilization (F) | 29.97** | 25.42** | 27.43** | 6.87** | 14.45** | 72.94** |
| W × F | 1.33 | 0.79 | 4.56* | 0.41 | 0.58 | 8.00** |
W1 and W2 correspond to soil water contents between 45–50 and 70–75 % of the field water capacity, respectively; F0: no fertilization, F1: 0.12 g N + 0.2 g P2O5 + 0.1 g K2O kg−1 soil, F2: 0.24 g N + 0.4 g P2O5 + 0.2 g K2O kg−1 soil. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments at P < 0.05 (ANOVA)
Mean ± SD, n = 5, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01