| Literature DB >> 28223995 |
Youssef Rouphael1, Mariateresa Cardarelli2, Paolo Bonini3, Giuseppe Colla4.
Abstract
In the coming years, farmers will have to deal with growing crops under suboptimal conditions dictated by global climate changes. The application of plant biostimulants such as beneficial microorganisms and plant-derived protein hydrolysates (PHs) may represent an interesting approach for increasing crop tolerance to alkalinity and salinity. The current research aimed at elucidating the agronomical, physiological, anpan>d biochemical efpan> class="Chemical">fects as well as the changes in mineral composition of greenhouse lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) either untreated or treated with a microbial-based biostimulant (Tablet) containing Rhizophagus intraradices and Trichoderma atroviride alone or in combination with a PH. Plants were sprayed with PH at weekly intervals with a solution containing 2.5 ml L-1 of PH. Lettuce plants were grown in sand culture and supplied with three nutrient solutions: standard, saline (25 mM NaCl) or alkaline (10 mM NaHCO3 + 0.5 g l-1 CaCO3; pH 8.1). Salt stress triggered a decrease in fresh yield, biomass production, SPAD index, chlorophyll fluorescence, leaf mineral composition and increased leaf proline concentration, without altering antioxidant enzyme activities. The decrease in marketable yield and biomass production under alkali stress was not significant. Irrespective of nutrient solution, the application of Tablet and especially Tablet + PH increased fresh marketable yield, shoot and root dry weight. This was associated with an improvement in SPAD index, Fv/Fm ratio, CAT and GPX activities and a better nutritional status (higher P, K, and Fe and lower Na with NaCl and higher P and Fe with NaHCO3) via an increase of total root length and surface. The combination of microbial biostimulant with foliar application of PH synergistically increased the marketable fresh yield by 15.5 and 46.7% compared to the Tablet-treated and untreated plants, respectively. The improved crop performance of Tablet + PH application was attributed to a better root system architecture (higher total root length and surface), an improved chlorophyll synthesis and an increase in proline accumulation. Combined application of Tablet and PH could represent an effective strategy to minimize alkalinity and salinity stress in a sustainable way.Entities:
Keywords: Lactuca sativa L.; Rhizophagus intraradices; Trichoderma atroviride; antioxidant enzymes; chlorophyll fluorescence; mineral composition; pH level; proline
Year: 2017 PMID: 28223995 PMCID: PMC5295141 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Analysis of variance and mean comparisons for mycorrhizal root colonization and Trichoderma spp. population in roots of lettuce plants grown with different nutrient solutions and biostimulants.
| Source of variance | Mycorrhiza root colonization (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Nutrient solution (N) | ∗∗∗ | ns |
| Biostimulant (B) | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗ |
| N × B | ∗∗∗ | ns |
| Nutrient solution | ||
| Standard | 21.3 | 6.3 × 104 |
| Alkaline | 16.8 | 1.6 × 104 |
| Saline | 11.8 | 4.0 × 104 |
| Biostimulant | ||
| No application | 0.0 | 3.9 × 102b |
| Tablet | 24.9 | 6.3 × 104a |
| Tablet + PH | 25.0 | 5.5 × 104a |
| N × B | ||
| Standard solution without biostimulant | 0.0c | 8.7 × 102 |
| Standard solution + Tablet | 31.8a | 1.0 × 105 |
| Standard solution + Tablet + PH | 32.1a | 8.8 × 104 |
| Alkaline solution without biostimulant | 0.0c | 1.1 × 102 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet | 25.6ab | 2.7 × 104 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet + PH | 24.9ab | 2.1 × 104 |
| Saline solution without biostimulant | 0.0c | 1.8 × 102 |
| Saline solution + Tablet | 17.3b | 6.2 × 104 |
| Saline solution + Tablet + PH | 18.0b | 5.7 × 104 |
Analysis of variance and mean comparisons for shoot fresh weight, dry weight of shoots and roots, total root length, average root diameter, and total root surface of lettuce plants grown with different nutrient solutions and biostimulants.
| Source of variance | Shoot fresh weight (g/plant) | Shoot dry weight (g plant-1) | Root dry weight (g plant-1) | Total root length (m plant-1) | Root diameter (mm) | Total root surface (cm2 plant-1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrient solution (N) | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗ | ∗ | ∗∗∗ | ns | ∗∗ |
| Biostimulant (B) | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗ | ∗∗ | ns | ∗ |
| N × B | ns | ns | ∗ | ns | ns | ns |
| Nutrient solution | ||||||
| Standard | 175.4ˆa | 7.81ˆa | 1.86 | 531.4ˆa | 0.29 | 48.4ˆa |
| Alkaline | 161.6ˆa | 7.87ˆa | 1.79 | 484.1ˆb | 0.30 | 44.5ˆab |
| Saline | 119.4ˆb | 7.02ˆb | 1.55 | 405.1ˆc | 0.28 | 37.0ˆb |
| Biostimulant | ||||||
| No application | 122.2ˆc | 6.03ˆb | 1.47 | 436.8ˆc | 0.28 | 40.5ˆc |
| Tablet | 155.2ˆb | 8.06ˆa | 1.75 | 470.4ˆb | 0.29 | 42.7ˆb |
| Tablet + PH | 179.2ˆa | 8.62ˆa | 1.98 | 510.1ˆa | 0.29 | 46.5ˆa |
| N × B | ||||||
| Standard solution without biostimulant | 145.8 | 5.93 | 1.63ˆbc | 494.1 | 0.29 | 45.8 |
| Standard solution + Tablet | 171.5 | 8.45 | 1.84ˆab | 538.5 | 0.29 | 48.7 |
| Standard solution + Tablet + PH | 209.1 | 9.05 | 2.12ˆa | 561.6 | 0.30 | 50.6 |
| Alkaline solution without biostimulant | 132.7 | 6.53 | 1.48ˆcd | 460.4 | 0.29 | 43.2 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet | 166.0 | 8.37 | 1.81ˆab | 472.0 | 0.30 | 43.3 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet + PH | 186.3 | 8.72 | 2.08ˆa | 519.8 | 0.30 | 47.1 |
| Saline solution without biostimulant | 88.0 | 5.62 | 1.31ˆd | 355.9 | 0.27 | 32.6 |
| Saline solution + Tablet | 128.0 | 7.36 | 1.61ˆbc | 400.8 | 0.29 | 36.1 |
| Saline solution + Tablet + PH | 142.3 | 8.09 | 1.74ˆbc | 458.6 | 0.28 | 42.4 |
Analysis of variance and mean comparisons for mineral composition of leaves from lettuce plants grown with different nutrient solutions and biostimulants.
| Source of variance | N (g kg-1 d.wt.) | P (g kg-1 d.wt.) | K (g kg-1 d.wt.) | Na (g kg-1 d.wt.) | Fe (mg kg-1 d.wt.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrient solution (N) | ∗ | ∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗ |
| Biostimulant (B) | ∗∗ | ∗∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗ |
| N × B | ns | ∗∗ | ∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗ |
| Nutrient solution | |||||
| Standard | 40.3ˆa | 7.1 | 33.0 | 2.9 | 45.5 |
| Alkaline | 38.5ˆab | 5.5 | 32.9 | 3.3 | 39.7 |
| Saline | 36.3ˆb | 6.2 | 29.2 | 11.3 | 41.8 |
| Biostimulant | |||||
| No application | 35.3ˆb | 5.7 | 29.7 | 7.6 | 40.2 |
| Tablet | 39.1ˆa | 6.5 | 32.4 | 4.9 | 42.7 |
| Tablet + PH | 40.6ˆa | 6.6 | 33.0 | 5.0 | 44.0 |
| N × B | |||||
| Standard solution without biostimulant | 38.9 | 6.6ˆb | 32.6ˆbc | 3.2ˆc | 45.6ˆab |
| Standard solution + Tablet | 40.9 | 7.3ˆa | 33.0ˆab | 2.7ˆc | 44.9ˆab |
| Standard solution + Tablet + PH | 41.0 | 7.5ˆa | 33.5ˆab | 2.9ˆc | 45.9ˆa |
| Alkaline solution without biostimulant | 35.5 | 4.7ˆd | 30.7ˆd | 4.1ˆc | 35.9ˆf |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet | 38.6 | 5.9ˆc | 33.9ˆab | 2.8ˆc | 40.8ˆde |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet + PH | 41.3 | 6.0ˆbc | 34.2ˆa | 3.1ˆc | 42.3ˆcd |
| Saline solution without biostimulant | 31.6 | 5.9ˆc | 25.8ˆe | 15.6ˆa | 39.0ˆe |
| Saline solution + Tablet | 37.8 | 6.4ˆb | 30.3ˆd | 9.3ˆb | 42.5ˆcd |
| Saline solution + Tablet + PH | 39.5 | 6.3ˆb | 31.4ˆcd | 8.9ˆb | 43.9ˆbc |
Analysis of variance and mean comparisons for SPAD index and maximum quantum use efficiency PSII in dark-adapted stage of leaves at different days after transplanting (DAT) from lettuce plants grown with different nutrient solutions and biostimulants.
| Source of variance | SPAD index | Maximum quantum use efficiency PSII ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 DAT | 20 DAT | 36 DAT | 13 DAT | 20 DAT | 36 DAT | |
| Nutrient solution (N) | ∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗∗ | ∗∗ |
| Biostimulant (B) | ∗∗∗ | ∗ | ∗ | ∗∗ | ns | ∗ |
| N × B | ns | ns | ns | ns | ∗ | ns |
| Nutrient solution | ||||||
| Standard | 34.9a | 36.4a | 34.4a | 0.79a | 0.87 | 0.86a |
| Alkaline | 31.2b | 35.6a | 33.7a | 0.78a | 0.86 | 0.86a |
| Saline | 31.0b | 31.4b | 28.8b | 0.74b | 0.81 | 0.81b |
| Biostimulant | ||||||
| No application | 28.3c | 33.2b | 30.0c | 0.75b | 0.84 | 0.83b |
| Tablet | 33.4b | 34.4ab | 32.8b | 0.78a | 0.85 | 0.84ab |
| Tablet + PH | 35.4a | 35.8a | 34.2a | 0.79a | 0.85 | 0.85a |
| N × B | ||||||
| Standard solution without biostimulant | 29.4 | 35.4 | 33.9 | 0.77 | 0.86a | 0.85 |
| Standard solution + Tablet | 36.9 | 36.0 | 34.2 | 0.80 | 0.87a | 0.86 |
| Standard solution + Tablet + PH | 38.5 | 37.8 | 35.2 | 0.81 | 0.87a | 0.87 |
| Alkaline solution without biostimulant | 28.7 | 34.6 | 31.1 | 0.76 | 0.86a | 0.85 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet | 31.4 | 35.3 | 34.6 | 0.78 | 0.86a | 0.86 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet + PH | 33.5 | 37.0 | 35.5 | 0.79 | 0.87a | 0.86 |
| Saline solution without biostimulant | 26.8 | 29.6 | 25.1 | 0.71 | 0.79b | 0.78 |
| Saline solution + Tablet | 32.0 | 31.9 | 29.5 | 0.75 | 0.83ab | 0.81 |
| Saline solution + Tablet + PH | 34.1 | 32.7 | 31.9 | 0.77 | 0.82ab | 0.83 |
Analysis of variance and mean comparisons for catalase, guaiacol peroxidase, and proline content of leaves from lettuce plants grown with different nutrient solutions and biostimulants.
| Source of variance | Catalase | Guaiacol peroxidase | Proline |
|---|---|---|---|
| (mmol mg-1 protein min-1) | (mmol mg-1 protein min-1) | (μg g-1 f. wt.) | |
| Nutrient solution (N) | ns | ns | ∗∗ |
| Biostimulant (B) | ∗∗ | ∗ | ∗ |
| N × B | ns | ns | ns |
| Nutrient solution | |||
| Standard | 94.0 | 87.0 | 22.4ˆb |
| Alkaline | 105.4 | 72.9 | 24.6ˆb |
| Saline | 99.3 | 90.9 | 69.5ˆa |
| Biostimulant | |||
| No application | 56.1ˆb | 60.0ˆb | 22.5ˆc |
| Tablet | 118.1ˆa | 90.9ˆa | 44.5ˆb |
| Tablet + PH | 124.5ˆa | 100.0ˆa | 49.6ˆa |
| N × B | |||
| Standard solution without biostimulant | 50.4 | 68.7 | 12.1 |
| Standard solution + Tablet | 111.6 | 91.0 | 25.2 |
| Standard solution + Tablet + PH | 120.1 | 101.4 | 29.9 |
| Alkaline solution without biostimulant | 59.2 | 52.2 | 18.4 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet | 126.8 | 81.6 | 26.9 |
| Alkaline solution + Tablet + PH | 130.3 | 85.0 | 28.5 |
| Saline solution without biostimulant | 58.8 | 59.0 | 36.9 |
| Saline solution + Tablet | 116.0 | 100.2 | 81.4 |
| Saline solution + Tablet + PH | 123.2 | 113.6 | 90.3 |