| Literature DB >> 28374741 |
Ben-Feng Yin1,2, Yuan-Ming Zhang2, An-Ru Lou1.
Abstract
Moss crusts play important roles in biological soil crusts biomass and soil surface stabilization. However, because of increasingly intensive human activities, especially grazing, the growth and survival of shrubs are seriously threatened. This study aimed to test whether the presence of shrubs affects the physiological state of the bryophyte Syntrichia caninervis Mitt. in this desert ecosystem. We simulated animal-grazed shrubs at three levels in the Gurbantunggut Desert and compared these simulations to exposed areas, measuring the indicators of growth and stress tolerance exhibited by bryophytes. The results showed that the removal of shrubs significantly decreased chlorophyll fluorescence activity and soluble protein content in S. caninervis, especially under the total shrub removal treatment. The ratio between the total removal of shrubs and other treatments in antioxidative enzymes and in osmotic adjustment substances of S. caninervis exhibited two types of responses. With the exception of malonyldialdehyde (MDA) and superoxide dismutase (SOD), the variables examined fitted as downward parabolic then upward parabolic temporal dynamics. The removal of shrubs is harmful to the survival of S.caninervis. In resource-constrained conditions, SOD is an important antioxidant enzyme that of peroxidase (POD), catalase (CAT) and osmotic adjustment substances, for S. caninervis survival.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28374741 PMCID: PMC5379693 DOI: 10.1038/srep45268
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The variations in the maximal photochemical efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm) and the actual PSII efficiency (Y(II)) in Syntrichia caninervis shoots during the freeze-thaw periods in different treatments.
Figure 2Changes in chlorophyll fluorescence in Syntrichia caninervis shoots in different treatments.
The bars represent the means of five replications ± the standard error. Different letters within each treatment indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Repeated measure results on the effects of habitat treatments, periods of measurement, and their interaction on physiological state.
| df | Fluorescence | Osmotic adjustment substance | Antioxidative enzyme | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fv/Fm | Y(II) | Soluble sugar | Proline | Soluble protein | MDA | POD | SOD | CAT | ||
| Fhabitat | 3 | 4.698* | 2.511 | 7.651** | 60.466** | 33.742** | 109.907** | 77.040** | 165.744** | 46.036** |
| Fperiod | 3/4 | 55.172** | 65.841** | 997.583** | 96.384** | 392.859** | 685.565** | 274.208** | 583.458** | 480.216** |
| Fhabitat×period | 9/12 | 7.203** | 6.975** | 11.180** | 14.296** | 11.829** | 39.305** | 5.707** | 16.769** | 9.673** |
Note: Fv/Fm, maximal photochemical efficiency of PSII; Y(II), actual PSII efficiency; MDA, malonyldialdehyde; POD, peroxidase; SOD, superoxide dismutase; CAT, catalase. ** and * indicate a significant correlation at 0.01 and 0.05 levels, respectively.
Figure 3Changes in the content of proline, soluble sugar and soluble protein in Syntrichia caninervis shoots in different treatments.
The bars represent the means of five replications ± the standard error. Different letters within each treatment indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Figure 4Changes in the content of malonyldialdehyde (MDA), the activity of peroxidase (POD), superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) in Syntrichia caninervis shoots in different treatments.
The bars represent the means of five replications the standard error. Different letters within each treatment indicate a significant difference (P < 0.05).
Regression analysis on the processing time and physiological state of the relative change of three treatments compared with the 0% shrub plots.
| Items | 0%/Natural−1 | 0%/50%−1 | 0%/Exposed−1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fv/Fm | Y = −0.02X + 0.0196 | Y = −0.0082X + 0.0029 | Y = −0.0302X + 0.1392 |
| Y(II) | Y = −0.0257X + 0.0296 | Y = −0.0152X + 0.0133 | Y = −0.0299X + 0.0855 |
| Soluble protein | Y = −0.0371X − 0.0307 | Y = −0.0301X + 0.0018 | Y = −0.0993X + 0.5861 |
| Proline | Y = −0.004X2 + 0.026X − 0.019 | Y = −0.008X2 + 0.062X − 0.032 | Y = −0.001X2 −0.009X − 0.160 |
| Soluble sugar | Y = −0.009X2 + 0.072X + 0.027 | Y = −0.034X2 + 0.275X − 0.065 | Y = −0.015X2 + 0.040X + 0.568 |
| MDA | Y = 0.019X2 − 0.013X + 0.428 | Y = −0.001X2 + 0.057X + 0.327 | Y = −0.004X2 + 0.017X + 0.459 |
| SOD | Y = 0.005X2 + 0.008X − 0.002 | Y = 0.002X2 + 0.023X − 0.006 | Y = −0.007X2 + 0.082X − 0.231 |
| POD | Y = −0.003X2 + 0.061X + 0.006 | Y = −0.001X2 + 0.036X + 0.007 | Y = −0.007X2 + 0.089X − 0.263 |
| CAT | Y = −0.012X2 + 0.156X + 0.006 | Y = −0.010X2 + 0.122X + 0.011 | Y = −0.009X2 + 0.087X − 0.155 |
Note: Fv/Fm, maximal photochemical efficiency of PSII; Y(II), actual PSII efficiency; MDA, malonyldialdehyde; POD, peroxidase; SOD, superoxide dismutase; CAT, catalase. ** and * indicate a significant correlation at 0.01 and 0.05 levels, respectively.
Figure 5The Schematic diagram of treatments in this study.