| Literature DB >> 28761108 |
Wei Chen1, Hui Liu1, Yubao Gao1, Stuart D Card2, Anzhi Ren3.
Abstract
AtmosphericEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28761108 PMCID: PMC5537266 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-07183-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Three-way ANOVA for growth characters of endophyte-infected (E+) or uninfected (E−) Festuca arundinacea under various CO2 and nitrogen conditions.
| Plant height | Tiller number | Leaf number | Maximum net photosynthetic rate | Shoot biomass | Root biomass | Root:Shoot ratio | Leaf carbon concentration | Leaf nitrogen concentration | C:N ratio | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Endophyte (E) | 0.10 | 0.76 | 39.94 |
| 33.76 |
| 3.25 | 0.08 | 24.27 |
| 2.59 | 0.12 | 0.16 | 0.69 | 4.22 |
| 12.84 |
| 11.97 |
|
| CO2 (C) | 0.96 | 0.34 | 15.96 |
| 11.19 |
| 347.42 |
| 433.83 |
| 11.03 |
| 2.03 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.72 | 148.34 |
| 177.49 |
|
| Nitrogen (N) | 329.10 |
| 453.03 |
| 307.93 |
| 276.61 |
| 4722.89 |
| 216.40 |
| 0.50 | 0.48 | 143.99 |
| 143.33 |
| 117.76 |
|
| E × C | 0.50 | 0.48 | 5.75 |
| 1.52 | 0.23 | 6.65 |
| 13.55 |
| 0.16 | 0.69 | 0.21 | 0.65 | 0.14 | 0.71 | 3.27 | 0.08 | 0.21 | 0.65 |
| E × N | 0.04 | 0.85 | 0.05 | 0.83 | 0.28 | 0.60 | 13.16 |
| 8.72 |
| 2.38 | 0.13 | 0.90 | 0.35 | 1.71 | 0.20 | 0.67 | 0.42 | 2.99 | 0.09 |
| C × N | 0.31 | 0.58 | 14.82 |
| 9.43 |
| 0.03 | 0.87 | 269.27 |
| 8.33 |
| 0.03 | 0.86 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 33.33 |
| 0.01 | 0.91 |
| E × C × N | 0.11 | 0.75 | 1.19 | 0.28 | 0.52 | 0.47 | 4.12 |
| 7.65 |
| 0.84 | 0.37 | 1.58 | 0.22 | 0.94 | 0.34 | 4.74 |
| 2.65 | 0.11 |
Significant P-values are in bold.
Figure 1Comparison of tiller number of endophyte-infected (E+) or uninfected (E−) Festuca arundinacea under elevated CO2 (EC) and ambient CO2 (AC) conditions. *Meant significant difference at 0.05 level.
Figure 2Comparison of maximum photosynthetic rate and shoot biomass of endophyte-infected (E+) or uninfected (E−) Festuca arundinacea under different CO2 and nitrogen levels. *Meant significant difference at 0.05 level.
Figure 3Leaf N concentration of endophyte-infected (E+) or uninfected (E−) Festuca arundinacea under different CO2 and nitrogen levels (a). Leaf C:N ratio of Festuca arundinacea under different endophyte (b) and CO2 treatments (c). *Meant significant difference at 0.05 level.
Three-way ANOVA for pathogen and physiological indices of endophyte-infected (E+) or uninfected (E−) Festuca arundinacea under various CO2 and pathogen conditions.
| Lesion number | Spore concentration | Soluble sugar concentration | Lignin concentration | RF1 | RF2 | RF3 | RF4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Endophyte (E) | 10.52 |
| 137.45 |
| 13.60 |
| 1.47 | 0.23 | 0.00 | 0.99 | 1.23 | 0.28 | 0.81 | 0.38 | 4.19 |
|
| CO2 (C) | 176.09 |
| 1662.69 |
| 16.44 |
| 14.40 |
| 12.07 |
| 28.94 |
| 0.93 | 0.34 | 0.00 | 0.96 |
| Pathogen (P) | — | — | — | — | 1.03 | 0.32 | 282.45 |
| 0.17 | 0.68 | 0.61 | 0.44 | 2.08 | 0.16 | 1.03 | 0.32 |
| E × C | 19.57 |
| 157.03 |
| 0.09 | 0.76 | 1.79 | 0.19 | 0.11 | 0.75 | 0.11 | 0.74 | 0.23 | 0.64 | 3.57 | 0.07 |
| E × P | — | — | — | — | 0.01 | 0.93 | 0.88 | 0.36 | 0.03 | 0.88 | 0.09 | 0.77 | 0.26 | 0.61 | 0.39 | 0.54 |
| C × P | — | — | — | — | 0.00 | 0.98 | 14.30 |
| 6.04 |
| 12.10 |
| 8.35 |
| 0.00 | 0.98 |
| E × C × P | — | — | — | — | 0.45 | 0.51 | 3.91 |
| 0.02 | 0.89 | 0.05 | 0.83 | 0.69 | 0.41 | 0.56 | 0.46 |
Signiflicant P-values are in bold.
Figure 4Lesion number (a) and pathogen spore concentration (b) of endophyte-infected (E+) or uninfected (E−) Festuca arundinacea under elevated CO2 (EC) and ambient CO2 (AC) treatments.*Meant significant difference at 0.05 level.
Figure 5Soluble sugar concentration of Festuca arundinacea under different endophyte (a) and CO2 treatments (b). *Meant significant difference at 0.05 level.
Figure 6Loadings for each individual amino acid of Festuca arundinacea onto the first four rotated factors (RF). The individual amino acids loading heavily either positively (loading ≥ +0.5) or negatively (loading ≤ −0.5) are highlighted in black.
Figure 7Mean response of rotated factors (RF1–4, A,C,E,G) and the standardized univariate response (B,D,F,H) of individual amino acids in Festuca arundinacea under different endophyte status (E+, endophyte-infected; E−, uninfected), CO2 concentration (EC, 800 ppm; AC, 400 ppm), and pathogen inoculation (P+, inoculated by Curvularia lunata; P−, uninoculated control). *Meant significant difference at 0.05 level.
Figure 8Lignin concentration of endophyte-infected (E+) or uninfected (E−) Festuca arundinacea under different CO2 concentration (EC, 800 ppm; AC, 400 ppm), and pathogen inoculation (P+, inoculated by Curvularia lunata; P−, uninoculated control). *Meant significant difference at 0.05 level.