| Literature DB >> 28851884 |
Ram Chandra Choudhary1, R V Kumaraswamy1, Sarita Kumari1, S S Sharma2, Ajay Pal3, Ramesh Raliya4, Pratim Biswas4, Vinod Saharan5.
Abstract
In agriculture, search for biopolymer derived materials are in high demand to replace the synthetic agrochemicals. In the present investigation, the efficacy of Cu-chitosan nanoparticles (NPs) to boost defense responses against Curvularia leaf spot (CLS) disease of maize and plant growth promotry activity were evaluated. Cu-chitosan NPs treated plants showed significant defense response through higher activities of antioxidant (superoxide dismutase and peroxidase) and defense enzymes (polyphenol oxidase and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase). Significant control of CLS disease of maize was recorded at 0.04 to 0.16% of Cu-chitosan NPs treatments in pot and 0.12 to 0.16% of NPs treatments in field condition. Further, NPs treatments exhibited growth promotry effect in terms of plant height, stem diameter, root length, root number and chlorophyll content in pot experiments. In field experiment, plant height, ear length, ear weight/plot, grain yield/plot and 100 grain weight were enhanced in NPs treatments. Disease control and enhancement of plant growth was further enlightened through Cu release profile of Cu-chitosan NPs. This is an important development in agriculture nanomaterial research where biodegradable Cu-chitosan NPs are better compatible with biological control as NPs "mimic" the natural elicitation of the plant defense and antioxidant system for disease protection and sustainable growth.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28851884 PMCID: PMC5575333 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-08571-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Experimental outline.
| Experiment | Analysis/method | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Synthesis of Cu-chitosan NPs | Ionic gelation method[ | Cu-chitosan NPs were synthesized |
|
| Using AAS[ | Cu release from Cu-chitosan NPs was evaluated with respect to pH and time |
| Pot experiment | ||
| Antioxidant and defense enzymes assay | Methods described by Giannopolitis and Ries[ | Activities of SOD, POD, PAL and PPO were estimated |
| Chlorophyll content (a, b) | As described by Stangarlin | Chlorophyll content (a, b) was quantified |
| Disease assessment | Using 1 to 9 standard disease rating scale | DS and PEDC were calculated |
| Copper content in leaves | AAS method described by Adrian[ | Cu content in leaves was determined |
| Field experiment | ||
| Days to 50%, tasseling, silking, ear leaf senescence and number of leaves/plant, plant height, ear length, ear weight/plot, grain yield/plot and 100 grain weight | Maize descriptor[ | Crop yield assessment |
| Statistical analysis | JMP version-12 using Tukey–Kramer HSD test | Significant difference between treatment |
Figure 1In-vitro Cu release from Cu-chitosan NPs at different pH and time. Each value is mean of triplicates and each replicate consisted of 3 samples.
Figure 2Effect of Cu-chitosan NPs on (a) SOD (b) POD (c) PAL (d) PPO enzymes activity in maize plant leaves after 24 h of foliar spray. Each value is mean of triplicates and each replicate consisted of 3 plants samples and same letter in the graph of each treatment is not significantly different at p = 0.05 as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD, control with water. BCH (bulk chitosan, 0.01%) dissolved in 0.1% acetic acid. CuSO4 (0.01%) and fungicide (0.01% of Bavistin).
Figure 3Symptoms of CLS disease on maize plant leaf in pot experiments (a) large necrotic lesion in control (b) micro lesions on Cu-chitosan NPs (0.16%) treated leaf.
Effect of Cu-chitosan NPs on CLS disease in pot condition.
| Treatment (%) | DS (%)A | PEDC (%)A |
|---|---|---|
| Control (water) | 44.00 ± 1.15a | 00.00 ± 0.00e |
| BCH (0.01) | 32.67 ± 0.66b | 25.72 ± 1.01d |
| CuSO4 (0.01) | 32.00 ± 1.15bc | 27.24 ± 2.31 cd |
| Fungicide (0.01) | 29.33 ± 0.66bc | 33.31 ± 0.85bc |
| Cu-chitosan NPs | ||
| 0.01 | 28.67 ± 0.16c | 34.83 ± 0.87b |
| 0.04 | 24.67 ± 0.32d | 43.86 ± 2.06a |
| 0.08 | 24.67 ± 0.21d | 43.93 ± 0.78a |
| 0.12 | 23.33 ± 0.26d | 46.97 ± 0.76a |
| 0.16 | 22.67 ± 0.56d | 48.48 ± 0.76a |
Disease data were recorded after 15 days of inoculation using 1 to 9 standard disease rating scale. AEach value is mean of triplicates and each replicate consisted of 3 plants samples. Mean ± SE followed by same letter is not significantly different at p = 0.05 as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD. BCH (bulk chitosan) dissolved in 0.1% acetic acid and fungicide (0.01% of Bavistin).
Figure 4Effect of Cu-chitosan NPs on plant growth of maize in pot condition.
Figure 5Effect of Cu-chitosan NPs on (a) plant height (b) stem diameter (c) root length (d) root number (e) chlorophyll-a and (f) chlorophyll-b content. Each value is mean of triplicates and each replicate consisted of 3 plants samples and same letter in the graph of each treatment is not significantly different at p = 0.05 as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD, control with water. BCH (bulk chitosan, 0.01%) dissolved in 0.1% acetic acid. CuSO4 (0.01%) and fungicide (0.01% of Bavistin).
Cu content in maize leaves in various treatments.
| Treatment (%) | Cu contentA (µg/g dw) |
|---|---|
| Control (water) | 4.02 ± 0.37 g |
| BCH (0.01) | 4.28 ± 0.24 g |
| CuSO4 (0.01) | 24.10 ± 0.67b |
| Fungicide (0.01) | 4.37 ± 0.37 g |
| Cu-chitosan NPs | |
| 0.01 | 8.60 ± 0.47 f |
| 0.04 | 12.77 ± 0.33e |
| 0.08 | 16.07 ± 0.13d |
| 0.12 | 19.25 ± 0.61c |
| 0.16 | 28.55 ± 0.50a |
Data were recorded in 3rd leaf after harvest. AEach value is mean of triplicates and each replicate consisted of 3 plants samples. Mean ± SE followed by same letter is not significantly different at p = 0.05 as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD. BCH (bulk chitosan, 0.01%) dissolved in 0.1% acetic acid and fungicide (0.01% of Bavistin).
Effect of Cu-chitosan NPs on CLS disease in field condition.
| Treatment (%) | DS (%)A | PEDC (%)A |
|---|---|---|
| Control (water) | 64.26 ± 0.94a | 00.00 ± 0.00d |
| BCH (0.01) | 48.18 ± 0.43b | 25.00 ± 0.81c |
| CuSO4 (0.01) | 47.53 ± 0.61bc | 26.00 ± 1.66bc |
| Fungicide (0.01) | 46.99 ± 0.23bc | 26.82 ± 1.43bc |
| Cu-chitosan NPs | ||
| 0.01 | 46.42 ± 0.31bc | 27.72 ± 0.98bc |
| 0.04 | 46.26 ± 0.16bc | 27.96 ± 1.22bc |
| 0.08 | 45.90 ± 0.45bc | 28.53 ± 0.09bc |
| 0.12 | 44.71 ± 0.80cd | 30.42 ± 0.28ab |
| 0.16 | 42.48 ± 1.08d | 33.88 ± 1.10a |
Disease data were recorded after visible appearance of symptoms following 20 days of inoculation using 1 to 9 standard disease rating scale. AEach value is mean of triplicates and each replicate consisted of 10 plants samples. Mean ± SE followed by same letter is not significantly different at p = 0.05 as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD. BCH (bulk chitosan) dissolved in 0.1% acetic acid and fungicide (0.01% of Bavistin).
Effect of Cu-chitosan NPs on growth parameter of maize in field condition.
| Treatment (%) | Days to 50% tasseling | Days to 50% silking | Days to 50% ear leaf senescence | Number of leaves per plantA | Plant height (cm)A | Ear length (cm)A | Ear weight (kg/plot)B | Grain yield (kg/plot)B | 100 grain weight (g)B |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control (water) | 53.66 ± 0.33a | 55.66 ± 0.33a | 78.33 ± 0.88bc | 12.66 ± 0.38bc | 176.33 ± 1.83c | 19.66 ± 0.88b | 2.83 ± 0.09ab | 2.08 ± 0.03abcd | 25.55 ± 0.29b |
| BCH (0.01) | 54.33 ± 0.33a | 58.66 ± 0.33a | 77.67 ± 0.33c | 12.22 ± 0.96bc | 186.22 ± 1.3b | 21.00 ± 1.15ab | 2.69 ± 0.06abc | 2.26 ± 0.15abcd | 25.68 ± 0.30b |
| CuSO4 (0.01) | 54.33 ± 0.88a | 57.66 ± 0.33a | 80.67 ± 0.33abc | 11.33 ± 0.38c | 185.77 ± 2.43b | 22.66 ± 0.88ab | 1.89 ± 0.12d | 1.46 ± 0.18d | 25.09 ± 0.69b |
| Fungicide (0.01) | 54.00 ± 0.57a | 56.33 ± 0.88a | 79.33 ± 0.33abc | 11.22 ± 0.11c | 189.88 ± 2.99ab | 22.00 ± 1.52ab | 2.10 ± 0.09 cd | 1.58 ± 0.06 cd | 26.70 ± 0.41b |
| Cu-chitosan NPs | |||||||||
| 0.01 | 53.33 ± 0.33a | 57.00 ± 1.00a | 81.33 ± 0.66abc | 13.44 ± 0.22bc | 190.22 ± 1.82ab | 22.66 ± 0.88ab | 2.42 ± 0.12bcd | 1.87 ± 0.09abcd | 26.82 ± 0.37b |
| 0.04 | 53.33 ± 0.33a | 56.66 ± 0.66a | 82.00 ± 1.00ab | 13.77 ± 0.40ab | 194.00 ± 0.19ab | 22.66 ± 1.76ab | 2.37 ± 0.21bcd | 1.79 ± 0.30bcd | 25.77 ± 0.35b |
| 0.08 | 54.00 ± 0.57a | 57.00 ± 0.57a | 82.67 ± 1.33a | 15.88 ± 0.55a | 198.11 ± 2.45a | 26.33 ± 0.88a | 2.70 ± 0.03abc | 2.38 ± 0.15abc | 26.91 ± 0.53b |
| 0.12 | 53.66 ± 0.66a | 56.33 ± 0.88a | 80.67 ± 0.33abc | 12.66 ± 0.33bc | 198.00 ± 1.30a | 24.00 ± 1.00ab | 3.09 ± 0.21a | 2.61 ± 0.21ab | 29.23 ± 0.46a |
| 0.16 | 53.66 ± 0.66a | 57.00 ± 0.57a | 79.67 ± 0.88abc | 12.00 ± 0.38bc | 191.00 ± 1.07ab | 25.00 ± 1.00ab | 3.10 ± 0.03a | 2.69 ± 0.12a | 29.80 ± 0.59a |
Various growth parameters were recorded at 80 daysA and 95 daysBof crop. Each value is mean of triplicates and each replicate consisted of 10 plants samples. Mean ± SE followed by same letter is not significantly different at p = 0.05 as determined by Tukey–Kramer HSD. BCH (bulk chitosan) dissolved in 0.1% acetic acid and fungicide (0.01% of Bavistin).
Figure 6Application model of Cu-chitosan NPs induced defense responses and plant growth in maize.