Simon Fonteyne1,2, Hilde Muylle1, Peter Lootens1, Pavel Kerchev3, Wim Van den Ende4, Ariane Staelens1, Dirk Reheul2, Isabel Roldán-Ruiz1,5. 1. Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Plant Sciences Unit, Melle, Belgium. 2. Ghent University, Department of Plant Production, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Ghent University, VIB Department of Plant Systems Biology, Ghent, Belgium. 4. KU Leuven, Laboratory of Molecular Plant Biology, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Ghent University, Department of Plant Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Ghent, Belgium.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The high productivity of Miscanthus × giganteus has been at least partly ascribed to its high chilling tolerance compared with related C4 crops, allowing for a longer productive growing season in temperate climates. However, the chilling tolerance of M. × giganteus has been predominantly studied under controlled environmental conditions. The understanding of the underlying mechanisms contributing to chilling tolerance in the field and their variation in different miscanthus genotypes is largely unexplored. Methods: Five miscanthus genotypes with different sensitivities to chilling were grown in the field and scored for a comprehensive set of physiological traits throughout the spring season. Chlorophyll fluorescence was measured as an indication of photosynthesis, and leaf samples were analysed for biochemical traits related to photosynthetic activity (chlorophyll content and pyruvate, Pi dikinase activity), redox homeostasis (malondialdehyde, glutathione and ascorbate contents, and catalase activity) and water-soluble carbohydrate content. Key Results: Chilling-tolerant genotypes were characterized by higher levels of malondialdehyde, raffinose and sucrose, and higher catalase activity, while the chilling-sensitive genotypes were characterized by higher concentrations of glucose and fructose, and higher pyruvate, Pi dikinase activity later in the growing season. On the early sampling dates, the biochemical responses of M. × giganteus were similar to those of the chilling-tolerant genotypes, but later in the season they became more similar to those of the chilling-sensitive genotypes. Conclusions: The overall physiological response of chilling-tolerant genotypes was distinguishable from that of chilling-sensitive genotypes, while M. × giganteus was intermediate between the two. There appears to be a trade-off between high and efficient photosynthesis and chilling stress tolerance. Miscanthus × giganteus is able to overcome this trade-off and, while it is more similar to the chilling-sensitive genotypes in early spring, its photosynthetic capacity is similar to that of the chilling-tolerant genotypes later on.
Background and Aims: The high productivity of Miscanthus × giganteus has been at least partly ascribed to its high chilling tolerance compared with related C4 crops, allowing for a longer productive growing season in temperate climates. However, the chilling tolerance of M. × giganteus has been predominantly studied under controlled environmental conditions. The understanding of the underlying mechanisms contributing to chilling tolerance in the field and their variation in different miscanthus genotypes is largely unexplored. Methods: Five miscanthus genotypes with different sensitivities to chilling were grown in the field and scored for a comprehensive set of physiological traits throughout the spring season. Chlorophyll fluorescence was measured as an indication of photosynthesis, and leaf samples were analysed for biochemical traits related to photosynthetic activity (chlorophyll content and pyruvate, Pi dikinase activity), redox homeostasis (malondialdehyde, glutathione and ascorbate contents, and catalase activity) and water-soluble carbohydrate content. Key Results: Chilling-tolerant genotypes were characterized by higher levels of malondialdehyde, raffinose and sucrose, and higher catalase activity, while the chilling-sensitive genotypes were characterized by higher concentrations of glucose and fructose, and higher pyruvate, Pi dikinase activity later in the growing season. On the early sampling dates, the biochemical responses of M. × giganteus were similar to those of the chilling-tolerant genotypes, but later in the season they became more similar to those of the chilling-sensitive genotypes. Conclusions: The overall physiological response of chilling-tolerant genotypes was distinguishable from that of chilling-sensitive genotypes, while M. × giganteus was intermediate between the two. There appears to be a trade-off between high and efficient photosynthesis and chilling stress tolerance. Miscanthus × giganteus is able to overcome this trade-off and, while it is more similar to the chilling-sensitive genotypes in early spring, its photosynthetic capacity is similar to that of the chilling-tolerant genotypes later on.
Keywords:
M. sinensis; M. sinensis × sacchariflorus; M. × giganteus; PPDK; antioxidants; chilling stress; chlorophyll fluorescence; early season growth; miscanthus; oxidative stress; water-soluble carbohydrates
Authors: Shawna L Naidu; Stephen P Moose; Abdul K AL-Shoaibi; Christine A Raines; Stephen P Long Journal: Plant Physiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 8.340
Authors: Ashley K Spence; Jay Boddu; Dafu Wang; Brandon James; Kankshita Swaminathan; Stephen P Moose; Stephen P Long Journal: J Exp Bot Date: 2014-06-22 Impact factor: 6.992
Authors: Alicja Sobkowiak; Maciej Jończyk; Józef Adamczyk; Jarosław Szczepanik; Danuta Solecka; Iwona Kuciara; Katarzyna Hetmańczyk; Joanna Trzcinska-Danielewicz; Marcin Grzybowski; Marek Skoneczny; Jan Fronk; Paweł Sowiński Journal: BMC Genomics Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Anna Bilska-Kos; Aleksandra Pietrusińska; Szymon Suski; Agnieszka Niedziela; Anna M Linkiewicz; Włodzimierz Majtkowski; Grzegorz Żurek; Jacek Zebrowski Journal: Cells Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 6.600
Authors: Gancho T Slavov; Christopher L Davey; Maurice Bosch; Paul R H Robson; Iain S Donnison; Ian J Mackay Journal: Ann Bot Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.357