| Literature DB >> 29348653 |
Wande Liu1,2, Jianrong Su3,4, Shuaifeng Li1,2, Xuedong Lang1,2, Xiaobo Huang1,2.
Abstract
Non-structural carbohydrates (NSC) play important roles in adapting to environments in plants. Despite extensive research on the seasonal dynamics and species differences of NSC, the relative contributions of season and species to NSC is not well understood. We measured the concentration of starch, soluble sugar, NSC, and the soluble sugar:starch ratio in leaves, twigs, trunks and roots of twenty dominant species for dry and wet season in monsoon broad-leaved evergreen forest, respectively. The majority of concentration of NSC and starch in the roots, and the leaves contained the highest concentration of soluble sugar. A seasonal variation in starch and NSC concentrations higher in the dry season. Conversely, the wet season samples had higher concentration of soluble sugar and the sugar:starch ratio. Significant differences exist for starch, soluble sugar and NSC concentrations and the sugar:starch ratio across species. Most species had higher starch and NSC concentrations in the dry season and higher soluble sugar concentration and the sugar:starch ratio in wet season. Repeated variance analysis showed that starch and NSC concentrations were strongly affected by season although the effect of seasons, species, and the interaction of the two on the starch, soluble sugar, and NSC concentrations were significant.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29348653 PMCID: PMC5773538 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19271-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1The concentration of starch, soluble sugar, and non-structural carbohydrates for the leaves, twigs, trunks and roots across all seasons.
Changes of starch, soluble sugar, non-structural carbohydrates, and the ratio of soluble sugar to starch in different seasons. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences after Bonferroni’s post-hoc test (p < 0.05).
| Indicators | Seasons | Mean ± SE(%) |
|---|---|---|
| Starch | Dry season | 13.76 ± 0.33a |
| Wet season | 3.52 ± 0.07b | |
| Soluble sugar | Dry season | 3.28 ± 0.07a |
| Wet season | 4.16 ± 0.05b | |
| NSC | Dry season | 17.05 ± 0.33a |
| Wet season | 7.69 ± 0.09b | |
| The ratio of soluble sugar to starch | Dry season | 0.42 ± 0.03a |
| Wet season | 1.51 ± 0.03b |
Figure 2The concentration of starch, soluble sugar, and non-structural carbohydrates and the ratio of soluble sugar to starch for the leaves, twigs, trunks and roots in dry season and wet season, open bars represent the dry season, and the closed bars are the wet season, ** and *** indicate significant difference at the 0.01 level and the 0.001 level, respectively.
The concentrations of starch, soluble sugar, and non-structural carbohydrates and the ratio of soluble sugar to starch for twenty species sampled in this study. 1-Glochidion lanceolarium, 2-Castanopsis calathiformis, 3-Anneslea fragrans, 4-Castanopsis hystrix, 5-Lithocarpus grandifolius, 6-Lasianthus chinensis, 7-Machilus robusta, 8-Gordonia axillaris, 9-Castanopsis echidnocarpa, 10-Olea rosea, 11-Schima wallichii, 12-Litsea rubescens, 13-Pithecellobium clypearia, 14-Lithocarpus fenestratus, 15-Lithocarpus truncatus, 16-Tarennoidea wallichii, 17-Aporusa villosa, 18-Rapanea neriifolia, 19-Phoebe puwenensis, 20-Litsea panamonja. Different letter indicates significant difference at p = 0.05 level.
| Species serial number | Starch(%) | Soluble sugar(%) | NSC(%) | The ratio of soluble sugar to starch |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 7.35 ± 1.09abc | 2.86 ± 0.24a | 10.21 ± 1.07ab | 0.71 ± 0.16abc |
| 2 | 8.38 ± 0.90abc | 3.42 ± 0.15ac | 11.80 ± 0.89ab | 0.79 ± 0.07abc |
| 3 | 8.63 ± 0.62bc | 4.61 ± 0.18be | 13.24 ± 0.65ac | 1.04 ± 0.07a |
| 4 | 8.35 ± 0.65 abc | 3.46 ± 0.12ac | 11.81 ± 0.59ab | 0.82 ± 0.06abc |
| 5 | 8.39 ± 1.74abc | 3.12 ± 0.27ad | 11.51 ± 1.60ab | 1.14 ± 0.24abc |
| 6 | 9.24 ± 1.16abc | 2.94 ± 0.25a | 12.18 ± 1.17ab | 0.76 ± 0.14abc |
| 7 | 9.60 ± 0.87bc | 3.43 ± 0.16ac | 13.04 ± 0.80ac | 1.15 ± 0.11a |
| 8 | 7.79 ± 0.74abc | 4.18 ± 0.41ab | 11.98 ± 0.85ab | 0.69 ± 0.11abc |
| 9 | 11.55 ± 0.85c | 3.31 ± 0.14ac | 14.86 ± 00.81a | 0.62 ± 0.07bc |
| 10 | 11.20 ± 1.20bc | 4.14 ± 0.19bcde | 15.34 ± 1.24a | 0.92 ± 0.08abd |
| 11 | 10.08 ± 1.24abc | 4.79 ± 0.16b | 14.86 ± 1.25ac | 1.04 ± 0.09ab |
| 12 | 6.99 ± 0.82ab | 4.25 ± 0.25bcde | 11.25 ± 0.76ab | 0.98 ± 0.09abd |
| 13 | 10.82 ± 2.22abc | 3.52 ± 0.29aef | 14.34 ± 2.22ab | 0.81 ± 0.18abc |
| 14 | 7.50 ± 0.73ab | 3.77 ± 0.14acf | 11.27 ± 0.70ab | 1.06 ± 0.08a |
| 15 | 7.49 ± 0.79abc | 3.45 ± 0.14ac | 10.93 ± 0.75ab | 1.49 ± 0.20a |
| 16 | 11.59 ± 1.56abc | 4.84 ± 0.27bf | 16.43 ± 1.70ac | 0.54 ± 0.05c |
| 17 | 6.99 ± 0.81ab | 3.07 ± 0.16a | 10.05 ± 0.78bc | 0.84 ± 0.08abc |
| 18 | 9.76 ± 0.50c | 3.39 ± 0.13ac | 13.16 ± 0.45ac | 0.60 ± 0.05c |
| 19 | 5.08 ± 0.72a | 3.27 ± 0.32aef | 8.35 ± 0.73b | 1.21 ± 0.21abc |
| 20 | 9.59 ± 1.98abc | 3.40 ± 0.28aef | 12.99 ± 1.89ab | 0.58 ± 0.07 cd |
| Mean | 8.90 ± 0.22 | 3.70 ± 0.04 | 12.60 ± 0.21 | 0.94 ± 0.03 |
|
| 3.709 | 7.398 | 5.125 | 4.653 |
|
| <0.000 | <0.000 | <0.000 | <0.000 |
Figure 3The concentration of starch, soluble sugar, and NSC and the ratio of soluble sugar to starch for twenty species in dry season and wet season, open bars represent the dry season, and the closed bars are the wet season, 1- Glochidion lanceolarium, 2-Castanopsis calathiformis, 3-Anneslea fragrans, 4-Castanopsis hystrix, 5-Lithocarpus grandifolius, 6-Lasianthus chinensis, 7-Machilus robusta, 8-Gordonia axillaris, 9-Castanopsis echidnocarpa, 10-Olea rosea, 11-Schima wallichii, 12-Litsea rubescens, 13-Pithecellobium clypearia, 14-Lithocarpus fenestratus, 15-Lithocarpus truncatus, 16-Tarennoidea wallichii, 17-Aporusa villosa, 18-Rapanea neriifolia, 19-Phoebe puwenensis, 20-Litsea panamonja. *, ** and *** indicate significant difference at the 0.05 level, 0.01 level and 0.001 level, respectively.
Summary about the effect of variation from species, season and both interactions on non-structural carbohydrates.
| Parameter | Source of variation | SS |
| MS |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Starch | Species | 2758.84 | 19 | 145.20 | 3.709 | 0.000 |
| Species -error | 27401.19 | 700 | 39.15 | |||
| Seasons | 19944.43 | 1 | 19944.43 | 452.687 | 0.000 | |
| Species × Season | 3729.41 | 19 | 196.29 | 4.455 | 0.000 | |
| Seasons -error | 30840.50 | 700 | 44.06 | |||
| Soluble sugar | Species | 381.97 | 19 | 20.10 | 7.398 | 0.000 |
| Species -error | 1902.27 | 700 | 2.72 | |||
| Seasons | 111.96 | 1 | 111.96 | 63.892 | 0.000 | |
| Species × Season | 442.66 | 19 | 23.30 | 13.295 | 0.000 | |
| Seasons -error | 1226.64 | 700 | 1.75 | |||
| NSC | Species | 3743.26 | 19 | 197.01 | 5.125 | 0.000 |
| Species -error | 26907.55 | 700 | 38.44 | |||
| Seasons | 17070.35 | 1 | 17070.35 | 396.833 | 0.000 | |
| Species × Season | 5182.12 | 19 | 272.74 | 6.340 | 0.000 | |
| Seasons -error | 30111.50 | 700 | 43.02 |
The information of species sampled in experiments.
| Species serial number | Species | Family | Genus |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| Euphorbiaceae |
|
| 2 |
| Fagaceae |
|
| 3 |
| Theaceae |
|
| 4 |
| Fagaceae |
|
| 5 |
| Fagaceae |
|
| 6 |
| Rubiaceae |
|
| 7 |
| Lauraceae |
|
| 8 |
| Theaceae |
|
| 9 |
| Fagaceae |
|
| 10 |
| Oleaceae |
|
| 11 |
| Theaceae |
|
| 12 |
| Lauraceae |
|
| 13 |
| Leguminosae |
|
| 14 |
| Fagaceae |
|
| 15 |
| Fagaceae |
|
| 16 |
| Rubiaceae |
|
| 17 |
| Euphorbiaceae |
|
| 18 |
| Myrsinaceae |
|
| 19 |
| Lauraceae |
|
| 20 |
| Lauraceae |
|