| Literature DB >> 29931373 |
Frédéric Meuriot1, Annette Morvan-Bertrand1, Nathalie Noiraud-Romy1, Marie-Laure Decau1, Abraham J Escobar-Gutiérrez2, François Gastal3, Marie-Pascale Prud'homme1.
Abstract
In grassland plant communities, the ability of individual plants to regrow after defoliation is of crucial importance since it allows the restoration of active photosynthesis and plant growth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of increasing defoliation intensity (0, 25, 65, 84, and 100% of removed leaf area) on sugar remobilization and N uptake, remobilization, and allocation in roots, adult leaves, and growing leaves of ryegrass over 2 days, using a 15N tracer technique. Increasing defoliation intensity decreased plant N uptake in a correlative way and increased plant N remobilization, but independently. The relative contribution of N stored before defoliation to leaf growth increased when defoliation intensity was severe. In most conditions, root N reserves also contributed to leaf regrowth, but much less than adult leaves and irrespective of defoliation intensity. A threshold of defoliation intensity (65% leaf area removal) was identified below which C (glucose, fructose, sucrose, fructans), and N (amino acids, soluble proteins) storage compounds were not recruited for regrowth. By contrast, nitrate content increased in elongating leaf bases above this threshold. Wounding associated with defoliation is thus not the predominant signal that triggers storage remobilization and controls the priority of resource allocation to leaf meristems. A framework integrating the sequential events leading to the refoliation of grasses is proposed on the basis of current knowledge and on the findings of the present work.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29931373 PMCID: PMC6054246 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/ery211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 1.(A) Schematic representation of growing conditions and 15N labelling. (B) Schematic representation of plants reduced to a rooted tiller with three leaves and treatments applied at day 0: 0 (undefoliated plants), 25, 65, 84, and 100% (totally defoliated plants) leaf area removal. The different parts of leaves that were growing at the time of defoliation and continued to grow after defoliation, and adult leaves that were left after defoliation, are labelled.
Fig. 2.Effect of leaf area removal on N uptake, N remobilization, and N allocation between plant tissues over 2 d. In undefoliated plants, QN (mg N plant−1) represents N taken up (post-day 0 N) and N remobilized (pre-day 0 N) between day 0 and day 2. In defoliated plants (25–100%), QN (mg N plant−1) represents N taken up (post-defoliation N) and N remobilized (pre-defoliation N) between day 0 and day 2. QN0 corresponds to the N amount of each tissue (mg N plant−1) on day 0 and determines the size of the box relative to the box representing undefoliated plants. The direction of arrows indicates the main direction of N flows entering or leaving the tissue (in % of QN). The size of the arrows is quantitatively proportional to the N flow. Data are the means ±SE of four replicates. Different letters indicate significant differences between defoliation treatments (P<0.05; Tukey test).
Biomass of the whole plant and plant tissues (root, shoot, adult and growing leaves), leaf area, and number of tillers per plant for the different treatments (0, 25, 65, 84 and 100% of leaf area removed) on day 0 and day 2
| Leaf area removed (%) | Effect | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 25 | 65 | 84 | 100 | ||||
| Plant | Whole plant | Day 0 | 13.4b (1.84) | 12.1ab (0.81) | 9.07ab (1.71) | 8.54ab (1.92) | 7.23a (1.65) | * |
| Day 2 | 16.3b (4.14) | 16.4b (2.53) | 11.4ab (2.32) | 9.41ab (1.43) | 7.76a (0.74) | * | ||
| RGR | 0.111 | 0.179 | 0.129 | 0.051 | 0.036 | |||
| Plant | Root | Day 0 | 4.16 (0.88) | 3.98 (0.41) | 3.49 (0.75) | 3.41 (0.83) | 3.61 (0.86) | ns |
| Day 2 | 4.73 (0.87) | 4.97 (1.08) | 4.11 (0.97) | 3.93 (0.69) | 3.85 (0.66) | ns | ||
| Shoot | Day 0 | 9.21c (1.00) | 8.07bc (0.41) | 5.58ab (0.99) | 5.13ab (1.11) | 3.62a (0.87) | *** | |
| Day 2 | 11.6b (3.28) | 11.4b (1.66) | 7.30ab (1.49) | 5.49ab (0.76) | 3.91a (0.41) | * | ||
| Adult leaves | Sheaths | Day 0 | 2.65 (0.47) | 2.64 (0.15) | 2.53 (0.49) | 3.12 (0.74) | 2.63 (0.65) | ns |
| Day 2 | 3.40 (1.05) | 4.03 (0.64) | 3.05 (0.84) | 2.93 (0.44) | 2.28 (0.30) | ns | ||
| Blades | Day 0 | 4.37c (0.31) | 4.37c (0.25) | 2.03b (0.30) | 1.05a (0.21) | – | *** | |
| Day 2 | 5.69b (1.51) | 5.09b (0.73) | 2.12a (0.35) | 0.87a (0.09) | – | *** | ||
| Dead tissues | Day 0 | 0.47 (0.13) | 0.28 (0.07) | 0.29 (0.11) | 0.26 (0.03) | 0.23 (0.04) | ns | |
| Day 2 | 0.51 (0.17) | 0.46 (0.10) | 0.53 (0.14) | 0.30 (0.14) | 0.27 (0.06) | ns | ||
| Growing leaves | Base | Day 0 | 0.82 (0.10) | 0.78 (0.07) | 0.73 (0.14) | 0.70 (0.19) | 0.74 (0.21) | ns |
| Day 2 | 0.84 (0.26) | 0.89 (0.14) | 0.76 (0.11) | 0.62 (0.09) | 0.48 (0.06) | ns | ||
| Top | Day 0 | 0.89 (0.06) | – | – | – | – | – | |
| Day 2 | 1.17a (0.31) | 0.92ab (0.11) | 0.84a (0.09) | 0.77a (0.13) | 0.78a (0.09) | ns | ||
| Area | Day 0 | 18.1b (1.62) | 13.7b (1.94) | 6.21a (0.65) | 2.68a (0.41) | – | ** | |
| Day 2 | 20.8c (3.95) | 16.4c (2.21) | 8.68b (0.95) | 5.18ab (0.70) | 2.59a (0.25) | *** | ||
| Tillers | Day 0 | 93 (7) | 99 (7) | 92 (10) | 91 (12) | 89 (10) | ns | |
| Day 2 | 107 (7) | 111 (16) | 113 (13) | 96 (3) | 101 (18) | ns | ||
Values are means of four replicates with SE in parentheses. Treatment effect was tested by ANOVA: *P<0.05, ** P<0.01, ***P<0.001; ns, not significant. Significant differences between treatments are indicated by different letters (Tukey test). The relative growth rate (RGR) is calculated from the means of the whole plant DM at day 0 and day 2. DM, dry matter; –, no data available as the tissue does not exist.
Fig. 3.(A) Nitrate, (B) amino acid, and (C) soluble protein contents (mg N g−1 DW) in elongating leaf bases (closed symbols) and leaf sheaths (open symbols) of perennial ryegrass 2 d after the defoliation treatments. Values are the means of four replicates; error bars are SE when they extend beyond the symbol. Different letters indicate significant differences between defoliation treatments (P<0.05; Tukey test).
Fig. 4.(A) Glucose, (B) fructose, (C) sucrose, and (D) fructan contents (mg g−1 DW) in elongating leaf bases (closed symbols) and leaf sheaths (open symbols) of perennial ryegrass 2 d after the defoliation treatments. Values are means of four replicates; error bars are SE when they extend beyond the symbol. Different letters indicate significant differences between defoliation treatments (P<0.05; Tukey test).
Fig. 5.Integrative framework of the major events occurring after defoliation in grasses and leading to refoliation. Sucrose and nitrate signals are shown in bold.