| Literature DB >> 30591799 |
Eslam Abdel-Salam1, Abdulrahman Alatar1, Mohamed A El-Sheikh1.
Abstract
This study was conducted to examine the role of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi (AMF) in alleviating the adverse effects of drought stress on damask rose (Rosa damascena Mill.) plants. Four levels of drought stress (100, 75, 50, and 25% FC) were examined on mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal plants in pots filled with sterilized soil. Our results showed that increasing drought stress level decreased all growth parameters, nutrient contents, gas exchange parameters, and water relations indicators. Under different levels of drought stress, mycorrhizal colonization significantly increased all studied parameters. P n, g s, and E of the mycorrhizal plants was higher than those of non-mycorrhizal plants under different levels of drought stress. The increase in those rates was proportional the level of the mycorrhizal colonization in the roots of these plants. Majority of growth, nutrition, water status and photosynthetic parameters had a great dependency on the mycorrhizal colonization under all levels of drought stress. The results obtained in this study provide a clear evidence that AMF colonization can enhance growth, flower quality and adaptation of rose plants under different drought stress levels, particularly at high level of drought stress via improving their water relations and photosynthetic status. It could be concluded that colonization with AMF could help plants to tolerate the harmful effects caused by drought stress in arid and semi-arid regions.Entities:
Keywords: AMF; Drought stress; Gas exchange; Glomus; Pigments content; Rosa damascena Mill.
Year: 2017 PMID: 30591799 PMCID: PMC6303177 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.10.015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 1319-562X Impact factor: 4.219
Flower yield of mycorrhizal (+AMF) and non-mycorrhizal (−AMF) damask rose plants grown under different irrigation-stressed levels.
| Treatments | Flower fresh weight | Flower dry weight | Number of flowers (flowers plant−1) | Flower diameter (cm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigation (% FC) | AMF status | ||||
| 100 | −AMF | 253.49c | 113.38c | 8.33b | 8.83c |
| +AMF | 350.58a | 174.01a | 12.67a | 12.83a | |
| 75 | −AMF | 216.30de | 93.82d | 7.67bc | 7.17de |
| +AMF | 298.83b | 165.72a | 11.00a | 11.50b | |
| 50 | −AMF | 194.79e | 89.09d | 6.33c | 6.17e |
| +AMF | 229.90cd | 152.45b | 7.67bc | 8.17cd | |
| 25 | −AMF | 0.00g | 0.00f | 0.00e | 0.00f |
| +AMF | 146.62f | 75.89e | 3.33d | 6.37e | |
Values in each column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
FC: Field capacity.
Leaf net photosynthetic rate (Pn), transpiration rate (E) and stomatal conductance (gs) of mycorrhizal (+AMF) and non-mycorrhizal (−AMF) damask rose plants grown under different irrigation-stressed levels during vegetative growth and flowering stages.
| Treatments | Vegetative growth stage | Flowering stage | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigation (% FC) | AMF status | ||||||
| 100 | −AMF | 2.58cd | 0.51d | 0.02d | 3.39b | 0.64b | 0.03bcd |
| +AMF | 3.58b | 0.46d | 0.02d | 3.13b | 1.26a | 0.01d | |
| 75 | −AMF | 2.99bc | 1.19cd | 0.05cd | 3.35b | 1.25a | 0.05abc |
| +AMF | 5.73a | 3.83a | 0.22a | 6.00a | 1.58a | 0.02cd | |
| 50 | −AMF | 2.67c | 0.86cd | 0.03cd | 2.16b | 0.73b | 0.02cd |
| +AMF | 2.70c | 2.78b | 0.15b | 2.96b | 1.38a | 0.07ab | |
| 25 | −AMF | 1.91de | 1.18cd | 0.07cd | 2.00b | 1.45a | 0.06abc |
| +AMF | 1.29e | 1.37c | 0.1bc | 1.80b | 1.56a | 0.08a | |
Values in each column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
FC: Field capacity.
Water status of mycorrhizal (+AMF) and non-mycorrhizal (−AMF) damask rose plants grown under different irrigation-stressed conditions.
| Treatments | Water content (%) | Relative water content (%) | Water saturation deficit (%) | Water potential (MPa) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigation (% FC) | AMF status | ||||
| 100 | −AMF | 73.67a | 82.68a | 17.32d | −2.01a |
| +AMF | 78.19a | 86.83a | 13.17d | −2.34a | |
| 75 | −AMF | 68.16b | 72.22b | 27.78c | −1.79c |
| +AMF | 74.06a | 75.97b | 24.03c | −2.25a | |
| 50 | −AMF | 54.57d | 64.40c | 35.60b | −1.38e |
| +AMF | 63.22c | 74.65b | 25.35c | −1.70cd | |
| 25 | −AMF | 46.18e | 55.85d | 44.15a | −1.45e |
| +AMF | 55.67d | 63.23c | 36.77b | −1.54de | |
Values in each column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
FC: Field capacity.
Fig. 1The beneficial roles of inoculation with AMF on electrolyte leakage of damask rose plants grown under different levels of drought stress.
Fig. 2The function of inoculation with AMF on proline content of damask rose plants grown under different levels of drought stresses.
Concentrations (%) of N, P, K, Ca, and Mg and proline content in leaves of mycorrhizal (+AMF) and non-mycorrhizal (−AMF) damask rose plants grown under different irrigation-stressed conditions.
| Treatments | Macronutrients (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigation | AMF status | N | P | K | Ca | Mg |
| 100 | −AMF | 2.19de | 0.111cd | 1.61bc | 1.28f | 0.213bc |
| +AMF | 2.83ab | 0.151a | 1.90a | 1.52d | 0.273a | |
| 75 | −AMF | 2.43c | 0.107de | 1.70ab | 1.62c | 0.223bc |
| +AMF | 2.99a | 0.140ab | 1.96a | 1.92a | 0.233b | |
| 50 | −AMF | 2.40cd | 0.093ef | 1.40cd | 1.43e | 0.207c |
| +AMF | 2.85ab | 0.126bc | 1.72ab | 1.81b | 0.217bc | |
| 25 | −AMF | 2.14e | 0.077f | 1.29d | 1.28f | 0.183d |
| +AMF | 2.75b | 0.107de | 1.62bc | 1.58cd | 0.202cd | |
Values in each column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
FC: Field capacity.
Pigments content of mycorrhizal (+AMF) and non-mycorrhizal (−AMF) damask rose plants grown under different irrigation-stressed conditions.
| Treatments | Chl a | Chl b | Total chlorophyll | Carotenoids | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigation (% FC) | AMF status | ||||
| 100 | −AMF | 944.33b | 715.33b | 1659.66c | 203.33c |
| +AMF | 1043.33a | 803.67a | 1847.00a | 313.00a | |
| 75 | −AMF | 827.33c | 723.33b | 1550.66d | 207.67c |
| +AMF | 953.33b | 800.67a | 1754.00b | 273.33b | |
| 50 | −AMF | 840.33c | 608.33d | 1448.66e | 180.67d |
| +AMF | 957.00b | 660.67c | 1617.66c | 206.00c | |
| 25 | −AMF | 626.00e | 410.33f | 1036.33g | 134.67e |
| +AMF | 727.00d | 524.33e | 1251.33f | 195.67cd | |
Values in each column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
FC: Field capacity.
Frequency of mycorrhizal colonization (F), intensity of mycorrhizal colonization (M) and arbuscular frequency (A) of mycorrhizal (+AMF) and non-mycorrhizal (−AMF) damask rose plants grown under different irrigation-stressed conditions.
| Treatments | Mycorrhizal colonization levels (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Irrigation (% FC) | AMF status | F | M | A |
| 100 | −AMF | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| +AMF | 83.67a | 83.58a | 12.62a | |
| 75 | −AMF | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| +AMF | 73.66b | 43.31b | 11.66ab | |
| 50 | −AMF | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| +AMF | 63.33c | 35.26c | 10.90b | |
| 25 | −AMF | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| +AMF | 54.17d | 33.10d | 10.32b | |
Values in each column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
FC: Field capacity.
Mycorrhizal dependency (MD)* of several parameters of damask rose plants grown under different irrigation-stressed conditions.
| Parameters | 100% FC | 25% FC |
|---|---|---|
| No. of leaves | 35.50b | 75.35a |
| Water potential | 6.58b | 16.24a |
| Total pigments | 11.34b | 20.75a |
| N | 15.22b | 28.32a |
| P | 16.01b | 38.69a |
| K | 17.81b | 25.98a |
Values in each row followed by the same letters are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.
FC: Field capacity.
MD = [(M − NM)/NM] × 100, where M is parameter value of mycorrhizal plants and NM is parameter value of non-mycorrhizal plants.
Fig. 3Correlation analysis between intensity of mycorrhizal colonization. (M%) and shoot dry weight (SDW), fruit dry weight (FDW), proline content and water potential.