| Literature DB >> 30899180 |
Abeer Hashem1,2, Ashwani Kumar3, Abeer M Al-Dbass4, Abdulaziz A Alqarawi5, Al-Bandari Fahad Al-Arjani1, Garima Singh6, Muhammad Farooq7,8,9, Elsayed Fathi Abd Allah5.
Abstract
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculationpan> and biochar amendment has been reported to improve growth of several crop plants however their role in stress amelioration individually as well as in combination has not been worked out. This experiment was conducted to evaluate the application of AMF and biochar on the performance of chickpea under drought stress. The treatments included the individual as well as combined treatment of AMF and biochar to drought stressed and normal chickpea plants. Plants inoculation improved growth in terms of shoot and root length, leaf area and number of branches which was observed to show a steep decline due to drought stress. Drought declined the AMF colonization potential though biochar amendment ameliorated the negative effects of drought significantly by improving the spore population, number of mycelium, vesicle and arbuscules and the percentage of colonization as well. Increased chlorophyll synthesis in biochar and AMF treated plants was obvious, which lead to significant enhancement in the net photosynthetic efficiency. Drought stress also declined the relative water content (RWC) and membrane stability index (MSI), while treatment of biochar and AMF either individually or in combination mitigated the deleterious effects to considerable extent and caused a significant enhancement in RWC and MSI under normal conditions. Amendments with biochar and AMF inoculation increased the nitrogen fixation attributes including the number and weight of nodules, leghemoglobin content and activity of nitrate reductase enzyme leading to greater uptake and assimilation of nitrogen in them when compared to drought stressed plants. Drought stressed chickpea plants exhibited considerable reduction in uptake of nitrogen and phosphorous which was ameliorated by biochar and AMF treatments. It could be suggested that increase in growth and physiological attributes in chickpea due to biochar amendments and AMF inoculation under drought stress were plausibly due to their involvement in nitrogen and phosphorous uptake, chlorophyll synthesis and photosynthesis.Entities:
Keywords: Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; Biochar; Cicer arietinum; Drought; Membrane stability index; Nitrogen fixation; Photosynthesis
Year: 2018 PMID: 30899180 PMCID: PMC6408710 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2018.11.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 1319-562X Impact factor: 4.219
Influence of biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on morphological characteristics of chickpea under drought stress.
| Treatments | Shoot length (cm) | Root length (cm) | Leaf area (cm2) | Number of primary branches/plant | Number of secondary branches/plant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 34.9d | 27.2d | 5.01d | 1.32d | 3.40d |
| AMF | 44.8b | 38.0b | 8.19ab | 1.61b | 6.11b |
| Biochar | 37.7c | 33.6c | 7.75c | 1.47c | 5.10c |
| Biochar + AMF | 47.1a | 42.2a | 8.94a | 1.82a | 7.08a |
| Drought | 22.0g | 15.7h | 2.59g | 1.04g | 2.22f |
| Drought + AMF | 29.7e | 23.3f | 4.07e | 1.17f | 3.07e |
| Drought + Biochar | 27.0f | 20.9g | 3.63f | 1.12f | 2.78f |
| Drought + Biochar + AMF | 30.9e | 25.9e | 3.88f | 1.20e | 3.08e |
| LSD (p 0.05) | 0.8001 | 1.2495 | 0.1666 | 0.0295 | 0.1229 |
AMF = An arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter, do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.
Influence of biochar and drought on total colonization and Intensity of mycorrhizal colonization in chickpea under drought stress.
| Treatments | Total colonization (%) | Intensity of mycorrhizal colonization (%) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Spores | Mycelium | Vesicles | Arbuscules | Mycelium | Vesicles | Arbuscules | |||||||
| P | M | A | P | M | A | P | M | A | |||||
| Control | 873.0b | 76.63b | 38.54b | 36.81b | 8.2 | 36.0 | 55.7 | 67.9 | 25.0 | 7.04 | 14.0 | 19.1 | 66.7 |
| Drought | 353.6d | 10.03d | 18.80d | 21.69d | 76.9 | 15.1 | 7.89 | 19.7 | 33.7 | 46.5 | 59.4 | 18.5 | 21.9 |
| Biochar | 922.3a | 86.88a | 66.23a | 52.38a | 2.8 | 24.1 | 72.9 | 47.8 | 27.1 | 25.0 | 3.88 | 10.6 | 85.4 |
| Drought + Biochar | 558.6c | 49.37c | 26.35c | 30.36c | 20.9 | 60.5 | 18.5 | 34.6 | 29.8 | 35.5 | 37.8 | 16.0 | 46.1 |
| LSD (p 0.05) | 21.437 | 5.6926 | 5.319 | 4.8778 | 3.072 | 6.114 | 8.342 | 12.436 | 1.923 | 5.912 | 8.217 | 0.725 | 12.718 |
P: Poor, M: Moderate, A: Abundant. Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter, do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.
Pearson correlation coefficients of mycelium; vesicules; arbuscules; shoot length; number of primary branches; number of secondary branches; leaf area; root depth and total spores number.
| V | A | ShL | NPB | NSB | LA | RD | TS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | 0.83140 | 0.84962 | 0.90243 | 0.87676 | 0.87698 | 0.85765 | 0.91284 | 0.97662 |
| V | 1.00000 | 0.96636 | 0.86573 | 0.93092 | 0.89390 | 0.86608 | 0.88740 | 0.85666 |
| A | 1.00000 | 0.84461 | 0.91280 | 0.86749 | 0.84503 | 0.88150 | 0.86917 | |
| ShL | 1.00000 | 0.97797 | 0.98853 | 0.99172 | 0.97564 | 0.96021 | ||
| NPB | 1.00000 | 0.98811 | 0.98081 | 0.96911 | 0.93517 | |||
| NSB | 1.00000 | 0.99202 | 0.97858 | 0.94096 | ||||
| LA | 1.00000 | 0.96369 | 0.93521 | |||||
| RD | 1.00000 | 0.95076 | ||||||
| TS | 1.00000 |
M: Mycelium; V: Vesicules; A: Arbuscules; ShL: shoot length (cm); NPB: Number of primary branches; NSB: Number of secondary branches; LA: Leaf area (cm2); RD: Root depth (cm); TS: Total spores (Spores/100 g soil).
Fig. 1Influence of biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on (a) number of nodules, (b) nodule fresh weight, (c) leghemoglobin content and (d) nitrate reductase activity in chickpea under drought stress. D: Drought, B: Biochar, AMF: Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi. Data presented is mean of three replicates and mean values designated by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Pearson correlation coefficients of mycelium; vesicules; arbuscules; nodule number; nodule fresh weight; leghemoglobin and nitrate reductase.
| M | V | A | Noduleno | Nodulefwt | LG | Nitratered | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | 1.00000 | 0.83140 | 0.84962 | 0.90516 | 0.89288 | 0.91758 | 0.90155 |
| V | 1.00000 | 0.96636 | 0.93116 | 0.95194 | 0.90063 | 0.92573 | |
| A | 1.00000 | 0.92623 | 0.94589 | 0.89176 | 0.90180 | ||
| Noduleno | 1.00000 | 0.99609 | 0.99451 | 0.99264 | |||
| Nodulefwt | 1.00000 | 0.98340 | 0.98448 | ||||
| LG | 1.00000 | 0.99302 | |||||
| Nitratered | 1.00000 |
M: Mycelium; V: Vesicules; A: Arbuscules; Noduleno: Nodule number; Nodulefwt: Nodule fresh weight; LG: Leghemoglobin; Nitratered: Nitrate reductase.
Fig. 2Possible mechanism of biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi-induced drought tolerance in C. arietinum by modulating dynamics tolerance expression.
Influence of biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, carotenoids and total chlorophylls (mg/g FW) of chickpea under drought stress.
| Treatments | Photosynthetic pigment (mg/g fresh weight) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chl a | Chl b | Carotenoid | Total Chls | |
| Control | 1.532e | 0.6073d | 0.3790g | 2.51e |
| AMF | 1.949b | 0.7506b | 0.4146e | 3.11b |
| Biochar | 1.829c | 0.6910c | 0.3850f | 2.90c |
| Biochar + AMF | 2.199a | 0.8630a | 0.3840f | 3.44a |
| Drought | 0.6953f | 0.3230g | 0.4953c | 1.51f |
| Drought + AMF | 1.742c | 0.5463f | 0.5096b | 2.79d |
| Drought + Biochar | 1.670d | 0.4443e | 0.4553d | 2.57e |
| Drought + Biochar + AMF | 1.819c | 0.6223d | 0.5530a | 2.99c |
| LSD at: 0.05% | 0.0273 | 0.0197 | 0.0152 | 0.0379 |
Chl a: Chlorophyll a; Chl b: Chlorophyll b; Total Chls: Total Chlorophylls; AMF = An arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter, do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.
Pearson correlation coefficients of mycelium; vesicules; arbuscules; chlorophyll a; chlorophyll b; carotenoid pigment and total photosynthetic pigments.
| M | V | A | Cha | Chb | Carot | Totapp | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | 1.00000 | 0.83140 | 0.84962 | 0.86294 | 0.92353 | −0.73493 | 0.89594 |
| V | 1.00000 | 0.96636 | 0.98463 | 0.94705 | −0.82365 | 0.97134 | |
| A | 1.00000 | 0.96324 | 0.94663 | −0.78238 | 0.96757 | ||
| Cha | 1.00000 | 0.95501 | −0.83245 | 0.98416 | |||
| Chb | 1.00000 | −0.85654 | 0.96738 | ||||
| Carot | 1.00000 | −0.76087 | |||||
| Totapp | 1.00000 |
M: Mycelium; V: Vesicules; A: Arbuscules; Cha: Chlorophyll a; Chb: Chlorophyll b; Carot: carotenoid pigment; Totapp: total photosynthetic pigments.
Influence of biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on stomatal pore aperture, stomatal density, photosynthetic rate, RWC and membrane stability index of chickpea under drought stress.
| Treatments | Stomatal pore aperture (μm2) | Stomatal density (Spore mm−2) | Photosynthetic rate (μmol m−2 S−1) | Relative water content (%) | Membrane stability index (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 101.2d | 92.5d | 23.0d | 85.9c | 86.2c |
| AMF | 142.6b | 152.5b | 29.13b | 87.1b | 92.3a |
| Biochar | 116.7c | 125.6c | 25.0c | 86.8b | 90.5b |
| Biochar + AMF | 167.2a | 170.0a | 32.9a | 93.4a | 93.8a |
| Drought | 50.0h | 61.1g | 11.4g | 58.8g | 53.5g |
| Drought + AMF | 87.9f | 84.8f | 16.7f | 77.4e | 77.3de |
| Drought + Biochar | 78.8g | 82.3f | 15.9f | 72.8f | 69.4f |
| Drought + Biochar + AMF | 90.7e | 88.1e | 18.8e | 81.8d | 79.7d |
| LSD at: 0.05% | 2.6311 | 0.8704 | 0.3932 | 0.8279 | 0.6193 |
AMF = An arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter, do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.
Influence of biochar and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on total nitrogen and total phosphorous contents in hoot and root of chickpea under drought stress.
| Treatments | Shoot | Root | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nitrogen (mg g−1 dwt) | Total phosphorus (mg g−1 dwt) | Total nitrogen (mg g−1 dwt) | Total phosphorus (mg g−1 dwt) | |
| Control | 3.09c | 0.4553d | 1.56d | 0.3773c |
| AMF | 3.55b | 0.5830b | 2.14b | 0.422b |
| Biochar | 3.18c | 0.5116c | 1.72c | 0.419b |
| Biochar + AMF | 4.01a | 0.6273a | 2.57a | 0.473a |
| Drought | 1.23g | 0.2513h | 0.776h | 0.1916g |
| Drought + AMF | 2.54e | 0.3540g | 1.176f | 0.236f |
| Drought + Biochar | 1.97f | 0.3730f | 0.993g | 0.269e |
| Drought + Biochar + AMF | 2.79d | 0.4003e | 1.28e | 0.302d |
| LSD at: 0.05% | 0.11 | 0.0226 | 0.0727 | 0.0121 |
AMF = An arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
Means sharing the same letter, for a parameter, do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.