| Literature DB >> 31069813 |
Jishuang Zhang1,2, Danfeng Li1,2, Xi Xu1,2, Lewis H Ziska3, Jianguo Zhu1, Gang Liu1, Chunwu Zhu1.
Abstract
The metabolic basis for observed differences in the yield response of rice to projected carbon dioxide concentrations (CO2 ) is unclear. In this study, three rice cultivars, differing in their yield response to elevated CO2 , were grown under ambient and elevated CO2 conditions, using the free-air CO2 enrichment technology. Flag leaves of rice were used to determine (1) if manipulative increases in sink strength decreased the soluble sucrose concentration for the 'weak' responders and (2), whether the genetic expression of sucrose transporters OsSUT1 and OsSUT2 was associated with an accumulation of soluble sugars and the maintenance of photosynthetic capacity. For the cultivars that showed a weak response to additional CO2 , photosynthetic capacity declined under elevated CO2 and was associated with an accumulation of soluble sugars. For these cultivars, increasing sink relative to source strength did not increase photosynthesis and no change in OsSUT1 or OsSUT2 expression was observed. In contrast, the 'strong' response cultivar did not show an increase in soluble sugars or a decline in photosynthesis but demonstrated significant increases in OsSUT1 and OsSUT2 expression at elevated CO2 . Overall, these data suggest that the expression of the sucrose transport genes OsSUT1 and OsSUT2 may be associated with the maintenance of photosynthetic capacity of the flag leaf during grain fill; and, potentially, greater yield response of rice as atmospheric CO2 increases.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31069813 PMCID: PMC7003829 DOI: 10.1111/ppl.12973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Physiol Plant ISSN: 0031-9317 Impact factor: 4.500
Effects of FACE on three rice cultivars, WYJ23, NG9108 and YD6 over two growth seasons (2014 and 2015). % Change is relative difference at elevated to ambient CO2. Values are means of three replicates. Values and statistics are from Zhu et al. 2015. ns, not significant.
| Data from 2014 growing season and the data of YD6 combined from Zhu et al. ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variety | CO2 | Panicle number (m−2) | Spikelets per panicle | Filled pikelet ratio | Weight per grain | Yield (g m−2) |
| WYJ23 | % Change | 14.5 | −7.1 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 12.4 ns |
| YD6 | % Change | 11.2 | 6.8 | 5.9 | 2.3 | 29.6* |
| Data from 2015 growing season | ||||||
| Variety | CO2 | Panicle number (m−2) | Spikelets per panicle | Filled pikelet ratio | Weight per grain | Yield |
| WYJ23 | % Change | 13.0 | −6.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 11.0 ns |
| NG9108 | % Change | 12.3 | −5.4 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 9.1 ns |
| YD6 | % Change | 10.6 | 11.5 | 2.6 | 3.1 | 29.5* |
Effects of sink:source treatment on single‐panicle dry weight for WYJ23 and NG9108 under elevated CO2 in 2014 and 2015. ‘Enhanced’ indicates the increased sink:source ratio through leaf removal, and the unaltered sink:source ratio is represented by ‘Control’. Values are mean of three replicates. P > 0.1; †P ≤ 0.1; *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.
| Variety | Sink:source | Single‐panicle dry weight (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| WYJ23 (2014) | Control | 1.314† | |
| Enhanced | 1.176 | ||
| WYJ23 (2015) | Control | 2.231† | |
| Enhanced | 2.068 | ||
| NG9108 (2015) | Control | 2.733† | |
| Enhanced | 2.573 | ||
|
| WYJ23 (2014) | WYJ23 (2015) | NG9108 (2015) |
|
| 0.088 | 0.095 | 0.068 |
Figure 1Net photosynthesis rate (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1) of flag leaves for three rice cultivars, WYJ23, NG9108 and YD6 grown at ambient and elevated CO2 in each sink:source treatment. Measurements were made at the same CO2 condition (590 µmol mol−1). ‘Enhanced’ indicates the increased sink:source ratio through leaves removal and the unaltered sink:source ratio is represented by ‘Control’. Bars represent average values of three replicates with standard errors. Symbols indicate significant differences in sink:source treatment for each cultivar as a function of CO2 treatment. ns, not significant. P > 0.1; †P ≤ 0.1; *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.
Nitrogen content of flag leaves for the rice cultivars, WYJ23, NG9108 and YD6 in each treatment. Values are the average of three replicates of each treatment. ‘Enhanced’ indicates the increased sink:source ratio through leaves removal, and the unaltered sink:source ratio is represented by ‘Control’. Two‐way anova for CO2 and sink:source treatment is used in WYJ23 and NG9108 and one‐way anova for CO2 treatment is used in YD6. E/A, Elevated/Ambient; ‐, no data; ns, not significant. P > 0.1; †P ≤ 0.1; *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.
| Year | Variety | CO2 | Sink:source | N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | WYJ23 | Ambient | Control | 2.39 |
| Elevated | Control | 2.09 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | −12.7 | |||
| Ambient | Enhanced | 2.47 | ||
| Elevated | Enhanced | 2.28 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | −7.7 | |||
| YD6 | Ambient | Control | 2.56 | |
| Elevated | Control | 2.41 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | −5.9 | |||
| 2015 | WYJ23 | Ambient | Control | 2.24 |
| Elevated | Control | 1.96 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | −12.7 | |||
| Ambient | Enhanced | 2.18 | ||
| Elevated | Enhanced | 1.94 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | −11.0 | |||
| NG9108 | Ambient | Control | 2.19 | |
| Elevated | Control | 1.83 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | −16.6 | |||
| Ambient | Enhanced | 2.19 | ||
| Elevated | Enhanced | 1.86 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | Control | −15.1 | ||
| YD6 | Ambient | Control | 2.35 | |
| Elevated | Control | 2.14 | ||
| Changes (E/A) | −8.6 | |||
|
| N (%) | |||
| WYJ23 | NG9108 | YD6 | ||
| 2014 | CO2 | * | ‐ | ns |
| Sink:source | ns | ‐ | ‐ | |
| CO2 × sink:source | ns | ‐ | ‐ | |
| 2015 | CO2 | * | * | ns |
| Sink:source | ns | ns | ‐ | |
| CO2 × sink:source | ns | ns | ‐ | |
Figure 2Soluble sugars concentration in flag leaves for three rice cultivars, WYJ23, NG9108 and YD6 grown at ambient and elevated CO2 in combination with sink:source treatments. ‘Enhanced’ indicates the increased sink:source ratio through leaves removal, and the unaltered sink:source ratio is represented by ‘Control’. Bars represent average values of three replicates with standard errors. Symbols indicate the significant difference in a given sink:source treatment for each cultivar as a function of CO2 treatment. ns, not significant. P > 0.1; †P ≤ 0.1; *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.
Figure 3Change of OsSUT1 and OsSUT2 (OsSUTs) expression level of flag leaves under elevated CO2 for three rice cultivars in each sink:source treatment. ‘Enhanced’ indicates the increased sink:source ratio through leaves removal, and the unaltered sink:source ratio is represented by ‘Control’. Bars represent the average (E‐A)/A (relative change at elevated CO2 to those at ambient CO2) of three replicates for OsSUTs expression level with relative standard errors. Symbols indicate the significant difference for the gene expression as a function of CO2 treatment. ns, not significant. P > 0.1; †P ≤ 0.1; *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.
Figure 4Relationship between E/A (relative values at elevated CO2 to those at ambient CO2) ratio of OsSUTs expression level and E/A ratio of soluble sugars concentration in flag leaves. Values are the average of three replicates. Circles represent the values of OsSUT1 expression level, and boxes represent the values of OsSUT2 expression level. The open symbols indicate the values of control sink:source treatment, and the solid symbols indicate the values of enhanced sink:source treatment. R2 = 0.591, P‐value = 0.000452, **P ≤ 0.001.