| Literature DB >> 31167436 |
Fabián Pérez-Labrada1, Elsy Rubisela López-Vargas2, Hortensia Ortega-Ortiz3, Gregorio Cadenas-Pliego4, Adalberto Benavides-Mendoza5, Antonio Juárez-Maldonado6.
Abstract
The tomato crop has great economic and nutritional importance; however, it can be adversely affected by salt stress. The objective of this research is to quantify the agronomic and biochemical responses of tomato plants developed under salt stress with the foliar application of copper nanoparticles. Four treatments were evaluated: foliar application of copper nanoparticles (250 mg L-1) with or without salt stress (50 mM NaCl), salt stress, and an absolute control. Saline stress caused severe damage to the development of tomato plants; however, the damage was mitigated by the foliar application of copper nanoparticles, which increased performance and improved the Na+/K+ ratio. The content of Cu increased in the tissues of tomato plants under salinity with the application of Cu nanoparticles, which increased the phenols (16%) in the leaves and the content of vitamin C (80%), glutathione (GSH) (81%), and phenols (7.8%) in the fruit compared with the control. Similarly, the enzyme activity of phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and catalase (CAT) increased in leaf tissue by 104%, 140%, 26%, 8%, and 93%, respectively. Foliar spraying of copper nanoparticles on tomatoes under salinity appears to induce stress tolerance to salinity by stimulating the plant's antioxidant mechanisms.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; enzymes; fruit quality; nanotechnology; oxidative stress; reactive oxygen species
Year: 2019 PMID: 31167436 PMCID: PMC6630798 DOI: 10.3390/plants8060151
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Agronomic variables of tomato plants under salinity stress with and without the foliar application of Cu nanoparticles (NPs).
| Treatment | Plant Height (cm) | Stem Diameter (mm) | Fresh Weight of Aerial Biomass (kg) | Dry Weight of Aerial Biomass (g) | Fruit Weight per Plant (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NaCl | 245.78 b ± 1.66 | 12.07 ab ± 0.15 | 1.248 b ± 0.045 | 171.38 b ± 6.73 | 3.604 b ± 0.197 |
| Cu NPs | 263.33 a ± 3.04 | 12.53 a ± 0.42 | 1.500 a ± 0.0 52 | 213.29 a ± 8.58 | 5.950 a ± 0.121 |
| Cu NPs + NaCl | 242.94 b ± 9.25 | 12.49 a ± 0.19 | 1.226 b ± 0.040 | 176.73 b ± 5.38 | 3.857 b ± 0.132 |
| Control | 262.39 a ± 2.82 | 11.59 b ± 0.15 | 1.425 a ± 0.045 | 208.94 a ± 6.73 | 6.158 a ± 0.197 |
Different letters in the columns indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05). All data are reported as the mean of 10 replicates ± standard error.
Figure 1Macronutrient content in leaves and fruits of tomato plants under saline stress and foliar application of Cu NPs. All data are the mean of six replicates ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05); ns—not significant.
Figure 2Micronutrient content in leaves and fruits of tomato plants under saline stress and foliar application of Cu NPs. All data are the mean of six replicates ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05); ns—not significant.
Chlorophyll content in leaves of tomato plants under saline stress and foliar application of Cu NPs.
| Treatment | Chlorophyll a | Chlorophyll b | Total Chlorophyll |
|---|---|---|---|
| NaCl | 46.90 a ± 1.94 | 24.13 a ± 1.41 | 71.03 a ± 2.97 |
| Cu NPs | 34.19 b ± 1.93 | 22.71 a ± 1.88 | 56.90 b ± 1.28 |
| Cu NPs + NaCl | 25.48 c ± 1.06 | 13.83 b ± 0.97 | 39.31 d ± 1.19 |
| Control | 46.90 a ± 1.94 | 24.13 a ± 1.41 | 71.03 a ± 2.97 |
Different letters in the columns indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05). All data are the mean of six replicates ± standard error.
Fruit quality of tomato plants under saline stress and foliar application of Cu NPs.
| Treatment | Firmness (kg cm−2) | pH | EC (mS cm−1) | TSS (°Brix) | TA (% ac) | ORP (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NaCl | 3.29 a ± 0.06 | 4.38 b ± 0.03 | 4.18 a ± 0.11 | 6.05 a ± 0.11 | 0.99 a ± 0.04 | 147.83 a ± 2.02 |
| Cu NPs | 3.46 a ± 0.11 | 4.48 a ± 0.02 | 3.66 ab ± 0.23 | 4.93 b ± 0.05 | 0.80 b ± 0.04 | 140.17 b ± 0.83 |
| Cu NPs + NaCl | 3.45 a ± 0.08 | 4.49 a ± 0.02 | 3.69 ab ± 0.23 | 6.07 a ± 0.14 | 0.87 ab ± 0.05 | 140.67 b ± 1.15 |
| Control | 2.85 b ± 0.15 | 4.37 b ± 0.02 | 3.33 b ± 0.23 | 5.15 b ± 0.14 | 0.94 a ± 0.05 | 140.00 b ± 1.15 |
Different letters in the columns indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05). EC—electrical conductivity; TSS—total soluble solids; TA—titratable acidity; ac—ascorbic acid; ORP—oxide reduction potential. All data are the mean of six replicates ± standard error.
Figure 3Proteins and antioxidant compounds in the leaves and fruits of tomato plants under saline stress and treated with foliar application of Cu NPs. All data are the mean of six replicates ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05); ns—not significant.
Figure 4Vitamin C and Lycopene in the fruits of tomato plants exposed saline stress and treated with foliar application of Cu NPs. All data are the mean of six replicates ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05); ns—not significant.
Enzymatic activity in the leaves and fruit of tomato plants with foliar application of Cu NPs and saline stress.
| Treatment | PAL (U g−1 TP) | APX (U g−1 TP) | GPX (U g−1 TP) | SOD (U mL−1) | CAT (U g−1 TP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| NaCl | 4.72 a ± 0.14 | 186.29 b ± 1.44 | 115.32 ab ± 5.23 | 32.00 bc ± 0.51 | 675.14 b ± 21.8 |
| Cu NPs | 4.17 b ± 0.21 | 309.30 a ± 7.40 | 102.60 bc ± 3.63 | 38.09 a ± 0.51 | 669.75 b ± 28.1 |
| Cu NPs + NaCl | 4.00 b ± 0.08 | 321.69a ± 6.11 | 123.99 a ± 4.21 | 33.56 b ± 0.81 | 972.89 a ± 50.2 |
| Control | 1.96 c ± 0.08 | 134.14 c ± 4.94 | 98.39 c ± 4.15 | 30.95 c ± 1.38 | 505.13 c ± 39.8 |
|
| |||||
| NaCl | 0.89 b ± 0.06 | 117.60 c ± 2.25 | 163.10 b ± 6.09 | 0.63 c ± 0.06 | 421.92 b ± 26.5 |
| Cu NPs | 1.81 a ± 0.07 | 137.97 b ± 3.83 | 157.33 b ± 6.07 | 4.62 b ± 0.56 | 691.18 a ± 20.9 |
| Cu NPs + NaCl | 1.76 a ± 0.09 | 181.68 a ± 11.42 | 194.92 a ± 12.74 | 3.55 bc ± 0.23 | 678.10 a ± 37.9 |
| Control | 0.87 b ± 0.05 | 140.03 b ± 4.47 | 215.48 a ± 8.98 | 65.65 a ± 2.13 | 268.80 c ± 21.1 |
Different letters in the columns indicate significant differences between treatments according to Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (p ≤ 0.05). PAL—phenylalanine ammonia lyase; APX—ascorbate peroxidase; GPX—glutathione peroxidase; SOD—superoxide dismutase; CAT—catalase. All data are the mean of six replicates ± standard error.
Figure 5Morphology of copper nanoparticles (Cu NPs) determined by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).