| Literature DB >> 31481856 |
Zoia Arshad Awan1, Amna Shoaib1, Kashif Ali Khan1.
Abstract
The present study was undertaken to evaluate the integrated effect of zinc (Zn) with other nutrients in managing early blight (EB) disease in tomato. A pot experiment was carried out with basal application of the recommended level of macronutrients [nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK)] and micronutrients [magnesium (Mg) and boron (B)] in bilateral combination with Zn (2.5 and 5.0 mg/kg) in a completely randomized deigned in replicates. Results revealed that interactive effect of Zn with Mg or B was often futile and in some cases synergistic. Zn with NPK yield synergistic outcome, therefore EB disease was managed significantly (disease incidence: 25% and percent severity index: 13%), which resulted in an efficient signaling network that reciprocally controls nutrient acquisition and uses with improved growth and development in a tomato plant. Thus, crosstalk and convergence of mechanisms in metabolic pathways resulted in induction of resistance in tomato plant against a pathogen which significantly improved photosynthetic pigment, total phenolics, total protein content and defense-related enzymes [superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POX), polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL)]. The tremendous increase in total phenolics and PAL activity suggesting their additive effect on salicylic acid which may help the plant to systemically induce resistance against pathogen attack. It was concluded that interactive effect of Zn (5.0 mg/kg) with NPK significantly managed EB disease and showed positive effect on growth, physiological and biochemical attributes therefor use of Zn + NPK is simple and credible efforts to combat Alternaria stress in tomato plants.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; macro-nutrient; micro-nutrient; phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL); total phenolics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31481856 PMCID: PMC6706011 DOI: 10.5423/PPJ.OA.01.2019.0002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Pathol J ISSN: 1598-2254 Impact factor: 1.795
Treatments designed for the experiment
| Without Zn (0.0 mg/kg) | With Zn (2.5 mg/kg) | With Zn (5.0 mg/kg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | −ve control | T6 | −ve control | T11 | −ve control |
| T2 | +ve control | T7 | +ve control | T12 | +ve control |
| T3 | NPK + AS | T8 | NPK + AS | T13 | NPK + AS |
| T4 | Mg + AS | T9 | Mg + AS | T14 | Mg + AS |
| T5 | B + AS | T10 | B + AS | T15 | B + AS |
AS: Alternaria solani
Disease rating scale for the assessment of early blight of tomato
| Scale | Description |
|---|---|
| 0 | Leaves free from infection |
| 1 | < 5% of leaf area affected by small irregular spots |
| 2 | 5.1–10% of foliage covered with small irregular brown spots with concentric rings |
| 3 | 10.1–25% of leaf area covered with many coalesced spots, that enlarged into irregular brown spots with concentric rings |
| 4 | 25.1–50% area of the leaf covered with coalesced lesions to form an irregular and appears as a typical blight symptom |
| 5 | Lesions coalesce to form an irregular and appear as a typical blight symptom covering > 50% of leaf area |
Bilateral effect of Zn (2.5 and 5.0 mg/kg) with plant nutrients on disease incidence (DI) and percent severity index (PSI) in tomato plants inoculated with Alternaria solani (AS) at the 45th day after transplantation
| Parameters | Zinc dose (mg/kg) | −ve Control | + ve Control | NPK+AS | Mg+AS | B+AS | Mean (F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DI % | 0 | 0 g | 100 a | 67 bc | 83 ab | 75 bc | 65 A |
| 2.5 | 0 g | 42 de | 33 ef | 75 bc | 67 bc | 43 B | |
| 5.0 | 0 g | 25 ef | 17 fg | 67 bc | 58 c | 33 C | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 0 D | 56 B | 39 C | 75 A | 67 A | ||
|
| |||||||
| PSI % | 0 | 0 g | 70 a | 25 b–d | 35 b | 30 bc | 32 A |
| 2.5 | 0 g | 20 c–e | 15 d–f | 30 bc | 25 b–d | 18 B | |
| 5.0 | 0 g | 10 f–g | 5 fg | 30 bc | 20 c–e | 13 B | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 0 D | 33 A | 15 C | 32 AB | 25 A | ||
Values with same lower case (rows) and upper case (rows and column) show the insignificant difference (P ≤ 0.05) as determined by LSD Test.
Fig. 1Effect of zinc [Zn (2.5 and 5.0 mg/kg)] with other plant nutrients on shoot attributes of tomato plants under the stress of Alternaria solani (AS) after 30 days of pathogen inoculation. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean of three replicates. Values with different letters show a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) as determined by LSD-test.
Fig. 2Effect of zinc [Zn (2.5 & 5.0 mg/kg)] in combination with plant nutrients on root attributes of tomato plants under the stress of Alternaria solani (AS) after 30 days of pathogen inoculation. Error bars indicate standard errors of the mean of three replicates. Values with different letters show a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) as determined by LSD-test.
Bilateral effect of zinc (Zn) levels with plant nutrients on physiological attributes in tomato plants inoculated with Alternaria solani (AS) after 15-D of transplantation
| Parameters | Zinc dose (mg/kg) | −ve Control | + ve Control AS | NPK+AS | Mg+AS | B+AS | Mean (F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total chlorophyll content (mg/g FW) | 0 | 2.55 d–g | 1.72 g | 2.21 e–g | 2.67 c–g | 1.99 fg | 2.23 B |
| 2.5 | 3.12 b–e | 2.54 d–g | 3.76 ab | 3.46 a–d | 2.77 c–f | 3.13 A | |
| 5.0 | 3.37a–d | 2.76 c–f | 4.12 a | 3.59 a–c | 3.38 a–d | 3.44 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 3.01AB | 2.34 C | 3.36 A | 3.24 AB | 2.71 BC | ||
|
| |||||||
| Carotenoids (mg/g FW) | 0 | 5.34 de | 4.22 f | 4.82 ef | 4.78 ef | 4.30 f | 4.69 C |
| 2.5 | 5.69 c–e | 5.27 de | 6.53 bc | 6.12 b–d | 4.80 ef | 5.68 B | |
| 5.0 | 6.67 b | 5.35 de | 7.76 a | 6.98 ab | 5.69 ce | 6.49 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 5.90A | 4.95 B | 6.37 A | 5.96 A | 4.93 B | ||
|
| |||||||
| Total phenolic content (mg/g FW) | 0 | 7.89 i | 10.22 e–h | 11.02 d–f | 9.88 f–h | 10.3 e–h | 9.9 C |
| 2.5 | 8.89 hi | 11.24 c–f | 12.00 b–e | 10.79 d–g | 11.45 b–f | 10.9 B | |
| 5.0 | 8.97 g–i | 13.21 ab | 14.02 a | 12.23 a–d | 12.98 a–c | 12.3 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 8.58 C | 11.56 AB | 12.35 A | 10.97 B | 11.58 AB | ||
|
| |||||||
| Total protein content (mg/g FW) | 0 | 0.27 i | 0.46 gh | 0.55 fg | 0.47 gh | 0.52 f–h | 0.45 C |
| 2.5 | 0.43 h | 0.83 bc | 0.91 ab | 0.62 ef | 0.66 e | 0.69 B | |
| 5.0 | 0.43 h | 0.86 bc | 0.99 a | 0.70 de | 0.79 cd | 0.75 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 0.38 D | 0.72 B | 0.81 A | 0.60 C | 0.66 BC | ||
Values with same lower case (rows) and upper case (rows and column) show the insignificant difference (P ≤ 0.05) as determined by LSD Test.
Bilateral effect of zinc (Zn) levels with plant nutrients on defense-related enzymes in tomato plants inoculated with Alternaria solani (AS) after 15-D of transplantation
| Parameters | Zinc dose (mg/kg) | −ve Control | + ve Control AS | NPK+AS | Mg+AS | B+AS | Mean (F) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Superoxide dismutase activity (Units min/mg of protein) | 0 | 0.32 i | 0.48 gh | 0.61 de | 0.49 f–h | 0.6 de | 0.50 C |
| 2.5 | 0.42 hi | 0.57 e–g | 0.77 bc | 0.59 d–e | 0.68 cd | 0.61 B | |
| 5.0 | 0.48 gh | 0.73 bc | 0.91 a | 0.69 b–d | 0.79 b | 0.72 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 0.41 D | 0.59 C | 0.76 A | 0.59 C | 0.69 B | ||
|
| |||||||
| Catalase activity (Units min/mg of protein) | 0 | 8.25 h | 10.79 fg | 12.61 d–g | 10.58 g | 11.19 e–g | 10.69 C |
| 2.5 | 10.74 fg | 14.47 b–d | 15.14 bc | 11.27 e–g | 12.97 c–f | 12.29 B | |
| 5.0 | 12.56 d–g | 15.86 b | 18.30 a | 13.27 c–e | 14.72 b–d | 14.94 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 10.52 D | 13.71 B | 15.35 A | 11.71 CD | 12.96 BC | ||
|
| |||||||
| Peroxidase activity (Units min/mg of protein) | 0 | 62 g | 83 ef | 92 de | 70 fg | 74 fg | 76 C |
| 2.5 | 80 ef | 110 c | 130 b | 97 c–e | 107 cd | 105 B | |
| 5.0 | 85 ef | 135 b | 157 a | 111 c | 131 b | 124 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 76 D | 109 B | 126 A | 93 C | 104 B | ||
|
| |||||||
| Polyphenol oxidase activity (Units min/mg of protein) | 0 | 0.53 gh | 0.68 e–g | 0.71 ef | 0.52 h | 0.55 gh | 0.60 C |
| 2.5 | 0.60 f–h | 0.82 de | 1.10 bc | 0.97 cd | 1.03 bc | 0.90 B | |
| 5.0 | 0.78 e | 1.10 bc | 1.26 a | 1.03 bc | 1.15 ab | 1.06 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 0.64 C | 0.87 B | 1.02 A | 0.84 B | 0.91 B | ||
|
| |||||||
| Phenylalanine ammonia–lyase (Units min/mg of protein) | 0 | 2.11 d–f | 1.32 h | 1.99 e–g | 1.69 gh | 1.87 fg | 1.80 C |
| 2.5 | 2.32 b–e | 1.89 fg | 2.59 b | 2.21 c–f | 2.21 c–f | 2.24 B | |
| 5.0 | 2.52 bc | 2.11 d–f | 2.98 a | 2.37 b–d | 2.56 bc | 2.51 A | |
|
| |||||||
| Mean (F) | 2.32 AB | 1.77 D | 2.52 A | 2.09 C | 2.21 BC | ||
Values with same lower case (rows) and upper case (rows and column) show the insignificant difference (P ≤ 0.05) as determined by LSD Test.
Fig. 3A schematic depiction of the interface and overlapping signaling pathways at the cellular level in tomato plants due to the basal application of Zn + NPK under Alternaria solani stress. To fight off pathogens, defense response triggers a battery of reactions including enhanced ROS production through downstream signaling by RBOHs localized at the plasma membrane, cytosolic MAPKs and others. ROS accumulation (H2O2) will diffuse into the cytosol and activate several plant defense responses including SA signaling and other phytohormones such as GA, JA & ET have a significant role during biotic stress tolerance in a tomato plant. However, ROS-scavenging systems (anti-oxidants) help to finally tune the ROS level. ROS, reactive oxygen species; SA, salicylic acid, GA, Gibberellic acid; JA, Jasmonic acid; ET, Ethylene; MAPKs, mitogen-activated protein kinase.