| Literature DB >> 31583492 |
Zhaowen Mo1,2, Yanhong Li1,3, Jun Nie1,3, Longxin He1,2, Shenggang Pan1,2, Meiyang Duan1,2, Hua Tian1,2, Lizhong Xiao1,2, Keyou Zhong1,2, Xiangru Tang4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Water (W) and nitrogen (N) management generally cause regulations in the 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline (2AP) accumulation in fragrant rice; nevertheless, the feasibility of such management strategies at booting stage in improving 2AP accumulation has not been examined in details.Entities:
Keywords: 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline; Biochemical parameters; Fragrant rice; Nitrogen; Water; Yield
Year: 2019 PMID: 31583492 PMCID: PMC6776583 DOI: 10.1186/s12284-019-0328-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rice (N Y) ISSN: 1939-8425 Impact factor: 4.783
meteorological data of the experimental site
| Month | Mar. | Apr. | May. | Jun. | Jul. | Aug. | Sep. | Oct. | Nov. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | 19.6 | 20.9 | 25.6 | 28 | 27.9 | 27.9 | 27 | 23.6 | 19.5 |
| Humidity (%) | 80 | 86 | 86 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 79 | 66 | 71 |
| Rainfall (mm) | 177.1 | 268.4 | 302.7 | 229.1 | 273.3 | 396.6 | 203.7 | 5.9 | 40.3 |
| Sunshine hours (h) | 86.8 | 38.8 | 73.9 | 167.3 | 177.3 | 162.3 | 176.1 | 224.4 | 150.1 |
Properties of the experimental field soil
| Properties | Early season | Late season |
|---|---|---|
| Organic matter (g kg− 1) | 23.30 | 25.70 |
| Total N (g kg− 1) | 1.10 | 1.40 |
| Total P (g kg− 1) | 1.10 | 1.00 |
| Total K (g kg− 1) | 24.40 | 17.50 |
| Available N (mg kg− 1) | 114.30 | 85.50 |
| Available P (mg kg− 1) | 61.30 | 25.10 |
| Available K (g kg−1) | 127.00 | 153.20 |
Grain yield, head milled rice yield and 2AP content in brown rice of three fragrant rice varieties grown under different water and nitrogen treatments in early season of 2013
| Nitrogen | Variety | Water | Grain yield (t ha−1) | Head milled rice yield (t ha− 1) | 2AP content in brown rice (μg kg− 1 DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N1 | Nongxiang 18 | W1 | 5.83 | 2.99 | 15.49 |
| W2 | 6.64 | 3.45 | 17.12 | ||
| W3 | 6.04 | 3.21 | 13.34 | ||
| Yungengyou14 | W1 | 5.24 | 3.10 | 35.26 | |
| W2 | 5.48 | 2.65 | 36.54 | ||
| W3 | 5.28 | 2.68 | 26.58 | ||
| Basmati | W1 | 5.93 | 2.36 | 15.47 | |
| W2 | 8.44 | 3.47 | 17.12 | ||
| W3 | 7.08 | 3.13 | 12.64 | ||
| Mean | 6.22 b | 3.00 a | 21.06 b | ||
| N2 | Nongxiang 18 | W1 | 5.33 | 2.53 | 14.68 |
| W2 | 6.12 | 3.61 | 16.89 | ||
| W3 | 6.55 | 3.42 | 21.78 | ||
| Yungengyou14 | W1 | 5.74 | 2.25 | 36.65 | |
| W2 | 6.76 | 3.41 | 37.50 | ||
| W3 | 5.21 | 2.60 | 35.35 | ||
| Basmati | W1 | 6.13 | 2.21 | 16.13 | |
| W2 | 8.88 | 3.89 | 14.57 | ||
| W3 | 7.10 | 3.17 | 14.11 | ||
| Mean | 6.42 ab | 3.01 a | 23.07 a | ||
| N3 | Nongxiang 18 | W1 | 5.23 | 2.30 | 14.91 |
| W2 | 6.59 | 2.76 | 19.43 | ||
| W3 | 7.71 | 3.63 | 18.38 | ||
| Yungengyou14 | W1 | 5.06 | 2.21 | 26.69 | |
| W2 | 6.13 | 3.12 | 33.90 | ||
| W3 | 7.45 | 4.47 | 39.26 | ||
| Basmati | W1 | 5.95 | 1.95 | 16.56 | |
| W2 | 8.22 | 3.10 | 15.95 | ||
| W3 | 7.41 | 2.75 | 21.27 | ||
| Mean | 6.64 a | 2.92 a | 22.93 a | ||
| ANOVA | Variety (V) | b | ns | b | |
| Water (W) | b | b | ns | ||
| Nitrogen (N) | a | ns | ns | ||
| V × W | b | b | ns | ||
| V × N | ns | b | ns | ||
| W × N | b | b | b | ||
| V × W × N | ns | b | a |
Within a column means followed by different letters are significantly different according to the LSD (0.05). N1, 0 kg N ha−1; N2, 30 kg N ha−1; N3, 60 kg N ha−1, W1,Well-watered; W2, soil water potential was −15 ± 5 kPa; W3, soil water potential was −25 ± 5 kPa; ns, not significant at the 0.05 probability level; a and b, significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively
Grain yield, head milled rice yield and 2AP content in brown rice of three fragrant rice varieties grown under different water and nitrogen treatments in late season of 2013
| Nitrogen | Variety | Water | Grain yield (t ha− 1) | Head milled rice yield (t ha− 1) | 2AP content in brown rice (ug kg− 1 DW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N1 | Nongxiang 18 | W1 | 5.98 | 3.47 | 113.92 |
| W2 | 5.88 | 3.61 | 145.43 | ||
| W3 | 5.56 | 3.44 | 101.83 | ||
| Yungengyou14 | W1 | 5.54 | 3.35 | 101.76 | |
| W2 | 5.51 | 3.42 | 112.92 | ||
| W3 | 6.28 | 3.88 | 126.73 | ||
| Basmati | W1 | 5.91 | 3.66 | 115.21 | |
| W2 | 5.81 | 3.53 | 127.69 | ||
| W3 | 6.04 | 3.71 | 102.26 | ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
| N2 | Nongxiang 18 | W1 | 5.20 | 3.66 | 118.77 |
| W2 | 5.67 | 4.03 | 105.57 | ||
| W3 | 5.98 | 4.22 | 139.31 | ||
| Yungengyou14 | W1 | 5.83 | 4.14 | 155.92 | |
| W2 | 6.53 | 4.64 | 124.86 | ||
| W3 | 6.77 | 4.81 | 148.69 | ||
| Basmati | W1 | 5.45 | 3.80 | 113.07 | |
| W2 | 5.55 | 3.83 | 128.36 | ||
| W3 | 5.98 | 4.17 | 108.85 | ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
| N3 | Nongxiang 18 | W1 | 6.07 | 3.91 | 156.09 |
| W2 | 7.12 | 4.57 | 142.47 | ||
| W3 | 6.74 | 4.46 | 179.48 | ||
| Yungengyou14 | W1 | 6.07 | 3.86 | 148.13 | |
| W2 | 7.42 | 4.85 | 149.13 | ||
| W3 | 6.45 | 4.17 | 199.99 | ||
| Basmati | W1 | 5.48 | 3.42 | 128.51 | |
| W2 | 6.02 | 3.74 | 134.47 | ||
| W3 | 6.18 | 4.10 | 150.43 | ||
|
|
|
|
| ||
| ANOVA | Variety (V) | b | b | b | |
| Water (W) | b | b | b | ||
| Nitrogen (N) | a | b | b | ||
| V × W | b | b | b | ||
| V × N | b | b | b | ||
| W × N | ns | ns | b | ||
| V × W × N | ns | ns | b |
Within a column means followed by different letters are significantly different according to the LSD (0.05). N1, 0 kg N ha−1; N2, 30 kg N ha−1; N3, 60 kg N ha−1, W1,Well-watered; W2, soil water potential was −15 ± 5 kPa; W3, soil water potential was −25 ± 5 kPa; ns, not significant at the 0.05 probability level; aand b, significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively
Correlation analyses between 2AP content in brown rice and the investigated parameters
| Index | FH | 7 d AFH | 14 d AFH | 21 d AFH | MS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2AP | |||||
| grain | 0.2147 ns | 0.2812a | 0.5429b | 0.7498b | |
| leaf | 0.3890b | 0.6964b | 0.1884 ns | 0.1342 ns | 0.2631 ns |
| Stem-sheath | − 0.6084b | − 0.3214a | − 0.6450b | 0.6214b | 0.2021 ns |
| Proline | |||||
| Grain | 0.3932b | 0.1677 ns | −0.223 ns | − 0.2222 ns | |
| Leaf | 0.1045 | 0.5046b | −0.0224 | −0.6608b | − 0.4014b |
| Stem-sheath | 0.4646b | 0.5116b | 0.6379b | 0.4770b | −0.1290 ns |
| Root | 0.5538b | 0.2828a | 0.1685 ns | 0.2453 ns | 0.0726 ns |
| P5C | |||||
| Grain | −0.0523 ns | 0.2554 ns | 0.2870a | 0.3595b | |
| Leaf | 0.2937 ns | 0.4995b | 0.4389b | 0.1976 ns | 0.0345 ns |
| Stem-sheath | 0.3997b | 0.4860b | 0.4826b | 0.4271b | 0.4858b |
| Root | 0.4400b | 0.5269b | 0.3002a | 0.4625b | 0.4085b |
| PDH | |||||
| Grain | 0.1834 ns | 0.0236 ns | 0.1666 ns | −0.2187 ns | |
| Leaf | −0.0700 ns | 0.3822b | 0.0587 ns | 0.2778a | −0.1782 ns |
| Stem-sheath | 0.5317b | 0.3289a | −0.1446 ns | 0.4552b | 0.0974 ns |
| Root | 0.5641b | 0.1983 ns | 0.0040 ns | 0.2589 ns | 0.2439 ns |
| P5CS | |||||
| Grain | 0.1147 ns | 0.3975b | 0.5407b | 0.3103a | |
| Leaf | 0.2743 ns | 0.3494b | 0.0739 ns | −0.0577 ns | −0.2724a |
| Stem-sheath | 0.3929b | 0.7658b | 0.2302 ns | 0.5854b | 0.1644 ns |
| Root | 0.2960a | 0.5961b | 0.4466b | 0.5879b | 0.1445 ns |
| DAO | |||||
| Grain | −0.0112 ns | −0.1510 ns | −0.5052b | − 0.3963b | |
| Leaf | −0.0805 ns | − 0.3096a | 0.1360 ns | 0.0167 ns | −0.2337 ns |
| Stem-sheath | 0.0397 ns | −0.3492b | 0.1060 ns | −0.0642 ns | −0.6041b |
| Root | 0.2525 ns | −0.4732b | −0.0649 ns | − 0.2147 ns | −0.1632 ns |
| OAT | |||||
| Grain | −0.6194b | −0.3658b | − 0.4099b | −0.1367 ns | |
| Leaf | −0.0063 ns | 0.0322 ns | −0.0834 ns | 0.0025 ns | 0.2044 ns |
| Stem-sheath | 0.4662b | 0.1237 ns | −0.3382a | −0.2943a | 0.3043a |
| Root | 0.2406 ns | −0.0471 ns | −0.4170b | − 0.2384 ns | −0.0278 ns |
FH, Full heading stage; 7d AFH, 7d after full heading; 14 d AFH, 14d after full heading; 21 d AFH, 21d after full heading; MS, Maturity stage
ns, not significant at the 0.05 probability level; a and b, significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively
Fig. 1The 2AP accumulation in stem-sheath, leaves and grain at different growth stages. 2AP: 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline, Pro: Proline, PDH: Proline dehydrogenase, P5CS: Pyrroline-5-carboxylic acid synthetase, OAT: Ornithine aminotransferase, P5C: 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylic acid, DAO: Diamine oxidase activity, FH: full heading, AFH: after full heading, MS: maturity stage, L: Leaf, SS: Stem sheath, R: Root, G: Grain
Fig. 2The top 25 parameters correlated with HMRY(a), 2AP_G (b), 2AP_G_MS(c), 2AP_G_21 d AFH (d), 2AP_G_14 d AFH (e)and 2AP_G_7 d AFH (f). HMRY: Head milled rice yield, 2AP_G: 2AP content in brown rice, 2AP_G_MS: 2AP content in grain at maturity stage, 2AP_G_21 d AFH: 2AP content in grain at 21 d AFH, 2AP_G_14 d AFH: 2AP content in grain at 14 d AFH, and 2AP_G_7 d AFH: 2AP content in grain at 7 d AFH
Fig. 3The heatmap for the investigated parameters. 2AP: 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline, Pro: Proline, PDH: Proline dehydrogenase, P5CS: Pyrroline-5-carboxylic acid synthetase, OAT: Ornithine aminotransferase, P5C: 1-pyrroline-5-carboxylic acid, DAO: Diamine oxidase activity, FH: full heading, AFH: after full heading, MS: maturity stage, L: Leaf, SS: Stem sheath, R: Root, G: Grain
Fig. 4PCA (a and c) and PLS-DA (b and d) analysis of the investigated parameters, the important features to the 5 components analysis of PLS-DA for different water and nitrogen treatment (component 1–5: e-i) and the Parameters ranked by their contributions to classification accuracy (Mean Dicrease Accuracy, j)