| Literature DB >> 32033420 |
Hana Malinská1, Valentina Pidlisnyuk2, Diana Nebeská2, Anna Erol2,3, Andrea Medžová1, Josef Trögl2.
Abstract
Miscanthus x giganteus (Mxg) is a promising second-generation biofuel crop with high production of energetic biomass. Our aim was to determine the level of plant stress of Mxg grown in poor quality soils using non-invasive physiological parameters and to test whether the stress could be reduced by application of plant growth regulators (PGRs). Plant fitness was quantified by measuring of leaf fluorescence using 24 indexes to select the most suitable fluorescence indicators for quantification of this type of abiotic stress. Simultaneously, visible stress signs were observed on stems and leaves and differences in variants were revealed also by microscopy of leaf sections. Leaf fluorescence analysis, visual observation and changes of leaf anatomy revealed significant stress in all studied subjects compared to those cultivated in good quality soil. Besides commonly used Fv/Fm (potential photosynthetic efficiency) and P.I. (performance index), which showed very low sensitivity, we suggest other fluorescence parameters (like dissipation, DIo/RC) for revealing finer differences. We can conclude that measurement of leaf fluorescence is a suitable method for revealing stress affecting Mxg in poor soils. However, none of investigated parameters proved significant positive effect of PGRs on stress reduction. Therefore, direct improvement of soil quality by fertilization should be considered for stress reduction and improving the biomass quality in this type of soils.Entities:
Keywords: Miscanthus x giganteus; leaf fluorescence; nutritionally poor post-military soil; plant physiology; plant stress
Year: 2020 PMID: 32033420 PMCID: PMC7076640 DOI: 10.3390/plants9020194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Chemical and microbial parameters determined in soils used in experiment.
| Parameter | H1 | H2 | C |
|---|---|---|---|
| pH (H2O) | 5.89 | 6.30 | 7.58 |
| Available P [mg/kg] | 24 | 49 | 1227 |
| Available K [mg/kg] | 44 | 57 | 3620 |
| Available Ca [mg/kg] | 74 | 365 | 12,917 |
| Available Mg [mg/kg] | 19 | 40 | 1757 |
| Ntot [%] | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.52 |
| S [%] | 0.33 | 0.19 | 1.21 |
| Humus [%] | 1.32 | 0.77 | 33.11 |
| PLFAtot [mg/kg] | 3.11 ± 0.69 | 2.31 ± 0.62 | 22.30 ± 3.27 |
| G+/G− PLFA | 0.49 ± 0.12 | 0.31 ± 0.04 | 0.84 ± 0.04 |
| F/B PLFA | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.13 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| Respiration [nmol/min/g] | 2.16 ± 0.51 | 0.86 ± 0.46 | 22.13 ± 4.97 |
H1, H2 = Hradčany 1 and Hradčany 2 soils (poor in nutrients), C = Compost (control, rich in nutrients). PLFAtot: Sum of concentration of all fatty acids methylesters (FAMEs) C10–C20, G+/G− phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA): Ratio of sum of indicator FAMEs for Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, F/B PLFA-ratio of sum of indicator FAMEs for fungi and bacteria.
Composition of used plant growth regulators (PGRs) (adapted from Nebeská et al. [19] and http://www.agrobiotech.com.ua), components which are specific for sole PGR are in bold.
| PGR Title | Stimpo | Regoplant |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | TU U 20.2-31168762-005:2012 | TU U 20.2-31168762-006:2012 |
| Description | Balanced composition of biologically active compounds: analogues of phytohormones, amino acids, fatty acids, oligosaccharides, microelements, and bioprotective compounds | Balanced composition of biologically active compounds: analogues of phytohormones, amino acids, fatty acids, oligosaccharides, chitosan, microelements, and bioprotective compounds |
| Composition | Emistim C: | Emistim C: |
| Microbial pesticide “Actofit, 0.2% к.e.”: Natural complex Aversectin C, a product of vital activity of actinobacterium | Microbial pesticide “Actofit, 0.2% к.e.”: Natural complex Aversectin C, a product of vital activity of actinobacterium | |
| Microelements: Acid boron, Copper sulfuric acid (II) 5-water, ammonium, molybdenum acid, Manganese (II) chloride 4-water, Potassium iodide | “Reakom”: Composition of biogenic microelements (microfertilizer universal on the basis of micronutrient complexonates) | |
| K, | K, Fe, Zn, Mn, Cu, Mg, Ca, | |
| Ethanol |
| |
| Purified water |
| |
| Ethanol | ||
| Purified water |
Experiment variants.
| Variant Label | Soil | PGR | PGR Concentration [mL/10 L] | Number of Pots | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| C | Compost | - | - | - | 3 |
| H1 | Hradcany 1 | Water | 0 | - | 3 |
| H2 | Hradcany 2 | Water | 0 | - | 3 |
| H1_S50x0 | Hradcany 1 | Stimpo | 50 | - | 3 |
| H2_S50x0 | Hradcany 2 | Stimpo | 50 | - | 3 |
| H1_S50x50 | Hradcany 1 | Stimpo | 50 | 50 | 3 |
| H2_S50x50 | Hradcany 2 | Stimpo | 50 | 50 | 3 |
| H1_R250x0 | Hradcany 1 | Regoplant | 250 | - | 2 |
| H2_R250x0 | Hradcany 2 | Regoplant | 250 | - | 2 |
| H1_R250x250 | Hradcany 1 | Regoplant | 250 | 250 | 2 |
| H2_R250x250 | Hradcany 2 | Regoplant | 250 | 250 | 2 |
Figure 1OLKJIP polyphasic fluorescence rise of plants grown in different types of soil calculated as mean value and plotted on a logarithmic time scale. Marks in graph refer to values used for calculation of certain parameters (Appendix A).
Figure 2Physiological indexes of plants grown in different soils; red asterisks (*) marks indexes with significant differences between soils (p < 0.05). The data of different metrics were normalized for optimal presentation; original data can be found in supplementary Table S1.
Figure 3OLKJIP polyphasic fluorescence rise of plants grown in H1 (a) and H2 (b) supplemented by Stimpo and Regoplant calculated as mean value and plotted on a logarithmic time scale. Marks in graph refer to values used for calculation of certain parameters (Appendix A).
Figure 4Physiological indexes for different PGRs treatment grouped by PGR (a) and soil (b); red asterisks (*) marks indexes with significant differences (p < 0.05). The data of different metrics were normalized for optimal presentation; original data can be found in Supplementary Table S1.
Figure 5Fluorescence transient curves normalized between FO and FK for PGR treatment in H1 soil.
Figure 6Photos of Mxg leaves used for microscopy sampled from variants (a) C, (b) H1, (c) H2 and (d) H2_R250 × 250.
Figure 7Fluorescence microscopy photos of Mxg leaves cross sections from experiment variants: C (a–e), H1 (b–f), H2 (c–g) and H2-R250 × 250 (d–h); leaves used for microscopy using autofluorescence (a–d), stomata on the bottom side of the leaf, autofluorescence (e–h); X-xylem, P-phloem, M-motor cell, S-sclerenchyma cell, H-hook, BS-bundle sheath cell, red arrow points altered bundle sheath.
Figure 8Morphology traits of plants grown in different experiment variants; NS = number of stomata, LT = leaf thickness (µm), MBR = main bundle radius (µm), SCU = sclerenchyma cells–top, SCB = sclerenchyma cells – bottom, BD = bundles distance (µm).