| Literature DB >> 32533025 |
Xiao Wang1, Jiang-Bao Xia2, Xue-Bin Cao3.
Abstract
This study investigated the physiological and ecological changes in P. sepium Bunge and elucidated the physiological regulatory mechanisms underlying the adaptation of P. sepium to drought stress in shell sand. Drought stress led to a significant decrease in the net photosynthesis rate (Pn) and respiration rate of leaves and a decrease in low-intensity light-use efficiency (LUE) and light ecological amplitude. An increase in drought stress led to a considerable decrease in the photosynthetic electron transport rate in the P. sepium leaves and a significant increase in the amount of light energy dissipated as heat. In addition, the photosynthesis process suffered from severe photoinhibition. P. sepium plants counteracted the effects of drought stress primarily by increasing their peroxidase (POD) activity and by regulating membrane lipid peroxidation by secreting greater numbers of osmotic adjustment substances (proline (Pro) and soluble sugars (Ss)) and malondialdehyde (MDA). As drought stress increased, both the stem sap flow rate and the cumulative sap flow of P. sepium decreased considerably. P. sepium Bunge adapts to drought stress through interregulatory activity between photosynthesis, water-related physiological activities, and physiological and biochemical processes, and this species exhibits relatively high adaptive plasticity to drought.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32533025 PMCID: PMC7293250 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66717-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Light response of net photosynthesis rate (a) and stomatal conductance (b) of P. sepium leaves under various drought stress conditions.
Light-compensation point (LCP), light-saturation point (LSP), apparent quantum yield (AQY), dark respiration rate (Rd) and light-saturated net photosynthesis rate (Pmax) of P. sepium leaves under various drought stress conditions.
| Water treatment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 1285 ± 130b | 58 ± 4c | 0.03 ± 0.0015a | 1.64 ± 0.07a | 12.76 ± 1.21a |
| T1 | 1620 ± 113a | 59 ± 5c | 0.029 ± 0.0014a | 1.57 ± 0.06a | 10.04 ± 0.54b |
| T2 | 1097 ± 85c | 109 ± 4a | 0.018 ± 0.0019b | 1.28 ± 0.15b | 7.12 ± 0.96c |
| T3 | 589 ± 137d | 97 ± 3b | 0.012 ± 0.0021c | 0.95 ± 0.12c | 1.27 ± 0.57d |
Note: The different lowercase letters indicate a significant difference between the groups under various water conditions (P < 0.05); the identical letters indicate no significant difference (P > 0.05). The same scheme applies below.
Figure 2Potential photochemical efficiency and nonphotochemical quenching coefficient (a) as well as the actual photochemical efficiency and noncyclic photosynthetic electron transport rate (b) of leaves of P. sepium under various drought stress conditions.
Figure 3Superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activity (a), proline and soluble sugar contents (b) and malondialdehyde content (c) of leaves of P. sepium under various drought stress conditions.
Figure 4Daily stem sap flow rate dynamics (a) and daily cumulative stem sap flow (b) in P. sepium under various drought stress conditions.
Figure 5Transpiration rate and water-use efficiency of leaves of P. sepium under various drought stress conditions.
Correlation coefficients of photosynthesis and physiological water indices of P. sepium.
| Index | POD | SOD | MDA | Ss | Pro | CSF | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.948 | 0.913 | 0.660 | 0.897 | 0.969* | 0.968* | −0.997** | −0.940 | 0.181 | −0.725 | −0.990* | −0.994** | 0.946 | 0.838 | 0.999** | −0.722 | 0.982* | 0.993** | |
| 1 | 0.995** | 0.404 | 0.734 | 0.975* | 0.984* | −0.970* | −0.998** | −0.007 | −0.854 | −0.894 | −0.912 | 0.873 | 0.638 | 0.944 | −0.722 | 0.898 | 0.978* | ||
| 1 | 0.324 | 0.674 | 0.959* | 0.971* | −0.943 | −0.996** | −0.049 | −0.867 | −0.847 | −0.870 | 0.829 | 0.562 | 0.908 | −0.696 | 0.852 | 0.954* | |||
| 1 | 0.917 | 0.566 | 0.534 | −0.607 | −0.406 | 0.737 | 0.012 | −0.751 | −0.738 | 0.585 | 0.829 | 0.652 | −0.201 | 0.676 | 0.583 | ||||
| 1 | 0.848 | 0.827 | −0.869 | −0.737 | 0.568 | −0.347 | −0.939 | −0.941 | 0.796 | 0.873 | 0.888 | −0.434 | 0.879 | 0.855 | |||||
| 1 | 0.999** | −0.983* | −0.981* | 0.217 | −0.717 | −0.935 | −0.957* | 0.849 | 0.686 | 0.959* | −0.602 | 0.906 | 0.987* | ||||||
| 1 | −0.984* | −0.989* | 0.173 | −0.747 | −0.928 | −0.950* | 0.855 | 0.675 | 0.959* | −0.626 | 0.906 | 0.989* | |||||||
| 1 | 0.965* | −0.150 | 0.756 | 0.975* | 0.984* | −0.931 | −0.792 | −0.994** | 0.717 | −0.967* | −0.999** | ||||||||
| POD | 1 | −0.038 | 0.826 | 0.883 | 0.906 | −0.843 | −0.607 | −0.933 | 0.672 | −0.877 | −0.974* | ||||||||
| SOD | 1 | 0.524 | −0.257 | −0.281 | −0.045 | 0.235 | 0.149 | 0.488 | 0.107 | 0.136 | |||||||||
| MDA | 1 | 0.644 | 0.644 | −0.790 | −0.457 | −0.740 | 0.892 | −0.728 | −0.768 | ||||||||||
| Ss | 1 | 0.997** | −0.947 | −0.900 | −0.990** | 0.698 | −0.987* | −0.967* | |||||||||||
| Pro | 1 | −0.928 | −0.866 | −0.991** | 0.665 | −0.976* | −0.977* | ||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.903 | 0.959* | −0.890 | 0.986* | 0.922 | ||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.852 | −0.707 | 0.912 | 0.770 | |||||||||||||||
| 1 | −0.750 | 0.989* | 0.990* | ||||||||||||||||
| 1 | −0.804 | −0.712 | |||||||||||||||||
| 1 | 0.959* | ||||||||||||||||||
| CSF | 1 |
* means a significant correlation at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ** means a significant correlation at the 0.01 level (two-tailed);
CSF, cumulative sap flow.