| Literature DB >> 33193474 |
Jian Guo1, Haiyan Li1, Chan Zhou2, Yunfei Yang1.
Abstract
Sexual reproduction is vital for population adaptation in clonal plants. The flag leaf is considered to be the primary contributor to sexual reproduction in cereal crops, and there is no unified conclusion on the effect of the number of vegetative ramets on grain yield. However, what effects of the flag leaf and the number of vegetativeEntities:
Keywords: flag leaf; perennial herb; resource allocation; resource translocation; sexual reproduction; tillering node; vegetative ramet
Year: 2020 PMID: 33193474 PMCID: PMC7661390 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.534278
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1(A) Schematic representation of the tagging experimental design at the early heading stage of Leymus chinensis. The Arabic numerals represent the number of vegetative ramets connected to a tillering node of the reproductive ramet. In each gradient, inflorescence top of the reproductive ramet reaches approximately 2 cm over the flag leaf sheath. (B) Schematic representation of the stable-isotope (15N) labeling experimental design at the seed-filling stage of Leymus chinensis. Each ramet pair consists of one reproductive ramet and one vegetative ramet connected by a tillering node (which refers to unelongated basal internode of the ramet).
Growth characteristics of flag leaves and functional leaves of reproductive ramets in Leymus chinensis (means ± SE, n = 10).
| Leaf age | Length (cm) | Width (cm) | Area (cm2) |
| 3a-flag leaf | 3.52 ± 0.15c | 0.34 ± 0.01b | 0.81 ± 0.04c |
| 2a-functional leaf | 11.83 ± 0.33b | 0.46 ± 0.01a | 3.73 ± 0.14b |
| 1a-functional leaf | 16.12 ± 0.58a | 0.48 ± 0.01a | 5.13 ± 0.16a |
| Total | − | − | 9.67 ± 0.27 |
FIGURE 2Comparison of the net photosynthetic rate (P) of three leaves of reproductive ramets over time (means ± SE, n = 10) in Leymus chinensis. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between the growth times for the same leaf age; different capital letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between the leaf ages for the same growth time. The average P of seven growth times is presented as an inset figure. The dates corresponding to the seven growth times are May 26, June 2, June 9, June 16, June 23, June 30, and July 7 in 2017.
FIGURE 3Comparison of the photosynthetic contribution percentage (PC) of three leaves of reproductive ramets over time (means ± SE, n = 10) in Leymus chinensis. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between the growth times for the same leaf age; different capital letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between the leaf ages for the same growth time. The average PC of seven growth times is presented as an inset figure. The dates corresponding to the seven growth times are May 26, June 2, June 9, June 16, June 23, June 30, and July 7 in 2017.
FIGURE 4Comparison of the biomass of three organs of reproductive ramets over time (means ± SE, n = 10) in Leymus chinensis. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between the growth times for the same organ; different capital letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between the organ types for the same growth time. The total biomass of three organs is presented as an inset figure. The dates corresponding to the seven growth times are May 26, June 2, June 9, June 16, June 23, June 30, and July 7 in 2017.
FIGURE 5Effects of the number of vegetative ramets connected to tillering nodes on sexual reproductive characteristics in Leymus chinensis populations over two consecutive years (2017, A1–H1; 2018, A2–H2). Data are the means ± SE (n = 25). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) between different numbers of vegetative ramets, and ns indicates that there is no significant difference (P > 0.05) between different numbers of vegetative ramets.
FIGURE 6Correlation between the sexual reproductive characteristics and both leaf biomass (A1–H1) and total biomass (A2–H2) of vegetative ramets connected to tillering nodes in Leymus chinensis populations over two consecutive years. The colored circles and lines represent observed data and their fitting lines in 2017 (blue, n = 100) and 2018 (orange, n = 100). **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Comparison of the δ15N of reproductive ramets in Leymus chinensis between the control and 15N labeling treatments (means ± SE, n = 4).
| Variable | Year | CK | 15N labeling | ||
| Leaf | 2017 | 1.45 ± 0.53 | 72.09 ± 4.86 | –14.44 | 0.001 |
| 2018 | 2.78 ± 0.36 | 138.06 ± 16.16 | –8.37 | 0.004 | |
| Stem | 2017 | 0.98 ± 0.57 | 90.46 ± 10.59 | –8.44 | 0.003 |
| 2018 | 2.45 ± 0.32 | 196.67 ± 12.17 | –15.95 | 0.001 | |
| Inflorescence | 2017 | 1.26 ± 0.37 | 23.37 ± 1.80 | –12.02 | < 0.001 |
| 2018 | 1.88 ± 0.17 | 41.06 ± 5.12 | –7.66 | 0.005 |
Mean translocated 15N mass allocation to various organs of reproductive ramets in Leymus chinensis over two consecutive years (means ± SE, n = 4).
| Variable | 2017 | 2018 | ||
| Mass (μg) | Percentage (%) | Mass (μg) | Percentage (%) | |
| Leaf 15N | 0.47 ± 0.05b | 14.35 ± 1.79b | 0.77 ± 0.08b | 14.08 ± 1.57b |
| Stem 15N | 2.65 ± 0.23a | 79.19 ± 2.16a | 4.34 ± 0.17a | 78.85 ± 1.14a |
| Inflorescence 15N | 0.21 ± 0.02c | 6.46 ± 0.82c | 0.39 ± 0.03c | 7.08 ± 0.60c |
| Total | 3.33 ± 0.21 | 100 | 5.50 ± 0.15 | 100 |