| Literature DB >> 33317475 |
Zhenjie Shi1, Qianjiao Zheng1, Xiaoyang Sun1, Fuchun Xie1, Jian Zhao1, Gaoyun Zhang1, Wei Zhao1, Zhixin Guo1, Ariuka Ariunzul1, Shah Fahad2, Muhammad Adnan3, Dong Qin1, Shah Saud4, Chen Yajun5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental lodging stress, which is a result of numerous factors, is characterized by uncertainty. However, several studies related to lodging in cereal crops have reported that lodging in the Hippeastrum rutilum environment is very rare. Hippeastrum rutilum is a garden flower with high ornamental value and abundant germplasm resources. Under past cultivation practices, it was found that the plant types of 'Red Lion', with red flowers, and 'Apple Blossom', with pink flowers, are quite different. The leaves of 'Red Lion' are upright, while the leaves of 'Apple Blossom' show lodging, which seriously affects its ornamental value. The aims of this study were to compare the differences between the two varieties with leaf lodging and upright leaves according to morphological and physiological attributes. In this study, karyotype analysis and phenotypic morphological and physiological characteristics were compared to explore the differences between the two plant types.Entities:
Keywords: Chlorophyll fluorescence, Hippeastrum rutilum; Karyotype analysis; Lignin; Lodging
Year: 2020 PMID: 33317475 PMCID: PMC7737282 DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02784-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Fig. 1Microsome of ‘Red Lion’ nuclear chromosomes a, micrograph of ‘Apple Blossom’ nuclear chromosomes b, and karyotype pattern of the chromosomes in Hippeastrum rutilum c
The chromosome parameters of Hippeastrum rutilum
| Numbers | Absolute length of chromosome (μm) | Relative length of chromosome (%) | Genomic length (μm) | Arm ratio | Centrome reposition | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total length | Long arm | Short arm | Total length | Long arm | Short arm | ||||
| 1 | 8.580 | 5.694 | 2.886 | 5.988 | 3.974 | 2.014 | 143.269 | 1.973 | sm |
| 2 | 8.387 | 5.679 | 2.708 | 5.854 | 3.964 | 1.890 | 143.269 | 2.097 | sm |
| 3 | 8.263 | 6.071 | 2.192 | 5.767 | 4.237 | 1.530 | 143.269 | 2.854 | sm |
| 4 | 8.006 | 5.509 | 2.497 | 5.588 | 3.845 | 1.743 | 143.269 | 2.206 | sm |
| 5 | 7.904 | 4.918 | 2.986 | 5.517 | 3.433 | 2.084 | 143.269 | 1.647 | m |
| 6 | 7.541 | 5.686 | 1.855 | 5.264 | 3.969 | 1.295 | 143.269 | 3.065 | st |
| 7 | 7.440 | 5.853 | 1.587 | 5.193 | 4.085 | 1.108 | 143.269 | 3.688 | st |
| 8 | 7.032 | 4.901 | 2.131 | 4.908 | 3.421 | 1.487 | 143.269 | 2.300 | sm |
| 9 | 6.617 | 5.008 | 1.609 | 4.618 | 3.495 | 1.123 | 143.269 | 3.112 | st |
| 10 | 7.066 | 5.265 | 1.801 | 4.931 | 3.675 | 1.257 | 143.269 | 2.924 | sm |
| 11 | 8.332 | 6.405 | 1.927 | 5.815 | 4.470 | 1.345 | 143.269 | 3.323 | st |
| 12 | 6.556 | 5.394 | 1.162 | 4.576 | 3.765 | 0.811 | 143.269 | 4.643 | st |
| 13 | 6.569 | 5.062 | 1.507 | 4.585 | 3.533 | 1.052 | 143.269 | 3.358 | st |
| 14 | 6.240 | 5.281 | 0.959 | 4.355 | 3.686 | 0.669 | 143.269 | 5.510 | st |
| 15 | 5.566 | 3.165 | 2.401 | 3.885 | 2.209 | 1.676 | 143.269 | 1.318 | m |
| 16 | 5.394 | 2.990 | 2.404 | 3.767 | 2.087 | 1.678 | 143.269 | 1.244 | m |
| 17 | 5.034 | 2.888 | 2.146 | 3.514 | 2.016 | 1.498 | 143.269 | 1.346 | m |
| 18 | 5.435 | 2.987 | 2.448 | 3.794 | 2.085 | 1.709 | 143.269 | 1.220 | m |
| 19 | 4.455 | 2.488 | 1.967 | 3.109 | 1.736 | 1.373 | 143.269 | 1.265 | m |
| 20 | 4.361 | 2.451 | 1.910 | 3.044 | 1.710 | 1.333 | 143.269 | 1.283 | m |
| 21 | 4.333 | 2.213 | 2.120 | 3.024 | 1.544 | 1.480 | 143.269 | 1.043 | m |
| 22 | 4.158 | 2.250 | 1.908 | 2.902 | 1.570 | 1.332 | 143.269 | 1.179 | m |
Morphological indexes (mean ± SD) of the two cultivars of Hippeastrum rutilum (P < 0.05)
| Morphological index | Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|---|
| ‘Red Lion’ | ‘Apple Blossom’ | |
| Leaf tip angle (°) | 48.20 ± 3.60b | 56.20 ± 3.30a |
| Leaf width (cm) | 4.34 ± 0.30b | 4.82 ± 0.21a |
| Leaf sag angle (°) | 37.80 ± 0.80b | 49.20 ± 1.20a |
Fig. 210X micrograph of the upper epidermal stomata of ‘Red Lion’ (a-1), 10X micrograph of the upper epidermal stomata of ‘Apple Blossom’ (b-1). 10X micrograph of the lower epidermal stomata of ‘Red Lion’ (a-2), 10X micrograph of the lower epidermal stomata of ‘Apple Blossom’ (b-2), 20X micrograph of the upper epidermal stomata of ‘Red Lion’ (a-3), 20X micrograph of the upper epidermal stomata of ‘Apple Blossom’ (b-3). Number of upper epidermal stomata per unit area in the two cultivars (P < 0.05, c, number of lower epidermal stomata per unit area in the two cultivars (P < 0.05, d. Total number of replicates used for this experiment was four
Fig. 3Cross-sectional structures of ‘Red Lion’ and ‘Apple Blossom’ leaves in the vascular bundle
Fig. 4Lignin contents in the leaves of the two cultivars (P < 0.05, a, relative water contents in the leaves of the two cultivars (P < 0.05, b. Total number of replicates used for this experiment was four
Chlorophyll content (Mean ± SD) in the leaves of the two cultivars (P < 0.05)
| Parameters | Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Red Lion | Apple Blossom | |
| Chl | 2.65 ± 0.06a | 1.65 ± 0.22b |
| Chl | 1.78 ± 0.20a | 0.49 ± 0.07b |
| Car [mg·g−1(FM)] | 0.42 ± 0.02a | 0.35 ± 0.05b |
| Chl( | 1.50 ± 0.14b | 3.37 ± 0.06a |
| Total Chl [mg·g−1(FM)] | 4.87 ± 0.09a | 2.15 ± 0.29b |
Car carotenoids, Chl chlorophyll
Fig. 5The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II photochemistry (Fv/Fm) in the two cultivars (P < 0.05, a, changes in the relative electron transfer rate (ETR) of the two cultivars b, changes in the nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ) of the two cultivars c, changes in the effective quantum yield of the photosystem II photochemistry (△−F/Fm′) of the two cultivars d. Total number of replicates used for this experiment was four