| Literature DB >> 34207257 |
Zikria Zafar1,2, Fahad Rasheed1, Rana Muhammad Atif3,4, Muhammad Asif Javed1, Muhammad Maqsood5, Oliver Gailing2.
Abstract
Reforestation efforts are being challenged as <span class="Chemical">water <span class="Disease">stress is hampering the sapling growth and survival in arid to semiarid regions. A controlled experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of foliar application of salicylic acid (SA) on water stress tolerance of Conocarpus erectus and Populus deltoides. Saplings were watered at 90%, 60%, and 30% of field capacity (FC), and half of the saplings under 60% and 30% FC were sprayed with 1.0 mM SA. Results indicated that dry weight production decreased significantly in Populus deltoides under both water deficit conditions, and leaf gas exchange parameters decreased significantly in both the species under both soil water deficit conditions. Foliar application of SA resulted in a significant increase in leaf gas exchange parameters, and compatible solutes, thereby increasing the dry weight production in both of the species under soil water deficit. Oxidative stress (hydrogen peroxide and superoxide anions) increased under soil water deficit and decreased after the foliar application of SA and was parallel to the increased antioxidant enzymes activity (superoxide dismutase, catalase, peroxidase, and ascorbate peroxidase). Therefore, it can be concluded that foliar application of 1.0 mM SA can significantly improve the water stress tolerance in both species, however, positive impacts of SA application were higher in Conocarpus erectus due to improved photosynthetic capacity and increased antioxidant enzyme activity.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; drought stress; leaf gas exchange; osmolytes; oxidants; poplar
Year: 2021 PMID: 34207257 PMCID: PMC8233798 DOI: 10.3390/plants10061242
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Effect of soil water deficit and SA application on various morphological and physiological parameters of Conocarpus erectus and Populus deltoides. Each value represents the mean ± SE of species in different treatments. Small letters represent significant differences among the species and treatments tested using the post-hoc Turkey’s HSD test. All tests were considered significant at p < 0.05.
| Species | Treatments | R:S Ratio | Chl | Chl | Cc (mg g−1 FW) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 74.1 ± 2.33 a | 6.18 ± 0.21 a | 0.64 ± 0.07 d | 2.18 ± 0.07 a | 2.21 ± 0.02 a | 0.82 ± 0.02 a | |
| MS | 69.8 ± 2.05 ab | 5.86 ± 0.40 ab | 0.68 ± 0.05 c | 1.66 ± 0.05 c | 1.89 ± 0.04 b | 0.72 ± 0.02 b | |
|
| HS | 56.3 ± 3.35 d | 4.03 ± 0.09 d | 1.09 ± 0.07 a | 1.34 ± 0.05 d | 1.44 ± 0.05 d | 0.65 ± 0.03 c |
|
| MS + SA | 71.3 ± 2.66 ab | 5.52 ± 0.24 b | 0.72 ± 0.01 c | 1.87 ± 0.06 b | 1.99 ± 0.05 b | 0.83 ± 0.03 a |
| HS + SA | 68.0 ± 2.61 bc | 4.35 ± 0.35 c | 0.95 ± 0.08 a | 1.65 ± 0.06 c | 1.71 ± 0.06 c | 0.85 ± 0.02 a | |
| C | 64.0 ± 1.70 c | 4.52 ± 0.17 c | 0.61 ± 0.01 d | 1.55 ± 0.20 c | 1.41 ± 0.15 d | 0.89 ± 0.04 a | |
| MS | 48.7 ± 1.52 de | 3.64 ± 0.21 de | 0.75 ± 0.09 c | 1.14 ± 0.05 e | 1.09 ± 0.07 e | 0.76 ± 0.01 b | |
|
| HS | 32.0 ± 1.47 f | 3.02 ± 0.14 e | 0.81 ± 0.01 b | 0.86 ± 0.07 f | 0.84 ± 0.01 f | 0.66 ± 0.02 c |
|
| MS + SA | 53.3 ± 1.52 d | 3.91 ± 0.17 d | 0.82 ± 0.08 b | 1.34 ± 0.06 d | 1.29 ± 0.06 d | 0.99 ± 0.06 a |
| HS + SA | 43.1 ± 1.87 e | 3.51 ± 0.12 d | 0.58 ± 0.10 c | 1.21 ± 0.14 e | 1.21 ± 0.18 d | 0.84 ± 0.04 a | |
| S-effect | |||||||
| T-effect | |||||||
| S × T effect |
Figure 1Effect of soil water deficit and SA application on (A) mean leaf dry weight, DL, (B) mean stem dry weight, DS, (C) mean root dry weight, DR, and (D) mean total dry weight, DT in Conocarpus erectus and Populus deltoides, respectively. Each value represents the mean (± SE) of species in different treatment combinations. Capital and small letters set in bold represent significant differences among the species and treatments tested using the post-hoc Turkey’s HSD test. All tests were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Effect of water deficit and SA application on osmolyte accumulation of Conocarpus erectus and Populus deltoides. Each value represents the mean (± SE) of species in different treatment combinations. Small letters represent significant differences among the species and treatments tested using the post-hoc Turkey’s HSD test. All tests were considered significant at p < 0.05.
| Species | Treatments | Pc (µmol g−1 FW) | TSS (mg g−1 FW) | TPC (mg g−1 FW) | SP (mg g−1 FW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | 20.1 ± 0.53 d | 74.3 ± 0.63 c | 1.38 ± 0.02 ef | 23.6 ± 0.49 d | |
| MS | 24.7 ± 0.94 c | 83.0 ± 1.12 b | 2.20 ± 0.05 c | 28.6 ± 0.30 b | |
|
| HS | 29.0 ± 0.39 b | 84.3 ± 1.00 b | 2.55 ± 0.02 b | 33.2 ± 0.63 a |
|
| MS + SA | 30.2 ± 0.48 b | 86.9 ± 1.17 a | 2.54 ± 0.02 b | 31.6 ± 0.45 a |
| HS + SA | 34.9 ± 0.58 a | 88.6 ± 1.25 a | 2.82 ± 0.02 a | 33.6 ± 0.90 a | |
| C | 19.0 ± 0.38 e | 69.3 ± 1.39 e | 1.25 ± 0.01 f | 24.8 ± 0.32 d | |
| MS | 22.4 ± 1.12 cd | 74.6 ± 0.46 d | 1.59 ± 0.04 e | 26.9 ± 1.12 c | |
|
| HS | 26.5 ± 0.42 c | 83.8 ± 0.93 b | 2.1 ± 0.03 cd | 30.0 ± 0.71 ab |
|
| MS + SA | 29.6 ± 0.63 b | 78.5 ± 0.87 c | 1.83 ± 0.01 d | 28.7 ± 0.86 b |
| HS + SA | 30.1 ± 0.32 b | 89.3 ± 1.63 a | 2.35 ± 0.04 c | 32.3 ± 0.89 a | |
| S-effect | |||||
| T-effect | |||||
| S × T effect |
Figure 2Effect of water deficit and SA application on gas exchange parameters (A) CO2 assimilation rate, Ar, (B) stomatal conductance, gs, and (C) intrinsic water use efficiency, WUEi in Conocarpus erectus and Populus deltoides, respectively. Each value represents the mean (± SE) of species in different treatment combinations. Capital and small letters set in bold represent significant differences among the species and treatments tested using the post-hoc Turkey’s HSD test. All tests were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Figure 3Effect of water deficit and SA application on (A) malondialdehyde contents, MDA, (B) electrolyte leakage, EL%, along with various oxidants, (C) superoxide radical, O2− and (D) hydrogen peroxide, H2O2 in Conocarpus erectus and Populus deltoides, respectively. Each value represents the mean (± SE) of species in different treatment combinations. Capital and small letters set in bold represent significant differences among the species and treatments tested using the post-hoc Turkey’s HSD test. All tests were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Figure 4Effect of water deficit and SA application on various antioxidant enzyme activities. (A) Superoxide dismutase, SOD, (B) peroxidase, POD, (C) catalase, CAT, and (D) ascorbate peroxidase, APX in Conocarpus erectus and Populus deltoides, respectively. Each value represents the mean (± SE) of species in different treatment combinations. Capital and small letters set in bold represent significant differences among the species and treatments tested using the post-hoc Turkey’s HSD test. All tests were considered significant at p < 0.05.