| Literature DB >> 34234795 |
Sunjeet Kumar1,2,3, Gaojie Li1,2, Jingjing Yang1,2, Xinfang Huang3, Qun Ji3, Zhengwei Liu3, Weidong Ke3, Hongwei Hou1,2.
Abstract
Salt stress is an important environmental limiting factor. Water dropwort (Oenanthe javanica) is an important vegetable in East Asia; however, its phenotypic and physiological response is poorly explored. For this purpose, 48 cultivars of water dropwort were grown hydroponically and treated with 0, 50, 100, and 200 mm NaCl for 14 days. Than their phenotypic responses were evaluated, afterward, physiological studies were carried out in selected sensitive and tolerant cultivars. In the present study, the potential tolerant (V11E0022) and sensitive (V11E0135) cultivars were selected by screening 48 cultivars based on their phenotype under four different levels of salt concentrations (0, 50, 100, and 200 mm). The results depicted that plant height, number of branches and leaves were less effected in V11E0022, and most severe reduction was observed in V11E0135 in comparison with others. Than the changes in biomass, ion contents, accumulation of reactive oxygen species, and activities of antioxidant enzymes and non-enzymatic antioxidants were determined in the leaves and roots of the selected cultivars. The potential tolerant cultivar (V11E0022) showed less reduction of water content and demonstrated low levels of Na+ uptake, malondialdehyde, and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in both leaves and roots. Moreover, the tolerant cultivar (V11E0022) showed high antioxidant activities of ascorbate peroxidase (APX), superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, catalase (CAT), reduced glutathione (GSH), and high accumulation of proline and soluble sugars compared to the sensitive cultivar (V11E0135). These results suggest the potential tolerance of V11E0022 cultivar against salt stress with low detrimental effects and a good antioxidant defense system. The observations also suggest good antioxidant capacity of water dropwort against salt stress. The findings of the present study also suggest that the number of branches and leaves, GSH, proline, soluble sugars, APX, and CAT could serve as the efficient markers for understanding the defense mechanisms of water dropwort under the conditions of salt stress.Entities:
Keywords: NaCl; antioxidants; growth; ions; reactive oxygen species; water dropwort
Year: 2021 PMID: 34234795 PMCID: PMC8256277 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2021.660409
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Effect of salt stress on the tolerant and sensitive cultivars of water dropwort. (A) potential tolerant cultivar (V11E0022) and (B) sensitive cultivar (V11E0135).
Effect of salt stress on morphological parameters and relative water content (RWC) of two cultivars of water dropwort.
| Cultivars | NaCl (mm) | Plant height (cm) | Root length (cm) | Stem length (cm) | Number of branches | Number of leaves | RWC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V11E0022 | 0 | 68.3 ± 1.5c | 23.0 ± 1.0c | 45.3 ± 0.6c | 8.0 ± 0.0c | 63.0 ± 3.0c | 86.1 ± 4.2bc |
| 50 | 61.3 ± 1.5b | 21.0 ± 1.0bc | 40.3 ± 1.2b | 6.3 ± 0.6b | 51.3 ± 1.5b | 93.0 ± 3.8c | |
| 100 | 57.0 ± 2.0ab | 19.3 ± 0.6b | 37.7 ± 1.5ab | 5.3 ± 0.6ab | 43.3 ± 1.5a | 85.9 ± 2.3b | |
| 200 | 52.8 ± 1.3a | 16.5 ± 0.5a | 36.3 ± 1.5a | 5.0 ± 0.0a | 41.0 ± 1.7a | 75.4 ± 3.4a | |
| V11E0135 | 0 | 58.3 ± 1.5c | 21.3 ± 0.6c | 37.0 ± 1.0b | 7.3 ± 0.6c | 64.3 ± 1.5d | 88.9 ± 4.6b |
| 50 | 46.3 ± 1.2b | 19.0 ± 0.5b | 27.3 ± 0.8a | 3.7 ± 0.6b | 27.3 ± 0.6c | 94.3 ± 3.8b | |
| 100 | 41.7 ± 1.5a | 15.0 ± 0.5a | 26.7 ± 0.3a | 2.3 ± 0.6ab | 16.3 ± 0.6b | 81.2 ± 3.8b | |
| 200 | 40.0 ± 1.5a | 14.0 ± 0.5a | 26.0 ± 1.0a | 1.7 ± 0.6a | 9.7 ± 1.5a | 67.9 ± 2.4a |
Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among the four treatments according to the Tukey test. The values are means ± SE.
Effect of salt stress on fresh (FW) and dry weight (DW) of the shoot and root of two water dropwort cultivars.
| NaCl (mm) | V11E0022 | V11E0135 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FW | DW | FW | DW | ||
| Shoot biomass (mg plant−1) | 0 | 50.93 ± 0.59d | 3.69 ± 0.04c | 46.51 ± 1.07d | 3.58 ± 0.09d |
| 50 | 38.99 ± 1.72c | 2.90 ± 0.14b | 22.43 ± 0.80c | 1.80 ± 0.09c | |
| 100 | 30.19 ± 1.02b | 2.34 ± 0.05a | 13.93 ± 0.67b | 1.14 ± 0.05b | |
| 200 | 27.85 ± 0.06a | 2.19 ± 0.01a | 9.16 ± 0.36a | 0.72 ± 0.03a | |
| Root biomass (mg plant−1) | 0 | 5.62 ± 0.35b | 0.338 ± 0.017b | 4.83 ± 0.31c | 0.255 ±0.02d |
| 50 | 3.16 ± 0.19a | 0.239 ±0.02a | 2.95 ± 0.18b | 0.187 ± 0.01c | |
| 100 | 2.95 ± 0.19a | 0.234 ± 0.02a | 1.84 ± 0.13a | 0.150 ± 0.01b | |
| 200 | 2.75 ± 0.21a | 0.225 ± 0.01a | 1.37 ± 0.09a | 0.108 ± 0.01a | |
Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among the four treatments according to the Tukey test. The values are means ± SE.
Changes in leaf and root ionic contents of two water dropwort cultivars under salt stress.
| Cultivars | NaCl | Leaf ions (mg g−1 DW) | Root ions (mg g−1 DW) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na+ | K+ | K+/Na+ | Na+ | K+ | K+/Na+ | ||
| V11E0022 | 0 | 3.27 ± 0.15a | 70.93 ± 1.16b | 21.70 ± 1.26b | 1.05 ± 0.05a | 54.05 ± 1.93d | 51.50 ± 3.93b |
| 50 | 19.23 ± 0.17b | 69.36 ± 0.84b | 3.61 ± 0.04a | 10.94 ± 0.52b | 40.80 ± 1.00c | 3.74 ± 0.25a | |
| 100 | 28.13 ± 0.32c | 69.59 ± 0.94b | 2.44 ± 0.05a | 14.01 ± 0.66c | 23.19 ± 1.10b | 1.66 ± 0.05a | |
| 200 | 33.57 ± 0.44d | 64.83 ± 1.04a | 1.93 ± 0.03a | 16.10 ± 0.78d | 17.57 ± 0.67a | 1.09 ± 0.05a | |
| V11E0135 | 0 | 4.47 ± 0.10a | 75.80 ± 0.96c | 16.94 ± 0.23c | 0.98 ± 0.04a | 50.01 ± 2.23c | 50.85 ± 2.05c |
| 50 | 27.57 ± 0.38b | 74.54 ± 1.06c | 2.71 ± 0.04b | 13.33 ± 0.45b | 47.32 ± 1.25c | 3.55 ± 0.10b | |
| 100 | 30.29 ± 0.46c | 68.93 ± 1.07b | 2.28 ± 0.02b | 18.32 ± 0.80c | 27.58 ± 0.79b | 1.51 ± 0.10a | |
| 200 | 45.27 ± 1.22d | 63.59 ± 0.89a | 1.40 ± 0.05a | 26.16 ± 1.59d | 14.76 ± 0.62a | 0.57 ± 0.04a | |
Different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among the four treatments according to the Tukey test. The values are means ± SE.
Figure 2Changes in the photosynthetic pigments under salt stress in leaves of two water dropwort cultivars. (A) Total chlorophyll content, (B) chlorophyll a content, (C) chlorophyll b content and (D) carotenoid concentration in the leaves of water dropwort. Means followed by different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among the four treatments according to the Tukey test. Error bars show mean ± SE.
Figure 3Changes in the lipid peroxidation and ROS in fresh leaves and roots of two water dropwort cultivars under salt stress. (A) MDA content in the leaves, (B) MDA content in the roots, (C) H2O2 content in the leaves and (D) H2O2 content in the roots of water dropwort. Means followed by different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among the four treatments according to the Tukey test. Error bars show mean ± SE.
Figure 4Changes in the content of osmolytes and non-enzymatic antioxidant compounds in fresh leaves and roots of two water dropwort cultivars under salt stress. (A) Proline content in the leaves, (B) proline content in the roots, (C) soluble sugars content in the leaves, (D) soluble sugars content in the roots, (E) total protein content in the leaves, (F) total protein content in the roots, (G) reduced glutathione (GSH) content in the leaves and (H) GSH content in the roots of water dropwort. Means followed by different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among the four treatments according to the Tukey test. Error bars show mean ± SE.
Figure 5Changes in activities of antioxidant enzymes in fresh leaves and roots of two water dropwort cultivars under salt stress. (A) APX activity in the leaves, (B) APX activity in the roots, (C) SOD activity in the leaves, (D) SOD activity in the roots, (E) POD activity in the leaves, (F) POD activity in the roots, (G) CAT activity in the leaves and (H) CAT activity in the roots of water dropwort. Means followed by different letters indicate a significant difference (p < 0.05) among the four treatments according to the Tukey test. Error bars show mean ± SE.