| Literature DB >> 34290277 |
Yinli Bi1,2, Huili Zhou3.
Abstract
A well-developed canopy structure can increase the biomass accumulationpan> and yield of crops. Peanut seeds were sown in a soil inoculated with an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (AMF) and uninoculated controls were also sown. Canopy structure was monitored using a 3-D laser scanner and photosynthetic characteristics with an LI-6400 XT photosynthesis system after 30, 45 and 70 days of growth to explore the effects of the AMF on growth, canopy structure and photosynthetic characteristics and yield. The AMF colonized the roots and AMF inoculation significantly increased the height, canopy width and total leaf area of the host plants and improved canopy structure. AMF reduced the tiller angle of the upper and middle canopy layers, increased that of the lower layer, reduced the leaf inclination of the upper, middle and lower layers, and increased the average leaf area and leaf area index after 45 days of growth, producing a well-developed and hierarchical canopy. Moreover, AMF inoculation increased the net photosynthetic rate in the upper, middle and lower layers. Plant height, canopy width, and total leaf area were positively correlated with net photosynthetic rate, and the inclination angle and tiller angle of the upper leaves were negatively correlated with net photosynthetic rate. Overall, the results demonstrate the effects of AMF inoculation on plant canopy structure and net photosynthetic rate.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34290277 PMCID: PMC8295368 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-94092-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Effects of AMF inoculation on non-complex characteristics of the peanut canopy. Within each figure, columns without the same letter are significantly different by LSD (p < 0.05); AM, mycorrhizal (inoculated with the AMF); CK, uninoculated control; n = 8.
Figure 2Effects of AMF inoculation on complex characteristics of the peanut canopy; within each parameter, bars without the same letter are significantly different by LSD (p < 0.05).
Figure 3Top view and side view of the peanut canopy in different treatments after 45 days of growth.
Effects of mycorrhizal soil inoculation on leaf area index of peanut.
| Time | Day 30 | Day 45 | Day 70 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment | Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control |
| Leaf area index | 1.59b | 1.59b | 1.91a | 1.77ab | 1.78ab | 1.70ab |
Mean values not followed by the same letter are significantly different by least significant difference (LSD, p < 0.05).
Net photosynthetic rate of peanut under different treatments at different canopy layers and growth periods in μmol m−2 s−1.
| Period layer | Growth | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Day 30 | Day 45 | Day 70 | ||||
| Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control | |
| Upper | 7.25c | 6.17c | 15.97a | 5.74c | 12.77b | 7.83c |
| Middle | nd | nd | 15.41a | 4.39c | 10.54b | 4.92c |
| Lower | 6.09bc | 4.66bc | 10.85a | 3.58c | 7.57b | 5.84bc |
Within each row, mean values not followed by the same letter are significantly different by LSD (p < 0.05); nd, not determined.
Other peanut photosynthetic indicators under the different treatments for 45 days.
| Canopy layer indicator | Upper | Middle | Lower | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control | |
| Stomatal conductance(mol·m−2·s−1) | 0.27a | 0.07c | 0.28a | 0.05c | 0.2b | 0.04c |
| Intercellular CO2 concentration (μmol/mol) | 269b | 320a | 278b | 245c | 280b | 244c |
| Transpiration rate (mmol·m−2·s−1) | 9.77a | 1.95c | 10.0a | 2.39c | 7.53b | 1.96c |
| Water use efficiency (g/kg) | 1.68c | 2.92a | 1.55c | 1.82b | 1.49c | 1.84b |
Within each row, mean values not followed by the same letter are significantly different by LSD (p < 0.05).
Correlations between canopy structure and photosynthetic characteristics of peanut.
| Photosynthetic characteristic index | Canopy structure indexes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plant height | Crown size | Total blade area | Leaf area index | Leaf angle | Mean blade area | Transpiration rate | |
| Net photosynthetic rate | 0.495** | 0.524** | 0.492** | 0.326* | -0.350* | 0.363 | -0.601** |
| Intercellular CO2 concentration | 0.396** | 0.346* | 0.365* | 0.223 | -0.124 | 0.139 | -0.419* |
| Stomatal conductance | 0.616** | 0.587** | 0.594** | 0.338* | -0.364* | 0.319 | -0.671** |
| Transpiration rate | 0.382** | 0.327* | 0.312* | 0.321* | -0.352* | 0.153 | -0.611** |
*, p = 0.05; **, p = 0.01 by two-tailed Student’s t-test, n = 48.
Nutrient accumulation in the roots, stems and leaves of peanut.
| Measurement | Nitrogen (mg) | Phosphorus (mg) | Potassium (mg) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment Plant part | Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control | Mycorrhizal | Control | ||
| Leaves | 112a | 7.07b | 2.58a | 0.05b | 5.75a | 0.41 ± 0.18b | ||
| Stems | 70.4a | 30.1b | 1.38a | 0.35b | 4.72a | 1.13 ± 0.22b | ||
| Roots | 22.4a | 20.1a | 0.44a | 0.28a | 0.73a | 1.1 ± 0.55a | ||
Nutrients accumulated in each plant part (mg) = concentration of nutrient in each plant part (mg kg-1) × dry weight of the plant part (g) × 10–3; within each nutrient, mean values not followed by the same letter are significantly different by LSD (p < 0.05).
Effects of AMF inoculation on dry matter accumulation and yield of peanut.
| Treatment | Above-ground (g) | Roots (g) | Yield (g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mycorrhizal | 15.60a | 1.39a | 6.49a |
| Control | 1.90b | 0.94b | 0.02b |
Within each column, mean values not followed by the same letter are significantly different by LSD (p < 0.05).
Figure 4Stratification of stem structure in the peanut canopy.