| Literature DB >> 35050160 |
Jayamini Jayawardhane1,2, Juran C Goyali1,3, Somaieh Zafari1, Abir U Igamberdiev1.
Abstract
Exposing plants to gradually increasing stress and to abiotic shock represents two different phenomena. The knowledge on plants' responses following gradually increasing stress is limited, as many of the studies are focused on abiotic shock responses. We aimed to investigate how cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) plants respond to three common agricultural abiotic stresses: hypoxia (applied with the increasing time of exposure to nitrogen gas), salinity (gradually increasing NaCl concentration), and water deficit (gradual decrease in water supply). We hypothesized that the cowpea plants would increase in tolerance to these three abiotic stresses when their intensities rose in a stepwise manner. Following two weeks of treatments, leaf and whole-plant fresh weights declined, soluble sugar levels in leaves decreased, and lipid peroxidation of leaves and roots and the levels of leaf electrolyte leakage increased. Polyphenol oxidase activity in both roots and leaves exhibited a marked increase as compared to catalase and peroxidase. Leaf flavonoid content decreased considerably after hypoxia, while it increased under water deficit treatment. NO emission rates after 3 h in the hypoxically treated plants were similar to the controls, while the other two treatments resulted in lower values of NO production, and these levels further decreased with time. The degree of these changes was dependent on the type of treatment, and the observed effects were more substantial in leaves than in roots. In summary, the responses of cowpea plants to abiotic stress depend on the type and the degree of stress applied and the plant organs.Entities:
Keywords: Vigna unguiculata; adaptive response; antioxidants; hypoxia; salinity; water deficit
Year: 2022 PMID: 35050160 PMCID: PMC8777733 DOI: 10.3390/metabo12010038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolites ISSN: 2218-1989
The effects of gradually increased hypoxia, salinity, and water deficit on the parameters of the soil solutions collected following treatments.
| Soil Parameter | Control | Post-Hypoxia | Salt Stress | Water Deficit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 5.46 ± 0.04 | 5.85 ± 0.02 * | 6.12 ± 0.03 * | 5.66 ± 0.03 * |
| Conductivity (µS/cm) | 352.0 ± 5.9 | 198.8 ± 8.3 * | 6332.8 ± 209.3 * | 681.8 ± 30.8 * |
| Total dissolved solids (ppm) | 185.8 ± 6.3 | 100.3 ± 4.7 * | 3166.3 ± 104.5 * | 382.5 ± 44.7 * |
Values represent means ± standard deviations (n = 3). Asterisk (*) designates significant changes according to the Student’s t-test results between the control and the treatment at p < 0.05.
The effect of gradually increasing short-term abiotic stresses on the morphological and physiological parameters of cowpea plants.
| Parameter | Control | Post-Hypoxia | Salinity | Water Deficit | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shoot length (cm) | 112.0 ± 6.7 | 100.9 ± 4.0 * | 77.6 ± 8.4 * | 109.2 ± 9.6 | |
| Root length (cm) | 9.2 ± 1.4 | 6.6 ± 0.8 * | 6.7 ± 0.7 * | 17.3 ± 4.1 * | |
| Number of compound leaves | 10 ± 1.6 | 11 ± 1.0 | 7 ± 1.9 * | 7 ± 1.3 * | |
| Leaflet area (cm2) | 97.3 ± 8.4 | 96.7 ± 8.9 | 95.4 ± 13.9 | 97.9 ± 7.5 | |
| Fresh weight (g) | Leaves | 8.9 ± 1.0 | 5.7 ± 1.3 * | 7.3 ± 0.8 * | 5.3 ± 0.7 * |
| Roots | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.8 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | 1.5 ± 0.3 | |
| Whole plants | 18.2 ± 2.1 | 11.9 ± 2.98 * | 15.6 ± 0.9 * | 13.2 ± 1.3 * | |
| Dry weight (g) | Leaves | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 * | 0.9 ± 0.1 * | 1.0 ± 0.1 |
| Roots | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.2 ± 0.0 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | |
| Whole plants | 2.3 ± 0.3 | 1.2 ± 0.3 * | 2.2 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.2 | |
| Stomatal density (mm−2) | 25.0 ± 3.2 | 25.7 ± 3.6 | 30.7 ± 6.5 * | 53.6 ± 5.9 * | |
| Stomatal index (%) | 32.6 ± 4.4 | 30.5 ± 4.3 | 35.6 ± 4.1 | 37.7 ± 4.2 * | |
| Leaf relative water content (%) | 89.6 ± 10.1 | 88.1 ± 4.2 | 87.9 ± 5.8 | 47.7 ± 0.4 * | |
| Water-use efficiency (g DW kg−1 H2O) | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 3.6 ± 0.1 * | 2.1 ± 0.1 * | 1.7 ± 0.1 * | |
The values represent means ± standard deviations (n = 3). Asterisk (*) designates significant changes according to the Student’s t-test results between the control and the treatment at p < 0.05.
Figure 1The effect of gradually increased short-term abiotic stresses on the photosynthetic pigments (A), total soluble proteins (B), and total soluble sugars (C) in cowpea plants. Vertical bars represent means ± standard deviations (n = 3). Asterisk (*) designates significant changes according to the Student’s t-test results between the control and the treatment at p < 0.05. Chl: chlorophyll; Car: carotenoids; C: control; H: post-hypoxia; S: salinity; W: water deficit.
Figure 2The effect of gradually increased short-term abiotic stresses on the nitric oxide (NO) emission rates (A), lipid peroxidation (in terms of MDA) (B) and leaf electrolyte leakage (C) of the cowpea plants. Vertical bars represent means ± standard deviations (n = 3). Asterisk (*) designates significant changes according to the Student’s t-test results between the control and the treatment at p < 0.05. C: control; H: post-hypoxia; S: salinity; W: water deficit.
Figure 3The effect of gradually increased short-term abiotic stresses on the antioxidant capacity of cowpea plants: total antioxidant capacity (DPPH) (A), catalase (B), polyphenol oxidase (PPO) (C), peroxidase (POX) (D), phenolics (E), flavonoids (F). Vertical bars represent means ± standard deviations (n = 3). Asterisk (*) designates significant changes according to the Student’s t-test results between the control and the treatment at p < 0.05. C: control; H: post-hypoxia; S: salinity; W: water deficit.