| Literature DB >> 35515284 |
Qiao Yang1, Zhongqiu Zhao1,2, Zhongke Bai1,2, Hong Hou3, Ye Yuan1, Anning Guo1, Yufeng Li1.
Abstract
Mycorrhizal symbioses, which include plant roots and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), can significantly enhance plant resistance and promote the absorption of soil nutrients by plants. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of three AMF species (Glomus mosses, Glomus etunicatum and Glomus versiforme) on the height, biomass, malondialdehyde (MDA) and proline contents and antioxidant enzyme activities of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) under different water supply treatments. Potted experimental soil samples were collected from the abandoned rare earth tailings in Ganzhou, Jiangxi. The results showed that all three AMF species infected ryegrass under the different treatments. Under severe drought stress, G. mosses had the most significant effects on the promotion of ryegrass performance. After inoculation, the height and whole-plant biomass of ryegrass increased by 60.44% and 150%, respectively. In addition, inoculation with AMF significantly reduced the content of MDA and proline in the ryegrass leaves in all water supply treatments except the moderate drought stress treatment, in which there was no effect. The leaf antioxidant enzyme activity was also measured. The results showed that under severe drought stress, inoculation with Glomus mosses significantly increased the activities of CAT and SOD in ryegrass and enhanced the resistance of plants. A possible reason that AMF promotes host plant growth and enhances drought resistance is that AMF directly increases the absorption of soil water and minerals by host plant roots and indirectly improves the physiological metabolism of plants. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35515284 PMCID: PMC9062534 DOI: 10.1039/c8ra10442e
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
Basic physical and chemical properties of the soil
| pH | Organic matter (g kg−1) | Total N (g kg−1) | Available N (mg kg−1) | Total P (g kg−1) | Available P (mg kg−1) | Total K (g kg−1) | Available K (mg kg−1) | Cr (mg kg−1) | Ni (mg kg−1) | Cu (mg kg−1) | Zn (mg kg−1) | As (mg kg−1) | Cd (mg kg−1) | Pd (mg kg−1) | Hg (mg kg−1) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Background | 6.2 | 12.5 | 0.9 | 90.1 | 0.5 | 6.8 | 17.9 | 50 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 43.2 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 22.4 | 0.02 |
| Tailing soil | 4.51 | 2 | 0.2 | 30.3 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 4.67 | 33 | 0.1 | 0.95 | 0.3 | 46.3 | 0.8 | 0.07 | 23.5 | 0.01 |
Fig. 1Microstructure of the infected ryegrass roots (100×).
Effects of AMF on the growth of host plants under water stressa
| Moisture treatment (%) | Inoculation | Infection rate (%) | Plant height (cm) | Plant biomass (g) | Root–shoot ratio (%) | Mycorrhizal dependency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 (60) | CK | 0 | 29.3 ± 1.1a | 1.8 ± 0.3ab | 40 | — |
| G.m | 76.44 ± 2.2a | 33.3 ± 2.2a | 2.2 ± 0.2a | 50 | 18.18 | |
| G.e | 53.89 ± 3.1a | 29.9 ± 1.2a | 2.1 ± 0.1a | 46 | 14.29 | |
| G.v | 45.21 ± 1.7a | 30.7 ± 0.5a | 2.2 ± 0.3a | 42 | 18.18 | |
| W2 (40) | CK | 0 | 22.8 ± 1.7b | 1.0 ± 0.1c | 47 | — |
| G.m | 69.35 ± 5.6a | 32.9 ± 0.1a | 1.8 ± 0.2ab | 55 | 44.44 | |
| G.e | 43.76 ± 1.6a | 31.6 ± 1.9a | 1.9 ± 0.1a | 33 | 47.37 | |
| G.v | 32.16 ± 1.7b | 30.9 ± 2.1a | 1.7 ± 0.3ab | 40 | 44.43 | |
| W3 (20) | CK | 0 | 18.2 ± 1.3b | 0.6 ± 0.3c | 66 | — |
| G.m | 51.06 ± 3.2a | 29.2 ± 0.6a | 1.5 ± 0.2b | 68 | 60.14 | |
| G.e | 33.49 ± 1.7ab | 26.9 ± 1.2a | 1.2 ± 0.3b | 30 | 50.71 | |
| G.v | 28.94 ± 1.7c | 27.9 ± 3.2a | 1.2 ± 0.1b | 41 | 50 | |
| Water supply treatment | * | * | * | ** | — | |
| AM treatment | ** | * | * | NS | — | |
| Water *AM treatment | * | * | NS | NS | — | |
Different small letters in the same column indicate significant differences at the 0.05 level among treatments. * Indicates that the treatment is extremely significantly different from the control (P < 0.05). ** Indicates that the treatment is significantly different from the control (P < 0.01).
Fig. 2MDA and proline contents of ryegrass under three different water supply treatments.
Fig. 3Superoxide dismutase activity of ryegrass under three different water supply treatments.