| Literature DB >> 35665162 |
Ji-Jhong Chen1, Youping Sun1, Kelly Kopp1, Lorence Oki2, Scott B Jones1, Lawrence Hipps1.
Abstract
Many arid lands across the globe are experiencing more frequent and extreme droughts due to warmer temperatures resulting from climate change, less predictable precipitation patterns, and decreased soil moisture. Approximately 60-90% of household water is used for urban landscape irrigation in the western United States, necessitating the establishment of landscapes using drought-tolerant plants that conserve water. Shepherdia ×utahensis (hybrid buffaloberry) is a drought-tolerant plant with dense leaf trichomes (epidermal appendages) that may limit excessive water loss by transpiration. However, little is known about how S. ×utahensis regulates leaf heat balance when transpirational cooling is limited. The objective of this research was to investigate the effects of substrate water availability on plant growth and development and trichome density of S. ×utahensis. Ninety-six clonally propagated plants were grown using an automated irrigation system, and their substrate volumetric water contents were controlled at 0.05-0.40 m3·m-3 for 2 months. Results showed that water stress impaired plant growth and increased the proportion of visibly wilted leaves. Shepherdia ×utahensis acclimates to drought by reducing cell dehydration and canopy overheating, which may be accomplished through decreased stomatal conductance, smaller leaf development, leaf curling, increased leaf thickness, and greater root-to-shoot ratio. Leaf trichome density increased when stem water potential decreased, resulting in greater leaf reflectance of visible light. Cell and leaf expansion were restricted under water stress, and negative correlations were exhibited between epidermal cell size and trichome density. According to our results, plasticity in leaves and roots aids plants in tolerating abiotic stresses associated with drought. Acclimation of S. ×utahensis to water stress was associated with increased trichome density due to plasticity in cell size. Dense trichomes on leaves reflected more lights which appeared to facilitate leaf temperature regulation.Entities:
Keywords: drought tolerance; leaf reflectance; pubescence; water potential; xeric plant
Year: 2022 PMID: 35665162 PMCID: PMC9158747 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.855858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
Figure 1Daily average substrate volumetric water content at eight substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt) recorded using calibrated soil moisture sensors (ECH2O 10HS; Meter Group, Pullman, WA) during the experiment. Error bars represent SEs of three sensors.
Substrate matric potential (ψm) at eight substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt) recorded on 11 January 2021.
| θt (m3·m−3) | ψm |
|---|---|
| 0.40 | −0.08 a |
| 0.35 | −0.03 a |
| 0.30 | −0.04 a |
| 0.25 | −0.23 ab |
| 0.20 | −0.26 ab |
| 0.15 | −0.56 bc |
| 0.10 | −0.51 b |
| 0.05 | −0.89 c |
| Linear | NS |
| Quadratic | * |
| Cubic | **** |
ψm was calculated from measurements of a handheld soil moisture sensor (Hydro Sense; Campbell Scientific) using a substrate-specific water retention curve estimated using the van Genuchten equation (van Genuchten, 1980), of which the residual water content is 0, the saturated water content is 0.74 m3·m−3, the inverse of the air entry suction is 771.43 MPa−1, and the dimensionless pore-size distribution is 1.33.
Means with same lowercase letters are not significantly different among treatments by Tukey–Kramer method with a significance level specified at 0.05.
NS, *, **** Nonsignificant, significant at p ≤ 0.05 or 0.0001, respectively.
Figure 2Proportion of visibly wilted leaves of the plants grown at eight substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt) during the experiment. Plants were rated on a scale of 1–5, where 1 = over 65% of the leaves wilted; 2 = 35–65% of the leaves wilted; 3 = up to 35% of the leaves wilted; 4 = less than 10% of the leaves wilted; 5 = plant was fully turgid (Zollinger et al., 2006). Error bars represent SEs of 12 plants.
Degree of leaves visibly wilted, plant growth index (PGI), relative chlorophyll content [Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) value], water content of leaves and stems, stem water potential (ψstem), and leaf curling index of Shepherdia ×utahensis at eight substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt).
| Water content | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| θt (m3·m−3) | Leaves wilted (1–5 scale) | PGI | SPAD | Leaf (%) | Stem (%) | ψstem (MPa) | Leaf curling index |
| 0.40 | 4.7 ab | 33.4 a | 58.9 a | 59.2 a | 62.7 a | −0.82 ab | 0.04 bc |
| 0.35 | 4.8 a | 33.2 a | 58.2 a | 62.6 a | 63.6 a | −0.65 a | 0.05 bc |
| 0.30 | 4.7 ab | 36.7 a | 58.3 a | 59.7 a | 60.4 a | −0.90 ab | 0.02 c |
| 0.25 | 3.7 bc | 23.1 b | 56.1 ab | 58.1 a | 58.5 ab | −1.95 bc | 0.06 bc |
| 0.20 | 3.4 cd | 22.6 b | 52.1 ab | 57.1 a | 58.7 ab | −1.45 b | 0.03 bc |
| 0.15 | 2.2 de | 17.2 b | 49.0 abc | 51.1 a | 49.9 b | −1.98 c | 0.10 abc |
| 0.10 | 1.9 e | 18.3 b | 43.4 bc | 51.2 a | 52.4 b | −1.97 bc | 0.11 ab |
| 0.05 | 1.0 e | 17.6 b | 34.9 c | 23.3 b | 36.8 c | −5.76 | 0.17 a |
| Linear | ** | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Quadratic | NS | NS | NS | *** | *** | NS | NS |
| Cubic | **** | **** | **** | **** | **** | * | **** |
1 = over 65% of the leaves wilted; 2 = 35–65% of the leaves wilted; 3 = up to 35% of the leaves wilted; 4 = less than 10% of the leaves wilted; and 5 = plant was fully turgid (Zollinger et al., 2006).
Plant growth index = [(height + length + width)/3], while water content of leaves and stems was calculated using the equation: [fresh weight (FW) − dry weight (DW)/FW x 100% (Zhou et al., 2021).
Leaf curling index was determined using the equation: [distance between the margins of flattened leaf (Dmax)-distance between the margins of curling leaf (Di)]/Dmax (Nilsen, 1987).
Only two data were recorded due to high plant mortality.
Means with same lowercase letters within a column are not significantly different among treatments by Tukey–Kramer method with a significance level specified at 0.05.
NS, *, **, ***, **** Nonsignificant, significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, or 0.0001, respectively.
Figure 3Shepherdia ×utahensis plants at eight substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt) at the end of the experiment (photo taken on 10 January 2021).
Number (no.) of leaves and shoots, total leaf area and dry weight (DW), root to shoot ratio (R/S), specific leaf area (SLA), leaf size, and nodule no. of Shepherdia ×utahensis at eight substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt) at the termination of the experiment.
| θt (m3·m−3) | Leaf no. | Shoot no. | Leaf area (cm2) | DW (g) | R/S (g·g−1) | SLA (cm2·g−1) | Leaf size (cm2) | Nodule no. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.40 | 390.5 ab | 13.1 abc | 776.1 ab | 25.8 ab | 0.48 c | 72.1 a | 1.97 ab | 65.6 ab |
| 0.35 | 438.5 a | 15.7 ab | 882.5 a | 26.4 a | 0.47 c | 83.6 a | 2.06 a | 72.4 a |
| 0.30 | 434.4 a | 20.7 a | 987.8 a | 30.1 a | 0.44 c | 76.8 a | 2.18 a | 35.3 bc |
| 0.25 | 259.2 bc | 9.8 bc | 414.3 c | 17.8 bc | 0.90 ab | 68.2 a | 1.54 abc | 37.0 abc |
| 0.20 | 274.6 bc | 9.1 bc | 477.7 bc | 17.8 bc | 0.74 bc | 72.2 a | 1.71 abc | 18.5 c |
| 0.15 | 126.6 d | 6.0 bc | 205.8 c | 10.2 c | 1.04 ab | 66.8 a | 1.47 bc | 1.4 c |
| 0.10 | 156.1 cd | 7.6 bc | 208.3 c | 12.0 c | 1.15 a | 67.7 a | 1.37 bc | 6.3 c |
| 0.05 | 115.3 d | 5.4 c | 109.3 c | 8.0 c | 1.15 ab | 59.7 b | 0.97 c | 0.0 c |
| Linear | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | *** |
| Quadratic | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Cubic | **** | **** | **** | **** | **** | ** | **** | **** |
Total DW was the sum of the DW of stems, leaves, and roots.
Root-to-shoot ratio was calculated using the DW of roots and shoots (leaves and stems).
SLA was calculated as the ratio of leaf area to leaf DW.
Leaf size of each plant was calculated as the ratio of total leaf area to the leaf no.
Means with same lowercase letters within a column are not significantly different among treatments by Tukey–Kramer method with a significance level specified at 0.05.
NS, **, ***, **** Nonsignificant, significant at p ≤ 0.01, 0.001 or 0.0001, respectively.
Leaf-to-air vapor pressure deficit (VPD), stomatal conductance (g), transpiration rate (E), and net assimilation rate (Pn) of Shepherdia ×utahensis at eight substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt).
| θt (m3·m−3) | VPD (kPa) | Pn (μmol CO2·m−2·s−1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.40 | 2.12 b | 0.66 ab | 9.4 ab | 11.7 ab |
| 0.35 | 1.87 b | 0.80 a | 11.0 a | 13.4 a |
| 0.30 | 1.79 b | 0.83 a | 10.8 a | 14.6 a |
| 0.25 | 2.39 ab | 0.38 bc | 7.1 bc | 8.9 bc |
| 0.20 | 2.05 b | 0.61 ab | 8.9 ab | 11.6 ab |
| 0.15 | 2.96 a | 0.17 c | 4.3 cd | 5.2 bcd |
| 0.10 | 2.93 a | 0.10 c | 3.0 d | 4.0 cd |
| 0.05 | 3.16 a | 0.03 c | 0.9 d | 0.1 d |
| Linear | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Quadratic | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Cubic | **** | **** | **** | **** |
Means with same lowercase letters within a column are not significantly different among treatments by Tukey–Kramer method with a significance level specified at 0.05.
NS, **** Nonsignificant, significant at p ≤ 0.0001, respectively.
Figure 4Dissected compound microscopy image of the leaf upper (adaxial) surface (A,B) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of leaf trichomes (C,D) and epidermal cells (E,F) of Shepherdia ×utahensis plants at the substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt) of 0.40 and 0.10 m3·m−3.
Fine-scale morphology and leaf reflectance at the wavelengths of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), blue, green, and red light of Shepherdia ×utahensis at the substrate volumetric water content treatments (θt) of 0.40, 0.30, 0.20, and 0.10 m3·m−3.
| Fine-scale morphology | Leaf reflectance | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| θt (m3·m−3) | Trichome density (mm−2) | Trichome coverage fraction | Uncovered stomata (mm−2) | Trichome radius (μm) | Epidermal cell size | Epidermal cell density (mm−2) | PAR | Blue | Green | Red |
| % | ||||||||||
| 0.40 | 23.9 b | 0.54 b | 29.1 ab | 195 a | 666 a | 1544 b | 12.9 b | 11.6 b | 17.5 b | 10.9 b |
| 0.30 | 24.3 b | 0.61 ab | 34.0 a | 193 a | 668 a | 1539 b | 14.0 ab | 11.7 ab | 18.8 ab | 11.9 ab |
| 0.20 | 34.7 ab | 0.81 a | 12.9 bc | 164 b | 402 b | 2583 a | 16.1 ab | 15.0 a | 19.3 ab | 14.6 ab |
| 0.10 | 44.6 a | 0.82 a | 10.0 c | 137 b | 386 b | 2662 a | 18.8 a | 17.5 a | 22.5 a | 17.4 a |
| Linear | *** | ** | ** | **** | **** | **** | ** | ** | * | ** |
| Quadratic | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Cubic | NS | NS | * | NS | ** | ** | NS | NS | NS | NS |
Trichome coverage fraction = (area covered by trichomes)/(total image area).
Epidermal cell size was estimated by measuring the area of eight randomly selected epidermal cells in each image.
Reflectance of PAR was determined using the wavelengths from 400 to 700 nm, while the reflectance of blue, green, and red light was recorded at the wavelengths of 450, 530, and 660 nm, respectively (Kusuma et al., 2020).
Means with same lowercase letters within a column are not significantly different among treatments by Tukey–Kramer method with a significance level specified at 0.05.
NS, *, **, ***, **** Nonsignificant, significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, or 0.0001, respectively.
Figure 5Correlation between leaf size, epidermal cell size, and trichome density (A), epidermal cell size and density and leaf size (B), trichome density, trichome coverage fraction, and epidermal cell density (C), epidermal cell size and stem water potential (D). The error bars represent the SEs of three leaves sampled from each plant.
Figure 6Correlation between the leaf upper (adaxial) surface trichome density and reflectance of PAR, blue, green, and red light. The reflectance of PAR was determined using the mean reflectance between the wavelengths (λ) ranging from 400 to 700 nm. The reflectance of blue, green, and red light was determined using the λ at 450, 530, and 660 nm, respectively (Kusuma et al., 2020). The error bars represent the SEs of three leaves sampled from each plant.