Photosynthetica

, Volume 55, Issue 4, pp 698–704

Photosynthetic apparatus activity in relation to high and low contents of cell wall-bound phenolics in triticale under drought stress

Original papers

Abstract

Cell wall-bound phenolics (CWP) play an important role in the mechanisms of plant acclimation to soil drought. The study involved CWP analyses in 50 strains and 50 doubled haploid (DH) lines of winter triticale exposed to drought at their vegetative and generative stages. CWP in the plants experiencing drought at the generative stage positively correlated with their leaf water contents. The strains and DH lines characterized by high content of CWP showed higher leaf water content and higher activity of photosynthetic apparatus when exposed to drought at the generative stage compared to the strains and DH lines with the low CWP content. Furthermore, when drought subsided at the generative stage, the strains and DH lines richer in CWP demonstrated higher regeneration potential and their grain yield loss was smaller.

Additional key words

chlorophyll fluorescence doubled haploids leaf water content strains × Triticosecale Witt. yield 

Abbreviations

ABS/CSm

light energy absorption

Chl

chlorophyll

CWP

cell wall-bound phenolics

CSm

leaf cross-section

DH

doubled haploid

DIo/CSm

energy amount dissipated from PSII

ETo/CSm

amount of energy used for the electron transport

Fv/Fm

quantum yield of PSII

HCWP

high content of cell wall-bound phenolics

LCWP

low content of cell wall-bound phenolics

LDM

leaf dry mass

LWC

leaf water content

LFM

leaf fresh mass

MCWP

medium content of cell wall-bound phenolics

PI

overall performance index of PSII photochemistry

\({Q_{{A^ - }}}\)

plastochinone A

RC/CSm

number of active reaction centers

SPh

soluble phenolics

TRo/CSm

amount of excitation energy trapped in PSII reaction centers

δRo

efficiency with which an electron can move from the reduced intersystem electron acceptors to PSI end electron acceptors

φRo

quantum yield of electron transport from \({Q_{{A^ - }}}\) to PSI end electron acceptors

Ψo

leaf osmotic potential

ΨRo

probability, at time 0, that a trapped exciton moves an electron into the electron transport chain beyond \({Q_{{A^ - }}}\)

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexieva V., Sergiev I., Mapelli S., Karanov E.: The effect of drought and ultraviolet radiation on growth and stress markers in pea and wheat. — Plant Cell Environ. 24: 1337–1344, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammar K., Mergoum M., Rajaram S.: The history and evolution of triticale.–In: Mergoum M., Gomez-Macpherson H. (ed.): Triticale Improvement and Production. Plant Production and Protection Paper 179. Pp. 9. FAO, Rome 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Ashraf M., Harris P.J.C.: Photosynthesis under stressful environments: An overview. — Photosynthetica 51: 163–190, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnabás B., Jäger K., Fehér A.: The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. — Plant Cell Environ. 31: 11–38, 2008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Barthod S., Cerovic Z., Epron D.: Can dual chlorophyll fluorescence excitation be used to assess the variation in the content of UV-absorbing phenolic compounds in leaves of temperate tree species along a light gradient? — J. Exp. Bot. 58: 1753–1760, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernards M.A., Susag L.M., Bedgar D.L. et al.: Induced phenylpropanoid metabolism during suberization and lignification: A comparative analysis. — J. Plant Physiol. 157: 601–607, 2000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bilger W., Johnsen T., Schreiber U.: UV-excited chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool for the assessment of UV-protection by the epidermis of plants. — J. Exp. Bot. 52: 2007–2014, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouchereau A., Clossais-Besnard N., Bensaoud A. et al.: Water stress effects on rapeseed quality. — Eur. J. Agron. 5: 19–30, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burchard P., Bilger W., Weissenböck G.: Contribution of hydroxycinnamates and flavonoids to epidermal shielding of UV-A and UV-B radiation in developing rye primary leaves as assessed by ultraviolet-induced chlorophyll fluorescence measurements. — Plant Cell Environ. 23: 1373–1380, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Close D.C., McArthur C., Hagerman A.E. et al.: Phenolic acclimation to ultraviolet-A irradiation in Eucalyptus nitens seedlings raised across a nutrient environment gradient. — Photosynthetica 45: 36–42, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Estiarte M., Filella I., Serra J., Peñuelas J.: Effects of nutrient and water stress on leaf phenolic content of peppers and susceptibility to generalist herbivore Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). — Oecologia 99: 387–391, 1994.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fry S.C.: Phenolic components of the primary cell wall. — Biochem. J. 203: 493–504, 1982.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Fry S.C.: Phenolic components of the primary cell wall and their possible role in the hormonal regulation of growth. — Planta 146: 343–351, 1979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. García-Plazaola J.I., Becerril J.M.: Effects of drought on photoprotective mechanisms in European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) seedlings from different provenances. — Trees 14: 485–490, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graça J., Santos S.: Suberin: a biopolyester of plants' skin. — Macromol. Biosci. 7: 128–135, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Grzesiak S., Grzesiak M., Hura T.: Effects of soil drought during the vegetative phase of seedling growth on the uptake of 14CO2 and the accumulation and translocation of 14C in cultivars of field bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.) of different drought tolerance. — J. Agron. Crop Sci. 183: 183–192, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoagland D.R.: Lectures on the Inorganic Nutrition of Plants. Pp. 136. Chronica Botanica Co., Waltham 1948.Google Scholar
  18. Hura T., Grzesiak S., Hura K. et al.: Physiological and biochemical tools useful in drought-tolerance detection in genotypes of winter triticale: Accumulation of ferulic acid correlates with drought tolerance. — Ann. Bot.-London 100: 767–775, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hura T., Hura K., Grzesiak S.: Possible contribution of cell-wallbound ferulic acid in drought resistance and recovery in triticale seedlings. — J. Plant Physiol. 166: 1720–1733, 2009a.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hura T., Hura K., Grzesiak S.: Physiological and biochemical parameters for identification of QLs controlling the winter triticale drought tolerance at the seedling stage. — Plant Physiol. Bioch. 47: 210–214, 2009b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hura T., Hura K., Grzesiak M.: Soil drought applied during the vegetative growth of triticale modifies the physiological and biochemical adaptation to drought during the generative development. — J. Agron. Crop Sci. 197: 113–123, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hura T., Hura K., Dziurka K. et al.: An increase in the content of cell wall-bound phenolics correlates with the productivity of triticale under soil drought. — J. Plant Physiol. 169: 1728–1736, 2012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hura T., Hura K., Ostrowska A. et al.: The cell wall-bound phenolics as a biochemical indicator of soil drought resistance in winter triticale. — Plant Soil Environ. 59: 189–195, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ji X., Shiran B., Wan J. et al.: Importance of pre-anthesis anther sink strength for maintenance of grain number during reproductive stage water stress in wheat. — Plant Cell Environ. 33: 926–942, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamisaka S.,. Takeda S, Takahashi K., Shibata K.: Diferulic and ferulic acid in the cell wall of Avena coleoptiles: their relationships to mechanical properties of the cell wall. — Physiol. Plantarum 78: 1–7, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolb C.A., Käser M.A., Kopecký J. et al.: Effects of natural intensities of visible and ultraviolet radiation on epidermal ultraviolet screening and photosynthesis in grape leaves. — Plant Physiol. 127: 863–875, 2001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolb C.A., Pfündel E.E.: Origins of non-linear and dissimilar relationships between epidermal UV absorbance and UV absorbance of extracted phenolics in leaves of grapevine and barley. — Plant Cell Environ. 28: 580–590, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu C., Zhang J.: Effects of water stress on photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and photoinhibition in wheat plants. — Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 25: 883–892, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ma Q.Q., Wang W., Li Y.H. et al.: Alleviation of photoinhibition in drought-stressed wheat (Triticum aestivum) by foliar-applied glycinebetaine. — J. Plant Physiol. 163: 165–175, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mergoum M., Pfeiffer W.H., Pena R.J.: Triticale crop improvement: the CIMMYT programme.–In: Mergoum M., Gomez-Macpherson H. (ed.): Triticale Improvement and Production. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 179. Pp. 11–26. FAO, Rome 2004.Google Scholar
  31. Quarrie S.A., Stojanović J., Pekić S.: Improving drought resistance in small-grained cereals: A case study, progress and prospects. — Plant Growth Regul. 29: 1–21, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosales M.A., Ocampo E., Rodríguez-Valentín R.: Physiological analysis of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars uncovers characteristics related to terminal drought resistance. — Plant Physiol. Bioch. 56: 24–34, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sánchez-Rodríguez E., Rubio-Wilhelmi M.M., Cervilla L.M.: Genotypic differences in some physiological parameters symptomatic for oxidative stress under moderate drought in tomato plants. — Plant Sci. 178: 30–40, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Semerdjieva S.I., Sheffield E., Phoenix G.K.: Contrasting strategies for UV-B screening in sub-Arctic dwarf shrubs. — Plant Cell Environ. 26: 957–964, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Shen X F., Dong Z.X., Chen Y.: Drought and UV-B radiation effect on photosynthesis and antioxidant parameters in soybean and maize. — Acta Physiol. Plant. 37: 1–8, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singleton V.S., Rossi J.A.Jr.: Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagent. — Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 16: 144–157, 1965.Google Scholar
  37. Strasser R.J., Tsimilli-Michael M.: Stress in plants, from daily rhythm to global changes, detected and quantified by the JIPtest. — Chim. Nouvelle 75: 3321–3326, 2001.Google Scholar
  38. Strasser R.J., Tsimilli-Michael M., Qiang S., Goltsev V.: Simultaneous in vivo recording of prompt and delayed fluorescence and 820 nm reflection changes during drying and after rehydration of the resurrection plant Haberlea rhodopensis. — BBA-Bioenergetics 1797: 1313–1326, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. van Kooten O., Snel J.F.H.: The use of chlorophyll fluorescence nomenclature in plant stress physiology. — Photosynth. Res. 25: 147–150, 1990.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wakabayashi K., Hoson T., Kamisaka S.: Osmotic stress suppresses cell wall stiffening and the increase in cell wallbound ferulic and diferulic acids in wheat coleoptiles. — Plant Physiol. 113: 967–973, 1997.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou R., Su W.H., Zhang G.F. et al.: Relationship between flavonoids and photoprotection in shade-developed Erigeron breviscapus transferred to sunlight. — Photosynthetica 54: 201–209, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Institute of Experimental Botany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, Department of Plant PhysiologyUniversity of Agriculture in KrakówKrakówPoland
  2. 2.The Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant PhysiologyPolish Academy of SciencesKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations