Acid Rain Deposition Modulates Photosynthesis, Enzymatic and Non-enzymatic Antioxidant Activities in Tomato
Acid rain is one of the serious environmental issues causing morphological and physiological changes in plants. However, the impact of acid rain to vegetable crops remains indescribable. This study explored the effects of two pH levels of simulated acid rain (SAR) on photosynthesis and activity of different enzymatic and non-enzymatic key antioxidant compounds compared with control in two different tomato cultivars. With the increasing levels of acidity of SAR, decreased significantly the plant growth, chlorophyll, carotenoids, soluble protein and soluble sugar contents in leaves of both tomato cultivars but decreased percentages were more in Red Rain than Micro-Tom cultivar of tomato. Different enzymatic antioxidant key compounds accumulation was the maximum at pH 3.5 and degraded at pH 2.5 of SAR treatment for both tomato cultivars. In contrast, the growth of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), malondialdehyde (MDA) and proline content was increased by SAR treatment which depends on the level of pH value of SAR. In addition, marked increase in phenolic, flavonoid and reducing antioxidant activity was found at pH 3.5 followed by pH 2.5 of SAR and control in both tomato cultivars. Our findings suggested that the tomato seedlings produced more reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant compounds to SAR stress at 3.5 pH level. Meanwhile, the inhibition of growth as well as photosynthesis of tomato seedlings and the severity of oxidative damage were found at pH 2.5 of SAR which might be depend on the types of cultivar.
KeywordsSimulated acid rain Solanum lycopersicum Reactive oxygen species Photosynthesis Antioxidant compound
We are thankful to Yueting Sun, Xiaocao Lu for their helpful assistance in purchasing reagents. This study was supported by the National Natural Science Grant of China (Award no. 30400061), Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China (2011J01082) and Special Fund for Science and Technology Innovation of FAFU (CXZX2016107).
- Al Hassan M, Fuertes MM, Sanchez FJR, Vicente O, Boscaiu M (2015) Effects of salt and water stress on plant growth and on accumulation of osmolytes and antioxidant compounds in cherry tomato. Not Bot Horti Agrobot Cluj-Napoca 43(1):1Google Scholar
- Bhattacharjee S (2005) Reactive oxygen species and oxidative burst: roles in stress, senescence and signal transduction in plants. Curr Sci 89:1113–1121Google Scholar
- Das K, Roychoudhury A (2014) Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Frontiers Environ Sci 2(53):53Google Scholar
- Hamid N, Jawaid F (2009) Effect of short-term exposure of two different concentrations of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide mixture on some biochemical parameter of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Pak J Bot 41(5):2223-2228Google Scholar
- Lichtenthaler HK, Wellburn AR (1983) Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Portland Press Limited, London, UKGoogle Scholar
- Neves NR, Oliva MA, Da CCD, Costa AC, Ribas RF, Pereira EG (2009) Photosynthesis and oxidative stress in the restinga plant species Eugenia uniflora L. exposed to simulated acid rain and iron ore dust deposition: potential use in environmental risk assessment. Sci Total Environ 407(12):3740–3745Google Scholar
- Shereefa LAH, Kumaraswamy M (2016) Reactive oxygen species and ascorbate–glutathione interplay in signaling and stress responses in Sesamum orientale L. against Alternaria sesami (Kawamura) Mohanty and Behera. J Saudi Soc Agril Sci 15(1):48-56Google Scholar
- Strasser RJ, Tsimilli-Michael M, Srivastava A (2004) Analysis of the chlorophyll a fluorescence transient. Chlorophyll a Fluorescence 19:321–362Google Scholar
- Zhang J, Wang J, Zhao Z, Chen Y, Dou W (2005) Effects of simulated acid rain on physiological and biochemical characters of eggplant, the host plant of Tetranychus cinnabarinus. Ying yong sheng tai xue bao. J Appl Ecol 16(3):450–454Google Scholar