The Morphological Response Mechanism of Sugar Beet to Low Nitrogen Stress

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0825

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to analyze the morphological response mechanism of sugar beet to low-nitrogen stress, sugar beet germplasm resource ‘780016B/12 superior’ was used as the research material, the changes of morphology and root architecture of sugar beet were comprehensively analyzed under nitrogen deficiency (N 0 mmol/L) and low nitrogen (N 1.5 mmol/L). The results showed that under nitrogen stress, the above-ground biomass accumulation decreased, the underground biomass accumulation increased, the root to shoot ratio increased, the leaf area decreased, and the growth and development of sugar beet was inhibited. After 7 to 14 days of low nitrogen stress, the increase of root area, volume and root branch number were greater than those of the control (N 10 mmol/L). Under nitrogen stress, the root architecture of sugar beet was dichotomy, and with the increase of stress time and nitrogen deficiency, the greater the underground biomass, the more obvious this phenomenon is. Therefore, it can be inferred that the root biomass of sugar beet is closely related to the root architecture. Sugar beet obtains nitrogen balance by changing the root ratio and root architecture.

Key words: sugar beet, low-nitrogen stress, phenotype, morphological response, root architecture

CLC Number:

S566.3

LI Jiajia, WEI Duo, XU Lingqing, WANG Qiuhong, MA Longbiao, LIU Dali. The Morphological Response Mechanism of Sugar Beet to Low Nitrogen Stress[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(36): 41-46.

Figures/Tables 6

References 27

[1]	TAN Z X, LAL R, WIEBE K D. Global soil nutrient depletion and yield reduction[J]. Journal of sustainable agriculture, 2005, 26(1):123-146. doi: 10.1300/J064v26n01_10 URL
[2]	LAL R. Soils and sustainable agriculture. A review[J]. Agron sustain dev, 2008, 28:57-64. doi: 10.1051/agro:2007025 URL
[3]	VITOUSEK P M, PORDER S, HOULTON B Z, et al. Terrestrial phosphorus limitation: mechanisms, implications, and nitrogen-phosphorus interactions[J]. Ecological applications, 2010, 20(1):5-15. doi: 10.1890/08-0127.1 URL
[4]	MELINO V J, FIENE G, ENJU A, et al. Genetic diversity for root plasticity and nitrogen uptake in wheat seedlings[J]. Functional plant biology, 2015, 42(10):942-956. doi: 10.1071/FP15041 URL
[5]	LYNCH J P. Steep, cheap and deep: an ideotype to optimize water and N acquisition by maize root systems[J]. Annals of botany, 2013, 112(2):347-357. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcs293 URL
[6]	MEHRABI F, SEPASKHAH A R. Interaction effects of planting method, irrigation regimes, and nitrogen application rates on yield, water and nitrogen use efficiencies of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum)[J]. International journal of plant production, 2018, 12(4):265-283. doi: 10.1007/s42106-018-0025-z URL
[7]	LU J, BAI Z H, VELTHOF G L, et al. Accumulation and leaching of nitrate in soils in wheat-maize production in China[J]. Agricultural water management, 2019, 212(36):407-415. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.08.039 URL
[8]	SZMIGIEL A, KOODZIEJCZYK M, ANDZEJ O, et al. Efficiency of nitrogen fertilization in spring wheat[J]. International journal of plant production, 2016, 10(4):447-456.
[9]	DAVID R. The responses of plants to non-uniform supplies of nutrients[J]. The new phytologist, 1994, 127(4):635-674. doi: 10.1111/nph.1994.127.issue-4 URL
[10]	TRUBAT R, CORTINA J, VILAGROSA A, et al. Root architecture and hydraulic conductance in nutrient deprived Pistacia lentiscus L. seedlings[J]. Oecologia, 2012, 170(4):899-908. doi: 10.1007/s00442-012-2380-2 URL
[11]	MALAMY J E. Intrinsic and environmental response pathways that regulate root system architecture[J]. Plant cell & environment, 2005, 28(1):67-77.
[12]	王艺霖, 周玫, 李苹, 等. 根系形态可塑性决定黄栌幼苗在瘠薄土壤中的适应对策[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2017, 39(6):60-69.
[13]	EISSENSTAT D M, WELLS C E, WHITBECK R, et al. Building roots in a changing environment: implications for root longevity[J]. New phytologist, 2000, 147(1):33-42. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00686.x URL
[14]	EISSENSTAT D M. Trade-offs in root form and function[J]. Ecology in agriculture, 1997:173-199.
[15]	PELEMAN J, VAN DER VOORT J R. Voort Breeding by design[J]. Trends in plant science, 2003, 8(7):330-334. doi: 10.1016/S1360-1385(03)00134-1 URL
[16]	SIMÕES W L, YURI J E, GUIMARÃES M J M, et al. Beet cultivation with saline effluent from fish farming[J]. Revista brasileira de engenharia agrícola e ambiental, 2016, 20(1):62-66. doi: 10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v20n1p62-66 URL
[17]	陈艺文, 李用财, 余凌羿, 等. 中国三大主产区甜菜糖业发展分析[J]. 中国糖料, 2017, 39(4):74-76,80.
[18]	康亮, 梁琼月, 姚一华, 等. 不同氮效率木薯品种根系形态、构型及氮吸收动力学特征[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2019, 25(11):1920-1928.
[19]	JU C X, BURESH R J, WANG Z Q, et al. Root and shoot traits for rice varieties with higher grain yield and higher nitrogen use efficiency at lower nitrogen rates application[J]. Field crops research, 2015, 175:47-55. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.02.007 URL
[20]	CHILUNDO M, JOEL A, WESSTRM I, et al. Response of maize root growth to irrigation and nitrogen management strategies in semi-arid loamy sandy soil[J]. Field crops research, 2017, 200:143-162. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.10.005 URL
[21]	PANDEY R, MEENA M, PAUL V, et al. Visual image based phenoyping of biomass and growth in plants under field conditions[J]. Method, 2018:33-38.
[22]	张楚, 张永清, 路之娟, 等. 低氮胁迫对不同苦荞品种苗期生长和根系生理特征的影响[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(7):1331-1339.
[23]	CAI J, CHEN L, QU H, et al. Alteration of nutrient allocation and transporter genes expression in rice under N, P, K, and Mg deficiencies[J]. Acta physiologiae plantarum, 2012, 34(3):939-946. doi: 10.1007/s11738-011-0890-x URL
[24]	HERRERA, L F R, SHANE M W, LÓPEZ-BUCIO J, et al. Nutritional regulation of root development: nutritional regulation[J]. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews developmental biology, 2015, 4(4):431-443. doi: 10.1002/wdev.2015.4.issue-4 URL
[25]	任永哲. 低氮胁迫对不同小麦品种苗期性状的影响[J]. 种子, 2012, 31(5):91-94.
[26]	LYNCH J. Root Architecture and Plant Productivity[J]. Plant physiology, 1995, 109(1):7-13. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.1.7 URL
[27]	WANG Q W, DAUMAL M, NAGANO S, et al. Plasticity of functional traits and optimality of biomass allocation in elevational ecotypes of Arabidopsis halleri grown at different soil nutrient availabilities[J]. Journal of plant research, 2019, 132(2):237-249. doi: 10.1007/s10265-019-01088-9 URL

处理时间/d	施氮量/ (mmol/L)	地上生物量/(g/plant)		地下生物量/(g/plant)		总重/(g/plant)		根冠比
处理时间/d	施氮量/ (mmol/L)	鲜重(FW)	干重(DW)	鲜重(FW)	干重(DW)	鲜重(FW)	干重(DW)	根冠比
7	0	0.08±0.01b	0.02±0.01b	0.02±0.00a	0.02±0.00b	0.10±0.01	0.04±0.00	0.77±0.11a
	1.5	1.40±0.77b	0.05±0.01b	0.58±0.09a	0.02±0.01b	1.98±0.74	0.07±0.01	0.45±0.09a
	10	7.74±1.63a	0.56±0.06a	2.40±1.30a	0.19±0.10a	10.14±1.92	0.75±0.10	0.36±0.20a
14	0	0.15±0.01b	0.02±0.00b	0.05±0.01b	0.04±0.01b	0.17±0.01	0.09±0.01	0.90±0.21a
	1.5	2.25±0.43b	2.00±0.63b	0.36±0.10ab	0.14±0.01b	4.25±0.81	0.49±0.11	0.44±0.11ab
	10	12.72±0.39a	5.01±0.60a	3.09±0.33a	0.49±0.12a	17.73±0.74	3.58±0.28	0.17±0.05b

处理时间/d	施氮量/ (mmol/L)	地上生物量/(g/plant)		地下生物量/(g/plant)		总重/(g/plant)		根冠比
处理时间/d	施氮量/ (mmol/L)	鲜重(FW)	干重(DW)	鲜重(FW)	干重(DW)	鲜重(FW)	干重(DW)	根冠比
7	0	0.08±0.01b	0.02±0.01b	0.02±0.00a	0.02±0.00b	0.10±0.01	0.04±0.00	0.77±0.11a
	1.5	1.40±0.77b	0.05±0.01b	0.58±0.09a	0.02±0.01b	1.98±0.74	0.07±0.01	0.45±0.09a
	10	7.74±1.63a	0.56±0.06a	2.40±1.30a	0.19±0.10a	10.14±1.92	0.75±0.10	0.36±0.20a
14	0	0.15±0.01b	0.02±0.00b	0.05±0.01b	0.04±0.01b	0.17±0.01	0.09±0.01	0.90±0.21a
	1.5	2.25±0.43b	2.00±0.63b	0.36±0.10ab	0.14±0.01b	4.25±0.81	0.49±0.11	0.44±0.11ab
	10	12.72±0.39a	5.01±0.60a	3.09±0.33a	0.49±0.12a	17.73±0.74	3.58±0.28	0.17±0.05b

处理时间/d	氮含量/(mmol/L)	根面积	根体积	分叉数
7	0	19.64±0.71b	0.17±0.03c	674.33±147.27b
	1.5	44.32±14.29b	0.54±0.17b	1291.00±525.60ab
	10	84.50±4.50a	1.05±0.05a	2146.33±108.22a
14	0	28.01±1.85b	0.23±0.02b	909.67±28.67b
	1.5	313.50±22.60a	3.50±0.67a	6878.33±295.03a
	10	436.78±69.55a	4.39±1.01a	7497.33±207.98a

处理时间/d	氮含量/(mmol/L)	根面积	根体积	分叉数
7	0	19.64±0.71b	0.17±0.03c	674.33±147.27b
	1.5	44.32±14.29b	0.54±0.17b	1291.00±525.60ab
	10	84.50±4.50a	1.05±0.05a	2146.33±108.22a
14	0	28.01±1.85b	0.23±0.02b	909.67±28.67b
	1.5	313.50±22.60a	3.50±0.67a	6878.33±295.03a
	10	436.78±69.55a	4.39±1.01a	7497.33±207.98a

处理时间/d	氮含量/(mmol/L)	叶面积
7	0	1.54±0.06c
	1.5	8.79±2.14b
	10	18.21±1.35a
14	0	1.93±0.12b
	1.5	31.17±2.26b
	10	102.68±24.72a