Effects of Drought Stress on Growth and Physiological Indicators of Echinacea purpurea Seedlings

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2024-0150

Abstract

Abstract:

The paper aims to investigate the effects of drought stress on the growth and physiological indexes of Echinacea purpurea seedlings. The seedlings were treated with 5%, 10% and 15% polyethylene glycol (PEG 6000) simulated drought stress, respectively, to study the effects of simulated drought stress with different concentrations of PEG on biomass, chlorophyll content, and the accumulation of proline, soluble protein and soluble sugar in leaves and roots of E. purpurea. With the extension of drought stress time and the severity of drought, the growth and dry and fresh weight of E. purpurea seedlings showed a decreasing trend. The proline and soluble protein in leaves and roots of E. purpurea seedlings showed an increasing trend. On the 6th day after stress, when the PEG concentration reached 15%, the proline, soluble protein in leaves and roots of E. purpurea seedlings began to decrease. The soluble sugar increased with the duration and severity of drought stress. Chlorophyll content maintained normal synthesis at first, and showed an upward trend when PEG concentration reached 15%. E. purpurea seedlings have strong tolerance to mild and moderate drought stress, and can adapt to drought stress by various mechanisms such as morphological change, material metabolism, physiological regulation, etc., but the tolerance to long-term and high concentration stress is poor, protein decomposition is accelerated, cell damage is serious, and growth is significantly inhibited.

Key words: Echinacea purpurea, polyethylene glycol, drought stress, chlorophyll, proline, soluble protein, soluble sugar

WANG Xiaoyan, ZHAO Juanhong, YANG Zhilan, MA Caihong, ZHENG Guoqi. Effects of Drought Stress on Growth and Physiological Indicators of Echinacea purpurea Seedlings[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2024, 40(31): 44-50.

Figures/Tables 6

References 45

[1]	李继仁, 赵玉英, 艾铁民. 三种松果菊化学成分与生物活性研究进展[J]. 中国中药杂志, 2002(5):17-20.
[2]	BARRETT B. Medicinal properties of Echinacea: A critical review[J]. Phytomedieine, 2003, 10(1):66-86.
[3]	BUKOVSKY M, VAVERKOVA S, KOSTALOVA D. Immunomodulating activity of Echinacea gloriosa L. Echinacea angustifolia DC. and Rudbeckia speciosa Wenderoth ethanol-water extracts[J]. Polish journal of pharmacology, 1995, 47(2):175.
[4]	韩琳娜, 周凤琴. 不同种源引种紫锥菊的过氧化物酶同工酶分析[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2011, 29(1):52-55.
[5]	王弘, 侯建中, 陈世忠, 等. 松果菊挥发油的化学成分研究[J]. 中国中医药信息杂志, 2002(5):42-43.
[6]	陈荣, 年海, 吴鸿. 氮磷钾配施对紫锥菊产量和质量的影响[J]. 中草药, 2007(6):917-921.
[7]	郭绍芬, 冯尚彩, 吴峰. 临沂引种松果菊有效成分的研究[J]. 临沂师范学院学报, 2009, 31(3):79-82.
[8]	田健. 生长环境和营养的可用性对紫锥菊和狭叶紫锥菊中某些酚类化合物量的影响[J]. 国外医药植物药分册, 2007, 22(4):178.
[9]	LI Y, YE W, WANG M, et al. Climate change and drought: a risk assessment of crop-yield impacts[J]. Climate research, 2009, 39(1):31-46.
[10]	陈博, 范继红, 李玉舒, 等. 金野紫穗槐对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2023, 62(7):89-94.
[11]	FANG Y J, XIONG L Z. General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants[J]. Cellular & molecular life sciences, 2015, 72(4):673-689.
[12]	马福林, 马玉花. 干旱胁迫对植物的影响及植物的响应机制[J]. 宁夏大学学报(自然科学版), 2022,43:399.
[13]	AKINCI S, LOSEL D M. The effects of water stress and recovery periods on soluble sugars and starch content in cucumber cultivars[J]. Fresenius environmental bulletin, 2010, 19(2):164-171.
[14]	ASHRAF M F, FOOLAD M R. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance[J]. Environmental and experimental botany, 2007, 59(2):206-216.
[15]	AARLAND R C, BAÑUELOS-HERNÁNDEZ A E, FRAGOSO-SERRANO M, et al. Studies on phytochemical, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, hypoglycaemic and antiproliferative activities of Echinacea purpurea and Echinacea angustifolia extracts[J]. Pharmaceutical biology, 2017, 55(1): 649-656.
[16]	MANAYI A, VAZIRIAN M, SAEIDNIA S. Echinacea purpurea: Pharmacology, phytochemistry and analysis methods[J]. Pharmacognosy reviews, 2015, 9(17):63. doi: 10.4103/0973-7847.156353 pmid: 26009695
[17]	李妍, 宋凯旋, 赵静, 等. 聚乙二醇(PEG)模拟干旱胁迫对三叶草生长及抗氧化酶活性的影响[J]. 北方园艺, 2019(11):92-96.
[18]	任畇霏. 模拟干旱条件下钾镁素配比对高羊茅生长的影响[D]. 兰州: 兰州大学, 2017.
[19]	崔秀妹, 刘信宝, 李志华, 等. 不同水分胁迫下水杨酸对分枝期扁蓿豆生长及光合生理的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2012, 21(6):82-93.
[20]	邹琦. 植物生理学实验指导[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社,2000:161-250.
[21]	GUO R, SHI L X, YANG Y F. Germination, growth, osmotic adjustment and ionic balance of wheat in response to saline and alkaline stresses[J]. Soil science and plant nutrition, 2010, 55(5):667-679.
[22]	邹成林, 吕巨智, 翟瑞宁, 等. 广西玉米品种萌芽期生理生化特性及其抗旱性综合评价[J]. 南方农业学报, 2022, 53(3):785-794.
[23]	申林, 胡海军, 吴亚男, 等. 不同辣椒品种对干旱胁迫的生理响应[J]. 福建农业科技, 2022, 53(4):34-39.
[24]	KAUR N, GUPTA A K. Signal transduction pathways under abiotic stresses in plants[J]. Current science, 2005, 88(10):1771-1780.
[25]	NARESH P S, PRAMOD K P, SANDEEP K V. Morpho-physiological characterization of Indian wheat genotypes and their evaluation under drought condition[J]. African journal of biotechnology, 2014, 13(20).
[26]	NÉMETH M, JANDA T, HORVÁTH E, et al. Exogenous salicylic acid increases polyamine content but may decrease drought tolerance in maize[J]. Plant science, 2002, 162(4):569-574.
[27]	VASANTHA S, ALARMELU S, HEMAPRABHA C, et al. Evalualion of proising sugarcane genolypes for drought[J]. Sugar technology, 2005,7:82-83.
[28]	周萌, 罗洋, 郭金汉, 等, PEC模拟干早胁迫对香果树种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 耕作与栽培, 2022, 42(1):18-22.
[29]	赵孟良, 赵文菊, 郭怡婷, 等. 干旱胁迫及复水对菊芋生长及叶片光合和生理特性的影响[J]. 植物资源与环境学报, 2019, 28(4):49-57.
[30]	赖小连, 颜玉娟, 颜立红, 等. 干旱胁迫对黄檀幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2020, 48(7):1-6.
[31]	姬文琴, 杨智, 汪辉, 等. 不同生育阶段燕麦对干旱胁迫的响应[J]. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(1):58-67.
[32]	戴海根, 董文科, 柴澍杰, 等. 模拟干旱胁迫下鹰嘴紫云英幼苗生长及生理特性[J]. 中国草地学报, 2021, 43(10):63-75.
[33]	MAHMOOD T, ABDULLAH M, AHMAR S, et al. Incredible role of osmotic adjustment in grain yield sustainability under water scarcity conditions in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)[J]. Plants, 2020, 9(9):1208.
[34]	FURLAN A L, BIANUCCI E, GIORDANO W, et al. Proline metabolic dynamics and implications in drought tolerance of peanut plants[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2020,151:566-578.
[35]	郑淼, 郭毅, 王丽敏. 干旱胁迫对红宝石海棠根系形态及生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2020, 22(3):24-30. doi: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2019.0143
[36]	祁伟亮, 冯鸿, 刘松青, 等. 不同桑品种在干旱胁迫下脯氨酸及可溶性蛋白质含量的变化规律研究[J]. 中国野生植物资源, 2017, 36(5):34-36.
[37]	权文利, 产祝龙. 紫花苜蓿抗旱机制研究进展[J]. 生物技术通报, 2016, 32(10):34-41. doi: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2016.10.003
[38]	周芳, 刘恩世, 孙海彦, 等. 前期干旱锻炼对木薯根系内源激素及可溶性糖含量的影响[J]. 热带作物学报, 2013, 34(3):486-494.
[39]	HAYASHI T, HARADAHARAD A, SAKAI T, et al. Ca²⁺ transient induced by extracellular changes in osmotic pressure in Arabidopsis leaves: Differential involvement of cell wall-plasma membrane adhesion[J]. Plant cell environment, 2006, 29(4):661-672.
[40]	冯蕊, 周琪, 吴令上, 等. PEG6000模拟干旱胁迫对铁皮石斛幼苗生理和叶绿素荧光特性的影响[J]. 浙江农林大学学报, 2024, 41(1):132-144.
[41]	王仲林, 谌俊旭, 程亚娇, 等. 干旱胁迫下玉米叶片可溶性糖光谱估测研究[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2018, 36(4):436-443.
[42]	FAROOQ M, WAHID A, KOBAYASHI N, et al. Plant drought stress: Effects, mechanisms and management[J]. Agronomy for sustainable development, 2009, 29(1):185-212.
[43]	FRANZONI G, COCETTA G, FERRANTE A. Effect of glutamic acid foliar applications on lettuce under water stress[J]. Physiology and molecular biology of plants, 2021,(275):1059-1072.
[44]	AHMED I M, DAI H, ZHENG W, et al. Genotypic differences in physiological characteristics in the tolerance to drought and salinity combined stress between Tibetan wild and cultivated barley[J]. Plant physiology and biochemistry, 2013,63:49-60.
[45]	NIKOLAEVA M K, MAEVSKAYA S N, SHUGAEV A G, et al. Effect of drought on chlorophyll content and antioxidant enzyme activities in leaves of three wheat cultivars varying in productivity[J]. Russian journal of plant physiology, 2010, 57(1):87-95.