Iron Enrichment and Sugar Beet Seedlings: Effect on the Growth and Protection System

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0792

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the effect of iron enrichment on the growth and physiological changes of sugar beet seedlings, a hydroponic experiment was carried out with 7 treatments (0.06, 0.12, 0.24, 0.48, 0.96, 1.92 and 3.84 mmol/L with 6 repeats). The changes of various physiological indexes of sugar beet seedlings were determined and analyzed under different concentrations of Fe²⁺. The results showed that along with the increase of Fe²⁺ stress concentration, the growth of sugar beet was inhibited, the leaf area of the above-ground part decreased, the relative electrical conductivity of the leaf increased, and the relative water content decreased. The underground part showed that the root system became shorter, the area became smaller, and the color turned darker. At the same time, the antioxidant enzyme activity of sugar beet plants increased under high iron stress, and the accumulation of soluble sugar and proline involved in osmotic regulation increased to varying degrees. With the increase of Fe²⁺, the changing trend first increased and then decreased, and reached the maximum when the Fe²⁺ stress concentration was 0.96 mmol/L. The results indicate that the antioxidant enzymes and osmotic regulators of sugar beet plants play an important regulatory role in high concentration of iron stress, but when the Fe²⁺concentration exceeds a certain level, this regulatory mechanism could be significantly inhibited.

Key words: sugar beet, iron stress, SOD, POD, APX, CAT, osmotic regulation

CLC Number:

S566.3

Geng Gui, Wang Gang, Dong Yinzhuang, Fan Guokai, Yu Lihua, Wang Yuguang. Iron Enrichment and Sugar Beet Seedlings: Effect on the Growth and Protection System[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2021, 37(21): 20-27.

Figures/Tables 5

References 26

[1]	李任任, 吕春华, 於丽华, 等. 滤泥对改良酸性土,促进甜菜生长的施用效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(07):28-34.
[2]	张自强, 白晨, 张惠忠, 等. 甜菜种质资源苗期耐盐性评价及筛选[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(36):23-28.
[3]	张玲玉, 赵学强, 沈仁芳. 土壤酸化及其生态效应[J]. 生态学杂志, 2019, 38(6):1900-1908.
[4]	高明, 孙海, 张丽娜, 等. 铁、锰胁迫对人参叶片某些生理特征的影响[J]. 吉林农业大学学报, 2012, 34(2):130-137.
[5]	贾璐婷. 水涝胁迫下东北山樱根系GABA代谢特征及其生理效应研究[D]. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2018.
[6]	许文花, 杨蔚, 段新慧, 等. 铝胁迫对紫花苜蓿生长及根系发育的影响[J]. 草原与草坪, 2020, 40(6):71-75.
[7]	文钟灵, 杨旻恺, 陈星雨, 等. 酸铝胁迫土壤中耐铝大豆根际不同部位细菌群落结构、功能及其对促生菌富集作用的研究[J/OL]. 遗传:1-15 [2021-03-06]. https://doi.org/10.16288/j.yczz.20-409 .
[8]	张宝成, 刘云芳, 李应禄, 等. 锰胁迫对小飞蓬生长与生理生化特征影响初探[J/OL]. 东北农业科学:1-6 [2021-03-06]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/ detail/22.1376.s.20200929.1018.002.html .
[9]	孟飞, 崔宇, 付萍杰. 铜胁迫下玉米叶片光谱STFT分析与叶片铜离子浓度反演[J/OL]. 农业机械学报:1-14 [2021-03-06]. http://kns.cnki. net/kcms/detail/11.1964.S.20210111.0934.006.html .
[10]	章艺. 过量Fe²+对大豆生理特性和叶肉细胞超微结构的影响[D]. 杭州:浙江大学, 2004.
[11]	姚棋, 赵鑫, 陈浩婷, 等. 缺铁胁迫下外源亚精胺对番茄幼苗生长及生理特性的影响[J]. 山东农业科学, 2020, 52(12):39-43.
[12]	樊庆琦, 楚秀生, 隋新霞, 等. 小麦缺铁胁迫苗期相关性状的聚类分析[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2019, 47(13):81-84.
[13]	翟丽红. 大豆(Glycine max)响应缺铁胁迫的生理变化及基因表达研究[D]. 哈尔滨:哈尔滨师范大学, 2019.
[14]	赵燕, 项华, 熊娜, 等. 亚铁胁迫对水稻生长及矿质元素积累的影响[J]. 中国稻米, 2018, 24(3):30-38.
[15]	李向婷. 铁胁迫对油橄榄幼苗生理指标的影响[J]. 四川林勘设计, 2015, 119(2):44-47.
[16]	蔺冬梅. 过量铁胁迫对豌豆幼苗毒害作用的研究[D]. 兰州:兰州大学, 2010.
[17]	岳丽娟. 铁胁迫对豌豆幼苗铁代谢、光合作用及抗氧化系统的影响[D]. 兰州:兰州大学, 2009.
[18]	徐晓峰, 吴锦霞, 莫蓓莘. 植物生理学实验指导:英汉双语[M]: 广州: 华南理工大学出版社, 2012.
[19]	Yang G, Rhodes D, Joly R J, et al. Effects of High Temperature on Membrane Stability and Chlorophyll Fluorescence in Glycinebetaine-deficient and Glycinebetaine-containing Maize Lines[J]. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 1996, 23(4):437-443.
[20]	刘剑锋. 酸和铁胁迫对紫花苜蓿草酸代谢的影响[D]. 兰州:甘肃农业大学, 2008.
[21]	蔺冬梅, 徐世健, 张新芳, 等. 过量铁胁迫对豌豆幼苗光合特性和叶绿体膜的影响[J]. 草业科学, 2011, 28(11):1950-1956.
[22]	Chalmardi Z K, Abdolzadeh A, Sadeghipour H R, et al. Silicon nutrition potentiates the antioxidant metabolism of rice plants under iron toxicity[J]. Acta physiol plant, 2014, 36(2):493-502. doi: 10.1007/s11738-013-1430-7 URL
[23]	Wang Y G, Stevanato P, Yu L H, et al. The physiological and metabolic changes in sugar beet seedlings under different levels of salt stress[J]. Journal of plant research, 2017, 130(6)1079-1093. doi: 10.1007/s10265-017-0964-y URL
[24]	吕春华, 於丽华, 李任任, 等. 不同钾钠水平对甜菜幼苗生长和生理特性的影响[J]. 黑龙江大学自然科学学报, 2019, 36(4):459-464.
[25]	Kaur H, Halliwell B. Action of biologically-relevant oxidizing species upon uric acid. Identification of uric acid oxidation products[J]. Chemico-Biological Interactions, 1990, 73(23):235-247. doi: 10.1016/0009-2797(90)90006-9 URL
[26]	张浩, 杨鹤, 郜玉钢, 等. 铁元素对农田人参丙二醛含量及防御酶活性的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2010, 38(5):2362-2363.

处理/ (mmol/L)	SOD/[U/(mg protein)]		CAT/[U/(min·mg）protein]		POD/[U/(min·mg）protein]		APX/[μmol/(min·mg)protein]
处理/ (mmol/L)	叶	根	叶	根	叶	根	叶	根
0.06	89.97±2.02^a	19.78±10.83^a	0.14±0.002^a	0.0110±0.0002^a	0.1718±0.0117^a	0.286±0.020^a	0.806±0.093^a	0.698±0.008^a
0.12	86.68±0.56^b	18.49±13.49^b	0.16±0.004^b	0.0122±0.0002^b	0.2695±0.0228^b	0.333±0.012^a	1.298±0.060^ab	0.767±0.034^a
0.24	84.26±0.57^c	17.07±14.56^c	0.18±0.011^b	0.0129±0.0002^c	0.3030±0.1120^c	0.340±0.012^b	1.484±0.018^b	0.885±0.047^b
0.48	83.81±0.50^c	15.90±15.90^d	0.18±0.009^c	0.0133±0.0007^c	0.3311±0.0220^cd	0.354±0.009^c	1.615±0.069^c	0.935±0.049^c
0.96	81.90±1.47^d	14.56±19.78^d	0.22±0.009^c	0.0165±0.0012^cd	0.4487±0.0106^de	0.492±0.031^c	1.932±0.091^d	1.286±0.022^c
1.92	80.37±0.53^de	13.49±18.49^f	0.20±0.001^d	0.0153±0.0008^d	0.4075±0.0104^d	0.469±0.014^c	1.847±0.028^e	1.210±0.023^d
3.84	78.67±0.93^e	10.83±17.07^g	0.19±0.004^e	0.0137±0.0004^e	0.3626±0.0382^f	0.424±0.023^d	1.778±0.061^f	1.074±0.082^d

处理/ (mmol/L)	SOD/[U/(mg protein)]		CAT/[U/(min·mg）protein]		POD/[U/(min·mg）protein]		APX/[μmol/(min·mg)protein]
处理/ (mmol/L)	叶	根	叶	根	叶	根	叶	根
0.06	89.97±2.02^a	19.78±10.83^a	0.14±0.002^a	0.0110±0.0002^a	0.1718±0.0117^a	0.286±0.020^a	0.806±0.093^a	0.698±0.008^a
0.12	86.68±0.56^b	18.49±13.49^b	0.16±0.004^b	0.0122±0.0002^b	0.2695±0.0228^b	0.333±0.012^a	1.298±0.060^ab	0.767±0.034^a
0.24	84.26±0.57^c	17.07±14.56^c	0.18±0.011^b	0.0129±0.0002^c	0.3030±0.1120^c	0.340±0.012^b	1.484±0.018^b	0.885±0.047^b
0.48	83.81±0.50^c	15.90±15.90^d	0.18±0.009^c	0.0133±0.0007^c	0.3311±0.0220^cd	0.354±0.009^c	1.615±0.069^c	0.935±0.049^c
0.96	81.90±1.47^d	14.56±19.78^d	0.22±0.009^c	0.0165±0.0012^cd	0.4487±0.0106^de	0.492±0.031^c	1.932±0.091^d	1.286±0.022^c
1.92	80.37±0.53^de	13.49±18.49^f	0.20±0.001^d	0.0153±0.0008^d	0.4075±0.0104^d	0.469±0.014^c	1.847±0.028^e	1.210±0.023^d
3.84	78.67±0.93^e	10.83±17.07^g	0.19±0.004^e	0.0137±0.0004^e	0.3626±0.0382^f	0.424±0.023^d	1.778±0.061^f	1.074±0.082^d