Physiological Responses to Drought Stress in Glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible Biotypes of Eleusine indica

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2022-1015

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to specify the response difference of glyphosate-resistant (R) and -susceptible (S) biotypes of Eleusine indica to drought stress, using the R biotype with EPSPS gene amplification and the S biotype as research materials, the physiological indicators of the two biotypes were analyzed and compared under normal water (CK) and drought stress (DS) treatments. The results showed that, under CK treatment, there were no significant differences in root morphological parameters, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and photosynthetic parameters between the R and S biotype. However, under DS treatment, the root length, root tip number, root fork number and root crossing number of the S biotype were 2 times higher than that of the R biotype, and the S biotype (56.4%) had higher root:shoot ratio than the R biotype (48.2%). At 4 to 96 h after DS treatment, values of the Fv/Fm, Y (Ⅱ) and ETR (Ⅱ) of the S biotype were higher than that of the R biotype. Under DS treatment, the net photosynthetic rate of the S biotype [24.5 μmol/(m²·s)] was significantly higher than that of the R biotype [20.5 μmol/(m²·s)]. This study showed that there were significant differences in the responses to drought stress between the R and S biotype of E. indica, and the adaptability of the R biotype to drought stress was slightly lower than that of the S biotype.

Key words: Eleusine indica, glyphosate resistance, drought stress, root morphology, chlorophyll fluorescence

GUO Wenlei, ZHANG Chun, ZHANG Taijie, TIAN Xingshan. Physiological Responses to Drought Stress in Glyphosate-resistant and -susceptible Biotypes of Eleusine indica[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(29): 123-128.

Figures/Tables 6

References 31

[1]	DUKE S O, POWLES S B. Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide[J]. Pest management science, 2008, 64:319-325. doi: 10.1002/ps.1518 pmid: 18273882
[2]	杨彩宏, 田兴山, 冯莉, 等. 牛筋草对草甘膦的抗药性[J]. 中国农业科学, 2012, 45(10):2093-2098. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2012.10.023
[3]	ZHU J W, WANG J, DITOMMASO A, et al. Weed research status, challenges, and opportunities in China[J]. Crop protection, 2020, 134:104449. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2018.02.001 URL
[4]	HEAP I, DUKE S O. Overview of glyphosate-resistant weeds worldwide[J]. Pest management science, 2018, 74(5):1040-1049. doi: 10.1002/ps.4760 pmid: 29024306
[5]	BAERSON S R, RODRIGUEZ D J, TRAN M, et al. Glyphosate-resistant goosegrass. Identification of a mutation in the target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase[J]. Plant physiology, 2002, 129:1265-1275. pmid: 12114580
[6]	CHEN J C, HUANG H J, ZHANG C X, et al. Mutations and amplification of EPSPS gene confer resistance to glyphosate in goosegrass (Eleusine indica)[J]. Planta, 2015, 242:859-868. doi: 10.1007/s00425-015-2324-2 pmid: 25998526
[7]	YU Q, JALALUDIN A, HAN H, et al. Evolution of a double amino acid substitution in the 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate synthase in Eleusine indica conferring high level glyphosate resistance[J]. Plant physiology, 2015, 167:1440-1447. doi: 10.1104/pp.15.00146 URL
[8]	BAUCOM R S. Evolutionary and ecological insights from herbicide-resistant weeds: what have we learned about plant adaptation, and what is left to uncover?[J]. New phytologist, 2019, 223: 68-82. doi: 10.1111/nph.15723 pmid: 30710343
[9]	KESHTKAR E, ABDOLSHAHI R, SASANFAR H, et al. Assessing fitness costs from a herbicide resistance management perspective: A review and insight[J]. Weed science, 2019, 67(2):137-148. doi: 10.1017/wsc.2018.63 URL
[10]	WANG Y H, HAN H P, CHEN J Y, et al. A dinitroaniline herbicide resistance mutation can be nearly lethal to plants[J]. Pest management science, 2022, 78(4): 1547-1554. doi: 10.1002/ps.6773 pmid: 34981627
[11]	HAN H P, VILA-AIUB M M, JALALUDIN A, et al. A double EPSPS gene mutation endowing glyphosate resistance shows a remarkably high resistance cost[J]. Plant cell and environment, 2017, 40(12):3031-3042. doi: 10.1111/pce.v40.12 URL
[12]	COCKERTON H. Investigating the cost of adaptation in Amaranthus tuberculatus populations with evolved resistance to glyphosate[D]. England: university of warwick, 2013.
[13]	CHANDI A, JORDAN D L, YORK A C, et al. Response of herbicide resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions to drought stress[J]. International journal of agronomy, 2013: 823913.
[14]	WU C X, DAVIS A S, TRANEL P J. Limited fitness costs of herbicide-resistance traits in Amaranthus tuberculatus facilitate resistance evolution[J]. Pest management science, 2018, 74:293-301. doi: 10.1002/ps.2018.74.issue-2 URL
[15]	MARTIN S L, BENEDICT L, SAUDER C A, et al. Glyphosate resistance reduces kochia fitness: Comparison of segregating resistant and susceptible F₂ populations[J]. Plant science, 2017, 261:69-79. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.04.010 URL
[16]	YANG X, LI L, JIANG X, et al. Genetically engineered rice endogenous 5-enolpyruvoylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) transgene alters phenology and fitness of crop-wild hybrid offspring[J]. Scientific reports, 2017, 7:6834. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07089-9 pmid: 28754953
[17]	FANG J, NAN P, GU Z Y, et al. Overexpressing exogenous 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) genes increases fecundity and auxin content of transgenic Arabidopsis plants[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2018, 9:233. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00233 URL
[18]	LI Z L, LI X J, CUI H L, et al. Vegetative and fecundity fitness benefit found in a glyphosate-resistant Eleusine indica population caused by 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase overexpression[J]. Frontiers in plant science, 2021, 12:776990. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.776990 URL
[19]	ZHANG C, YU C J, YU Q, et al. Evolution of multiple target-site resistance mechanisms in individual plants of glyphosate-resistant Eleusine indica from China[J]. Pest management science, 2021, 77:4810-4817. doi: 10.1002/ps.v77.10 URL
[20]	宋殿秀, 崔良基, 王德兴, 等. 17份食用向日葵杂交种苗期抗旱性综合评价[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2021, 39(3):18-22.
[21]	段居琦, 袁佳双, 徐新武, 等. 对IPCC AR6报告中有关农业系统结论的解读[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2022, 18(4):422-432.
[22]	PATTERSON E L, PETTINGA D J, RAVET K, et al. Glyphosate resistance and EPSPS gene duplication: Convergent evolution in multiple plant species[J]. Journal of heredity, 2017, 109:117-125. doi: 10.1093/jhered/esx087 URL
[23]	ZHANG C, FENG L, TIAN X S. Alterations in the 5′ untranslated region of the 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS) gene influence EPSPS overexpression in glyphosate-resistant Eleusine indica[J]. Pest management science, 2018, 74:2561-2568. doi: 10.1002/ps.2018.74.issue-11 URL
[24]	VILA-AIUB M M, YU Q, POWLES S B. Do plants pay a fitness cost to be resistant to glyphosate?[J]. New phytologist, 2019, 223:532-547. doi: 10.1111/nph.2019.223.issue-2 URL
[25]	GIACOMINI D, WESTRA P, WARD S M. Impact of genetic background in fitness cost studies: An example from glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth[J]. Weed science, 2014, 62:29-37. doi: 10.1614/WS-D-13-00066.1 URL
[26]	VILA-AIUB M M, GOH S S, GAINES T A, et al. No fitness cost of glyphosate resistance endowed by massive EPSPS gene amplification in Amaranthus palmeri[J]. Planta, 2014, 239:793-801. doi: 10.1007/s00425-013-2022-x URL
[27]	OSIPITAN O A, DILLE J A. No impact of increased EPSPS gene copy number on growth and fecundity of glyphosate-resistant Kochia (Bassia scoparia)[J]. Weed science, 2019, 67:22-28. doi: 10.1017/wsc.2018.82 URL
[28]	YANNICCARI M, VILA-AIUB M M, ISTILART C, et al. Glyphosate resistance in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. ) is associated with a fitness penalty[J]. Weed science, 2016, 64:71-79. doi: 10.1614/WS-D-15-00065.1 URL
[29]	PURRINGTON C B, BERGELSON J. Exploring the physiological basis of costs of herbicide resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana[J]. American naturalist, 1999, 154:S82-S91 doi: 10.1086/303285 URL
[30]	KOUAME KB-J, SAVIN M C, RANGANI G, et al. Transpiration responses of herbicide-resistant and -susceptible palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats.) to progressively drying soil[J]. Agriculture, 2022, 12:335. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12030335 URL
[31]	ZHANG T J, FENG L, TIAN X S, et al. Differential response of two biotypes of goosegrass (Eleusine indica) with different sensitivities to glyphosate to elevated CO₂ concentrations[J]. International journal of agriculture and biology, 2015, 17(5):976-982. doi: 10.17957/IJAB URL

处理	生物型	根长度/cm	根表面积/cm²	平均根直径/cm	根体积/cm³	根尖数	分枝数	交叉数
CK	R	602.9±81.0	58.4±8.1	0.33±0.04	0.49±0.05	2592.0±418.5	4548.8±408.5	1741.3±199.9
	S	825.9±101.3	68.2±6.1	0.26±0.01	0.45±0.04	3000.0±301.9	5874.7±942.2	2419.0±609.5
	P值	0.072	0.242	0.088	0.466	0.326	0.142	0.209
DS	R	315.9±41.2	27.1±3.4	0.28±0.04	0.19±0.05	990.3±265.0	1611.3±197.0	553.8±73.7
	S	677.9±78.9	48.6±11.5	0.23±0.03	0.26±0.07	2254.7±370.7	4724.7±973.2	1900.0±227.6
	P值	0.001	0.030	0.197	0.269	0.007	0.003	<0.001

处理	生物型	根长度/cm	根表面积/cm²	平均根直径/cm	根体积/cm³	根尖数	分枝数	交叉数
CK	R	602.9±81.0	58.4±8.1	0.33±0.04	0.49±0.05	2592.0±418.5	4548.8±408.5	1741.3±199.9
	S	825.9±101.3	68.2±6.1	0.26±0.01	0.45±0.04	3000.0±301.9	5874.7±942.2	2419.0±609.5
	P值	0.072	0.242	0.088	0.466	0.326	0.142	0.209
DS	R	315.9±41.2	27.1±3.4	0.28±0.04	0.19±0.05	990.3±265.0	1611.3±197.0	553.8±73.7
	S	677.9±78.9	48.6±11.5	0.23±0.03	0.26±0.07	2254.7±370.7	4724.7±973.2	1900.0±227.6
	P值	0.001	0.030	0.197	0.269	0.007	0.003	<0.001

处理	生物型	根系干重/g	地上部干重/g	根冠比/%
CK	R	0.076±0.013	0.261±0.04	29.1±2.1
	S	0.074±0.013	0.231±0.029	31.7±2.0
	P值	0.809	0.279	0.128
DS	R	0.058±0.019	0.119±0.034	48.2±6.7
	S	0.068±0.025	0.121±0.041	56.4±3.6
	P值	0.406	0.938	0.019

处理	生物型	根系干重/g	地上部干重/g	根冠比/%
CK	R	0.076±0.013	0.261±0.04	29.1±2.1
	S	0.074±0.013	0.231±0.029	31.7±2.0
	P值	0.809	0.279	0.128
DS	R	0.058±0.019	0.119±0.034	48.2±6.7
	S	0.068±0.025	0.121±0.041	56.4±3.6
	P值	0.406	0.938	0.019

处理	生物型	A/[μmol/(m²·s)]	Gs/[μmol/(m²·s)]
CK	R	22.6±1.1ab	0.18±0.02a
CK	S	24.4±1.7a	0.17±0.02a
DS	R	20.5±0.8b	0.13±0.01b
DS	S	24.5±0.3a	0.13±0.01b