Chitosan application in the induction of water deficit tolerance in maize plants

The present research seeks to elucidate the feasibility of chitosan (CHT) in the induction of water deficit tolerance in different maize hybrids, contrasting tolerance to water restriction, tolerance and sensitivity. The maize plants were subjected to water deficit and foliar application of different chitosan doses (60, 100, 140, and 180 mg L^-1) at the pre-flowering growth stage and evaluated during the stress period of fifteen days. To understand the induction behaviour of the tolerance to water restriction, biophysical parameters, such as water potential, relative water content and chlorophyll content, gas exchange, and biochemical assays, were quantified based on the activity of SOD, CAT, APX, and PAL antioxidant enzymes, lipid peroxidation activity and hydrogen peroxide content. Among the treatments, maize plants subjected to chitosan foliar application at a dose of 140 mg L^-1 presented similar behavioural responses to plants under favourable irrigation conditions. Such positive responses are related to the high degree of activity of antioxidant enzymes, gas exchange and low levels of lipid peroxidation and hydrogen peroxide. The results support the potential use of CHT to increase tolerance to water stress.

Keywords:
antiperspirant; antioxidant enzymes; water stress; gas exchange

Authorship

Lorena Gabriela Almeida ^** Author for correspondence. E-mail: lorenagabrielalg@hotmail.com

Universidade Federal de Lavras, Câmpus Universitário, Cx. Postal 3037, 37200-000, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Universidade Federal de LavrasBrazilLavras, Minas Gerais, BrazilUniversidade Federal de Lavras, Câmpus Universitário, Cx. Postal 3037, 37200-000, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2018-2206

Paulo César Magalhães

Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e Sorgo, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Sete Lagoas, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa AgropecuáriaBrazilSete Lagoas, Minas Gerais, BrazilCentro Nacional de Pesquisa de Milho e Sorgo, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Sete Lagoas, Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Décio Karam

Eder Marcos da Silva

Amauri Alves Alvarenga

* Author for correspondence. E-mail: lorenagabrielalg@hotmail.com

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figures | Tables

Figures (6)
Tables (2)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Leaf water potential at noon ψ_md, during the stress application of two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to the different treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Relative water content (RWC %), during stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to several CHT treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype according to the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Chlorophyll index during the stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) with and without different CHT application doses. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Gas exchange parameters during stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to the various treatments, Pn (photosynthetic rate, A and B), gs (stomatal conductance, D, E, and F), E (perspiration rate, G, H, and I), and Ci (internal carbon, J, K, and L). The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 5
Antioxidant SOD enzymes activity (A and B), CAT (D, E, and F), APX (G, H, and I), and PAL (J, K and L) during the stress application on two contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to the different treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 6
Malondialdehyde content (MDA) (A, B, and C) and H₂O₂ (D, E, and F) during the stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to several treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Table 1
Maximum photochemical efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm) maize hybrids with contrasting drought tolerance characteristics for cultivating under different treatments.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Production characteristics in contrasting drought tolerant maize hybrids grown under different treatments.

Figure 1 Leaf water potential at noon ψ_md, during the stress application of two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to the different treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 2 Relative water content (RWC %), during stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to several CHT treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype according to the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 3 Chlorophyll index during the stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) with and without different CHT application doses. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 4 Gas exchange parameters during stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to the various treatments, Pn (photosynthetic rate, A and B), gs (stomatal conductance, D, E, and F), E (perspiration rate, G, H, and I), and Ci (internal carbon, J, K, and L). The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 5 Antioxidant SOD enzymes activity (A and B), CAT (D, E, and F), APX (G, H, and I), and PAL (J, K and L) during the stress application on two contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to the different treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 6 Malondialdehyde content (MDA) (A, B, and C) and H₂O₂ (D, E, and F) during the stress application on two drought contrasting hybrids (DKB 390 and BRS 1010) subjected to several treatments. The averages followed by the same letter do not statistically differ from each other. Uppercase letters denote comparisons between genotypes, and lowercase letters denote comparisons between treatments within the same genotype by the Scott-Knott test at a 5% significance level (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 1 Maximum photochemical efficiency of PSII (Fv/Fm) maize hybrids with contrasting drought tolerance characteristics for cultivating under different treatments.

DKB 390*
	Irrigated	Stressed	Acetic acid	60 mg L^-1	100 mg L^-1	140 mg L^-1	180 mg L^-1	CV%
1 DAA	0.80 a	0.69 b	0.69 d	0.69 c	0.73 b	0.79 a	0.70 b	15.1
7 DAA	0.81 a	0.63 c	0.65 c	0.69 b	0.72 b	0.79 a	0.68 b	16.2
15 DAA	0.80 a	0.58 d	0.59 d	0.60 c	0.70 b	0.75 a	0.66 b	14.3
BRS 1010*
1 DAA	0.79 a	0.68 b	0.69 b	0.70 b	0.72 b	0.78 a	0.69 b	14.0
7 DAA	0.78 a	0.62 c	0.64 c	0.71 b	0.3 b	0.77 b	0.69 b	14.5
15 DAA	0.74 a	0.55 c	0.59 c	0.67 b	0.68 b	0.72 a	0.68 b	14.1

*Tolerant hybrid DKB 390, sensitive hybrid BRS 1010.

Table 2 Production characteristics in contrasting drought tolerant maize hybrids grown under different treatments.

DKB 390*
	Irrigated	Stressed	Acetic acid	60 mg L^-1	100 mg L^-1	140 mg L^-1	180 mg L^-1	CV%
PD	2.47Aa	2.02 Ad	2.03 Ad	2.31 Ab	2.31 Ab	2.46 Aa	2.26 Ac	13.8
ED	49.10 Aa	35.00 Ad	35.00 Ad	46 Ab	46 Ab	49 Aa	46.1 Ab	14.7
NGR	26 Aa	10.0 Ac	10.8 Ac	24.2 Ab	24.8 Ab	26.8 Aa	24.8 Ab	14.6
NRE	15.8 Aa	8.4 Ad	8.4 Ad	13.4 Ac	13.2 Ac	15.8 Aa	12.4 Ac	15.2
TDB	174.84 Aa	91.00 Ad	91.04 Ad	144.90 Ab	145.10 Ab	173.90 Aa	139.10 Ac	12.3
DGB	61.89 Aa	28.2 Ac	28.4 Ac	51.30 Ab	50.9 Ab	61.12 Aa	51.2 Ab	14.6
HI	0.35% Aa	0.30% Ac	0.30% Ac	0.32% Ab	0.31% Ab	0.35% Aa	0.33% Ab	14.1
BRS 1010
PD	2.18 Ba	1.88 Bd	1.89 Bd	2.02 Bc	2.14 Bb	2.19 Ba	2.15 Bb	13.9
ED	43.31 Ba					43.1 Ba		12.4
NGR	17.20 Ba					16.9 Ba		15.9
NRE	13.20 Ba					13.1 Ba		13.6
TDB	129 Ba	37.5 Bd	37.3 Bd	58.4 Bc	61.1 Bb	128.1 Ba	60.9 Bb	15.8
DGB	25.3 Ba					25 Ba		13.5
HI	0.31% Ba					0.31% Ba		15.5

Tolerant hybrid DKB 390, sensitive hybrid BRS 1010. PH: plant height (m); ED: spike diameter (mm); NGR: number of grains per row; NRE: number of ears per row; TDB: total dry biomass (g); DGB: total grain biomass (g); HI: harvest index (g g^-1). * There was no production.

How to cite

copy

Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá - EDUEM Av. Colombo, 5790, bloco 40, 87020-900 - Maringá PR/ Brasil, Tel.: (55 44) 3011-4253, Fax: (55 44) 3011-1392 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: actaagron@uem.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Chitosan application in the induction of water deficit tolerance in maize plants

PlumX

Mensagem

[1] * Author for correspondence. E-mail: lorenagabrielalg@hotmail.com