Effects of potassium indole butyrate on root morphogenesis and physiological metabolism of soybean under different soil water conditions

doi:10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2021069

Abstract

Abstract:

In this paper, Kenfeng 16 (drought-sensitive) and Hefeng 50 (drought-tolerant) were used as test materials, the potted method was used to study the effects of indole butyrate potassium (IBA-K) seed dressing on root morphogenesis and physiological metabolism of the two varieties of soybean under normal water supply, drought and rewatering conditions. The result showed that compared with normal water supply, drought stress inhibited the growth and development of soybean roots. Dry matter accumulation, morphogenesis, antioxidant enzyme activity and osmotic adjustment substance content of two varieties under IBA-K treatment were higher than their drought control under different soil moisture conditions, reducing the degree of membrane damage. SOD activity, POD activity, soluble sugar and proline content of the two varieties under IBA-K treatment were significantly higher than the drought control under drought conditions, MDA content and relative conductivity were significantly lower than the drought control. Root surface area, average root diameter, root volume, POD activity and CAT activity of the two varieties under IBA-K treatment were higher than their drought control under rewatering conditions, and no significant difference was reached. After rewatering, the dry weight and total root length of Kenfeng 16 roots under IBA-K treatment were significantly increased by 3.13% and 24.51% compared with the drought control, respectively. Dry weight and total root length of Hefeng 50 did not reach significant differences compared with its drought control. The MDA content and relative conductivity of Hefeng 50 under the IBA-K treatment were significantly lower than the drought control by 11.80% and 15.09%, and the SOD activity and soluble sugar content were significantly increased by 14.90% and 3.94% compared with the drought control. The relative conductivity, MDA content, SOD activity and soluble sugar content of Kenfeng 16 did not reach significant differences compared with its drought control. The proline content in the roots of two soybean varieties under IBA-K treatment was significantly increased by 10.62% and 10.70% respectively compared with the drought control. IBA-K treatments and different soil moisture treatments had significant or extremely significant effects on the morphology and physiological indexes of the roots of both varieties, and the interaction between the two had no significant regulatory effect. In summary, IBA-K can reduce the MDA content and relative conductivity by increasing root dry matter accumulation, antioxidant enzyme activity and osmotic adjustment substance content, reducing drought stress on soybean roots at the seedling stage.

Key words: soybean, root system, drought stress, potassium indole butyrate

CLC Number:

S565.1

Mei-ling LIU, Nai-jie FENG, Dian-feng ZHENG, Sheng-jie FENG, Shi-ya WANG, Hong-tao XIANG. Effects of potassium indole butyrate on root morphogenesis and physiological metabolism of soybean under different soil water conditions[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 621-631.

Figures/Tables 10

Table 1

Table 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Table 3

References 41

1	Wang W， Wang C， Pan D， et al. Effects of drought stress on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence images of soybean （Glycine max） seedlings［J］. Int J Agric Biol Eng， 2018， 11（2）：196-201. DOI：10.25165/j.ijabe.20181102.3390 . doi: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20181102.3390
2	Yang X J， Liu Y， Bai W， et al. Spatiotemporal assessment of drought related to soybean production and sensitivity analysis in Northeast China［J］. J Appl Meteorol Climatol， 2017， 56（4）： 937-952. DOI：10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0195.1 . doi: 10.1175/JAMC-D-16-0195.1
3	Yu X Y， He X Y， Zheng H F， et al. Spatial and temporal analysis of drought risk during the crop-growing season over northeast China［J］. Nat Hazards， 2014， 71（1）： 275-289. DOI：10.1007/s11069-013-0909-2 . doi: 10.1007/s11069-013-0909-2
4	Thao N P， Tran L S P. Potentials toward genetic engineering of drought-tolerant soybean［J］. Crit Rev Biotechnol， 2012， 32（4）： 349-362. DOI：10.3109/07388551.2011.643463 . doi: 10.3109/07388551.2011.643463
5	Liang H， Yu Y， Yang H， et al. Inheritance and QTL mapping of related root traits in soybean at the seedling stage［J］. Theor Appl Genet， 2014， 127（10）： 2127-2137. DOI：10.1007/s00122-014-2366-z . doi: 10.1007/s00122-014-2366-z
6	阚宝忠. 浅议大豆苗期田间管理［J］. 农业与技术， 2019， 39（21）： 123-124. DOI： 10. 19754 /j. nyyjs. 20191115053 . doi: 10. 19754 /j. nyyjs. 20191115053
7	Luo L J. Breeding for water-saving and drought-resistance rice （WDR） in China［J］. J Exp Bot， 2010， 61（13）： 3509-3517. DOI：10.1093/jxb/erq185 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq185
8	Manavalan L P， Guttikonda S K， Tran L S， et al. Physiological and molecular approaches to improve drought resistance in soybean［J］. Plant Cell Physiol， 2009， 50（7）： 1260-1276. DOI：10.1093/pcp/pcp082 . doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcp082
9	Song L， Prince S， Valliyodan B， et al. Genome-wide transcriptome analysis of soybean primary root under varying water-deficit conditions［J］. BMC Genomics， 2016， 17： 57. DOI：10.1186/s12864-016-2378-y . doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-2378-y
10	Bellaloui N. Soybean seed phenol， lignin， and isoflavones and sugars composition altered by foliar boron application in soybean under water stress［J］. Food Nutr Sci， 2012， 3（4）：579-590. DOI：10.4236/fns.2012.34080 . doi: 10.4236/fns.2012.34080
11	李琬. 干旱对大豆根系生育的影响及灌溉缓解效应研究进展［J］. 草业学报， 2019， 28（4）： 192-202. DOI：10.11686/cyxb2018222 . doi: 10.11686/cyxb2018222
12	Le D T， Nishiyama R， Watanabe Y， et al. Differential gene expression in soybean leaf tissues at late developmental stages under drought stress revealed by genome-wide transcriptome analysis［J］. PLoS One， 2012， 7（11）： e49522. DOI：10.1371/journal.pone.0049522 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049522
13	Abogadallah G M. Antioxidative defense under salt stress［J］. Plant Signal Behav， 2010， 5（4）： 369-374. DOI：10.4161/psb.5.4.10873 . doi: 10.4161/psb.5.4.10873
14	Abogadallah G M. Insights into the significance of antioxidative defense under salt stress［J］. Plant Signal Behav， 2010， 5（4）： 369-374. DOI：10.4161/psb.5.4.10873 . doi: 10.4161/psb.5.4.10873
15	Gill S S， Tuteja N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants［J］. Plant Physiol Biochem， 2010， 48（12）： 909-930. DOI：10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016 . doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016
16	Zhang M C， Zhai Z X， Tian X L， et al. Brassinolide alleviated the adverse effect of water deficits on photosynthesis and the antioxidant of soybean （Glycine max L.）［J］. Plant Growth Regul， 2008， 56（3）： 257-264. DOI：10.1007/s10725-008-9305-4 . doi: 10.1007/s10725-008-9305-4
17	刘春娟，宋双伟，冯乃杰，等. 干旱胁迫及复水条件下烯效唑对大豆幼苗形态和生理特性的影响［J］. 干旱地区农业研究， 2016， 34（6）： 222-227，256. DOI：10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2016.06.34 . doi: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2016.06.34
18	刘风刚，巨鹏飞，王福政，等. 三唑酮对大豆花期干旱胁迫下根系AsA-GSH循环的影响［J］. 大豆科学， 2019， 38（05）： 740-746. DOI： 10.11861 /j.issn.1000-9841.2019.05.0740 . doi: 10.11861 /j.issn.1000-9841.2019.05.0740
19	齐德强，冯乃杰，郑殿峰，等. 不同壮秧剂对水稻幼苗生长及生理特性的影响［J］. 核农学报， 2019， 033（008）： 1611-1621. DOI： 10.11869 /j.issn.100－8551.2019.08.1611 . doi: 10.11869 /j.issn.100－8551.2019.08.1611
20	Knight P R， Coker C H， Anderson J M， et al. Mist Interval and K-IBA concentration influence rooting of orange and Mountain Azalea［J］. Native Plants J， 2005， 6（2）：111-117. DOI： 10.2979/NPJ.2005.6.2.111 . doi: 10.2979/NPJ.2005.6.2.111
21	Griffin J J， Lasseigne F T. Effects of K-IBA on the Rooting of stem cuttings of 15 taxa of snowbells （Styrax spp.）［J］. J Environ Hortic， 2005， 23（4）： 171-174. DOI：10.24266/0738-2898-23.4.171 . doi: 10.24266/0738-2898-23.4.171
22	王红，宋涛，刘辉，等. 不同浓度生根剂对玉米根系生长的影响［J］. 黑龙江农业科学， 2016（2）： 57-60. DOI：10.11942/j.issn1002-2767.2016.02.0057 . doi: 10.11942/j.issn1002-2767.2016.02.0057
23	王利彬，刘丽君，裴宇峰，等. 大豆种质资源芽期抗旱性鉴定［J］. 东北农业大学学报， 2012， 43（1）： 36-43. DOI：10.19720/j.cnki.issn.1005-9369.2012.01.007 . doi: 10.19720/j.cnki.issn.1005-9369.2012.01.007
24	Ohashi Y， Nakayama N， Saneoka H， et al. Effects of drought stress on photosynthetic gas exchange， chlorophyll fluorescence and stem diameter of soybean plants［J］. Biol Plant， 2006， 50（1）：138-141. DOI： 10.1007/s10535-005-0089-3 . doi: 10.1007/s10535-005-0089-3
25	Dong S， Jiang Y， Dong Y， et al. A study on soybean responses to drought stress and rehydration［J］. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences， 2019， 26（8）： 2006-2017. DOI： 10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.08.005 . doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.08.005
26	李合生. 植物生理生化实验原理和技术［M］. 高等教育出版社， 2000.
27	Jumrani K， Bhatia V S. Interactive effect of temperature and water stress on physiological and biochemical processes in soybean［J］. Physiol Mol Biol Plants， 2019， 25（3）： 667-681. DOI： 10.1007/s12298-019-00657-5 . doi: 10.1007/s12298-019-00657-5
28	Kim H J， Cho H S， Pak J H， et al. Confirmation of drought tolerance of ectopically expressed AtABF3 gene in soybean［J］. Mol cells， 2018， 41（5）： 413. DOI： 10.14348/molcells.2018.2254 . doi: 10.14348/molcells.2018.2254
29	He J， Du Y L， Wang T， et al. Conserved water use improves the yield performance of soybean （Glycine max （L.） Merr.） under drought［J］. Agric Water Manag， 2017， 179： 236-245. DOI.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.07.008.
30	Smith D M， Inman-Bamber N G， Thorburn P J. Growth and function of the sugarcane root system［J］. Field Crops Res， 2005， 92（2-3）：169-183. DOI：10.1016/j.fcr.2005.01.017 . doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2005.01.017
31	Zhang M， He S， Zhan Y， et al. Exogenous melatonin reduces the inhibitory effect of osmotic stress on photosynthesis in soybean［J］. PLoS One， 2019， 14（12）： e0226542. DOI：10.1371/journal.pone.0226542 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226542
32	Roldán A， Díaz-Vivancos P， Hernández J A， et al. Superoxide dismutase and total peroxidase activities in relation to drought recovery performance of mycorrhizal shrub seedlings grown in an amended semiarid soil［J］. J Plant Physiol， 2008， 165（7）： 715-722. DOI：10.1016/j.jplph.2007.02.007 . doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2007.02.007
33	Freitas P A F， Miranda R， Marques E C， et al. Salt tolerance induced by exogenous proline in maize is related to low oxidative damage and favorable ionic homeostasis［J］. J Plant Growth Regul， 2018， 37（3）： 911-924. DOI：10.1007/s00344-018-9787-x . doi: 10.1007/s00344-018-9787-x
34	Golldack D， Li C， Mohan H， et al. Tolerance to drought and salt stress in plants： Unraveling the signaling networks［J］. Front Plant Sci， 2014， 5： 151. DOI：10.3389/fpls.2014.00151 . doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00151
35	Zhang M， Duan L， Tian X， et al. Uniconazole-induced tolerance of soybean to water deficit stress in relation to changes in photosynthesis， hormones and antioxidant system［J］. J Plant Physiol， 2007， 164（6）：709-717. DOI： 10.1016/j.jplph.2006.04.008 . doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2006.04.008
36	Nohong B， Nompo S. Effect of water stress on growth， yield， proline and soluble sugars contents of Signal grass and Napier grass species［J］. American-Eurasian J Sustain Agr， 2015： 14-22. ISSN： 1995-0748， EISSN： 1998-1074.
37	Szabados L， Savouré A. Proline： a multifunctional amino acid［J］. Trends Plant Sci， 2010， 15（2）： 89-97. DOI：10.1016/j.tplants.2009.11.009 . doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.11.009
38	Kheirizadeh Arough Y， Seyed Sharifi R， Sedghi M， et al. Effect of zinc and bio fertilizers on antioxidant enzymes activity， chlorophyll content， soluble sugars and proline in Triticale under salinity condition［J］. Not Bot Horti Agrobo， 2016， 44（1）： 116-124. DOI：10.15835/nbha44110224 . doi: 10.15835/nbha44110224
39	Krasensky J， Jonak C. Drought， salt， and temperature stress-induced metabolic rearrangements and regulatory networks［J］. J Exp Bot， 2012， 63（4）： 1593-1608. DOI：10.1093/jxb/err460 . doi: 10.1093/jxb/err460
40	Nguyen T T Q， Pham H B V， Le T V， et al. Evaluation of proline， soluble sugar and ABA content in soybean Glycine max （L.） under drought stress memory［J］. AIMS Bioeng， 2020， 7（3）： 114-123. DOI：10.3934/bioeng.2020011 . doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020011
41	Mattioli R， Costantino P， Trovato M. Proline accumulation in plants： not only stress［J］. Plant signal behav， 2009， 4（11）： 1016-1018. DOI： 10.4161/psb.4.11.9797 . doi: 10.4161/psb.4.11.9797

品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	干重 Dry weight/g	总根长 Total rootlength/cm	根表面积 Root surface area/cm²	根平均直径 Root average diameter/mm	根体积 Root volume/cm³
垦丰16 Kenfeng 16	CK	0.11±0.00d	647.41±24.48c	75.24±3.24c	0.35±0.02a	0.89±0.05d
	I	0.12±0.00d	770.37±35.86c	92.69±4.32b	0.37±0.00a	0.97±0.02cd
	DCK	0.26±0.01c	1163.30±37.02ab	125.32±9.10a	0.43±0.08a	1.11±0.05bc
	DI	0.27±0.00c	1194.50±21.81ab	130.99±2.53a	0.45±0.09a	1.15±0.04bc
	RDCK	0.32±0.01b	1115.61±123.10b	132.78±6.65a	0.47±0.07a	1.27±0.10ab
	RDI	0.33±0.00a	1389.01±115.86a	140.04±2.26a	0.54±0.10a	1.39±0.09a
合丰50 Hefeng 50	CK	0.13±0.01c	869.79±85.03d	79.53±1.83c	0.38±0.02c	0.98±0.02d
	I	0.13±0.00c	928.63±17.95cd	100.33±7.18c	0.41±0.03bc	1.16±0.01cd
	DCK	0.29±0.02b	1148.65±47.95bc	127.77±8.80b	0.48±0.08abc	1.18±0.05bcd
	DI	0.31±0.02ab	1232.84±52.64ab	133.55±3.02ab	0.53±0.07abc	1.21±0.03bc
	RDCK	0.33±0.01ab	1325.63±152.45ab	138.92±12.12ab	0.58±0.08ab	1.38±0.12ab
	RDI	0.35±0.03a	1456.31±56.60a	152.56±3.31a	0.66±0.02a	1.47±0.07a

品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	根干重 Root dry weight	总根长 Total root length	根表面积 Root surface area	根平均直径 Root average diameter	根体积 Root volume
垦丰16 Kenfeng 16	不同土壤水分处理Different soil water treatment（A）	757.13**	32.29**	56.88**	2.21	19.48**
	IBA-K处理Treatment（B）	4.96*	5.66*	5.50*	0.42	2.60
	A×B	0.69	1.39	0.73	0.05	0.17
合丰50 Hefeng 50	不同土壤水分处理Different soil water treatment（A）	90.40**	18.80**	33.42**	7.00**	15.69**
	IBA-K处理Treatment（B）	0.78	1.92	5.40*	1.28	3.52
	A×B	0.18	0.10	0.57	0.06	0.62

品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	MDA含量 MDA content	相对电导率 Relative conductivity	可溶性糖含量 Soluble sugar content		脯氨酸含量 Proline content
垦丰16 Kenfeng 16	不同土壤水分处理Different soil water treatment（A）	761.46**	144.92**	1844.69**		158.90**
	IBA-K处理Treatment（B）	19.36**	12.89**	45.06**		87.36**
	A×B	4.18*	0.55	27.93**		13.74**
合丰50 Hefeng 50	不同土壤水分处理Different soil water treatment（A）	572.35**	422.28**	1534.65**		309.79**
	IBA-K处理Treatment（B）	29.13**	60.03**	105.63**		146.77**
	A×B	1.02	2.73	33.81**		37.52**
品种 Variety	处理 Treatment	SOD活性 SOD activity	POD活性 POD activity		CAT活性 CAT activity
垦丰16 Kenfeng 16	不同土壤水分处理Different soil water treatment（A）	126.43**	253.95**		0.66
	IBA-K处理Treatment（B）	5.04*	7.36*		2.49
	A×B	3.15	1.38		0.05
合丰50 Hefeng 50	不同土壤水分处理Different soil water treatment（A）	76.64**	152.93**		0.81
	IBA-K处理Treatment（B）	68.36**	26.58**		2.74
	A×B	1.37	4.97*		0.04

[1]	Jing-hui WANG, Yang LIU, Qi-you ZHENG, Xiao-tang CHENG, Chao-hui WANG. Identification of soybean producing area in North China based on multi-element and fatty acid fingerprint characteristics [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 532-538.
[2]	Yue-li YUAN, Yuan-yuan YI, Yong ZHAN, Li-miao CHEN, Song-li YUAN, Yi HUANG, Zhi-yuan XIAO, Chan-juan ZHANG, Xin-an ZHOU. Distinguishing and evaluating high nitrogen-use-efficient soybean germplasm at seedling stage [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 539-547.
[3]	Wei LIU, Yu-bin WANG, Wei LI, Li-feng ZHANG, Cai-jie WANG, Ran XU, Hai-ying DAI, Yan-wei ZHANG. QTL mapping and candidate genes identification for flowering time of soybean [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 548-554.
[4]	Jian-qiu LIANG, Xiao-bo YU, Jian-gang AN, Zhao-qiong ZENG, Hai-ying WU, Ming-rong ZHANG. Maturity group classification of soybean varieties (lines) in the national trials [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 555-561.
[5]	Yu-jia TAO, Lei LI, Zong-liang REN, Cheng LU, Qing-tao GONG, Xing-hua XING, Hai-dong JIANG. Regulation of signaling of H₂O₂ homeostasis under mild drought on drought resistance of soybean [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 602-609.
[6]	Qing-nan HAO, Fang YANG, Ai-ai WANG, Ze-fu LONG, Zhong-lu YANG, Hai-feng CHEN, Zhi-hui SHAN, Jun-bo DENG, Xin-an ZHOU. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and sodium nitratol on photosynthetic characteristics and yield quality in southern soybean [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 610-620.
[7]	Kai LU, Jun-shan QI, Kai QI, Li-guo MA, Yue-li ZHANG, Bo ZHANG, Guo-ping MA, Chang-song LI. Pathogen identification of Pythium root rot disease on soybean [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(3): 652-658.
[8]	Lu-lu LIU, Jian-fei LI, Yue SHU, xiao-yang CHEN, Gui-xiang TANG. Current situation of soybean production and consumption in China and strategies to improve self-sufficiency rate [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(2): 242-248.
[9]	Lu HAN, Ke-xin QU, Yong-fu FU, Qing-shan CHEN, Xiao-xia WU, Xiao-mei ZHANG. A study on the function of GmWUS2 gene regulating the number of soybean nodules [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(2): 289-297.
[10]	Hong-chang JIA, De-zhi HAN, Hong-rui YAN, Lei ZHANG, Ji-li LIANG, Xiao-fei YAN, Hai-fang ZHU, Wen-cheng LU. Comparative study on identification methods of soybean maturity group [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(2): 307-315.
[11]	Le GAO, Zhi-qiang LI, Kai LI, Hai-jian ZHI. Advances in transgenic resistance to soybean mosaic virus disease [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(2): 434-441.
[12]	Ying-lu HU, Xin-yue TIAN, Lei CHEN, Ning DING, Xiao-feng LI, Yu GAO, Shu-sen SHI. Analysis of fertility and population trend of experimental population of Riptortus pedestris fed on soybean pods [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(2): 460-466.
[13]	Yue LI, Hai-yan LI, Yuan-yuan ZHOU, Jing-sheng CHEN, Ji-dong YU. Effect of ethanol extract of industrial hemp stalks on physiological and biochemical metabolism of soybean cyst nematode [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(1): 177-182.
[14]	Jia-lin LIU, Hui-min XIE, Zheng ZHANG, Bo-yun YANG, Huo-lin LUO, Gui-ru GONG, Dong-jin XIONG. Population structure and genetic analysis within soybean cultivars of Huang-Huai-Hai and Southern region of China based on SSR markers related to QTL [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2022, 44(1): 63-71.
[15]	Yang ZHOU, Xiao-feng YUE, Xiao-qian TANG, Hong-lin YAN, Qi ZHANG, Pei-wu LI. A preliminary study on the coupling effect of aflatoxin green control and super-nodulation [J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF OIL CROP SCIENCES, 2021, 43(6): 947-960.