Abscisic acid-mediated yield gain through reduced oxidative damage caused by salt and water stress in Cyperus esculentus

Jing XU, Lang LIU, Fang KANG, Boyuan LIU, Minghan YU, Keyu FA

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. ›› 2024, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (4) : 561-574.

PDF(2411 KB)
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. All Journals
PDF(2411 KB)
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. ›› 2024, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (4) : 561-574. DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2024579
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abscisic acid-mediated yield gain through reduced oxidative damage caused by salt and water stress in Cyperus esculentus

Author information +
History +

Highlights

● Negative Synergy of homogeneous limitation caused by combined water and salt stress.

● A pivotal role of abscisic acid in the response to combined salt and water stress.

Cyperus esculentus sustain organic matter production by reallocating resources.

● Morphological changes are more sensitive to water limitation.

Abstract

The investigation of the response mechanisms of Cyperus esculentus to water and salt stresses is crucial for the enhancement of the productivity of saline soils. Previous studies have indicated that plant hormones, antioxidant systems, and osmoregulation may contribute to the stabilization of yield. However, the contributions and interactions of these mechanisms remain poorly understood under combined water and salt stress in natural environments. A dual-factor (salt and water) orthogonal test was used to investigate the growth and biochemical responses of C. esculentus, under combined salt and water stress in a field experiment conducted on a typical saline area in northern China. The findings reveal that C. esculentus adjusted its biomass allocation strategies and activated hormone responses, antioxidant system, and osmoregulation mechanisms to maintain stable yield. Due to the negative synergism when salt and water stress coexist, the homogeneous limitations of both are weakened. Thus, the key to maintaining yields under combined water and salt stress may depend on indirectly enhancing tolerance to oxidative damage through abscisic acid, rather than focusing on accumulating low molecular weight osmoregulants and antioxidant enzymes to directly alleviate homogeneous limitations. Also, under combined salt and water stress, insufficient irrigation may have a greater impact on morphological characteristics than high salinity. The above results contribute to a deeper understanding of the process of adapting C. esculentus to combined salt and water stress.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Cyperus esculentus / salt stress / water stress / yield / abscisic acid

Cite this article

Download citation ▾
Jing XU, Lang LIU, Fang KANG, Boyuan LIU, Minghan YU, Keyu FA. Abscisic acid-mediated yield gain through reduced oxidative damage caused by salt and water stress in Cyperus esculentus. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng., 2024, 11(4): 561‒574 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2024579

1 INTRODUCTION

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) is a nutritious crop with high protein content and balanced essential amino acids, and its yield potential has been continuously achieved under suitable agronomic measures to meet increasing global demand[1,2]. North-western China, with its high altitude and abundance of sunshine, is the largest quinoa production region in China[3]. However, the local farmers often use excessive irrigation, fertilizer and planting density based on their past experience, resulting in serious wastage of water, deep drainage, nitrogen leaching and low photosynthetic efficiency[46]. Also, this unsuitable production management can induce severe lodging of quinoa[710] leading to substantial yield losses[11,12]. Lodging occurs due to the interactions between plant, wind, rain and soil. Wind exerts a force which bends and breaks the stem base (stem lodging) or rain wets the soil and reduces the soil strength, resulting in the failure of the soil-root anchorage system (root lodging). In North-western China, quinoa lodging is mainly in the form of stem lodging because the farmers tend to grow tall cultivars (1.6−2.0 m) and large spike for great yield[1315]. Therefore, more appropriate irrigation, nitrogen fertilizer application and planting density practices are urgently required to concurrently improve yield and stem lodging resistance.
Irrigation is beneficial to the development of the stem and leaf, and improves yield[2,16]. However, greater plant height[17], canopy growth[18] and length of the basal internodes[19] with higher irrigation lead to an increase in crop lodging risk[12]. Thus, an optimal irrigation scheduling should focus on concurrently increasing yield and lodging resistance in the production of quinoa. The soil matric potential is recommended as a criterion to schedule irrigation in arid and semiarid areas[20]. However, the quinoa yield and lodging risk under soil matric potential-based irrigation management have not been adequately studied. Generally, increasing nitrogen rate can increase in quinoa yield[2,7,21] but associated increase of plant height and center of gravity under high nitrogen rates can also result in severe lodging risk[22,23]. In Germany, the quinoa lodging rate has been reported to increase from 5% to 20% as nitrogen application rate was increased from 0 to 120 kg·ha−1[7] but a detailed investigation of how nitrogen fertilizer affects the lodging resistance in quinoa has not been undertaken. Increasing planting density remains one of the most effective agronomic means to improve quinoa yield[24,25] but severe lodging under dense planting conditions have been frequently reported in wheat[26] and maize[27,28]. High lodging risk is associated with low strength and diameter of the basal internodes under high planting density[29] whereas the relationships between lodging risk, yield and planting density in quinoa has received little attention. Although early research[2] revealed the effects of soil matric potential-based irrigation criteria, nitrogen application rate and planting density on quinoa growth, seed quality, water use efficiency and estimated yield, yield losses caused by lodging have not been specifically analyzed.
Evaluating crop lodging risk quantitatively is a prerequisite to preventing yield loss caused by lodging[3032]. Lodging index takes plant height (or center of gravity height), fresh weight per plant and stem strength into account and it has been widely applied as an indicator to represent crop lodging risk[3335]. Basal stem strength was often used to calculate the lodging index[34,35] because the basal stem sustained a greater bending moment than the higher position, which was considered to be more susceptible to bend or break[36]. However, whether the stem lodging mainly occurs at the stem base is unclear because the basal stem also has the greatest stem strength along the stem[29,37]. Therefore, the determination of an optimal position along the stem to calculate the lodging index for evaluating crop lodging risk is worthy of investigation.
The purposes of this study were (1) to explore the responses of lodging resistance and actual yield of quinoa to irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate and planting density, and (2) to determine an optimal position along the stem to calculate lodging index for evaluating and assessing quinoa lodging risk.

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Experimental site

Field traits were conducted in 2018 and 2019 at Shiyanghe Experimental Station of China Agricultural University, which was located in Wuwei City, Gansu Province, China (102°50′ E, 37°52′ N, 1581 m asl). This region has a typical continental temperate climate with a mean annual precipitation of 164 mm and the pan evaporation of over 2000 mm. The rainfall and wind speed during quinoa growing seasons in 2018 and 2019 are shown in Fig. 1. The experimental site has sandy loam soil. The soil bulk density was 1.5 g·cm−3 both in 2018 and 2019. The field capacities were 0.31 and 0.30 cm3·cm−3 in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The total nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium of the soil were 0.066%, 0.075% and 1.81% in 2018 and 0.060%, 0.076% and 1.92% in 2019.
Fig.1 Rainfall and average wind speed and maximum wind speed during quinoa growing seasons in 2018 (a) and 2019 (b). Wave, average wind speed; Wmax, maximum wind speed.

Full size|PPT slide

2.2 Experimental design and treatments

Irrigation threshold levels were designed as previously described[20], regarding soil matric potential of −15, −25 and −55 kPa as the high, intermediate and low irrigation thresholds, respectively. Base on earlier research[7,24,38], the nitrogen application rates of 80, 160, and 240 kg·ha−1 were used. Planting densities (20, 30, and 40 plants m−2) were determined to explore the possible greater yield under a higher planting density compared to some local field experiments[39,40]. The experiment was designed in an orthogonal design with three replicates and laid out as shown in Table 1.
Tab.1 Experimental layout using orthogonal design L9 (33)
Experiment Irrigation threshold (kPa) Nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1) Planting density (plants m−2)
1 −15 80 20
2 −15 160 30
3 −15 240 40
4 −25 80 30
5 −25 160 40
6 −25 240 20
7 −55 80 40
8 −55 160 20
9 −55 240 30

2.3 Agronomic practices and irrigation scheduling

Agronomic practices and irrigation scheduling were as previously described[2]. The quinoa cv. Longli No.1 was used because it is a tall local cultivar with disease resistance, salt tolerance and of high yield potential and nutrition[39].

2.4 Measurements

2.4.1 Lodging related traits and lodging index

On 8 August 2018 and 10 August 2019, six plants per treatment were collected and the lateral branches were removed. The following measurements were made within 1 h of sampling: plant height, center of gravity height, fresh weight (main stem with ear) per plant, stem diameter and stem strength at quarter, half and three quarters of the plant height from the stem base. Fresh weight was measured on an electronic balance to 0.01 g. The center of gravity height was determined by balancing the stem on a ruler[34]. Plant height and center of gravity height were measured from the soil line of the stem. Stem diameter was measured using digital calipers to 0.001 mm, and DL, DM, and DU represented the stem diameters at quarter, half and three quarters of the plant height from the stem base, respectively. The stem strength was measured by the YYD-1 stem strength analyzer (Top Instrument, Zhejiang, China). The sample was put on the groove of support pillars 10 cm apart. The analyzer was set perpendicular to the stem, loading gradually on the stem and stem strength (N) was recorded once the stem was broken.
The lodging index (LI) was calculated using the following equation[33]:
LI=(CGH×FW)/SS
where LI is the lodging index (cm·g·N−1), CGH is the center of gravity height (cm), FW is the fresh weight (main stem and ear) (g), and SS is the stem strength (N). Higher LI means greater lodging risk. The SSL, SSM, and SSU represented the stem strengths at quarter, half and three quarters of the plant height from the stem base, respectively, and the lodging indexes for the corresponding positions were LIL, LIM and LIU.

2.4.2 Observed lodging rate

Lodging occurred on 2 August 2018 and 7–8 August 2019. The observed lodging rate (LRob, %) was recorded 2–3 days after the occurrence of lodging, and it was calculated by dividing the number of observed lodging plants by the total number of plants. The lodging given is stem lodging from our field observations, thus the lodging rate refers to stem lodging rate.

2.4.3 Estimated yield and actual yield

To obtain the estimated seed yield, 15 plants were harvested on 18 August 2018 and 2019 (a previously described[2]). The actual yield was calculated as follows:
Yac=YesYes×LRob/100
where, Yac is the actual yield (t·ha−1), Yes is the estimated yield (t·ha−1), LRob is the observed lodging rate (%).

2.4.4 Meteorological data

Meteorological data were continuously recorded by a standard automatic weather station (Hobo, Onset Computer Co., Cape Cod, MA, USA), which is located near the experimental field.

2.5 Statistical analysis

The effects of the irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate, planting density, year as well as their interactions on plant height, center of gravity height, stem diameters, stem strengths, lodging indexes, actual yield, estimated yield and the observed lodging rate were analyzed statistically by the multivariate ANOVA. The post-hoc multiple comparisons were analyzed by least significant difference. The multivariate ANOVA, post-hoc tests and Pearson correlation were calculated via SPSS 19.0 version (IBM, Armonk, NY USA). All reported statistical differences were significant at P≤ 0.05.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Plant height, center of gravity height and fresh weight per plant

Irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate and planting density had significant effects on plant height whereas year did not. Center of gravity height was significantly (P < 0.01) affected by irrigation threshold and nitrogen rate. Besides, the interaction effects of irrigation threshold × planting density and nitrogen rate × planting density on plant height and center of gravity height were significant ( Table 2). A −55 kPa irrigation threshold gave significantly (P < 0.05) lower plant height and center of gravity height than with −25 and −15 kPa irrigation thresholds in both years ( Fig. 2). A nitrogen rate of 240 kg·ha−1 gave the greatest (P < 0.05) plant height and center of gravity height in both 2018 and 2019, followed by nitrogen rates of 160 and 80 kg·ha−1 (Fig. 2). Plant height with 20 plants m−2 was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than with 40 plants m−2 in 2018 but not in 2019 (P > 0.05) ( Fig. 2). There was no significant (P > 0.05) difference in center of gravity height among planting density treatments in either year.
Tab.2 F-values for multivariate ANOVA of irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate, planting density, year and their interactions on lodging-related traits, lodging indexes, observed lodging rate, estimated yield and actual yield
Items PH CGH DL DM DU SSL SSM SSU FW LIL LIM LIU LRob Yes Yac
I 37.8** 5.9** 55.8** 3.7* 3.6* 3.9* 7.7** 3.8* 8.7** 12.1** 28.3** 24.6** 34.8** 45.6** 3.5*
N 112.4** 15.5** 24.5** 38.9** 21.6** 66.5** 15.2** 10.9** 20.9** 0.5ns 12.2** 14.2** 6.8** 6.1** 1.6ns
D 4.1* 1.2ns 121.9** 100.2** 57.0** 231.5** 129.7** 40.0** 82.6** 4.0* 0.1ns 4.5* 11.2** 24.6** 3.0ns
Y 0.18ns 4.3* 7.1** 1.6ns 45.9** 0.1ns 2.5ns 10.2** 3.5ns 1.2ns 11.5** 33.2** 221.0** 0.2ns 167.0**
I × N 2.1ns 82.1ns 61.6** 50.4** 29.2** 116.5** 65.2** 20.1** 41.6** 2.0ns 0.3ns 2.3ns 5.6** 12.5** 1.6ns
I × D 56.3** 7.8** 12.9** 19.8** 7.6** 34.0** 8.0** 5.5** 10.7** 0.3ns 6.3** 7.1** 3.4** 3.3* 0.9ns
I × Y 2.9ns 0.6ns 2.1ns 1.9ns 9.9** 0.2ns 1.0ns 0.2ns 0.2ns 0.3ns 0.5ns 0.5ns 3.0ns 0.8ns 10.0**
N × D 19.0** 3.0* 28.6** 2.1ns 2.5* 2.6* 4.2** 1.9ns 4.6** 6.1** 14.4** 12.4** 17.4** 23.0** 1.9ns
N × Y 1.7ns 0.1ns 0.7ns 4.0* 0.4ns 6.1** 1.9ns 0.04ns 0.4ns 0.4ns 0.9ns 0.3ns 2.3ns 0.4ns 6.7**
D × Y 0.8ns 0.1ns 5.9** 0.4ns 2.8ns 0.3ns 0.1ns 1.2ns 0.6ns 0.2ns 0.2ns 0.4ns 4.2* 0.03ns 6.5**
I × N × Y 0.9ns 0.1ns 4.5** 2.0ns 2.7* 0.17ns 0.2ns 1.3ns 0.3ns 0.1ns 0.4ns 0.6ns 2.2ns 0.5ns 3.3*
I × D × Y 1.4ns 0.1ns 1.9ns 3.8** 1.5ns 3.0* 1.1ns 0.7ns 0.2ns 0.2ns 0.7ns 0.6ns 1.2ns 0.7ns 3.4*
N × D × Y 2.0ns 0.3ns 2.6* 2.8* 6.2** 0.1ns 0.7ns 0.8ns 0.1ns 0.2ns 0.5ns 0.7ns 1.6ns 0.9ns 5.1**

Note: I, N, D and Y, irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate, planting density and year, respectively; PH, plant height; CGH, center of gravity height; DL, DM and DU, stem diameter at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; SSL, SSM and SSU, stem strength at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; FW, fresh weight per plant; LIL, LIM, and LIU, lodging index at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; LRob, observed lodging rate; Yes, estimated yield; Yac, actual yield; * and **, significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively; ns, no significant, P > 0.05. According to multivariate statistical analysis for orthogonal design in this study, the I × N × D and I × N × D × Y cannot be calculated.

Fig.2 The effects of irrigation threshold (kPa) nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1), planting density (plants m−2) and year on plant height (a1–a4), center of gravity height (b1–b4) and fresh weight per plant (c1–c4) in 2018 and 2019. Values followed by the same letter with a year at different levels in the same treatment are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by post-hoc multiple comparison; values followed the same letters between years are significantly different by one-way ANOVA ( P > 0.05).

Full size|PPT slide

Irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate, planting density, irrigation threshold × nitrogen rate, irrigation threshold × planting density and nitrogen rate × planting density all had highly significant (P < 0.01) effects on fresh weight per plant whereas year did not ( Table 2). With irrigation threshold increasing from −55, −25 to −15 kPa, the fresh weight per plant increased from 361, 406 to 412 g per plant in 2018 and from 327, 389 to 393 g per plant in 2019 (Fig. 2). In 2018, the fresh weight per plant with a nitrogen rate of 240 kg·ha−1 was 438 g per plant, which was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than that with a nitrogen rate of 80 kg·ha−1 (347 g per plant) (Fig. 2). In 2019, the fresh weight per plant significantly (P < 0.05) increased from 317, 362 to 429 g per plant with nitrogen rate increasing from 80, 160 to 240 kg·ha−1, respectively (Fig. 2). A planting density of 20 plants m−2 gave significantly (P < 0.05) greater fresh weight per plant than 30 and 40 plants m−2 in both years (Fig. 2).

3.2 Stem diameter and stem strength

Except for the DM and DU in 2018, increasing irrigation threshold gave a significant (P < 0.05) increase in D L, DM and DU for both years (Fig. 3). A nitrogen rate of 240 kg·ha−1 gave significantly (P < 0.05) greater stem diameters (D L, DM, and DU) than with a nitrogen rate of 80 kg·ha−1 in 2018 and 2019 (Fig. 3). The stem diameters (DL, DM, and DU) with a planting density of 20 plants m−2 were significantly (P < 0.05) greater than with planting densities of 30 and 40 plants m−2 in both years (Fig. 3).
Fig.3 The effects of irrigation threshold (kPa), nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1), planting density (plants m−2) and year on lower (a1–a4), middle (b1–b4), upper stem diameters (c1–c4) in 2018 and 2019. Lower, middle and upper, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; values followed by the same letter with a year at different levels in the same treatment are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by post-hoc multiple comparison; and values followed by the different same letter between years are not significantly different by one-way ANOVA ( P > 0.05).

Full size|PPT slide

Stem strengths (SSL, SSM and SSU) tended to decrease with increasing irrigation threshold in both years (Fig. 4). In 2018 and 2019, a nitrogen rate of 80 kg·ha−1 gave significantly (P < 0.05) lower stem strengths (SS L, SSM and SSU) than with 240 kg·ha−1 (Fig. 4). Increasing planting density led to a decrease in stem strengths (SSU, SSM and SSL), and the differences in stem strengths were all significant (P < 0.05) between planting densities ( Fig. 4).
Fig.4 The effects of irrigation threshold (kPa), nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1), planting density (plants m−2) and year on stem strength of lower (a1–a4), middle (b1–b4) and upper stem (c1–c4) in 2018 and 2019. Lower, middle, and upper, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; values followed by the same letter within a year at different levels in the same treatment are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by post-hoc multiple comparison; and values followed by the same letters between years are not significantly different by one-way ANOVA ( P > 0.05).

Full size|PPT slide

3.3 Lodging index and observed lodging rate

In 2018 and 2019, the irrigation threshold of −55 kPa gave significantly (P < 0.05) smaller lodging indexes (LI U, LIM and LIL) than those with −15 kPa and −25 kPa treatments, while the difference between −15 kPa or −25 kPa treatments was not significant (Table 3). The 240 kg·ha−1 nitrogen rate treatment gave significantly (P < 0.05) greater LI U, LIM and LIL than those with a nitrogen rate of 80 kg·ha−1 treatment (Table 3) in 2018 and 2019. Planting density of 20 plants m−2 treatment gave the lowest (P < 0.05) LI L of the planting densities, whereas the LIU decreased with increasing planting density in both years (Table 3). The LIM was not significantly (P > 0.05) affected by planting density in either year ( Table 3).
Tab.3 Lodging indexes, observed lodging rate, estimated yield and actual yield in 2018 and 2019
Year Treatment LIL (cm·g·N−1) LIM (cm·g·N−1) LIU (cm·g·N−1) Observed lodging rate (%) Estimated yield (t·ha−1) Actual yield (t·ha−1)
2018 Irrigation threshold(kPa) −15 319 ± 40a 570 ± 55a 848 ± 69a 70 ± 9a 11.4 ± 2.3a 3.1 ± 1.4b
−25 309 ± 68a 542 ± 71a 795 ± 80a 52 ± 7b 9.4 ± 2.2b 4.5 ± 1.5a
−55 246 ± 38b 380 ± 40b 621 ± 51b 41 ± 7c 7.6 ± 1.9c 4.4 ± 1.6a
Nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1) 80 279 ± 31b 448 ± 52b 699 ± 67b 46 ± 8b 8.9 ± 1.6a 4.8 ± 1.3a
160 288 ± 56ab 489 ± 50b 720 ± 75b 58 ± 5a 9.8 ± 2.5a 3.7 ± 1.5b
240 308 ± 60a 555 ± 63a 845 ± 58a 60 ± 10a 9.7 ± 2.3a 3.5 ± 1.6b
Planting density (plants m−2) 20 268 ± 45b 493 ± 60a 797 ± 57a 44 ± 9b 7.9 ± 2.5b 4.4 ± 1.4ab
30 299 ± 43a 486 ± 60a 761 ± 91a 55 ± 8a 10.0 ± 2.1a 4.2 ± 1.6a
40 309 ± 58a 512 ± 45a 706 ± 52a 64 ± 6a 10.5 ± 1.8a 3.4 ± 1.4b
Average 291 ± 57a 497 ± 115a 754 ± 164a 54 ± 18a 9.5 ± 2.2a 4.0 ± 1.2b
2019 Irrigation threshold (kPa) −15 320 ± 14a 501 ± 36a 717 ± 35a 30 ± 4a 10.9 ± 1.2a 7.5 ± 2.4a
−25 281 ± 52a 436 ± 46a 599 ± 53b 22 ± 4b 9.8 ± 2.0a 7.6 ± 1.6a
−55 216 ± 29b 331 ± 35b 472 ± 49c 15 ± 2c 7.4 ± 1.4b 6.3 ± 1.3b
Nitrogen rate (kg·ha−1) 80 263 ± 30a 343 ± 25b 514 ± 35b 19 ± 3b 8.5 ± 1.5b 6.9 ± 1.9a
160 277 ± 42a 444 ± 50a 566 ± 49b 22 ± 4ab 9.8 ± 1.4a 7.5 ± 2.0a
240 279 ± 58a 481 ± 42a 709 ± 53a 26 ± 3a 9.7 ± 2.0a 7.1 ± 1.5a
Planting density (plants m−2) 20 234 ± 43b 413 ± 52a 661 ± 82a 20 ± 5a 7.9 ± 2.0b 6.3 ± 1.7b
30 277 ± 22ab 433 ± 17a 567 ± 21b 21 ± 2a 9.9 ± 1.6a 7.8 ± 2.0a
40 301 ± 64a 421 ± 48a 561 ± 34b 27 ± 4a 10.3 ± 1.0a 7.3 ± 1.7ab
Average 275 ± 77a 428 ± 126b 595 ± 169b 22 ± 9b 9.3 ± 2.1a 7.1 ± 1.2a

Note: LIL, LIM, and LIU, lodging index at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; values followed by the same letter within a year at different levels in the same treatment are not significantly different (P > 0.05) by post-hoc multiple comparison (least significant difference); and values followed by the letter between years are not significantly different by one-way ANOVA ( P > 0.05).

The lodging rate was significantly (P < 0.01) affected by irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate, planting density and year ( Table 2). The lodging rate increased from 41%, 52% to 70% and from 15%, 22% to 30% with irrigation threshold increasing from −55, −25 to −15 kPa in 2018 and 2019, respectively (Table 3). The observed lodging rate significantly (P < 0.05) increased with the increase of nitrogen rate, reaching 46%, 58% and 60%, and 19%, 22% and 26% with nitrogen rates of 80, 160 and 240 kg·ha−1 treatments in 2018 and 2019, respectively. In 2018, the observed lodging rate was 64% and 55% with planting densities of 40 and 30 plants m−2, respectively, which were both significantly (P < 0.05) higher than that with a planting density of 20 plants m−2 (44%). Similarly, in 2019, the observed lodging rate with a planting density of 40 plants m−2 was 27%, which was 7% and 6% greater than those with planting densities of 20 and 30 plants m−2, respectively (Table 3).

3.4 Estimated yield and actual yield

Year had no significant (P > 0.05) effect on estimated yield whereas irrigation threshold, nitrogen rate and planting density significantly ( P < 0.01) affected estimated yield ( Table 2). In 2018, the estimated yield with a −15 kPa irrigation threshold was 11.4 t·ha−1, which was significantly (P < 0.05) higher than that with a −55 kPa irrigation threshold (7.6 t·ha−1) (Table 3). Similarly, the estimated yield with a −15 kPa irrigation threshold was 10.9 t·ha−1, which was 3.5 t·ha−1 higher than that with a −55 kPa irrigation threshold (P < 0.05) in 2019 ( Table 3). Estimated yield increased as the nitrogen rate increased from 80 to 160 kg·ha−1 (the difference was significant in 2019, P < 0.05) whereas it did not increase ( P > 0.05) further when the nitrogen rate was 240 kg·ha−1 in either year (Table 3). The 20 plants m−2 planting density treatment gave the lowest (P < 0.05) estimated yield of planting densities in both years whereas there was no significant difference in estimated yield with 30 and 40 plants m−2 in either year (Table 3).
Year had a highly significant (P < 0.01) effect on actual yield ( Table 2). A −15 kPa irrigation threshold gave a significantly (P < 0.05) lower actual yield than with a −25 kPa irrigation threshold in 2018. In 2019, −55 kPa irrigation threshold treatment gave a significantly ( P < 0.05) lower actual yield (6.3 t·ha−1), which was 1.2 and 1.3 t·ha−1 lower than with −15 and −25 kPa irrigation thresholds, respectively (Table 3). In 2018, 80 kg·ha−1 nitrogen rate treatment gave the highest (P < 0.05) actual yield among nitrogen rate treatments ( Table 3). In 2019, there was no significant effect of nitrogen rate on actual yield (Table 3). In 2018, planting density of 40 plants m−2 treatment gave the significantly (P < 0.05) lower actual yield than that with a planting density of 20 plants m−2 whereas no significant (P > 0.05) difference in actual yield was found between planting densities of 20 or 30 plants m−2 (Table 3). In 2019, planting density of 30 plants m−2 treatment gave an actual yield of 7.8 t·ha−1, which was 1.5 t·ha−1 higher than that with a planting density of 20 plants m−2 treatment (Table 3).

3.5 Correlation analysis

The observed lodging rate was significantly (P < 0.01) and positively correlated with estimated yield ( R = 0.85, correlation coefficient) (Fig. 5). The correlations between plant height and observed lodging rate were highly significant (R = 0.61, P < 0.01) ( Fig. 5). Strong correlations were found between stem diameter and corresponding strengths in 2018 and 2019 (Fig. 5). Fresh weight per plant correlated well with stem diameters and strengths. The R for LIL, LIM, LIU and LRob decreased from 0.78 (P < 0.01), 0.64 ( P < 0.01) to 0.44 ( P > 0.05) ( Fig. 5).
Fig.5 Pearson’ correlation between lodging-related traits, lodging indexes, observed lodging rate, estimated yield and actual yield for two years. PH, plant height; CGH, center of gravity height; DL, DM and DU, stem diameter at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; SSL, SSM and SSU, stem strength at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; FW, fresh weight per plant; LIL, LIM, and LIU, lodging index at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 plant height, respectively; LRob, observed lodging rate; Yes, estimated yield; Yac, actual yield; * and **, significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

Full size|PPT slide

4 DISCUSSION

A −55 kPa irrigation threshold can cause severe crop water stress throughout the growing seasons, resulting in negative effects on plant growth, leaf gas exchange efficiency and biomass formation[2]. As a result, the −55 kPa irrigation threshold treatment gave lower plant height, center of gravity height, stem diameter, fresh weight per plant and estimated yield than −15 and −25 kPa irrigation threshold treatment in this study (Figs. 2–4; Table 3). Despite obtaining the highest estimated yield (same as −25 kPa, statistically), the highest (P < 0.05) observed lodging rate also occurred with a −15 kPa irrigation threshold in 2018, resulting in lower actual yield than that with a −25 kPa irrigation threshold ( Table 3). Thus, a moderate irrigation threshold of −25 kPa should be adopted to secure a stable actual yield and satisfying lodging resistance in quinoa cultivation.
High nitrogen rate gave significant (P < 0.05) increase in plant height, center of gravity height, stem diameters, stem strength and fresh weight per plant in our experiments ( Figs. 2–4), consistent with some early reports[41,42]. However, with the increased plant height, center of gravity height and fresh weight per plant, lodging risk can increase[43]. Also, great stem diameter and strength can reduce crop lodging[29]. Our results demonstrated that the observed lodging rate significantly (P < 0.05) increased with increasing nitrogen rate, increasing by 30% to 37% as nitrogen rate increased from 80 to 240 kg·ha−1, respectively (Table 3). Estimated yield increased as the nitrogen rate increased from 80 to 160 kg·ha−1 but it did not further increase with nitrogen rate of 240 kg·ha−1 in either year, suggesting that an excessive nitrogen fertilization might have a limited effect on improving quinoa yield potential, consistent with an earlier report[24]. As to actual yield, nitrogen rate of 80 and 160 kg·ha−1 gave the significantly (P < 0.05) greatest actual yield of the nitrogen rates in 2018 and 2019, respectively ( Table 3). In conclusion, a high nitrogen rate of 240 kg·ha−1 did not promote actual yield but increase lodging risk, and a nitrogen rate ranging from 80 to 160 kg·ha−1 would be better for quinoa production in this region.
In this study, stem diameters, fresh weight per plant and stem strengths all significantly (P < 0.05) increased with decreasing planting density, consistent with earlier reports[25,44]. This might be caused by the fact that high planting density can lead to strong competition for light, water and nutrients as well as population shading, limiting the growth of stem and canopy of individual plants[37]. Greater fresh weight per plant would increase crop lodging whereas greater stem diameter and strength would reduce lodging risk[29,36]. Overall, the observed lodging rate significantly (P < 0.05) increased by 35% to 45% with increasing planting density from 20 to 40 plants m−2 in our experiments (Table 3). A similar trend of higher lodging rate under greater planting density has been reported in wheat[36,45] and maize[46], highlighting the challenge of optimizing yield performance by controlling crop lodging under optimal planting density. Estimated yield significantly (P < 0.05) increased by 2.1 t·ha−1 as planting density increased from 20 to 30 plants m−2 whereas there was no significant difference in estimated yield between planting densities of 30 or 40 plants m−2 (P > 0.05) ( Table 3). Our results showed that an intermediate planting density of 30 plants m−2 gave the greatest actual yield over two consecutive years, which is recommended for quinoa cultivation in this region to reduce lodging risk and achieve a relatively great yield.
Correlation analysis in our experiments found a strong positive relationship between estimated yield and lodging rate (R = 0.85, P < 0.01), verifying the great lodging risks under high-yield conditions[47]. Plant height (R = 0.61) and stem strengths (R = 0.47 – 0.62) were significantly associated with observed lodging rate (Fig. 5), consistent with previous studies[30,31,34,48]. However, increasing nitrogen rate increased stem strength but planting density did not affect plant height (P > 0.05) ( Fig. 2 and Fig. 4), which is inconsistent with the trends in of lodging rate under varying nitrogen rates and planting densities (Table 3), revealing the limitation of individual parameters in predicting crop lodging resistance. Comparing plant height and stem strengths, the lower-stem lodging index had a stronger correlation (R = 0.78, P < 0.01) with lodging rate. Also, it was higher than the middle-stem ( R = 0.64) and upper-stem (R = 0.44) lodging indexes. Therefore, the lower-stem lodging index was more reliable for predicting quinoa lodging risk than plant height, stem strength as well as middle- and upper-stem lodging indexes under different agronomic practices in this region.
The interannual variation of lodging rate was highly significant (P < 0.01) in our experiments (54% in 2018 and 22% in 2019) ( Table 2 and Table 3), which was mainly caused by the great differences in the weather between years (Fig. 1). Therefore, it is important that there was a greater reduction of yield due to lodging in 2018 than that in 2019 resulting in differences in the correlation between estimated yield and actual yield between years. In a year with severe lodging (such as 2018), the greater estimated yield with higher lodging risk was associated with lower actual yield whereas there was higher actual yield in the year with less lodging (such as 2019). Although the lodging index is a scientific indicator to evaluate crop lodging resistance, it is difficult to predict difference in lodging severity caused by particular weather events. Therefore, further studies should give attention to the interaction between crop lodging resistance and environmental factors (wind and rain) to predict and prevent lodging[11,45].
Quinoa cv. Longli No.1, used in this study, is a typical cultivar in north-western China with tall plants, high yield and good nutritional qualities. However, our study found that the high lodging risk of this cultivar could restrict its future use. This study aimed to reduce the lodging risk by optimizing some agronomic practices. However, breeding of cultivars with strong lodging resistance would also be an effective method to improve yield potential[49]. Therefore, the reduction of quinoa lodging risk should be achieved through multiple coordinated approach.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Increasing irrigation threshold can increase estimated yield, but it also led to an increase in lodging risk. An irrigation threshold of −25 kPa gave the highest actual yield both in 2018 and 2019. The lodging rate increased with a higher nitrogen rate. The estimated yield increased with nitrogen rate increasing from 80 to 160 kg·ha−1 but not at 240 kg·ha−1 in either year. Increasing planting density can increase lodging rate and estimated yield, but the difference in estimated yield was not significant between 30 or 40 plants m−2. From the above results, it is reasonable to conclude that a suitable yield and lodging resistance can be realized by appropriate irrigation with a threshold of −25 kPa, applying nitrogen at 80−160 kg·ha−1 and sowing at 30 plants m−2 for quinoa production in this region of China.
The lower-stem lodging index is recommended for predicting lodging risk under different agronomic practices rather than plant height, stem strength, or the middle- and upper-stem lodging indexes.

References

[1]
Ivushkin K, Bartholomeus H, Bregt A K, Pulatov A, Kempen B, de Sousa L. Global mapping of soil salinity change. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2019, 231: 111260
CrossRef Google scholar
[2]
Shahid S A, Zaman M, Heng L. Soil salinity: historical perspectives and a world overview of the problem. In: Zaman M, Shahid S A, Heng L, eds. Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using Nuclear and Related Techniques. Cham: Springer, 2018
[3]
Shrivastava P, Kumar R. Soil salinity: a serious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 2015, 22(2): 123–131
CrossRef Google scholar
[4]
Chang X, Gao Z, Wang S, Chen H. Modelling long-term soil salinity dynamics using SaltMod in Hetao Irrigation District, China. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2019, 156: 447–458
CrossRef Google scholar
[5]
Eswar D, Karuppusamy R, Chellamuthu S. Drivers of soil salinity and their correlation with climate change. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2021, 50: 310–318
CrossRef Google scholar
[6]
Hassani A, Azapagic A, Shokri N. Global predictions of primary soil salinization under changing climate in the 21st century. Nature Communications, 2021, 12(1): 6663
CrossRef Google scholar
[7]
Haj-Amor Z, Araya T, Kim D G, Bouri S, Lee J, Ghiloufi W, Yang Y, Kang H, Jhariya M K, Banerjee A, Lal R. Soil salinity and its associated effects on soil microorganisms, greenhouse gas emissions, crop yield, biodiversity and desertification: a review. Science of the Total Environment, 2022, 843: 156946
CrossRef Google scholar
[8]
Laxa M, Liebthal M, Telman W, Chibani K, Dietz K J. The role of the plant antioxidant system in drought tolerance. Antioxidants, 2019, 8(4): 94
CrossRef Google scholar
[9]
Yamaguchi T, Blumwald E. Developing salt-tolerant crop plants: challenges and opportunities. Trends in Plant Science, 2005, 10(12): 615–620
CrossRef Google scholar
[10]
Yang Z. Characteristics and Research Progress of Cyperus esculent. Northern Horticulture, 2017, (17): 192−201 (in Chinese)
[11]
Wang R, Wang X, Xiang H. A multipurpose emerging oil crop——Cyperus esculentus. China Oils Sand Fats, 2019, 44(1): 1−4 (in Chinese)
[12]
Yu Y, Lu X, Zhang T, Zhao C, Guan S, Pu Y, Gao F. Tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus L.): nutrition, processing, function and applications. Foods, 2022, 11(4): 601
CrossRef Google scholar
[13]
Pascual-Seva N, Pascual B. Determination of crop coefficient for chufa crop (Cyperus esculentus L. var. sativus Boeck.) for sustainable irrigation scheduling. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 768: 144975
CrossRef Google scholar
[14]
Zhang X. Report on the research and development progress of China’s Cyperus esculentus L industry. China Rural Science & Technology, 2019, (4): 67−69 (in Chinese)
[15]
Liang P. Effect of mixed salinity stress on growth and ion absorption of Cyperus esculentus L. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Shihezi, China: Shihezi University, 2022 (in Chinese)
[16]
Tang R. Response of seed germination and plant growth to saline alkali stress of Cyperus esculentus L. Thesis for the Master’s Degree. Shihezi, China: Shihezi University, 2022 (in Chinese)
[17]
Dehghanipour A H, Zahabiyoun B, Schoups G, Babazadeh H. A WEAP-MODFLOW surface water-groundwater model for the irrigated Miyandoab plain, Urmia lake basin, Iran: multi-objective calibration and quantification of historical drought impacts. Agricultural Water Management, 2019, 223: 105704
CrossRef Google scholar
[18]
Litalien A, Zeeb B. Curing the earth: A review of anthropogenic soil salinization and plant-based strategies for sustainable mitigation. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 698: 134235
CrossRef Google scholar
[19]
Singh A. Soil salinization management for sustainable development: a review. Journal of Environmental Management, 2021, 277: 111383
CrossRef Google scholar
[20]
Gunarathne V, Vithanage M, Rinklebe J. Overview of salinity in Arable soils: global perspectives. In: Bolan N, Kirkham M B, eds. Soil Constraints and Productivity. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2023
[21]
Zhang L, Yu M, Ding G, Wang C, Gao G, Du F, Mi W. Effects of salt and alkali stress on the growth and physiological characteristics of Cyperus esculentus. Science of Soil and Water Conservation, 2022, 20(2): 65−71 (in Chinese)
[22]
Wang Y, Ding G, Cui X, Yu M, Zhang L. Effects of saline-alkali stress on the growth and photosynthetic characteristics of Cyperus esculentus and the responses of protective enzymes. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 2022, 36(5): 146−152 (in Chinese)
[23]
Mu Z, Wei Z, Liu J, Cheng Y, Song Y, Yao H, Yuan X, Wang S, Gu Y, Zhong J, Liu K, Li C, Du J, Zhang Q. RNA-Seq analysis demonstrates different strategies employed by tiger nuts (Cyperus esculentus L.) in response to drought stress. Life, 2022, 12(7): 1051
CrossRef Google scholar
[24]
Liu B, Hu Y, Li M, Xue H, Wang Y, Li Z. Effects of drought stress on the functional traits and rhizosphere microbial community structure of Cyperus esculentus. Grassland Science, 2024, 70(3): 109−120
[25]
Zhu J, Tian L, Xue L, Shi X, Wang X. Effects of different lrrigation volume on dry matter accumulation of Cyperus esculentus. Guizhou Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 44(4): 31–34+38 (in Chinese)
[26]
Ding Y, Yang J, Li L, Zhang Z, Zeng F. Effects of deficit irrigation and film mulching on biomass and production of Cyperus esculentus in the Southern Xiniiang Basin. Arid Zone Research, 2022, 39(3): 883−892 (in Chinese)
[27]
Abdelraheem A, Esmaeili N, O’Connell M, Zhang J. Progress and perspective on drought and salt stress tolerance in cotton. Industrial Crops and Products, 2019, 130: 118–129
CrossRef Google scholar
[28]
Zandalinas S I, Fritschi F B, Mittler R. Global warming, climate change, and environmental pollution: recipe for a multifactorial stress combination disaster. Trends in Plant Science, 2021, 26(6): 588–599
CrossRef Google scholar
[29]
Rivero R M, Mittler R, Blumwald E, Zandalinas S I. Developing climate‐resilient crops: improving plant tolerance to stress combination. Plant Journal, 2022, 109(2): 373–389
CrossRef Google scholar
[30]
Ahmed I, Nadira U, Bibi N, Zhang G, Wu F. Tolerance to combined stress of drought and salinity in barley. In: Mahalingam R, ed. Combined Stresses in Plants. Cham: Springer, 2015
[31]
Angon P B, Tahjib-Ul-Arif M, Samin S I, Habiba U, Hossain M A, Brestic M. How do plants respond to combined drought and salinity stress?—A systematic review. Plants, 2022, 11(21): 2884
CrossRef Google scholar
[32]
Kowalenko C G, Babuin D. Interference problems with phosphoantimonylmolybdenum colorimetric measurement of phosphorus in soil and plant materials. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 2007, 38(9−10): 1299–1316
CrossRef Google scholar
[33]
Pokhrel Y, Felfelani F, Satoh Y, Boulange J, Burek P, Gädeke A, Gerten D, Gosling S N, Grillakis M, Gudmundsson L, Hanasaki N, Kim H, Koutroulis A, Liu J, Papadimitriou L, Schewe J, Müller Schmied H, Stacke T, Telteu C E, Thiery W, Veldkamp T, Zhao F, Wada Y. Global terrestrial water storage and drought severity under climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2021, 11(3): 226–233
CrossRef Google scholar
[34]
Yang L, Lai L, Zhou J, Li Q, Yi S, Sun Q, Zheng Y. Changes in levels of enzymes and osmotic adjustment compounds in key species and their relevance to vegetation succession in abandoned croplands of a semiarid sandy region. Ecology and Evolution, 2020, 10(4): 2269–2280
CrossRef Google scholar
[35]
Ábrahám E, Hourton-Cabassa C, Erdei L, Szabados L. Methods for determination of proline in plants. In: Sunkar R, ed. Plant Stress Tolerance: Methods and Protocols. Cham: Springer, 2010
[36]
Zhang Y W, Fan W W, Li H, Ni H, Han H B, Li H H. Simultaneous column chromatographic extraction and purification of abscisic acid in peanut plants for direct HPLC analysis. Journal of Chromatography. B, Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences, 2015, 1002: 277–284
CrossRef Google scholar
[37]
Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 2012, 48(2): 1–36
CrossRef Google scholar
[38]
Harrell F E Jr, Dupont C. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 5.1–0. Available at CRAN website (CRAN.R-project.org/package=Hmis) on August 1, 2024
[39]
Güsewell S N. P ratios in terrestrial plants: variation and functional significance. New Phytologist, 2004, 164(2): 243–266
CrossRef Google scholar
[40]
Seleiman M F, Al-Suhaibani N, Ali N, Akmal M, Alotaibi M, Refay Y, Dindaroglu T, Abdul-Wajid H H, Battaglia M L. Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants, 2021, 10(2): 259
CrossRef Google scholar
[41]
Kumari V V, Banerjee P, Verma V C, Sukumaran S, Chandran M A S, Gopinath K A, Venkatesh G, Yadav S K, Singh V K, Awasthi N K. Plant nutrition: an effective way to alleviate abiotic stress in agricultural crops. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2022, 23(15): 8519
CrossRef Google scholar
[42]
Ye J Y, Tian W H, Jin C W. Nitrogen in plants: from nutrition to the modulation of abiotic stress adaptation. Stress Biology, 2022, 2(1): 4
CrossRef Google scholar
[43]
Nadeem M, Li J, Yahya M, Sher A, Ma C, Wang X, Qiu L. Research progress and perspective on drought stress in legumes: a review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2019, 20(10): 2541
CrossRef Google scholar
[44]
El Sabagh A, Hossain A, Barutçular C, Iqbal M A, Islam M S, Fahad S, Sytar O, Çiğ F, Meena R S, Erman M. Consequences of salinity stress on the quality of crops and its mitigation strategies for sustainable crop production: an outlook of arid and semi-arid regions. In: Fahad S, Hasanuzzaman M, Alam M, Ullah H, Saeed M, Ali Khan I, Adnan M, eds. Environment, Climate, Plant and Vegetation Growth. Cham: Springer, 2020
[45]
Naing A H, Kim C K. Abiotic stress‐induced anthocyanins in plants: their role in tolerance to abiotic stresses. Physiologia Plantarum, 2021, 172(3): 1711–1723
CrossRef Google scholar
[46]
Alkahtani J, Dwiningsih Y. Analysis of morphological, physiological, and biochemical traits of salt stress tolerance in Asian Rice Cultivars at seedling and early vegetative stages. Stresses, 2023, 3(4): 717–735
CrossRef Google scholar
[47]
Nadarajah K K. ROS homeostasis in abiotic stress tolerance in plants. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2020, 21(15): 5208
CrossRef Google scholar
[48]
Mittler R, Zandalinas S I, Fichman Y, Van Breusegem F. Reactive oxygen species signalling in plant stress responses. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology, 2022, 23(10): 663–679
CrossRef Google scholar
[49]
Zhang B, Zhang L, Yu M, Ding G, Gao G. Evaluation of drought resistant ability and physiological mechanism in drought resistance of Cyperus esculentus var. sativus. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2022, 44(4): 107−115 (in Chinese)
[50]
Chaves M M, Flexas J, Pinheiro C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of Botany, 2009, 103(4): 551–560
CrossRef Google scholar
[51]
de Oliveira A B, Mendes Alencar N L, Gomes-Filho E. Comparison between the water and salt stress effects on plant growth and development. In: Akinci S, ed. Responses of Organisms to Water Stress. Rijeka: IntechOpen, 2013
[52]
Ma Y, Dias M C, Freitas H. Drought and salinity stress responses and microbe-induced tolerance in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2020, 11: 591911
CrossRef Google scholar
[53]
Cao H, Ding R, Kang S, Du T, Tong L, Zhang Y, Chen J, Shukla M K. Drought, salt, and combined stresses in plants: effects, tolerance mechanisms, and strategies. Advances in Agronomy, 2023, 178: 107–163
CrossRef Google scholar
[54]
Abobatta W F. Plant responses and tolerance to combined salt and drought stress. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Tanveer M, eds. Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants. Signaling Plant Responses and Tolerance to Combined Salt and Drought Stress. Cham: Springer, 2020
[55]
van Zelm E, Zhang Y, Testerink C. Salt tolerance mechanisms of plants. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 2020, 71(1): 403–433
CrossRef Google scholar
[56]
Yu Z, Duan X, Luo L, Dai S, Ding Z, Xia G. How plant hormones mediate salt stress responses. Trends in Plant Science, 2020, 25(11): 1117–1130
CrossRef Google scholar
[57]
Zandalinas S I, Sengupta S, Fritschi F B, Azad R K, Nechushtai R, Mittler R. The impact of multifactorial stress combination on plant growth and survival. New Phytologist, 2021, 230(3): 1034–1048
CrossRef Google scholar
[58]
Shaar-Moshe L, Blumwald E, Peleg Z. Unique physiological and transcriptional shifts under combinations of salinity, drought, and heat. Plant Physiology, 2017, 174(1): 421–434
CrossRef Google scholar
[59]
Tiwari S, Lata C, Chauhan P S, Prasad V, Prasad M. A functional genomic perspective on drought signalling and its crosstalk with phytohormone-mediated signalling pathways in plants. Current Genomics, 2017, 18(6): 469–482
CrossRef Google scholar
[60]
Zandalinas S I, Fichman Y, Devireddy A R, Sengupta S, Azad R K, Mittler R. Systemic signaling during abiotic stress combination in plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2020, 117(24): 13810–13820
CrossRef Google scholar
[61]
Zhao S, Zhang Q, Liu M, Zhou H, Ma C, Wang P. Regulation of plant responses to salt stress. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021, 22(9): 4609
CrossRef Google scholar
[62]
Wahab A, Abdi G, Saleem M H, Ali B, Ullah S, Shah W, Mumtaz S, Yasin G, Muresan C C, Marc R A. Plants’ physio-biochemical and phyto-hormonal responses to alleviate the adverse effects of drought stress: a comprehensive review. Plants, 2022, 11(13): 1620
CrossRef Google scholar
[63]
Per T S, Khan N A, Reddy P S, Masood A, Hasanuzzaman M, Khan M I R, Anjum N A. Approaches in modulating proline metabolism in plants for salt and drought stress tolerance: Phytohormones, mineral nutrients and transgenics. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 2017, 115: 126–140
CrossRef Google scholar
[64]
Shomali A, Aliniaeifard S. Overview of signal transduction in plants under salt and drought stresses. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Tanveer M, eds. Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants. Signaling and Communication in Plants. Cham: Springer, 2020
[65]
He M, He C Q, Ding N Z. Abiotic stresses: general defenses of land plants and chances for engineering multistress tolerance. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2018, 9: 1771
CrossRef Google scholar
[66]
Torun H. Time‐course analysis of salicylic acid effects on ROS regulation and antioxidant defense in roots of hulled and hulless barley under combined stress of drought, heat and salinity. Physiologia Plantarum, 2019, 165(2): 169–182
CrossRef Google scholar
[67]
Pascual L S, Mittler R, Sinha R, Peláez-Vico M Á, López-Climent M F, Vives-Peris V, Gómez-Cadenas A, Zandalinas S I. Jasmonic acid is required for tomato acclimation to multifactorial stress combination. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 2023, 213: 105425
CrossRef Google scholar
[68]
Dayer S, Scharwies J D, Ramesh S A, Sullivan W, Doerflinger F C, Pagay V, Tyerman S D. Comparing hydraulics between two grapevine cultivars reveals differences in stomatal regulation under water stress and exogenous ABA applications. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2020, 11: 705
CrossRef Google scholar
[69]
Hussain Q, Asim M, Zhang R, Khan R, Farooq S, Wu J. Transcription factors interact with ABA through gene expression and signaling pathways to mitigate drought and salinity stress. Biomolecules, 2021, 11(8): 1159
CrossRef Google scholar
[70]
Aslam M M, Waseem M, Jakada B H, Okal E J, Lei Z, Saqib H S A, Yuan W, Xu W, Zhang Q. Mechanisms of abscisic acid-mediated drought stress responses in plants. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2022, 23(3): 1084
CrossRef Google scholar
[71]
Pascual-Seva N, San Bautista A, López-Galarza S, Maroto J V, Pascual B. Influence of different drip irrigation strategies on irrigation water use efficiency on chufa (Cyperus esculentus L. var. sativus Boeck.) crop. Agricultural Water Management, 2018, 208: 406–413
CrossRef Google scholar

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51909266), the National Agricultural Major Science and Technology Project (NK2022180401-1), and the Project of Joint Research Institute of China Agricultural University in Aksu. We thank Linlin Zhang of Associate Professor Minghan Yu’s student for her assistance in sample collection and processing, as well as to Xiangya Sun and Linman Zhang from China Agricultural University for their assistance in data analysis.

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Jing Xu, Lang Liu, Fang Kang, Boyuan Liu, Minghan Yu, and Keyu Fa declare that they have no conflict of interest or financial conflicts to disclose. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s) 2024. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF(2411 KB)

Accesses

Citations

1

Altmetric

Detail

Sections
Recommended

/