4.7 Article

The ameliorative effects of exogenous melatonin on grape cuttings under water-deficient stress: antioxidant metabolites, leaf anatomy, and chloroplast morphology

期刊

JOURNAL OF PINEAL RESEARCH
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 200-212

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpi.12159

关键词

antioxidation system; chloroplast; cuttings; grape; leaf anatomy; melatonin; water deficit stress

资金

  1. China Agriculture Research System for Grape [CARS-30-zp-9]
  2. Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grapes are an important economic crop and are widely cultivated around the world. Most grapes are grown in arid or semi-arid regions, and droughts take a heavy toll in grape and wine production areas. Developing effective drought-resistant cultivation measures is a priority for viticulture. Melatonin, an indoleamine, mediates many physiological processes in plants. Herein, we examined whether exogenously applied melatonin could improve the resistance of wine grape seedlings grown from cuttings to polyethylene glycol-induced water-deficient stress. The application of 10% polyethylene glycol (PEG) markedly inhibited the growth of cuttings, caused oxidative stress and damage from H2O2 and O-2(center dot-), and reduced the potential efficiency of Photosystem II and the amount of chlorophyll. Application of melatonin partially alleviated the oxidative injury to cuttings, slowed the decline in the potential efficiency of Photosystem II, and limited the effects on leaf thickness, spongy tissue, and stoma size after application of PEG. Melatonin treatment also helped preserve the internal lamellar system of chloroplasts and alleviated the ultrastructural damage induced by drought stress. This ameliorating effect may be ascribed to the enhanced activity of antioxidant enzymes, increased levels of nonenzymatic antioxidants, and increased amount of osmoprotectants (free proline). We conclude that the application of melatonin to wine grapes is effective in reducing drought stress.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据