4.5 Article

Silicon Mitigates Manganese Deficiency Stress by Regulating the Physiology and Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes in Sorghum Plants

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE AND PLANT NUTRITION
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 524-534

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s42729-019-00051-w

关键词

Beneficial element; Nutritional stress; Si sources; Sorghum bicolor L.

资金

  1. Coordination of Improvement of People of Superior Level (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Silicon (Si) may mitigate different nutritional stresses in cultivated plants associated with a higher activity of enzymatic compounds, which act in the reduction of oxidative stress. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of Si supplied via root (nutrient solution) and leaf spraying to mitigate manganese (Mn) deficiency, considering the biochemical and physiological aspects of grain sorghum plants. The experiments were carried out in a greenhouse under a hydroponic system. Initially, a test was performed to evaluate the source and concentration of Si for leaf spraying of sorghum plants. Subsequently, the study was carried out with the following treatments: without Si, Si via leaf spraying, and Si via root on the omission and presence of Mn. Stabilized sodium and potassium silicate (SiNaKE) was applied in three leaf sprayings (1.0 g L-1 Si) and in the nutrient solution (2.0 mmol L-1 Si). Mn-deficient plants without Si presented higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), malondialdehyde (MDA), and lower activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD), with reflections on the decrease of photosynthesis, leaf area, and shoot dry matter. Silicon mitigated the effects of stress due to Mn deficiency in sorghum plants, and the application via root of the beneficial element was more effective than leaf spraying. This benefit of Si was evidenced by the higher activity of superoxide dismutase, reducing oxidative stress, with reflections on photosynthesis, leaf area, manganese use efficiency, and dry matter production of plants.

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

4.5
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