Next Article in Journal
Intelligent Rice Field Weed Control in Precision Agriculture: From Weed Recognition to Variable Rate Spraying
Previous Article in Journal
Interpolation of Nitrogen Fertilizer Use in Canada from Fertilizer Use Surveys
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy14081701
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Photosynthetic and Physiological Responses of Different Maize Varieties to Mesotrione

by
Shufeng Sun
†,
Liru Wang
†,
Shuang Wang
,
Na Yu
and
Xuemei Zhong
*
College of Agronomy, Shenyang Agricultural University, Dongling Street, Shenhe District, Shenyang 110866, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2024, 14(8), 1701; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081701
Submission received: 18 June 2024 / Revised: 27 July 2024 / Accepted: 29 July 2024 / Published: 2 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Agroecology Innovation: Achieving System Resilience)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mesotrione (MET) belongs to the p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD)-inhibiting class of maize post-emergence herbicides, and it is safe for maize at the recommended doses, but the safety of MET differs among maize varieties in actual field production. In this study, four different maize varieties, ZD958, SN3, ST6 and POP16, were used as experimental materials to analyze their physiological responses to MET by comparing the activities of photosynthesis and antioxidant enzymes as well as the HPPD activity. The results showed that ZD958 was the most resistant to MET, followed by SN3 and ST6, and POP16 was the most sensitive to MET. The primary photosynthetic and antioxidant enzyme indices of all four maize varieties indicated that the resistant variety ZD958 was significantly higher than the sensitive variety POP16. HPPD activity was highest in ZD958 followed by SN3 and ST6 in both treated and control groups. POP16 exhibited the lowest HPPD activity. The results showed that the differences in resistance to MET in different types of maize varieties were closely related to the photosynthetic efficiency of plants and the HPPD activity. MET had minimal impact on common maize but showed a significant effect on popcorn.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) occupies a pivotal position in China’s food production [1]. Weed control in corn fields has been one of the important factors limiting the development of the corn industry. Weeds not only compete with corn for water, nutrients, and sunlight, but also aggravate the spread of pests and diseases, seriously affecting corn yield [2]. As herbicides continue to be iterated [3], chemical weed control has become the preferred method of weed control in maize fields [4] and has made a significant contribution to agriculture and food production. The p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) inhibitor class of herbicides is one of the representative herbicides. Mesotrione is a HPPD inhibitor herbicide that was registered and marketed by Syngenta in 2001 [5] and started to be sold in the northeast of China in 2006. This herbicide has become one of the most popular herbicides in maize fields with the advantages of low dosage, low soil residue, and safety for subsequent crops. Its large-scale application opened a new era of safe post-emergence weed control in maize fields in China [6].
HPPD is a key enzyme in tyrosine metabolism in plants. Tyrosine is converted into p-hydroxyphenylpyruvic acid (HPPA) by the action of tyrosine aminotransferase (TAT), and with the participation of oxygen HPPD it can catalyze the conversion of HPPA into HGA (homogentisate). In plants, HGA can be further converted into plastoquinone and tocopherol [7]. Plastoquinone is a key cofactor in the photosynthesis process of plants, which can promote the synthesis of carotenoids and other carotenoids in plants. By inhibiting HPPD, mesotrione leads to blockage of normal tyrosine metabolism, disruption of plastoquinone synthesis, and inhibition of carotenoid biosynthesis [5,8]. It causes plant leaves to lose their green color, turn white, or even wilt and die. Plant leaf cells undergo complex physiological and biochemical changes during leaf wilting, such as loss of function of photosynthetic system, chloroplast greening, loss of function, and decomposition [5,8,9]. Tocopherols are important antioxidant substances in plants, which can effectively enhance the resistance of plants to stress. MET treatment causes a decrease in plant tocopherol content, cellular reactive oxygen species accumulation, protein and lipid oxidative damage [10,11], and disrupts cell membrane integrity [12]. However, plants have a complete oxidative stress protection system of their own, which can scavenge ROS generated due to stress response through the combined action of various enzymes in the body, thus ensuring the normal physiological activity of plants [13] and enhancing the tolerance of plants to MET. Antioxidant enzyme activity is an important indicator to evaluate whether the redox balance of plant cells is disrupted under adversity, and the main enzymes include superoxide dismutase (SOD), peroxidase (POD), and catalase (CAT) [14,15].
MET is selective for corn crops and its selectivity for corn is dependent on slower uptake and rapid metabolism. However, in order to improve the weed control effect, serious drug damage problems caused by improper or excessive use of herbicides in corn production have been reported repeatedly. In addition, we also found that MET is not safe for sweet, glutinous, and popping corn, and some common corn varieties. Currently, there are more studies on the stress effects of post-emergence herbicides on common maize [16,17,18], but there are fewer studies related to the effects of post-emergence herbicides, especially MET, on different types of maize varieties, and the physiological reasons for their differences in tolerance are not clear, so it is necessary to study them. Thus, it is necessary to clarify the physiological causes of the differences in MET tolerance among different maize varieties. In this experiment, four different types of maize varieties, ZD958, SN3, POP16 and ST6, were used as research objects. By comparing the photosynthetic and antioxidant enzyme activities and the other indices of the four different varieties after MET treatment, we analyzed the physiological response differences of different types of maize varieties to MET, in order to provide technical guidance for the rational use of post-emergence herbicide MET in maize production.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted with maize varieties ZD958 (Zhengdan958, common maize), SN3 (Shennuo3, waxy maize), ST6 (Shentian6, super sweet maize), and POP16 (Shenbao16, popping corn) as test materials. Seeds were planted in pots in a completely randomized zonal design with three replicates. Each repetition involves planting 5 pots, with 5 plants in each pot. (pot diameter = 20 cm, height = 18 cm) To avoid environmental effects on seedling growth, the experiment was conducted in an artificial climate chamber with a photoperiod of 24 h (12 h of light, 12 h of darkness), light intensity of 12,000 lx, and relative humidity of 70%. The treatment group was sprayed with 400 μg/mL of MET (20% MET suspension produced by Dalian Heer Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., Dalian, China) at the four-leaf stage in maize. The control group was sprayed with the same amount of fresh water. Samples were collected on days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 after treatment and replicated 3 times.

2.1. Determination of Net Photosynthetic Rate and Photosynthetic Parameters

Relevant photosynthetic parameters were measured using the same leaf in different varieties with Li-6400 (US-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, Dearborn, MI, USA) on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 after spraying with MET. Measurements were repeated three times for each plant.

2.2. Measurement of Photosynthetic Pigment Contents

Chlorophyll was extracted and analyzed according to the method reported by Lichtenthaler and Wellburn [19].

2.3. Measurement of Chlorophyll Fluorescence Parameters

Chlorophyll fluorescence parameters were measured according to the principle of Schreiber [20].

2.4. MDA Content and Conductivity Determination

MDA content was determined according to Hodges [21] method. The electrical conductivity (REC%) was determined according to the method described by Li [22].

2.5. Antioxidant Enzyme Activity Assays

The activities of SOD, POD, and CAT were determined according to the method reported by Abedi and Pakniya [23], Rao [24], and Aebi [25], respectively.

2.6. HPPD Activity Assay

To determine enzyme activity, 0.1 g of leaves were ground in 1 mL of 0.01 mol/L PBS (pH 7.2) and the homogenate was centrifuged at 5000× g for 15 min at 4 °C. The supernatant was then collected and analyzed using the HPPD assay kit, which was obtained from Norminkoda (Wuhan) Biotechnology Co. (Wuhan, China).

2.7. Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

Multiple comparisons were conducted between treatments using one-way analysis of variance at a confidence level of 0.05 with DPS (version 9.01). Data were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Graphs were drawn using Origin 2021 software.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of MET Treatment on HPPD Activity of Leaves

Compared with the control, the HPPD activities of all four varieties decreased after MET treatment (Figure 1), and it was highest in ZD958, followed by SN3, ST6 and POP16. The decrease in HPPD content was largest inPOP16, followed byST6, SN3 and ZD958. On day 9 after MET treatment, the HPPD activities of ZD958, ST6, SN3 and POP16 decreased by 12.4%, 19.3%, 11.5%, and 41.3%, respectively, compared with their control, with POP16 showing a decrease of 40.7% compared with ZD958.

3.2. Effect of MET Treatment on Net Photosynthetic Rate and Photosynthetic Parameters of Leaves

The net photosynthetic rate of the four varieties in both control and treatment groups was highest in ZD958, followed by ST6 and SN3, and POP16 (Figure 2). After treatment, the net photosynthetic rates of all three varieties decreased in all four varieties compared with the control, except in ZD958, with a decrease initially and then an increase, whereas the net photosynthetic rate gradually decreased with time in the other three varieties. On day 9 after MET treatment, the net photosynthetic rates of the four varieties ZD958, ST6, SN3 and POP16 decreased by 16.3%, 42.6%, 31.8%, and 68.7%, respectively, compared with the control, with POP16 showing a decrease of 69.1% compared with ZD958. Thus, spraying with MET after the seedling stage affected all four varieties, where popcorn was affected the most. Following the same trend as net photosynthetic rate, intercellular CO2 concentration, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate of POP16 were significantly reduced compared to the control, reaching the lowest values on day 9 after treatment, which were 30.7%, 74.1%, and 72.1% lower than those of ZD958, respectively. The intercellular CO2 concentration of ZD958 decreased rapidly from day 3 to 5 after treatment.

3.3. Effects of MET Treatment on Chlorophyll Contents of Leaves

As shown in Figure 3, the same trend as that of net photosynthetic rate, the total chlorophyll content of the four varieties showed that ZD958 was the highest, followed by ST6 and SN3, and POP16 was the lowest. Under adversity, the trend of total chlorophyll content and the net photosynthetic rate of the four varieties was consistent after treatment, indicating that higher total chlorophyll content could help maintain the light energy capture capacity of maize leaves under adversity and ensure the normal photosynthetic physiological activity of the leaves. On day 9 after treatment, the total chlorophyll content of ZD958, ST6, SN3, and POP16 decreased by 10.8%, 24.8%, 30.8%, and 36.8%, respectively, compared with the control, and the total chlorophyll content of POP16 decreased by 30.2% compared with that of ZD958. Except for ZD958, the chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoid contents gradually decreased with time in all three varieties after treatment. The chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoid contents of POP16 decreased by 81.1%, 66.1%, and 88.1%, respectively, on day 9 compared with ZD958. In contrast, chlorophyll b and carotenoids decreased and then increased in ZD958.

3.4. Effects of MET Treatment on Lipid Peroxidation and Conductivity in Leaves

Changes in both membrane lipid MDA content and relative conductivity can indirectly reflect the degree of membrane lipid peroxidation in plant cells under stress and are important indicators for assessing plant stress resistance. As shown in Figure 4, after MET treatment, the MDA content of all four varieties showed a tendency to increase with increasing treatment time, except for a slight decrease in the MDA content of ZD958 on day 9. The MDA levels of ZD958, ST6, SN3, and POP16 in comparison to the control all demonstrated an increase of 101.0%, 95.0%, 86.8%, and 200.5%, respectively. The MDA content of POP16 increased by 63.7% compared with ZD958 on day 9. Furthermore, the MDA content of POP16 exhibited a significantly greater increase than that of the other three varieties. As shown in Figure 5, after MET treatment, the relative conductance values of the four maize varieties increased significantly compared to the control groups, with the most significant increase in POP16. In ZD958, SN3, POP16, and ST6 the relative conductivities increased by 83.1%, 198.5%, 201.5%, and 151.2%, respectively, compared to the control. POP16 showed the greatest increase in REC value with a 62.8% greater than ZD958.

3.5. Effects of MET Treatment on Antioxidant Enzyme Activities in Leaves

Figure 6 shows that the plant self-protection system can effectively alleviate the effects of exogenous abiotic stresses and plays an important role in maintaining cell composition, structure, and function. In control groups, there were no significant differences in SOD, POD, and CAT activities among the four varieties, except that SOD activity was lower in ZD958 than in the other varieties. POD activity gradually increased in all varieties, except for a rapid decrease in POP16 on day 7 after treatment. On day 9 after treatment, the POD activities in ZD958, SN3, ST6, and POP16 increased by 69.9%, 63.8%, 67.2%, and 38.8%, respectively, compared with the control. The POD content of POP16 showed a decrease of 45.9% compared with ZD958. CAT activities increased significantly after MET treatment in all four varieties compared with the control. CAT activity increased in ZD958 and the highest activity was found on day 9 after treatment, which was 75.9% higher than the control. Except for ZD958, The CAT activities of all three varieties showed a trend of first decreasing and then increasing, with peaks occurring on day 7 after treatment, with increases of 66.5%, 44.7%, and 38.5% in SN3, ST6, and POP16, respectively, compared with their control. POP16 showed a 53.4% decrease in CAT activity compared with ZD958 on day 9. Maximum SOD activities in ST6, SN3, and POP16 occurred on day 5 after treatment and increased by 24.3%, 25.0%, and 24.7%, respectively, compared with control. In POP16, SOD activity decreased after day 5 and it was lower than the control on day 9, with a decrease of 7.7%. On day 9, POP16 showed a 22.6% decrease in SOD activity compared with ZD958.

3.6. Effects of MET Treatment on Leaf Chlorophyll Fluorescence Parameters

As shown in Figure 7, there were no significant differences in Fv/Fm, NPQ, qP and ΦPSII in the four maize varieties on day 1 after MET treatment. At 5 days after treatment, Fv/Fm decreased by 6.8%, 19.8%, 20.5%, and 25.8% in ZD958, SN3, ST6, and POP16, respectively, and ΦPSII decreased by 15.8%, 18.7%, 20.1%, and 38.5%. Among the four varieties, the Fv/Fm values of ZD958 were significantly higher than those of the other three varieties, including a 21.4% decrease in POP16 compared to ZD958 on day 9. The ΦPSII of POP16 was significantly lower than that of the other three varieties, including a 29.9% decrease in POP16 compared to ZD958 at day 9. At 9 d after treatment, ZD958 had the highest qP value, followed by SN3 and ST6, and POP16 had the lowest qP value, which was 7.1% lower than ZD958, and the difference reached a significant level. In contrast to qP, the NPQ value of the MET-sensitive variety POP16 was the largest and that of the resistant variety ZD958 was the smallest.

4. Discussion

In this study, we found that the carotenoid contents of different maize varieties responded differently to MET. After MET treatment, the carotenoid content of ZD958 decreased initially and then increased, whereas the carotenoid contents of the other three varieties continued to decrease. On day 9 after treatment, the carotenoid content was significantly higher in ZD958 than the other three varieties, and the carotenoid content was significantly lower in POP16 than the other three varieties. The changes in the chlorophyll contents and carotenoid contents were consistent in the four varieties, and thus the photosynthetic responses of the different maize varieties to MET varied. The photosynthetic pigment content of the MET-resistant variety ZD958 fluctuated less than that of the sensitive variety POP16. On day 9 after MET treatment, Pn, Tr, Gs, and Ci were lower in all four varieties compared with the control, with the smallest decreases in ZD958, followed by SN3 and ST6, and the largest in POP16. On day 7 after treatment, E and Ci decreased significantly in POP16 and reached the lowest values. The decrease in the photosynthetic pigment content led to a reduction in the light energy absorption and capture capacity, but also a decrease in the excess light energy quenching capacity, with increases in photo-oxidation, the accumulation of excess light energy, and NPQ. After MET treatment, the Fv/Fm, qP, and ΦPSII values were significantly lower in POP16 and ST6 than the control, whereas the NPQ values were significantly higher. Thus, MET treatment weakened photosynthesis and blocked electron transfer in maize leaves, and the excess electrons in the PSII reaction center could not be transferred so the excess light energy was converted into heat energy, thereby leading to an increase in NPQ, which is consistent with the results obtained by Frankart et al. [26].
Decreases in the Pn and PSII values are strongly associated with high levels of ROS [27]. Many herbicides cause direct or indirect damage to plants [28,29], and disruption of the dynamic redox balance leads to a decrease in the antioxidant enzyme activity, and thus changes in enzyme activities can be used as indicators of oxidative stress [30]. SOD, POD, and CAT are important antioxidant enzymes. Many studies have shown that antioxidant enzymes in different plants respond differently to the same herbicide [31,32]. In the present study, the CAT, POD and SOD levels in ZD958, SN3, ST6, and POP16 all increased after spraying with MET compared with the control. In ZD958, SN3, ST6, and POP16, the average increases in CAT were 75.9%, 66.5%, 44.7%, and 38.5%, respectively, the average increases in POD were 69.9%, 63.8%, 67.2%, and 38.8%, and the average increases in SOD were 33.3%, 25.0%, 24.3%, and 24.7%. The CAT, POD, and SOD levels were significantly higher in ZD958 than the other three varieties, followed by SN3 and ST6, and POP16 had the lowest average increases. Antioxidant enzymes can improve the defense mechanisms in plant leaves under abiotic stress [33]. Different maize varieties can enhance their tolerance to MET by initiating their own antioxidant protection mechanisms under MET treatment, but different varieties respond differently to adverse conditions. MDA is an important indicator of cellular membrane peroxidation, and the accumulation of MDA in large amounts will accelerate cellular membrane peroxidation under adverse conditions [34,35]. In this study, the MDA content of the MET-sensitive variety POP16 increased with time, and the MDA content on day 9 after treatment was 67.1% higher compared with that control groups, and it was significantly higher than those in the other three varieties. By contrast, the MDA content of the resistant variety ZD958 was significantly lower than those of the other three varieties. Similar to the change in the MDA content, the relative conductivity increased significantly in POP16 after MET treatment and it was significantly higher than those in the other three varieties. In the control, the HPPD activity, antioxidant enzyme activities, and photosynthetic parameters all exhibited slight fluctuations compared with the treatment but essentially remained stable. This demonstrates that under non-stressful conditions, HPPD was capable of executing its function efficiently, thereby guaranteeing the smooth growth of the plants. Chlorophyll is necessary for photosynthesis in plants, and higher chlorophyll levels allow plants to carry out photosynthetic reactions for normal growth and basic growth and development. Lower MDA and electrical conductivity ensure higher chlorophyll levels for smooth photosynthesis. The increased antioxidant enzyme activity helped to scavenge ROS produced by MET treatment in plants, reducing membrane lipid peroxidation and membrane permeability. These findings indicate that the differences in resistance to MET among varieties were strongly related to the photosynthetic efficiency of plants and the metabolism of ROS. These are the key physiological reasons for the different responses of maize varieties to MET. Based on this experiment, future large field trials will be prepared to further investigate the differences in MET tolerance between varieties.

5. Conclusions

The responses to MET differed among the maize varieties, where ZD958 was the most resistant, followed by SN3 and ST6, and POP16 was the most sensitive to MET. After MET treatment, the photosynthetic indicators, fluorescence parameters, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic pigment synthesis enzymes, and antioxidant protective enzyme activities in common corn were significantly higher than those in specialty corn materials. When plants perceive adverse conditions, they can maintain redox homeostasis and normal physiological functions through their antioxidant protection mechanisms.

Author Contributions

Data curation, methodology, formal analysis, software, S.S.; review and editing, L.W.; investigation, data curation, validation, and writing—original draft, S.W.; review and editing, N.Y.; conceptualization, writing—review, editing and funding acquisition, X.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Basic Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Liaoning Province (LJKMZ20221018) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (31901460).

Data Availability Statement

All data analyzed during this study are provided in this published article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Basic Scientific Research Project of Education Department of Liaoning Province (LJKMZ20221018) and National Natural Science Foundation of China (31901460).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

MET, mesotrione; HPPD, p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase; HPPA, p-hydroxyphenylpyruvic acid; TAT, action of tyrosine aminotransferase; HGA, homogentisate; SOD, superoxide; POD, peroxidase; CAT, catalase; MDA, malondialdehyde; REC, relative conductivity; Fv/Fm, maximal photochemical efficiency; NPQ, non-photochemical quenching; qP, Photochemical quenching coefficient; ΦPSII, Photosystem II Efficiency; Pn, Net photosynthetic rate; Tr, transpiration rate; Gs, Stomatal conductance; Ci, Intercellular CO2 concentration.

References

  1. Wang, Y.Q.; Gao, F.L.; Gao, G.Y.; Zhao, J.Y.; Wang, X.G.; Zhang, R. Production and cultivated area variation in cereal, rice, wheat and maize in China (1998–2016). Agronomy 2019, 9, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kumar, R.; Bohra, J.S. Effect of NPKS and Zn application on growth, yield, economics and quality of baby corn. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2014, 60, 1193–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dai, S.H.; Georgelis, N.; Bedair, M.; Hong, Y.J.; Qi, Q.G.; Larue, C.T.; Sitoula, B.; Huang, W.; Krebel, B.; Shepard, M.; et al. Ectopic expression of a rice triketone dioxygenase gene confers mesotrione tolerance in soybean. Pest Manag. 2022, 78, 2816–2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Andert, S. The Method and Timing of Weed Control Affect the Productivity of Intercropped Maize (Zea mays L.) and Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture 2021, 11, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mitchell, G.; Bartlett, D.W.; Fraser, T.E.; Hawkes, T.R.; Holt, D.C.; Townson, J.K.; A Wichert, R. Mesotrione: A new selective herbicide for use in maize. Pest Manag. Sci. 2001, 57, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fu, Y.X.; Zhang, Z.Y.; Guo, W.Y.Z.; Dai, Y.J.; Wang, Z.Y.; Yang, W.; Yang, G. In vivo fluorescent screening for HPPD-targeted herbicide discovery. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 4947–4955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ahrens, H.; Lange, G.; Müller, T.; Rosinger, C.; Willms, L.; van Almsick, A. 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors in combination with safeners: Solutions for modern and sustainable agriculture. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2013, 52, 9388–9398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sutton, P.; Richards, C.; Buren, L.; Glasgow, L. Activity of mesotrione on resistant weeds in maize. Pest Manag. Sci. 2002, 58, 981–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ndikuryayo, F.; Moosavi, B.; Yang, W.C.; Yang, G.F. 4-Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase inhibitors: From chemical biology to agrochemicals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 8523–8537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jbir-Koubaa, R.; Charfeddine, S.; Ellouz, W.; Saidi, M.N.; Drira, N.; Gargouri-Bouzid, R.; Nouri-Ellouz, O. Investigation of the response to salinity and to oxidative stress of interspecific potato somatic hybrids grown in a greenhouse. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2015, 120, 933–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Song, Z.W.; Gao, H.J.; Zhu, P.; Peng, C.; Deng, A.X.; Zheng, C.; Mannaf, A.; Islam, N.; Zhang, W. Organic amendments increase corn yield by enhancing soil resilience to climate change. Crop J. 2015, 3, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Quintero, C.; Valderrama, M.; Becerra, A.; Daniliuc, C.G.; Rojas, R.S. Synthesis of 4(3H) quinazolinimines by reaction of (E)-N-(aryl)-acetimidoyl or -benzimidoyl chloride with amines. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2015, 13, 6183–6193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yang, J.G.; Sun, N.X.; Xiong, Q.C.; Yang, R. Effect of Moxonidine on the Uveoscleral Outflow: Role of 2-Adrenoceptors or I1 Imidazoline Receptors. Curr. Eye Res. 2009, 34, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, M.P.; Zhang, C.J.; Yu, G.H.; Jiang, Y.Z.; Strasser, R.J.; Yuan, Z.-Y.; Yang, X.-S.; Chen, G.-X. Changes in chloroplast ultrastructure, fatty acid components of thylakoid membrane chlorophyll a fluorescence transient in flag leaves of a super-high-yield hybrid rice and its parents during the reproductive stage. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ibrahim, W.; Qiu, C.W.; Zhang, C.; Cao, F.; Shuijin, Z.; Wu, F. Comparative physiological analysis in the tolerance to salinity and drought individual combination in two cotton genotypes with contrasting salt tolerance. Physiol. Plant 2019, 165, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Steckel, L.E.; Thompson, M.A.; Hayes, R.M. Herbicide options for controlling glyphosate-tolerant corn in a corn replant situation. Weed Technol. 2009, 23, 243–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Crow, W.D.; Steckel, L.E.; Mueller, T.C.; Hayes, R.M. Management of large, glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S.) in Corn. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 611–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chahal, P.S.; Varanasi, V.K.; Jugulam, M.; Jhala, A.J. Glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S.) in nebraska: Confirmation, EPSPS gene amplification, and response to post corn and soybean herbicides. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lichtenthaler, H.K.; Wellburn, A.R. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 1983, 11, 591–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schreiber, U. Pulse-amplitude-modulation (PAM) fluorometry and saturation pulse method: An overview. Chlorophyll A Fluoresc. 2004, 19, 279–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hodges, D.M. Chilling Effects on Antioxidant Systems of Maize (Zea mays L.); University of Ottawa: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Li, A.X.; Han, Y.Y.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.H.; Zhao, M.R.; Zhou, S.-M.; Wang, W. Root-specific expression of wheat expansin gene TaEXPB23 enhances root growth and water stress tolerance in tobacco. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2015, 110, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abedi, T.; Pakniyat, H. Antioxidant enzyme changes in response to drought stress in ten cultivars of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed. 2010, 46, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rao, M.V.; Paliyath, G.; Ormrod, D.P. Ultraviolet-b- and ozone-induced biochemical changes in antioxidant enzymes of arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 1996, 110, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Aebi, H. Catalase in vitro. Meth. Enzym. 1984, 105, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Frankart, C.; Eullaffroy, P.; Vernet, G. Comparative effects of four herbicides on non-photochemical fluorescence quenching in Lemna minor. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2003, 49, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ramel, F.; Sulmon, C.; Bogard, M.; Couée, I.; Gouesbet, G. Differential patterns of reactive oxygen species and antioxidative mechanisms during atrazine injury and sucrose-induced tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana plantlets. BMC Plant Biol. 2009, 9, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Qian, H.; Chen, W.; Sheng, G.D.; Xu, X.; Liu, W.; Fu, Z.; Fu, Z. Effects of glufosinate on antioxidant enzymes, subcellular structure, and gene expression in the unicellular green alga Chlorella vulgaris. Aquat. Toxicol. 2008, 88, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jiang, L.; Yang, H. Prometryne-induced oxidative stress and impact on antioxidant enzymes in wheat. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2009, 72, 1687–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Platiša, J.; Veljović-Jovanović, S.; Kukavica, B.; Vinterhalter, B.; Smigocki, A.; Ninković, S. Induction of peroxidases and superoxide dismutases in transformed embryogenic calli of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). J. Plant Physiol. 2008, 165, 895–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Geoffroy, L.; Frankart, C.; Eullaffroy, P. Comparison of different physiological parameter responses in Lemna minor and Scenedesmus obliquus exposed to herbicide flumioxazin. Environ. Pollut. 2004, 131, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yoon, J.Y.; Shin, J.S.; Shin, D.Y.; Hyun, K.H.; Burgos, N.R.; Lee, S.; Kuk, Y.I. Tolerance to paraquat-mediated oxidative and environmental stresses in squash (Cucurbita spp.) leaves of various ages. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2011, 99, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tarchoune, I.; Sgherri, C.; Izzo, R.; Lachaal, M.; Ouerghi, Z.; Navari-Izzo, F. Antioxidative responses of ocimum basilicum to sodium chloride or sodium sulphate salinization. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 772–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hassan, N.M.; Nemat Alla, M.M. Oxidative stress in herbicide-treated broad bean and maize plants. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2005, 27, 429–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wu, G.L.; Cui, J.; Tao, L.; Yang, H. Fluroxypyr triggers oxidative damage by producing superoxide and hydrogen peroxide in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Ecotoxicology 2010, 19, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agronomy 14 01701 g001
Figure 1. Effect of MET treatment on HPPD activity in four maize varieties. Values are mean (standard deviation based on three replicates). Letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in the means of different varieties for the same period.
Figure 1. Effect of MET treatment on HPPD activity in four maize varieties. Values are mean (standard deviation based on three replicates). Letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences in the means of different varieties for the same period.
Agronomy 14 01701 g001
Agronomy 14 01701 g002aAgronomy 14 01701 g002b
Figure 2. Effects of MET treatment on net photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate in four different maize varieties. (A) Net photosynthetic rate; (B) transpiration rate; (C) stomatal conductance; and (D) intercellular CO2 concentration. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Effects of MET treatment on net photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate in four different maize varieties. (A) Net photosynthetic rate; (B) transpiration rate; (C) stomatal conductance; and (D) intercellular CO2 concentration. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 14 01701 g002aAgronomy 14 01701 g002b
Agronomy 14 01701 g003aAgronomy 14 01701 g003b
Figure 3. Effects of MET treatment on total chlorophyll (A), carotenoid (B), chlorophyll a (C), and chlorophyll b (D) contents in four maize varieties. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Effects of MET treatment on total chlorophyll (A), carotenoid (B), chlorophyll a (C), and chlorophyll b (D) contents in four maize varieties. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 14 01701 g003aAgronomy 14 01701 g003b
Agronomy 14 01701 g004
Figure 4. Effects of MET treatment on malondialdehyde in four maize varieties. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Effects of MET treatment on malondialdehyde in four maize varieties. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 14 01701 g004
Agronomy 14 01701 g005
Figure 5. Effects of MET treatment on relative conductivity in four maize varieties before and after MET treatment. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences in means before and after MET treatment (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Effects of MET treatment on relative conductivity in four maize varieties before and after MET treatment. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Different lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences in means before and after MET treatment (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 14 01701 g005
Agronomy 14 01701 g006aAgronomy 14 01701 g006b
Figure 6. Effects of MET treatment on catalase, (A) peroxidase, (B) and superoxide dismutase (C) activities in four maize varieties. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Effects of MET treatment on catalase, (A) peroxidase, (B) and superoxide dismutase (C) activities in four maize varieties. Values represent the mean ± standard deviation based on three replicates. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 14 01701 g006aAgronomy 14 01701 g006b
Agronomy 14 01701 g007aAgronomy 14 01701 g007b
Figure 7. Effects of MET treatment on chlorophyll fluorescence in different maize varieties. On the left, 1 d, 3 d, 5 d, 7 d, and 9 d denote the number of days after MET treatment. (A) Chlorophyll fluorescence based on in situ imaging; (B) Fv/Fm, (C) NPQ, (D) qP, (E) ΦPSII. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Figure 7. Effects of MET treatment on chlorophyll fluorescence in different maize varieties. On the left, 1 d, 3 d, 5 d, 7 d, and 9 d denote the number of days after MET treatment. (A) Chlorophyll fluorescence based on in situ imaging; (B) Fv/Fm, (C) NPQ, (D) qP, (E) ΦPSII. Letters indicate statistically significant differences in the mean values of different varieties in the same period (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 14 01701 g007aAgronomy 14 01701 g007b
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, S.; Wang, L.; Wang, S.; Yu, N.; Zhong, X. Photosynthetic and Physiological Responses of Different Maize Varieties to Mesotrione. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1701. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081701

AMA Style

Sun S, Wang L, Wang S, Yu N, Zhong X. Photosynthetic and Physiological Responses of Different Maize Varieties to Mesotrione. Agronomy. 2024; 14(8):1701. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081701

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Shufeng, Liru Wang, Shuang Wang, Na Yu, and Xuemei Zhong. 2024. "Photosynthetic and Physiological Responses of Different Maize Varieties to Mesotrione" Agronomy 14, no. 8: 1701. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081701

APA Style

Sun, S., Wang, L., Wang, S., Yu, N., & Zhong, X. (2024). Photosynthetic and Physiological Responses of Different Maize Varieties to Mesotrione. Agronomy, 14(8), 1701. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081701

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop