Next Article in Journal
Survival Analysis in Patients with Laryngeal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Previous Article in Journal
Gender Differences in the Impact of Recommendations on Diagnostic Imaging Tests: A Retrospective Study 2007–2021
Previous Article in Special Issue
Plant Growth and Fruit Nutrient Changes in Carica papaya L. Genotypes Subjected to Regulated Deficit Irrigation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/life13020290
life-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

Different Leaf Anatomical Responses to Water Deficit in Maize and Soybean

by
Noel Anthony Mano
1,
Bethany Madore
1 and
Michael V. Mickelbart
1,2,*
1
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Center for Plant Biology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
2
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2023, 13(2), 290; https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020290
Submission received: 13 December 2022 / Revised: 13 January 2023 / Accepted: 16 January 2023 / Published: 20 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Abiotic and Biotic Stress in Plants)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The stomata on leaf surfaces control gas exchange and water loss, closing during dry periods to conserve water. The distribution and size of stomatal complexes is determined by epidermal cell differentiation and expansion during leaf growth. Regulation of these processes in response to water deficit may result in stomatal anatomical plasticity as part of the plant acclimation to drought. We quantified the leaf anatomical plasticity under water-deficit conditions in maize and soybean over two experiments. Both species produced smaller leaves in response to the water deficit, partly due to the reductions in the stomata and pavement cell size, although this response was greater in soybean, which also produced thicker leaves under severe stress, whereas the maize leaf thickness did not change. The stomata and pavement cells were smaller with the reduced water availability in both species, resulting in higher stomatal densities. Stomatal development (measured as stomatal index, SI) was suppressed in both species at the lowest water availability, but to a greater extent in maize than in soybean. The result of these responses is that in maize leaves, the stomatal area fraction (fgc) was consistently reduced in the plants grown under severe but not moderate water deficit, whereas the fgc did not decrease in the water-stressed soybean leaves. The water deficit resulted in the reduced expression of one of two (maize) or three (soybean) SPEECHLESS orthologs, and the expression patterns were correlated with SI. The vein density (VD) increased in both species in response to the water deficit, although the effect was greater in soybean. This study establishes a mechanism of stomatal development plasticity that can be applied to other species and genotypes to develop or investigate stomatal development plasticity.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) are mono and eudicotyledonous species, respectively, that are widely grown for food, feedstock, and industrial uses that represent approximately 35% of the total planted crop area in the United States [1]. The U.S. Midwest, where these crops are primarily grown, is expected to experience an increase in the frequency and the intensity of drought events [2], with subsequent severe reductions in yield [3]. Abnormal dry periods during regular periods of sufficient rainfall to support the growth and yield of these crops are also expected to become longer in the U.S., resulting in the soil water availability changing drastically in week-to-month timescales [4].
Crop plants that exhibit phenotypic plasticity may be more resilient to water deficit conditions [5]. Genotypes of maize that exhibit water-deficit-induced anatomical plasticity via narrower root growth angle [6], smaller root metaxylem and smaller distance between leaf vascular bundles [7], or increased allocation to reproductive biomass [8] have higher yield stabilities under water limitation compared to genotypes in which these traits are non-plastic. Soybean genotypes in which anatomical plasticity resulted in an increased root metaxylem number [9], thicker leaves, or faster transitions to the reproductive stage [10] were also better able to maintain yield stability under drought.
The plasticity in stomatal anatomy may improve resilience under water deficit conditions, as plants with lower stomatal density (SD, the number of stomata per unit epidermal area) often have lower rates of stomatal conductance [11,12]. Theoretical [13] and transgenic work [14,15,16] suggest that stomatal conductance can be reduced via a reduction in SD to some degree to enhance water-use efficiency and drought tolerance without adversely affecting photosynthesis, plant growth, or yield.
The stomatal size (SS) and density determine the stomatal area fraction (fgc), the percentage of epidermis occupied by stomata, which in turn is often correlated with leaf conductance [17,18]. Maize leaves typically produce smaller stomata at an increased density in response to water deficit (Supplementary Figure S1A,B). In soybean, smaller stomata have been reported in response to water deficit (Supplementary Figure S2A), but changes in the SD in response to water deficit are variable (Supplementary Figure S2B). The fgc was reported or could be calculated in very few maize or soybean studies. In most cases, the fgc did not change in response to water deficit, but it was reduced in specific genotypes, typically in response to a severe, not moderate, stress (Supplementary Figures S1 and S2). Although there are several reports characterizing epidermal traits in response to water deficit in these two species, few report the fgc on both leaf surfaces, and fewer still report stomatal development as estimated by stomatal index (SI) (Supplementary Figures S1 and S2). To date, there are no reports of comprehensive epidermal plasticity in either of these species.
The plasticity in the fgc cannot be assumed from a change in the SD or SS independently because, under water deficit conditions, the reduced turgor-driven cell expansion may result in changes in cell size and/or distribution that are independent of altered stomatal development. The reduced stomatal size with a concomitant increase in the SD typically results in no fgc plasticity, and this negative scaling relationship between SD and SS has been well established [19,20]. However, water-deficit-induced reductions in stomatal development do occur [21,22], and may contribute to a reduction in the fgc. In maize, water deficit often does not result in changes to SI (Supplementary Figure S1C) but increases in the SI have been reported [6,23]. In soybean leaves, Tripathi et al. [24] observed a reduction in the SI and SD on the abaxial surface. However, none of these studies included measurements of stomatal dimensions, so the potential effect of altered stomatal development on the fgc was not established.
The plasticity of stomatal development may at least partially be the result of a reduced expression of the transcription factor SPEECHLESS (SPCH), which facilitates the initial entry of stem cells into the stomatal development pathway in eudicots [25] and monocots [26]. In Arabidopsis, stomatal development is inhibited by water deficit [21,22] via transcriptional repression of SPCH expression [27,28] and post-translational modification of the SPCH protein [21], whereas expression of two SPCH orthologues was downregulated several hours after a detachment and dehydration treatment of soybean leaves [24]. SPCH expression may also play a role in the adaptation to water availability. In response to drought, SPCH expression was downregulated in one of two black poplar genotypes [29] and the timing of expression of SPCH differs to coordinate distinct stomatal development stages in terrestrial and amphibious members of the genus Callitriche [30]. These reports together point to suppressed SPCH expression as a strong candidate mechanism to facilitate stomatal development inhibition in water-stressed plants. However, to date, there are no reports of SPCH expression in maize or soybean in response to rootzone water deficit [31].
In addition to the lack of complete epidermal characterization in previous studies, many published studies consist of rapidly imposed water deficits, as opposed to a maintained water deficit through the leaf development period, which is more similar to field conditions. Therefore, the leaf plasticity response to water deficit and its underlying mechanisms in maize and soybean remain unknown. We aimed to characterize the leaf anatomical response to a controlled water deficit in temperate genotypes of maize (B73 × Mo17) and soybean (IA3023), as agriculturally important species with grass and eudicot stomatal anatomy, respectively. We quantified the arrest of stomatal development under the water deficit, and then examined the importance of this inhibition to the fgc response. We further hypothesized that reduced SPCH expression leads to stomatal development inhibition and thus decreased SI. This study shows that minimal reduction in cell size and stomatal development inhibition in water-stressed maize results in a lower stomatal area fraction, whereas in the water-stressed soybean, the reduction in cell size and minimal inhibition of stomatal development conserves the stomatal area fraction. This study also provides novel direct evidence for the regulation of stomatal development via the reduced SPCH expression in maize and soybean.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material, Growth Conditions, and Imposition of Water Deficit

A greenhouse experiment was conducted with soybean variety IA3023 and the maize hybrid B73 × Mo17 in 2018, and then repeated in 2019. IA3023 was chosen as a high-yielding elite line well-adapted to the local climate [32], whereas B73 × Mo17 is a well-established hybrid line [33] derived from well-characterized inbred parents [34]. The temperature and relative humidity were recorded by HOBO loggers (Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, MA, USA) on the greenhouse benches, and the photosynthetically active radiation was recorded by a weather station outside the greenhouse (Supplementary Figure S3). Supplemental lighting was supplied at 160 μmol m−2·s−1 as needed to maintain a minimum photoperiod of 12 h. Acidified water was supplemented with water-soluble fertilizer (ICL Specialty Fertilizers, Dublin, OH, USA) to provide the following (in mg L−1): 150 N, 9.8 P, 119 K, 12 Mg, 21 S, 1.5 Fe, 0.4 Mn and Zn, 0.2 Cu and B, and 0.1 Mo. Nitrate and ammoniacal sources of nitrogen were provided as 61 and 39% total N, respectively. The irrigation water was supplemented with 93% sulfuric acid (Brenntag, Reading, PA, USA) at 0.08 mL L−1 to reduce the alkalinity to 100 mg L−1 and pH to a range of 5.8 to 6.2.
Plants were grown in a soilless media of three parts by volume Berger BM8 soilless media (Berger, Saint Modeste, QC, Canada) to one part by volume Turface Athletics MVP calcined clay (PROFILE Products LLC, Buffalo Grove, IL, USA) in 3.8 L pots. The media water content (MWC) was maintained at one of four levels: 100, 75, 50, or 30%. The MWC was calculated as
MWC = [(MW − MDW)/(MSW − MDW)] × 100
where MW is the weight of the system at a given time, MDW is the dry weight of the media, and MSW is the weight of the system when thoroughly saturated with water. The stress was initiated at the V1 or T3/T4 stage for maize and soybean, respectively, in experiment 1, and at the V1 and unifoliate leaf stage in experiment 2. Water was withheld from treatment containers until the target MWC was achieved, at which point the containers were weighed and irrigated every two days to maintain the treatment MWC levels.

2.2. Leaf Sampling and Data Collection

After the target MWC was reached, the emerged leaves were tagged to ensure that anatomical data was collected from leaves that developed exclusively under the desired treatment conditions. In experiment 1, the sampled leaves were the fourth and fifth soybean trifoliate leaves (T4 and T5) and the seventh maize leaf. In the second experiment, the third soybean trifoliate leaf (T3) and eighth maize leaf were collected. The treatment MWC was maintained for 20 to 30 days, which was the time required for post-stress leaves to emerge and develop to full expansion. The full expansion was confirmed in the soybean by photographing the leaves and confirming no further increase in the leaf area over a period of several days. The maize leaves that had developed a prominent collar were considered fully expanded.

2.3. Plant Growth and Water Relations Traits

In the second experiment, 14 maize leaves (of the 28 total experimental replicates) were removed and photographed to obtain the leaf area using ImageJ software. Length (L) and width (W) were quantified in all leaves and the equation
LA (cm2) = 0.7597(L × W) − 6.6523
was used to derive the maize leaf area from the maize leaf length and width in both experiments. The soybean leaves were photographed, and the leaflets were traced to obtain the leaf area.
An 8-cm section from the middle of each maize leaf or half of a soybean leaflet was weighed to obtain the fresh weight (FW), then floated on water in a 50 mL tube and kept under non-saturating light for 6 to 8 h, at which point the leaf pieces were blotted dry and weighed to obtain the turgid weight (TW), then dried at 65 °C for at least 48 h to obtain the dry weight (DW). The relative water content (RWC, %) was calculated as
RWC (%) = [(FW − DW)/(TW − DW)] × 100.
The portion of the leaf used for the RWC quantification was scanned when the turgid weight was obtained to determine the area (LA), from which the specific leaf weight (SLW, mg cm−2) was calculated as DW/LA.
To measure the osmotic potential, the leaf tissue was cut and placed in a dolphin tube with a Costar Spin-X 8163 insert (Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL, USA) and then immediately stored in liquid nitrogen for transport back to the laboratory. Leaf samples for osmotic potential were kept in a −80 °C freezer before being thawed in their sealed tubes and centrifuged for 5 min at 120 RPM × 100 to extract sap. The osmolality was quantified from 10 μL of sap using a vapor pressure osmometer (VAPRO 5520; Wescor Inc., Logan, UT, USA). The osmolality was converted to osmotic potential (Ψs, MPa) as
Ψs = −CRT,
where C is osmolality, R is the gas constant, and T is temperature. From the osmotic potential and RWC, the osmotic potential at full turgor (Ψ100) was calculated as
Ψ100 = Ψs × (RWC/100).
Osmotic adjustment (OA) was assumed to occur if Ψ100 was significantly different from the control plants at a given treatment level.

2.4. Anatomical Traits

In both experiments, the stomatal anatomy was quantified from the lamina half-way between the tip and the collar of the maize leaves, and the soybean leaflet lamina half-way between the base and the tip and between the midrib and edge of the leaflet. In experiment 1, epidermal impressions of the adaxial and abaxial surfaces were made using cyanoacrylate (Duro Super Glue; Henkel, Düsseldorf, Germany) on glass slides. In the second experiment, leaf segments were placed in envelopes and stored at −20 °C until further processing. Leaves were then cleared in a solution of 9:1 ethanol-to-acetic acid in a 60 °C incubator. After the initial clearing in the ethanol-to-acetic acid, maize and soybean leaf tissue were cleared as in McAdam et al. [35]. Soybean leaves were cleared with bleach in a vacuum desiccator, then stained with 0.015% toluidine blue. To quantify the stomatal anatomy from both epidermal impressions and cleared leaves (Supplementary Figure S4), four images (100× and 200× for maize and soybean, representing areas of 0.48 and 0.13 mm2, respectively) were taken from each surface of each leaf with a DCM 900 microscope CMOS Camera (Oplenic Optronics, Hangzhou, China).
The number of stomata and pavement cells per unit area (SD and PD, respectively) was counted using ImageJ software. Only whole stomata and pavement cells and partial cells bordering the top and right sides of each image were counted. The stomatal index (SI) was calculated as
SI (%) = [Ns/(Ns + Np)] × 100,
Where Ns represents the number of stomata, and Np represents the number of pavement cells. The soybean SS was calculated using the formula for an ellipse,
SS (μm2) = π × (SL/2) × (SW/2),
where SL and SW represent the stomatal length and width, respectively. In maize, the SS was calculated using the formula for a rectangle, SL × SW. The stomatal area fraction (fgc) was calculated as in Sack et al. [18]:
fgc = (SS × SD)/100.
The pavement cell size was estimated by dividing the number of pavement cells counted in a region and dividing by the size of the respective visual field for each species, after using the fgc to subtract the total area of the stomata occupying the field.
In the second experiment, the same cleared tissue used to quantify stomatal traits was imaged at 40× magnification to visualize venation. Veins were traced in ImageJ and the total vein length measured per image was divided by the area of the field of view (2.97 mm2) to obtain the vein density (mm of veins per mm−2 area).

2.5. Gene Expression Analysis

In the second experiment, the leaf tissue from an additional three plants per treatment × species was collected seven to ten days after the target MWC was reached, as leaves equivalent to those used for anatomical and physiological measurements were emerging. The third soybean trifoliate leaf was collected when the unfolded leaves were ca. 2 cm in length. In maize, the eighth leaf was harvested from within the leaf sheath when the sixth leaf had emerged but not yet collared. This eighth leaf segment was partitioned into four zones: 1 cm of tissue from the leaf base upwards, the next cm above this zone (1–2 cm above the leaf base), then a 4 cm segment from 2–6 cm above the leaf base, and finally a 4–8 cm segment beginning at 6 cm above the leaf base, depending on the length of the leaf that remained (Supplementary Figure S5). In maize, gene expression was quantified from the first and fourth segments to reliably use leaf tissue in the cell proliferation/differentiation stage and fully expanded tissue [36]. The middle two stages were not examined for gene expression because it is likely that the two zones are variable across water deficit treatments [37]. Therefore, we would confound the effects of water deficit with those of stage differences. Moreover, Raissig et al. [26] showed that the partially differentiated stomatal complexes observed in the middle leaf zones no longer had detectable SPCH expression. All tissue was frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately after segmenting. In soybean, an unfolded T3 trifoliate leaf, which also has primarily differentiating cells [38], was used to quantify SPCH expression. We quantified the expression of two and three homologues of SPCH in maize and soybean leaves, respectively, based on the identification of bHLH stomatal development gene families, including SPCH, by Ran et al. [39], with two important caveats. First, GRMZM2G064638 is now considered a homologue of MUTE [40]. Accordingly, we have named GRMZM2G045109 (Zm00001d046096) and GRMZM2G085751 (Zm00001d053391) as ZmSPCH1 and ZmSPCH2. Secondly, Glyma14g31385 (now Glyma14g160700; GmSPCH4) showed no detectable gene expression in any tissue of young soybean seedlings [41], and so was not investigated here.
The leaf tissue was ground in liquid nitrogen before extracting the RNA using the RNeasy PowerPlant Kit (Qiagen, Germantown, MD, USA). Residual DNA was removed from the extracted RNA using the Qiagen DNAse Max Kit. In total, 2 μg of cDNA was synthesized from the extracted RNA using the SuperScript III First-Strand Synthesis System (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). All procedures were performed as directed in the manufacturer protocols.
The synthesized cDNA was used in a 1:40 dilution with autoclaved water for use in the qPCR. The qPCR was performed using a Luna Universal qPCR Master Mix with SYBR Green chemistry (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA), in a StepOne Plus thermocycler (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). Three biological replicates per treatment and three technical replicates per biological replicate were used for a given SPCH orthologue or control gene. ZmTUBULIN1 and ACTIN11 were used as control genes in the maize and soybean, respectively. Ct values for each gene were compared using the double-delta method [42] to obtain the relative expression of each SPCH orthologue in the different treatments.

2.6. Data Analysis and Experimental Statistics

In both experiments, maize and soybean plants were grown separately on adjacent greenhouse benches to avoid shading. To analyze the response of plant and epidermal traits, experimental data were analyzed across categorical treatment groups within each species. The first experiment was a completely randomized design with five soybean plants and four maize plants per treatment. The second experiment was a randomized complete block design, with eight plants per treatment per species. In the first experiment, a one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey or Games-Howell test was used, depending on the equivalence of variance among treatment groups (Supplementary Table S1). In this experiment, the soybean SD was significantly different between T4 and T5, so anatomical data were analyzed separately within each leaf group. In the second experiment, a mixed model was used wherein block and treatment were treated as random and fixed effects, respectively. As experiments were conducted in different years and different leaf numbers were sampled in each experiment, the data from experiments one and two were analyzed and are presented separately. A post-hoc test with a Bonferroni correction was used to identify the difference between fixed-effect (water-deficit treatment) groups (Supplementary Table S2). Where necessary, Box-Cox or Johnson transformations were used to normalize the data. All statistical analyses were performed in JMP Pro 14 [43]. A list of gene accession numbers and associated primer sequences is given in Supplementary Table S3.

3. Results

3.1. Effect of Water Deficit on Plant Water Status and Growth

The average daytime greenhouse temperature and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) was ~2 °C and 0.2 kPa higher, respectively, over the duration of the second experiment compared to the first experiment (Supplementary Figure S3). Possibly as a result, media in the second experiment reached a lower MWC prior to irrigating in some cases, relative to the media in the first experiment (Supplementary Figures S6 and S7). This difference was especially pronounced for soybean plants.
The relative water content was lower in the moderately (50% MWC) and severely stressed (30% MWC) maize than in the control plants in the second, but not the first, experiment (Figure 1A). Similarly, the leaf osmotic potential (Ψs) decreased with MWC in 50 and 30% MWC maize leaves of the second, but not the first, experiment (Figure 1B). In both experiments, there was no evidence of OA in maize in response to the water deficit stress, except in 50% MWC plants in the second experiment (Figure 1C).
In the first experiment, the soybean RWC was lower only in the 30% MWC plants, whereas the leaf RWC was reduced in all water-deficit stressed plants in the second experiment (Figure 1D). In both experiments, the soybean Ψs decreased only under low MWC conditions (Figure 1E). Soybean leaves in the first experiment did not osmotically adjust as the MWC decreased, but OA was observed in the 50% and 30% MWC treatments of the second experiment (Figure 1F).
In the first experiment, only the 30% MWC treatment resulted in smaller maize leaves relative to the control plants, whereas in the second experiment, water-stressed maize leaves were smaller at all water deficit levels (Figure 2A). Maize leaf thickness, measured via SLW, was not affected by any degree of the water deficit in either experiment (Figure 2B). Soybean leaf size only decreased in the 30% MWC treatment of the first experiment, but the leaf size decreased relative to that of the control plants in the 50% and 30% MWC treatments in the second experiment (Figure 2C). All levels of water deficit resulted in no change in the soybean SLW in the first experiment, but in the leaves subjected to the 50% and 30% MWC treatments of the second experiment, the SLW was higher relative to that of well-watered plants (Figure 2D).

3.2. Stomatal Aantomical Plasticity in Response to Water Deficit

The maize abaxial fgc was reduced by an average of 15% in the two lowest MWC treatments relative to that of the control plants across both experiments (Figure 3A,E). On the adaxial surface, the fgc was reduced by 25% only in plants grown under 30% MWC. This was a result of the water-stressed maize leaves producing smaller stomata (Figure 3B,F) with little to no change in the SD across all treatments (Figure 3C,G). Maize pavement cells were only slightly smaller in water-stressed leaves, being 20% smaller in the second experiment only (Supplementary Figure S8A,B). With little reduction in the pavement cell size, stomatal spacing was maintained, which explains the small increase in the SD. Another consequence of the small changes in stomatal frequency was that the distribution of abaxial-to-adaxial stomata was unresponsive to any level of water deficit in maize (Supplementary Figure S8C,D). The abaxial SI was lower in maize plants grown at 50% and 30% MWC only in the second experiment, whereas the severe water deficit resulted in a decreased SI on the adaxial leaf surface in both experiments (Figure 3D,H). Overall, the mildest water deficit treatment (75% MWC) resulted in no stomatal plasticity.
In the water-stressed soybean, the abaxial fgc was similar between the well-watered and water-stressed plants (Figure 4A,E,I). This was because while the water-stressed soybean stomata were smaller than those of the well-watered leaves (Figure 4B,F,J), unlike maize, the pavement cells were also smaller (Supplementary Figure S9A,B), resulting in a high abaxial SD in the leaves of the most severe water-deficit treatment (Figure 4C,G,K). There was no change in the SD on the adaxial surface, resulting in an increased abaxial-to-adaxial SD ratio in the 30% MWC soybean leaves (Supplementary Figure S9C,D). The soybean abaxial SI was reduced only at the most severe treatment level and only in the second experiment, whereas the abaxial SI decreased in the 30% MWC treatment in both experiments (Figure 4D,H,L).
In maize and soybean leaves, most levels of water deficit resulted in higher vein density (VD) (Figure 5), but the ratio of stomata to veins was largely unchanged in response to the MWC treatment (Supplementary Figure S10).

3.3. Gene Expression Changes Partially Explain Observed Changes in Stomatal Development

We observed a change in the expression of distinct SPEECHLESS (SPCH) orthologs in both the maize and soybean leaves. In maize, ZmSPCH2 expression was reduced in the region of developing (but not in more differentiated tissue) leaf tissue in the 50% and 30% MWC treatments, whereas ZmSPCH1 expression was unresponsive to the water deficit (Figure 6A,B). Three orthologues of SPCH (GmSPCH1, GmSPCH2, and GmSPCH3) were examined in soybean leaves. Of these three, only GmSPCH3 showed a significant reduction in expression in the 30% MWC treatment (Figure 6C–E).

4. Discussion

4.1. Maize and Soybean Exhibited Different Water-Relations Responses to Water Deficit

We imposed similar treatments of water deficit on the same maize and soybean genotypes in the two experiments (Supplementary Figure S6). However, the plants experienced higher levels of stress by the treatments imposed in the second experiment. For example, in the first experiment, we observed neither RWC response to decreasing the MWC in maize leaves (Figure 1A), nor OA in soybean leaves (Figure 1F), whereas these responses were observed in the second experiment. In both species, the leaf area decreased by a greater magnitude in the second experiment compared with the first (Figure 2A,C). Despite the similar MWC treatments imposed, plants in the second experiment experienced a higher average daytime temperature and VPD (27.4 °C and 1.55 kPa) as compared with the first experiment (25.1 °C and 1.31 kPa) (Supplementary Figure S3). As the treatment MWC was reached and harvested leaves were beginning to develop about ten days after the treatment initiation, the VPD was higher in the second experiment than at the comparable period in the first experiment (Supplementary Figure S3C,G). Additionally, the data collection from maize and soybean plants in the second experiment occurred during a period of increasing VPD, whereas the temperature and VPD decreased at the end of the first experiment (Supplementary Figure S3C,G).
The treatment application was similar in both experiments in that the water deficit was imposed prior to the emergence and through full expansion of the harvested leaves. Additionally, although the leaf numbers were different, they were developmentally similar in the two experiments, and in soybean, in different leaves in the same experiment (Figure 4A–H). The maize V7 and V8 leaves used for stomatal anatomy are both adult leaves [44,45], whereas the soybean T3–T5 leaves are all transitory between the juvenile andadult phases [46]. At the same time, the stomatal size and/or the area fraction were similar in the two experiments in maize and soybean, even though data were collected from epidermal impressions in the first experiment and the direct imaging of cleared tissue in the second experiment (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Therefore, we attribute the differences observed in the two experiments to be primarily the result of environmental, rather than developmental, variation or methodological differences.
Decreased Ψ100 occurred in severely stressed soybean leaves, indicating OA. OA has been reported in prior investigations of the drought-stressed soybean [47,48]. Sloane et al. [47] also attributed the improved drought tolerance in an introduced genotype to the greater capacity for OA. In the second experiment, soybean (but not maize) Ψ100 was correlated with the SD, SS, total cell number, and leaf area (Supplementary Table S4), supporting the idea that stomatal plasticity in soybean was comparatively limited because the greater OA was sufficient for drought tolerance. The OA that occurred in soybean may have helped to maintain the RWC under water stress, unlike in the maize plants in the second experiment (Figure 1). OA does occur in maize [49,50], including in the genotype used in our study [51,52]. OA may not have been observed in our study as we used a regular deficit irrigation, to which plants respond differently than they do when water is withheld [53,54], as occurred in these previous investigations.

4.2. Maize and Soybean Exhibited Different Anatomical Plastcity to Water Deficit

The few previously published experiments report a non-plastic response of the fgc to water deficit in maize [55,56,57]. In our study, we observed maize stomatal plasticity due to the stomatal development inhibition relative to the decrease in leaf and epidermal size. Under the most severe water deficit, maize leaves were 49% smaller than those of the control plants, whereas pavement cell size was unchanged in the first experiment and 25% smaller in the second experiment. As a result, the inhibited stomatal development (lower SI) was sufficient to prevent the stomatal density increase and weaken the negative correlation between the SD and SS (Supplementary Figure S11A). Therefore, the smaller stomata led to lower fgc in the water-stressed maize. Soybean water-stressed leaves were as much as 70% smaller than well-watered plants. Additionally, the soybean epidermal cell size decreased by 25% in the first experiment and up to 67% in the second experiment, so the ~15% decrease in the SI was not sufficient to prevent the large increase in the soybean SD. Therefore, our results suggest that soybean leaves of this genotype do not exhibit plasticity in the fgc because the reduction in SS, as a consequence of the water deficit, is largely counterbalanced by an increase in stomatal density (Supplementary Figure S11B).
Stomatal frequency or developmental plasticity usually occurs similarly on both leaf surfaces, such that the abaxial-to-adaxial stomatal ratio is not changed in water-stressed leaves relative to the control maize and soybean plants (Supplementary Figures S1 and S2). However, when the stomatal ratio did change, it increased in three soybean genotypes and decreased in two (Supplementary Figure S2). The increased abaxial-to-adaxial stomatal ratio, observed in soybean but not in maize, may also be an acclimation response to the water deficit. Amphistomatous plants have a higher stomatal conductance than do hypostomatous plants [58,59,60]. Additionally, as the ratio of the abaxial-to-adaxial stomata increases within the amphistomatous species, mesophyll and stomatal conductance decrease [60]. This can be explained by the incidence of light on the adaxial surface inducing stomatal opening and increasing evaporative demand [61], as well as the leaf veins being closer to this surface [62]. Therefore, shifting the distribution of leaf stomata to the abaxial surface may be a water conservation strategy.
The lower fgc minimizes the available stomatal area for transpirational water loss and fgc correlates positively with the leaf photosynthetic rate [63] and conductance [17]. The need for lower fgc is less urgent if water-stressed leaves are simply much smaller and thus conserve water by minimizing the plant’s transpirational surface. The negative correlation between the SD and SS is well-established within and across many species [19,64,65]. This tradeoff would not result in fgc plasticity, as we saw in water-stressed soybean leaves. However, the smaller stomata may be physiologically advantageous to water-deficit stressed plants, as smaller stomata can open and close more quickly [66,67,68,69] and can open at lower turgor pressure relative to larger stomata [70]. This means that plants in dry environments can quickly open their smaller stomata for photosynthesis after rainfall and rapidly re-close them as available water is depleted [71]. This results in a physiological benefit to leaves with smaller stomata even if the fgc remains consistent in water-stressed leaves. Similarly, a higher SD may not negatively affect the water status of stressed plants, as the fine control of the moment-to-moment size of the stomatal pore leads to no significant correlation between the SD and stomatal conductance [64,72]. In water-stressed soybean, the decrease in cell expansion ultimately led to a high SD/low SS stomatal phenotype, which has been associated with water-deficit stress [73] or more xeric environments [74], possibly because this phenotype is more sensitive to closure during drought conditions [75].
The vein density increase was common to both the maize genotype B73 × Mo17 and the soybean genotype IA3023. This response has not yet been characterized in water-stressed maize plants but has been reported in wheat [76]. In rice, another grass-type crop, the VD did not change in response to osmotic stress, but rice plants with a higher VD had a higher leaf photosynthesis and stomatal conductance rate [77]. In eudicots, such as cotton [78] and one soybean genotype investigated by de Sousa [79], the VD also increased in response to water deficit. Veins supply water to leaf tissues, hence the coordination of vein and SD is thought to balance the water supply via veins and loss via stomata [80]. The increased VD preserved the ratio of veins to stomata in the water-stressed maize and soybean and, thus, the supply and loss of water were balanced even when the SD increased, as in severely-stressed plants. This possibly ensured that drought-stressed tissues were sufficiently supplied with water. In plants where the leaf epidermis can evaporate more water than can be supplied by leaf venation, the stomata cannot remain open [81], which in our water-stressed maize and soybean plants would have prevented any growth and possibly led to plant death.

4.3. SPCH Expression Is Reduced in Response to Water Deficit in Maize and Soybean

We quantified the expression of SPCH homologues in the emerging leaf tissue of maize and soybean as a positive regulator of the entry division of protodermal cells into the stomatal development pathway [25,26]. Although maize and soybean are monocot and eudicot species, respectively, many stomatal development genes and proteins, including SPCH, are functionally conserved between these two plant types [82]. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that the plasticity in stomatal development may be a result of a reduction in SPCH expression in both water-stressed maize and soybean plants. In Arabidopsis, the SPCH protein activity is reduced following drought stress [21]. Under water deficit conditions, YDA expression is upregulated [27] as its upstream repressor AN3 is downregulated [83]. As YDA is a repressor of SPCH, SPCH expression is thus downregulated in water-stressed leaves [27,28]. The inhibition of SPCH activity or gene expression would therefore provide a mechanism to inhibit the differentiation of protodermal cells into stomata under water-deficit conditions. However, Jia et al. [84] observed the upregulation of SPCH gene expression in water-stressed plants. Therefore, the specific role of SPCH in response to water deficit has not yet been clearly established [31]. Moreover, other than in Arabidopsis [21], SPCH expression has not been quantified in conjunction with an examination of stomatal anatomy to substantiate its role in stomatal development plasticity in response to water deficit.
The SPCH family of transcription factors has been identified in maize and soybean [39], and we characterized expression of two of the three orthologs of ZmSPCH and three of the four orthologs of GmSPCH. All SPCH orthologs are significantly conserved in their functional domains (Supplementary Figure S12). Water deficit reduced the expression of only ZmSPCH2 in maize and GmSPCH3 in soybean (Figure 6). The ZmSPCH2 expression was reduced in the 50% and 30% MWC treatments, and GmSPCH3 expression reduced in the 30% MWC treatments, which matched the observed reduction in SI in both species. The different SPCH homologs may have evolved different promoter sequences, resulting in only certain gene copies being sensitive to, and thus downregulated by, osmotic stress. This has been observed in maize; ZmSPCH1 expression was not responsive to mild drought in any region of developing maize leaves, whereas ZmSPCH2 was downregulated in the drought-stressed regions of cell division and transition to cell elongation [37]. Xiang et al. [85] also found that the ZmSPCH1 expression was not responsive to drought, although the ZmSPCH2 expression was not quantified. In soybean, only GmSPCH1 and GmSPCH3 were still downregulated after 5 h of leaf dehydration, whereas the expression of other SPCH orthologs recovered by this time point [24]. GmSPCH expression may also be differentially regulated in different tissues and genotypes. GmSPCH3 expression increased in the shoot apical meristem of water-stressed Harosoy and L62-364 soybean [86].
Different SPCH homologs may have neo-functionalized, as the bHLH transcription factor family to which this gene belongs has considerable functional diversity. In maize, neofunctionalization has been shown for the related MUTE transcription factor; despite the existence of at least two MUTE homologs in maize, the insertional mutation of just one (GRMZM2G417164) was sufficient to produce leaves without normal stomata [87]. ZmSPCH1 has not yet been functionally characterized beyond its sequence-based annotation, so as yet there is no direct evidence that it promotes stomatal development. Similarly, the functional importance of the individual SPCH homologs in soybean leaves is presently unclear. A number of upstream regulators of the basal stomatal development pathway are likely also involved in the observed plasticity response to water stress [31,88]. GTL1 has been implicated as a water-deficit responsive stomatal development regulator in Arabidopsis [22], and several other stomatal development transcription factors are responsive to the stress hormone ABA [89].
Our genetic and anatomical data suggest that the reduced stomatal development in response to water-deficit stress may be dependent on the reduced expression of SPCH in maize and soybean leaves, but only in response to severe water stress. In maize, the reduction in ZmSPCH2 expression occurred in the 50% and 30% MWC grown leaves, whereas in soybean, GmSPCH3 expression was reduced only in response to the 30% MWC treatment. As a result, SPCH may facilitate reduced differentiation of leaf stomatal development, resulting in reduced SI in maize and soybean. The SPCH downregulation, and the SI and fgc reduction did not occur in mild water deficits, consistent with other results from Arabidopsis thaliana [22], wheat [76], tomato [90], and soybean [79,91]. In these studies, the fgc or SI plasticity occurred in water-deficit treatments in which the MWC decreased by 70% [22], or when the leaf water potential decrease exceeded 0.5 MPa [76,91] relative to the control plants. Therefore, stomatal anatomical plasticity in plants may occur primarily or only as a response to severe water deficits.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we investigated the epidermal cell expansion, differentiation, and distribution responses to water deficit in maize and soybean. We observed epidermal changes in the water-stressed maize and soybean arising from cell differentiation and expansion processes, providing a mechanism to explain why the fgc reduction can occur in severely water-stressed leaves of some species. We show that the fgc is strongly and consistently decreased in response to the low MWC in maize but not soybean leaves. This was because, in water-stressed soybean leaves, large increases in the SD compensated for the reduction in the SS. Water stressed leaves of both species exhibited stomatal development plasticity, but only under severe water-deficit treatments, suggesting the plasticity response occurs only in extremely dry situations. This gives a model of distinct anatomical responses to water deficit in these genotypes (Figure 7). In both species, the SI reduction was attributable in part to the lower expression of certain SPCH orthologues. Our study demonstrates that the downregulation of SPCH expression may facilitate reduced stomatal development. However, the importance of the fgc plasticity to the water deficit response may differ between these maize and soybean genotypes. We observed several responses in soybean IA3023 that would have facilitated drought tolerance, such as thicker leaves, OA, and a small-but-dense stomatal phenotype, all of which may be more important environmental responses than stomatal plasticity.
Other genotypes of maize and soybean, possibly with different epidermal anatomy and/or water-stress sensitivity, may exhibit different anatomical responses to water deficit. Additionally, the physiological advantage of reduced or conserved fgc should be characterized in maize and soybean. Lastly, future studies should also investigate the activity of other stomatal development genes in inhibiting the stomatal development of water-stressed leaves [92,93,94,95,96,97].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/life13020290/s1, Table S1: Results and diagnostics of the one-way ANOVA used in analyses of maize and soybean traits in the first experiment. Table S2: Results of the mixed linear model of maize and soybean traits in the second experiment. Table S3: Accession numbers and qPCR primer sequences of genes investigated in the current study. Table S4: Correlation results of leaf against water relations traits.; Figure S1: Response ratios for maize stomatal size, density, area fraction, index, abaxial-to-adaxial ratio, and leaf area in published literature. Figure S2: Response ratios for soybean stomatal size, density, area fraction, index, abaxial-to-adaxial ratio, and leaf area in published literature. Figure S3: Environmental conditions during the two experiments. Figure S4: Representative micrographs of maize and leaf epidermis in both experiments. Figure S5: Segmentation of maize leaves to quantify SPCH expression in response to water stress. Figure S6: Media water content in the first and second experiments. Figure S7: Average pre-watering media water content in the first and second experiments. Figure S8: Pavement cell size and abaxial-to-adaxial stomatal ratio in maize leaves. Figure S9: Pavement cell size and abaxial-to-adaxial stomatal ratio in soybean leave. Figure S10: Ratio of stomatal to vein density in maize and soybean leaves. Figure S11: Relationships between stomatal density and size. Figure S12: Amino acid sequence conservation between SPCH orthologs in Arabidopsis thaliana, Zea mays, and Glycine max.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A.M. and M.V.M.; methodology, N.A.M. and B.M.; formal analysis, N.A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, N.A.M.; writing—review and editing, N.A.M. and M.V.M.; visualization, N.A.M.; supervision, M.V.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Center for Plant Biology Assistantship Award in 2019 to Noel Anthony Mano.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated or analyzed in this study are presented in the article or its Supplementary Information.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mike Gosney, Nathan Deppe, and Dan Little for assistance with plant maintenance and care, Santiago Franco Lopez for assistance in data collection, and Tom Kronewitter (Purdue Agricultural Communications) for assistance with figures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. USDA, N.A.S.S. Acreage; USDA, N.A.S.S.: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; pp. 1–49.
  2. Jin, Z.; Ainsworth, E.A.; Leakey, A.D.B.; Lobell, D.B. Increasing drought and diminishing benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean yields across the US Midwest. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2018, 24, e522–e533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Luan, X.; Bommarco, R.; Scaini, A.; Vico, G. Combined heat and drought suppress rainfed maize and soybean yields and modify irrigation benefits in the USA. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 064023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pendergrass, A.G.; Meehl, G.A.; Pulwarty, R.; Hobbins, M.; Hoell, A.; AghaKouchak, A.; Bonfils, C.J.W.; Gallant, A.J.E.; Hoerling, M.; Hoffmann, D.; et al. Flash droughts present a new challenge for subseasonal-to-seasonal prediction. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Nicotra, A.B.; Atkin, O.K.; Bonser, S.P.; Davidson, A.M.; Finnegan, E.J.; Mathesius, U.; Poot, P.; Purugganan, M.D.; Richards, C.L.; Valladares, F.; et al. Plant phenotypic plasticity in a changing climate. Trends Plant Sci. 2010, 15, 684–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Pires, M.V.; de Castro, E.M.; de Freitas, B.S.M.; Souza Lira, J.M.; Magalhães, P.C.; Pereira, M.P. Yield-related phenotypic traits of drought resistant maize genotypes. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2020, 171, 103962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. de Souza, T.C.; de Castro, E.M.; César Magalhães, P.; De Oliveira Lino, L.; Trindade Alves, E.; de Albuquerque, P.E.P. Morphophysiology, morphoanatomy, and grain yield under field conditions for two maize hybrids with contrasting response to drought stress. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2013, 35, 3201–3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Galizia, L.A.; Munaro, E.M.; Cirilo, A.G.; Otegui, M.E.; D’Andrea, K.E. Phenotypic plasticity for biomass partitioning in maize: Genotype effects across a range of environments. Field Crop. Res. 2020, 256, 107914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Prince, S.J.; Murphy, M.; Mutava, R.N.; Durnell, L.A.; Valliyodan, B.; Grover Shannon, J.; Nguyen, H.T. Root xylem plasticity to improve water use and yield in water-stressed soybean. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 2027–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Buezo, J.; Sanz-Saez, Á.; Moran, J.F.; Soba, D.; Aranjuelo, I.; Esteban, R. Drought tolerance response of high-yielding soybean varieties to mild drought: Physiological and photochemical adjustments. Physiol. Plant. 2019, 166, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pearce, D.W.; Millard, S.; Bray, D.F.; Rood, S.B. Stomatal characteristics of riparian poplar species in a semi-arid environment. Tree Physiol. 2006, 26, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xu, Z.; Zhou, G. Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 3317–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Yoo, C.Y.; Pence, H.E.; Hasegawa, P.M.; Mickelbart, M.V. Regulation of transpiration to improve crop water use. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2009, 28, 410–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hughes, J.; Hepworth, C.; Dutton, C.; Dunn, J.A.; Hunt, L.; Stephens, J.; Waugh, R.; Cameron, D.D.; Gray, J.E. Reducing stomatal density in barley improves drought tolerance without impacting on yield. Plant Physiol. 2017, 174, 776–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Caine, R.S.; Yin, X.; Sloan, J.; Harrison, E.L.; Mohammed, U.; Fulton, T.; Biswal, A.K.; Dionora, J.; Chater, C.C.; Coe, R.A.; et al. Rice with reduced stomatal density conserves water and has improved drought tolerance under future climate conditions. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dunn, J.; Hunt, L.; Afsharinafar, M.; Meselmani, M.A.; Mitchell, A.; Howells, R.; Wallington, E.; Fleming, A.J.; Gray, J.E. Reduced stomatal density in bread wheat leads to increased water-use efficiency. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 4737–4748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Sack, L.; Cowan, P.D.; Jaikumar, N.; Holbrook, N.M. The “hydrology” of leaves: Co-ordination of structure and function in temperate woody species. Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 1343–1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Sack, L.; Tyree, M.T.; Holbrook, N.M. Leaf hydraulic architecture correlates with regeneration irradiance in tropical rainforest trees. New Phytol. 2005, 167, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Franks, P.J.; Drake, P.L.; Beerling, D.J. Plasticity in maximum stomatal conductance constrained by negative correlation between stomatal size and density: An analysis using Eucalyptus globulus. Plant Cell Environ. 2009, 32, 1737–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. de Boer, H.J.; Price, C.A.; Wagner-Cremer, F.; Dekker, S.C.; Franks, P.J.; Veneklaas, E.J. Optimal allocation of leaf epidermal area for gas exchange. New Phytol. 2016, 210, 1219–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kumari, A.; Jewaria, P.K.; Bergmann, D.C.; Kakimoto, T. Arabidopsis reduces growth under osmotic stress by decreasing SPEECHLESS protein. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 55, 2037–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yoo, C.Y.; Mano, N.; Finkler, A.; Weng, H.; Day, I.S.; Reddy, A.S.N.; Poovaiah, B.W.; Fromm, H.; Hasegawa, P.M.; Mickelbart, M.V. A Ca2+/CAM-regulated transcriptional switch modulates stomatal development in response to water deficit. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Kamphorst, S.H.; Amaral Júnior, A.T.D.; de Lima, V.J.; Santos, P.H.A.D.; Rodrigues, W.P.; Vivas, J.M.S.; Gonçalves, G.M.B.; Schmitt, K.F.M.; Leite, J.T.; Vivas, M.; et al. Comparison of selection traits for effective popcorn (Zea mays L. var. Everta) breeding under water limiting conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Tripathi, P.; Rabara, R.C.; Reese, R.N.; Miller, M.A.; Rohila, J.S.; Subramanian, S.; Shen, Q.J.; Morandi, D.; Bücking, H.; Shulaev, V.; et al. A toolbox of genes, proteins, metabolites and promoters for improving drought tolerance in soybean includes the metabolite coumestrol and stomatal development genes. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. MacAlister, C.A.; Ohashi-Ito, K.; Bergmann, D.C. Transcription factor control of asymmetric cell divisions that establish the stomatal lineage. Nature 2007, 445, 537–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Raissig, M.T.; Abrash, E.; Bettadapur, A.; Vogel, J.P.; Bergmann, D.C. Grasses use an alternatively wired bHLH transcription factor network to establish stomatal identity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 8326–8331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Kilian, J.; Whitehead, D.; Horak, J.; Wanke, D.; Weinl, S.; Batistic, O.; D’Angelo, C.; Bornberg-Bauer, E.; Kudla, J.; Harter, K. The AtGenExpress global stress expression data set: Protocols, evaluation and model data analysis of UV-B light, drought and cold stress responses. Plant J. 2007, 50, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Castilhos, G.; Lazzarotto, F.; Spagnolo-Fonini, L.; Bodanese-Zanettini, M.H.; Margis-Pinheiro, M. Possible roles of basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors in adaptation to drought. Plant Sci. 2014, 223, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Viger, M.; Smith, H.K.; Cohen, D.; Dewoody, J.; Trewin, H.; Steenackers, M.; Bastien, C.; Taylor, G. Adaptive mechanisms and genomic plasticity for drought tolerance identified in European black poplar (Populus nigra L.). Tree Physiol. 2016, 36, 909–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Doll, Y.; Koga, H.; Tsukaya, H. The diversity of stomatal development regulation in Callitriche is related to the intrageneric diversity in lifestyles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2026351118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Han, S.-K.; Kwak, J.M.; Qi, X. Stomatal lineage control by developmental program and environmental cues. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 751852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Diers, B.W.; Specht, J.; Rainey, K.M.; Cregan, P.; Song, Q.; Ramasubramanian, V.; Graef, G.; Nelson, R.; Schapaugh, W.; Wang, D.; et al. Genetic architecture of soybean yield and agronomic traits. G3 GenesGenomesGenetics 2018, 8, 3367–3375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Lee, M.; Sharopova, N.; Beavis, W.D.; Grant, D.; Katt, M.; Blair, D.; Hallauer, A. Expanding the genetic map of maize with the intermated B73 × Mo17 (IBM) population. Plant Mol. Biol. 2002, 48, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Foley, R.C. The Genetic Diversity of Water Use Efficiency in the Nested Associated Mapping Population of Zea mays; Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  35. McAdam, S.A.M.; Eléouët, M.P.; Best, M.; Brodribb, T.J.; Carins Murphy, M.; Cook, S.D.; Dalmais, M.; Dimitriou, T.; Gélinas-Marion, A.; Gill, W.M.; et al. Linking auxin with photosynthetic rate via leaf venation. Plant Physiol. 2017, 175, 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Facette, M.R.; Shen, Z.; Björnsdóttir, F.R.; Briggs, S.P.; Smith, L.G. Parallel proteomic and phosphoproteomic analyses of successive stages of maize leaf development. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 2798–2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Nelissen, H.; Sun, X.H.; Rymen, B.; Jikumaru, Y.; Kojima, M.; Takebayashi, Y.; Abbeloos, R.; Demuynck, K.; Storme, V.; Vuylsteke, M.; et al. The reduction in maize leaf growth under mild drought affects the transition between cell division and cell expansion and cannot be restored by elevated gibberellic acid levels. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2018, 16, 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Liljebjelke, K.A.; Franceschi, V.R. Differentiation of mesophyll and paraveinal mesophyll in soybean leaf. Bot. Gaz. 1991, 152, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ran, J.H.; Shen, T.T.; Liu, W.J.; Wang, X.Q. Evolution of the bHLH genes involved in stomatal development: Implications for the expansion of developmental complexity of stomata in land plants. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Portwood, J.L.; Woodhouse, M.R.; Cannon, E.K.; Gardiner, J.M.; Harper, L.C.; Schaeffer, M.L.; Walsh, J.R.; Sen, T.Z.; Cho, K.T.; Schott, D.A.; et al. Maizegdb 2018: The maize multi-genome genetics and genomics database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D1146–D1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Danzer, J.; Meilott, E.; Bui, A.Q.; Le, B.H.; Martin, P.; Hashimoto, M.; Perez-Lesher, J.; Chen, M.; Pelletier, J.M.; Somers, D.A.; et al. Down-regulating the expression of 53 soybean transcription factor genes uncovers a role for SPEECHLESS in initiating stomatal cell lineages during embryo development. Plant Physiol. 2015, 168, 1025–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Pfaffl, M.W. A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT-PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, e45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. SAS Institute, Inc. JMP, Version 14; SAS Institute, Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  44. Orkwiszewski, J.A.J.; Poethig, R.S. Phase identity of the maize leaf is determined after leaf initiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 10631–10636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Beydler, B.; Osadchuk, K.; Cheng, C.-L.; Manak, J.R.; Irish, E.E. The juvenile phase of maize sees upregulation of stress-response genes and is extended by exogenous jasmonic acid. Plant Physiol. 2016, 171, 2648–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Yoshikawa, T.; Ozawa, S.; Sentoku, N.; Itoh, J.I.; Nagato, Y.; Yokoi, S. Change of shoot architecture during juvenile-to-adult phase transition in soybean. Planta 2013, 238, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sloane, R.J.; Patterson, R.P.; Carter, T.E. Field drought tolerance of a soybean plant introduction. Crop. Sci. 1990, 30, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Du, Y.; Zhao, Q.; Chen, L.; Yao, X.; Xie, F. Effect of drought stress at reproductive stages on growth and nitrogen metabolism in soybean. Agronomy 2020, 10, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Nayyar, H. Accumulation of osmolytes and osmotic adjustment in water-stressed wheat (Triticum aestivum) and maize (Zea mays) as affected by calcium and its antagonists. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2003, 50, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chimenti, C.A.; Marcantonio, M.; Hall, A.J. Divergent selection for osmotic adjustment results in improved drought tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.) in both early growth and flowering phases. Field Crop. Res. 2006, 95, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Westgate, M.E.; Boyer, J.S. Osmotic adjustment and the inhibition of leaf, root, stem and silk growth at low water potentials in maize. Planta 1985, 164, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tang, A.-C.; Boyer, J.S. Growth-induced water potentials and the growth of maize leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 489–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Harb, A.; Krishnan, A.; Ambavaram, M.M.R.; Pereira, A. Molecular and physiological analysis of drought stress in Arabidopsis reveals early responses leading to acclimation in plant growth. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154, 1254–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Puértolas, J.; Larsen, E.K.; Davies, W.J.; Dodd, I.C. Applying “drought” to potted plants by maintaining suboptimal soil moisture improves plant water relations. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 2413–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Zhao, W.; Sun, Y.; Kjelgren, R.; Liu, X. Response of stomatal density and bound gas exchange in leaves of maize to soil water deficit. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37, 1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Ksiksi, T.S.; Ppoyil, S.B.T.; Palakkott, A.R. CO2 enrichment affects eco-physiological growth of maize and alfalfa under different water stress regimes in the UAE. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2018, 24, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yuan, J.; Cai, M.; Li, Y. Responses of leaf stomatal traits to nitrogen and water and their relationship with leaf gas exchange in corn. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 2022, 40, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Parkhurst, D.F. The adaptive significance of stomatal occurrence on one or both surfaces of leaves. J. Ecol. 1978, 66, 367–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mott, K.A.; Gibson, A.C.; O’leary, J.W. The adaptive significance of amphistomatic leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 1982, 5, 455–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Xiong, D.; Flexas, J. From one side to two sides: The effects of stomatal distribution on photosynthesis. New Phytol. 2020, 228, 1754–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rockwell, F.E.; Holbrook, N.M.; Stroock, A.D. The competition between liquid and vapor transport in transpiring leaves. Plant Physiol. 2014, 164, 1741–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Drake, P.L.; de Boer, H.J.; Schymanski, S.J.; Veneklaas, E.J. Two sides to every leaf: Water and CO2 transport in hypostomatous and amphistomatous leaves. New Phytol. 2019, 222, 1179–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Bucher, S.F.; Auerswald, K.; Tautenhahn, S.; Geiger, A.; Otto, J.; Müller, A.; Römermann, C. Inter- and intraspecific variation in stomatal pore area index along elevational gradients and its relation to leaf functional traits. Plant Ecol. 2016, 217, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ohsumi, A.; Kanemura, T.; Homma, K.; Horie, T.; Shiraiwa, T. Genotypic variation of stomatal conductance in relation to stomatal density and length in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Prod. Sci. 2007, 10, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taylor, S.H.; Franks, P.J.; Hulme, S.P.; Spriggs, E.; Christin, P.A.; Edwards, E.J.; Woodward, F.I.; Osborne, C.P. Photosynthetic pathway and ecological adaptation explain stomatal trait diversity amongst grasses. New Phytol. 2012, 193, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Drake, P.L.; Froend, R.H.; Franks, P.J. Smaller, faster stomata: Scaling of stomatal size, rate of response, and stomatal conductance. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Giday, H.; Kjaer, K.H.; Fanourakis, D.; Ottosen, C. Smaller stomata require less severe leaf drying to close: A case study in Rosa hybrida. J. Plant Physiol. 2013, 170, 1309–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kardiman, R.; Ræbild, A. Relationship between stomatal density, size and speed of opening in Sumatran rainforest species. Tree Physiol. 2018, 38, 696–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Israel, W.K.; Watson-Lazowski, A.; Chen, Z.H.; Ghannoum, O. High intrinsic water use efficiency is underpinned by high stomatal aperture and guard cell potassium flux in C3 and C4 grasses grown at glacial CO2 and low light. J. Exp. Bot. 2022, 73, 1546–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Spence, R.D.; Wu, H.; Sharpe, P.J.H.; Clark, K.G. Water stress effects on guard cell anatomy and the mechanical advantage of the epidermal cells. Plant Cell Environ. 1986, 9, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Liu, C.; He, N.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, Q.; Sack, L.; Yu, G. Variation of stomatal traits from cold temperate to tropical forests and association with water use efficiency. Funct. Ecol. 2018, 32, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Gitz, D.C.; Liu-Gitz, L.; Britz, S.J.; Sullivan, J.H. Ultraviolet-B effects on stomatal density, water-use efficiency, and stable carbon isotope discrimination in four glasshouse-grown soybean (Glycine max) cultivars. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2005, 53, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Quarrie, S.A.; Jones, H.G. Effects of abscisic acid and water stress on development and morphology of wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 1977, 28, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dunlap, J.M.; Stettler, R.F. Variation in leaf epidermal and stomatal traits of Populus trichocarpa from two transects across the Washington Cascades. Can. J. Bot. 2001, 79, 528–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Henry, C.; John, G.P.; Pan, R.; Bartlett, M.K.; Fletcher, L.R.; Scoffoni, C.; Sack, L. A stomatal safety-efficiency trade-off constrains responses to leaf dehydration. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 3398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Bresta, P.; Nikolopoulos, D.; Economou, G.; Vahamidis, P.; Lyra, D.; Karamanos, A.; Karabourniotis, G. Modification of water entry (xylem vessels) and water exit (stomata) orchestrates long term drought acclimation of wheat leaves. Plant Soil 2011, 347, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tabassum, M.A.; Zhu, G.; Hafeez, A.; Wahid, M.A.; Shaban, M.; Li, Y. Influence of leaf vein density and thickness on hydraulic conductance and photosynthesis in rice (Oryza sativa L.) during water stress. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Lei, Z.Y.; Han, J.M.; Yi, X.P.; Zhang, W.F.; Zhang, Y.L. Coordinated variation between veins and stomata in cotton and its relationship with water-use efficiency under drought stress. Photosynthetica 2018, 56, 1326–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. de Sousa, L.F.; de Menezes-Silva, P.E.; Lourenço, L.L.; Galmés, J.; Guimarães, A.C.; da Silva, A.F.; dos Reis Lima, A.P.; Henning, L.M.M.; Costa, A.C.; Silva, F.G.; et al. Improving water use efficiency by changing hydraulic and stomatal characteristics in soybean exposed to drought: The involvement of nitric oxide. Physiol. Plant. 2020, 168, 576–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Brodribb, T.J.; Jordan, G.J. Water supply and demand remain balanced during leaf acclimation of Nothofagus cunninghamii trees. New Phytol. 2011, 192, 437–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Salleo, S.; Nardini, A.; Pitt, F.; Lo Gullo, M.A. Xylem cavitation and hydraulic control of stomatal conductance in laurel (Laurus nobilis L.). Plant Cell Environ. 2000, 23, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Conklin, P.A.; Strable, J.; Li, S.; Scanlon, M.J. On the mechanisms of development in monocot and eudicot leaves. New Phytol. 2019, 221, 706–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Meng, L.S.; Yao, S.Q. Transcription co-activator Arabidopsis ANGUSTIFOLIA3 (AN3) regulates water-use efficiency and drought tolerance by modulating stomatal density and improving root architecture by the transrepression of YODA (YDA). Plant Biotechnol. J. 2015, 13, 893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jia, M.Z.; Liu, L.Y.; Geng, C.; Jiang, J. Activation of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid synthases sets stomatal density and clustered ratio on leaf epidermis of Arabidopsis in response to drought. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 758785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Xiang, Y.; Sun, X.; Bian, X.; Wei, T.; Han, T.; Yan, J.; Zhang, A. The transcription factor ZmNAC49 reduces stomatal density and improves drought tolerance in maize. J. Exp. Bot. 2021, 72, 1399–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zhang, D.; Wang, X.; Li, S.; Wang, C.; Gosney, M.J.; Mickelbart, M.V.; Ma, J. A post-domestication mutation, dt2, triggers systemic modification of divergent and convergent pathways modulating multiple agronomic traits in soybean. Mol. Plant 2019, 12, 1366–1382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Wang, H.; Guo, S.; Qiao, X.; Guo, J.; Li, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Bai, S.; Gao, Z.; Wang, D.; Wang, P.; et al. BZU2/ZmMUTE controls symmetrical division of guard mother cell and specifies neighbor cell fate in maize. PLoS Genet. 2019, 15, e1008377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Qi, X.; Torii, K.U. Hormonal and environmental signals guiding stomatal development. BMC Biol. 2018, 16, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Chater, C.C.C.; Oliver, J.; Casson, S.; Gray, J.E. Putting the brakes on: Abscisic acid as a central environmental regulator of stomatal development. New Phytol. 2014, 202, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Yang, Z.; Tan, W.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Y. Effect of soil water stress on stomatal characters of greenhouse tomato leaves. Chin. J. Ecol. 2015, 34, 1234–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Ghosh, A.K.; Ishijiki, K.; Toyota, M.; Kusutani, A.; Asanuma, K. Water potential, stomatal dimension and leaf gas exchange in soybean plants under long-term moisture deficit. Jpn. J. Trop. Agric. 2000, 44, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chairi, F.; Elazab, A.; Sanchez-Bragado, R.; Araus, J.L.; Serret, M.D. Heterosis for water status in maize seedlings. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 164, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ciha, A.J.; Brun, W.A. Stomatal size and frequency in soybeans. Crop. Sci. 1975, 15, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Inamullah; Isoda, A. Adaptive responses of soybean and cotton to water stress: I. Transpiration changes in relation to stomatal area and stomatal conductance. Plant Prod. Sci. 2005, 8, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mangena, P. Water Stress: Morphological and anatomical changes in soybean (Glycine max L.) plants. In Plant, Abiotic Stress and Responses to Climate Change; InTech: Sydney, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  96. Mohammady-D, S.; Hasannejad, R. Effect of water-stress on some water related traits and their relationships with height and dry matter in maize early maturing inbred lines. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2006, 9, 2852–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Zhao, X.; Lu, Y.; Bai, M.; Xu, M.; Peng, Y.; Ding, Y.; Zhuang, Z.; Chen, F.; Zhang, D. Response of maize genotypes with different plant architecture to drought stress. Acta Pratactulturae Sin. 2020, 29, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 13 00290 g001 550
Figure 1. Relative water content (A,D), osmotic potential (B,E), and osmotic potential at full turgor (Ψ100; (C,F)) in maize and soybean leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (black bars) and second (grey bars) experiments. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 4 maize plants and 5 soybean plants in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within experiment 1 (lowercase) and experiment 2 (uppercase) leaf surfaces, as tested with a one-way ANOVA and mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction, respectively.
Figure 1. Relative water content (A,D), osmotic potential (B,E), and osmotic potential at full turgor (Ψ100; (C,F)) in maize and soybean leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (black bars) and second (grey bars) experiments. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 4 maize plants and 5 soybean plants in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within experiment 1 (lowercase) and experiment 2 (uppercase) leaf surfaces, as tested with a one-way ANOVA and mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction, respectively.
Life 13 00290 g001
Life 13 00290 g002 550
Figure 2. Leaf area (A,C) and specific leaf weight (B,D) in maize and soybean leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (black bars) and second (gray bars) experiments. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 4 maize plants and 5 soybean plants in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within experiment 1 (lowercase) and experiment 2 (uppercase) leaf surfaces, as tested with a one-way ANOVA and mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction, respectively.
Figure 2. Leaf area (A,C) and specific leaf weight (B,D) in maize and soybean leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (black bars) and second (gray bars) experiments. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 4 maize plants and 5 soybean plants in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within experiment 1 (lowercase) and experiment 2 (uppercase) leaf surfaces, as tested with a one-way ANOVA and mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction, respectively.
Life 13 00290 g002
Life 13 00290 g003 550
Figure 3. Stomatal area fraction (A,E), stomatal size (B,F), stomatal density (C,G), and stomatal index (D,H) of maize leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (A–D) and second (E–H) experiments. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 4 in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within adaxial (lowercase) and abaxial (uppercase) leaf surfaces. In the first experiment, treatment groups were compared with a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey or Games-Howell test, depending on the equivalence of variance between treatment groups. In the second experiment, treatment groups were compared with a mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.
Figure 3. Stomatal area fraction (A,E), stomatal size (B,F), stomatal density (C,G), and stomatal index (D,H) of maize leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (A–D) and second (E–H) experiments. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 4 in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within adaxial (lowercase) and abaxial (uppercase) leaf surfaces. In the first experiment, treatment groups were compared with a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey or Games-Howell test, depending on the equivalence of variance between treatment groups. In the second experiment, treatment groups were compared with a mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.
Life 13 00290 g003
Life 13 00290 g004 550
Figure 4. Stomatal area fraction (A,E,I), stomatal size (B,F,J), stomatal density (C,G,K), and stomatal index (D,H,L) of soybean leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (A–H) and second (I–L) experiments. In the first experiment, data are shown separately for the T4 (A–D) and T5 trifoliate leaves (E–H). Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 5 in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within adaxial (lowercase) and abaxial (uppercase) leaf surfaces. In the first experiment, treatment groups were compared with a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey or Games-Howell test, depending on the equivalence of variance between treatment groups. In the second experiment, treatment groups were compared with a mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.
Figure 4. Stomatal area fraction (A,E,I), stomatal size (B,F,J), stomatal density (C,G,K), and stomatal index (D,H,L) of soybean leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the first (A–H) and second (I–L) experiments. In the first experiment, data are shown separately for the T4 (A–D) and T5 trifoliate leaves (E–H). Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 5 in the first experiment and n = 8 in the second experiment. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within adaxial (lowercase) and abaxial (uppercase) leaf surfaces. In the first experiment, treatment groups were compared with a one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey or Games-Howell test, depending on the equivalence of variance between treatment groups. In the second experiment, treatment groups were compared with a mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.
Life 13 00290 g004
Life 13 00290 g005 550
Figure 5. Vein density in maize (A) and soybean (B) leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the second experiment. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 8. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within each species. Treatment groups were compared with a mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.
Figure 5. Vein density in maize (A) and soybean (B) leaves in response to different media water content treatments in the second experiment. Data are shown as means ± standard errors for n = 8. Different letters above the columns indicate statistically significant differences between treatments within each species. Treatment groups were compared with a mixed linear model and post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction.
Life 13 00290 g005
Life 13 00290 g006 550
Figure 6. Expression of SPCH orthologs in maize (A,B) and soybean (C–E) leaves subjected to the indicated water deficit treatments, shown as a relative value to the 100% MWC control group. Data are presented as means ± standard error for three plants per species per treatment. In maize, data are shown from the leaf region of cell differentiation (1 cm) and region of mature leaf tissue (8 cm). Letters above columns indicate statistically significant differences between a treatment group against the well-watered control group, as tested with a mixed linear model. The * and ** indicate a statistically significant difference between a treatment group and the well-watered control.
Figure 6. Expression of SPCH orthologs in maize (A,B) and soybean (C–E) leaves subjected to the indicated water deficit treatments, shown as a relative value to the 100% MWC control group. Data are presented as means ± standard error for three plants per species per treatment. In maize, data are shown from the leaf region of cell differentiation (1 cm) and region of mature leaf tissue (8 cm). Letters above columns indicate statistically significant differences between a treatment group against the well-watered control group, as tested with a mixed linear model. The * and ** indicate a statistically significant difference between a treatment group and the well-watered control.
Life 13 00290 g006
Life 13 00290 g007 550
Figure 7. Contrasting leaf plasticity in maize and soybean leaves response to water-deficit stress, with the top and bottom row of images representing the adaxial and abaxial surfaces, respectively. Soybean leaves are greatly reduced in size due to water-deficit stress, leading to very small and dense epidermal cells. Relative to the degree of epidermal cell size reduction, SI reduction in soybean is not sufficient to minimize the stomatal population. Thus, while stomata are smaller, increased SD results in unchanged fgc. In maize, leaf and pavement cell size reduction occurs to a lesser degree, so the reduction in SI is sufficient to prevent a large increase in SD. Thus, smaller maize stomata result in lower fgc under water-deficit stress. Vein density is increased in both species.
Figure 7. Contrasting leaf plasticity in maize and soybean leaves response to water-deficit stress, with the top and bottom row of images representing the adaxial and abaxial surfaces, respectively. Soybean leaves are greatly reduced in size due to water-deficit stress, leading to very small and dense epidermal cells. Relative to the degree of epidermal cell size reduction, SI reduction in soybean is not sufficient to minimize the stomatal population. Thus, while stomata are smaller, increased SD results in unchanged fgc. In maize, leaf and pavement cell size reduction occurs to a lesser degree, so the reduction in SI is sufficient to prevent a large increase in SD. Thus, smaller maize stomata result in lower fgc under water-deficit stress. Vein density is increased in both species.
Life 13 00290 g007
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

Mano, N.A.; Madore, B.; Mickelbart, M.V. Different Leaf Anatomical Responses to Water Deficit in Maize and Soybean. Life 2023, 13, 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020290

AMA Style

Mano NA, Madore B, Mickelbart MV. Different Leaf Anatomical Responses to Water Deficit in Maize and Soybean. Life. 2023; 13(2):290. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020290

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mano, Noel Anthony, Bethany Madore, and Michael V. Mickelbart. 2023. "Different Leaf Anatomical Responses to Water Deficit in Maize and Soybean" Life 13, no. 2: 290. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13020290

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