Next Article in Journal
Combining Ability and Performance of Extra-Early Maturing Provitamin A Maize Inbreds and Derived Hybrids in Multiple Environments
Next Article in Special Issue
Artificial Neural Networks Elucidated the Essential Role of Mineral Nutrients versus Vitamins and Plant Growth Regulators in Achieving Healthy Micropropagated Plants
Previous Article in Journal
New Polyfunctional Biorationals Use to Achieve Competitive Yield of Organic Potatoes in the North-West Russian Ecosystem
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/plants11070965
plants-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

Effect of Sucrose on Growth and Stress Status of Castanea sativa x C. crenata Shoots Cultured in Liquid Medium

by
Diego Gago
1,2,
María Ángeles Bernal
2,
Conchi Sánchez
1,
Anxela Aldrey
1,
Beatriz Cuenca
3,
Colin Bruce Christie
4 and
Nieves Vidal
1,*
1
Misión Biológica de Galicia Sede Santiago de Compostela, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Apdo 122, 15780 Santiago de Compostela, Spain
2
Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidade da Coruña, Campus da Zapateira s/n, 15071 A Coruña, Spain
3
Maceda Nursery, Tragsa-SEPI Group, Carretera de Maceda a Baldrei km 2, 32700 Maceda, Spain
4
The Greenplant Company, Palmerston North 4410, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(7), 965; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070965
Submission received: 23 February 2022 / Revised: 28 March 2022 / Accepted: 30 March 2022 / Published: 1 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Biotechnology to Woody Propagation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Current breeding programs aim to increase the number of ink-tolerant chestnut trees using vegetative propagation of selected genotypes. However, the commercial vegetative propagation of chestnut species is still a bottleneck for the forest industry, mainly due to problems in the rooting and acclimation of propagules. This study aimed to explore the potential benefits of decreasing sucrose supplementation during chestnut micropropagation. Explants were cultured with high light intensity and CO2-enriched air in temporary or continuous immersion bioreactors and with different sucrose supplementation to evaluate the impact of these treatments on growth, rooting and physiological status (monosaccharide content, soluble phenolics and antioxidant activity). The proliferation and rooting performance of shoots cultured by continuous immersion decreased sharply with sucrose concentrations lower than 1%, whereas shoots cultured by temporary immersion grew and rooted successfully with 0.5% sucrose. These results suggest this system is appropriate to culture chestnut with low sucrose concentration and to explore photoautotrophic propagation of this species.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

European chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill., also known as sweet chestnut) is a long-lived multipurpose tree cultured worldwide for its nuts and timber [1]. Its by-products contain potentially valuable bioactive compounds with antioxidant, anticarcinogenic and cardioprotective properties [2]. In countries with a long tradition of cultivation, agroforestry systems of C. sativa have special forest structures, which provide specific ecosystem services such as the provision of food (for people and wildlife), materials and energy, climate regulation by carbon storage and wind, temperature and humidity moderation at a local level, and in a more generic sense, erosion regulation and the conservation of traditional knowledge, as well as landscape value and recreational uses [3]. The ecosystem services concept has become increasingly important in environmental science and management during recent decades because of the connection and relationships between biodiversity, ecological functioning and human well-being [4]. The ecosystem services provided by chestnut agroforest systems maintain biodiversity and can help mitigate climate change [3].
Currently, chestnut trees are threatened in Europe because of ink disease caused by several species of the hemibiotrophic oomycete Phytophthora, such as P. cinnamomi and P. cambivora [5]. These pathogens spread mainly through the movement of soil harboring inoculum and the dissemination of asexual flagellated spores that can actively travel short distances or passively travel long distances in flowing water [6,7]. During the initial biotrophic period, it may obtain nutrients from living plant tissues causing minimum damage to the plant, but during the hemibiotrophic phase it invades the host’s roots [8], which leads to subcortical necrosis of the root system and the basal part of the stem; this is followed by the appearance of wasting symptoms in the foliage until the total desiccation and death of the tree [9,10,11]. Given its dependence on soil water, this pathogen is potentially very damaging in a climate change scenario, as abiotic stresses such as drought, flooding, rising temperature and moisture stress predispose trees to infection [12]. Breeding programs have produced disease-tolerant trees by crossing susceptible C. sativa with resistant Asian species C. crenata and C. mollissima [13]. However, hybrids obtained from controlled crosses and trees originated through spontaneous hybridization are not well adapted to the main areas of chestnut cultivation because they lack the adaptation to environmental stresses, summer droughts, flooding and winter chilling [14]. In addition, many of them do not show the typical architecture of sweet chestnut, the fruit characteristics, such as flavor, and the ripening period or graft compatibility with traditional C. sativa varieties.
This highlights an important environmental, social and economic problem that requires new selection strategies to produce disease-tolerant chestnut trees with a larger presence of C. sativa genes that are able to thrive when challenged by Phytophthora in the affected areas. Several programs aimed at selecting new chestnut material, better adapted to the current and predicted future climatic conditions, have been developed in Europe [15,16,17,18].
These selected genotypes need to be propagated vegetatively to maintain their tolerance to the disease. As chestnut is highly recalcitrant to conventional vegetative propagation, agar-based micropropagation protocols have been developed [19,20]. Despite recent progress [21,22,23], the commercial vegetative propagation of chestnut species is still a bottleneck for the forest industry, mainly due to problems in rooting and acclimation (reviewed in Vielba et al. [1]). Actions aiming to increase root quality and acclimation efficiency should be directed to improve both shoot and root performance.
Micropropagated plants are frequently cultured in closed containers in photomixotrophic conditions: low light intensity, limited CO2 availability and using sugars as an energy and carbon source. The explants are submitted successively or simultaneously to environmental conditions, which differ from those found in nature and can cause oxidative stress, such as wounding, abnormal mineral nutrition, hormonal treatments, high relative humidity and possible accumulation of different gases such as ethylene in the confined atmosphere, a rupture of the usual cohabitation with the epiphytic microorganisms and osmotic perturbances due to the sucrose content of the medium [24].
Bioreactors with forced ventilation can eliminate some of these problems and thereby enhance the physiological characteristics of micropropagated plants [25]. This technology has been successfully applied to a range of woody species [26]. In our laboratory, we developed the first protocols for culturing chestnut shoots in liquid medium using forced ventilation, either by temporary immersion (TIS) [27] or by continuous immersion systems (CIS) [28]. In both cases, 3% sucrose was added to the medium as a source of carbon and energy.
High sucrose concentrations may cause hyperhydricity and other disorders [29]. It has been claimed that the elimination of sugar from micropropagation nutritive media promotes photosynthetic activity, producing a healthier physiological state and increasing the speed of plantlet adaptation to greenhouse conditions [30]. However, lowering sucrose supplementation alone usually reduces the growth of the explants, and for this reason most of the laboratories still add sucrose to the culture medium, as a source of carbon and energy. To counterbalance the effects of decreased sucrose supply on plant metabolism, it is necessary to create conditions that enhance the photosynthetic activity inside the culture vessel, in particular: high light intensity and high CO2 [30,31,32].
This study aimed to explore the possible benefits of decreasing sucrose supplementation during chestnut micropropagation. Previously, we defined the basic requirements to culture chestnut by CIS in photoautotrophic conditions, namely, high light intensity, forced ventilation with CO2-enriched air and explants with well-developed leaves [33,34]. However, the proliferation rates in a sucrose-free medium were low. In addition, survival was only possible after two or three serial subcultures with decreased sucrose concentrations, indicating the need to adapt the physiological status of the shoots to the new conditions. In this study, we compared explants cultured in different bioreactors and with different sucrose supplementation to evaluate their impact on growth, rooting and physiological status.

2. Results

2.1. Proliferation

Typical shoot growth from clones CO53 and PO42 cultured in liquid medium supplemented with 0.5, 1 and 3% sucrose is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (below). All treatments produced shoots suitable for subculturing, but sucrose supplementation affected differently the shoots cultured by TIS and by CIS.
In clone CO53, cultured by CIS, sucrose supplementation had a significant effect in all the studied growth parameters (p = 0.009 for NS and p < 0.001 for SL, LW and LL). The lowest concentration of sucrose (0.5%) produced significantly fewer shoots than the other two treatments, and these shoots were smaller and had smaller leaves (Figure 3). The best treatment was 1% sucrose, which yielded significantly longer shoots and leaves than the conventional sucrose concentration (3%).
In clone PO42, cultured by TIS, all treatments produced similar proliferation, shoot and leaf qualities, although a small increase in shoot size was observed when less sucrose was added to the medium (Figure 4). Non-significant differences were found for NS, SL and LL (p = 0.790, 0.245 and 0.467, respectively). Reduced sucrose concentration only affected leaf width (p < 0.001) significantly, with narrower leaves in the 0.5% and 1% sucrose treatments.

2.2. Rooting

In the experiments shown in Table 1 and Figure 5, we studied how the rooting response was affected by the sucrose supplementation during (a) the previous multiplication phase and (b) the rooting expression phase. For the two clones, the highest sucrose content enhanced rooting and the best results were obtained when both the multiplication and the rooting phase were carried out with 3% sucrose (Table 1, Figure 5a,c). However, differences between the two genotypes were detected. In clone PO42, rooting percentages ranged from 56 to 97% and shoots cultured in 0.5% sucrose obtained a 72% rooting percentage when 1% sucrose was added to the rooting media (Figure 5d). In this clone, the differences in rooting were mainly due to the sucrose content of the proliferation medium, whereas the sucrose content during rooting had a smaller contribution.
In the clone CO53, cultured by CIS, less shoots formed roots, with percentages ranging from 6 to 84%. The lowest response (6%) corresponded to shoots proliferated with 0.5% sucrose and rooted with the same sucrose concentration (Table 1, Figure 5b). This value contrasts with the response of clone PO42, cultured by TIS, to the same treatment (66%). In CO53, the sucrose content of both the multiplication medium and the rooting medium influenced rooting success, indicating that changes in either stage allow modulating the rooting response to some extent: the use of 0.5% sucrose for rooting was clearly detrimental (with percentages ranging from 6 to 25%, but shoots cultivated in 0.5% sucrose showed an acceptable rooting response (56%) when the rooting medium was supplemented with 1% sucrose.

2.3. Biochemical Analyses

The content of total monosaccharides of the leaves of PO42 and CO53 shoots harvested after 8 weeks in the proliferation medium is shown in Figure 6. Monosaccharide content was positively correlated with the amount of sucrose supplemented to the culture media (p < 0.001). Leaves from clone PO42 cultured by TIS showed higher sugar content than leaves from CO53 cultured by CIS (p < 0.001), and in the former, the differences between the 0.5 and 3% treatments were almost three-fold smaller than those observed in CO53.
As shown in Figure 7, the antioxidant activity of CO53 and PO42 shoots significantly decreased when more sucrose was added to the medium (p < 0.001); the values observed in shoots cultured with 3% sucrose were about three times smaller than with 0.5% sucrose. Both clones followed the same trend, but in clone CO53, the antioxidant activity was higher than in clone PO42 (p = 0.009).
Soluble phenolic compounds (Figure 8) were apparently less affected by sucrose supplementation than the morphological and biochemical parameters previously described. Similar values were observed between treatments (p = 0.147), although clone CO53 shoots had significantly more soluble phenols than PO42 (p = 0.029).

3. Discussion

Our study demonstrates the feasibility of propagating chestnut by TIS and CIS with the sugar supplementation reduced to one-sixth of the normal 3% used for this species. These results differ from those reported by Sáez et al. [35], who concluded that to increase PPF from 50 to 150 µmol photons m−2 s−1 did not increase photosynthesis enough to sustain chestnut growth when sucrose was reduced from 3 to 0.5%. These authors cultured chestnut shoots in tubes with a semisolid medium and without forced ventilation, and in these conditions shoot growth is frequently sucrose-dependent, as shown for kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa) [36], Arabidopsis [37], Pfaffia glomerata [38] and Vernonia condensata [39]. In a recent study we successfully micropropagated willow under high PPF and without sucrose when we used bioreactors ventilated with CO2-enriched air instead of jars without ventilation [40], and to obtain good proliferation in chestnut we applied the same principle, adding CO2-enriched air every 90 min to the bioreactors. Increased CO2 concentration inside the flasks enabled shoot growth of other plants in media with low sucrose or without any supplementary carbohydrate, as reported for Paulownia fortunei (Seem.) Hemsl. [41], Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr. [42], several Eucalyptus species [43,44,45,46] and Macadamia tetraphylla [47].
In this study with chestnut, we used two propagation systems with liquid media: temporary and continuous immersion. The two genotypes in the study (CO53 and PO42) had been successfully cultured in both systems with 3% sucrose [27,28] and by CIS during the first attempts to micropropagate chestnut in photoautotrophic conditions [33,34]. Within each system, the growth responses of both clones were similar, and for this reason we hypothesize that the differences in the response to sugar supplementation detected in this study may be more related to the culture system (TIS or CIS) than to the genotype.
Sucrose reduction affected proliferation and rooting differently in TIS and CIS. In TIS (clone PO42), the reduction in sucrose concentration to 0.5% did not affect the growth parameters during proliferation. By contrast, in CIS (clone CO53), the explants cultured with 0.5% sucrose produced fewer and smaller shoots than those cultured with 1 and 3% sucrose, although in all treatments shoot number and growth enabled multiplication of the plant material. The best treatment for proliferation in CIS was 1% sucrose, with longer shoots than those produced by 3% sucrose in CIS and also longer than shoots produced by TIS.
Regarding rooting, sucrose treatments had a clear influence in both culture systems: in TIS, shoots rooted better when they had been proliferated with higher sucrose concentrations, and in CIS, the sugar content during both proliferation and rooting had an effect on root formation. It has been reported that plants grown with low levels of sucrose develop higher photosynthetic activity and root better [30]. In potato, tobacco [29], thyme [32], paulownia [41], papaya [48] and wasabi [49], more roots were formed when less sugar was in the culture medium. However, in our study with chestnut, we observed a positive correlation between sucrose supplementation and rooting. Similar responses have also been reported in other plants such as grapevine [50], kiwifruit [51], Chinese ash [52], poplar [53], and willow [40].
Adventitious rooting is an energy-dependent process that needs to supply carbohydrates to the root generation region [54,55]. Auxin stimulates the mobilization of carbohydrates in leaves and the upper stem and increases translocation towards the rooting zone [56]. Low carbohydrate levels in cuttings at the beginning of rooting limit the speed or number of roots formed [57], although the application of sugars to the rooting medium can increase the subsequent root formation [58,59]. In our study, shoots collected at the end of the proliferation phase showed different monosaccharide content depending on whether they had been cultured by CIS or by TIS. Shoots cultured by CIS showed lower rooting percentages, lower monosaccharide content and more pronounced differences in these sugars between sucrose treatments, possibly indicating sugar availability could be a limiting factor for root formation in these shoots. The shoots cultured with 0.5% sucrose had the lowest monosaccharide content and the lowest rooting response. This could be partially changed by raising the sucrose concentration in the rooting medium as proposed by Eliasson [58]; the rooting percentage of these shoots increased from 6 to 56% when 1% sucrose was added to the rooting medium. This strongly supports the hypothesis that carbohydrate availability may be a critical factor in root formation.
The two culture systems used in this study differ in the time that plant tissues are in contact with the liquid medium, which is higher in the case of CIS. Excessive water accumulation in bioreactors may result in oxygen depletion in cells, which may lead to hypoxia, whereas the different sucrose treatments can cause osmotic stress and produce reactive oxygen species [24]. Plants have enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant mechanisms for scavenging reactive oxygen species and to protect plant tissues [60]. Phenolics are a major class of non-enzymatic antioxidants and their concentration in explants subjected to different culture conditions can/may provide useful information about its physiological state [61]. In the present study, the chestnut shoots cultured by CIS showed statistically significant higher levels of total phenolic compounds relative to those cultured by TIS: however, the differences were small, and no variation was detected between sucrose treatments. Higher phenolic content has been correlated with a plant’s defensive response to suboptimal conditions either in vivo [61,62,63] or in vitro [64], although not all plants follow this pattern, and high accumulation of phenolic compounds has been reported with the optimal performance of tara microshoots [65]. Similarly, in rose, more phenolics were detected in shoots cultured by TIS, which showed a better performance, than by CIS [66].
The total antioxidant activity of chestnut shoots was significantly affected by the culture system and the sucrose supplementation. In both systems, the highest antioxidant activity was detected in the treatments with the lowest sucrose concentration, but shoots cultured in CIS showed more antioxidants than those cultured in TIS. High antioxidant activity has been linked with plants subjected to stresses such as hyperhydricity [67,68,69] and high saline concentration [70,71]. The antioxidant activity of chestnut shoots cultured by CIS seems to be negatively correlated with the sucrose supplementation and with morphological parameters of these shoots; the highest antioxidant content corresponded to the smaller shoots (those cultured with low sucrose), suggesting they suffer higher stress levels than those grown with more sucrose. However, in TIS the antioxidant levels did negatively correlate with sucrose concentration but not with growth responses, as all sucrose treatments produced shoots that were similar in number and length but differing significantly in the antioxidant activity. Although we cannot disregard the possibility that in TIS the high antioxidant activity in treatments with reduced sucrose could be related to a physiological stress that was not reflected in the growth response, TIS seems to be the method of choice to culture chestnut shoots with reduced sucrose concentrations. In the present study, the shoots cultured by TIS with 0.5% sucrose showed suitable proliferation and rooting responses, as well as an accumulation of monosaccharides similar to the other treatments. These results suggest TIS-grown shoots may have developed a higher photosynthetic activity than the shoots cultured by CIS with the same sucrose supplementation. This could enhance their capacity for photoautotrophic micropropagation.
All other experimental factors being considered equal, the reduced growth provided by CIS compared to TIS appears to be related to some specific characteristics of the culture environment. It is postulated that a higher stress is caused by the continuous immersion of the basal sections in liquid medium, but other factors including vessel size, could be important as a bigger volume could prevent an adequate gaseous exchange and lead to suboptimal CO2 (adversely affecting photosynthesis) or supra-optimal ethylene concentration (influencing stress). Future investigations aimed at ascertaining the critical factors limiting the use of CIS containers will include the study of the dynamics of gases inside vessels of different sizes and with a different number of gas inlets–outlets, as well as the photosynthetic activity of plant tissues during shoot development.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material and Standard Culture Conditions

The chestnut genotypes used in this study, named CO53 and PO42, were selected for their tolerance to ink disease during a survey carried out in natural stands of Galicia (NW Spain) by the Agroforestry Department of the company Transformación Agraria SA (TRAGSA) between 2000 and 2005. CO53 and PO42 were characterized as natural hybrids of C. sativa and C. crenata [15] and were established in vitro from basal sprouts as described in Vidal et al. [72]. Stock cultures were maintained in test tubes containing GD (Gresshoff and Doy 1972), [73] medium supplemented with 0.1 mg/L N6 benzyladenine (BA), 3% sucrose and 0.7% (w/v) Bacto agar. Media were autoclaved at 120 °C for 20 min after adjustment of the pH to 5.7. The cultures were maintained under a 16-h photoperiod provided by cool-white fluorescent lamps (photosynthetic photon flux density (PPF) from 50–60 µmol m−2s−1) at 25 °C light/20 °C dark (standard conditions). Shoots were subcultured every 5 weeks.

4.2. Culture in Liquid Medium

Apical sections of chestnut (25–30 mm, with 4 expanded leaves) were cultured in liquid MS (Murashige and Skoog) [74] salt and vitamin mixture with half strength nitrates (MS-½N) and 0.05 mg/L BA supplemented with 0.5%, 1% or 3% sucrose. Clone PO42 was cultured by TIS in commercial Plantform™ bioreactors (www.plantform.se, accesed on 31 March 2022; Plantform, Hjärup, Sweden) as described in [27], whereas the clone CO53 was cultured by CIS in in-house 6-L bioreactors prepared as described by Cuenca et al. [28] and designated as C6. Twenty-four explants were cultured per Plantform™ and 32 per C6. In both cases, 1 cm3 rockwool cubes (Grodan, Roermond, The Netherlands) were used as support material. For continuous immersion, the cultures received forced aeration for 1 min at a frequency of 16 times every 24 h. For temporary immersion, the cultures were immersed for 1 min every 4 h and received additional aeration of the same duration and frequency than for continuous immersion. The explants were cultured in an experimental unit designed for our first experiments in chestnut micropropagation with reduced sucrose [33]. In this experimental unit, designated as PAM, the cultures grew under high PPF (150 µmol m−2 s−1), and CO2-enriched air (≈2000 ppm) was injected to the bioreactors during aeration. The photoperiod and temperature regime were the same as under standard conditions. After 8 weeks of culture, morphological data were recorded and shoots were used for rooting or biochemical analysis.

4.3. Rooting

For root induction, vigorous shoots of 30–40 mm height (Figure 9a) were inoculated in 300 mL jars with 50 mL of half strength MS (MS1/2) supplemented with 25 mg L−1 indole-3-butyric acid (IBA), 0.7% Bacto agar and the same sucrose concentration that was present in the proliferation medium (Figure 9b,d). After 24 h, shoots were transferred to IBA-free medium for rooting expression and distributed between three sucrose treatments. Shoots were inserted in rockwool cubes (2 cm of side) soaked in liquid MS1/2 with 0.5, 1 or 3% sucrose (Figure 9c) and introduced in Plantform™ bioreactors without the inner baskets (Figure 9e,f). Plantforms™ were aerated for 1 min at a frequency of 3 times every 24 h for 5 weeks.

4.4. Biochemical Quantifications

4.4.1. Monosaccharides Content

The method used for the quantification of monosaccharides in chestnut explants was the dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS) method [75,76]. Briefly, 100–150 mg of apical leaves were homogenized with 2 mL of distilled water and centrifuged for 5 min at 10,000 g. The supernatant was collected, mixed with DNS, heated in a thermoblock at 100 °C for 5 min and placed on ice for 5 min before quantitation in a spectrophotometer at 540 nm.

4.4.2. Total Soluble Phenolic Compounds

The extraction was performed according to Díaz et al. [62]. Individual shoots were collected and leaves were homogenized with methanol 80%. The mixture was centrifuged at 10,000 g for 5 min and the supernatant was used for the analysis of soluble phenolic compounds and antioxidants.
For total soluble phenolic compounds, the Folin–Ciocalteu method was used [77]. The content of the soluble phenols was calculated from a standard curve obtained with different concentrations of gallic acid. The results were expressed as gallic acid mg equivalents/g on a fresh weight basis.

4.4.3. Antioxidant Activity

The extraction was performed as described for soluble phenols. Antioxidant activity of plant extracts was determined through spectrophotometry using a 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) scavenging radical assay [78], and the results were expressed as TROLOX mM equivalents per g on a fresh weight basis.

4.5. Data Recording and Statistical Analysis

The parameters analyzed were: (a) the number of normal shoots longer than 15 mm produced by each explant (NS); (b) the length of the longest shoot per explant (SL); (c) the length (LL) and width (LW) of the largest leaf per explant; (d) rooting percentage; (e) monosaccharides; (f) total soluble phenolic compounds; (g) total antioxidant activity.
For morphological parameters, data comprised two replicates per treatment and 32 explants per replicate for shoots cultured in CIS, and three replicates with 24 explants each for shoots cultured in TIS. For rooting experiments and for biochemical analysis, data corresponded to 32 and 24 shoots per treatment, respectively. Data were analysed by Levene’s test (to verify the homogeneity of variance), and subsequently were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the comparison of group means (Tukey-b test), or to the Welch ANOVA followed by Games–Howell post hoc comparison when heteroscedasticity was detected. For two-way ANOVA, when an interaction between two factors was observed, Bonferroni’s adjustment was applied to detect the simple main effects in multiple post hoc comparisons. Data of rooting percentages were analyzed by Pearson’s Chi-square test. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 (IBM).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.V., M.Á.B. and C.S.; formal analysis, D.G. and N.V.; investigation, D.G., B.C., N.V. and A.A.; writing—review and editing, D.G., C.B.C. and N.V.; funding acquisition, N.V., M.Á.B. and C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Xunta de Galicia (Spain) (projects IN607A 2021), by CYTED (P117RT0522), and by CSIC (PIE 202140E015, COOPB20584).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Maria José Cernadas for technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Vielba, J.M.; Vidal, N.; San José, M.C.; Rico, S.; Sánchez, C. Recent advances in adventitious root formation in Chestnut. Plants 2020, 9, 1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Braga, N.; Rodrigues, F.; Beatriz, M.; Oliveira, P.P. Castanea sativa by-products: A review on added value and sustainable application. Nat. Prod. Res. 2015, 29, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Roces-Díaz, J.V.; Díaz-Varela, E.R.; Barrio-Anta, M.; Álvarez-Álvarez, P. Sweet chestnut agroforestry systems in north-western Spain: Classification, spatial distribution and an ecosystem services assessment. For. Syst. 2018, 27, e03S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Jenkins, M.; Schaap, B. Forest Ecosystem Services. Background Analytical Study 1. Global Forest Goals. United Nations Forum on Forests. 2018, p. 41. Available online: https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/UNFF13_BkgdStudy_ForestsEcoServices.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2022).
  5. Vettraino, A.M.; Morel, O.; Perlerou, C.; Robin, C.; Diamandis, S.; Vannini, A. Occurrence and distribution of Phytophthora species in European chestnut stands, and their association with Ink Disease and crown decline. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2005, 111, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gonthier, P.; Robin, C. Diseases. In The Chestnut Handbook: Crop and Forest Management; Beccaro, G., Alma, A., Bounous, G., Gomes-Laranjo, J., Eds.; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 297–316. ISBN 9781138334021. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hayden, K.J.; Garbelotto, M.; Dodd, R.; Wright, J.W. Scaling up from greenhouse resistance to fitness in the field for a host of an emerging forest disease. Evol. Appl. 2013, 6, 970–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Latijnhouwers, M.; De Wit, P.J.G.M.; Govers, F. Oomycetes and fungi: Similar weaponry to attack plants. Trends Microbiol. 2003, 11, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vannini, A.; Vettraino, A.M. Ink disease in chestnuts: Impact on the European chestnut. For. Snow Landsc. Res. 2001, 76, 345–350. [Google Scholar]
  10. Maurel, M.; Robin, C.; Simonneau, T.; Loustau, D.; Dreyer, E.; Desprez-Loustau, M.-L. Stomatal conductance and root-to-shoot signalling in chestnut saplings exposed to Phytophthora cinnamomi or partial soil drying. Funct. Plant Biol. 2004, 31, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Robin, C.; Smith, I.; Hansen, E.M. Phytophthora cinnamomi. For. Phytophthoras 2012, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. La Porta, N.; Capretti, P.; Thomsen, I.M.; Kasanen, R.; Hietala, A.M.; Von Weissenberg, K. Forest pathogens with higher damage potential due to climate change in Europe. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2008, 30, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Viéitez, F.J.; Merkle, S.A. Castanea spp. chestnut. In Biotechnology of Fruit and Nut Crops; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2005; pp. 265–296. [Google Scholar]
  14. Alcaide, F.; Solla, A.; Cuenca, B.; Martín, M.Á. Molecular evidence of introgression of Asian germplasm into a natural Castanea sativa forest in Spain. For. Int. J. For. Res. 2022, 95, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. González, M.V.; Cuenca, B.; López, M.; Prado, M.J.; Rey, M. Molecular characterization of chestnut plants selected for putative resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi using SSR markers. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 130, 459–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Santos, C.; Machado, H.; Correia, I.; Gomes, F.; Gomes-Laranjo, J.; Costa, R. Phenotyping Castanea hybrids for Phytophthora cinnamomi resistance. Plant Pathol. 2015, 64, 901–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alcaide, F.; Solla, A.; Mattioni, C.; Castellana, S.; Martín, M.Á. Adaptive diversity and drought tolerance in Castanea sativa assessed through EST-SSR genic markers. Forestry 2019, 92, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Vahdati, K.; Sarikhani, S.; Arab, M.M.; Leslie, C.A.; Dandekar, A.M.; Aletà, N.; Bielsa, B.; Gradziel, T.M.; Montesinos, Á.; Rubio-Cabetas, M.J.; et al. Advances in Rootstock Breeding of Nut Trees: Objectives and Strategies. Plants 2021, 10, 2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sanchez, M.C.; Vieitez, A.M. In vitro morphogenetic competence of basal sprouts and crown branches of mature chestnut. Tree Physiol. 1991, 8, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Vieitez, A.M.; Sánchez, M.C.; García-Nimo, M.L.; Ballester, A. Protocol for micropropagation of Castanea Sativa. In Protocols for Micropropagation of Woody Trees and Fruits; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 299–312. [Google Scholar]
  21. Fernandes, P.; Tedesco, S.; Da Silva, I.V.; Santos, C.; Machado, H.; Costa, R.L. A new clonal propagation protocol develops quality root systems in chestnut. Forests 2020, 11, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fernandes, P.; Amaral, A.; Colavolpe, B.; Balonas, D.; Serra, M.; Pereira, A.; Costa, R.L. Propagation of New Chestnut Rootstocks with Improved Resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi—New Cast Rootstocks. Silva Lusit. 2020, 28, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Beccaro, G.; Bounous, G.; Cuenca, B.; Bounous, M.; Warmund, M.; Xiong, H.; Zhang, L.; Zou, F.; Serdar, Ü.; Akyüz, B.; et al. Nursery techniques. In Chestnut Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 119–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gaspar, T.; Franck, T.; Bisbis, B.; Kevers, C.; Jouve, L.; Hausman, J.F.; Dommes, J. Concepts in plant stress physiology. Application to plant tissue cultures. Plant Growth Regul. 2002, 37, 263–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Etienne, H.; Berthouly, M. Temporary immersion systems in plant micropropagation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2002, 69, 215–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vidal, N.; Sánchez, C. Use of bioreactor systems in the propagation of forest trees. Eng. Life Sci. 2019, 19, 896–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Vidal, N.; Blanco, B.; Cuenca, B. A temporary immersion system for micropropagation of axillary shoots of hybrid chestnut. Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2015, 123, 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cuenca, B.; Sánchez, C.; Aldrey, A.; Bogo, B.; Blanco, B.; Correa, B.; Vidal, N. Micropropagation of axillary shoots of hybrid chestnut (Castanea sativa × C. crenata) in liquid medium in a continuous immersion system. Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2017, 131, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ševčíková, H.; Lhotáková, Z.; Hamet, J.; Lipavská, H. Mixotrophic in vitro cultivations: The way to go astray in plant physiology. Physiol. Plant. 2019, 167, 365–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xiao, Y.; Niu, G.; Kozai, T. Development and application of photoautotrophic micropropagation plant system. Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2011, 105, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Saldanha, C.W.; Otoni, C.G.; Rocha, D.I.; Cavatte, P.C.; Detmann, K.d.S.C.; Tanaka, F.A.O.; Dias, L.L.C.; DaMatta, F.M.; Otoni, W.C. CO2-enriched atmosphere and supporting material impact the growth, morphophysiology and ultrastructure of in vitro Brazilian-ginseng [Pfaffia glomerata (Spreng.) Pedersen] plantlets. Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2014, 118, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nguyen, Q.T.; Xiao, Y.; Kozai, T. Photoautotrophic micropropagation. In Plant Factory-An Indoor Vertical Farming System for Efficient Quality Food Production, 2nd ed; Kozai, T., Niu, G., Takagaki, M., Eds.; Elsevier, Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 333–346. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cuenca Valera, B.; Aldrey Villar, A.; Blanco Beiro, B.; Vidal González, N. Use of a Continuous Immersion System (CIS) for micropropagation of chestnut in photoautotrophic and photomixotrophic conditions. In Woody Plant Production Integrating Genetic and Vegetative Propagation Technologies, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of the IUFRO Unit 2.09.02, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, 8–12 September 2014; Park, Y.S., Bonga, J.M., Eds.; IUFRO: Vienna, Austria, 2015; pp. 112–116. [Google Scholar]
  34. Vidal, N.; Aldrey, A.; Blanco, B.; Correa, B.; Sánchez, C.; Cuenca, B. Proliferation and rooting of chestnut under photoautotrophic conditions. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the IUFRO Unit 2.09.02 on “Development and Application of Vegetative Propagation Technologies in Plantation Forestry to Cope with a Changing Climate and Environment”, La Plata, Argentina, 19–23 September 2016; Bonga, J., Park, Y., Trontin, J., Eds.; IUFRO: Vienna, Austria, 2017; pp. 119–127. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sáez, P.L.; Bravo, L.A.; Sánchez-Olate, M.; Bravo, P.B.; Ríos, D.G. Effect of Photon Flux Density and Exogenous Sucrose on the Photosynthetic Performance during In Vitro Culture of Castanea sativa. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 2087–2105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Arigita, L.; Cañal, M.J.; Tamés, R.S.; González, A. CO2-enriched microenvironment affects sucrose and macronutrients absorption and promotes autotrophy in the in vitro culture of kiwi (Actinidia deliciosa Chev. Liang and Ferguson). Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2010, 46, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eckstein, A.; Zięba, P.; Gabryś, H. Sugar and Light Effects on the Condition of the Photosynthetic Apparatus of Arabidopsis thaliana Cultured in vitro. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2012, 31, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Iarema, L.; da Cruz, A.C.F.; Saldanha, C.W.; Dias, L.L.C.; Vieira, R.F.; de Oliveira, E.J.; Otoni, W.C. Photoautotrophic propagation of Brazilian ginseng [Pfaffia glomerata (Spreng.) Pedersen]. Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2012, 110, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Fortini, E.A.; Batista, D.S.; Mamedes-Rodrigues, T.C.; Felipe, S.H.S.; Correia, L.N.F.; Chagas, K.; Silva, P.O.; Rocha, D.I.; Otoni, W.C. Gas exchange rates and sucrose concentrations affect plant growth and production of flavonoids in Vernonia condensata grown in vitro. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2021, 144, 593–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gago, D.; Vilavert, S.; Bernal, M.Á.; Sánchez, C.; Aldrey, A.; Vidal, N. The Effect of Sucrose Supplementation on the Micropropagation of Salix viminalis L. Shoots in Semisolid Medium and Temporary Immersion Bioreactors. Forests 2021, 12, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sha Valli Khan, P.S.; Kozai, T.; Nguyen, Q.T.; Kubota, C.; Dhawan, V. Growth and Water Relations of Paulownia fortunei Under Photomixotrophic and Photoautotrophic Conditions. Biol. Plant. 2003, 46, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mosaleeyanon, K.; Cha-Um, S.; Kirdmanee, C. Enhanced growth and photosynthesis of rain tree (Samanea saman Merr.) plantlets in vitro under a CO2-enriched condition with decreased sucrose concentrations in the medium. Sci. Hortic. 2004, 103, 51–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kirdmanee, C.; Kitaya, Y.; Kozai, T. Effects of CO2 enrichment and supporting materialin vitro on photoautotrophic growth of Eucalyptus plantlets in vitro and ex vitro. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 1995, 31, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zobayed, S. Mass Propagation of Eucalyptus camaldulensis in a Scaled-up Vessel Under In Vitro Photoautotrophic Condition. Ann. Bot. 2000, 85, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Zobayed, S.M.A.; Afreen, F.; Kozai, T. Physiology of Eucalyptus plantlets grown photoautotrophically in a scaled-up vessel. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2001, 37, 807–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tanaka, M.; Giang, D.T.T.; Murakami, A. Application of a novel disposable film culture system to photoautotrophic micropropagation of Eucalyptus uro-grandis (Urophylia × grandis). Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2005, 41, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cha-Um, S.; Chanseetis, C.; Chintakovid, W.; Pichakum, A.; Supaibulwatana, K. Promoting root induction and growth of in vitro macadamia (Macadamia tetraphylla L. ‘Keaau’) plantlets using CO2-enriched photoautotrophic conditions. Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2011, 106, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Laisyn, P.P.; Yenny, P.M.; Justo, G.O.; Romelio, R.I.G.S.; Osvaldo, N.M.; Raul, B.O.N.R.; Ortelio, H.R.; Rene, C.R.E.; Dion, D.; Rafael, G.O.M.K. Effects of different culture conditions (photoautotrophic, photomixotrophic) and the auxin indole-butyric acid on the in vitro acclimatization of papaya (Carica papaya L. var. Red Maradol) plants using zeolite as support. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 2622–2635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hoang, N.N.; Kitaya, Y.; Morishita, T.; Endo, R.; Shibuya, T. A comparative study on growth and morphology of wasabi plantlets under the influence of the micro-environment in shoot and root zones during photoautotrophic and photomixotrophic micropropagation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2017, 130, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gago, J.; Landín, M.; Gallego, P.P. A neurofuzzy logic approach for modeling plant processes: A practical case of in vitro direct rooting and acclimatization of Vitis vinifera L. Plant Sci. 2010, 179, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gago, J.; Martínez-Núñez, L.; Landín, M.; Flexas, J.; Gallego, P.P. Modeling the Effects of Light and Sucrose on In Vitro Propagated Plants: A Multiscale System Analysis Using Artificial Intelligence Technology. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e85989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Deng, Z.; Chu, J.; Wang, Q.; Wang, L. Effect of different carbon sources on the accumulation of carbohydrate, nutrient absorption and the survival rate of Chinese Ash (Fraxinus mandshurica) explants in vitro. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 7, 3111–3119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Arencibia, A.D.; Gómez, A.; Poblete, M.; Vergara, C. High-performance micropropagation of dendroenergetic poplar hybrids in photomixotrophic Temporary Immersion Bioreactors (TIBs). Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 96, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Veierskov, B. Relations between carbohydrates and adventitious root formation. In Adventitious Root Formation in Cuttings; Davis, T.D., Haissig, B.E., Sankhla, N., Eds.; Dioscorides Press: Portland, OR, USA, 1988; pp. 70–101. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ahkami, A.H.; Lischewski, S.; Haensch, K.; Porfirova, S.; Hofmann, J.; Rolletschek, H.; Melzer, M.; Franken, P.; Hause, B.; Druege, U.; et al. Molecular physiology of adventitious root formation in Petunia hybrida cuttings: Involvement of wound response and primary metabolism. New Phytol. 2009, 181, 613–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Haissig, B.E. Metabolic processes in adventitious rooting of cuttings. In New Root Formation in Plants and Cuttings; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1986; pp. 141–189. [Google Scholar]
  57. Veierskov, B.; Andersem, A.S. Dynamics of extractable carbohydrates in Pisum sativum. III. The effect of IAA and temperature on content and translocation of carbohydrates in pea cuttings during rooting. Physiol. Plant. 1982, 55, 179–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Eliasson, L. Effects of Nutrients and Light on Growth and Root Formation in Pisum sativum Cuttings. Physiol. Plant. 1978, 43, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Moncousin, C.; Ribaux, M.; O’Rourke, J.; Gavillet, S. Effects of type of carbohydrate during proliferation and rooting of microcuttings of Malus Jork 9. Agronomie 1992, 12, 775–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Ahmad, P.; Jaleel, C.A.; Salem, M.A.; Nabi, G.; Sharma, S. Roles of enzymatic and nonenzymatic antioxidants in plants during abiotic stress. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2010, 30, 161–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gharibi, S.; Tabatabaei, B.E.S.; Saeidi, G.; Goli, S.A.H. Effect of Drought Stress on Total Phenolic, Lipid Peroxidation, and Antioxidant Activity of Achillea Species. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2016, 178, 796–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Díaz, J.; Bernal, A.; Pomar, F.; Merino, F. Induction of shikimate dehydrogenase and peroxidase in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) seedlings in response to copper stress and its relation to lignification. Plant Sci. 2001, 161, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tarragó, J.; Filip, R.; Mroginski, L.; Sansberro, P. Influence of the irradiance on phenols content and rooting of Ilex paraguariensis cuttings collected from adult plants. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2012, 34, 2419–2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sen, A.; Alikamanoglu, S. Antioxidant enzyme activities, malondialdehyde, and total phenolic content of PEG-induced hyperhydric leaves in sugar beet tissue culture. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2013, 49, 396–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Núñez-Ramos, J.E.; Quiala, E.; Posada, L.; Mestanza, S.; Sarmiento, L.; Daniels, D.; Arroyo, C.R.; Naranjo, B.; Vizuete, K.; Noceda, C.; et al. Morphological and physiological responses of tara (Caesalpinia spinosa (Mol.) O. Kuntz) microshoots to ventilation and sucrose treatments. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2021, 57, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Malik, M.; Warchoł, M.; Pawłowska, B. Liquid culture systems affect morphological and biochemical parameters during Rosa canina plantlets in vitro production. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2018, 46, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Dutta Gupta, S.; Prasad, V.S.S. Shoot multiplication kinetics and hyperhydric status of regenerated shoots of gladiolus in agar-solidified and matrix-supported liquid cultures. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2010, 4, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Dewir, Y.H.; Chakrabarty, D.; Ali, M.B.; Hahn, E.J.; Paek, K.Y. Lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzyme activities of Euphorbia millii hyperhydric shoots. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2006, 58, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Saher, S.; Piqueras, A.; Hellin, E.; Olmos, E. Hyperhydricity in micropropaagated carnation shoots: The role of oxidative stress. Physiol. Plant. 2004, 120, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chatzissavvidis, C.; Veneti, G.; Papadakis, I.; Therios, I. Effect of NaCl and CaCl2 on the antioxidant mechanism of leaves and stems of the rootstock CAB-6P (Prunus cerasus L.) under in vitro conditions. Plant Cell. Tissue Organ. Cult. 2008, 95, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ozden, M.; Demirel, U.; Kahraman, A. Effects of proline on antioxidant system in leaves of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) exposed to oxidative stress by H2O2. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 119, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vidal, N.; Vieitez, A.M.; Fernández, M.R.; Cuenca, B.; Ballester, A. Establishment of cryopreserved gene banks of European chestnut and cork oak. Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 635–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gresshoff, P.M.; Doy, C.H. Development and differentiation of haploid Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato). Planta 1972, 107, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Murashige, T.; Skoog, F. A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bio Assays with Tobacco Tissue Cultures. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Miller, G.L. Use of Dinitrosalicylic Acid Reagent for Determination of Reducing Sugar. Anal. Chem. 1959, 31, 426–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lindsay, H. A colorimetric estimation of reducing sugars in potatoes with 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid. Potato Res. 1973, 16, 176–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Singleton, V.; Rossi, J. Colorimetry of Total Phenolics with Phosphomolybdic-Phosphotungstic Acid Reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–168. [Google Scholar]
  78. Blois, M.S. Antioxidant Determinations by the Use of a Stable Free Radical. Nature 1958, 181, 1199–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 00965 g001 550
Figure 1. Chestnut shoots of clone CO53 after 8 weeks of culture by continuous immersion with 0.5% sucrose (a), 1% sucrose (b) and 3% sucrose (c).
Figure 1. Chestnut shoots of clone CO53 after 8 weeks of culture by continuous immersion with 0.5% sucrose (a), 1% sucrose (b) and 3% sucrose (c).
Plants 11 00965 g001
Plants 11 00965 g002 550
Figure 2. Chestnut shoots of clone PO42 after 8 weeks of culture by temporary immersion with 0.5% sucrose (a), 1% sucrose (b) and 3% sucrose (c).
Figure 2. Chestnut shoots of clone PO42 after 8 weeks of culture by temporary immersion with 0.5% sucrose (a), 1% sucrose (b) and 3% sucrose (c).
Plants 11 00965 g002
Plants 11 00965 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of sucrose supplementation (0.5, 1 and 3%) on proliferation rates of apical sections of clone CO53 shoots cultured by continuous immersion. (a) Number of shoots (NS). (b) Length of the longest shoot (SL) and length (LL) and width (LW) of the largest leaf per explant. Values are the mean ± standard error from two replicate trials each with 2 bioreactors (64 explants/treatment). For each variable, different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Effect of sucrose supplementation (0.5, 1 and 3%) on proliferation rates of apical sections of clone CO53 shoots cultured by continuous immersion. (a) Number of shoots (NS). (b) Length of the longest shoot (SL) and length (LL) and width (LW) of the largest leaf per explant. Values are the mean ± standard error from two replicate trials each with 2 bioreactors (64 explants/treatment). For each variable, different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Plants 11 00965 g003
Plants 11 00965 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of sucrose supplementation (0.5, 1 and 3%) on proliferation rates of apical sections of clone PO42 shoots cultured by temporary immersion. (a) Number of shoots (NS). (b) Length of the longest shoot (SL) and length (LL) and width (LW) of the largest leaf per explant. Values are the mean ± standard error from three replicate trials each with 2 bioreactors (72 explants/treatment). For each variable, different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Effect of sucrose supplementation (0.5, 1 and 3%) on proliferation rates of apical sections of clone PO42 shoots cultured by temporary immersion. (a) Number of shoots (NS). (b) Length of the longest shoot (SL) and length (LL) and width (LW) of the largest leaf per explant. Values are the mean ± standard error from three replicate trials each with 2 bioreactors (72 explants/treatment). For each variable, different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Plants 11 00965 g004
Plants 11 00965 g005 550
Figure 5. Chestnut shoots from clones CO53 and PO42 multiplied and rooted with different sucrose concentrations. (a) Shoots of CO53 cultured in sucrose 3% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. (b) Shoots of CO53 cultured in sucrose 0.5% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. (c) Shoots of PO42 cultured in sucrose 3% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. (d) Shoots of PO42 cultured in sucrose 0.5% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. Photos taken 5 weeks after root induction. S0.5, S1 and S3: Sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%.
Figure 5. Chestnut shoots from clones CO53 and PO42 multiplied and rooted with different sucrose concentrations. (a) Shoots of CO53 cultured in sucrose 3% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. (b) Shoots of CO53 cultured in sucrose 0.5% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. (c) Shoots of PO42 cultured in sucrose 3% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. (d) Shoots of PO42 cultured in sucrose 0.5% and rooted in sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%. Photos taken 5 weeks after root induction. S0.5, S1 and S3: Sucrose 0.5, 1 and 3%.
Plants 11 00965 g005
Plants 11 00965 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of sucrose supplementation on monosaccharide content of shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 cultured by temporary and continuous immersion, respectively. Values are the mean ± standard error from 24 shoots analyzed independently. Different capital letters indicate significant differences in relation to the genotype, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in relation to the sucrose supplementation (p < 0.05). GE, Glucose equivalents.
Figure 6. Effect of sucrose supplementation on monosaccharide content of shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 cultured by temporary and continuous immersion, respectively. Values are the mean ± standard error from 24 shoots analyzed independently. Different capital letters indicate significant differences in relation to the genotype, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in relation to the sucrose supplementation (p < 0.05). GE, Glucose equivalents.
Plants 11 00965 g006
Plants 11 00965 g007 550
Figure 7. Effect of sucrose supplementation on antioxidant activity of shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 cultured by temporary and continuous immersion, respectively. Values are the mean ± standard error from 24 shoots analyzed independently. Different capital letters indicate significant differences in relation to the genotype, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in relation to the sucrose supplementation (p < 0.05). TE: Trolox equivalents.
Figure 7. Effect of sucrose supplementation on antioxidant activity of shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 cultured by temporary and continuous immersion, respectively. Values are the mean ± standard error from 24 shoots analyzed independently. Different capital letters indicate significant differences in relation to the genotype, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in relation to the sucrose supplementation (p < 0.05). TE: Trolox equivalents.
Plants 11 00965 g007
Plants 11 00965 g008 550
Figure 8. Effect of sucrose supplementation on soluble phenolic compounds of shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 cultured by temporary and continuous immersion, respectively. Values are the mean ± standard error from 24 shoots analyzed independently. Different capital letters indicate significant differences in relation to the genotype, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in relation to the sucrose supplementation (p < 0.05). GAE: Gallic acid equivalents.
Figure 8. Effect of sucrose supplementation on soluble phenolic compounds of shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 cultured by temporary and continuous immersion, respectively. Values are the mean ± standard error from 24 shoots analyzed independently. Different capital letters indicate significant differences in relation to the genotype, and different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in relation to the sucrose supplementation (p < 0.05). GAE: Gallic acid equivalents.
Plants 11 00965 g008
Plants 11 00965 g009a 550Plants 11 00965 g009b 550
Figure 9. Rooting of chestnut shoots from clones CO53 and PO42. (a) Shoots of CO53 cultured in S3% selected for rooting. (b,c) Shoots of CO53 cultured in S1% during root induction (b) and inserted in rockwool cubes. (c,d) Shoots of PO42 cultured in S1% during root induction. (e,f) Shoots of CO53 cultured in S1% and transferred to medium with S0.5, 1 and 3% 24 h after root induction.
Figure 9. Rooting of chestnut shoots from clones CO53 and PO42. (a) Shoots of CO53 cultured in S3% selected for rooting. (b,c) Shoots of CO53 cultured in S1% during root induction (b) and inserted in rockwool cubes. (c,d) Shoots of PO42 cultured in S1% during root induction. (e,f) Shoots of CO53 cultured in S1% and transferred to medium with S0.5, 1 and 3% 24 h after root induction.
Plants 11 00965 g009aPlants 11 00965 g009b
Table
Table 1. Effect of sucrose supplementation on the rooting percentage of chestnut. Shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 were cultured by temporary and continuous immersion with 0.5, 1 and 3% sucrose. Shoots from each sucrose treatment during the multiplication phase were distributed between 0.5, 1 and 3% sucrose treatments during the rooting expression phase. Means ± standard error were calculated from 2 replicates, each with 16 shoots per treatment. For each clone, different uppercase letters within a column indicate significant differences regarding sucrose concentration during multiplication, and different lowercase letters within a row indicate significant differences regarding sucrose concentration during rooting expression (Pearson’s Chi-square test, p < 0.05).
Table 1. Effect of sucrose supplementation on the rooting percentage of chestnut. Shoots of clones PO42 and CO53 were cultured by temporary and continuous immersion with 0.5, 1 and 3% sucrose. Shoots from each sucrose treatment during the multiplication phase were distributed between 0.5, 1 and 3% sucrose treatments during the rooting expression phase. Means ± standard error were calculated from 2 replicates, each with 16 shoots per treatment. For each clone, different uppercase letters within a column indicate significant differences regarding sucrose concentration during multiplication, and different lowercase letters within a row indicate significant differences regarding sucrose concentration during rooting expression (Pearson’s Chi-square test, p < 0.05).
CloneSucrose During Multiplication (%)Sucrose on the Rooting Medium (%)
0.513
PO420.566 ± 22.1 Aa72 ± 22.1 Ba56 ± 8.8 Ba
175 ± 17.7 Aa78 ± 13.3 Ba75 ± 26.5 Ba
391 ± 13.3 Aa97 ± 4.4 Aa100 ± 0.0 Aa
CO530.56 ± 8.8 Ab56 ± 26.5 Aa44 ± 17.7 Ba
113 ± 17.7 Ab59 ± 13.3 Aa56 ± 17.7 Ba
325 ± 8.8 Ac59 ± 13.3 Ab84 ± 4.4 Aa
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gago, D.; Bernal, M.Á.; Sánchez, C.; Aldrey, A.; Cuenca, B.; Christie, C.B.; Vidal, N. Effect of Sucrose on Growth and Stress Status of Castanea sativa x C. crenata Shoots Cultured in Liquid Medium. Plants 2022, 11, 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070965

AMA Style

Gago D, Bernal MÁ, Sánchez C, Aldrey A, Cuenca B, Christie CB, Vidal N. Effect of Sucrose on Growth and Stress Status of Castanea sativa x C. crenata Shoots Cultured in Liquid Medium. Plants. 2022; 11(7):965. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070965

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gago, Diego, María Ángeles Bernal, Conchi Sánchez, Anxela Aldrey, Beatriz Cuenca, Colin Bruce Christie, and Nieves Vidal. 2022. "Effect of Sucrose on Growth and Stress Status of Castanea sativa x C. crenata Shoots Cultured in Liquid Medium" Plants 11, no. 7: 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070965

APA Style

Gago, D., Bernal, M. Á., Sánchez, C., Aldrey, A., Cuenca, B., Christie, C. B., & Vidal, N. (2022). Effect of Sucrose on Growth and Stress Status of Castanea sativa x C. crenata Shoots Cultured in Liquid Medium. Plants, 11(7), 965. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11070965

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