Next Article in Journal
Effects of 1-Methylcyclopropene Treatment on Fruit Quality during Cold Storage in Apple Cultivars Grown in Korea
Previous Article in Journal
Intercropping Vicia sativa L. Improves the Moisture, Microbial Community, Enzyme Activity and Nutrient in Rhizosphere Soils of Young Kiwifruit Plants and Enhances Plant Growth
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 7
Issue 10
10.3390/horticulturae7100337
horticulturae-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

Detection of Above-Ground Physiological Indices of an Apple Rootstock Superior Line 12-2 with Improved Apple Replant Disease (ARD) Resistance

by
Yunfei Mao
,
Yijun Yin
,
Xueli Cui
,
Haiyan Wang
,
Xiafei Su
,
Xin Qin
,
Yangbo Liu
,
Yanli Hu
and
Xiang Shen
*
National Key Laboratory of Crop Biology, College of Horticulture Science and Engineering, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2021, 7(10), 337; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7100337
Submission received: 2 August 2021 / Revised: 19 September 2021 / Accepted: 22 September 2021 / Published: 24 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Topic Physiological and Molecular Characterization of Crop Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The cultivation of resistant rootstocks is an effective way to prevent ARD. (2) Methods: 12-2 (self-named), T337, and M26 were planted in replanted and sterilized soil. The aboveground physiological indices were determined. (3) Results: The plant heights and the stem thicknesses of T337 and M26 were significantly affected by ARD. Relative chlorophyll content (June–October), Pn (August–September), and Gs (August) of T337 and relative chlorophyll content (June–July, September), Pn (September–October), and Ci (September) of M26 were significantly affected by ARD. ARD had a significant effect on Fv/Fm (June), qP (June–July), and NPQ of T337 (June–October, except August) and Fv/Fm (June) and NPQ (June-October, except July) of M26. Additionally, ARD affected Rfd of M26 and T337 during August. SOD (August and October), POD (August–September), and CAT (July-August, October) activities and MDA (September–October) content of T338 as well as SOD (July–October), POD (June–October), and CAT (July-October) activities and MDA (July, September–October) content of M26 were significantly affected by ARD. ARD significantly reduced nitrogen (October), phosphorus (September–October), and zinc (July) contents of M26 and potassium (June) content of T337. The above physiological indices were not affected by ARD in 12-2. (4) Conclusions: 12-2 could be useful as an important rootstock to relieve ARD due to strong resistance.

1. Introduction

Apple replant disease (ARD), also known as soil sickness [1,2], refers to the phenomenon that, when the same or closely related crops are continuously planted on the same piece of land, yield decreases, quality deteriorates, and growth status is lessened under normal management [3]. Apple is a worldwide fruit. Many countries list apples as a major consumer product because apples have strong ecological adaptability, high nutritional value, good storability, and a long supply cycle [4]. Limited by land resources, the problem of replanting old orchards is becoming more and more common, and major apple-producing areas in the world are facing ARD [5]. About 50% of the apple orchards in the UK, New Zealand, and Poland have ARD [6]. ARD destroys the diversity of microorganisms in the agroecosystem [7], leading to poor growth of new roots [2,8], slow growth, short plants, reduced resistance, disease, and death of the entire plant, causing a severe economic crisis [9,10]. How to effectively improve the effect of ARD on apple is a problem that needs to be solved.
Many methods are available to improve ARD, such as good crop rotation practices, intercropping, soil disinfection, and the use of beneficial bacterial fertilizer [11], applications of organic amendments [2], and establishing living mulches [8]. Studies showed the decrease of beneficial microorganisms in re-planted soil, the high accumulation of harmful microorganisms, and the imbalance of the microbial community structure were important factors causing ARD [12]. High-temperature sterilization of replanted soil is an economical, effective, and widely used agricultural practice to control ARD [13]. Although there are many ways to improve ARD, none effectively improve ARD for a long time, and some methods are too costly and cannot be effectively promoted for production.
In the mid-1990s, researchers began to pay attention to the use of resistant rootstocks to prevent ARD [14]. Resistant rootstocks effectively control pests and diseases in replanted soil, alleviate the problem of ARD caused by some pathogenic bacteria [15], strengthen plant resistance, and increase fruit yield and quality [16]. Apple production requires excellent rootstocks resistant to autotoxicity as well as disease and insect pests. Promoting resistant rootstocks is conducive to increasing fruit yield and increasing farmers’ income. However, many things can cause ARD, and there are large differences that directly lead to resistance. The selection of a resistant rootstock has become more difficult.
Many studies have been performed on resistant rootstocks. Leinfelder et al. [17] reported the growth of four rootstocks (M26, M7, CG6210, and G30) after being planted in replanted soil for 4 years. The growth of G30 and CG6210 plants increased significantly, and the average life span of the CG6210 root system was five times that of M7. Rumberger et al. [18] selected three CG rootstocks (CG16, CG30, and CG210) and M7 and M26 conventional rootstocks to graft the Royal Empire variety. The results of three consecutive years showed that CG210 and CG30 rootstocks were more resistant to ARD. Mazzola et al. [19] reported that the infection rate of the Geneva rootstock series Rhizopus rot was significantly lower than that of M26, MM111, and MM166 in the Washington State replanting garden. Nevertheless, these rootstocks have not been promoted. The T337 and the M26 dwarf rootstocks are still used as the main apple rootstocks in production, and apples with the T337 rootstock have the advantages of early fruiting and a large yield [20]. Apples with M26 as the rootstock have the advantages of higher graft compatibility and strong healing ability [21], but both rootstocks have a short life span, shallow root systems, and poor resistance to ARD [21].
Through the patented technology of in situ breeding [22] (Figure 1a,b), we selected a new line of apple rootstock with a better ARD resistance called 12-2 (a new line of Malus spectabilis that had not been identified in 2010. The new line has red stems and new purple-red leaves in 30 d and 3-year-old plants. We initially selected more than 30 ARD-resistant high-quality lines and planted them all in replanted soil with 20-year-old Fuji/Malus × robusta (CarriŠre) Rehder apples in 2010. On November 2014, only 12-2 and the other superior lines survived, and the trees have been surviving vigorously until now [23,24]. Thus, we preliminarily judged that 12-2 might be resistant to ARD, and we conducted this test to verify this conclusion. Studies showed that seedlings are more likely to be infected with ARD, and that the growth of rootstock infected with ARD during the seedling period will be affected [25]. Thus, we used 1-year-old 12-2, T337, and M26 as test materials and planted them in replanted soil and sterilized soil. We compared the aboveground traits in the sterilized soil to test the resistance of 12-2 to ARD and provide important test materials for resistance breeding of apple rootstock, which is of great significance to fundamentally solve ARD.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Materials and Treatments

The experiment was conducted at the National Key Rootstock Breeding Base of Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an City, Shandong Province from March 2015 to October 2016. The 12-2 self-selected tolerant rootstock used breeding patented technology, and the T337 and the M26 tissue culture rootstocks were purchased from Shandong Horticultural Techniques & Services Co. Ltd. (Tai’an, Shandong, China). The three tissue-cultured rootstocks were subcultured under the same conditions for 8 months beginning in early March 2015 (1 L of MS medium contained sucrose 30 g and agar 7.5 g, 6-BA 0.6 mg, and IBA 0.2 mg with pH of 5.8). Five bud bushes were inoculated in each bottle of induction medium. The temperature of the tissue culture room was 25 ± 2 °C with 16 h·d−1. Light intensity was 1000 lx. In early January 2016, three tissue culture rootstocks subcultured multiple times were inoculated in rooting medium (1 L of 1/2 MS medium contained sucrose 20 g, agar 7.5 g, 6-BA 0.2 mg, and IBA 1.0 mg with pH of 5.8). Five buds were inoculated per bottle of induction medium. The temperature of the tissue culture room was 25 ± 2 °C with 16 h·d−1. Light intensity was 1000 lx. Rooted rootstocks with similar growth from each superior line were selected in early March 2016 and transplanted into a sterile substrate after tempering. At the end of March 2016, each of the three kinds of 60 tissue culture rootstocks with similar growth were transplanted into rootstock pots containing 10 kg of soil, 25 cm stem diameter, and 30 cm depth. Among them, 30 plants were planted in replanted soil, and the others were planted in sterilized soil. Three plants were planted in each rootstock pot. The experimental replanted soil was taken from a 20-year-old apple orchard at Xuanjiazhuang, Daolang District, Tai’an City, Shandong Province, China. Referring to the method of Li et al. [13], half of the replanted soil was autoclaved at 120 °C for 20 min (Zealway Instrument Inc., Xiamen, Fujian, China) and treated as sterilized soil.

2.2. Determining Plant Height and Stem Thickness

The height of the young trees was measured with a ruler starting from the grafting interface, and stem thickness was measured 1 cm above the grafting interface with Vernier calipers. Plant height and stem thickness were measured on 6 June, 6 July, 6 August, 6 September, and 6 October. Each treatment was repeated five times.

2.3. Determining Relative Chlorophyll Content

Fully expanded 5th–7th mature uninjured leaves were removed (from bottom to top), and chlorophyll content was measured with the SPAD-502 portable chlorophyll meter (Beijing Harvesting Science and Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). The relative chlorophyll content was measured on 8 June, 8 July, 8 August, 8 September, and 8 October. Each treatment was repeated five times.

2.4. Determining the Leaf Photosynthetic Parameters

The same fully expanded 5th–7th mature uninjured leaves used to determine relative chlorophyll content were selected, and used in the CIRAS-2 portable photosynthesis measurement system (PP-Systems Hansha Scientific Instruments, Beijing, China) to determine leaf net photosynthetic rate (Pn), intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci), stomatal conductance (Gs), and transpiration rate (Tr). Five replicates were run for each treatment. The measuring times of the leaf photosynthetic parameters were 9 June, 9 July, 9 August, 9 September, and 9 October. Each treatment was repeated five times.

2.5. Determining the Leaf Fluorescence Parameters

The same fully expanded 5th–7th mature uninjured leaves were selected and used with the German WALZ Junior-PAM portable fluorometer (Zealquest Scientific and Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) to measure the chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. The main fluorescence parameters were: PSII original light energy conversion efficiency (Fv/Fm), PSII actual photochemical efficiency (ΦPSII), non-photochemical quenching coefficient (NPQ), photochemical quenching coefficient (qP), and electron transfer rate (ETR). The measuring times of the leaf photosynthetic parameters were 9 June, 9 July, 9 August, 9 September, and 9 October. Leaf fluorescence was measured and imaged twice on 10 August using the chlorophyll fluorescence imaging system (FlourCam fluorescence imaging system, Czech PSI Co., Shutter = 2, super = 30, Act2 = 50, sensitivity = 80) after the leaves were dark-adapted for 30 min. The instant change in the chlorophyll fluorescence emissions was captured by a top CCD camera. Each treatment was repeated five times.

2.6. Determining Leaf Antioxidant Enzyme Activities and Malondialdehyde (MDA) Content

Mature 5th–7th leaves of the middle branches of the plant (from bottom to top) were selected to determine enzyme activities. The method to determine superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity was referred from Sun et al. [26]. The amount of enzyme required to inhibit 50% of the photochemical reduction of nitrogen blue tetrazolium was one unit of enzyme activity and was expressed as U·g−1 FW−1. Peroxidase (POD) activity was measured by the guaiacol method as described by Omran [27]. The change in absorbance was measured at 470 nm. The amount of enzyme that caused an absorbance change of 0.01 at 470 nm/min was one enzyme activity unit and was expressed as U·g−1 FW−1 min−1. Catalase (CAT) activity was measured according to the method of Singh et al. [28]. The change in absorbance at 240 nm was measured, and the amount of enzyme that reduced the absorbance at 240 nm by 0.1/min was taken as one enzyme activity unit and expressed as U·G−1 FW−1 min−1. MDA content was determined by the thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method [29]. In total, 1 mL each of the supernatant and water were added to a test tube, and 2 mL of 0.67% TBA was added. The mixture was placed in a boiling water bath for 15 min and quickly placed in ice water to cool. The absorbance of the supernatant was measured at 600, 532, and 450 nm. MDA (µmol·g−1 FW−1) = 0.1548 (A532 − A600) − 0.01344A450. Each treatment was repeated five times, and the average value was used. The measuring times were 11 June, 11 July, 11 August, 11 September, and 11 October. Each treatment was repeated five times.

2.7. Determining Mineral Nutrient Element Contents in Leaves

Mature 5th–7th leaves of the middle branches of the plant (from bottom to top) were selected. The leaves were rinsed with deionized water and placed in an oven at 105 °C for 15 min and then dried at 80 °C. The dried, ground, and sieved leaves were digested with H2SO4-H2O. Total nitrogen was determined with the multi N/C3100 (Analytik Jena AG, Beijing, China). Total phosphorus was determined by platinum blue colorimetry. Total potassium was determined by flame photometry, and atomic absorption spectrophotometry was used to determine the contents of total calcium, magnesium, iron, copper, and zinc in the leaves [30,31]. The measuring times were 12 June, 12 July, 12 August, 12 September, and 12 October. Each treatment was repeated five times.

2.8. Data Analysis

Analysis of variance was performed using DPS7.05. Mean difference comparison among different treatments was performed by t-test and Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) at a 0.05 probability level, unless otherwise noted.

3. Results

3.1. Plant Height and Stem Thickness Analysis

ARD had a significant effect on T337 and M26 plant height (Table 1) and stem diameters (Table 2) from June to October but no significant effect on 12-2. From June to October, compared with their respective controls in the replanted soil, the plant heights of T337 in the sterilized soil increased by 20.59%, 29.96%, 46.00%, 43.23%, and 41.43%, respectively, and the stem diameters increased by 17.92%, 18.31%, 23.10%, 13.65%, and 14.44%, respectively. The plant heights of M26 in the sterilized soil increased by 30.91%, 40.35%, 42.47%, 36.60%, and 35.01%, respectively, and the stem diameters increased by 20.00%, 32.59%, 22.54%, 20.09%, and 17.49%, respectively.

3.2. Analysis of Relative Chlorophyll Content in Plant Leaves

The relative chlorophyll content of T337 and M26 was affected by ARD (Figure 1c–e). The relative chlorophyll content of T337 in replanted soil was significantly lower than that in sterilized soil from June to October. The relative chlorophyll content of M26 in replanted soil was significantly lower than that in sterilized soil in June, July, and September. The relative chlorophyll content of 12-2 was not different between replanted and sterilized soil. The relative chlorophyll content of 12-2 was less affected by ARD from June to October.

3.3. Analysis of Plant Leaf Photosynthetic Parameters

No significant differences in Pn, Ci, Gs, or Tr were observed in T337, M26, or 12-2 from June and July compared with the respective controls (Figure 2). The Pn and the Gs of T337 in replanted soil were significantly lower than those in sterilized soil, but no significant differences were observed in the photosynthetic parameters of M26 and 12-2 in replanted or sterilized soil during August. During Sepetmber, the Pn value of T337 and the Pn and the Ci values of M26 in replanted soil were significantly lower in replanted soil than those in sterilized soil, respectively. The 12-2 photosynthetic parameters were not significantly different between replanted and sterilized soil. No significant differences were observed in the photosynthetic parameters of the other treatments during October, except that M26 Pn was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil.

3.4. Analysis of Fluorescence Parameters and Fluorescence Imaging of Plant Leaves

3.4.1. Analysis of Fluorescence Parameters

The T337 qP (Figure 3) value was very significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil in June and July, and no significant differences were detected in the other treatments. ARD had a significant effect on T337 and M26 NPQ values. The T337 NPQ value in replanted soil was significantly higher than that in sterilized soil from June to October, except August, and the M26 NPQ value in replanted soil was significantly higher than that in sterilized soil from June to October, except July. The T337 and the M26 Fv/Fm values were significantly higher in replanted soil than those of sterilized soil in June, respectively, with no significant differences in the other treatments. No significant differences in T337, M26, or 12-2 ΦPSII and ETR (Figure 4a) values were observed in replanted or sterilized soil from June to October.

3.4.2. Analysis of Fluorescence Imaging

The second fluorescence measurements of T337, M26, and 12-2 in August (Table 3) showed that Fv/Fm, qP, ΦPSII, and ETR values were not significantly different from the first measurements, and the initial fluorescence for dark adaptation (F0) and maximum fluorescence (Fm) indicated that ARD did not have significant effects on T337, M26, or 12-2. Figure 4b showed that ARD had an effect on NPQ of M26 and rapid fluorescence quenching (Rfd) of M26 and T337, and the effect of Rfd on M26 was higher than that on T337. No effect on Rfd was detected in 12-2.

3.5. Analysis of Antioxidant Enzyme Activities and MDA Content in Leaves

Analysis of the content of antioxidant enzymes and MDA in leaves (Figure 5) showed that ARD affected T337 and M26. T337 SOD activity was significantly higher in replanted soil than that in sterilized soil in August and Ocotber. M26 SOD activity was significantly higher in replanted soil than that in sterilized soil from July to September, whereas SOD activity in October was significantly lower in the continuous soil treatment than in sterilized soil. The T337 POD activity was significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during August and September, and M26 POD activity was significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during June and July. M26 POD activity was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil from August to October. T337 CAT activity was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil in July, August, and October. M26 CAT activity was significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during July. M26 CAT activity was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil from August to October. T337 MDA content was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during August, but the opposite trend was observed during September and October. M26 MDA content was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during July. The M26 MDA content was significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during September and October. The antioxidant enzyme activities and the MDA content in the leaves of 12-2 were not significantly affected by ARD.

3.6. Analysis of Mineral Elements in the Leaves

The effects of ARD on the mineral elements differed (Figure 6). Nitrogen content in M26 was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during October, but no other significant differences were detected in the other treatments from June to October. T337 phosphorus content was significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil from August to October, and M26 phosphorus content was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during September and October. T337 potassium content was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during June, significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil from September to October, and there were no significant differences in potassium contents of M26 and 12-2. The zinc content of M26 was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil during July, but no other significant differences were detected in the other treatments from June to October. ARD had no effect on calcium, magnesium, iron, or copper contents (Figure 7) in any of the treatments.

4. Discussion

4.1. Effect of ARD on Plant Height, Stem Diameter

Using resistant rootstock to prevent and control ARD has attracted attention since the mid-1990s [14]. Now, breeding resistant rootstocks is considered one of the most economical, effective, and feasible means to overcome ARD [21]. Plant height, stem diameter, and relative leaf chlorophyll content are the most direct manifestations of plant growth status [32]. Studies showed that reduced plant growth (or biomass) is one of the main phenotypic parameters of ARD infection [25,33,34,35,36]. In this experiment, the plant heights and the stem thicknesses of T337 and M26 were significantly affected by ARD, whereas 12-2 was not affected. These results follow those of Guo et al. [37].

4.2. Effect of ARD on Relative Leaf Chlorophyll Content

Chlorophyll absorbs light energy, which is necessary for photosynthesis. A decrease in chlorophyll content will inevitably cause a decline in the photosynthetic rate and the accumulation of photosynthetic products, which ultimately affects the health of growing plants [38]. The study of Botyanszka et al. [39] showed that chlorophyll content could be used as a technical indicator to easily identify rootstock resistance; the poorer the rootstock resistance is, the more significant is the impact on chlorophyll content. This was also the result of the test in which T337 (June–October) and M26 (June, July, and September) were significantly affected, but 12-2 was not affected.

4.3. Effect of ARD on Plant Leaf Photosynthetic Parameters

Chlorophyll is the main photosynthetic pigment in plants, and photosynthesis uses light energy for material production. Therefore, chlorophyll content is directly related to the strength of photosynthesis [40]. Studies showed that Ci increases most of the time when Gs decreases, as carboxylation efficiency is reduced [41]. In this experiment, the T337 Gs (August) and the M26 Ci (September) were suppressed, causing a decrease in Pn, indicating that T337 and M26 suffered mainly from inhibited stomata [42]. The decreases of T337 Pn in September and M26 Pn in October may have been the result of ARD destroying the inner thylakoid membrane structure of T337 and M26, causing membrane peroxidation and a decrease in chlorophyll content and ultimately resulting in a lower net photosynthetic rate [43]. The 12-2 photosynthetic parameters were not significantly different between replanted and sterilized soil, indicating that ARD affected photosynthesis of T337 and M26 but not of 12-2.

4.4. Effect of ARD on Fluorescence Parameters and Fluorescence Imaging of Plant Leaves

Chlorophyll fluorescence can be utilized as a photosynthetic probe. A series of important regulatory processes within the photosynthetic apparatus can be understood through fluorescence parameter analysis. The greater the maximum PSII photochemical efficiency of Fv/Fm is, the higher is the original PSII light energy conversion efficiency. Fv/Fm decreases when a plant is under stress [44]. The change in the NPQ value reflects non-photochemical dissipated energy, including heat dissipation energy from the thylakoid membranes, which is a self-protection mechanism for the plant photosynthetic machinery [45]. The results of the present experiment show that T337 and M26 Fv/Fm values were significantly higher in replanted soil than those in sterilized soil during June, which disagreed with the results of Wright et al. [44]. However, replanted soil had a significant effect on the NPQ values of T337 (June–October, except August) and M26 (June–October, except July) but had no significant effect on 12-2. The reasons might be that T337 and M26 maintained photosynthetic activity by activating an acclimation mechanism under the replanted condition. Energy dissipation capacity may have increased, which was detected by an increase in NPQ, but the PSII Fv/Fm value did not change. When stress exceeded capacity, permanent photoinhibition occurred, which was detected by a decrease in the Fv/Fm value [46]. When the stress was strong enough, the PSII ΦPSII and the qP decreased, indicating that the ETR was inhibited [47]. In the present experiment, no significant changes in ΦPSII, ETR, or qP (except T337 in replanted soil in June and July) of T337, M26, or 12-2 after ARD were detected. The reason was that T337, M26, and 12-2 were all subjected to ARD, but the degree of stress did not exceed the ability of T337, M26, and 12-2 to adapt [48]. The ability of PSII to receive maximum light quanta can be determined by combining F0 and Fm. If the F0 value is low and the Fm value is high, the range of receiving light quanta is wider, and more light quanta enter the photochemical reaction pathway [49]. In this study, the results of F0 and Fm of T337, M26, and 12-2 showed that ARD did not change the photons in their photochemical reaction pathways. Rfd is an empirical parameter that measures plant health [50]. In this experiment, ARD affected the health of M26 and T337 to a certain extent but did not affect the health of 12-2.

4.5. Effect of ARD on Antioxidant Enzyme Activities and MDA Content in Leaves

SOD, POD, and CAT activities are the core of the plant’s cross-protection mechanism [51]. Our results show that SOD, POD, and CAT activities in leaves of different apple rootstocks were significantly affected by ARD, and the trends were the same basically. The antioxidant enzyme activities of T337 and M26 (T337 SOD in August and October, POD in August and September, CAT in July, August, and October; M26 SOD in July–September, POD in June and July, and CAT in July) were significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil, indicating that, under ARD, T337 and M26 produced reactive oxygen species, which enhance SOD activity to convert the disproportionately activated oxygen into H2O2 and O2 and reduce damage to the plant [52,53], However, the H2O2 produced by the disproportionation form OH− after accumulation in the plant, which causes membrane lipid peroxidation. There are no enzymes to remove OH− specifically, thus the plant is easily damaged under stress [54]. CAT and POD remove H2O2. CAT has a higher efficiency but a weaker affinity for H2O2, while POD has a higher affinity for H2O2 but also degrades chlorophyll, causing membrane lipid peroxidation, thus POD has a dual role [53]. However, in the next few months, M26 antioxidant enzyme activity (SOD in October, POD during August–October, and CAT during August–October) was significantly lower in replanted soil than in sterilized soil. The possible reasons were that the stress exceeded a certain threshold and M26 could not remove the oxygen free radicals in time, which eventually led to reduced enzyme activities and oxidative damage [55]. MDA is a product of membrane lipid peroxidation and a marker of cell membrane destruction [56]. MDA reacts with macromolecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids, to denature proteins and nucleic acids and affect the structure and the function of cells, ultimately leading to cell death [57]. The results of this experiment showed that MDA contents of T337 (August) and M26 (July) were significantly lower in replanted soil after several months than in sterilized soil. The reasons might be that T337 and M26 adapted to the ARD [58]. After a few months, the MDA content of T337 (September and October) and M26 (September and October) was significantly higher in replanted soil than in sterilized soil. ARD destroyed the cell structure of T337 and M26, resulting in increased MDA content [59]. No significant differences were observed between SOD, POD, CAT activities and MDA content of 12-2 in replanted or sterilized soil, which further confirmed that 12-2 has a stronger tolerance to ARD than T337 and M26.

4.6. Effect of ARD on Mineral Elements in the Leaves

Mineral nutrient elements play an important role in the material composition and the metabolic processes of crops, and plant leaves are a sensitive organ that reflects mineral content, and their nutrient content is directly related to the nutrient level of the tree [60]. Nitrogen is a main component of protein and plays an important role in leaf growth [61]. A phosphorus deficiency could cause plants to be short, dark green in color, and dull [62]. Potassium-deficient plants have a weakened resistance to stress, making them vulnerable to disease [63]. Zinc changes the ratio of organic nitrogen to inorganic nitrogen in plants, promotes healthy growth of branches and leaves, and participates in chlorophyll synthesis and the formation of carbohydrates [64]. Zinc also contributes to the synthesis of auxin, activates enzymes, and plays important roles in physiology and biochemistry [65]. Calcium is necessary for plant growth and development, as it maintains the stability of cell walls and membranes [66]. Magnesium is part of the chlorophyll structure and plays an important role in the development and the functioning of chloroplasts. Magnesium is also an activator of many enzymes [67]. Iron is a component of many important enzymes in plants and participates in the formation of chlorophyllin [68]. Copper is an essential element for plant growth [64]. Previous studies showed that ARD reduces the mineral nutrient content in plant leaves [69]. In this experiment, the effect of ARD on plant mineral elements was not as significant as that on the growth indicators. The reason may be that different rootstock varieties have different abilities to process nutrients, and differences were observed in the ability of the aboveground tissues to obtain elements from underground, even under the same rootstock conditions [70]. Additionally, many factors, such as soil texture, fertilization status, and cultivation management, affect the mineral element content of apple leaves [65]. Therefore, the mechanism of ARD on absorption, operation, and utilization of nutrient elements in plants remains unclear, and further research is needed.

5. Conclusions

The 12-2 rootstock had better resistance to ARD than the control. Plant height, stem thick, relative leaf chlorophyll content, photosynthesis of leaves, leaf fluorescence parameters, leaf antioxidant enzyme activities, MDA content, and leaf mineral contents in 12-2 were not significantly different in replanted soil compared to sterilized soil. ARD had a greater effect on most of the aboveground physiological indicators of T337 and M26 compared to those of 12-2. The test of the aboveground indicators for 12-2 showed that 12-2 was a more resistant ARD rootstock and could be used as important test material in apple rootstock resistance breeding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.M. and X.S. (Xiang Shen); methodology, Y.M. and X.S. (Xiang Shen); software, Y.M.; validation, Y.M., Y.Y., and X.S. (Xiang Shen); formal analysis, Y.M.; investigation, Y.M., Y.Y., and X.C.; resources, H.W., X.S. (Xiafei Su), X.Q., Y.L., and Y.H.; data curation, Y.M.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.M.; writing—review and editing, Y.M., Y.H., and X.S. (Xiang Shen); visualization, Y.M.; supervision, X.S. (Xiang Shen); project administration, X.S. (Xiang Shen); funding acquisition, X.S. (Xiang Shen). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 32072520; Fruit innovation team project of Shandong Province (CN), grant number SDAIT-06-07; Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (CN), grant number ZR2020MC132 and Industrialization project of improved varieties in Shandong Province (CN), grant number 2019LZGC007.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article. All data and material are availability of my manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ARD: apple replant disease; 12-2: apple rootstock superior line named 12-2; Pn: net photosynthetic rate; Ci: intercellular CO2 concentration; Gs: stomatal conductance; Tr: transpiration Rate; Fv/Fm: PSII original light energy conversion efficiency; ΦPSII: PSII actual photochemical efficiency; NPQ: non-photochemical quenching coefficient; qP: photochemical quenching coefficient; ETR: electron transfer rate; MDA: malondialdehyde; SOD: superoxide dismutase; POD: peroxidase; CAT: catalase.

References

  1. Polverigiani, S.; Kelderer, M.; Neri, D. Growth of ‘M9’ apple root in five Central Europe replanted soils. Plant Root 2014, 8, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Polverigiani, S.; Franzina, M.; Neri, D. Effect of soil condition on apple root development and plant resilience in intensive orchards. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 123, 787–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, P.; Wang, Y.Z.; Liu, Q.Z.; Zhang, Y.T.; Li, X.Y.; Li, H.Q.; Li, W.H. Phase changes of continuous cropping obstacles in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) production. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 155, 103626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mao, Y.F.; Zhang, L.L.; Wang, Y.Y.; Yang, L.; Yin, Y.J.; Su, X.F.; Liu, Y.P.; Pang, H.L.; Xu, J.; Hu, Y.L.; et al. Effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from different sources on soil enzymes and microorganisms of Malus prunifolia var. Ringo. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mazzola, M.; Manici, L.M. Apple replant disease: Role of microbial ecology in cause and control. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2012, 50, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Manici, L.M.; Kelderer, M.; Franke-Whittle, I.H.; Rühmer, T.; Baab, G.; Nicoletti, F.; Caputo, F.; Topp, A.; Insam, H.; Naef, A. Relationship between root-endophytic microbial communities and replant disease in specialized apple growing areas in Europe. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 72, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gangatharan, R.; Neri, D. Can Biodiversity Improve Soil Fertility Resilience in Agroecosystems? Spec. Issue New Medit. N 2012, 11, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mia, M.J.; Furmanczyk, E.M.; Golian, J.; Kwiatkowska, J.; Malusá, E.; Neri, D. Living Mulch with Selected Herbs for Soil Management in Organic Apple Orchards. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. St Laurent, A.; Merwin, I.A.; Thies, J.E. Long-term orchard groundcover management systems affect soil microbial communities and apple replant disease severity. Plant Soil 2008, 304, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Narwal, S.S. Allelopathy in ecological sustainable organic agriculture. Allelopath. J. 2010, 25, 51–72. [Google Scholar]
  11. Pan, F.B.; Xiang, L.; Wang, S.; Li, J.J.; Shen, X.; Chen, X.S.; Yin, C.M.; Mao, Z.Q. Effects of short-term rotation and Trichoderma application on the soil environment and physiological characteristics of Malus hupehensis Rehd. seedlings under replant conditions. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2017, 37, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sheng, Y.F.; Wang, H.Y.; Wang, M.; Li, H.H.; Xiang, L.; Pan, F.B.; Chen, X.S.; Shen, X.; Yin, C.M.; Mao, Z.Q. Effects of Soil Texture on the Growth of Young Apple Trees and Soil Microbial Community Structure Under Replanted Conditions. Hortic. Plant J. 2020, 6, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, H.; Yuan, G.L.; Zhu, C.W.; Zhao, T.T.; Zhang, R.M.; Wang, X.L.; Yang, J.Q.; Ma, J.X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X. Soil fumigation with ammonium bicarbonate or metam sodium under high temperature alleviates continuous cropping-induced Fusarium wilt in watermelon. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 979–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bowen, J.K.; Mesarich, C.H.; Bus, V.G.M.; Beresford, R.M.; Plummer, K.M.; Templeton, M.D. Venturia inaequalis: The causal agent of apple scab. Mol. Plant. Pathol. 2010, 12, 105–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rivard, C.L.; O’Connell, S.; Peet, M.M.; Welker, R.M. Grafting Tomato to Manage Bacterial Wilt Caused by Ralstonia solanacearum in the Southeastern United States. Plant Dis. 2012, 96, 973–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Zhu, Y.M.; Saltzgiver, M. A systematic analysis of apple root resistance traits to Pythium ultimum infection and the underpinned molecular regulations of defense activation. Hortic. Res. 2020, 7, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Leinfelder, M.M.; Merwin, I.A. Rootstock selection, replant soil treatments, and tree planting positions as factors in managing apple replant disease. HortScience 2006, 41, 394–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Rumberger, A.; Yao, S.R.; Merwin, I.A.; Nelson, E.B.; Thies, J.E. Rootstock genotype and orchard replant position rather than soil fumigation or compost amendment determine tree growth and rhizosphere bacterial community composition in an apple replant soil. Plant Soil 2004, 264, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mazzola, M.; Zhao, X.W. Brassica juncea seed meal particle size influences chemistry but not soilbiology-based suppression of individual agents inciting apple replant disease. Plant Soil 2010, 337, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fallahi, E.; Colt, W.M.; Fallahi, B.; Chun, I.J. The Importance of Apple Rootstocks on Tree Growth, Yield, Fruit Quality, Leaf Nutrition, and Photosynthesis with an Emphasis on ‘Fuji’. Horttechnology 2001, 12, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wang, Y.; Li, W.; Xu, X.F.; Qiu, C.P.; Wu, T.; Wei, Q.P.; Ma, F.W.; Han, Z.H. Progress of Apple Rootstock Breeding and Its Use. Hortic. Plant J. 2019, 5, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shen, X.; Mao, Z.Q.; Ni, W.R.; Wang, R.; Hu, Y.L.; Chen, X.S.; Wu, S.J.; Han, T.T.; Zhang, W.H. In Situ Breeding Method for Three-Stage Selection of Apple Rootstock Tolerant to ARD. Chinese Patent No. CN104488645A, 8 April 2015. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  23. Gao, F.F. The Continuous Cropping Testing and Rapid Propagation of Primary Apple Rootstocks Superior Lines. Bachelor’s Thesis, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an, Shandong, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Su, X.F.; Chai, S.S.; Mao, Y.F.; Zhang, L.L.; Yin, Y.J.; Liu, Y.P.; Pang, H.L.; Hu, Y.L. Polyploid Induction and Identification of Apple Rootstocks with Tolerance to Continuous Cropping. Mol. Plant Breed. 2021, 1–12. Available online: http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/46.1068.S.20210521.1458.010.html (accessed on 16 September 2021). (In Chinese).
  25. Atucha, A.; Emmett, B.; Bauerle, T.L. Growth rate of fine root systems influences rootstock tolerance to replant disease. Plant Soil 2014, 376, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sun, D.Q.; Sun, X.M.; Xu, Y.Y.; Wu, T.J.; Tao, L.X. Superoxide dismutase activity and risk of cognitive decline in older adults: Findings from the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey. Exp. Gerontol. 2019, 118, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Omran, R.G. Peroxide levels and the activities of catalase, peroxidase, and indoleacetic acid oxidase during and after chilling cucumber seedlings. Plant Physiol. 1980, 65, 407–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Singh, B.K.; Sharma, S.R.; Singh, B. Antioxidant enzymes in cabbage:variability and inheritance of superoxide dismutase, peroxidase and catalase. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lykkesfeldt, J. Determination of Malondialdehyde as Dithiobarbituric Acid Adduct in Biological Samples by HPLC with Fluorescence Detection: Comparison with Ultraviolet-Visible Spectrophotometry. Clin. Chem. 2001, 47, 1725–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Długaszek, M.; Kaszczuk, M.; Mularczyk-Oliwa, M. Magnesium, calcium, and trace elements excretion in 24-h urine. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2011, 142, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Udoh, A.P. Atomic absorption spectrometric determination of calcium and other metallic elements in some animal protein sources. Talanta 2000, 52, 749–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, S.Y.; Jiang, H.L.; Wang, J.J.; Wang, Y.D.; Pan, S.G.; Tian, H.; Duan, M.Y.; Wang, S.L.; Tang, X.R.; Mo, Z.W. Responses of plant growth, physiological, gas exchange parameters of super and non-super rice to rhizosphere temperature at the tillering stage. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mahnkopp, F.; Simon, M.; Lehndorff, E.; Pätzold, S.; Wrede, A.; Winkelmann, T. Induction and diagnosis of apple replant disease (ARD): A matter of heterogeneous soil properties? Sci. Hortic. 2018, 241, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Winkelmann, T.; Smalla, K.; Amelung, W.; Baab, G.; Grunewaldt-Stöcker, G.; Kanfra, X.; Meyhöfer, R.; Reim, S.; Schmitz, M.; Vetterlein, D.; et al. Apple Replant Disease: Causes and Mitigation Strategies. Curr Issues Mol. Biol. 2019, 30, 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Reim, S.; Siewert, C.; Winkelmann, T.; Wöhner, T.; Hanke, M.V.; Flachowsky, H. Evaluation of Malus genetic resources for tolerance to apple replant disease (ARD). Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rohr, A.D.; Staudt, J.; Cziborra, K.; Fritz, A.; Schmitz, M.; Winkelmann, T. Split-root approach reveals localized root responses towards apple replant disease (ARD) in terms of ARD biomarker gene expression and content of phenolic compounds. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 286, 110117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Guo, X.J.; Han, T.T.; Wang, R.; Zhang, Z.; Ge, R.; Mao, Z.Q.; Chen, X.S.; Shen, X. Differences of growth and root absorption of different apple rootstock seedlings in replant stress. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2015, 21, 1312–1319. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, S.; Wang, X.D.; Shi, X.B.; Wang, B.L.; Zheng, X.C.; Wang, H.B.; Liu, F.Z. Red and Blue Lights Significantly Affect Photosynthetic Properties and Ultrastructure of Mesophyll Cells in Senescing Grape Leaves. Hortic. Plant J. 2016, 2, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Botyanszka, L.; Zivcak, M.; Chovancek, E.; Sytar, O.; Barek, V.; Hauptvogel, P.; Halabuk, A.; Brestic, M. Chlorophyll Fluorescence Kinetics May Be Useful to Identify Early Drought and Irrigation Effects on Photosynthetic Apparatus in Field-Grown Wheat. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, Y.; He, N.P.; Huo, J.H.; Xu, L.; Liu, C.C.; Zhang, J.H.; Wang, Q.F.; Zhang, X.M.; Wu, X.Q. Factors Influencing Leaf Chlorophyll Content in Natural Forests at the Biome Scale. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 6, 44090951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Wang, H.L.; Lin, K.D.; Hou, Z.A.; Richardson, B.; Gan, J. Sorption of the herbicide terbuthylazine in two New Zealand forest soils amended with biosolids and biochars. J. Soil Sediment 2010, 10, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gago, J.; Daloso, D.M.; Figueroa, C.M.; Flexas, J.; Fernie, A.R.; Nikoloski, Z. Relationships of Leaf Net Photosynthesis, Stomatal Conductance, and Mesophyll Conductance to Primary Metabolism: A Multispecies Meta-Analysis Approach. Plant Physiol. 2016, 171, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yordanova, R.Y.; Uzunova, A.N.; Popova, L.P. Effects of short-term soil flooding on stomata behaviour and leaf gas exchange in barley plants. Biol. Plant. 2005, 49, 317–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wright, H.; Delong, J.; Lada, R.; Prange, R. The relationship between water status and chlorophyll a fluorescence in grapes (Vitis spp.). Postharvest Biol. Tec. 2009, 51, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Goss, R.; Lepetit, B. Biodiversity of NPQ. J. Plant Physiol. 2015, 172, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Murchie, E.H.; Lawson, T. Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis: A guide to good practice and understanding some new applications. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 3983–3998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Sánchez-Moreiras, A.M.; Graña, E.; Reigosa, M.J.; Araniti, F. Imaging of Chlorophyll a Fluorescence in Natural Compound-Induced Stress Detection. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 583590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pérez-Bueno, M.L.; Pineda, M.; Barón, M. Phenotyping Plant Responses to Biotic Stress by Chlorophyll Fluorescence Imaging. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rungrat, T.; Awlia, M.; Brown, T.; Cheng, R.Y.; Sirault, X.; Fajkus, J.; Trtilek, M.; Furbank, B.; Badger, M.; Tester, M.; et al. Using Phenomic Analysis of Photosynthetic Function for Abiotic Stress Response Gene Discovery. Arab. Book 2016, 14, e0185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Sengupta, B.; Chakraborty, S.; Crawford, M.; Taylor, J.M.; Blackmon, L.E.; Biswas, L.E.; Kramer, W.H. Characterization of Diadzein-Hemoglobin Binding using Optical Spectroscopy and Molecular Dynamics Simulations. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2012, 51, 250–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Li, J.X.; Zhou, X.; Wei, B.D.; Cheng, S.C.; Zhou, Q.; Ji, S.J. GABA application improves the mitochondrial antioxidant system and reduces peel browning in ‘Nanguo’ pears after removal from cold storage. Food Chem. 2019, 297, 124903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Das, K.; Roychoudhury, A. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Front. Environ. Sci. 2014, 2, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Sharma, P.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M.; Polle, A. Reactive Oxygen Species, Oxidative Damage, and Antioxidative Defense Mechanism in Plants under Stressful Conditions. J. Bot. 2012, 2012, 217037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Bioch. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ghosh, N.; Das, A.; Chaffee, S.; Roy, S.; Sen, C.K. Reactive Oxygen Species, Oxidative Damage and Cell Death. Immun. Inflamm. Health Dis. 2018, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ayala, A.; Muñoz, M.F.; Argüelles, S. Lipid Peroxidation: Production, Metabolism, and Signaling Mechanisms of Malondialdehyde and 4-Hydroxy-2-Nonenal. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2014, 2014, 360438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, T.; Gao, Y.; Han, M.; Yan, L.M. Changes in the physiological characteristics of Panax ginseng embryogenic calli and molecular mechanism of ginsenoside biosynthesis under cold stress. Planta 2021, 253, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bao, G.Z.; Tang, W.Y.; An, Q.R.; Liu, Y.X.; Tian, J.Q.; Zhao, N.; Zhu, S.N. Physiological effects of the combined stresses of freezing-thawing, acid precipitation and deicing salt on alfalfa seedlings. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhao, D.Q.; Li, T.T.; Hao, Z.J.; Cheng, M.L.; Tao, J. Exogenous trehalose confers high temperature stress tolerance to herbaceous peony by enhancing antioxidant systems, activating photosynthesis, and protecting cell structure. Cell Stress Chaperon 2019, 24, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Song, X.H.; Xie, K.; Zhao, H.B.; Li, Y.L.; Xu, C.Y.; Dong, C.X. Investigation of the Mineral Nutrients Status of Pear Leaves in Main Orchards Around the Bohai Bay Region. Acta Hortic. Sin. 2011, 38, 2049–2058. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, Z.Y.; Xu, B.; Du, T.H.; Ma, Y.K.; Tian, X.H.; Wang, F.L.; Wang, W.K. Excessive Nitrogen Fertilization Favors the Colonization, Survival, and Development of Sogatella furcifera via Bottom-Up Effects. Plants 2021, 10, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Kavanová, M.; Lattanzi, F.A.; Grimoldi, A.A.; Schnyder, H. Phosphorus Deficiency Decreases Cell Division and Elongation in Grass Leaves. Plant Physiol. 2006, 141, 766–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  63. Wang, M.; Zheng, Q.S.; Shen, Q.R.; Guo, S.W. The Critical Role of Potassium in Plant Stress Response. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 7370–7390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Zhao, H.J.; Wu, L.Q.; Chai, T.Y.; Zhang, Y.X.; Tan, J.J.; Ma, S.W. The effects of copper, manganese and zinc on plant growth and elemental accumulation in the manganese-hyperaccumulator Phytolacca americana. J. Plant Physiol. 2012, 169, 1243–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, Q.; Wei, Q.P.; Jiang, R.S.; Liu, X.D.; Liu, H.P.; Wang, X.W. Correlation Analysis of Fruit Mineral Nutrition Contents with Several Key Quality Indicators in ‘Fuji’ Apple. Acta Hortic. Sin. 2011, 38, 1963–1968. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  66. White, P.J.; Broadley, M.R. Calcium in Plants. Ann. Bot. -Lond. 2003, 92, 487–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Cakmak, I.; Kirkby, E.A. Role of magnesium in carbon partitioning and alleviating photooxidative damage. Physiol. Plant. 2008, 133, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Thompson, M.G.; Blake-Hedges, J.M.; Pereira, J.H.; Hangasky, J.A.; Belcher, M.S.; Moore, W.M.; Barajas, J.F.; Cruz-Morales, P.; Washington, L.J.; Haushalter, R.W.; et al. An iron (II) dependent oxygenase performs the last missing step of plant lysine catabolism. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 2931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Zeng, J.R.; Liu, J.Z.; Lu, C.H.; Qu, X.H.; Luo, K.K.; Li, C.M.; He, M.L.; Zhang, H.Y.; Yan, H.L. Intercropping With Turmeric or Ginger Reduce the Continuous Cropping Obstacles That Affect Pogostemon cablin (Patchouli). Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 579719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Steffens, B.; Rasmussen, A. The Physiology of Adventitious Roots. Plant Physiol. 2016, 170, 603–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Horticulturae 07 00337 g001 550
Figure 1. Growth of 12-2 and the relative chlorophyll content of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil. (a): 30 d after transplanting the 12-2 plugs; (b): 3-year-old 12-2 plant; (c–e): relative chlorophyll content in the leaves of the three rootstocks. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Solid line represents the treatments in sterilized soil; dotted line represents the treatments in replanted soil. The same below.
Figure 1. Growth of 12-2 and the relative chlorophyll content of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil. (a): 30 d after transplanting the 12-2 plugs; (b): 3-year-old 12-2 plant; (c–e): relative chlorophyll content in the leaves of the three rootstocks. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Solid line represents the treatments in sterilized soil; dotted line represents the treatments in replanted soil. The same below.
Horticulturae 07 00337 g001
Horticulturae 07 00337 g002 550
Figure 2. Photosynthesis in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Figure 2. Photosynthesis in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Horticulturae 07 00337 g002
Horticulturae 07 00337 g003 550
Figure 3. Fluorescence (qP, NPQ, Fv/Fm, and ΦPSII) in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil. Effects of replanted soil on fluorescence of leaves from the different rootstock treatments.
Figure 3. Fluorescence (qP, NPQ, Fv/Fm, and ΦPSII) in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil. Effects of replanted soil on fluorescence of leaves from the different rootstock treatments.
Horticulturae 07 00337 g003
Horticulturae 07 00337 g004 550
Figure 4. Fluorescence (ETR) (a) and the chlorophyll fluorescence imaging system (b) in the leaves of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil. cT337, T337 planted in replanted soil; xT337, T337 planted in sterilized soil; cM26, M26 planted in replanted soil; xM26, M26 planted in sterilized soil; c12-2, 12-2 planted in replanted soil; x12-2, 12-2 planted in sterilized soil. F0 and Fm scale is 0–2000, and Fv/Fm, qP, NPQ, ΦPSII, and ETR scale is 0–1.
Figure 4. Fluorescence (ETR) (a) and the chlorophyll fluorescence imaging system (b) in the leaves of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil. cT337, T337 planted in replanted soil; xT337, T337 planted in sterilized soil; cM26, M26 planted in replanted soil; xM26, M26 planted in sterilized soil; c12-2, 12-2 planted in replanted soil; x12-2, 12-2 planted in sterilized soil. F0 and Fm scale is 0–2000, and Fv/Fm, qP, NPQ, ΦPSII, and ETR scale is 0–1.
Horticulturae 07 00337 g004
Horticulturae 07 00337 g005 550
Figure 5. The antioxidant enzyme activities and the malondialdehyde content in leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Figure 5. The antioxidant enzyme activities and the malondialdehyde content in leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Horticulturae 07 00337 g005
Horticulturae 07 00337 g006 550
Figure 6. The mineral element content (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc) in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Figure 6. The mineral element content (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc) in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Horticulturae 07 00337 g006
Horticulturae 07 00337 g007 550
Figure 7. The mineral element content (calcium, magnesium, iron, and copper) in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Figure 7. The mineral element content (calcium, magnesium, iron, and copper) in the leaves of plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Horticulturae 07 00337 g007
Table
Table 1. The height (cm) of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Table 1. The height (cm) of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
TreatmentJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober
T337Replanted soil43.2 ± 1.047.3 ± 1.947.2 ± 2.654.1 ± 1.556.3 ± 2.4
Sterilized soil52.1 ± 0.7 *61.4 ± 0.5 *68.9 ± 3.1 *77.5 ± 2.1 **79.7 ± 1.2 *
M26Replanted soil43.0 ± 1.754.7 ± 3.055.0 ± 3.963.2 ± 0.967.3 ± 2.9
Sterilized soil56.3 ± 0.9 *76.7 ± 2.2 *78.4 ± 2.5 **86.3 ± 1.9 **90.9 ± 1.3 *
12-2Replanted soil79.4 ± 2.094.8 ± 1.394.7 ± 2.796.3 ± 2.199.7 ± 1.2
Sterilized soil79.7 ± 1.590.3 ± 2.799.1 ± 1.499.3 ± 2.497.5 ± 1.3
Note: A t-test was used to determine the significance of the difference between the two assays. The data in the table are expressed as mean ± SE. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. The same below.
Table
Table 2. The stem thickness (mm) of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
Table 2. The stem thickness (mm) of the plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil.
TreatmentJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctober
T337Replanted soil4.8 ± 0.25.0 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.17.2 ± 0.27.2 ± 0.0
Sterilized soil5.7 ± 0.0 *5.9 ± 0. 1 **8.1 ± 0.2 **8.2 ± 0.1 **8.2 ± 0.1 *
M26Replanted soil4.1 ± 0.14.5 ± 0.25.9 ± 0.16.4 ± 0.16.9 ± 0.1
Sterilized soil4.9 ± 0.1 *5.9 ± 0.1 **7.2 ± 0.1 *7.7 ± 0.1 *8.1 ± 0.1 *
12-2Replanted soil5.9 ± 0.16.4 ± 0.38.0 ± 0.18.2 ± 0.18.3 ± 0.1
Sterilized soil5.9 ± 0.26.4 ± 0.28.1 ± 0.18.2 ± 0.18.2 ± 0.1
Note: A t-test was used to determine the significance of the difference between the two assays. The data in the table are expressed as mean ± SE. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Fluorescence in the leaves from plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil on 10 August.
Table 3. Fluorescence in the leaves from plants with different rootstock types planted in sterilized and replanted soil on 10 August.
TreatmentF0FmFv/FmqPNPQΦPSIIETR
T337Replanted soil383.0 ± 8.41537.1 ± 32.70.8 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.00.3 ± 0.01.1 ± 0.00.8 ± 0.0
Sterilized soil375.4 ± 13.71461.4 ± 22.00.7 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.00.3 ± 0.00.9 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.0
M26Replanted soil369.5 ± 16.11455.7 ± 75.90.8 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.00.3 ± 0.0 **0.8 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.0
Sterilized soil338.3 ± 6.01497.2 ± 42.90.8 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.00.2 ± 0.00.9 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.0
12-2Replanted soil284.5 ± 10.41271.8 ± 60.60.8 ± 0.00.9 ± 0.00.5 ± 0.11.1 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.0
Sterilized soil300.7 ± 11.01324.4 ± 45.10.8 ± 0.01.0 ± 0.00.5 ± 0.01.1 ± 0.10.8 ± 0.0
Note: A t-test was used to determine the significance of the difference between the two assays. The data in the table are expressed as mean ± SE. ** p < 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mao, Y.; Yin, Y.; Cui, X.; Wang, H.; Su, X.; Qin, X.; Liu, Y.; Hu, Y.; Shen, X. Detection of Above-Ground Physiological Indices of an Apple Rootstock Superior Line 12-2 with Improved Apple Replant Disease (ARD) Resistance. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7100337

AMA Style

Mao Y, Yin Y, Cui X, Wang H, Su X, Qin X, Liu Y, Hu Y, Shen X. Detection of Above-Ground Physiological Indices of an Apple Rootstock Superior Line 12-2 with Improved Apple Replant Disease (ARD) Resistance. Horticulturae. 2021; 7(10):337. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7100337

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mao, Yunfei, Yijun Yin, Xueli Cui, Haiyan Wang, Xiafei Su, Xin Qin, Yangbo Liu, Yanli Hu, and Xiang Shen. 2021. "Detection of Above-Ground Physiological Indices of an Apple Rootstock Superior Line 12-2 with Improved Apple Replant Disease (ARD) Resistance" Horticulturae 7, no. 10: 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7100337

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