Next Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Association Study of Local Thai Indica Rice Seedlings Exposed to Excessive Iron
Previous Article in Journal
Ameliorative Effects of Exogenous Proline on Photosynthetic Attributes, Nutrients Uptake, and Oxidative Stresses under Cadmium in Pigeon Pea (Cajanus cajan L.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 4
10.3390/plants10040797
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

Magnesium Foliar Supplementation Increases Grain Yield of Soybean and Maize by Improving Photosynthetic Carbon Metabolism and Antioxidant Metabolism

by
Vitor Alves Rodrigues
1,†,
Carlos Alexandre Costa Crusciol
1,*,
João William Bossolani
1,*,†,
Luiz Gustavo Moretti
1,
José Roberto Portugal
1,
Tamara Thaís Mundt
1,
Sirlene Lopes de Oliveira
1,
Ariani Garcia
1,
Juliano Carlos Calonego
1 and
Romulo Pisa Lollato
2
1
Department of Crop Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP 18610-034, Brazil
2
Throckmorton Plant Science Center, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University (KSU), 1712 Claflin Road, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Plants 2021, 10(4), 797; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040797
Submission received: 18 March 2021 / Revised: 14 April 2021 / Accepted: 15 April 2021 / Published: 19 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The aim of this study was to explore whether supplementary magnesium (Mg) foliar fertilization to soybean and maize crops established in a soil without Mg limitation can improve the gas exchange and Rubisco activity, as well as improve antioxidant metabolism, converting higher plant metabolism into grain yield. (2) Methods: Here, we tested foliar Mg supplementation in soybean followed by maize. Nutritional status of plants, photosynthesis, PEPcase and Rubisco activity, sugar concentration on leaves, oxidative stress, antioxidant metabolism, and finally the crops grain yields were determined. (3) Results: Our results demonstrated that foliar Mg supplementation increased the net photosynthetic rate and stomatal conductance, and reduced the sub-stomatal CO2 concentration and leaf transpiration by measuring in light-saturated conditions. The improvement in photosynthesis (gas exchange and Rubisco activity) lead to an increase in the concentration of sugar in the leaves before grain filling. In addition, we also confirmed that foliar Mg fertilization can improve anti-oxidant metabolism, thereby reducing the environmental stress that plants face during their crop cycle in tropical field conditions. (4) Conclusions: Our research brings the new glimpse of foliar Mg fertilization as a strategy to increase the metabolism of crops, resulting in increased grain yields. This type of biological strategy could be encouraged for wide utilization in cropping systems.

1. Introduction

Magnesium (Mg) is present in many essentials physiological processes and play crucial functions on photosynthesis, photoprotection, and on the carbohydrate partitioning within plants [1]. Besides being responsible for chlorophyll synthesis [1], Mg activates diversity enzymes including glutathione synthase, Ribulose 1,5-Bisphosphate (Rubisco) Carboxylase/Oxygenase, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPcase), RNA polymerase, protein kinases, phosphatases, and ATPases [2,3], all essential enzymes for photosynthesis activity and directly influencing plant growth and development.
Several studies have shown that Mg is critically involved in the phloem loading of sucrose and thus carbohydrate partitioning between source and sink tissues [4]. The phloem loading of sucrose is an active process catalyzed by a proton gradient and an H+/sucrose co-transporter, and for its proper functioning, great concentration of ATP-Mg is necessary. The ATP-Mg is responsible for the proper functioning of the H+ pump located in the plasma membrane [5]. Up to 90% of cytoplasmic Mg concentration is complexed with ATP in plants in which this nutrient is at adequate levels [6,7], justifying the importance an adequate Mg nutrition in plants. The coordination between production and use of photoassimilates for metabolic activity is key for the maintenance of the photosynthetic process and growth by plants [8]. Essentially, the consumption of photoassimilates by the sink organs activates a positive feedback mechanism that stimulates the production of sugar by the leaves, and consequently, photosynthesis activity [9].
A very recently meta-analyzes [10] highlighted the importance of Mg for crop yields in different production systems under varying soil conditions. The authors exhibited that Mg supply increased by 8.5% the mean value of crop yield under field conditions around the world, attributed to the positive effects of Mg fertilization on the plant physiological activities. Since global demand for maize and soybean is forecast to continuing to increase [11,12,13], the use of stimulating supplementary foliar fertilization (i.e., using low doses of foliar fertilizers in areas where there are no nutrient deficiencies) offers an opportunity for further yield improvements. Stimulating fertilization can improve the photosynthetic activity of plants, the translocation of sugars to sink organs, and increase plant growth and yield [4,14,15]. However, the effects of foliar fertilization can be different between soybean and maize plants, as they have different photosynthetic pathways, C3 and C4, respectively [16]. There is evidence of greater preference for C4 plants for heavy Mg isotopes in chlorophyll-a compared to C3 plants [17]. This result was attributed to the greater need for energy and the rate of ATP production to fix carbon in C4, reducing the energy barrier during the incorporation of Mg to protoporphyrin IX [17]. In addition, Mg foliar spray can also reduce the abiotic stress of crops by protecting the photosynthetic apparatus and activating the antioxidant defense system [18,19,20].
In this context, Mg foliar fertilization in soybean and maize might greatly influence the translocation of carbohydrates to the grains, intensifying this crop production system. However, very a few studies have evaluated the effect of Mg foliar spray on the photosynthetic parameters, plant nutrition, antioxidant metabolism, Rubisco and phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPcase) activities, as well as these crop yields under field conditions. Therefore, our study aimed to verify whether Mg foliar fertilization is a viable management practice to assist soybean and maize plants in activating mechanisms that provide greater photosynthetic activity, mitigate environmental stresses, and increase grain yield during two growing seasons under field conditions.

2. Results

2.1. Weather Conditions

From soybean sowing to physiological maturity, the total precipitation of the growing season was 569 and 434 mm for the first and second growing seasons. Although the total precipitation was higher in the first growing season, the distribution was less uniform than in the second one. Thus, two periods with low precipitation and consequent dry spell occurred during the first growing season (Figure 1a,b). The first dry spell occurred at the end of the vegetative period (between V5 and V8 phenological stage) and the beginning of flowering (R1 phenological stage), while the second occurred at the end of full flowering (R2), lasting until the end of pod formation (R4). In the second soybean-growing season, the most striking dry spell occurred during the vegetative period, with a less intense second dry spell occurring between the end of R2 and the end of R4. These dry periods were of less intensity than those experienced during the first growing season.
During both maize growing seasons, the hydro-climatic balance indicated water scarcity during the majority of the crop’s cycle, with the exception of the first stages of vegetative development (Figure 1c,d). Low precipitation volumes characterized both maize cycles, but drought was more severe during the second growing season (i.e., 319 and 293 mm total precipitation during the first and second growing season, respectively).

2.2. Crop Nutrition, Photosynthetic Parameters, and Carbon Assimilation

Foliar Mg fertilization increased the leaf Mg concentration of soybeans in the 1st growing season (GS), 10.4%, and maize in both growing seasons (1st GS: 13.3%, 2nd GS: 14.2%) (Figure 2i,j). The concentration of other nutrients in the leaves did not change due to the foliar Mg fertilization.
Foliar fertilization with Mg improved soybean and maize gas exchange performance, compared with the control treatment where no Mg was applied (Figure 3). Foliar Mg fertilization increased the net photosynthetic rate (A), and stomatal conductance (gs) by 49% and 21% for soybean, and by 29% and 47% for maize, respectively (Figure 3a,b). Plants treated with Mg also reduced the substomatal CO2 concentration (Ci) (soybean: 11%, maize: 19%), and leaf transpiration (E) of maize by 20% (Figure 3c,d). As a result of increasing A and reducing Ci and E, water use efficiency (WUE) and carboxylation efficiency (A/Ci) also increased for both crops (57% and 49% for soybean, and by 62% and 60% for maize, respectively) (Figure 3e,f).
The enzymes involved in the capture and subsequent fixation of CO2 were also increased by Mg foliar fertilization (Figure 4). Phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPcase) activity increased in maize only in the 1st GS (42.5%, Figure 4b), but Rubisco activity increased by 55% and 48% on soybean (1st and 2nd GS, respectively), and by 26% and 76% on maize.
The increase in photosynthetic parameters mentioned above also increased the concentration of total soluble sugar on leaves of soybean and maize before the grain filling (Figure 5). For soybeans, Mg-treated plants increased the total sugar concentration by 29% compared with the control on the 1st GS (Figure 5a), and for maize, Mg spraying increased total sugar concentration by 31% and 20%, respectively, for 1st and 2nd GS (Figure 5b).

2.3. Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Enzymes

Oxygen peroxide (H2O2) reduced in soybean (1st GS: 14%, 2nd GS: 16%) and maize (1st GS: 35%, 2nd GS: 38%) plants treated with foliar Mg as compared with the control (Figure 6a,b). The oxidative damage (i.e., lipids peroxidation) in the membrane cells were also reduced when Mg was applied to the leaves of soybean (2nd GS: 18%) and maize (1st GS: 28%, 2nd GS: 19%) (Figure 6c,d). We also measured an increase in the activity of the antioxidant enzymes SOD, CAT, and APX, in both crops. For soybean, foliar spraying with Mg increased the activities of SOD (1st GS: 24.6%, 2nd GS: 33%) and CAT (2nd GS: 42%), but not for APX (Figure 6e,g,i). On the other hand, for maize, Mg-treated plants increased the activities of SOD (1st GS: 31%, 2nd GS: 36%), CAT (1st GS: 23%, 2nd GS: 30%), and APX (1st GS: 35%, 2nd GS: 97%) enzymes (Figure 6f,h,j). Proline concentration in leaves followed the same pattern as that for H2O2 and MDA, reducing in Mg-treated plants for both soybean and maize. For soybean, proline reduction occurred only for the 2nd GS by 17% (Figure 6k), whereas for maize, Mg spraying reduced proline in 21% and 29% for 1st and 2nd GS, respectively (Figure 6l).

2.4. Grain Yield

Foliar Mg fertilization significantly increased the number of pods per plant of soybean (1st GS: 8.7%, 2nd GS: 9%) (Figure S1a), and consequently, increased the number grains per plant (1st GS: 12.5%, 2nd GS: 8.4%) (Figure 7a), but did not change the number of grains per pod (Figure S1b). For maize, foliar Mg did not change the prolificacy (i.e., ears per plant), but increased the number of grains per ear (1st GS: 7%, 2nd GS: 9%), and as a result, also increased the number of grains per plant (1st GS: 8%, 2nd GS: 13.2%) (Figure 7b). For both crops, the 100-grain weight increased with foliar Mg fertilization (by 8% and 7.2% in the 1st and 2nd GS of soybean, and by 5% and 11% in the two GS of maize) (Figure 7c,d). The positive effects of foliar Mg fertilization on yield components in both crops resulted in increased grain yield by 17% and 16% for 1st and 2nd GS of soybeans, and 9.7% and 12% for the two GS of maize.

2.5. Pearson’s Correlation and PCA among Soybean and Maize Parameters

A greater number of correlations between the evaluated parameters occurred for maize as compared to soybeans (Figure 8a). For soybeans, strong positive correlations occurred among A, gs, A/Ci, SOD, W100G, and GY, as well as negative correlations from these parameters and H2O2 and MDA. For maize, the impact of the variables related to photosynthesis were greater among themselves and against those related to antioxidant metabolism, when compared to the soybean results.
A clear segregation occurred between the Mg treated and untreated plants for both soybean and maize on PCA (Figure 8b,c). The effect of treatments on the variables demonstrated that the impact was similar in both crops, although in maize, the vectors showed greater uniformity in the spatial distribution of the variables than in soybeans, corroborating the greater number of correlations that occurred in the Pearson’s correlation of maize (Figure 8a).

3. Discussion

Magnesium (Mg) is a macronutrient that plays several important roles in plant metabolism [21,22,23]. Interestingly, the vast majority of studies involving foliar Mg fertilization were carried out under controlled conditions, aiming to demonstrate how leaf Mg supplementation can mitigate environmental stresses [24,25]. However, there are a few studies aimed at demonstrating how the additional application of Mg to the leaves can improve photosynthesis, the antioxidative response, and increase the crops yield even when the soil has Mg levels considered adequate for plant development under field conditions.
Although foliar Mg fertilization did not alter the concentration of most leaf macronutrients, it increased the Mg concentration of soybean and maize leaves, especially in the 2nd GS. This change is related to the additional application of Mg combined with to the rapid absorption of the element by the leaves and its high mobility in the phloem [26]. This increased Mg concentration may improve growth parameters due to the important roles that Mg plays in plant metabolism, especially those related to chlorophyll biosynthesis, photosynthesis, and carbon assimilation, in addition to activating numerous key chloroplast enzymes [21,23,27]. Interestingly, in most cases, it is difficult to change the leaf concentration of macronutrients through foliar spraying [28]; however, even with the absence of effect on plant nutrition, additional supply of macroelements during periods of high need by plants, may have increased the plant metabolism [29].
As a result of the additional Mg supply, all the gas exchange parameters, which are closely linked to the activity of PEPcase (on maize) and, especially, Rubisco (in both crops), increased, culminating also in greater leaf concentration of sugars. The beginning of this chain effect may be related to the fact that Mg is a constituent of the chlorophyll, a substance responsible for harvesting light energy [30,31]. Although chlorophyll concentration has not been determined, numerous studies have reported the role of Mg (applied via soil or to the leaves) in increasing the levels of chlorophyll in plants [30,32,33]. During the photosynthetic process, CO2 is used as the substrate for photosynthetic assimilation [34,35]. The CO2 diffuses into the plant cell through the stomata, therefore, plants with higher stomatal conductance have greater ability to balance the CO2 uptake with water loss through transpiration [19]. Our results were based on one-time-point after the Mg supplementation; however, the persistent effects of Mg supplying on gas exchange and photosynthetic enzymes during crop cycle should be considered in future studies. Understanding the persistence of the Mg effects can help in programs for managing Mg-reapplications during the crop cycle.
Our results demonstrated that plants foliar treated with Mg have higher gs and lower E, resulting in higher A, as well as greater WUE. In line with these results, our work also showed that Mg-treated plants had lower Ci and, consequently, higher carboxylation efficiency (A/Ci). These results are derived from the greater activity of PEPcase in maize and, mainly, Rubisco in both crops. The PEPcase activity occurs especially in plants with C4 and CAM metabolism [36,37]. In these plants, atmospheric CO2 penetrates from the stoma to the mesophyll cells, where it is fixed in an organic acid with 3 C, the phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP), which is transformed into organic acids of 4 C by PEPcase [35,38]. Subsequently, the 4 C organic acid is decarboxylated in the perivascular sheath, where Rubisco fixes the released CO2 [35,37] avoiding photorespiration [39].
On the other hand, Rubisco is present in every organism capable of performing CO2 photosynthesis [38,40] being responsible for transforming the CO2 fixed in sugars. The supplied Mg was applied directly to the leaves, and is readily available for use. Numerous studies reported the positive effect of Mg supply on net photosynthetic rate of various species and under various growing conditions [22,41,42,43,44]. Magnesium directly affects the Rubisco activation [45] by binding to the carbamylated Rubisco chain and to the catalytic chaperone Rubisco activase [46].
In summary, the Mg-treated plants were more efficient photosynthetically, transforming CO2 into carbon skeletons (sugar) and losing less water during the process. As a result, both soybean and maize crops converted the sugar produced by photosynthesis into a higher number of grains per plant (due to the high number of pods per plants for soybean and high number of grains per ear of maize), and also in higher 100-grain weight. Interestingly, Mg acts in several processes that modulate the production and translocation of carbohydrates in plants [47,48]. The long-distance transport of carbohydrates (sugars) from source-to-sink organs is carried out via phloem, and this is strongly affected by the availability of Mg [49,50]. This fact indicates that the highest content of total sugars present in the soybean and maize leaves evaluated prior to grain filling, was efficiently carried to the sink organs, culminating in a higher number of grains and with higher weight. The combination of these two parameters resulted in higher grain yield.
Spraying Mg to the crops not only is important for improving photosynthesis and plant growth but also contributes to the improvement of antioxidant metabolism. The cropping of soybean occurs during the spring/summer seasons, which in tropical regions corresponds to the months of September–March. While this period is usually hot and rainy in tropical regions, short dry spells occur frequently during soybean cropping [51], causing a short period of stress due to lack of water and or high temperatures [52], especially in the phenological stages after flowering, as observed in our study (Figure 1). In the case of maize, its cropping occurs during the autumn/winter seasons (April-August), a period characterized by mild temperatures and a dry climate. These meteorological characteristics limit the productivity of maize in the off-season, especially due to long periods with low water availability [53], which also occurred during our study (Figure 1).
Numerous studies reported the beneficial effect of Mg spraying to relieve environmental stresses in crops, such as drought stress [29], heat stress [20,27], and soil acidity stress [54], and temperature [30] by improving the antioxidant metabolism and reducing the cell damages. During the drought stress, there is a reduction in the use of the energy captured in the photosynthesis reaction centers [55]. In plants with limited Mg concentration, the low CO2 assimilation reduces the energy consumption (ATP) and reducing power (NADPH) obtained and stored during photosynthesis, limiting utilization of light energy [23]. In this case, the excess energy accumulated in the photosystem results in the overreduction in the electron transport chain [2], leading to a production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as H2O2, and increasing the MDA production, a by-product of cell damages [56,57,58] as occurred in our study. In addition, proline content also increased in untreated plants, reinforcing that there was an increase in stress in these plants [59]. The proline compound is an important nitrogen source produced and used by plants to recover from abiotic stresses and restore their growth [60]. Magnesium applied directly to the leaves increases photosynthetic efficiency, consuming excess energy in the photosystem and reducing the production of ROS [25]. Our results demonstrate that even in the absence of limited Mg levels in the soil and, consequently, adequate Mg levels in the soybean and maize leaves, under environmental stresses, the additional application of Mg via foliar spraying can be a viable technique to help the plant to alleviate these deleterious effects.
The mitigation of the negative effects of excess ROS that can naturally occur in plants and that can be aggravated during the period of environmental stresses was due to the anticipated increase in the specific SOD activity in Mg-treated plants, suggesting an increased requirement for SOD scavenging in chloroplasts and other cell compartments [61,62]. Similarly, the CAT activity also increased, indicating that after the dismutation of O2− into H2O2 by SOD, it was necessary to increase CAT activity to convert H2O2 into H2O [58,63] in both crops. Interestingly, the increased APX activity occurred only in the maize, perhaps due to climatic conditions being more unfavorable during its cropping, resulting in higher rates of ROS production and requiring the action of a greater range of antioxidant enzymes [57,63], as supported by our correlation analysis and PCA. Our results suggested therefore, that SOD, CAT and APX enzymes played a central protective role in the ROS scavenging in soybean and maize plants treated with foliar supplementation with Mg.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Field Description

Field experiments were conducted under rainfed conditions during the 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 spring/summer growing seasons with soybean and during the 2019 and 2020 autumn/winter off-seasons with maize, at the Lageado Experimental Farm of São Paulo State University (UNESP), in the southeastern region of São Paulo State, Brazil (48°26′ W, 22°51′ S, elevation of 786 m altitude). The experimental area has been under no-tillage system for 12 years. The soil is classified as a Ferralsol [64], which corresponds to the classification as clayey textural class, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Haplorthox [65]. According to the Köppen-Geiger climatic classification system [66], the region has a mesothermic climate (Cwa), that is, a humid subtropical climate with dry winters and hot summers. The average rainfall is 1360 mm year−1, and the mean annual air temperature is 20.7 °C (50-year average) [67].
Prior to the establishment of the experiment, the soil water-holding capacity was determined according to the tension table and the Richards extractant chamber methods [68] which allowed for the determination of the soil water potential (ψw). The reference evapotranspiration (ET0) was calculated by the Penman–Monteith method [69]. For the calculation of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), the crop coefficient (Kc) for each stage of crop development was used [69]. With this information and the rainfall, and the minimum and maximum air temperature of the experimental area, the climatological water balances were calculated using electronic spreadsheets [70]. Following the Thornthwaite and Mather [71] procedure to obtain the real evapotranspiration (ETr), and the deficiency (soil water deficit) or excess (soil water surplus) were established. The climatological water balance of the two experimental growing seasons is shown in Figure 1.
Soil texture [72] and chemical [73] properties at a depth of 0.00–0.20 m were determined prior to the establishment of the experiment and are presented in Table S1. Lime was applied to increase the base saturation (BS) of the topsoil (0.00–0.20-m depth) to 70% approximately 60 days prior to the beginning of the experiment using dolomitic lime (CaMg(CO3)2) (280 g kg−1 of calcium oxide—CaO, 200 g kg−1 of magnesium oxide-MgO, and 81% of calcium carbonate equivalents—%ECaCO3) [74].

4.2. Experimental Design and Treatment Description

A randomized complete block (RCB) design was used with four replicates. The Mg-Foliar fertilization factor was represented by the presence (+Mg) or absence (−Mg) of Mg application.
The Mg-Foliar fertilization was performed at the R4 soybean phenological stage [75] by applying 500 g of magnesium (MgCl2; Mag-8®; Ubyfol; Uberaba, Brazil) ha−1 and a vegetable oil adjuvant (30 mL ha−1; Disperse®; Ubyfol; Uberaba, Brazil) were diluted in 150 L H2O ha−1. For maize, the Mg-Foliar fertilization was performed at the V10 phenological stage by applying the same dose and vegetable oil adjuvant were diluted in 180 L H2O ha−1.
Foliar fertilization was carried out using an aerograph atomizer propelled by CO2, with working pressure of 1.8 BAR. The boom was composed of six 0.5-m spaced nozzles with flat fan nozzles (TTl11004VP), operated at a height of 0.5 m from the ground and speed of 1 ms−1 to mimic the action of a commercial spraying apparatus. Foliar spraying was carried out according to the technical recommendations of the manufacturers.

4.3. Field Management

4.3.1. Soybean Crop

Prior the soybean sowing (cultivar TMG 7062 RR; 290,000 plants ha−1; Tropical Breeding & Genetics®; Cambé, Brazil), the seeds were first treated with fungicides (carboxin + thiram at 100 g + 100 g a.i. 100 kg−1 seeds) and later inoculated [76]. Each plot consisted of 10 rows that were 10-m long and spaced 0.45 m apart, covering an area of 45 m2. Base fertilization included 300 kg ha−1 of 00–20–20 (60 kg ha−1 of P2O5 and 60 kg ha−1 of K2O) in both growing seasons (1st GS and 2nd GS). The management of weeds, insects, and diseases were carried according to the recommendations [77] when necessary, so these were not limiting factors.

4.3.2. Maize Crop

Each maize (hybrid P3707VYH; 60,000 plants ha−1; DuPont Pioneer®, Johnston, IA, USA) plot consisted of 10 rows that were 10-m long and spaced 0.45 m apart, covered an area of 45 m2. The base fertilization was performed with 300 kg ha−1 of 08–28–16 (24 kg ha−1 of N, 84 kg ha−1 of P2O5, and 48 kg ha−1 of K2O) in both off-seasons. At the V6 maize phenological stage [78], N–K fertilizers were broadcast over the soil surface at a rate of 100 kg N ha−1 as ammonium sulfate, and 20 kg K2O ha−1 as potassium chloride. Phytosanitary treatments were carried out according to the needs of the maize crop.

4.4. Plant Sampling and Laboratory Analyzes

4.4.1. Crop Nutrition

Plant nutritional status was evaluated at the R4 phenological stage [75] (full pod) in soybean leaves (in the third fully developed leaf and its petiole from 30 plants in each plot) [79], and at the R1 phenological stage [78] (silking) in maize leaves (in the middle third of ear leaf from 10 plants per plot) [80]. Briefly, the plant material was used to determine the nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), Mg, and sulfur (S) concentrations according to the methodology described by Malavolta et al. [81].

4.4.2. Gas Exchange Parameters

Gas exchange was evaluated via nondestructive analysis with a Portable Infrared Gas Analyzer CIRAS-3 Portable Photosynthesis System (PP Systems Inc., Amesbury, MA, USA). In soybean, samples were taken at R4 phenological stage from the central leaflet of the third fully expanded leaves and intact trifoliate leaf from the plant apex of the main stem of 10 plants per plot. For maize, samples were taken at R1 phenological stage [78] by collecting the middle third of 10 ear leaf each plot. The parameters of the instrument were as follows: 380–400 mol mol−1 atmospheric CO2, 1100 μmol quanta m−2 s−1 of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) supplied by LED lamps, 25–27 °C leaf chamber temperature, and 60–70% relative humidity. The minimum equilibration time for each set of measurements was 3 min.
The measurements were performed between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. The following parameters were determined: net photosynthesis rate (A; μmol CO2 m−2 s−1), stomatal conductance (gS; mol H2O m−2 s−1), internal CO2 concentration in the substomatal cavity (Ci; μmol mol−1), transpiration (E; mmol H2O m−2 s−1), and instantaneous water use efficiency (WUE; μmol CO2 (mmol H2O)−1) was calculated by the A/E ratio, and the carboxylation efficiency was calculated by the A/Ci ratio.

4.4.3. Photosynthetic Enzymes

For photosynthetic enzymes, samples were taken in the same leaflets collected for gas exchange parameters. The phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase (PEPcase) (EC 4.1.1.31) activity was measured using an enzymatic method coupled to NADH oxidation monitored by spectrophotometer at 340 nm [82]. The enzyme activity was measured by recording the decreased absorbance at 340 nm over 300 s and expressed in μmol min−1 mg protein−1.
The Ribulose-1,5-biphosphate carboxylase:oxygenase (Rubisco) activity was determined using the same extract used to PEPcase activity, and it was spectrophotometrically measured by rate of NADH oxidation at 340 nm [83]. Rubisco activity was calculated from the difference in the absorbance readings at 0 and 1 min (without removing the cuvette from the spectrophotometer) and expressed in μmol min−1 mg protein−1.

4.4.4. Total Soluble Sugar Concentration

The total soluble sugar concentrations were determined [84]. The concentrations were based on the standard sucrose curve, and the results are expressed in g kg−1.

4.4.5. Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Enzymes

The same leaflets used to assess the gas exchange parameters were sampled to evaluate the contents of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and malondialdehyde (MDA) as well as the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD; EC:1.15.1.1), catalase (CAT; EC:1.11.1.6), ascorbate peroxidase (APX; EC:1.11.1.11), and proline content for both crops.
Lipid peroxidation was evaluated [85], and the results were expressed in nanomoles of MDA per gram of fresh weight (FW). The H2O2 content was determined [86], and the content was calculated based on a calibration curve and expressed in μmol g−1 FW. SOD activity was measured [87], and the results were expressed in units mg−1 of protein. CAT activity was evaluated [88], and the results were expressed in μmol min−1 mg−1 of protein. APX activity was measured [89], and the results were expressed in μmol min−1 mg−1 of protein. Proline content was determined [90], and the results were expressed in μmol g−1 of FW [91].

4.4.6. Agronomic Parameters and Grain Yield

At soybean and maize physiological maturity, plants were harvested from a 15-m2 area from the central part of each plot. We estimated the number of grains per plant, grain yield (Mg ha−1), and 100-weight grain (W100G) (the latter two parameters reported at 13% moisture content). The moisture was determined with an automatic measuring device (Gehaka G650i, Brazil).

4.5. Data Analyses

All data were initially analyzed via the Shapiro–Wilk test [92] for normality and the Levene’s test for homoscedasticity [93], both at p < 0.05. The data were also tested for sphericity by the Bartlett test [94]. The results indicated that all data were distributed normally (W ≥ 0.95) and exhibited no sphericity. Foliar fertilization factors were considered fixed effects, and growing season, replication, and replication nested within year were considered random effects. Subsequently, the means were subjected to analysis of individual variance (ANOVA) by the F test (p ≤ 0.05) and, when significant, analyzed using the Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) at p ≤ 0.05. We built a heatmap of the Pearson correlation coefficients (p ≤ 0.05) among the measured variables and only the significant correlations are shown. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed through statistical software Canoco v. 4.5.

5. Conclusions

Our study confirmed under field conditions that soybean and maize crops react to foliar Mg fertilization by increasing the net CO2 assimilation by PEP carboxylase in maize and by Rubisco in both soybean and maize, increasing the total sugar concentration in source tissues and converting into higher grain yield. In addition, in field conditions, where environmental stresses naturally occur, the application of leaf Mg also reduced the oxidative stress by improving the use of energy accumulated in photosynthesis and by increasing the antioxidant enzymes. In conclusion, the additional Mg foliar spraying in crops established in soils without nutritional limitations should be seen as the new approach for obtaining more metabolically active plants and, consequently, with higher grain yield potential.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants10040797/s1. Figure S1: Number of pods per plant (a) and grains per pod (b) of soybean and prolificacy (c) and number of grains per ear (d) of maize plants as affected by presence or absence of the foliar Mg application. Table S1: Physicochemical and biological attributes (0.0–0.2-m depth) before sowing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.A.R., C.A.C.C., J.W.B., and L.G.M.; methodology, L.G.M., R.P.L., and J.C.C.; software, J.W.B. and A.G.; validation, L.G.M. and J.R.P.; formal analysis, J.W.B., S.L.d.O., and T.T.M.; investigation, J.R.P.; resources, C.A.C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W.B.; writing—review and editing, L.G.M. and J.R.P.; supervision, C.A.C.C. and R.P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), providing the scholarship to the first author (#Grant: 134588/2018-5). In addition, the second author would like to thank the CNPq for an award for excellence in research (grant number: 303119/2016-0).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) is acknowledged for the “Excellence in Research” award given to the second author and scholarship to the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tränkner, M.; Tavakol, E.; Jákli, B. Functioning of potassium and magnesium in photosynthesis, photosynthate translocation and photoprotection. Physiol. Plant. 2018, 163, 414–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Bloom, A.J.; Kameritsch, P. Relative association of Rubisco with manganese and magnesium as a regulatory mechanism in plants. Physiol. Plant. 2017, 161, 545–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhao, H.; Zhou, Q.; Zhou, M.; Li, C.; Gong, X.; Liu, C.; Qu, C.; Wang, L.; Si, W.; Hong, F. Magnesium deficiency results in damage of nitrogen and carbon cross-talk of maize and improvement by cerium addition. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2012, 148, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rosolem, C.A. Recomendação e aplicação de nutrientes via foliar. Lavras: Ufla/Faepe 2002, pp. 63–98.
  5. Igamberdiev, A.U.; Kleczkowski, L.A. Membrane potential, adenylate levels and Mg2+ are interconnected via adenylate kinase equilibrium in plant cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (Bba)-Bioenerg. 2003, 1607, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Yazaki, Y.; Asukagawa, N.; Ishikawa, Y.; Ohta, E.; Sakata, M. Estimation of cytoplasmic free Mg2+ levels and phosphorylation potentials in mung bean root tips by in vivo 31P NMR spectroscopy. Plant. Cell Physiol. 1988, 29, 919–924. [Google Scholar]
  7. Shaul, O. Magnesium transport and function in plants: The tip of the iceberg. Biometals 2002, 15, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Graham, I.A.; Martin, T. Control of photosynthesis, allocation and partitioning by sugar regulated gene expression. In Photosynthesis. Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration; Leegood, R.C., Sharkey, T.D., von Caemmerer, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 233–248. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lemoine, R.; La Camera, S.; Atanassova, R.; Dédaldéchamp, F.; Allario, T.; Pourtau, N.; Bonnemain, J.L.; Laloi, M.; Coutos-Thévenot, P.; Maurousset, L.; et al. Source-to-sink transport of sugar and regulation by environmental factors. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Wang, Z.; Hassan, M.U.; Nadeem, F.; Wu, L.; Zhang, F.; Li, X. Magnesium fertilization improves crop yield in most production systems: A meta-analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2020–2029; FAO/OECD Publishing: Rome, Italy; Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moretti, L.G.; Lazarini, E.; Bossolani, J.W.; Parente, T.L.; Caioni, S.; Araujo, R.S.; Hungria, M. Can additional inoculations increase soybean nodulation and grain yield? Agron. J. 2018, 110, 715–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Kuramae, E.E.; Bossolani, J.W.; Moreira, A.; Costa, N.R.; Alves, C.J.; Pascoaloto, I.M.; Rondina, A.B.L.; Hungria, M. Effects of growth-promoting bacteria on soybean root activity, plant development, and yield. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bossolani, J.W.; Moretti, L.G.; Portugal, J.R.; Rossi, R.; Crusciol, C.A.C. Thermomagnesium: A By-Product of Ni Ore Mining as a Clean Fertilizer Source for Maize. Agronomy 2021, 11, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Garcia, A.; Rossi, R.; Moreira, A. Thermomagnesium as a fertilizer for soybean: Carbohydrate metabolism, silicon–magnesium fertilizer, and grain yield. J. Plant. Nutr. 2021, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Buchmann, N.; Ehleringer, J.R. CO2 concentration profiles, and carbon and oxygen isotopes in C3 and C4 crop canopies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1998, 89, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wrobel, K.; Karasiński, J.; Tupys, A.; Negrete, M.A.A.; Halicz, L.; Wrobel, K.; Bulska, E. Magnesium–isotope fractionation in chlorophyll-a extracted from two plants with different pathways of carbon fixation (C3, C4). Molecules 2020, 25, 1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Gou, W.; Zheng, P.; Tian, L.; Gao, M.; Zhang, L.; Akram, N.A.; Ashraf, M. Exogenous application of urea and a urease inhibitor improves drought stress tolerance in maize (Zea mays L.). J. Plant. Res. 2017, 130, 599–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Zhao, W.Y.; Xu, S.; Li, J.L.; Cui, L.J.; Chen, Y.N.; Wang, J.Z. Effects of foliar application of nitrogen on the photosynthetic performance and growth of two fescue cultivars under heat stress. Biol. Plant. 2008, 52, 113–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. da Silva, D.M.; de Souza, K.R.D.; Vilas Boas, L.V.; Alves, Y.S.; Alves, J.D. The effect of magnesium nutrition on the antioxidant response of coffee seedlings under heat stress. Sci. Hortic. (Amst.) 2017, 224, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Rossi, R.; Moreira, A. Agricultural repurposing of nickel slag residue. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 44, 1141–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tränkner, M.; Jaghdani, S.J. Minimum magnesium concentrations for photosynthetic efficiency in wheat and sunflower seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 144, 234–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jaghdani, S.J.; Jahns, P.; Tränkner, M. Mg deficiency induces photo-oxidative stress primarily by limiting CO2 assimilation and not by limiting photosynthetic light utilization. Plant Sci. 2021, 302, 110751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gransee, A.; Führs, H. Magnesium mobility in soils as a challenge for soil and plant analysis, magnesium fertilization and root uptake under adverse growth conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 368, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Hauer-Jákli, M.; Tränkner, M. Critical leaf magnesium thresholds and the impact of magnesium on plant growth and photo-oxidative defense: A systematic review and meta-analysis from 70 years of research. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Altarugio, L.M.; Loman, M.H.; Nirschl, M.G.; Silvano, R.G.; Zavaschi, E.; de Mello e Silva Carneiro, L.; Vitti, G.C.; de Cerqueira Luz, P.H.; Otto, R. Yield performance of soybean and corn subjected to magnesium foliar spray. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2017, 52, 1185–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Siddiqui, M.H.; Alamri, S.A.; Al-Khaishany, M.Y.Y.; Al-Qutami, M.A.; Ali, H.M.; Al-Whaibi, M.H.; Al-Wahibi, M.S.; Alharby, H.F. Mitigation of adverse effects of heat stress on Vicia faba by exogenous application of magnesium. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 25, 1393–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Schroth, G.; Becker, F.J.; Mandarino, J.M.G. Soybean yield and nutritional status response to nitrogen sources and rates of foliar fertilization. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ahmad, Z.; Waraich, E.A.; Akhtar, S.; Anjum, S.; Ahmad, T.; Mahboob, W.; Hafeez, O.B.A.; Tapera, T.; Labuschagne, M.; Rizwan, M. Physiological responses of wheat to drought stress and its mitigation approaches. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2018, 40, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Boaretto, R.M.; Hippler, F.W.R.; Ferreira, G.A.; Azevedo, R.A.; Quaggio, J.A.; Mattos, D. The possible role of extra magnesium and nitrogen supply to alleviate stress caused by high irradiation and temperature in lemon trees. Plant Soil 2020, 457, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hoober, J.K.; Eggink, L.L.; Chen, M. Chlorophylls, ligands and assembly of light-harvesting complexes in chloroplasts. Photosynth. Res. 2007, 94, 387–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Fiedor, L.; Kania, A.; Myśliwa-Kurdziel, B.; Orzeł, Ł.; Stochel, G. Understanding chlorophylls: Central magnesium ion and phytyl as structural determinants. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (Bba)-Bioenerg. 2008, 1777, 1491–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Cakmak, I.; Kirkby, E.A. Role of magnesium in carbon partitioning and alleviating photooxidative damage. Physiol. Plantarum 2008, 133, 692–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sage, R.F.; Sharkey, T.D.; Seemann, J.R. The in-vivo response of the ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase activation state and the pool sizes of photosynthetic metabolites to elevated CO2 in Phaseolus vulgaris L. Planta 1988, 174, 407–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sage, R.F. The evolution of C4 photosynthesis. New Phytol. 2004, 161, 341–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lawson, T.; Flexas, J. Fuelling life: Recent advances in photosynthesis research. Plant. J. 2020, 101, 753–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Sage, R.F.; Sage, T.L.; Kocacinar, F. Photorespiration and the evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 2012, 63, 19–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ehleringer, J.R.; Monson, R.K. Evolutionary and ecological aspects of photosynthetic pathway variation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1993, 24, 411–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Douce, R.; Heldt, H.-W. Photorespiration. In Photosynthesis. Advances in Photosynthesis and Respiration; Leegood, R.C., Sharkey, T.D., von Caemmerer, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 115–136. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kubien, D.S.; Whitney, S.M.; Moore, P.V.; Jesson, L.K. The biochemistry of Rubisco in Flaveria. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 1767–1777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Samborska, I.A.; Kalaji, H.M.; Sieczko, L.; Goltsev, V.; Borucki, W.; Jajoo, A. Structural and functional disorder in the photosynthetic apparatus of radish plants under magnesium deficiency. Funct. Plant. Biol. 2018, 45, 668–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Canizella, B.T.; Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Fageria, N.K. Efficiency of Magnesium Use by Common Bean Varieties Regarding Yield, Physiological Components, and Nutritional Status of Plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant. Anal. 2015, 46, 1376–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Peng, H.Y.; Qi, Y.P.; Lee, J.; Yang, L.T.; Guo, P.; Jiang, H.X.; Chen, L.S. Proteomic analysis of Citrus sinensis roots and leaves in response to long-term magnesium-deficiency. BMC Genom. 2015, 16, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Tang, N.; Li, Y.; Chen, L.S. Magnesium deficiency-induced impairment of photosynthesis in leaves of fruiting Citrus reticulata trees accompanied by up-regulation of antioxidant metabolism to avoid photo-oxidative damage. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Andersson, I. Catalysis and regulation in Rubisco. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 1555–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Hazra, S.; Henderson, J.N.; Liles, K.; Hilton, M.T.; Wachter, R.M. Regulation of Ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate Carboxylase/Oxygenase (Rubisco) Activase product inhibition, cooperativity, and magnesium activation. J. Biol. Chem. 2015, 290, 24222–24236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. White, P.J. Ion uptake mechanisms of individual cells and roots: Short-distance transport. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of HigherPlants; Marschner, P., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 7–47. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ceylan, Y.; Kutman, U.B.; Mengutay, M.; Cakmak, I. Magnesium applications to growth medium and foliage affect the starch distribution, increase the grain size and improve the seed germination in wheat. Plant Soil 2016, 406, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Farhat, N.; Elkhouni, A.; Zorrig, W.; Smaoui, A.; Abdelly, C.; Rabhi, M. Effects of magnesium deficiency on photosynthesis and carbohydrate partitioning. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2016, 38, 145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ba, Q.; Zhang, L.; Chen, S.; Li, G.; Wang, W. Effects of foliar application of magnesium sulfate on photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter accumulation and its translocation, and carbohydrate metabolism in grain during wheat grain filling. Cereal Res. Commun. 2020, 48, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cunningham, C. Characterization of dry spells in southeastern Brazil during the monsoon season. Int. J. Climatol. 2020, 40, 4609–4621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Correia, P.M.P.; da Silva, A.B.; Roitsch, T.; Carmo-Silva, E.; Marques da Silva, J. Photoprotection and optimization of sucrose usage contribute to faster recovery of photosynthesis after water deficit at high temperatures in wheat. Physiol. Plant. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. de Nioa, S.N., Jr.; Sentelhas, P.C. Soybean-maize off-season double crop system in Brazil as affected by El Niño Southern Oscillation phases. Agric. Syst. 2019, 173, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kibria, M.G.; Barton, L.; Rengel, Z. Foliar application of magnesium mitigates soil acidity stress in wheat. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2020, 207, 378–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Flexas, J.; Bota, J.; Loreto, F.; Cornic, G.; Sharkey, T.D. Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C3 plants. Plant. Biol. 2004, 6, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Farooq, M.A.; Niazi, A.K.; Akhtar, J.; Saifullah; Souri, Z.; Karimi, N.; Rengel, Z. Acquiring control: The evolution of ROS-Induced oxidative stress and redox signaling pathways in plant stress responses. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 141, 353–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Caverzan, A.; Casassola, A.; Brammer, S.P. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant enzymes involved in plant tolerance to stress. In Abiotic and Biotic Stress in Plants—Recent Advances and Future Perspectives; Shanker, A., Shanker, C., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016; pp. 463–480. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gupta, D.K.; Palma, J.M.; Corpas, F.J. Antioxidants and Antioxidant Enzymes in Higher Plants; Gupta, D.K., Palma, J.M., Corpas, F.J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018; ISBN 3319750887. [Google Scholar]
  59. Khan, M.N.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Mohammad, F.; Naeem, M.; Khan, M.M.A. Calcium chloride and gibberellic acid protect linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) from NaCl stress by inducing antioxidative defence system and osmoprotectant accumulation. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2010, 32, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Trotel, P.; Bouchereau, A.; Niogret, M.F.; Larher, F. The fate of osmo-accumulated proline in leaf discs of rape (Brassica napus L.) incubated in a medium of low osmolarity. Plant Sci. 1996, 118, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Scandalios, J.G. Oxygen stress and superoxide dismutases. Plant Physiol. 1993, 101, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Kapoor, D.; Singh, S.; Kumar, V.; Romero, R.; Prasad, R.; Singh, J. Antioxidant enzymes regulation in plants in reference to reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS). Plant Gene 2019, 19, 100182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jahn, R.; Blume, H.P.; Asio, V.B.; Spaargaren, O.; Schad, P. Guidelines for Soil Description, 4th ed.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  65. USDA. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
  66. Alvares, C.A.; Stape, J.L.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Gonçalves, J.L.D.D.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 2013, 22, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Unicamp Center of Meteorological and Climatic Research Applied to Agriculture. Botucatu. Municipalities Climate of São Paulo State. Available online: www.cpa.unicamp.br/outras-informacoes/clima_muni_086.html (accessed on 20 June 2020).
  68. Cassel, D.K.; Nielsen, D.R. Field Capacity and Available Water Capacity. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy, Soil Sciense Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 901–926. [Google Scholar]
  69. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop evapotraspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. In FAO Irrigation & Drainage Paper 56; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1998; p. 50. [Google Scholar]
  70. de Souza Rolim, G.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Barbieri, V. Planilhas no ambiente Excel TM para os cálculos de balanços hídricos: Normal, sequencial, de cultura e de produtividade real e potencial. Rev. Bras. Agrometeorol. 1998, 6, 133–137. [Google Scholar]
  71. Thornthwaite, C.W.; Mather, J.R. The Water Balance Climatology; Laboratory of Climatology: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  72. Donagema, G.K.; Viana, J.H.M.; Almeida, B.G.; Ruiz, H.A.; Klein, V.A.; Dechen, S.C.F.; Fernandes, R.B.A. Granulometric analysis. In Soil Analysis Methods Manual; Teixeira, P.C., Donagema, G.K., Fontana, A., Teixeira, W.G., Eds.; Embrapa Solos: Brasilia, Brazil, 2017; pp. 95–116. [Google Scholar]
  73. van Raij, B.; Andrade, J.C.; Cantarella, H.; Quaggio, J.A. Análise Química Para Avaliação da Fertilidade de Solos Tropicais; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brazil, 2001; ISBN 9788585564056. [Google Scholar]
  74. Quaggio, J.A.; van Raij, B. Correção da acidez do solo. In Recomendações de Adubação e Calagem Para o Estado de São Paulo; van Raij, B., Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J.A., Furlani, A.M.C., Eds.; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brazil, 1997; pp. 14–19. ISBN 0100-3100. [Google Scholar]
  75. Fehr, W.R.; Caviness, C.E. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Special Report 80; Iowa State University of Science and Technology: Ames, IA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  76. Moretti, L.G.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Momesso, L.; Garcia, A.; Kuramae, E.E.; Hungria, M. Bacterial consortium and microbial metabolites increase grain quality and soybean yield. J. Soil Sci. Plant. Nutr. 2020, 20, 1923–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Embrapa Tecnologias de produção de soja, Sistemas de Produção 17, 1st ed.Seixas, C.D.S.; Neumaier, N.; Balbinot-Junior, A.A.; Krzyzanowski, F.C.; Campos-Leite, R.M.V.B. (Eds.) Embrapa Soja: Londrina, Brazil, 2020; pp. 180–221. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ritchie, S.W.; Hanway, J.J.; Benson, G.O. How a Corn Plant Develops; Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service: Ames, IA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ambrosano, E.J.; Tanaka, R.T.; Mascarenhas, H.A.A.; van Raij, B.; Quaggio, J.A.; Cantarella, H. Leguminosas e oleaginosas. In Recomendações de adubação e calagem para o Estado de São Paulo; van Raij, B., Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J.A., Furlani, A.M.C., Eds.; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brazil, 1997; pp. 187–203. [Google Scholar]
  80. Cantarella, H.; van Raij, B.; Camargo, C.E.O. Adubação de Cereais. In Recomendações de Adubação e Calagem Para o Estado de São Paulo, 2nd ed.; van Raij, B., Cantarella, H., Quaggio, J.A., Furlani, A.M.C., Eds.; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brazil, 1997; pp. 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  81. Malavolta, E.; Vitti, G.C.; Oliveira, S.A. Evaluation of Nutritional Status of Plants: Principles and Applications, 2nd ed.; POTAFOS: Piracicaba, Brazil, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  82. Degl’Innocenti, E.; Guidi, L.; Soldatini, G.F. Effect of chronic O 3 fumigation on the activity of some Calvin cycle enzymes in two poplar clones. Photosynthetica 2002, 40, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Reid, C.D.; Tissue, D.T.; Fiscus, E.L.; Strain, B.R. Comparison of spectrophotometric and radioisotopic methods for the assay of Rubisco in ozone-treated plants. Physiol. Plant. 1997, 101, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dubois, M.; Gilles, K.A.; Hamilton, J.K.; Rebers, P.A.T.; Smith, F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 1956, 28, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Heath, R.L.; Packer, L. Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts: I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 1968, 125, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Alexieva, V.; Sergiev, I.; Mapelli, S.; Karanov, E. The effect of drought and ultraviolet radiation on growth and stress markers in pea and wheat. Plant Cell Environ. 2001, 24, 1337–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Giannopolitis, C.N.; Ries, S.K. Superoxide dismutases: I. Occurrence in higher plants. Plant Physiol. 1977, 59, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Azevedo, R.A.; Alas, R.M.; Smith, R.J.; Lea, P.J. Response of antioxidant enzymes to transfer from elevated carbon dioxide to air and ozone fumigation, in the leaves and roots of wild-type and a catalase-deficient mutant of barley. Physiol. Plant. 1998, 104, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gratão, P.L.; Monteiro, C.C.; Antunes, A.M.; Peres, L.E.P.; Azevedo, R.A. Acquired tolerance of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum cv. Micro-Tom) plants to cadmium-induced stress. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2008, 153, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Torello, W.A.; Rice, L.A. Effects of NaCl stress on proline and cation accumulation in salt sensitive and tolerant turfgrasses. Plant Soil 1986, 93, 241–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mauad, M.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Nascente, A.S.; Filho, H.G.; Lima, G.P.P. Effects of silicon and drought stress on biochemical characteristics of leaves of upland rice cultivars1. Rev. Cienc. Agron. 2016, 47, 532–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Shapiro, S.S.; Wilk, M.B. An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika 1965, 52, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Levene, H. Robust tests for equality of variances. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Ingram Olkin; Olkin, I., Ghurye, S.G., Hoeffding, W., Madow, W.G., Mann, H.B., Eds.; Stanford University Press: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 1960; pp. 278–292. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bartlett, M.S. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci. 1937, 160, 268–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 10 00797 g001 550
Figure 1. Climatological water balance at Botucatu-SP, Brazil, during the studied soybean ((a), 2018/19; (b), 2019/20) and maize ((c), 2019; (d), 2020) crop cycles. ETc, crop evapotranspiration; ETr, real evapotranspiration. The arrows indicate the timing of management operations and sampling.
Figure 1. Climatological water balance at Botucatu-SP, Brazil, during the studied soybean ((a), 2018/19; (b), 2019/20) and maize ((c), 2019; (d), 2020) crop cycles. ETc, crop evapotranspiration; ETr, real evapotranspiration. The arrows indicate the timing of management operations and sampling.
Plants 10 00797 g001
Plants 10 00797 g002 550
Figure 2. Nutritional status of soybean and maize plants, as indicated by concentrations of N (a,b), P (c,d), K (e,f), Ca (g,h), Mg (i,j), and S (k,l), as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Figure 2. Nutritional status of soybean and maize plants, as indicated by concentrations of N (a,b), P (c,d), K (e,f), Ca (g,h), Mg (i,j), and S (k,l), as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected least significant difference (LSD) test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Plants 10 00797 g002
Plants 10 00797 g003 550
Figure 3. Net photosynthetic rate (a,b), stomatal conductance (c,d), substomatal CO2 concentration (e,f), leaf transpiration (g,h), water use efficiency (i,j), and carboxylation efficiency (k,l) of soybean and maize plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Figure 3. Net photosynthetic rate (a,b), stomatal conductance (c,d), substomatal CO2 concentration (e,f), leaf transpiration (g,h), water use efficiency (i,j), and carboxylation efficiency (k,l) of soybean and maize plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Plants 10 00797 g003
Plants 10 00797 g004 550
Figure 4. PEP carboxylase (a,b) and Rubisco (c,d) activity of soybean and maize plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Figure 4. PEP carboxylase (a,b) and Rubisco (c,d) activity of soybean and maize plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Plants 10 00797 g004
Plants 10 00797 g005 550
Figure 5. Total soluble sugar concentration in leaves of soybean (a) and maize (b) plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Figure 5. Total soluble sugar concentration in leaves of soybean (a) and maize (b) plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Plants 10 00797 g005
Plants 10 00797 g006 550
Figure 6. Oxygen peroxide (a,b), malondialdehyde (c,d), superoxide dismutase (e,f), catalase (g,h), ascorbate peroxidase (i,j), and proline concentration (k,l) of soybean and maize plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Figure 6. Oxygen peroxide (a,b), malondialdehyde (c,d), superoxide dismutase (e,f), catalase (g,h), ascorbate peroxidase (i,j), and proline concentration (k,l) of soybean and maize plants as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Plants 10 00797 g006
Plants 10 00797 g007 550
Figure 7. Number of grains per plant (NGP; a,b), 100-weight grains (W100G; c,d), and grain yield (GY; e,f) of soybean and maize as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Figure 7. Number of grains per plant (NGP; a,b), 100-weight grains (W100G; c,d), and grain yield (GY; e,f) of soybean and maize as affected by foliar Mg fertilization. Different lower-case letters indicate significant differences between treatments (presence or absence of Mg supplementation) by Fisher’s protected LSD test at p ≤ 0.05. Growing seasons was considered as random effects. Error bars express the standard error of the mean (n = 4).
Plants 10 00797 g007
Plants 10 00797 g008 550
Figure 8. Heatmap of Pearson’s Correlation coefficients and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) among physiological and reproductive parameters of soybean and maize plants. In the Heatmap, only significant correlations at p ≤ 0.05 are shown. Net photosynthesis rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), internal CO2 concentration (Ci), leaf transpiration (E) water use efficiency (WUE), carboxylation efficiency (A/Ci), leaf total sugar concentration (Sugar), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), PEP carboxylase (PEP), number of grains per plant (NGP), weight of 100 grains (W100G), and grain yield (GY).
Figure 8. Heatmap of Pearson’s Correlation coefficients and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) among physiological and reproductive parameters of soybean and maize plants. In the Heatmap, only significant correlations at p ≤ 0.05 are shown. Net photosynthesis rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), internal CO2 concentration (Ci), leaf transpiration (E) water use efficiency (WUE), carboxylation efficiency (A/Ci), leaf total sugar concentration (Sugar), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), PEP carboxylase (PEP), number of grains per plant (NGP), weight of 100 grains (W100G), and grain yield (GY).
Plants 10 00797 g008
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodrigues, V.A.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Bossolani, J.W.; Moretti, L.G.; Portugal, J.R.; Mundt, T.T.; de Oliveira, S.L.; Garcia, A.; Calonego, J.C.; Lollato, R.P. Magnesium Foliar Supplementation Increases Grain Yield of Soybean and Maize by Improving Photosynthetic Carbon Metabolism and Antioxidant Metabolism. Plants 2021, 10, 797. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040797

AMA Style

Rodrigues VA, Crusciol CAC, Bossolani JW, Moretti LG, Portugal JR, Mundt TT, de Oliveira SL, Garcia A, Calonego JC, Lollato RP. Magnesium Foliar Supplementation Increases Grain Yield of Soybean and Maize by Improving Photosynthetic Carbon Metabolism and Antioxidant Metabolism. Plants. 2021; 10(4):797. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040797

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodrigues, Vitor Alves, Carlos Alexandre Costa Crusciol, João William Bossolani, Luiz Gustavo Moretti, José Roberto Portugal, Tamara Thaís Mundt, Sirlene Lopes de Oliveira, Ariani Garcia, Juliano Carlos Calonego, and Romulo Pisa Lollato. 2021. "Magnesium Foliar Supplementation Increases Grain Yield of Soybean and Maize by Improving Photosynthetic Carbon Metabolism and Antioxidant Metabolism" Plants 10, no. 4: 797. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10040797

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