Response of Yam (Dioscorea alata) to the Application of Rhizophagus irregularis and Potassium Silicate under Salinity Stress
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Material and Treatment Combination
2.2. R. irregularis and Potassium Silicate Application along with Salt Treatment
2.3. Observation of Morphological Characters
2.4. Observation of Chemical Analysis and Enzymatic Activity
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Result
3.1. Morphological and Yield Response of Dioscorea alata
3.2. Biochemical Component/Enzymatic Evaluation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vashi, J.M.; Saravaiya, S.N.; Desai, K.D.; Patel, A.I.; Patel, H.B.; Sravani, V. Effect of Planting Distance on Growth and Tuber Yield of Greater Yam (Dioscorea alata L.) Under Different Growing Conditions. IJCS 2018, 6, 1475–1481. [Google Scholar]
- Obidiegwu, J.E.; Lyons, J.B.; Chilaka, C.A. The Dioscorea Genus (Yam)—An Appraisal of Nutritional and Therapeutic Potentials. Foods 2020, 9, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olubobokun, T.H.; Aluko, E.O.; Bond, A.U. Dioscorea alata L. Reduces Body Weight by Reducing Food Intake and Fasting Blood Glucose Level. Br. J. Med. Med. Res. 2013, 3, 1871. [Google Scholar]
- Lebot, V.; Malapa, R.; Abraham, K.; Molisalé, T.; Van Kien, N.; Gueye, B.; Waki, J. Secondary Metabolites Content May Clarify the Traditional Selection Process of the Greater Yam Cultivars (Dioscorea alata L.). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2018, 65, 1699–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tortoe, C.; Akonor, P.T.; Nketia, S.; Owusu, M.; Glover-Amengor, M.; Hagan, L.L.; Padi, A. Assessing the Sensory Characteristics and Consumer Preferences of Yam-Cowpea-Soybean Porridge in the Accra Metropolitan Area. 2014. Available online: https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=153&doi=10.11648/j.ijnfs.20140302.27 (accessed on 12 May 2022).
- Parihar, P.; Singh, S.; Singh, R.; Singh, V.P.; Prasad, S.M. Effect of Salinity Stress on Plants and Its Tolerance Strategies: A Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 4056–4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Naqvi, S.D.Y.; Kaushik, P.; Khojah, E.; Amir, M.; Alam, P.; Samra, B.N. Rhizophagus Irregularis and Nitrogen Fixing Azotobacter Enhances Greater Yam (Dioscorea alata) Biochemical Profile and Upholds Yield under Reduced Fertilization. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 29, 3694–3703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meena, M.K.; Rathore, R.S. Standardization of Minisett Technique in Greater Yam (Dioscorea alata L.) Under Southern Rajasthan Conditions. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci 2020, 9, 2355–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenart, A. Occurrence, Characteristics, and Genetic Diversity of Azotobacter Chroococcum in Various Soils of Southern Poland. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2012, 21, 415–424. [Google Scholar]
- Sidibe, D.; Fofana, I.J.; Silue, S.; Diarrassouba, N.; Adolphe, Z.; Nguetta, S.P. Evaluation of Symbiosis Effect of Some Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi on Growth of Yams (Dioscorea alata) on Experimental Conditions. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2015, 3, 346–357. [Google Scholar]
- Kaushik, P.; Saini, D.K. Silicon as a Vegetable Crops Modulator—A Review. Plants 2019, 8, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahmad, P.; Abdel Latef, A.A.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Hashem, A.; Sarwat, M.; Anjum, N.A.; Gucel, S. Calcium and Potassium Supplementation Enhanced Growth, Osmolyte Secondary Metabolite Production, and Enzymatic Antioxidant Machinery in Cadmium-Exposed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hasanuzzaman, M.; Bhuyan, M.H.M.; Nahar, K.; Hossain, M.D.; Mahmud, J.A.; Hossen, M.; Masud, A.A.C.; Fujita, M. Potassium: A Vital Regulator of Plant Responses and Tolerance to Abiotic Stresses. Agronomy 2018, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hafez, E.M.; Osman, H.S.; El-Razek, U.A.A.; Elbagory, M.; Omara, A.E.-D.; Eid, M.A.; Gowayed, S.M. Foliar-Applied Potassium Silicate Coupled with Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Improves Growth, Physiology, Nutrient Uptake and Productivity of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Irrigated with Saline Water in Salt-Affected Soil. Plants 2021, 10, 894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saini, I.; Kaushik, P.; Al-Huqail, A.A.; Khan, F.; Siddiqui, M.H. Effect of the Diverse Combinations of Useful Microbes and Chemical Fertilizers on Important Traits of Potato. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 2641–2648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Horticulture:: Vegetables:: Dioscorea. Available online: https://agritech.tnau.ac.in/horticulture/horti_vegetables_Dioscorea.html (accessed on 9 May 2022).
- Zhou, X.; Shen, Y.; Fu, X.; Wu, F. Application of Sodium Silicate Enhances Cucumber Resistance to Fusarium Wilt and Alters Soil Microbial Communities. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malicka, M.; Magurno, F.; Posta, K.; Chmura, D.; Piotrowska-Seget, Z. Differences in the Effects of Single and Mixed Species of AMF on the Growth and Oxidative Stress Defense in Lolium Perenne Exposed to Hydrocarbons. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 217, 112252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuila, D.; Ghosh, S. Aspects, Problems and Utilization of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal (AM) Application as Bio-Fertilizer in Sustainable Agriculture. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2022, 3, 100107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thirkell, T.J.; Charters, M.D.; Elliott, A.J.; Sait, S.M.; Field, K.J. Are Mycorrhizal Fungi Our Sustainable Saviours? Considerations for Achieving Food Security. J. Ecol. 2017, 105, 921–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bijalwan, P.; Jeddi, K.; Saini, I.; Sharma, M.; Kaushik, P.; Hessini, K. Mitigation of Saline Conditions in Watermelon with Mycorrhiza and Silicon Application. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 3678–3684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sunitha, S.; VS, S.M.; Sreekumar, J.; Sheela, M.N. Phenology of Greater Yam (Dioscorea alata L.) Under Humid Tropical Conditions of Kerala. J. Root Crops 2020, 46. [Google Scholar]
- Park, H.J.; Kim, W.-Y.; Yun, D.-J. A Role for GIGANTEA: Keeping the Balance between Flowering and Salinity Stress Tolerance. Plant Signal. Behav. 2013, 8, e24820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jabeen, N.; Ahmad, R. The Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes in Response to Salt Stress in Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) and Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Seedlings Raised from Seed Treated with Chitosan. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 1699–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yadav, V.K.; Jha, R.K.; Kaushik, P.; Altalayan, F.H.; Al Balawi, T.; Alam, P. Traversing Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Pseudomonas Fluorescens for Carrot Production under Salinity. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 4217–4223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kapoor, R.; Singh, N. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza and Reactive Oxygen Species. In Arbuscular Mycorrhizas and Stress Tolerance of Plants; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 225–243. [Google Scholar]
- Srivastava, A.; Sharma, V.K.; Kaushik, P.; El-Sheikh, M.A.; Qadir, S.; Mansoor, S. Effect of Silicon Application with Mycorrhizal Inoculation on Brassica Juncea Cultivated under Water Stress. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0261569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Treatment Code | Composition |
---|---|
T1 | Control (Treatment free) |
T2 | Salinity Stress |
T3 | Potassium silicate |
T4 | R. irregularis |
T5 | R. irregularis + potassium silicate |
Variables | Control (T1) | Salinity Stress (T2) | Potassium Silicate (T3) | R. irregularis (T4) | R. irregularis + Potassium Silicate (T5) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Days to emergence | 22.11 ± 0.62b | 36.95 ± 1.60a | 18.85 ± 1.61c | 17.22 ± 0.56d | 14.71 ± 0.41e |
Average days to first leaf emergence | 24.23 ± 0.25b | 35.26 ± 3.90a | 22.08 ± 1.61b | 20.54 ± 1.36bc | 17.74 ± 1.66c |
Number of leaves | 60.86 ± 11.70c | 61.36 ± 3.50c | 71.97 ± 10.16bc | 82.17 ± 6.36ab | 88.39 ± 3.86a |
Number of sprouts per seed tuber | 1.38 ± 0.21b | 0.79 ± 0.07c | 1.44 ± 0.21b | 1.69 ± 0.18b | 2.07 ± 0.18a |
Vine length (cm) | 97.32 ± 17.84cd | 66.33 ± 2.44d | 120.81 ± 9.02bc | 135.31 ± 35.89ab | 156.50 ± 12.05a |
Average internodes length (cm) | 10.35 ± 1.22b | 5.80 ± 0.51c | 13.25 ± 0.50a | 12.27 ± 0.88ab | 13.09 ± 1.98a |
Vine length at harvest (cm) | 244.00 ± 6.65b | 148.11 ± 12.31c | 307.32 ± 17.67a | 317.36 ± 13.45a | 342.90 ± 40.25a |
Average leaf width (cm) | 7.12 ± 0.87b | 4.65 ± 0.21c | 8.58 ± 0.22b | 8.66 ± 0.97b | 10.95 ± 2.03a |
Petiole length (cm) | 8.16 ± 0.86b | 4.82 ± 0.20c | 8.02 ± 0.33b | 9.43 ± 1.66ab | 10.75 ± 1.51a |
Tuber length (cm) | 22.81 ± 1.77c | 13.34 ± 0.28d | 24.38 ± 1.74bc | 25.36 ± 1.16b | 32.81 ± 1.89a |
Average diameter of tuber (cm) | 5.62 ± 0.63c | 2.89 ± 0.87d | 6.54 ± 0.32bc | 7.69 ± 1.30ab | 8.80 ± 1.04a |
Average number of tubers per vine | 1.17 ± 0.12abc | 0.64 ± 0.07c | 1.05 ± 0.09bc | 1.55 ± 0.49ab | 1.71 ± 0.53a |
Weight of tuber (kg) | 0.78 ± 0.06bc | 0.47 ± 0.05c | 1.07 ± 0.06bc | 1.48 ± 0.75ab | 2.13 ± 0.72a |
Stem girth (cm) | 3.33 ± 0.43c | 2.01 ± 0.14d | 3.73 ± 0.12bc | 3.94 ± 0.30b | 5.01 ± 0.20a |
Tuber yield per vine (kg) | 1.03 ± 0.20bc | 0.63 ± 0.10c | 1.36 ± 0.08bc | 1.84 ± 0.78ab | 2.36 ± 0.57a |
Characters | Control (T1) | Salinity Stress (T2) | Potassium Silicate (T3) | R. irregularis (T4) | R. irregularis + Potassium Silicate (T5) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Starch content (g/100 g) | 46.49 ± 0.54c | 28.22 ± 1.74d | 51.08 ± 2.16bc | 53.06 ± 4.58ab | 56.67 ± 1.63a |
Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g) | 12.94 ± 0.37b | 8.42 ± 0.03c | 13.92 ± 0.06b | 16.96 ± 5.05ab | 20.90 ± 2.23a |
Average moisture (%) | 55.28 ± 0.54c | 35.95 ± 0.41d | 58.18 ± 2.22bc | 60.85 ± 5.15ab | 63.64 ± 2.44a |
TSS (°Brix) | 7.00 ± 0.40b | 3.80 ± 0.71c | 7.85 ± 0.09b | 8.79 ± 1.67ab | 10.50 ± 1.87a |
Total sugar (g/100 g) | 4.66 ± 0.78c | 2.61 ± 0.46d | 6.05 ± 0.67bc | 7.26 ± 1.45ab | 7.90 ± 0.88a |
Total phenol (mg/100 g) | 85.56 ± 2.15a | 54.81 ± 0.09b | 86.87 ± 2.70a | 85.70 ± 1.80a | 86.30 ± 0.59a |
Dry matter (%) | 27.85 ± 0.95b | 17.45 ± 0.64c | 33.33 ± 1.55a | 34.96 ± 3.77a | 36.37 ± 1.26a |
MDA (nM/g fresh weight) | 69.44 ± 32.06b | 168.05 ± 20.55a | 81.17 ± 5.62b | 77.46 ± 4.41b | 65.17 ± 15.06b |
8-OHdG (µg/g fresh weight) | 2.08 ± 0.29c | 2.54 ± 0.19c | 1.88 ± 0.36c | 5.18 ± 1.49b | 15.00 ± 1.24a |
CAT (kU/g fresh weight) | 12.70 ± 1.10b | 19.49 ± 2.44a | 10.43 ± 2.18b | 19.36 ± 2.53a | 5.63 ± 1.75c |
SOD (% activity IR) | 71.60 ± 2.37b | 93.73 ± 1.62a | 68.04 ± 0.30b | 71.27 ± 0.85b | 60.56 ± 0.80c |
POX (U/g fresh weight) | 165.26 ± 26.08b | 249.79 ± 131.05a | 155.42 ± 1.11b | 145.63 ± 0.70b | 144.24 ± 2.23b |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sharma, M.; Delta, A.K.; Kaushik, P. Response of Yam (Dioscorea alata) to the Application of Rhizophagus irregularis and Potassium Silicate under Salinity Stress. Stresses 2022, 2, 234-241. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2020017
Sharma M, Delta AK, Kaushik P. Response of Yam (Dioscorea alata) to the Application of Rhizophagus irregularis and Potassium Silicate under Salinity Stress. Stresses. 2022; 2(2):234-241. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2020017
Chicago/Turabian StyleSharma, Meenakshi, Anil Kumar Delta, and Prashant Kaushik. 2022. "Response of Yam (Dioscorea alata) to the Application of Rhizophagus irregularis and Potassium Silicate under Salinity Stress" Stresses 2, no. 2: 234-241. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2020017