Next Article in Journal
Corn Starch: Quality and Quantity Improvement for Industrial Uses
Previous Article in Journal
Expression Analysis of Phenylpropanoid Pathway Genes and Metabolomic Analysis of Phenylpropanoid Compounds in Adventitious, Hairy, and Seedling Roots of Tartary Buckwheat
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Selenium Application and Growth Stage at Harvest on Hydrophilic and Lipophilic Antioxidants in Lamb’s Lettuce (Valerianella locusta L. Laterr.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/plants11010091
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:
Review

Silicon Mitigates Negative Impacts of Drought and UV-B Radiation in Plants

by
Anja Mavrič Čermelj
1,*,
Aleksandra Golob
1,
Katarina Vogel-Mikuš
1,2 and
Mateja Germ
1
1
Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva ulica 101, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
2
Jozef Stefan Institut, Jamova 39, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(1), 91; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010091
Submission received: 30 November 2021 / Revised: 18 December 2021 / Accepted: 24 December 2021 / Published: 28 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Factors Affecting Yield, Quality, Antioxidants, Mineral Composition and Residual Biomass Valorization of Vegetable Crops 2.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Due to climate change, plants are being more adversely affected by heatwaves, floods, droughts, and increased temperatures and UV radiation. This review focuses on enhanced UV-B radiation and drought, and mitigation of their adverse effects through silicon addition. Studies on UV-B stress and addition of silicon or silicon nanoparticles have been reported for crop plants including rice, wheat, and soybean. These have shown that addition of silicon to plants under UV-B radiation stress increases the contents of chlorophyll, soluble sugars, anthocyanins, flavonoids, and UV-absorbing and antioxidant compounds. Silicon also affects photosynthesis rate, proline content, metal toxicity, and lipid peroxidation. Drought is a stress factor that affects normal plant growth and development. It has been frequently reported that silicon can reduce stress caused by different abiotic factors, including drought. For example, under drought stress, silicon increases ascorbate peroxidase activity, total soluble sugars content, relative water content, and photosynthetic rate. Silicon also decreases peroxidase, catalase, and superoxide dismutase activities, and malondialdehyde content. The effects of silicon on drought and concurrently UV-B stressed plants has not yet been studied in detail, but initial studies show some stress mitigation by silicon.

1. Introduction

Plants are exposed to various biotic and abiotic stress factors. How abiotic factors such as drought and UV-B radiation impact plants are currently under more intense investigation due to the increasing threat of drought due to climate change. Water shortages result in lower yields of crop plants and limited crop growth, which, in turn, reduces food production. Ozone depletion due to atmospheric pollution also means that higher levels of UV-B radiation are reaching the Earth’s surface. UV radiation is an essential factor for plant growth, but in excess, it can lead to oxidative damage to cells [1,2].
Silicon (Si) treatment of plants has been shown to mitigate some of the negative impacts of drought and enhanced UV-B radiation. In plants exposed to UV-B, Si can increase the activity of the photosynthetic apparatus, decrease the transpiration rate, increase the antioxidant capacity [3,4], and lower the concentrations of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [5] and protective phenol substances, in comparison to plants exposed to UV-B without Si treatment [4]. Similarly, during drought, Si can increase plant growth, relative water content, photosynthesis rate, and chlorophyll content, and affects other physiological responses [6]. This review presents current knowledge and studies about the effect of Si fertilization on mitigation of stress in plants caused by drought and/or excessed UV-B radiation, which often occur together. Though there are many drought and Si related review articles [7,8,9], the UV-B stress and Si and especially the joint effect of drought and UV-B stress and Si fertilization has not been studied in detail yet.

2. Silicon

As indicated, Si is an element that can alleviate biotic and abiotic stress in plants. Si can occur in various forms, and it is particularly abundant in the Earth’s crust, as it represents 28.8% of the continental crust [10]. Si is found in the different fractions of soils, including the solid and liquid phases, and it can be absorbed onto soil particles. The liquid phase of the Si dissolved in soil contains monosilicic and polysilicic acids and complexes with inorganic, organic, and organosilicon compounds [11]. Although Si is ubiquitous, plants can take up Si only in the form of monosilicic acid. Therefore, fertilization with Si is recommended, especially for croplands. Large amounts of plant-available Si can be removed from the soil by Si-accumulating plants, such as sugarcane, rice, and wheat. The removal of these plants from the fields lowers amount of silicon in soil [11,12].
Two different types of Si transporter [Low Silicon 1 (Lsi1) and 2 (Lsi2)] involved in the uptake and distribution of Si have been identified. Lsi1 is a Si permeable channel belonging to the Nod26-likemajor intrinsic Protein III subgroup of the aquaporin membrane protein family, with a distinct selectivity. On the other hand, Lsi2 is an efflux Si transporter belonging to an uncharacterized anion transporter family. Lsi1 and Lsi2 are localized to the plasma membrane but show different expression patterns depending on the plant species [13]. Different tissue or cellular localizations of these transporters are associated with different levels of Si accumulation [13]. Besides Lsi1 and Lsi2, Lsi6 is an influx transporter which transports Si from xylem to the shoot cells [14].
Silicon is considered an essential element for the diatom algae (Bacillariophyceae) and for horsetail (Equisetaceae), which is a vascular plant [15]. Other plant species are Si accumulators, or intermediate types, or Si excluders, with these plant classes defined according to the Si:Ca ratio in their tissues [16]. The plants that have higher Si concentrations are pteridophytes, bryophytes, and monocotyledons, with the monocotyledons including in particular plants from the families Cyperaceae and Poaceae. Generally, dicotyledons do not accumulate Si, although some belong to the intermediate class (e.g., cucumber, pumpkin) [16].
In grasses and sedges Si is manly localized on the leaf surface in prickle hairs, epidermis and cuticle [17]. It can be also found in a form of phytoliths in various tissues, especially in dicotyledonous plants. Two types of Si deposition, epidermal and in a form of phytoliths in leaves are shown in Figure 1. Si is known to affect the uptake and translocation of mineral nutrients in different plant species [18].
Plants also use Si to strengthen their structural support and to defend against biological (e.g., herbivory, pathogens) and abiotic (e.g., drought, UV radiation, salinity, metal toxicity) stresses [20,21].

3. Drought

With the present environmental changes that are underway, the environmental conditions are becoming less predictable, and in the future, temperatures and CO2 concentrations are likely to rise worldwide. There will be more areas with drought, which will cause stress to the plants. In addition, biotic stress and high salinity will become more frequent [22]. Drought and water shortage are stress factors that affect the normal growth and development of plants. These can have an immense negative impact on ecosystems and agricultural regions that provide food for humans and animals [23]. Long periods of drought can reduce wetlands, and result in more extensive fires, faster spread of diseases and pests, and loss of biodiversity. Drought can reduce water quality and diminish crop growth and yield. As this can lead to famine, it is essential to minimize the effects of drought on crop plants by understanding the plant processes during water deficiency [23,24].

3.1. Plant Damage by Drought

The primary indicator of drought stress is the production of ROS, for example singlet oxygen (1O2), superoxide (O2∙−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxyl radicals (OH∙). Those substances damage cells, which can lead to cell, and ultimately plant, death [25].
The photosynthesis rate of plants is also affected by drought [26]. Closing stomata to reduce water loss results in lower gas exchange in the leaf, and consequently lower CO2 assimilation. With reduced mesophyll capacity, Rubisco is inactivated [27], photorespiration is increased, and the chloroplast electron transport chain (which reduces NADP+ into NADPH), is over-reduced [28]. This is seen as a decrease in photochemical efficiency of PSII [29]. Severe drought stress also results in reduction in the photosynthetic rate, maximal photochemical efficiency of PSII, and leaf pigment contents [26]. Drought also leads to reduction in plant growth through effects on cell division and cell enlargement and differentiation, and complex interactions between these processes [30]. The contents of N, P and K have also been shown to be lowered by drought stress in sugar beet [31].

3.2. Plant Protection from Drought

Many plant species, such as succulents, are adapted and tolerant for long periods of drought due to their thick tissue and waxy cuticle. However, drought-susceptible species can be found in deserts and arid environments, as other plants have developed mechanisms that help them to cope with water shortages [32].
The first response of plants to lower water availability is avoidance. Plants can actively avoid water loss by closing the stomata and reducing stomatal conductance [33], combined with leaf curling. Plants can also increase production of the wax layer on the leaves [34]. Wax prevents evaporation of water from leaf tissues and reduces water loss.
If severe drought conditions occur, the level of drought stress is higher, which means that the plant needs to tolerate lower water availability. Tolerance is possible with osmotic adjustment, by increasing the levels of different sugars or proline [35]. In addition, an increased root-to-shoot ratio represents a drought strategy, because this way, the plant enhances the root system [36]. Larger surface area of roots and connections with mycorrhizal fungi enables the plant to increase its water intake and nutrient absorption [37]. The possible responses of plants to drought also include cell-wall modifications [38,39], reorganization of metabolism [40], and activation of their antioxidant system. Drought stress increases the levels of the antioxidants ascorbate and glutathione [25]. These antioxidants can scavenge excessively produced toxic ROS and reactive nitrogen species [41,42].

3.3. Drought and Silicon

Drought and its relations to Si have been well studied, although there are still many unexplained plant processes and responses. In this review, we have collected mainly the recently published reports on this topic, which are overviewed in Table 1. It has been frequently reported that Si can reduce stress caused by different abiotic factors, including drought [21]. Stress reduction is possible through different mechanisms. Physically, Si that is taken up by the plant can deposit in the form of SiO2 on the leaf apoplast, and consequently reduce the evapotranspiration rate and osmotic stress [43].
Si stimulates the antioxidant defense systems to decrease oxidative stress. Modification of osmolytes and phytohormones is seen by the change in the levels of proline, abscisic acid, jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, auxins (e.g., indole-3-acetic acid (IAA)), and gibberellic acid, among others [43]. It was found that Si increases proline content in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) during drought stress and increases ascorbate acid peroxidase activity after 30 days of stress. This suggests that Si increases ascorbate acid peroxidase activity to diminish ROS production [44]. On the other hand—peroxidase, catalase, and superoxide dismutase activities were decreased in mango plants (Mangifera indica L.) with Si supplementation under drought stress compared to stressed plants without Si supplementation [6]. This outcome could indicate that Si mediates drought-induced production of ROS, which is in line with the study on tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.). In this research ROS accumulation increased under drought stress, but with Si treatment, ROS accumulation does not occur because of the Si-mediated energy dissipation [45]. Si treatment reduced malondialdehyde content in water-stressed wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), which indicated decreased lipid peroxidation [46]. Application of Si to the plants under water stress increases the content of total soluble sugars, proline, ascorbic acid, and glutathione in wheat, which might provide antioxidant defense against drought [46]. In some studies on rice (Oryza sativa L.), a decrease in proline content was found in Si treated plants exposed to drought [47]. Addition of Si induced different responses of plants regarding to proline accumulation which could be beneficial for drought exposed plants.
Plants under drought stress decrease their concentrations of IAA, cytokinins, and gibberellic acid, and increase their concentration of abscisic acid in mango plants [6]. Si addition promotes increased levels of IAA, gibberellic acid, and cytokinins, and decreases the levels of abscisic acid [6].
On a physiological and biochemical level, Si increases nutrient uptake and modifies gas exchange attributes, which leads to an increase in the photosynthetic rate. Treatment of water-stressed tomato plants and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) with Si positively affects their photosynthesis, compared to those without added Si [48,49]. Si diminishes the reduced levels of maximum photochemical efficiency (Fv/Fm), effective quantum efficiency, actual photochemical quantum efficiency (ϕPSII), photochemical quenching coefficient (qP), and photosynthetic electron transport rate [48,50]. In addition, the PetE, PetF, PsbP, PsbQ, PsbW, and Psb28 genes are related to photosynthesis, and their expression was down-regulated under water deficiency, but up-regulated by Si [48]. Si enhanced the net photosynthetic rates in tomato plants and wheat under drought stress [45,46,50]. Cao et al. [45] suggested that Si improves the light energy distribution between PSI and PSII in plants subjected to drought stress. Exogenous application of Si also increased the tolerance to water deficiency in maize (Zea mays L.) by enhanced photosynthetic efficiency, stomatal conductance, and cell membrane integrity [51].
Silicon treatment increases maize and cantaloupe (Cucumis melo var. reticulatus L. Naud. cv. Galia) tolerance to drought by increased growth and numbers of leaves per plant [51,52]. Fruit length, diameter, flesh thickness, and overall fruit yield were also significantly higher when Si was applied to cantaloupe during drought [52]. For mango, addition of Si increased relative growth rate, net assimilation rate, and relative water content, compared to the plants under water stress and the control plants [6]. Similarly, Si addition to water stressed Kentucky bluegrass, increased the net photosynthesis, leaf water contents and turf quality [49]. Zhang et al. [48] and Alzahrani et al. [46] reported that Si improved plant growth under water stress in tomato and wheat. On the contrary, Thorne et al. [53] indicated that Si does not significantly affect growth during drought stress in wheat.
Silicon also increases the water potential and the relative water content in leaves of sugarcane and wheat during drought stress [44,46]. Additionally, Si increases the content of chlorophylls and carotenoids under water stress, compared with control tomato and mango plants [6,48].
During drought stress, treating plants with Si enhances the plant Si concentrations in high and low Si-accumulating wheat cultivars [53]. If present at high levels in the soil, Si can be accumulated in the above-ground plant tissues even in nonaccumulator species (i.e., oilseed rape [Brassica napus L.]), and can improve water uptake under drought stress [54]. Foliar application of Si decreases the accumulation of Ni2+, Cd2+ and Cr3+ in maize leaves and grain if the plants are under drought stress by metal-contaminated irrigation water [51].
Si might also trigger the transcription of genes that are related to antioxidant defense, photosynthesis, osmotic adjustment, lignin, and suberin metabolism, although those connections are yet to be confirmed [55].
Table
Table 1. Overview of studies on the relationship between drought and silicon (Si).
Table 1. Overview of studies on the relationship between drought and silicon (Si).
Plant SpeciesSilicon TreatmentDrought DurationResults (Si Treated vs. Not Si Treated)Reference
SourceConcentration
Rice
(Oryza sativa L.)		Calcium and magnesium silicate0, 350 kg Si ha−1-Decreased proline contentMauad et al., 2016 [47]
Sugarcane
(Saccharum officinarum L.)		Calcium magnesium silicate0, 600 kg Si ha−130/60 daysIncreased ascorbate acid peroxidase (30 days), proline (30 days); decreased malondialdehydeBezerra et al., 2019 [44]
Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)		Potassium silicate0, 2, 4, 6 mM Si45 daysIncreased total soluble sugars, proline, ascorbic acid, glutathione, net photosynthetic rate, plant growth, relative water content; decreased malondialdehyde content Alzahrani et al., 2018 [46]
Sodium silicate1.5 mM Si/0.2, 0.9, 1.8 mM Si6 weeks (soil)/4 weeks (hydroponics)Increased Si concentrationThorne et al., 2021 [53]
Maize
(Zea mays L.)		Sodium silicate0, 2, 4 mM SiTwo summer seasonsIncreased growth, number of leaves per plant, photosynthesis efficiency, stomatal conductance, cell membrane integrity; decreased accumulation of Ni2+, Cd2+, Cr3+Abd El-Mageed et al., 2020 [51]
Kentucky bluegrass
(Poa pratensis L.)		Sodium silicate0, 200, 400, and 80 0 mg Si L−120 daysDecreased the leaf C/N ratio; increased photosynthesis, leaf water content, relative growth rate, leaf green color, root/shoot ratio, and turf qualityChen et al., 2014 [49]
Tomato
(Solanum lycopersicum L.)		Potassium silicate2.5 mM Si7 daysIncreased growth, chlorophyll and carotenoid content, maximum photochemical efficiency, effective quantum efficiency, actual photochemical quantum efficiency, photochemical quenching coefficient, and electron transport rate; up-regulation of genes related to photosynthesis Zhang et al., 2018 [48]
Sodium silicate0.6 mM Si12 daysIncreased net photosynthetic rate; decreased reactive oxygen species Cao et al., 2020 [45]
0.6, 1.2, 1.8 mM Si12 daysIncreased maximum photochemical efficiency, electron transport rate, net photosynthetic rateCao et al., 2015 [50]
Mango
(Mangifera indica L.)		Potassium silicate1.5 mM Si-Increased indole-3-acetic acid, gibberellic acid, cytokinin levels, relative growth rate, net assimilation rate, relative water content, chlorophyll and carotenoids contents; decreased abscisic acid levels, and peroxidase, catalase, superoxide dismutase activitiesHelaly et al., 2017 [6]
Cantaloupe
(Cucumis melo var. reticulatus L. Naud. cv. Galia)		Silicic acid0, 100, 200 and 400 kg Si ha−130 daysIncreasing growth and number of leaves per plant, fruit length, diameter, flesh thickness, and overall fruit yieldAlam et al., 2020 [52]
Oilseed rape
(Brassica napus L.)		Orthosilicic acid tetraethyl ester3.4 mM Si10 daysImproved water uptakeSaja-Garbarz et al., 2021 [54]

4. Ultraviolet Radiation

The sun is a source of energy for plants. Photosynthetic plants convert this light energy into chemical energy through photosynthesis, for wavelengths between 400 nm and 700 nm. This range thus represents the photosynthetically active radiation [56]. The most efficient visible light for photosynthesis is within the range of the best absorption for chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b. These wavelengths are in the blue (450–500 nm) and red (610–760 nm) spectra [57,58]. Wavelengths from 100 nm to 400 nm are known as ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and are divided into three ranges: UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C. UV-C radiation (100–280 nm) is very harmful, but it is entirely absorbed by the atmosphere. UV-B radiation (280–315 nm) is mainly absorbed in the ozone layer, but the amount of radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface can be a stress factor for plants [59]. UV-A radiation (315–400 nm) is not absorbed in the ozone layer and is also the least dangerous of the UV ranges for organisms, due to its lower energy [58,59].

4.1. Plant Damage by UV-B Radiation

UV-B radiation is essential for plant growth and metabolism. However, high UV-B exposure can cause damage to plant cells, which is then reflected in the physiological processes of the whole plant. Generally, dicotyledons are more sensitive to UV-B radiation than monocotyledons [60]. UV-B can induce DNA damage and mutations in DNA replication [61,62]. Staxén et al. [63] reported that UV-B radiation affects the plant cell cytoskeleton by causing breaks in cortical microtubules, and in some cases, this can inhibit cell division. UV-B also degrades amino acids, which leads to inactivation of proteins and enzymes [64]. Damage to lipids in plant cell membranes is also caused by UV-B radiation in the presence of oxygen, which is known as lipid peroxidation [1]. Lipid peroxidation can be defined by measuring the malondialdehyde content, which is formed through oxidation and degradation of polyunsaturated fatty acids [65]. UV-B can destroy pigments in the photosynthetic apparatus, such as chlorophylls and carotenoids, and consequently lower the fluorescence of photosystem (PS)II [66,67,68]. It has been shown that UV-B degrades IAA and can down-regulate genes associated with IAA activity [69,70]. IAA is one of the vital plant hormones of the auxin class, and its shortage results in stem growth reduction [70]. A decrease in the activity of Rubisco (an enzyme essential for carbon fixation) of UV-B–exposed plants leads to lower carbon dioxide fixation and oxygen formation, as was reported by Kataria et al. [60]. UV-B–treated barley, wheat, cotton, sorghum, and amaranth contain less chlorophyll than the untreated plants [60,71]. UV-B radiation can result in smaller specific leaf weights [72]. UV-B can affect the photosynthesis rate also indirectly by reducing stomatal conductance, changing leaf anatomy [73], and increasing leaf thickness [74], which can change the light penetration into the leaf, and thus change the morphology of the canopy [59].

4.2. Plant Protection from UV Radiation

Plants have evolutionary developed morphological structures to prevent UV radiation from entering into the shoot tissues and physiological mechanisms to avoid and repair the damage caused by UV. The first morphological barrier against UV radiation is the epidermis, with various structures as cuticle and trichomes. Epidermal cells usually contain UV-absorbing compounds such as cinnamoyl esters, flavones, flavonols, and anthocyanins which synthesis increases in the presence of UV-B radiation to prevent damage in photosynthetically active mesophyll [75,76,77]. The trichomes behave as optical filters, screening out wavelengths that could damage sensitive tissues. Protection from strong visible radiation is also afforded by increased surface light reflectance [78].
When penetrating into the cells UV-B rays generate free radicals and ROS, which cause damage to DNA, proteins, and lipids. Protection against surplus UV radiation can result in elimination of free radicals through enhanced antioxidative enzyme activity that protects the cell and its vital processes and DNA repair mechanisms [79,80].
The enzymatic system that alleviates the negative effects of ROS includes superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione reductase, peroxidase, and ascorbate acid peroxidase [79,80]. Superoxide radicals can be transformed into hydrogen peroxide by superoxide dismutase, and later into water by catalase, glutathione peroxidases and peroxiredoxins [81]. The non-enzymatic system includes ascorbic acid, glutathione, carotenoids, proline, polyamines, and phenols [80,82].

4.3. UV-B and Silicon

Not many studies on the relationships between UV-B stress and mitigation of stress effects by Si supplementation can be found in the literature. Studies regarding the addition of Si or Si nanoparticles have been reported for crop plants such as rice, wheat, and soybean (Glycine max L.) (Table 2). Such studies have shown that Si can reduce the negative effects of UV radiation through increased antioxidant capacity [3,4] and lower concentrations of ROS [5].
Availability, and accessibility, of Si can mitigate the harmful effects of UV-B radiation on plants. It has been shown that addition of Si in the form of potassium silicate (K2SiO3) mitigates UV-B damage to wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.) through an increase in plant antioxidant compounds and Si levels in leaves [3]. Si treatment increased total plant biomass and contents of chlorophylls (a + b), soluble sugars, anthocyanins, and flavonoids, and reduced superoxide radical (O2−) production and malondialdehyde content (which indicates lipid peroxidation) in the wheat seedlings [3].
Mihaličová Malčovská et al. [5] exposed maize seedlings to short-term UV-B radiation. The seedlings were grown hydroponically and treated with Si or left untreated, as the control. In control plants, after UV-B exposure, the content of ROS and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances increased, along with a small increase in the content of total phenols and flavonoids. After UV-B exposure, the maize treated with Si showed only a small increase in flavonoid content, which indicated stress mitigation by Si. Schaller et al. [83] reported that an excess of Si decreased phenol content in leaves and increased its content in the culm. This suggests that phenols and Si have the same functionality in UV protection.
In UV-B–exposed wheat, high levels of superoxide radical and H2O2 have been reported; therefore, lipid peroxidation and electrolyte leakage were increased [84]. Shen et al. [85] reported that treating UV-B stressed soybean with Si resulted in decreased levels of catalase, superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activities. Tripathi et al. [84] also showed differences in the anatomical properties of the leaves. UV-B radiation reduced leaf thickness, size of mesophyll cells, and lignification in the metaxylem vessels. UV-B–exposed wheat showed damage to chloroplasts. Addition of Si and Si nanoparticles diminished the damaging impact of UV-B on the leaves. Moreover, the addition of Si and Si nanoparticles improved lignification and suberization of bundle sheath cells and metaxylem vessels [84].
Shen et al. [86] simulated UV-B radiation at 30% stratospheric ozone depletion on soybean and showed that UV-B–treated plants gain less biomass than the controls. UV-B–treated plants also contained more leaf N and P, and less leaf Mg and Ca. UV-B increased the allocation of P, K, and Ca to the roots. In these soybeans, the addition of Si increased the uptake of P and Mg and favored the allocation of P and Ca to the roots.
Table
Table 2. Overview of studies on the relationships between UV-B radiation and silicon (Si).
Table 2. Overview of studies on the relationships between UV-B radiation and silicon (Si).
Plant
Species		Silicon TreatmentUV TreatmentResults (Si Treated vs. Not Si Treated)Reference
SourceConcentrationLevelDuration
Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.)		Potassium silicate0, 100, 200, 400 mg SiO2/kg substrate25%/50% ozone depletion-Increased antioxidant compound contents, Si concentration in leaves, total biomass, and contents of chlorophyll (a + b), soluble sugars, anthocyanins, flavonoids; reduced superoxide radical (O2−) production and malondialdehyde contentYao et al., 2011 [3]
Si, Si nanoparticles10 µM Si/Si nanoparticlesAmbient and enhanced UV2 days, 6/8 h/dayIncreased fresh and dry massTripathi et al., 2017 [84]
Rice
(Oryza sativa L.)		Silicic acid1.5 mM SiUV-B, 10 W30 hIncreased soluble and insoluble UV-absorbing compounds in epidermis; brown spots in plants without SiLi et al., 2004 [87]
Sodium silicate0/5 mM SiUV-B, 10.27 W m−215/30 minDecreased reactive oxygen species, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, total phenols and flavonoid contentMihaličova Malčovska et al., 2014 [5]
Soybean
(Glycine max L.)		Sodium silicate1.7 mM Si30% ozone depletion1 week, 8 h/dayIncreased P and Mg uptake and dry mass (in one cultivar)Shen et al., 2009 [86]
1 weekIncrease in net photosynthetic rate; decrease in proline content, lipid peroxidation, osmolyte leakageShen et al., 2010 [4]
1.7/2.55 mM Si15%, 30% ozone depletion1 week, 8 h/dayDecreased catalase, superoxide dismutase and peroxidase activitiesShen et al., 2010 [85]

5. Silicon, UV-B, and Drought

Drought and high UV-B radiation in natural ecosystems often occur simultaneously, so knowing how their joint action affects plants is essential. The combination of UV-B, drought, and Si addition is not well known, with only a few studies carried out to date. Shen et al. [4] investigated the effects of Si on soybean seedlings under drought and UV-B radiation. Both of these stress factors caused membrane damage by lipid peroxidation and osmolyte leakage, which were reduced with Si application. Under UV-B and drought stresses, Si also decreased the activity of superoxide dismutase and catalase, and lowered free proline levels and H2O2 concentrations, compared to the nontreated plants [4].
Grašič et al. [88] reported that the combination of UV and drought affects Si concentrations in leaves. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) under ambient UV radiation and water shortage had significantly lower Si levels in leaves, compared to plants under reduced UV radiation, which was connected to lowered transpiration rate.
As summarized on Table 3, Si addition to UV-B and drought stress reduces membrane damage, oxidative stress and levels of some antioxidants or antioxidant enzymes activities.

6. Conclusions

Silicon is an abundant chemical element that provides limited but important contributions to the normal functionality of plants during stress. Deciphering the mechanisms of how silicon contributes to abiotic stress alleviation is still a great challenge to plant biologists. Based on the literature included here, Si can either increase or decrease the contents of different molecules or parameters in plants under drought and/or UV-B stress conditions. Studies have shown that Si reduces the harmful effects of UV radiation through increased antioxidant capacity, anthocyanin and soluble sugars levels, the uptake of some nutrients, total biomass of plants, cell lignification and suberinization. Si also decreases the content of phenol substances and osmolyte leakage. In relation to drought, Si increases plant growth, the number of leaves, turf quality, root:shoot ratio, expression of photosynthesis-related genes, relative water content, leaf water content, the contents of some plant hormones, the activity of ascorbate peroxidase, and the levels of ascorbic acid, glutathione and carotenoids.
Si treated plants respond similarly to drought or UV-B stress. Addition of Si in plants exposed to increased UV-B radiation and drought increases photosynthesis rate and chlorophyll content, decreases the activity of catalase and superoxide dismutase, and decreases the content of malondialdehyde. Therefore, plants contain less reactive oxygen species.
Knowledge of the combined effects of drought and UV-B radiation is fundamental here, because these usually occur together. The combination of those two stress factors has not been studied in detail yet, but the first studies have showed some mitigating effects of Si.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.M.Č., K.V.-M. and M.G.; investigation, A.M.Č.; writing—original draft preparation, A.M.Č.; writing—review and editing, A.G., K.V.-M. and M.G.; visualization, A.M.Č.; supervision, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was founded by Slovenian Research Agency (Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost RS) through the Young Researcher Grant Number PR-200856, Program Group P1-0212 (Plant Biology), and Projects J7-9418 and N1-0105.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Christopher Berrie for revising the English text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kramer, G.F.; Norman, H.A.; Krizek, D.T.; Mirecki, R.M. Influence of UV-B radiation on polyamines, lipid peroxidation and membrane lipids in cucumber. Phytochemistry 1991, 30, 2101–2108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tevini, M. UV-Effects on Plants. In Concepts in Photobiology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 588–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yao, X.; Chu, J.; Cai, K.; Liu, L.; Shi, J.; Geng, W. Silicon improves the tolerance of wheat seedlings to Ultraviolet-B stress. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2011, 143, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shen, X.; Zhou, Y.; Duan, L.; Li, Z.; Eneji, A.E.; Li, J. Silicon effects on photosynthesis and antioxidant parameters of soybean seedlings under drought and Ultraviolet-B radiation. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 1248–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mihaličová Malčovská, S.; Dučaiová, Z.; Bačkor, M. Impact of silicon on maize seedlings exposed to short-term UV-B irradiation. Biologia 2014, 69, 1349–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Helaly, M.N.; El-Hoseiny, H.; El-Sheery, N.I.; Rastogi, A.; Kalaji, H.M. Regulation and physiological role of silicon in alleviating drought stress of mango. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 118, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bhardwaj, S.; Kapoor, D. Fascinating regulatory mechanism of silicon for alleviating drought stress in plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 166, 1044–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, M.; Wang, R.; Mur, L.A.J.; Ruan, J.; Shen, Q.; Guo, S. Functions of silicon in plant drought stress responses. Hortic. Res. 2021, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Rehman, M.U. Application of silicon: A useful way to mitigate drought stress: An overview. Curr. Res. Agric. Farming 2021, 2, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hans Wedepohl, K. The composition of the continental crust. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1995, 59, 1217–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Matichenkov, V.V.; Bocharnikova, E.A. The relationship between silicon and soil physical and chemical properties. In Silicon in Agriculture; Datnoff, L.E., Snyder, G.H., Korndörfer, G.H., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; Volume 8, pp. 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tubana, B.S.; Babu, T.; Datnoff, L.E. A review of silicon in soils and plants and its role in US Agriculture. Soil Sci. 2016, 181, 393–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Ma, J.F.; Yamaji, N. A cooperative system of silicon transport in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gaur, S.; Kumar, J.; Kumar, D.; Chauhan, D.K.; Prasad, S.M.; Srivastava, P.K. Fascinating impact of silicon and silicon transporters in plants: A review. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 202, 110885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, C.; Lewin, J. Silicon as a nutrient element for Equisetum arvense. Can. J. Bot. 1969, 47, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ma, J.F.; Takahashi, E. Silicon-accumulating plants in the plant kingdom. In Soil, Fertilizer, and Plant Silicon Research in Japan; Ma, J.F., Takahashi, E., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Klančnik, K.; Vogel-Mikuš, K.; Kelemen, M.; Vavpetič, P.; Pelicon, P.; Kump, P.; Jezeršek, D.; Gianoncelli, A.; Gaberščik, A. Leaf optical properties are affected by the location and type of deposited biominerals. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2014, 140, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Greger, M.; Landberg, T.; Vaculík, M. Silicon influences soil availability and accumulation of mineral nutrients in various plant species. Plants 2018, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Kump, P.; Vogel-Mikuš, K. Quantification of 2D elemental distribution maps of intermediate-thick biological sections by low energy synchrotron μ-X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry. J. Instrum. 2018, 13, C05014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vaculík, M.; Lukačová, Z.; Bokor, B.; Martinka, M.; Tripathi, D.K.; Lux, A. Alleviation mechanisms of metal(loid) stress in plants by silicon: A review. J. Exp. Bot. 2020, 71, 6744–6757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zargar, S.M.; Mahajan, R.; Bhat, J.A.; Nazir, M.; Deshmukh, R. Role of silicon in plant stress tolerance: Opportunities to achieve a sustainable cropping system. 3 Biotech. 2019, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ceccarelli, S.; Grando, S.; Maatougui, M.; Michael, M.; Slash, M.; Haghparast, R.; Rahmanian, M.; Taheri, A.; Al-Yassin, A.; Benbelkacem, A.; et al. Plant breeding and climate changes. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 148, 627–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Karl, T.R.; Melillo, J.M.; Peterson, T.C. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  24. Daryanto, S.; Wang, L.; Jacinthe, P.-A. Global synthesis of drought effects on food legume production. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0127401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Sorkheh, K.; Shiran, B.; Rouhi, V.; Khodambashi, M.; Sofo, A. Regulation of the ascorbate-glutathione cycle in wild almond during drought stress. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2011, 58, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Colom, M.R.; Vazzana, C. Photosynthesis and PSII functionality of drought-resistant and drought-sensitive weeping lovegrass plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2003, 49, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Parry, M.A.J.; Andralojc, P.J.; Khan, S.; Lea, P.J.; Keys, A.J. Rubisco activity: Effects of drought stress. Ann. Bot. 2002, 89, 833–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Laxa, M.; Liebthal, M.; Telman, W.; Chibani, K.; Dietz, K.J. The role of the plant antioxidant system in drought tolerance. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Terzi, R.; Saǧlam, A.; Kutlu, N.; Nar, H.; Kadioǧlu, A. Impact of soil drought stress on photochemical efficiency of photosystem II and antioxidant enzyme activities of Phaseolus vulgaris cultivars. Turk. J. Botany 2010, 34, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nelissen, H.; Sun, X.H.; Rymen, B.; Jikumaru, Y.; Kojima, M.; Takebayashi, Y.; Abbeloos, R.; Demuynck, K.; Storme, V.; Vuylsteke, M.; et al. The reduction in maize leaf growth under mild drought affects the transition between cell division and cell expansion and cannot be restored by elevated gibberellic acid levels. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2018, 16, 615–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Alkahtani, M.D.F.; Hafez, Y.M.; Attia, K.; Rashwan, E.; Al Husnain, L.; Algwaiz, H.I.M.; Abdelaal, K.A.A. Evaluation of silicon and proline application on the oxidative machinery in drought-stressed sugar beet. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mulroy, T.W.; Rundel, P.W. Annual plants: Adaptations to desert environments. Bioscience 1977, 27, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pirasteh-Anosheh, H.; Saed-Moucheshi, A.; Pakniyat, H.; Pessarakli, M. Stomatal responses to drought stress. In Water Stress and Crop Plants; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2016; pp. 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shepherd, T.; Griffiths, D.W. The effects of stress on plant cuticular waxes. New Phytol. 2006, 171, 469–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sánchez, F.J.; Manzanares, M.; De Andres, E.F.; Tenorio, J.L.; Ayerbe, L. Turgor maintenance, osmotic adjustment and soluble sugar and proline accumulation in 49 pea cultivars in response to water stress. Field Crop. Res. 1998, 59, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gargallo-Garriga, A.; Sardans, J.; Pérez-Trujillo, M.; Rivas-Ubach, A.; Oravec, M.; Vecerova, K.; Urban, O.; Jentsch, A.; Kreyling, J.; Beierkuhnlein, C. Opposite metabolic responses of shoots and roots to drought. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Wu, Q.S.; Zou, Y.N. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and tolerance of drought stress in plants. In Arbuscular Mycorrhizas Stress Tolerance of Plants; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2017; pp. 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sasidharan, R.; Voesenek, L.A.C.J.; Pierik, R. Cell wall modifying proteins mediate plant acclimatization to biotic and abiotic stresses. CRC. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 548–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lü, P.; Kang, M.; Jiang, X.; Dai, F.; Gao, J.; Zhang, C. RhEXPA4, a rose expansin gene, modulates leaf growth and confers drought and salt tolerance to Arabidopsis. Planta 2013, 237, 1547–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, J.Y.; Cruz De Carvalho, M.H.; Torres-Jerez, I.; Kang, Y.; Allen, S.N.; Huhman, D.V.; Tang, Y.; Murray, J.; Sumner, L.W.; Udvardi, M.K. Global reprogramming of transcription and metabolism in Medicago truncatula during progressive drought and after rewatering. Plant Cell Environ. 2014, 37, 2553–2576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Verma, G.; Srivastava, D.; Tiwari, P.; Chakrabarty, D. ROS modulation in crop plants under drought stress ROS generation: An overview. In Reactive Oxygen, Nitrogen and Sulfur Species in Plants: Production, Metabolism, Signaling and Defense Mechanisms; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 311–336. [Google Scholar]
  42. 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]
  43. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Ibrahim, M.; Farid, M.; Adrees, M.; Bharwana, S.A.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Qayyum, M.F.; Abbas, F. Mechanisms of silicon-mediated alleviation of drought and salt stress in plants: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 15416–15431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Bezerra, B.K.L.; Lima, G.P.P.; dos Reis, A.R.; de Almeida Silva, M.; de Camargo, M.S. Physiological and biochemical impacts of silicon against water deficit in sugarcane. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2019, 41, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cao, B.L.; Ma, Q.; Xu, K. Silicon restrains drought-induced ROS accumulation by promoting energy dissipation in leaves of tomato. Protoplasma 2020, 257, 537–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Alzahrani, Y.; Kuşvuran, A.; Alharby, H.F.; Kuşvuran, S.; Rady, M.M. The defensive role of silicon in wheat against stress conditions induced by drought, salinity or cadmium. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 154, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mauad, M.; Costa Crusciol, C.A.; Nascente, A.S.; Filho, H.G.; Pereira Lima, G.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]
  48. Zhang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Gong, H.; Zhao, H.; Li, H.; Hu, Y.; Wang, Y. Beneficial effects of silicon on photosynthesis of tomato seedlings under water stress. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 2151–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Chen, Y.; Saud, S.; Li, X.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Fahad, S.; Hussain, S.; Sadiq, A. Silicon application increases drought tolerance of kentucky bluegrass by improving plant water relations and morphophysiological functions. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 368694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cao, B.; Ma, Q.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, L.; Xu, K. Effects of silicon on absorbed light allocation, antioxidant enzymes and ultrastructure of chloroplasts in tomato leaves under simulated drought stress. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 194, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Shaaban, A.; Abd El-Mageed, S.A.; Semida, W.M.; Rady, M.O.A. Silicon defensive role in maize (Zea mays L.) against drought stress and metals-contaminated irrigation water. Silicon 2020, 13, 2165–2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Alam, A.; Hariyanto, B.; Ullah, H.; Salin, K.R.; Datta, A. Effects of silicon on growth, yield and fruit quality of cantaloupe under drought stress. Silicon 2020, 13, 3153–3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Thorne, S.J.; Hartley, S.E.; Maathuis, F.J.M. The effect of silicon on osmotic and drought stress tolerance in wheat landraces. Plants 2021, 10, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Saja-Garbarz, D.; Ostrowska, A.; Kaczanowska, K.; Janowiak, F. Accumulation of silicon and changes in water balance under drought stress in Brassica napus var. napus L. Plants 2021, 10, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zhu, Y.; Gong, H. Beneficial effects of silicon on salt and drought tolerance in plants. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 455–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Carruthers, T.J.B.; Longstaff, B.J.; Dennison, W.C.; Abal, E.G.; Aioi, K. Measurement of light penetration in relation to seagrass. In Global Seagrass Research Methods; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 369–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McCree, K.J. Test of current definitions of photosynthetically active radiation against leaf photosynthesis data. Agric. Meteorol. 1972, 10, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21348 Definitions of solar irradiance spectral categories. Environment 2007, 5, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hollósy, F. Effects of ultraviolet radiation on plant cells. Micron 2002, 33, 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kataria, S.; Guruprasad, K.N.; Ahuja, S.; Singh, B. Enhancement of growth, photosynthetic performance and yield by exclusion of ambient UV components in C3 and C4 plants. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2013, 127, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Jiang, N.; Taylor, J.S. In vivo evidence that UV-induced C → T mutations at dipyrimidine sites could result from the replicative bypass of cis-syn cyclobutane dimers or their deamination products. Biochemistry 1993, 32, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Schmitz-Hoerner, R.; Weissenböck, G. Contribution of phenolic compounds to the UV-B screening capacity of developing barley primary leaves in relation to DNA damage and repair under elevated UV-B levels. Phytochemistry 2003, 64, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Staxén, I.; Bergounioux, C.; Bornman, J.F. Effect of ultraviolet radiation on cell division and microtubule organization in Petunia hybrida protoplasts. Protoplasma 1993, 173, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Grossweiner, L.I. Photochemistry of proteins: A review. Curr. Eye Res. 1984, 3, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hodges, D.M.; DeLong, J.M.; Forney, C.F.; Prange, R.K. Improving the thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances assay for estimating lipid peroxidation in plant tissues containing anthocyanin and other interfering compounds. Planta 1999, 207, 604–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Marwood, C.A.; Greenberg, B.M. Effect of supplementary UVB Radiation on chlorophyll synthesis and accumulation of photosystems during chloroplast development in Spirodela oligorrhiza. Photochem. Photobiol. 1996, 64, 664–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Correia, C.M.; Pereira, J.M.M.; Coutinho, J.F.; Björn, L.O.; Torres-Pereira, J.M.G. Ultraviolet-B radiation and nitrogen affect the photosynthesis of maize: A mediterranean field study. Eur. J. Agron. 2005, 22, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kataria, S.; Guruprasad, K.N. Exclusion of solar UV components improves growth and performance of Amaranthus tricolor varieties. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 174, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pontin, M.A.; Piccoli, P.N.; Francisco, R.; Bottini, R.; Martinez-Zapater, J.M.; Lijavetzky, D. Transcriptome Changes in Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) Cv. malbec leaves induced by Ultraviolet-B radiation. BMC Plant Biol. 2010, 10, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Ros, J.; Tevini, M. Interaction of UV-radiation and IAA during growth of seedlings and hypocotyl segments of sunflower. J. Plant Physiol. 1995, 146, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Klem, K.; Holub, P.; Štroch, M.; Nezval, J.; Špunda, V.; Tříska, J.; Jansen, M.A.K.; Robson, T.M.; Urban, O. Ultraviolet and photosynthetically active radiation can both induce photoprotective capacity allowing barley to overcome high radiation stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 93, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Yao, Y.; Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Lutts, S. Intraspecific responses of fagopyrum esculentum to enhanced ultraviolet B radiation. Plant Growth Regul. 2008, 56, 297–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bornman, J.F.; Evert, R.F.; Mierzwa, R.J. The effect of UV-B and UV-C radiation on sugar beet leaves. Protoplasma 1983, 117, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bornman, J.F.; Vogelmann, T.C. Effect of UV-B radiation on leaf optical properties measured with fibre optics. J. Exp. Bot. 1991, 42, 547–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Skaltsa, H.; Verykokidou, E.; Harvala, C.; Karabourniotis, G.; Manetasi, Y. UV-B protective potential and flavonoid content of leaf hairs of Quercus ilex. Phytochemistry 1994, 37, 987–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Day, T.A. Relating UV-B radiation screening effectiveness of foliage to absorbing-compound concentration and anatomical characteristics in a diverse group of plants. Oecologia 1993, 95, 542–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Manetas, Y. The importance of being hairy: The adverse effects of hair removal on stem photosynthesis of Verbascum speciosum are due to solar UV-B radiation. New Phytol. 2003, 158, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Karabourniotis, G.; Liakopoulos, G.; Nikolopoulos, D.; Bresta, P. Protective and defensive roles of non-glandular trichomes against multiple stresses: Structure–function coordination. Northeast Forestry University February 2020. J. For. Res. 2020, 31, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Foyer, C.H.; Lelandais, M.; Kunert, K.J. Photooxidative stress in plants. Physiol. Plant. 1994, 92, 696–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. 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, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Scandalios, J.G. Oxygen stress and superoxide dismutases. Plant Physiol. 1983, 101, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. Asada, K. The water-water cycle in chloroplasts: Scavenging of active oxygens and dissipation of excess photons. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 1999, 50, 601–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Schaller, J.; Brackhage, C.; Dudel, E.G. Silicon availability changes structural carbon ratio and phenol content of grasses. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2012, 77, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tripathi, D.K.; Singh, S.; Singh, V.P.; Prasad, S.M.; Dubey, N.K.; Chauhan, D.K. Silicon nanoparticles more effectively alleviated UV-B stress than silicon in wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 110, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Shen, X.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; Li, J.; Duan, L.; Eneji, A.E. Growth, physiological attributes and antioxidant enzyme activities in soybean seedlings treated with or without silicon under UV-B radiation stress. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2010, 196, 431–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shen, X.; Li, J.; Duan, L.; Li, Z.; Eneji, A.E. Nutrient acquisition by soybean treated with and without silicon under Ultraviolet-B radiation. J. Plant Nutr. 2009, 32, 1731–1743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Li, W.B.; Shi, X.H.; Wang, H.; Zhang, F.S. Effects of silicon on rice leaves resistance to Ultraviolet-B. Acta Bot. Sin. 2004, 46, 691–697. [Google Scholar]
  88. Grašič, M.; Malovrh, U.; Golob, A.; Vogel-Mikuš, K.; Gaberščik, A. Effects of water availability and UV radiation on silicon accumulation in the C4 crop proso millet. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2019, 18, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 00091 g001a 550Plants 11 00091 g001b 550
Figure 1. Localization of Si in leaves (a) an X-ray absorption image of common reed (Phragmites australis) leaf cross-section recorded at TwinMic beamline of synchrotron Elettra depicting X-ray dense regions (black) corresponding to biomineralized leaf areas. (b) An X-ray fluorescence image of Si distribution (colour bar in wt%) of common reed (Phragmites australis) leaf cross-section recorded at TwinMic beamline of synchrotron Elettra depicting Si accumulation in leaf epidermal region. Data are taken from [19]. (c) An X-ray absorption image of tea plant (Camellia sinensis) leaf cross-section recorded at TwinMic beamline of synchrotron Elettra depicting X-ray dense regions (black) corresponding to biomineralized leaf areas. (d) An Si-rich phytolith in leaf mesophyll of a tea plant (colour bar in wt%). The epidermis in incrusted with Ca (not shown).
Figure 1. Localization of Si in leaves (a) an X-ray absorption image of common reed (Phragmites australis) leaf cross-section recorded at TwinMic beamline of synchrotron Elettra depicting X-ray dense regions (black) corresponding to biomineralized leaf areas. (b) An X-ray fluorescence image of Si distribution (colour bar in wt%) of common reed (Phragmites australis) leaf cross-section recorded at TwinMic beamline of synchrotron Elettra depicting Si accumulation in leaf epidermal region. Data are taken from [19]. (c) An X-ray absorption image of tea plant (Camellia sinensis) leaf cross-section recorded at TwinMic beamline of synchrotron Elettra depicting X-ray dense regions (black) corresponding to biomineralized leaf areas. (d) An Si-rich phytolith in leaf mesophyll of a tea plant (colour bar in wt%). The epidermis in incrusted with Ca (not shown).
Plants 11 00091 g001aPlants 11 00091 g001b
Table
Table 3. Effects of silicon supplementation on the measured parameters in the presence of UV-B, drought and their combination as revised from the literature. Arrows indicate increases (↑) or decreases (↓) of each parameter under UV-B, drought, or combined stress conditions (UV-B × drought) in silicon treated plants.
Table 3. Effects of silicon supplementation on the measured parameters in the presence of UV-B, drought and their combination as revised from the literature. Arrows indicate increases (↑) or decreases (↓) of each parameter under UV-B, drought, or combined stress conditions (UV-B × drought) in silicon treated plants.
DroughtUV-BUV-B × DroughtReference
Elemental compositionNutrient uptake Plants 11 00091 i001 [43]
P, Mg uptake Plants 11 00091 i001 [86]
Leaf Si concentration Plants 11 00091 i001 [3]
Leaf C:N ratio Plants 11 00091 i002 [49]
Antioxidant capacity Plants 11 00091 i001 [3]
AntioxidantsNon-enzymatic systemFlavonoids Plants 11 00091 i001 Plants 11 00091 i002 [3](↑), [5](↓)
Anthocyanin Plants 11 00091 i001 [3]
Ascorbic acid Plants 11 00091 i001 [46]
Glutathione Plants 11 00091 i001 [46]
Proline Plants 11 00091 i001 Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002[44,46,47] 1[4] [4]
Phenol substances Plants 11 00091 i002 [5]
Carotenoids Plants 11 00091 i001 [6,48]
Soluble sugars Plants 11 00091 i001 [3]
Enzymatic systemCatalase Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002[6] [85] [4]
Superoxide dismutase Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002[6] [85] [4]
Peroxidase Plants 11 00091 i001 Plants 11 00091 i002 [47] [85]
Ascorbate peroxidase Plants 11 00091 i001 [44]
Membrane damageMalondialdehyde Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002[44,46] [3,4] [4]
Osmolyte leakage Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002[4] [4]
HormonesIndole-3-acetic acid Plants 11 00091 i001 [6]
Gibberellic acid Plants 11 00091 i001 [6]
Cytokinins Plants 11 00091 i001 [6]
Abscisic acid Plants 11 00091 i002 [6]
Oxidative stressReactive oxygen species Plants 11 00091 i002 Plants 11 00091 i002 [45] [5]
H2O2 Plants 11 00091 i002[4]
PhotosynthesisPhotosynthesis rate Plants 11 00091 i001 Plants 11 00091 i001 [45,46,49,50,51] [4]
Chlorophyll content Plants 11 00091 i001 Plants 11 00091 i001 [6,48] [3]
Photosynthesis-related genes expression Plants 11 00091 i001 [48]
MorphologyGrowth rate Plants 11 00091 i001 [6,46,48,49,52]
Number of leaves Plants 11 00091 i001 [46,52]
Total biomass Plants 11 00091 i001 [3,84]
Root:shoot ratio Plants 11 00091 i001 [49]
Turf quality Plants 11 00091 i001 [49]
Water contentRelative water content Plants 11 00091 i001 [6,46]
Leaf water content Plants 11 00091 i001 [49]
Cell structureLignification, suberinisation Plants 11 00091 i001 [84]
1 [46](↑), [47](↓).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mavrič Čermelj, A.; Golob, A.; Vogel-Mikuš, K.; Germ, M. Silicon Mitigates Negative Impacts of Drought and UV-B Radiation in Plants. Plants 2022, 11, 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010091

AMA Style

Mavrič Čermelj A, Golob A, Vogel-Mikuš K, Germ M. Silicon Mitigates Negative Impacts of Drought and UV-B Radiation in Plants. Plants. 2022; 11(1):91. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010091

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mavrič Čermelj, Anja, Aleksandra Golob, Katarina Vogel-Mikuš, and Mateja Germ. 2022. "Silicon Mitigates Negative Impacts of Drought and UV-B Radiation in Plants" Plants 11, no. 1: 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11010091

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