Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-7drmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-04T18:27:09.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Plant density effects on quinoa yield, leaf anatomy, ultrastructure and gas exchange

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2022

J. A. González
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología, Comportamiento y Conservación, Fundación Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 251, Tucumán, Argentina
M. I. Mercado*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Morfología Vegetal, Fundación Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 251, Tucumán, Argentina
L. Martinez-Calsina
Affiliation:
Famaillá, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Tucumán, Argentina Facultad de Agronomía y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina
L. E. Erazzú
Affiliation:
Famaillá, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Tucumán, Argentina Facultad de Agronomía y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina
S. E. Buedo
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ecología, Comportamiento y Conservación, Fundación Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 251, Tucumán, Argentina
D. A. González
Affiliation:
Instituto de Bioprospección y Fisiología Vegetal (INBIOFIV), CONICET-UNT; Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo, Tucumán, Argentina
G. I. Ponessa
Affiliation:
Instituto de Morfología Vegetal, Fundación Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 251, Tucumán, Argentina
*
Author for correspondence: M. I. Mercado, E-mail: mimercado@lillo.org.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To study the impact of plant density on Chenopodium quinoa (c.v. CICA-17) achene yield and its relationship with morphology, leaf anatomy and gas exchange in the absence of water stress, field trials were conducted at 1995 m asl in Northwestern Argentina. Two plant densities were evaluated; low density (LD) 7.2 plants/m (120 240 pl/ha) and high density (HD) 27.9 plants/m (465 930 pl/ha). HD treatment caused light competition, inducing morphological and anatomical changes in Quinoa plants. Plants grown under HD conditions showed decreases in plant height and stem diameter, lower stomatal dimensions and densities, and thinner leaf blades. Compensation strategies such as increases in specific leaf area and a higher number chloroplasts per palisade cell were observed, nevertheless these changes did not fully compensate C absorption and gas exchange limitations, therefore limiting the uptake of N and P and resulting in a 53.2% lower yield of HD compared to LD. Considering the ability of quinoa plants to change its morphology and anatomy, further studies with intermediate plant densities are necessary in order to determine if it is possible to achieve higher yields and to increase the efficiency in the use of the resources.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Achene yield, morphological parameters, N and P leaf mineral content for low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) planting treatments

Figure 1

Table 2. Stomata density (SD), stomata index (SI) and stomata dimensions in low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) planting treatments

Figure 2

Fig. 1. Colour online. Chenopodium quinoa Var. CICA. (a, c, e) Low-density sowing (LD) treatment, (b, d, f) high-density sowing (HD) treatment. (a, b) Leaf transection, optic microscopy. (d–f) Cell and chloroplast at TEM. Scales A–B, 50 μm; C–D, 5 μm; E–F, 1 μm. Abbreviations: Abep, abaxial epidermis; AbPc, abaxial palisade cells; Adepc, adaxial epidermis cells; AdP, adaxial palisade; cC, compress chloroplast; C, chloroplast; cw, cell wall; cyt, cytoplasm; double arrow head, plastoglobuli; Ias, intercellular air spaces; N, nucleus; oC, overlap chloroplasts; S, stomata; SMc, spongy mesophyll cells; st, starch; thy, thylakoids; V, vacuole; Vb, vascular bundle; Vbs, vascular bundle parenchyma sheath.

Figure 3

Table 3. Leaf tissues thickness and area for low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) planting treatments

Figure 4

Table 4. Mesophyll anatomical characteristics associated with resistance to gas diffusion for low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) treatments

Figure 5

Table 5. Cell wall and chloroplast anatomical characteristics associated with resistance to gas diffusion for low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) planting treatments

Figure 6

Table 6. Leaf photosynthetic pigments content for low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) treatments

Figure 7

Table 7. Physiological-photosynthetic parameters evaluated for low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) treatments under light and CO2 saturation conditions

Figure 8

Fig. 2. Net CO2 assimilation rate (An) as a function of the photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD). (○,____) Low density; (●, ----) high density. Each point is the mean ± SD of five independent measurements. Vertical bars indicate SD.

Figure 9

Table 8. Photosynthetic parameters calculated from photosynthetic light response curves (An/PPFD curves) evaluated for low-density (LD) and high-density (HD) treatments