Table 1
Fresh weight of leaves, stems and roots per one tomato plant after tested compounds treatment
| Treatment | Weight of leaves per one plant (g) ± SE | Weight of stems per one plant (g) ± SE | Weight of roots per one plant (g) ± SE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0.90 ± 0.08 a | 1.10 ± 0.05 a | 0.34 ± 0.04 a |
| Control + ethanol | 1.23 ± 0.04 b | 1.00 ± 0.03 a | 0.48 ± 0.01 b |
| BeA (5 μM) | 1.04 ± 0.04 ab | 1.00 ± 0.03 a | 0.39 ± 0.02 ab |
| BeA (10 μM) | 1.11 ± 0.03 ab | 1.09 ± 0.05 a | 0.40 ± 0.03 ab |
| BeA (25 μM) | 1.20 ± 0.08 b | 1.17 ± 0.06 a | 0.48 ± 0.05 b |
| BeA (50 μM) | 1.05 ± 0.02 ab | 1.06 ± 0.07 a | 0.42 ± 0.01 ab |
| Control | 0.90 ± 0.07 a | 1.10 ± 0.05 a | 0.34 ± 0.05 a |
| Control + ethanol | 1.23 ± 0.03 b | 0.99 ± 0.03 a | 0.49 ± 0.02 b |
| KI (5 μM I) | 1.01 ± 0.09 ab | 1.09 ± 0.10 a | 0.33 ± 0.03 a |
| KI (10 μM I) | 1.11 ± 0.08 ab | 1.18 ± 0.03 a | 0.36 ± 0.02 ab |
| KI (25 μM I) | 1.11 ± 0.05 ab | 1.24 ± 0.02 a | 0.42 ± 0.01 ab |
| KI (50 μM I) | 1.05 ± 0.06 ab | 1.17 ± 0.06 a | 0.37 ± 0.04 ab |
| Control | 0.90 ± 0.07 a | 1.10 ± 0.06 a | 0.34 ± 0.06 a |
| Control + ethanol | 1.23 ± 0.04 b | 1.00 ± 0.04 a | 0.48 ± 0.02 ab |
| 2-IBeA (5 μM I) | 1.37 ± 0.04 b | 1.34 ± 0.04 b | 0.66 ± 0.05 b |
| 2-IBeA (10 μM I) | 1.22 ± 0.08 b | 1.38 ± 0.07 b | 0.52 ± 0.06 b |
| 2-IBeA (25 μM I) | 1.28 ± 0.08 b | 1.46 ± 0.06 b | 0.55 ± 0.04 b |
| 2-IBeA (50 μM I) | 1.32 ± 0.03 b | 1.50 ± 0.03 b | 0.61 ± 0.06 b |
| Control | 0.91 ± 0.07 b | 1.11 ± 0.05 c | 0.34 ± 0.06 c |
| Control + ethanol | 1.23 ± 0.05 b | 1.01 ± 0.04 c | 0.48 ± 0.01 b |
| 4-IBeA (5 μM I) | 0.94 ± 0.04 b | 0.67 ± 0.04 bc | 0.51 ± 0.03 bc |
| 4-IBeA (10 μM I) | 0.42 ± 0.19 a | 0.29 ± 0.12 ab | 0.37 ± 0.14 b |
| 4-IBeA (25 μM I) | 0.10 ± 0.02 a | 0.05 ± 0.01 a | 0.09 ± 0.03 a |
| 4-IBeA (50 μM I) | 0.07 ± 0.01 a | 0.03 ± 0.01 a | 0.08 ± 0.02 a |
| Control | 0.91 ± 0.08 a | 1.11 ± 0.06 a | 0.34 ± 0.05 a |
| Control + ethanol | 1.24 ± 0.06 b | 1.00 ± 0.03 a | 0.47 ± 0.01 ab |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (5 μM I) | 1.50 ± 0.06 d | 1.35 ± 0.06 c | 0.61 ± 0.04 b |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (10 μM I) | 1.38 ± 0.04 c | 1.23 ± 0.04 ab | 0.46 ± 0.05 ab |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (25 μM I) | 1.32 ± 0.09 b | 1.18 ± 0.02 ab | 0.45 ± 0.02 ab |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (50 μM I) | 1.08 ± 0.06 ab | 1.13 ± 0.08 ab | 0.35 ± 0.03 a |
[i] Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05.
[ii] Statistical analysis was conducted for each part of tomato plants separately (n = 8).
Figure 1
The phenotype of young tomato plants from the control (A), control + ethanol (B) BeA (C), KI (D), 2-IBeA (E), 4-IBeA (F) and 2,3,5-triIBeA (G) treatment.
Table 2
Iodine content in leaves, stems and roots of young tomato plants after BeA (A), KI (B), 2-IBeA (C), 4-IBeA (D) and 2,3,5-triIBeA treatment
| Treatments | Leaves (mg I · kg−1 d.w.) ± SE | Stems (mg I · kg−1 d.w.) ± SE | Roots (mg I · kg−1 d.w.) ± SE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0.32 ± 0.07 a | 0.45 ± 0.05 a | 0.24 ± 0.03 a |
| Control + ethanol | 0.51 ± 0.11 ab | 0.41 ± 0.01 a | 0.29 ± 0.05 a |
| BeA (5 μmol) | 0.58 ± 0.10 ab | 0.64 ± 0.03 b | 0.29 ± 0.03 a |
| BeA (10 μmol) | 0.60 ± 0.14 ab | 0.65 ± 0.05 b | 0.24 ± 0.01 a |
| BeA (25 μmol) | 0.43 ± 0.12 ab | 0.43 ± 0.03 a | 0.27 ± 0.03 a |
| BeA (50 μmol) | 0.86 ± 0.08 b | 0.55 ± 0.03 ab | 0.28 ± 0.05 a |
| Control | 0.32 ± 0.06 a | 0.45 ± 0.05 a | 0.23 ± 0.04 a |
| Control + ethanol | 0.50 ± 0.11 a | 0.41 ± 0.02 a | 0.29 ± 0.05 a |
| KI (5 μM I) | 52.49 ± 0.57 b | 127.91 ± 1.33 b | 54.20 ± 1.72 b |
| KI (10 μM I) | 86.97 ± 2.00 c | 234.15 ± 3.96 c | 173.28 ± 3.47 c |
| KI (25 μM I) | 238.98 ± 4.66 d | 530.86 ± 9.37 d | 307.87 ± 3.61 d |
| KI (50 μM I) | 548.76 ± 12.57 e | 1023.90 ± 10.29 e | 449.16 ± 5.35 e |
| Control | 0.32 ± 0.07 a | 0.45 ± 0.06 a | 0.24 ± 0.02 a |
| Control + ethanol | 0.50 ± 0.11 a | 0.41 ± 0.01 a | 0.28 ± 0.06 a |
| 2-IBeA (5 μM I) | 19.18 ± 0.60 b | 26.18 ± 2.84 b | 116.97 ± 1.93 b |
| 2-IBeA (10 μM I) | 31.72 ± 1.65 c | 49.51 ± 2.91 c | 266.72 ± 6.57 c |
| 2-IBeA (25 μM I) | 49.10 ± 2.23 d | 99.74 ± 1.52 d | 685.92 ± 4.79 d |
| 2-IBeA (50 μM I) | 39.86 ± 5.21 d | 122.51 ± 4.12 e | 1464.37 ± 33.59 e |
| Control | 0.33 ± 0.07 a | 0.46 ± 0.05 a | 0.24 ± 0.03 a |
| Control + ethanol | 0.51 ± 0.12 a | 0.40 ± 0.02 a | 0.29 ± 0.05 a |
| 4-IBeA (5 μM I) | 21.31 ± 2.48 b | 38.59 ± 2.98 b | 73.89 ± 1.46 b |
| 4-IBeA (10 μM I) | 62.38 ± 0.54 c | 158.18 ± 9.07 c | 161.27 ± 2.58 c |
| 4-IBeA (25 μM I) | 122.21 ± 7.10 d | 643.17 ± 34.67 d | 335.62 ± 6.01 d |
| 4-IBeA (50 μM I) | 114.00 ± 10.31 d | 769.52 ± 21.80 e | 668.33 ± 36.29 e |
| Control | 0.32 ± 0.07 a | 0.46 ± 0.04 a | 0.25 ± 0.04 a |
| Control + ethanol | 0.51 ± 0.11 a | 0.41 ± 0.02 a | 0.29 ± 0.04 a |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (5 μM I) | 36.11 ± 0.57 b | 25.98 ± 0.67 b | 43.21 ± 1.94 b |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (10 μM I) | 45.72 ± 3.07 c | 29.08 ± 0.98 b | 81.07 ± 3.32 c |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (25 μM I) | 30.44 ± 0.22 b | 52.11 ± 1.75 c | 192.26 ± 1.57 d |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (50 μM I) | 35.38 ± 1.79 b | 65.13 ± 1.59 d | 257.60 ± 13.70 e |
[i] Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05.
[ii] Statistical analysis was conducted for each part of tomato plants separately (n = 8).
Figure 2
AA content in leaves of young tomato plants after BeA (A), KI (B), 2-IBeA (C), 4-IBeA (D) and 2,3,5-triIBeA (E) treatments. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05. Bars indicate standard error (n = 8). * The analysis was not done due to the lack of plant material due to the low yield in 4-IBeA treatment in 10 μM I, 25 μM I and 50 μM I concentration (see Table 1).
Figure 3
DHA content in leaves of young tomato plants after BeA (A), KI (B), 2-IBeA (C), 4-IBeA (D) and 2,3,5-triIBeA (E) treatments. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05. Bars indicate standard error (n = 8). * The analysis was not done due to the lack of plant material due to the low yield in 4-IBeA treatment in 10 μM I, 25 μM I and 50 μM I concentration (see Table 1).
Figure 4
APX activity in leaves of young tomato plants after BeA (A), KI (B), 2-IBeA (C), 4-IBeA (D) and 2,3,5-triIBeA (E) treatments. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05. Bars indicate standard error (n = 8). * The analysis was not done due to the lack of plant material due to the low yield in 4-IBeA treatment in 10 μM I, 25 μM I and 50 μM I concentration (see Table 1).
Figure 5
CAT activity in leaves of young tomato plants after BeA (A), KI (B), 2-IBeA (C), 4-IBeA (D) and 2,3,5-triIBeA (E) treatments. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05. Bars indicate standard error (n = 8). * The analysis was not done due to the lack of plant material due to the low yield in 4-IBeA treatment in 10 μM I, 25 μM I and 50 μM I concentration (see Table 1).
Figure 6
POX activity in leaves of young tomato plants after BeA (A), KI (B), 2-IBeA (C), 4-IBeA (D) and 2,3,5-triIBeA (E) treatments. Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05. Bars indicate standard error (n = 8). * The analysis was not done due to the lack of plant material due to the low yield in 4-IBeA treatment in 10 μM I, 25 μM I and 50 μM I concentration (see Table 1).
Table S1
Sugars content in leaves of young tomato plants
| Treatment | Glucose (mg ·100g−1 f.w.) ± SE | Fructose (mg ·100g−1 f.w.) ± SE | Sucrose (mg ·100g−1 f.w.) ± SE | Total sugars (mg ·100g−1 f.w.) ± SE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 34.10 ± 0.90 c | 43.64 ± 0.53 c | 23.47 ± 1.16 c | 130.08 ± 3.69 e |
| Control+ethanol | 56.29 ± 1.96 d | 89.51 ± 1.37 e | 12.00 ± 0.49 a | 154.46 ± 2.98 d |
| BeA (5 μM) | 23.14 ± 1.19 b | 42.37 ± 1.26 c | 21.70 ± 0.69 bc | 87.20 ± 1.23 b |
| BeA (10 μM) | 22.30 ± 0.90 ab | 36.50 ± 0.32 b | 30.21 ± 1.46 d | 89.01 ± 2.05 b |
| BeA (25 μM) | 17.13 ± 0.02 a | 27.45 ± 0.94 a | 24.02 ± 1.83 c | 68.60 ± 5.16 a |
| BeA (50 μM) | 35.96 ± 0.46 c | 59.51 ± 1.58 d | 16.42 ± 0.07 ab | 111.89 ± 5.01 c |
| Control | 34.10 ± 0.91 c | 43.64 ± 0.54 c | 23.47 ± 1.14 c | 130.08 ± 3.70 c |
| Control+ethanol | 56.30 ± 1.96 d | 89.51 ± 1.38 d | 12.00 ± 0.50 a | 154.46 ± 2.99 d |
| KI (5 μM I) | 15.44 ± 0.71 a | 27.33 ± 1.86 a | 11.04 ± 0.26 a | 53.81 ± 3.18 a |
| KI (10 μM I) | 18.65 ± 0.81 a | 26.66 ± 0.58 a | 12.16 ± 1.05 a | 57.47 ± 1.90 a |
| KI (25 μM I) | 24.42 ± 1.39 b | 37.45 ± 1.32 b | 19.00 ± 0.61 b | 80.87 ± 4.93 b |
| KI (50 μM I) | 17.02 ± 0.83 a | 28.57 ± 0.94 a | 11.27 ± 0.09 a | 56.86 ± 1.24 a |
| Control | 34.10 ± 0.91 bc | 43.65 ± 0.53 b | 23.47 ± 1.15 d | 131.00 ± 3.70 d |
| Control+ethanol | 56.29 ± 1.95 d | 89.51 ± 1.38 d | 11.99 ± 0.49 ab | 154.47 ± 2.98 e |
| 2-IBeA (5 μM I) | 29.58 ± 0.73 b | 46.27 ± 0.20 b | 14.95 ± 0.49 bc | 91.13 ± 3.72 c |
| 2-IBeA (10 μM I) | 17.40 ± 0.58 a | 29.25 ± 0.32 a | 10.84 ± 1.01 a | 57.49 ± 2.20 a |
| 2-IBeA (25 μM I) | 20.85 ± 0.81 ab | 33.64 ± 1.01 a | 17.76 ± 0.74 c | 72.26 ± 2.01 b |
| 2-IBeA (50 μM I) | 39.84 ± 3.85 c | 64.79 ± 2.07 c | 23.98 ± 0.44 d | 128.60 ± 3.42 d |
| Control | 34.11 ± 0.90 a | 43.64 ± 0.54 a | 23.47 ± 1.16 b | 130.07 ± 3.68 b |
| Control+ethanol | 56.29 ± 1.97 b | 89.51 ± 1.36 b | 12.00 ± 0.50 a | 154.46 ± 2.98 c |
| 4-IBeA (5 μM I) | 38.90 ± 1.13 a | 47.72 ± 1.22 a | 15.06 ± 0.66 a | 101.67 ± 2.05 a |
| 4-IBeA (10 μM I) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| 4-IBeA (25 μM I) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| 4-IBeA (50 μM I) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Control | 34.10 ± 0.89 a | 43.64 ± 0.52 a | 23.46 ± 1.15 d | 130.08 ± 3.69 b |
| Control+ethanol | 56.29 ± 1.95 b | 89.51 ± 1.37 c | 12.00 ± 0.49 b | 155.06 ± 2.98 c |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (5 μM I) | 38.82 ± 0.80 a | 58.94 ± 1.93 b | 23.49 ± 0.53 d | 124.59 ± 7.38 b |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (10 μM I) | 40.76 ± 2.32 a | 60.08 ± 1.70 b | 16.82 ± 1.07 c | 117.66 ± 4.45 b |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (25 μM I) | 37.15 ± 0.30 a | 61.71 ± 1.49 b | 11.71 ± 0.94 b | 110.57 ± 6.11 b |
| 2,3,5-triIBeA (50 μM I) | 34.32 ± 1.20 a | 46.70 ± 2.87 a | 4.81 ± 0.33 a | 85.82 ± 0.96 a |
[i] Means followed by the same letters are not significantly different for p < 0.05.
[ii] Statistical analysis was conducted for each part of tomato plants separately, (n = 8).
[iii] n/a – the analysis was not done due to the lack of plant material due to the low yield in 4-IBeA treatment in 10, 25 and 50 μM I concentration (see Table 1)