Carbon nanodots as modulators of growth, physiological and biochemical responses in forage pea (Pisum sativum L.)

Öz

Forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) is an important cool-season legume forage crop, and improving its early vegetative performance is of practical interest. In this study, we investigated the dose-dependent effects of carbon nanodots (CDs) on growth, photosynthetic pigments, and oxidative stress-related biomarkers in forage pea seedlings. We grew seedlings in soil and applied CDs exogenously via foliar spray (20 mL per pot) at 100, 200, and 300 ppm three times at 3-day intervals, with measurements made 14 days after the first application. Each treatment consisted of three pots, with four seedlings per pot. Root and leaf lengths, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll, proline, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and malondialdehyde (MDA) contents were determined. CDs treatment resulted in statistically significant differences in root and leaf length. Root length increased from 5.14 cm in the control to 8.50 cm at 300 ppm, whereas leaf length showed the highest numerical value at 100 ppm (1.80 cm) compared with 1.34 cm in the control. Root H2O2 content increased relative to the control (1.555 µmol g⁻¹ FW), with the highest level observed at 200 ppm, while leaf H2O2 decreased with increasing CD concentration from the control value of 1.810 µmol g-1 FW. MDA responses were tissue- and concentration-dependent, with the highest root MDA content recorded at 300 ppm (0.275 nmol g⁻¹ FW) and the highest leaf MDA content at 200 ppm (0.505 nmol g⁻¹ FW). Proline accumulation also varied between tissues, reaching 0.811 mg g⁻¹ FW in roots at 200 ppm, while leaf proline showed a minimum of 0.352 mg g⁻¹ FW at 100 ppm. Statistically significant differences in MDA were detected in both root and leaf tissues, whereas significant differences in proline were detected in leaves (p<0.05). Chlorophyll accumulation increased particularly at 300 ppm, where chlorophyll a and total chlorophyll reached 3.050 and 5.521 mg L⁻¹, respectively. Overall, CDs induced concentration-dependent and tissue-specific changes in growth, pigment accumulation, and redox-related responses in forage pea, underscoring the importance of dose optimization for the agricultural use of carbon nanodots.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Carbon nanodots
• chlorophyll
• oxidative stress
• Pisum sativum
• proline

Yem bezelyesinde (Pisum sativum L.) karbon nanonoktaların büyüme, fizyolojik ve biyokimyasal yanıtlar üzerine etkileri

Öz

Yem bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.), önemli bir serin iklim baklagil yem bitkisi olup, erken vejetatif gelişiminin iyileştirilmesi pratik açıdan önem taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada, karbon nanonoktaların (CD'ler) yem bezelyesi fidelerinde büyüme, fotosentetik pigmentler ve oksidatif stresle ilişkili biyobelirteçler üzerindeki konsantrasyona bağlı etkileri araştırılmıştır. Fideler toprakta yetiştirilmiş ve 14 gün boyunca 100, 200 ve 300 ppm konsantrasyonlarında CD'ler ile eksojen olarak yapraktan püskürtme yoluyla (saksı başına 20 mL) 3 gün arayla üç kez uygulanmış ve ölçümler ilk uygulamadan 14 gün sonra yapılmıştır. Her uygulama, saksı başına dört fide olacak şekilde üç saksıdan oluşturulmuştur. Kök ve yaprak uzunlukları ile klorofil a, klorofil b, toplam klorofil, prolin, hidrojen peroksit (H2O2) ve malondialdehit (MDA) içerikleri belirlenmiştir. CD uygulaması, kök ve yaprak uzunluklarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklara neden olmuştur. Kök uzunluğu kontrolde 5,14 cm iken 300 ppm uygulamasında 8,50 cm'ye yükselmiş; yaprak uzunluğu ise kontrol grubundaki 1,34 cm'ye kıyasla sayısal olarak en yüksek değerine 100 ppm uygulamasında (1,80 cm) ulaşmıştır. Kök H2O2 içeriği kontrol grubuna (1,555 µmol g⁻¹ T.A.) kıyasla genel olarak artmış ve en yüksek değer 200 ppm uygulamasında gözlenmiştir. Buna karşılık, yaprak H2O2 içeriği, kontroldeki 1,810 µmol g⁻¹ T.A. değerinden artan CD konsantrasyonlarına bağlı olarak azalmıştır. MDA yanıtları doku ve konsantrasyona bağlı olarak değişmiş; köklerde en yüksek MDA içeriği 300 ppm uygulamasında (0,275 nmol g⁻¹ T.A.), yapraklarda ise 200 ppm uygulamasında (0,505 nmol g⁻¹ T.A.) tespit edilmiştir. Prolin birikimi de dokular arasında farklılık göstermiştir; köklerde en yüksek prolin içeriği 200 ppm uygulamasında (0,811 mg g⁻¹ T.A.) gözlenirken, yapraklarda en düşük prolin içeriği 100 ppm uygulamasında (0,352 mg g⁻¹ T.A.) kaydedilmiştir. MDA açısından hem kök hem de yaprak dokularında, prolin açısından ise yaprak dokularında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar ortaya çıkmıştır (p≤ 0,05). Klorofil birikimi özellikle 300 ppm uygulamasında artmış; klorofil a ve toplam klorofil içerikleri sırasıyla 3,050 ve 5,521 mg L⁻¹ ile en yüksek değerlerine ulaşmıştır. Sonuç olarak, CD uygulamalarının yem bezelyesi fidelerinde büyüme, fotosentetik pigment birikimi ve oksidatif stresle ilişkili yanıtlar üzerinde konsantrasyona ve dokuya bağlı değişikliklere neden olduğu ve karbon nanonoktaların potansiyel tarımsal uygulamalarda uygun konsantrasyonlarının belirlenmesinin önemli olduğu kanısına varılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karbon nanonoktaları
• klorofil
• oksidatif stres
• Pisum sativum
• prolin

Kaynakça

1. Alam P, Faizan M, Arif Y, Azzam MM, Hayat S, Afzal S, Albalawi T (2025). Reactive oxygen species: balancing agents in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science 16: 1713590.
2. Ali J, Mukarram M, Ojo J, Dawam N, Riyazuddin R, Ghramh HA, Khan KA, Chen R, Kurjak D, Bayram A (2024). Harnessing phytohormones: advancing plant growth and defence strategies for sustainable agriculture. Physiologia Plantarum 176(3): e14307.
3. Arnon DI (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24(1): 1-15.
4. Bates LS, Waldren R, Teare I (1973). Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39(1): 205–207.
5. Bharti S, Gandy J, Hengge IB, Ramos J, Christofferson B, Persans M, Chakrabarti M (2025). Roles of transcription factors in mediating abiotic stress responses in cereals. Plant Stress 19: 101160.
6. Cartwright A, Jackson K, Morgan C, Anderson A, Britt DW (2020). A review of metal and metal-oxide nanoparticle coating technologies to inhibit agglomeration and increase bioactivity for agricultural applications. Agronomy 10(7): 1018.
7. Chauhan J, Prathibha M, Singh P, Choyal P, Mishra UN, Saha D, Kumar R, Anuragi H, Pandey S, Bose B (2023). Plant photosynthesis under abiotic stresses: Damages, adaptive, and signaling mechanisms. Plant Stress 10: 100296.
8. Chen F, Shen Z, Shi R, Zhang X, Zhang H, Li W, Lei B (2025). Carbon dots-mediated plant adaptive responses to abiotic stress. Materials Research Bulletin 182: 113137.

9. Cheng W, Wang X, Hu H, Yang Y, Yu X, Chao WX, Yu M, Ding J, Lin Y, Zhao W (2025). Closed-loop enhancement of plant photosynthesis via biomass-derived carbon dots in biohybrids. Communications Materials 6(1): 40.
10. Dhindsa RS, Plumb-Dhindsa P, Thorpe TA (1981). Leaf senescence: correlated with increased levels of membrane permeability and lipid peroxidation, and decreased levels of superoxide dismutase and catalase. Journal of Experimental Botany 32(1): 93–101.
11. Djanaguiraman M, Anbazhagan V, Dhankher OP, Prasad PV (2024). Uptake, translocation, toxicity, and impact of nanoparticles on plant physiological processes. Plants 13(22): 3137.
12. Elumalai P, Gao X, Parthipan P, Luo J, Cui J (2025). Agrochemical pollution: A serious threat to environmental health. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 43: 100597.
13. Feng J, Adeel M, Rui Y (2026). Advancing nano-enabled agriculture from precision application to environmental risk and sustainability assessment. Current Pollution Reports 12(1): 5.
14. Guirguis A, Yang W, Conlan XA, Kong L, Cahill DM, Wang Y (2023). Boosting plant photosynthesis with carbon dots: a critical review of performance and prospects. Small 19(43): 2300671.
15. Heath RL, Packer L (1968). Photoperoxidation in isolated chloroplasts: I. Kinetics and stoichiometry of fatty acid peroxidation. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 125(1): 189-198.
16. Hodges DM, DeLong JM, Forney CF, Prange RK (1999). Improving the thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances assay for estimating lipid peroxidation in plant tissues containing anthocyanin and other interfering compounds. Planta 207(4): 604-611.
17. Huang W, Zhao X, Zhang Y, Cheng Q, Tan Z, Lei H (2026). Carbon dots in agriculture: fundamentals, applications and perspectives. RSC Sustainability 4(1): 118-141.
18. Hussain B, Javed K, Ali M, Ullah S, Sun S, Idris AM, Singh S (2026). Impact of nanoparticles on biogeochemical processes in soil–plant system under heavy metals stress; exploring remediation mechanism and plant health status. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 48(1): 31.
19. Javed R, Khan B, Sharafat U, Bilal M, Galagedara L, Abbey L, Cheema M (2024). Dynamic interplay of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles with plants: Influencing factors, action mechanisms, and assessment of stimulatory and inhibitory effects. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 271: 115992.
20. Karatas E, Topuz M, Akinay Y (2025). Ti2NTx MXene and carbon quantum dots modified chitosan scaffold for potential wound healing: in vitro assessment of cytotoxicity, hemocompatibility, antioxidant, and antibacterial properties. Small Methods 9(12): e01415.
21. Li D, Li W, Zhang H, Zhang X, Zhuang J, Liu Y, Hu C, Lei B (2020). Far-red carbon dots as efficient light-harvesting agents for enhanced photosynthesis. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 12(18): 21009-21019.
22. Li G, Xu J, Xu K (2023). Physiological functions of carbon dots and their applications in agriculture: A review. Nanomaterials 13(19): 2684.
23. Liang L, Wong SC, Lisak G (2023). Effects of plastic-derived carbon dots on germination and growth of pea (Pisum sativum) via seed nano-priming. Chemosphere 316: 137868.
24. Liu H, Song S, Zhang H, Li Y, Niu L, Zhang J, Wang W (2022). Signaling transduction of ABA, ROS, and Ca2+ in plant stomatal closure in response to drought. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23(23): 14824.
25. Rai GK, Khanday DM, Choudhary SM, Kumar P, Kumari S, Martínez-Andújar C, Martínez-Melgarejo PA, Rai PK, Pérez-Alfocea F (2024). Unlocking nature's stress buster: Abscisic acid's crucial role in defending plants against abiotic stress. Plant Stress 11: 100359.
26. Sarıkaya MF, İleri O, Erkovan Ş, Erkovan Hİ, Koç A (2023). Growing forage pea (Pisum arvense L.) for hay: Different sowing dates and plant densities in Central Anatolia. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 54(2): 75-80.
27. Schwartz SH, Hendrix B, Hoffer P, Sanders RA, Zheng W (2020). Carbon dots for efficient small interfering RNA delivery and gene silencing in plants. Plant Physiology 184(2): 647-657.
28. Sciortino A, Panniello A, Minervini G, Mauro N, Giammona G, Buscarino G, Cannas M, Striccoli M, Messina F (2022). Enhancing carbon dots fluorescence via plasmonic resonance energy transfer. Materials Research Bulletin 149: 111746.
29. Sergiev I, Alexieva V, Karanov E (1997). Effect of spermine, atrazine and combination between them on some endogenous protective systems and stress markers in plants. Compt Rend Acad Bulg Sci 51(3): 121-124.
30. Steiner M, Falquet L, Fragnière AL, Brown A, Bacher S (2024). Effects of pesticides on soil bacterial, fungal and protist communities, soil functions and grape quality in vineyards. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 5(2): e12327.
31. Şentürk T, Altınkaya E (2026). The Effect of Carbon Dots Obtained from Different Biological Sources on Corn Seed Germination. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 32(2): 498-511.
32. Velikova V, Yordanov I, Edreva A (2000). Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants: protective role of exogenous polyamines. Plant Science 151(1): 59-66.
33. Wan NF, Fu L, Dainese M, Kiær LP, Hu YQ, Xin F, Goulson D, Woodcock BA, Vanbergen AJ, Spurgeon DJ (2025). Pesticides have negative effects on non-target organisms. Nature Communications 16(1): 1360.
34. Wang Q, Lv K, Song J, Li M, Ouyang X, Liu C, Gong S, Wang J, Li J, Zhang Z (2025). The Dose-Dependent Effect of Carbon Quantum Dots as a Photosynthesis Enhancer on Soybean Plant Growth. Nanomaterials 15(20): 1603.
35. Xu Y, Liang L, Lisak G (2024). Blue-emissive antioxidant carbon dots enhance drought resistance of pea (Pisum sativum L.). ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 16(30): 39090-39103.
36. Zhang H, Sun H, Tang Z, Wang G (2025). Integrated agronomy of pea (Pisum sativum L.): a review on cultivation, harvesting, and storage for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science 16: 1670445.
37. Zhang H, Zheng T, Wang Y, Li T, Chi Q (2024). Multifaceted impacts of nanoparticles on plant nutrient absorption and soil microbial communities. Frontiers in Plant Science 15: 1497006.
38. Zhang H, Zhu J, Gong Z, Zhu JK (2022). Abiotic stress responses in plants. Nature Reviews Genetics 23(2): 104-119.
39. Zhu JK (2016). Abiotic stress signaling and responses in plants. Cell 167(2): 313-324.
40. Zia MU, Sambasivam PT, Chen D, Bhuiyan SA, Ford R, Li Q (2024). A carbon dot toolbox for managing biotic and abiotic stresses in crop production systems. EcoMat 6(5): e12451.