Combined Effects of Zinc and Manganese on Iron ... - iaast

30 downloads 0 Views 915KB Size Report
of Mn and Zn on the Fe concentration in roots and shoots of sweet corn plants. Sweet corn was grown in nutrient culture containing all combinations of Zn and ...
Int'l Conf. on Advances in Environment, Agriculture & Medical Sciences (ICAEAM’14) November 16-17, 2014 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)

Combined Effects of Zinc and Manganese on Iron Concentrations in Sweet Corn (Zea Mays Var. Saccharata) Amin Soltangheisi, Zaharah Abdul Rahman, and Hamed Zakikhani 

mM (NH4)6Mo7O24. pH was kept at 6.8 by using 0.1 M KOH or HCl solution. All combinations of Zn treatments (in the form of ZnSO4.7H2O) at levels of 0.0, 0.1, 1.0, and 10.0 mg L1 and of Mn treatments (in the form of MnSO4.H2O) at levels of 0.0, 0.1, 1.0, and 10.0 mg L-1 were included. The nutrient solution was changed every three days. The experimental design was a randomized complete block consisting of 5 blocks (replications). The plants were grown at ambient sunlight. The temperature and humidity were 24-33 oC and 7088%, respectively. Plants were harvested 28 (V8- plants had 8 leaves) days after transplanting. The roots and shoots were then separated. The plant samples were ashed at 300 oC for 3 hours followed by 500 oC for 2 hours in a muffle furnace. The ash was dissolved in concentrated HCl and 20% HNO3. Fe concentration was determined by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) (Optima 8300, PerkinElmer, USA). Data were analyzed statistically by using SAS 9.2 software (SAS institute, Cary, NC, USA).

Abstract—Manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn) interact with iron (Fe) and this interaction can result in impacts on the yield of corn plants. This research was conducted to examine the effect of different levels of Mn and Zn on the Fe concentration in roots and shoots of sweet corn plants. Sweet corn was grown in nutrient culture containing all combinations of Zn and Mn at levels of 0.0, 0.1, 1.0, and 10.0 mg L -1 as ZnSO4.7H2O and MnSO4.H2O, respectively and harvested at 28 days after transplanting. Fe concentration in shoots reduced with increasing Mn levels, but Fe concentration in roots did not show any correlation with Mn concentration in nutrient solution. Fe concentration in roots of corn plants increased with increasing Zn levels but different levels of Zn in nutrient solution did not show any significant effect on Fe concentration in the shoots (P>0.05).

Keywords— Iron, manganese, sweet corn, zinc. I. INTRODUCTION Iron is one of the micronutrients for normal plant growth. Although Fe is the fourth most abundant element in the earth’s crust, it is the third-most limiting nutrient for plant growth (Zuo and Zhang, 2011). Fe is involved in many important compounds and physiological processes in plants. It is required for the activity of ALA synthase, which catalyzes the first identified step of the tetrapyrrole biosynthetic pathway leading to chlorophyll formation and therefore, it is indirectly responsible for much of the green color of growing plants. Zinc and manganese can interact with Fe and this interaction can affect the availability and uptake of Fe; hence, balance supply of these three nutrients is very important for preventing the crop yield reduction.

III. REULTS AND DISCUSSION Fe concentration in shoots showed a strong negative correlation with the Mn concentration in nutrient solution (Fig.1). The Fe concentration in the shoots decreased with increasing Mn applied. Mn0 treatment showed the highest Fe concentration in shoots and the difference between this treatment with other treatments was significant (P≤0.05). The differences between all the treatments were significant (P≤0.05) except of between Mn0.1 and Mn1 treatments. Fe concentration in shoots was 260 mg kg-1 in Mn0 treatment and reached to 160 mg kg-1 in Mn10 treatment. The Fe uptake by shoots in Zn1 and Zn10 treatments were 67 and 62 percent of the uptake in Zn0 treatment. Mn has an antagonistic effect on the Fe transport in corn plants. It can be stated that Mn depressed Fe mobility and translocation in corn plants. Similar results were obtained by El-Fouly et al., (2001) in sunflower. They demonstrated that Mn application at a low concentration of 0.55 mg L-1 gave the maximum increase of Fe concentration in the leaf and stem, while 3.30 mg L-1 Mn led to the smallest increase in Fe uptake. Yoshiaki and Ando (1968) observed that the Fe content of the shoots was decreased with increased Mn level in nutrient solution of rice plants. Leach and Taper (1954) in kidney beans and tomato, Cumbus et al., (1977) in watercress, Chinnery and Harding (1980) in soybean, Moussa et al., (1996) in peanut, and De Varennes et al., (2001) in annual medic observed the same results.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS The nutrient culture method was used in this experiment. 5 days old sweet corn seedlings hybrid 926 from Green World Genetics in Malaysia were transplanted into 2 L capacity plastic pots containing nutrient solution at the rate of four seedlings per pot. The basic nutrient solution was according to Trostle et al., (2001), which contained 0.75 mM K2SO4, 0.65 mM MgSO4, 0.1 mM KCl, 2 mM Ca(NO3)2, 1×10-4 mM CuSO4, 0.1 mM EDTAFe, 1×10-3 mM MnSO4, 1×10-2 mM H3BO3, and 5×10-6 Amin Soltangheisi is with the University Putra Malaysia, (e-mail: [email protected]). Zaharah Abdul Rahman is with the University Putra Malaysia (Corresponding author to provide phone: +60389474867; Fax: +60389408316; e-mail: [email protected]). Hamed Zakikhani is with the University Putra Malaysia, (e-mail: [email protected]).

http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A1114023

30

Int'l Conf. on Advances in Environment, Agriculture & Medical Sciences (ICAEAM’14) November 16-17, 2014 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia)

Different levels of Mn did not show any effect on Fe concentration in roots of corn plants (data not shown). Our results are somehow in contrast with other studies that have reported the impacts of Mn on root Fe are mixed depending on growth medium; synergistic in natural soils, neutral in sand cultures, and antagonistic in solution cultures (Webb et al., 1993; El-Jaoual and Cox, 1998). According to these findings, high Mn levels in nutrient solution reduced Fe translocation to the tops of corn plants but Fe uptake was independent of Mn supply. With enhancing the Zn concentration in solution, Fe concentration in roots increased linearly until 1 mg L-1 level of Zn and then reached a plateau from 1 to 10 mg L-1 Zn level (Fig. 2). Fe concentrations in roots were significantly different from each other at different levels of Zn in solution (P≤0.05) except of Zn1 and Zn10 treatments which did not show any significant difference (P>0.05). Fe concentration in roots reached a maximum at highest Zn level. Our results were in agreement with Ambler et al., (1970) and Sliman (1990) in soybean, Safaya (1976) in corn, Kaya et al., (1999) in tomato, and Barben et al., (2011) in potato, while Lee et al., (1969) reported that Zn and Fe may compete with each other for root absorption sites, since Fe uptake by roots of flax decreased with increasing Zn level in the growth medium.

TABLE I IRON CONCENTRATION IN LEAVES AND ROOTS OF SWEET CORN PLANTS IN NUTRIENT SOLUTION WITH DIFFERENT MANGANESE AND ZINC LEVELS Treatments (mg L-1) Zn Mn Fe concentration Fe concentration in leaves (µg g-1) in roots (µg g-1) 0 0 408.7a 16059cd b 0.1 169.0 13504d b 1 168.0 18524bcd b 10 137.7 24893abcd 0.1 0 183.3b 25350abcd b 0.1 194.7 20033bcd b 1 186.3 24055abcd b 10 172.3 21479bcd 1 0 225.7b 25545abcd 0.1 202.0b 38287a b 1 157.0 22611bcd b 10 192.7 21379bcd 10 0 221.0b 24795abcd 0.1 159.7b 32688ab b 1 184.7 30243abc b 10 136.7 24900abcd Within each column, same letters indicates no significant difference between treatments (P>0.05)

(Jones et al., 1991). Fe concentration in all the treatments was within the sufficiency range except in Zn0Mn0 treatment which was 408.7 µg g-1. This high concentration was as a result of no competition between Mn and Zn with Fe for transport to the upper plant parts, since there were not any Mn and Zn in nutrient solution. Zn1Mn0.1 treatment had the highest and Zn0Mn0.1 had the lowest Fe concentration in roots which were 38287 µg g-1 and 13504 µg g-1, respectively.

Fig. 1 Relationship between Mn supplies and Fe concentration in shoots of sweet corn plants

There was not any relationship between the Fe content of the shoots and Zn concentration in the nutrient solution (data not shown). Yoshiaki and Ando (1968) observed the same results in rice plants grown in water culture. Rosen et al., (1977) demonstrated that Zn inhibited chlorophyll production by interfering with Fe metabolism, but not by lowering the Fe content of the leaves. Giordano and Mortvedt (1971), using soil-grown corn, did not find evidence for the blocking of Fe transport to plant tops by Zn. They observed that level of Zn did not affect the leaf Fe concentration. Contrary results were reported by Rosell and Ulrich (1964). They reported that increasing the Zn supply to sugarbeets from 0 to 12 mg kg-1 in the nutrient solution caused the decrease in Fe concentration of beet leaves from 900 to 90 mg kg-1. The lowest Fe concentration in shoots was recorded in Zn10Mn10 treatment which did not show any significant difference (P>0.05) with other treatments except with Zn0Mn0 treatment (Table I). The optimum range of Fe in whole tops of corn plants in this growth stage is between 50-250 µg g-1 http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A1114023

Fig. 2 Relationship between Zn supplies and Fe concentration in roots of sweet corn plants

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his thanks to Ms. Zabedah Tumirin, Department of Land Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University Putra Malaysia, for providing him the laboratory facilitie.

31

Int'l Conf. on Advances in Environment, Agriculture & Medical Sciences (ICAEAM’14) November 16-17, 2014 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) [20] Zuo, Y., & Zhang, F. (2011). “Soil and crop management strategies to prevent iron deficiency in crops.” Plant Soil, 339(1-2), 83-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-010-0566-0

REFERENCES [1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16] [17]

[18]

[19]

Ambler, J. E., Brown, J. C., & Gauch, H. G. (1970). “Effect of zinc on translocation of iron in soybean plants.” Plant physiol., 46(2), 320-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.46.2.320 Barben, S. A., Hopkins, B. G., Jolley, V. D., Webb, B. L., Nichols, B. A., & Buxton, E. A. (2011). “Zinc, manganese and phosphorus interrelationships and their effects on iron and copper in chelatorbuffered solution grown russet burbank potato.” J. Plant Nutr., 34(8), 1144-1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2011.558158 Chinnery, L. E., & Harding, C. P. (1980). “The effect of ferrous iron on the uptake of manganese by Juncus effusus L.” Ann. Bot., 46(4), 409412. Cumbus, I. P., Hornsey, D. J., & Robinson, L. W. (1977). “The influence of phosphorus, zinc and manganese on absorption and translocation of iron in watercress.” Plant Soil,48(3), 651-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00145775 El‐Fouly, M. M., Nofal, O. A., & Mobarak, Z. M. (2001). “Effects of soil treatment with iron, manganese and zinc on growth and micronutrient uptake of sunflower plants grown in high‐pH soil.” J. Agron. Crop Sci., 186(4), 245-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037x.2001.00479.x El‐Jaoual, T., & Cox, D. A. (1998). “Manganese toxicity in plants.” J. Plant Nutr., 21(2), 353-386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904169809365409 Giordano, P. M., & Mortvedt, J. J. (1971). “Effect of substrate Zn level on distribution of photo-assimilated C14 in maize and bean plants.” Plant Soil,35(1-3), 193-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01372646 Jones Jr, J. B., Wolf, B., & Mills, H. A. (1991). “Plant analysis handbook. A practical sampling, preparation, analysis, and interpretation guide.” Micro-Macro Publishing, Inc. Kaya, C., Higgs, D., & Burton, A. (1999). “Foliar application of iron as a remedy for zinc toxic tomato plants.” J. Plant nutr., 22(12), 18291837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904169909365759 Leach, W., & Taper, C. D. (1954). “Studies in plant mineral nutrition: II. The absorption of iron and manganese by dwarf bean, tomato, and onion from culture solution.” Can. J. Bot., 32(5), 561-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/b54-054 Lee, C. R., Craddock, G. R., & Hammar, H. E. (1969). “Factors affecting plant growth in high-zinc medium: I. Influence of iron on growth of flax at various zinc levels.” Agron. J., 61(4), 562-565. http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj1969.00021962006100040023x Moussa, B. I. M., Dahdoh, M. S. A., & Shehata, H. M. (1996). “Interaction effect of some micronutrients on yield, elemental composition and oil content of peanut.” Commun. Soil Sci. Plant, 27(58), 1995-2004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103629609369681 Rosell, R. A., & Ulrich, A. (1964). “Critical zinc concentrations and leaf minerals of sugar beet plants.” Soil Sci., 97(3), 152-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-196403000-00002 Rosen, J. A., Pike, C. S., & Golden, M. L. (1977). “Zinc, iron, and chlorophyll metabolism in zinc-toxic corn.” Plant Physiol., 59(6), 10851087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.59.6.1085 Safaya, N. M. (1976). “Phosphorus-zinc interaction in relation to absorption rates of phosphorus, zinc, copper, manganese, and iron in corn.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 40(5), 719-722. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1976.03615995004000050031x Sliman, Z. T. (1990). “Effect of zinc on iron-stress-response mechanism of two soybean genotypes.” J. King Saud Univ. Trostle, C. L., Bloom, P. R., & Allan, D. L. (2001). “HEDTA– nitrilotriacetic acid chelator-buffered nutrient solution for zinc deficiency evaluation in rice.” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 65(2), 385-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2001.652385x Webb, M. J., Norvell, W. A., Welch, R. M., & Graham, R. D. (1993). “Using a chelate-buffered nutrient solution to establish the critical solution activity of Mn2+ required by barley (Hordeum vulgare L.).” Plant Soil, 153(2), 195-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00012992 Yoshiaki, I., & Ando, T. (1968). “Interaction between manganese and zinc in growth of rice plants.” Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 14(5), 201-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380768.1968.10432766

http://dx.doi.org/10.17758/IAAST.A1114023

32