Utah State University
DigitalCommons@USU
Plants, Soils, and Climate Faculty Publications
Plants, Soils, and Climate
5-2013
Light level does not alter ethylene sensitivity in
radish or pea
Joseph F. Romagnano
Bruce Bugbee
Utah State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/psc_facpub
Part of the Agriculture Commons
Recommended Citation
Romagnano, Joseph F. and Bugbee, Bruce, "Light level does not alter ethylene sensitivity in radish or pea" (2013). Plants, Soils, and
Climate Faculty Publications. Paper 525.
http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/psc_facpub/525
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Plants, Soils,
and Climate at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Plants, Soils, and Climate Faculty Publications by an authorized
administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please
contact dylan.burns@usu.edu.
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
1
2
Original Research Paper
3
Light level does not alter ethylene sensitivity in radish or pea
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1
Joseph F. Romagnano
Utah State University
Crop Physiology Laboratory
4820 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-4820
Phone: 01 508 868 7832
Email: joe@joeswebhut.net
Bruce Bugbee
Utah State University
Crop Physiology Laboratory
4820 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-4820
Phone: 01 435 797 2765
Email: bruce.bugbee@usu.edu
Keywords: ethylene-PPF interaction, digital image quantification, image analysis,
22
biphasic dose-response
23
Abstract
24
Ethylene accumulation occurs in many plant growth environments. In some
25
instances, low photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) is also a stress factor. Ethylene helps
26
regulate the shade-avoidance mechanism and synthesis rates can be altered by light. We
27
thus hypothesized that ethylene sensitivity in whole plants may be altered in low light.
28
Radish (Raphanus sativus) and pea (Pisum sativum) plants were selected as models due
29
to their rapid growth, use in previous studies and difference in growth habit. We first
30
characterized radish and pea sensitivity to ethylene. Radish vegetation was less sensitive
31
to ethylene than pea vegetation. Pea reproductive yield was highly sensitive. Plants
32
grown under low light levels are typically etiolated and less robust than plants grown
33
under higher light. In a second series of studies we examined the interaction of ethylene
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
2
1
(50 ppb pea, 200 ppb radish) with PPFs from 50 to 400 µmol m-2 s-1. There was no
2
statistically significant interaction between ethylene sensitivity and PPF, indicating that
3
high PPF does not mitigate the detrimental effects of chronic low-level ethylene
4
exposure. This also suggests there is no crosstalk between the shade avoidance pathway
5
and the primary ethylene signaling pathway.
6
Introduction
7
Elevated levels of atmospheric ethylene cause a variety of abnormal responses
8
including inhibited root and hypocotyl elongation, leaf epinasty, reduced growth,
9
premature leaf senescence, and sterility (Abeles et al., 1992; Klassen and Bugbee, 2002,
10
2004; Mattoo and Suttle, 1991; Morison and Gifford, 1984; Smalle and Van Der Straeten,
11
1997). Plants are the primary source of elevated ethylene in sealed plant growth chambers
12
and other controlled environments with inadequate air exchange (Wheeler, 1996, 2004).
13
Elevated ethylene has caused several unique problems both on the International Space
14
Station and in other spaceflight experiments (Perry and Peterson, 2003, Campbell et al.
15
2001). It is now clear that ethylene has significant potential to interfere with the
16
development of plant based advanced life support systems for long duration spaceflight
17
Also, ethylene is generated in greenhouse environments as a byproduct from combustion
18
powered equipment such as heaters and forklifts (Sargent, 2001).
19
The sensitivity of flowers to ethylene at levels as low as 20 nmol mol-1 (ppb)
20
during anthesis has been well documented and is a significant cause of yield loss in
21
reproduction-dependent crop plants (Payton et al., 1996; Oráez, Blay, and Granell, 1999;
22
Klassen and Bugbee, 2002; Hudelson, 2006).
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
3
1
Eraso et al. (2002) demonstrated that ethylene greater than 50 ppb was required
2
to reduce leaf area and total biomass in radish. Klassen and Bugbee (2002) found that
3
biomass of wheat and rice was not significantly decreased at 1000 ppb whereas yield of
4
both crops was significantly reduced by 200 ppb, and suggested that reproductive organs
5
are more sensitive to elevated ethylene than vegetative growth.
6
Elevated ethylene reduces leaf expansion rate and increases leaf epinasty (Abeles,
7
1992), which decreases radiation capture. Woodrow et al. (1988, 1989, 1993)
8
demonstrated that photosynthesis was not affected by ethylene when epinastic leaves
9
were straightened to allow for original rates of radiation capture. Taylor and Gunderson
10
(1988) found that acute exposure to extremely high ethylene concentrations (10,000 ppb,
11
1% in air) reduced quantum yield in soybean leaves, but this high level is not
12
representative of the chronic low-levels that accumulate in a contaminated environment.
13
The general consensus is that low chronic exposure to ethylene has a minimal effect on
14
quantum yield and the photosynthetic apparatus (Abeles, 1992).
15
Although most of our research has focused on the detrimental effects of ethylene,
16
contrary to expectations, some studies suggest it is possible for long-term exogenous
17
ethylene exposure to have a beneficial effect on whole plants or plant communities.
18
Fiorani, et al. (2002) and Konings and Jackson (1979) reported a correlative effect in
19
which those plants with lower endogenous ethylene production rates had greater
20
tolerance to higher ethylene concentrations and greater beneficial growth effects. For
21
instance, rice with a low endogenous ethylene production rate benefited more from a 20
22
ppb ethylene exposure than white mustard, which has a high endogenous ethylene
23
production rate (Konings and Jackson, 1979). They go on to propose a bi-phasic dose-
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
4
1
response for ethylene sensitivity. In summarizing research on ethylene insensitive
2
Arabidopsis mutants and other plants, Pierik et al. (2006) built on the notion of Konings
3
and Jackson (1979) and proposed four potential model curves for different classes of
4
ethylene response labeled as Type I, Type II, Type III and Type IV. Type I plants are
5
sensitive to ethylene and have a negative response at all concentrations, following an
6
exponential decrease downwards. Type II and III plants exhibit an initial stimulation in
7
growth, Type III at a higher and broader concentration than the lower and sharper Type
8
II, followed by an exponential decrease similar to Type I. Type IV plants are either
9
unaffected or have a stimulatory response at extremely high concentrations with no
10
subsequent inhibitory response. These curves represent a refinement to the hypothesis
11
that beneficial effects of ethylene exposure are probably limited to a narrow
12
concentration range whose ideal is likely species, organ, and environmental condition
13
dependent.
14
Endogenous ethylene in unstressed terrestrial plants does not appear to inhibit leaf
15
expansion. Endogenous levels are typically one to two orders of magnitude lower than
16
those needed for autocatalytic ethylene synthesis. Bleeker et al. (1988) found that leaves
17
of ethylene insensitive Arabidopsis plants were larger than their wildtype counterparts.
18
However, when Tholen et al. (2004) replicated the study by Bleeker et al. and controlled
19
for ethylene build-up in the atmosphere of the petri dishes, they found that wildtype and
20
ethylene-insensitive mutants had equal leaf expansion rates. Thus, they concluded that
21
endogenous ethylene levels do not affect leaf expansion in unstressed plants. This agrees
22
with previously reported data that shows an ethylene threshold for reduction in leaf
23
expansion (Klassen and Bugbee, 2004). Altered ethylene synthesis is typically thought to
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
5
1
be a signal of stress conditions. Indeed, ethylene plays an active role in mediating the
2
shade-avoidance response.
3
Light quantity and quality have been found to alter ethylene synthesis. Etiolated
4
pea seedlings have long served as a model to study the effect of ethylene on internode
5
elongation (see review by Eisinger, 1983). Jiao, et al. (1987) appears to be among the
6
first research group to show interactions between light quality and ethylene synthesis.
7
They observed that dark grown wheat leaves had decreased ethylene synthesis after
8
exposure to white light. Their results also showed that red and far-red light (quantities
9
and ratios of which are altered in the shade of a plant canopy) altered ethylene synthesis,
10
suggesting that phytochrome may regulate ethylene synthesis. Subsequent work using
11
leaf discs of Begonia (Rudnicki, et al., 1993) demonstrated that white, blue, green and
12
red light inhibited ethylene synthesis, but far-red light stimulated production.
13
Vandenbussche et al. (2003) studied shade-avoidance in Arabidopsis and reported
14
a decrease in ethylene synthesis with increased light in short-term studies (hours). The
15
uptake of CO2 was higher in the light, but ethylene synthesis was less. In their subsequent
16
review, Vandenbussche et al., (2005) summarized the current knowledge of ethylene
17
interactions with the shade avoidance mechanism noting that low light increases ethylene
18
production, an overproduction of ethylene in Arabidopsis leads to an exaggerated
19
response to low light, and that ethylene via ethephon can stimulate leaf movement in
20
Arabidopsis similar to that in low light. This agrees with Pierik et al. (2004) who
21
demonstrated that ethylene insensitive tobacco plants were unresponsive to reduced
22
levels of blue light despite shade-avoidance inducing concentrations of ethylene in the
23
canopy. Pierik et al. (2004) state that ethylene functions as a neighbor signal, providing a
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
6
1
cue other than light that a plant is in a community and may be subject to shading. Foo et
2
al. (2006) further demonstrated phytochrome A and B regulation of ethylene in pea plants
3
by
4
Vandenbussche et al. (2007) found that blue light triggered cryptocrome signaling played
5
a role in Arabidopsis hypocotyl response to ethylene dependent on a base rate but
6
independent from the gibberellic acid pathway. In addition to re-stating that ethylene
7
works as a primary neighbor detection signal through atmospheric accumulation, Pierik et
8
al. (2009) reconfirmed the linkage between light responses and ethylene signaling. In
9
Arabidopsis seedlings, they demonstrated increased ethylene evolution under low R:FR
10
showing
that
plants
lacking
both
phytochromes
overproduced
ethylene.
ratios and that an intact ethylene signaling pathway was required for petiole elongation.
11
The effects of light on ethylene synthesis can be variable. Kurepin et al. (2010)
12
studied ethylene evolution from 7 d old Helianthus annuus shoot tissues at PPF levels of
13
10, 100 and 1000 µmol m-2 s-1. They found that as PPF increased, ethylene synthesis
14
increased in hypocotyls and decreased in cotyledons and leaves. They reconcile their
15
findings with those of Vandenbussche et al. (2003) by remarking that the Arabidopsis
16
seedlings tested by Vandenbussche et al. (2003) consist largely of cotyledon and leaf
17
tissue whose subsequent increase in ethylene production masks the decrease in
18
production from hypocotyls. Kurepin et al. (2010) go on to demonstrate that ethephon
19
application decreased hypocotyl, cotyledon-leaf mass at the higher PPF levels tested
20
(100, 1000 µmol m-2 s-1) whereas application of the ethylene action inhibitor AVG had no
21
effect at any PPF level.
22
Given the sensitivity of etiolated plants to ethylene and the effect of light quantity
23
and quality on ethylene synthesis, we hypothesized that PPF level would alter ethylene
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
7
1
sensitivity. This hypothesis is particularly important for the closed plant growth chambers
2
on the space station, where ethylene routinely accumulates and where the light levels are
3
low. It also provides further insight into the mechanisms behind shade avoidance.
4
Materials and Methods
5
Radish Ethylene Sensitivity
6
Radishes (Raphanus sativus, cv. Cherry belle) were grown in six polycarbonate,
7
30-cm diameter, 60-cm tall chambers with a root-zone depth of 21-cm filled with 1:1
8
peat:perlite media (Fig. 1). Each chamber was continuously and independently supplied
9
with air or an air/ethylene mixture at 15 L min-1 with each chamber maintaining a
10
positive air pressure. Klassen and Bugbee (2002), provide a complete description of the
11
ethylene dilution and distribution system used in these studies. Air for the zero ppb
12
controls was filtered through potassium permanganate impregnated beads (Purafil™),
13
which maintained ethylene concentrations below the limits of detection (5 ppb). Each
14
chamber was maintained at a 25/20˚C day/night temperature. Nutrients were provided by
15
watering 3x daily with dilute (120 mS m-1; 1.2 dS m-1) Peters 5-11-26 Hydrosol
16
supplemented with 10 µM Fe EDDHA, 1.4 mM CaNO3, and 10 µM Na2SiO3. Radishes
17
were grown at a PPF of 400 µmol m-2 s-1 from high pressure sodium (HPS) lamps with a
18
16-h photoperiod. Radishes were grown at 0, 20, 40, 80, 120 and 160 ppb ethylene in
19
independent chambers for at least two replicate studies. Leaves and storage roots
20
(bulbous tap root without lateral roots) were harvested at 20 days post emergence (DPE).
21
Pea Ethylene Sensitivity Studies
22
53 Day Study. Peas (Pisum sativum cv. Earligreen) were planted in replicate
23
chambers in a greenhouse using a randomized complete block design and a density of 40
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
8
1
plants m-2 (8 plants per chamber; Fig. 2). Supplemental HPS lamps provided a PPF of
2
600 µmol m-2 s-1 for a 16 h photoperiod. Plants were watered with the same nutrient
3
solution described for radish. Ethylene concentrations were maintained at 0, 10, 20, 40,
4
70 and 120 ppb in two replicate chambers. Plants were harvested at maturity with full
5
seeds in full pods before senesence (53 DPE). Subsequent ANOVA analysis (SPSS v. 15)
6
indicated no block effect and data from both blocks were combined.
7
33 Day Study. Individual plants were grown in replicate chambers identical to
8
those described for pea (Fig. 2). Nutrient solution was provided as described for radishes.
9
Ethylene levels were 0, 30, 60, 120 and 200 ppb. Plants were harvested 33 days post
10
planting before pods in the controls (< 1 cm long) could fill. Dry mass was measured for
11
the vegetative portion of the plants, including unfilled pods.
12
Ethylene-PPF Interaction Studies
13
Radish and pea plants were grown in the chambers described above for radish
14
sensitivity (Fig. 1). For radish, a PPF regime of 50, 200 and 400 µmol m-2 s-1 was
15
imposed with steady-state ethylene at 0 or 200 ppb. Radish plants were harvested at 22
16
DPE. For pea, a PPF regime of 70, 200 and 400 µmol m-2 s-1 was imposed with steady-
17
state ethylene at 0 or 50 ppb. Pea plants were harvested at 14 DPE.
18
Non-Destructive Quantification of Plant Size via Digital Photography
19
Klassen et al. (2003) showed the high correlation of pixel area with growth.
20
Digital images of plants were taken with the fixed focal length lens height kept at a
21
constant height above the media surface. Images were imported into Adobe Photoshop
22
CS2®. The extract filter was used to separate the plants from the background. Once plants
23
were extracted from the original background, 15% grey was placed as the new
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
9
1
background while maintaining the pixel dimensions of the original image. The “magic
2
wand” tool with the tolerance set in the range from 1-10 and set to highlight contiguous
3
pixels only was used to select the grey background. The “inverse selection” command
4
was then used to select for the plants. The histogram palette was used to obtain the total
5
number of pixels for all plants in the container. The number of pixels per plant was then
6
calculated as an average of all plants in a chamber.
7
Ethylene Measurement
8
Ethylene was automatically measured in each chamber every 30 minutes using an
9
automated Shimadzu GC17a v. 3.4 equipped with a flame ionization detector. An 1/8 in
10
diameter x 2 m Porapak® Q column at 120˚C oven temperature and 70 ml min-1 helium
11
carrier flow was used to separate ethylene contained in samples loaded via 5 ml sample
12
loop. Ethylene was retained for approximately 0.83 min with a 5 ppb detection threshold.
13
0 ppb control chambers showed no ethylene present within the constraints of this
14
detection limit (less than 5 ppb). The system was equipped with two common-outlet 16-
15
port sample valves (VICI Valves, Houston, TX) which allowed for the continuous cyclic
16
monitoring of ethylene from 31 separate locations.
17
Results
18
Non-Destructive Measurement of Ethylene Sensitivity
19
Elevated ethylene decreased green pixel area in both radish and pea for all days
20
measured (Fig. 3). Treated plants that were small at day of emergence remained
21
comparably small throughout the life cycle. By 10 DPE when the radish canopy started to
22
close, leaf expansion of plants grown at 160 ppb were 35-40% the size of controls (Fig. 3,
23
radish inset).
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
10
1
The effect of ethylene on pea was greater than radish (Fig. 3). Similar to radish
2
plants, the effect on plant size was apparent at emergence and remained throughout the
3
life cycle (Fig. 3, pea inset). Plant size was reduced by 30% at 10 ppb; this is a
4
significantly lower sensitivity threshold than radish (Fig. 3, inset). Subsequent
5
measurements of vegetative dry mass of both species confirmed the pixel data (Fig. 4,
6
Top).
7
The data for radish and pea ethylene sensitivity were placed in context with data
8
originally published in Klassen and Bugbee (2004) (Fig. 4). Vegetative radish root was
9
less sensitive to ethylene than reproductive pea yields. Peas were among the most
10
sensitive of the crops tested (Fig. 4).
11
Carbon Partitioning and Yield
12
Both storage root and shoot dry mass of radish decreased in response to ethylene
13
(Fig. 4, Top). As predicted by digital pixel counts, shoot and root dry masses were also
14
35-40% of controls at 160 ppb ethylene. Both shoot and root percent dry mass showed a
15
slight increase with increasing ethylene but it was not statistically significant (data not
16
shown).
17
indicating that carbon partitioning into the radish root is not altered by ethylene.
Harvest index was not affected by ethylene treatment (data not shown),
18
Pea yield, defined as seed dry mass, exponentially decreased with increasing
19
ethylene (Fig. 4, bottom). Yield decreased ~37% at 10 ppb ethylene, similar to pixel
20
count predictions. Shoot fresh and dry mass, pod fresh and dry mass, number of seeds per
21
pod, shoot height, internode length, and number of pods per plant all followed trends
22
similar to yield (data not shown). Harvest index decreased, demonstrating a profound
23
effect on reproductive growth (Fig. 5).
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
1
11
Ethylene-PPF Interaction
2
As expected, reduced PPF decreased plant size and caused etiolation in both
3
radish and pea plants (Figs. 6 & 7). At 50 µmol m-2 s-1 PPF, 200 ppb of ethylene reduced
4
the epinastic response of radish shoots (Fig. 6). Ethylene at 200 ppb decreased radish root
5
and shoot fresh mass 55 to 65% (data not shown). Ethylene at 50 ppb decreased pea shoot
6
dry mass by 40% (data not shown). Some leaf curling was observed in pea plants at all
7
light levels but not in radishes. When the mass data was plotted as percent control vs.
8
PPF, there was no significant effect of ethylene on sensitivity; treated plants were
9
decreased in size by the same amount regardless of PPF (Fig. 8).
10
Discussion
11
Threshold for Ethylene Sensitivity
12
To prevent loss of yield, Klassen and Bugbee (2004) suggest an ethylene
13
inhibition threshold of 10 ppb for crops dependent on pollination and seed set and 30 ppb
14
for crops dependent on leaf expansion and vegetative growth. Although these separate
15
thresholds were given, the sensitivity data they presented merged both reproductive and
16
vegetative crops. We clearly make the distinction between vegetative and reproductive
17
crops (Fig. 4). This distinction is important since several types of tissues are being
18
compared and contrasted: roots and leaves harvested for vegetative crops are grouped
19
together as similar and are contrasted against reproductive crops that are dependent upon
20
flowering rates, pollination and fruit set all of which have varying, and unknown in many
21
cases, levels of sensitivity to ethylene.
22
At our lowest ethylene concentration for radish (20, 40 ppb) there is some
23
evidence for Type II or Type III (as described by Pierik et al., 2006) growth stimulation
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
12
1
in response to low ethylene. This is consistent with the results of Eraso et al. (2002) in
2
which radish vegetation and root mass was not significantly impacted at ethylene
3
concentrations below 50 ppb. A similar effect was also seen for mizuna (Brassica rapa,
4
japonica group) vegetation. All the rest of the data exhibit Type I decreases with no
5
suggestion of improved growth at low ethylene concentrations. These data represent the
6
first steps towards the comprehensive species-wide screening of ethylene concentration
7
dependency called for by Pierik et al. (2006) to demonstrate the generality of the bi-
8
phasic model. It appears that if bi-phasic stimulation of ethylene is a valid proposal, it is
9
limited to non-reproductive tissues and at concentrations below 50 ppb.
10
Pea plants provide a unique example of compounded sensitivity in that losses in
11
both vegetative and reproductive tissues affected yield, making them among the most
12
ethylene sensitive crops tested. This is different from the wheat and rice crops reported
13
by Klassen and Bugbee (2002) and flower abortion in tomato reported by Hudelson
14
(2006). In those cases, vegetation was largely unaffected at ethylene concentrations that
15
severely reduced reproductive yield. For these plants, in chronic ethylene exposure
16
situations, application of ethylene perception inhibitors might be beneficial.
17
Potential morphological responses to ethylene
18
Ethylene is well known to induce epinasty and hyponasty in radish and pea
19
seedlings at levels above about 1 ppm (Morgan, 2011; Polko et al. 2011;). We observed
20
some hyponasty in the ethylene-treated peas but the effect was similar at all light levels.
21
For the radish plants our levels of ethylene exposure may have been below the threshold
22
for these morphological effects to be apparent. Klassen and Bugbee (2004) found
23
significant effects of low ethylene levels on cell expansion, but they did not observe
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
13
1
significant morphological alterations to the leaves in any of the eight crops studied,
2
including radishes.
3
Non-Destructive Measurement of Growth
4
Pixel counts can accurately predict plant size (Klassen et al. 2003). The accuracy
5
is affected by several factors. Foremost, more vertical leaf angle can lead to an
6
underestimation of plant size. Ethylene can affect leaf angle. If light is provided from a
7
single direction and side lighting is minimized, then a decrease in pixel count due to leaf-
8
angle change is representative of decreased radiation capture potential, assuming that
9
actual leaf area has not changed. Neither radish nor pea plants exhibited noticeable
10
changes to leaf angle. Alterations to leaf size caused the greatest differences between
11
treatments. Indeed, in this study pixel counts accurately predicted dry mass at time of
12
harvest.
13
Ethylene-PPF Interaction and Shade Avoidance
14
Although we did not measure biochemical responses for shade-avoidance
15
reactions, prior experiments in young plants such as those of Vandenbussche et al.
16
(2003), Foo (2006), Pierik et al. (2009) and Kurepin et al. (2010) have established the
17
role of ethylene signaling in seedlings and young plants experiencing shade stress.
18
However, our results indicate, at least for growth of intact radish and pea, that PPF has no
19
interaction with ethylene sensitivity.
20
Plants in low light should produce minimal ethylene so that leaf and stem
21
expansion are as rapid as possible.
Once the plants have adequate light, ethylene
22
synthesis should increase, restricting growth. Since Foo (2006), Pierik et al. (2009) and
23
Kurepin et al. (2010) support the observations of Vandenbussche, et al. (2003), this
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
14
1
suggests that, in this case of chronic exposure, neither photoreceptor regulation or shade
2
avoidance pathways affect response to chronic ethylene and that there is no crosstalk
3
between these two possibly independent pathways. This further suggests that the shade-
4
avoidance capabilities of the chronically exposed plants might remain intact. It is equally
5
possible, however, that the shade-avoidance signal may be overwhelmed and non
6
responsive in this situation. Studies that examine synthesis-light interactions during long-
7
term plant growth should yield greater insight.
8
Acknowledgements
9
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Graduate Student Researchers
10
Program (grant #NNG05GL53H) and the Utah Agriculture Experiment Station at Utah
11
State University (paper #8432) supported this research. We would also like to thank Alec
12
Hay, Julie Chard, and Rob Hyatt and the other members of the Utah State University
13
Crop Physiology Laboratory who assisted with this project.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
15
Literature Cited
Abeles FB, Morgan PW, Saltveit ME (1992) Ethylene in Plant Biology, 2nd Edition.
Academic Press, San Diego, CA
Bleecker AB, Estelle MA, Somerville C, Kende H (1988) Insensitivity to ethylene conferred
by a dominant mutation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 241: 1086-1089
Campbell WF, Salisbury FB, Bugbee B, Klassen SP, Naegle E, Strickland DT, Bingham
GE, Levinskikh M, Iljina GM, Veselova TD, Sytchev VN, Podolsky I, McManus
WR, Bubenheim DL, Stieber J, Jahns G (2001) Comparative floral development of
Mir-grown and ethylene-treated, earth-grown super dwarf wheat. Journal of Plant
Physiology 158: 1051-1060
Eraso I, Stutte GW, Stryjewski EC (2002) Chronic exposure to ethylene induces stress
symptoms in radish. In Proceedings NATO Advance Research Workshop on Biology and
Biotechnology of the Plant Hormone Ethylene, Vol S2-O3
Fiorani F, Bogemann GM, Visser EJW, Lambers H, Voesenek L (2002) Ethylene emission
and responsiveness to applied ethylene vary among Poa species that inherently differ in
leaf elongation rates. Plant Physiology 129: 1382-1390
Foo E, Ross JJ, Davies NW, Reid JB, Weller JL (2006) A role for ethylene in the
phytochrome-mediated control of vegetative development. Plant Journal 46: 911-921
Hudelson TJ (2006) Environmental, Chemical, and Genetic Reduction of Ethylene Sensitivity
in Crop Plants. Masters. Utah State University, Logan
Jiao XZ, Yip WK, Yang SF (1987) The Effect of Light and Phytochrome on 1Aminocyclopropane-1-Carboxylic Acid Metabolism in Etiolated Wheat Seedling Leaves.
Plant Physiology 85: 643-647
Klassen SP, Bugbee B (2002) Sensitivity of wheat and rice to low levels of atmospheric
ethylene. Crop Science 42: 746-753
Klassen SP, Bugbee B (2004) Ethylene synthesis and sensitivity in crop plants. HortScience 39:
1546-1552
Klassen SP, Ritchie G, Frantz JM, Pinnock D, Bugbee B (2003) Real-time imaging of ground
cover: relationships with radiation capture, canopy photosynthesis, and daily growth rate.
In: Digital Imaging and Spectral Techniques: Applications to Precision Agriculture and
Crop Physiology, vol 66. ASA, Madison, WI, pp 3-13
Konings H, Jackson MB (1979) A relationship between rates of ethylene production by roots
and the promoting or inhibiting effects of exogenous ethylene and water on root
elongation. Z Pflanzenphysiol 92: 385-397
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
16
Kurepin LV, Walton LJ, Yeung EC, Chinnappa CC, Reid DM (2010) The interaction of
light irradiance with ethylen ein regulating growth of Helianthus annus shoot tissues.
Plant Growth Regulation 62: 43-50
Mattoo AK, Suttle JC (1991) The Plant Hormone Ethylene. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Morgan, P. 2011. Another Look at Interpreting Research to Manage the Effects of Ethylene in
Ambient Air. Crop Sci. 51:903-913.
Morison JIL, Gifford RM (1984) Ethylene contamination of CO2 cylinders: effects on plant
growth in CO2 enrichment studies. Plant Physiology 75: 275-277
Oráez D, Blay R, Granell A (1999) Programme of senescence in petals and carpels of Pisum
sativum L. flowers and its control by ethylene. Planta 208: 220-226
Payton S, Fray RG, Brown S, Grierson D (1996) Ethylene receptor expression is regulated
during fruit ripening, flower senescence and abscission. Plant Molecular Biology 31:
1227-1231
Perry JL, Peterson BV (2003) Cabin Air Quality Dynamics on Board the International Space
Station. In, pp 1-9
Pierik R, Djakovic-Petrovic T, Keuskamp DH, de Wit M, Voesenek LACJ (2009) Auxin and
Ethylene Regulate Elangation Responses to Neighbor Proxomity Signals Independent of
Gibberellin and DELLA Proteins in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 149: 1701-1712
Pierik R, Tholen D, Poorter H, Visser EJW, Voesenek L (2006) The Janus face of ethylene:
growth inhibition and stimulation. Trends in Plant Science 11: 176-183
Pierik R, Whitelam GC, Voesenek L, de Kroon H, Visser EJW (2004) Canopy studies on
ethylene-insensitive tobacco identify ethylene as a novel element in blue light and plantplant signalling. Plant Journal 38: 310-319
Polko J.,Voesenek L, Peeters A, and Pierik R. 2011. Petiole hyponasty: an ethylene-driven,
adaptive response to changes in the environment. AoB PLANTS plr031;
doi:10.1093/aobpla/plr031
Rudnicki RM, Fjeld T, Moe R (1993) Effect of Light Quality on Ethylene Formation in Leaf
and Petal Disks of Begonia X Hiemalis-Fotsch Cv Schwabenland Red. Plant Growth
Regulation 13: 281-286
Sargent SA (2001) Operational Conserations for Harvest - Florda In G Hochmuth, ed,
Greenhouse Vegetable Production Handbook, Vol 3. University of Florida Extension,
Institute of of Food and Agricultural Sciences
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
17
Smalle J, VanderStraeten D (1997) Ethylene and vegetative development. Physiologia
Plantarum 100: 593-605
Taylor Jr. GE, Gunderson CA (1988) Phsyiological Site of Ethylene Effects on Carbon
Dioxide Assimilation in Glycine max L. Merr. Plant Physiology 86: 85-92
Tholen D, Voesenek L, Poorter H (2004) Ethylene insensitivity does not increase leaf area or
relative growth rate in Arabidopsis, Nicotiana tabacum, and Petunia x hybrida. Plant
Physiology 134: 1803-1812
Vandenbussche FBV, Ivo Rieu, Margaret Ahmad, Andy Phillips, Thomas Moritz, Peter
Hedden, Dominique Van Der Straeten (2007) Ethylene-induced Arabidopsis hypocotyl
elongation is depenedent on but not mediated by gibberellins. Journal of Experimental
Botany 58 (15/16):4269-4281
Vandenbussche F, Pierik R, Millenaar FF, Voesenek LACJ, Van Der Straeten D (2005)
Reaching out of the shade. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 8: 462-468
Vandenbussche F, Vriezen WH, Smalle J, Laarhoven LJJ, Harren FJM, Straeten DVD
(2003) Ethylene and Auxin Control the Arabidopsis Response to Decreased Light
Intensity. Plant Physiology 133: 517-527
Wheeler RM, Peterson BV, Sager JC, Knott WM (1996) Ethylene production by plants in a
closed environment. Advances in Space Research 18: 193-196
Wheeler RM, Peterson BV, Stutte GW (2004) Ethylene production throughout growth and
development of plants. HortScience 39: 1541-1545
Woodrow L, Grodzinski B (1993) Ethylene exchange in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. leaves
during short-term and long-term exposures to CO2. Journal of Experimental Botany 44:
471-480
Woodrow L, Jiao J, Tsujita MJ, Grodzinski B (1989) Whole Plant and Leaf Steady State Gas
Exchange during Ethylene Exposure in Xanthium strumarium L. Plant Physiology 90:
85-90
Woodrow L, Thompson RG, Grodzinski B (1988) Effects of ethylene on photosynthesis and
partitioning in tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Journal of Experimental Botany
39: 667-684
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
Figure 1.
18
Radish plants and six flow-through chambers used for radish sensitivity
characterization and both ethylene-PPF interaction trials. The front-center polycarbonate
chamber has been removed for the photo. Blended-gas supply lines feed into the top of
chamber directly in front of the fan. Photo has been color corrected to remove orange cast
of HPS lamps. Reflective surface in back of image creates illusion of more than six
chambers.
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
Figure 2. Pea plants growing in 12-chamber greenhouse system.
Each chamber was individually controlled for temperature and
flow-through air/ethylene mix. PPF was equalized in each chamber
with window screen. Each row was treated as a block (North or
South) in a randomized complete block experiment design. There
was no block effect in the final data. Photo has been color corrected.
19
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
Radish
20
Pea
Figure 3. Time course of ethylene effect on radish and pea size measured in pixels. Data points in the
graph are from individual chambers in replicate trials. The equation for a sigmoid growth curve was
used to fit regression lines to the data (r2 ≥0.95 for all lines). The inset shows pixel data from days 3
and 10 post emergence for radish (regression lines are identical despite chamber variance) and days 8
and 15 post emergence for pea as a percent of control. 160 ppb reduced radish plant size by 40%
whereas 20 ppb reduced pea growth by a similar amount. Canopy closure past day 10 for radishes
and day 15 for pea prohibited further analysis via digital imaging. Subsequent harvest data was highly
correlated with pixel data.
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
Figure 4. Ethylene sensitivity of vegetative and reproductive crop plants. Vegetative
crops are less sensitive to elevated ethylene than reproductive crops. Radish plants were
less sensitive than lettuce or mustard. Pea plants were one of the most sensitive crops
tested. Dotted reference lines indicate a 10% loss in potential yield. Except for pea and
radish data, all data are modified from Klassen and Bugbee (2004).
21
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
22
Pea
Figure 5. Effect of ethylene on pea harvest index.
Harvest index decreased as ethylene increased in all
chambers above 20 ppb, indicating a decrease in
carbon partitioning to reproductive structures. Seed
set was zero at 120 ppb for one of the chambers.
Regression line is a 2 parameter exponential decay
with r2 = 0.75.
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
23
Light Levels (PPF; µmol m-2 s-1)
200
400
200
Ethylene (ppb)
0
50
Figure 6. Radish plants from the first ethylene sensitivity–light interaction trial. Increased
light levels did not alter sensitivity to ethylene.
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
24
Light Levels (PPF; µmol m-2 s-1)
200
400
50
Ethylene (ppb)
0
70
Figure 7. Pea plants from the first ethylene sensitivity–light interaction trial. Increased light
levels did not alter sensitivity to ethylene.
No whole plant PPF-ethylene interaction in radish and pea.
Figure 8. Effect of PPF on radish root and shoot
fresh mass and pea shoot dry mass. Demonstrated
by nearly horizontal linear regression lines,
increased PPF did not alter ethylene sensitivity (r2 <
0.42 for all lines). Shoot dry mass from pea plants
grown at 50 ppb ethylene was 58 to 60% of control.
Radish root and shoot fresh mass from plants grown
at 200 ppb ethylene were 35 to 45% of control.
25