Plant and Soil

, Volume 143, Issue 1, pp 141–144 | Cite as

Some properties of ferric citrate relevant to the iron nutrition of plants

  • H. Frits Bienfait
  • Marco R. Scheffers
Short Communication

Abstract

Ferric citrate, the form in which iron is transported in dicotyledonous plants, diffuses slowly through cotton cellulose dialysis membranes, used to serve as a model for plant cell walls. KCl at m M concentrations stimulates diffusion.

Photoreduction of ferric citrate results in a rapid and nearly complete reduction of iron when the citrate concentration is low (50 μM) as in the xylem sap of plants growing on non-calcareous soils. In 1 m M citrate, as in the xylem sap of plants that activate their Fe-efficiency reactions, fast reoxidation prevents the buildup of high ferrous levels until after citrate has been largely broken down by photodestruction.

Photodestruction of citrate, catalyzed by iron, results in increase of pH in the solution and in the formation of a non-dialyzable form of iron, and thus can lead to deposition of ‘inactive’ iron in leaves.

Key words

chlorosis citrate iron lime 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barak, P and Chen, Y 1984 J. Plant Nutr. 7, 125–133.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, J et al. 1982 J. Plant Nutr. 5, 335–344.Google Scholar
  3. Benrath, A 1910 Z. Phys. Chem. 74, 115–124.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, J C et al. 1979 Plant Physiol. 63, 692–695.Google Scholar
  5. Cline, G R et al. 1982 Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46, 1158–1164.Google Scholar
  6. Cornett, J D and Johnson, G V 1991 In Iron Nutrition and Interactions in Plants. Eds. Y Chen and Y Hadar. pp 95–100. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. De Vos, C R et al. 1986 Plant Physiol. 81, 842–846.Google Scholar
  8. Federico, S and Giartosio, C E 1983 Plant Physiol. 73, 182–184.Google Scholar
  9. Frahn, J L 1958 Aust. J. Chem. 11, 399–405.Google Scholar
  10. Gris, E 1844 C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 19, 1118–1119.Google Scholar
  11. Hoffer, G N and Trost, J F 1926 Agron. J. 15, 323–331.Google Scholar
  12. Kinzel, H 1982 Pflanzenökologie und Mineralstoffwechsel. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  13. Mengel, K and Geurtzen, G 1986 J. Plant Nutr. 9, 161–173.Google Scholar
  14. Mengel, K and Geurtzen, G 1988 Physiol. Plant. 72, 460–465.Google Scholar
  15. Novak, J 1965 Talanta 12, 649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pate, J S 1975 In Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology N.S. Vol I. Eds. M H Zimmermann and J A Milburn. pp 451–473. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  17. Römheld, V and Marschner, H 1981 Physiol. Plant. 53, 354–360.Google Scholar
  18. Römheld, V and Marschner, H 1986 Adv. Plant Nutr. 2, 155–204.Google Scholar
  19. Spiro, T G et al. 1967 J. Am. Chem. Soc. 89, 5555–5559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Terry, N and Abadia, J 1986 J. Plant Nutr. 9, 609–646.Google Scholar
  21. Tiffin, L O 1966a Plant Physiol. 41, 510–514.Google Scholar
  22. Tiffin, L O 1966b Plant Physiol. 41, 515–518.Google Scholar
  23. Tiffin, L O 1972 Plant Physiol. 45, 280–283.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Frits Bienfait
    • 1
  • Marco R. Scheffers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyState University of UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.UtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.WageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations