Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 434, Issue 1–2, pp 79–91 | Cite as

Chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis can detect phosphorus deficiency under field conditions and is an effective tool to prevent grain yield reductions in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

  • Andreas Carstensen
  • Augusta Egelund Szameitat
  • Jens Frydenvang
  • Søren HustedEmail author
Regular Article
  • 167 Downloads

Abstract

Background and aim

Phosphorus (P) is an essential macronutrient with major impacts on global crop productivity. Recent work showed that chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis can be used as a sensitive indicator of latent P deficiency across different plant species. Here, we demonstrate that chlorophyll a fluorescence OJIP transients are a powerful tool for early detection of P deficiency directly in the field.

Methods

Barley was grown in a P responsive field. One treatment received 30 kg P ha−1 at sowing, four treatments were fertilized with P at 26, 35, 46 or 56 days after sowing (DAS), respectively, and the final treatment did not receive any P throughout the experiment. Chlorophyll a fluorescence measurements, multi-elemental leaf analysis, and growth stage evaluation were performed 26, 35, 46, 56, and 69 DAS.

Results

Phosphorus deficiency during early vegetative growth irreversibly affected plant development including tiller outgrowth and grain yields. However, in the present study, yield reduction could be avoided if short-term P deficiency was corrected by application of P fertilizer no later than 35 days after sowing, when plants had not yet entered the tillering stage. The chlorophyll a fluorescence OJIP transients were able to detect latent P deficiency in this critical phase, thereby providing an opportunity for avoiding a potential yield reduction of up to 27 hkg ha−1. It was further noted, that chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis and P leaf tissue analysis should be performed during early vegetative growth, as probable remobilization of P within the plant during tillering and shoot differentiation masks the effects of P deficiency at the single leaf level.

Conclusions

It is concluded that chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis provides a unique opportunity for a timely detection and correction of P deficiency under field conditions to prevent yield reductions.

Keywords

Phosphorus deficiency Chlorophyll a fluorescence Tillering Field experiment Barley 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by University of Copenhagen and Innovation Fund Denmark (Future Cropping). We are especially grateful to Leif Knudsen (SEGES) for assistance with identifying P responsive soils, Jens Lyhne Kristiansen (LandboNord) for preparing the experimental field and finally Frede Jacobsen for making his field available to us. This work was supported by the University of Copenhagen and Innovation Fund Denmark (Future Cropping).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

A.C., J.F., and S.H. are co-applicants on the patent (PCT/EP2013/069899) describing the use of chlorophyll a fluorescence to determine the nutritional status of plants, and are founders of the university spin-out SpectraCrop IVS, marketing a hand-held device for predicting the P status of plants. For this reason, there may be a conflict of interest in order to show that the developed P model is able to predict the P status of barley leaves under field conditions. It should be noted that similar OJIP transients, as the ones recorded in this study, can be obtained by a broad range of standard chlorophyll a fluorescence instruments, including Photon Systems Instruments (PSI), Walz, Hansatech, Opti Sciences, Phenospex and MultispeQ.

Supplementary material

11104_2018_3783_MOESM1_ESM.docx (8.5 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 8750 kb)

References

  1. Alqudah AM, Koppolu R, Wolde GM et al (2016) The genetic architecture of barley plant stature. Front Genet 7:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arisnabarreta S, Miralles DJ (2008) Critical period for grain number establishment of near isogenic lines of two- and six-rowed barley. Field Crops Res 107:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker A, Ceasar SA, Palmer AJ et al (2015) Replace, reuse, recycle: improving the sustainable use of phosphorus by plants. J Exp Bot 66:3523–3540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker M, Rayens W (2003) Partial least squares for discrimination. J Chemom 17:166–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenchley WE (1929) The phosphate requirement of barley at different periods of growth. Ann Bot 43:89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brereton RG, Lloyd GR (2014) Partial least squares discriminant analysis: taking the magic away. J Chemom 28:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brestic M, Zivcak M (2013) PSII fluorescence techniques for measurement of drought and high temperature stress signal in crop plants: protocols and applications. In: Rout GR, Das AB (eds) Molecular stress physiology of plants. Springer, Bhubaneswar, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  8. Carstensen A, Herdean A, Schmidt SB et al (2018) The impacts of phosphorus deficiency on the photosynthetic electron transport chain. Plant Physiol 177:271–284Google Scholar
  9. Cordell D, White S (2015) Tracking phosphorus security: indicators of phosphorus vulnerability in the global food system. Food Sec 7:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cordell D, Drangert JO, White S (2009) The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Chang 19:292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. del Moral MBG, del Moral LFG (1995) Tiller production and survival in relation to grain yield in winter and spring barley. Field Crops Res 44:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edixhoven JD, Gupta J, Savenije HHG (2013) Recent revisions of phosphate rock reserves and resources: reassuring or misleading? An in-depth literature review of global estimates of phosphate rock reserves and resources. Earth Syst Dynam 4:1005–1034Google Scholar
  13. Elliott D, Reuter D, Reddy G, Abbott R (1997) Phosphorus nutrition of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) 1. Effects of phosphorus supply on plant symptoms, yield, components of yield,and plant phophorus uptake. Aust J Agric Res 48:855–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evers JB, Vos J (2013) Modeling branching in cereals. Front Plant Sci 4:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frydenvang J, van Maarschalkerweerd M, Carstensen A et al (2015) Sensitive detection of phosphorus deficiency in plants using chlorophyll a fluorescence. Plant Physiol 169:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert N (2009) The disappearing nutrient. Nature 461:716–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goltsev VN, Kalaji HM, Paunov M et al (2016) Variable chlorophyll fluorescence and its use for assessing physiological condition of plant photosynthetic apparatus. Russ J Plant Physiol 63:869–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant CA, Flaten DN, Tomasiewicz DJ, Sheppard SC (2001) The importance of early season phosphorus nutrition. Can J Plant Sci 81:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green DG, Ferguson WS, Warder FG (1973) Accumulation of toxic levels of phosphorus in the leaves of phosphorus-deficient barley. Can J Plant Sci 53:241–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo Y, Tan J (2015) Recent advances in the application of chlorophyll a fluorescence from photosystem II. Photochem Photobiol 91:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammond JP, White PJ (2008) Sucrose transport in the phloem: integrating root responses to phosphorus starvation. J Exp Bot 59:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen TH, Laursen KH, Persson DP et al (2009) Micro-scaled high-throughput digestion of plant tissue samples for multi-elemental analysis. Plant Methods 5:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawkesford M, Horst W, Kichey T, et al (2011) Functions of macronutrients. In: Marschner P (ed) Marschner’s mineral nutrition of higher plants: Third Edition, Third. Elsevier Ltd, pp 135–189Google Scholar
  24. Hoppo SD, Elliott DE, Reuter DJ (1999) Plant tests for diagnosing phosphorus deficiency in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Aust J Exp Agric 39:857–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hotelling H (1931) The generalization of Student’s ratio. Ann Math Stat 2:360–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hussien A, Tavakol E, Horner DS et al (2014) Genetics of Tillering in Rice and barley. Plant Genome 7:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones E, Oliphant E, Peterson P (2001) SciPy: open source scientific tools for PythonGoogle Scholar
  28. Kalaji HM, Goltsev VN, Zuk-Golaszewska K et al (2017) Chlorophyll fluorescence understanding crop performance - basics and applications. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kebrom TH, Spielmeyer W, Finnegan EJ (2013) Grasses provide new insights into regulation of shoot branching. Trends Plant Sci 18:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirby EJM, Jones HG (1977) The relations between the main shoot and tillers in barley plants. J Agric Sci 88:381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kirby EJM, Appleyard M, Fellowes G (1985) Leaf emergence and tillering in barley and wheat. Agronomie 5:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Knudsen L, Østergaard HS (2012) Tolkning af jordbundsanalyser. Planteavlsorientering 07-483. Report from SEGES, Agro Food Park 15, 8200 Aarhus N, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  33. Lauer J, Simmons S (1988) Photoassimilate partitioning by tillers and individual tiller leaves in field-grown spring barley. Crop Sci 28:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacDonald GK, Bennett EM, Potter PA, Ramankutty N (2011) Agronomic phosphorus imbalances across the world’s croplands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:3086–3091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mason S, McNeill A, McLaughlin MJ, Zhang H (2010) Prediction of wheat response to an application of phosphorus under field conditions using diffusive gradients in thin-films (DGT) and extraction methods. Plant Soil 337:243–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKinney W (2010) Data structures for statistical computing in python. In: Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference. pp 51–56Google Scholar
  37. Mundus S, Carstensen A, Husted S (2017) Predicting phosphorus availability to spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) in agricultural soils of Scandinavia. Field Crops Res 212:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reuter DJ, Robinson JB (1997) Plant analysis: an interpretation manual, 2nd edn. CSIRO publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  39. Rodríguez D, Pomar MC, Goudriaan J (1998) Leaf pimordia initiation, leaf emergence and tillering in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown under low phosphorus condition. Plant Soil 202:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodríguez D, Andrade FH, Goudriaan J (1999) Effects of phosphorus nutrition on tiller emergence in wheat. Plant Soil 209:283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rychter AM, Rao IM (2005) Role of phosphorus in photosynthetic carbon metabolism. In: Pessarakli M (ed) Handbook of photosynthesis, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Florida, pp 123–148Google Scholar
  42. Simmons SR, Rasmusson DC, Wiersma JV (1982) Tillering in barley - genotype, row spacing, and seeding rate effects. Crop Sci 22:801–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sørensen NK, Bülow-Olsen A (1994) Fælles arbejdsmetoder for jordbundsanalyser. Landbrugsministeriet, Plantedirektoratet, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
  44. Strasser JR, Srivastava A, Tsimilli-Michael M (2000) The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterize and screen photosynthetic samples. In: Yunus M, Pathre U, Mohanty P (eds) Probing photosynthesis: mechanism. Regulation & Adaptation. CRC Press, Florida, pp 445–483Google Scholar
  45. Ticconi CA, Abel S (2004) Short on phosphate: plant surveillance and countermeasures. Trends Plant Sci 9:548–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. White PJ, Veneklaas EJ (2012) Nature and nurture: the importance of seed phosphorus content. Plant Soil 357:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zadoks J, Chang T, Konzak C (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res 14:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Carstensen
    • 1
  • Augusta Egelund Szameitat
    • 1
  • Jens Frydenvang
    • 2
  • Søren Husted
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Copenhagen Plant Science Centre, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Natural History Museum of DenmarkUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations