Influences of ultra‐violet (UV)‐blue light radiation on the growth of cotton. I. Effect on iron nutrition and iron stress response

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Cool white fluorescent (CWF) light reduces Fe3+ to Fe2+ while low pressure sodium (LPS) light does not. Cotton plants grown under CWF light are green, while those yrown under LPS light develop a chlorosis very similar to the chlorosis that develops when the plants are deficient in iron (Fe). It could be that CWF light (which has ultra violet) makes iron more available for plant use by maintaining more Fe2+ in the plant. Two of the factors commonly induced by Fe‐stress in dicotyledonous plants‐‐hydroyen ions and reductants released by the roots‐‐were measured as indicators of the Fe‐deficiency stress response mechanism in M8 cotton. The plants were grown under LPS and CWF light in nutrient solutions containing either NO3‐N or NH4‐N as the source of nitrogen, and also in a fertilized alkaline soil. Leaf chlorophyll concentration varied significantly in plants grown under the two light sources as follows: CWF+Fe > LPS+Fe > CWF‐Fe ≥ LPS‐Fe. The leaf nitrate and root Fe concentrations were significantly greater and leaf Fe was generally lower in plants grown under LPS than CWF light. Hydrogen ions were extruded by Fe‐deficiency stressed roots grown under either LPS or CWF light, but “reductants”; were extruded only by the plants grown under CWF light. In tests demonstrating the ability of light to reduce Fe3+ to Fe2+ in solutions, enough ultra violet penetrated the chlorotic leaf of LPS yrown plants to reduce some Fe3+ in a beaker below, but no reduction was evident through a yreen CWF grown leaf. The chlorosis that developed in these cotton plants appeared to be induced by a response to the source of liyht and not by the fertilizer added. It seems possible that ultra violet liyht could affect the reduction of Fe3+ to Fe2+ in leaves and thus control the availability of this iron to biological systems requiring iron in the plant.