Effects of ambient ozone on injury and yield of Phaseolus vulgaris at four rural sites in the Netherlands as assessed by using ethylenediurea (EDU)

Abstract

SUMMARYTo assess adverse effects of" ambient ozone on injury and yield, IiDU (ethylenediuvea) iind non-EDU-treated plants of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Lit) were exposed to ambient air at four rural sites in the Netherlands in 1994. After 6 wk of exposure, the proportion of leaves injured in non-EDU-treated plants was higher than that in plants treated with the antioxidant. A maximal degree of 3.S"r) injury was observed. Tbe highest ozone levels accumulated at eacli site for three consecutive days before injury clearly exceeded the proposed short-term critical level for injury development. Both injury in untreated plants and the protective effect of EDU differed between sites and were not related to the measured ozone levels. EDU increased the d. w t of dry (mature) pods after 11 wk of exposure but not of green (marketable) pods after 6 wk. The effect of EDU in enhancing dry pod yield did not differ between sites and was 20",, on average. Tbe proportional yield increases in EDU-treated plants compared with those of non-liDU-treated plants at the sites were not correlated with the measured ozone levels known to adversely affect bean yield. Tbe available evidence, however, suggests that ambient ozone was involved in the observed yield increase by EDU. When the dry pods were harvested, EDU-treated plants had more leaves than non-EDU-treated ones. Tbe effect of EDU in delaying senescence appears to be an important factor to consider when attempting to evaluate the effect of ambient ozone on pod weight in beans using the EDU approach.

Differences in responses of two mustard cultivars to ethylenediurea (EDU) at high ambient ozone concentrations in India

“…Thus, our experiment demonstrated that biomass accumulation/allocation pattern is not strongly correlated with yield in B. campestris, and that there are different structure-related strategies among the cultivars to compensate for ozone-induced losses, as reviewed in Black et al (2000). Foliar application of EDU is well known to enhance plant performance and crop yield in several crops, such as potato (Eckardt and Pell, 1996), snap bean (Lee et al, 1997) and bush bean (Tonneijck and Van Dijk, 1997). Yield parameters were significantly increased with EDU treatment, indicating that ozone concentrations were sufficiently high to cause a negative effect on both cultivars.…”

“…EDU has a senescencedelaying capacity (Tonneijck and Van Dijk, 1997). Lee and Chen (1982) reported that EDU can act like the plant hormone cytokinin, with the ability to retard chlorophyll degradation, sustain protein synthesis and stimulate cell growth, but the effect is a fraction of that of a synthetic cytokinin.…”

Physiological and biochemical response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L. cv. Kara) to O3 and antioxidant chemicals: possible roles of antioxidant enzymes

“…Ozone (O 3 ) is the most common phytotoxic pollutant in the USA, Europe and other industrialised areas of the world, causing adverse effects on physiology, growth and yield of agricultural crops (Tonneijack & Van Dijk, 1997; Hassan et al 1999; Madkour & Laurence, 2002; El‐Khatib, 2003; Hassan, 2004; Carrasco‐Rodriguez et al , 2005).…”

Assessing field vulnerability to phosphorus loss in Beijing agricultural area using Revised Field Phosphorus Ranking Scheme

“…EDU has been widely used in many parts of the world for this purpose. Some examples of plants where EDU was used include: bean (Kostka-Rick and Brunschon-Harti et al, 1995;Tonneijck and Vandijk, 1997;Elagoz and Manning, 2005), clover (Astorino et al, 1995;Tonneijck and Van Dijk, 2002), loblolly pine (Kuehler and Flagler, 1999;Manning et al, 2003), mung bean , potato (Clarke et al, 1990;Eckardt and Pell, 1996), radish Hassan et al, 1995), tobacco (Manes et al, 1990), tomato (Varshney and Rout, 1998), and turnip (Hassan et al, 1995). EDU has also been used successfully to determine ambient ozone effects on two wheat cultivars in India (Tiwari et al, 2005).…”