Ozone, antioxidant spray and meloidogyne hapla effects on tobacco

Bisessar, S.; Palmer, Katharina

doi:10.1016/0004-6981(84)90080-5

“…In contrast, increasing application frequency resulted in over-dosing and caused side-effects from EDU treatment on root and shoot biomass (Foster et al 1983;Bisessar and Palmer 1984). No significant differences in chlorophyll content, foliar injury, plant height, pod number and seed yield of soybean were observed in EDU-treated and untreated plants, when O 3 was absent .…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Edu and Its Toxicitymentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Yield loss assessments are performed by comparing the yield estimates of EDU-treated and untreated plants in O 3 polluted areas of the USA (Ensing et al 1985;Smith et al 1987), Asia (Wahid et al 2001;Agrawal et al 2004Agrawal et al , 2005Tiwari et al 2005;Wang et al 2007;Singh and Agrawal 2009;Singh et al 2010b, c), Africa (Hassan et al 1995;Hassan 2006) and Europe (Ribas and Penuelas 2000;Brunschon-Harti et al 1995a;Pleijel et al 1999). Yield increments after the application of EDU onto O 3 exposed plants have been reported for onion (Wukasch and Hofstra 1977), navy bean (Hofstra et al 1978;Temple and Bisessar 1979;Toivonen et al 1982), tomato (Legassicke and Ormrod 1981), potato (Bisessar 1982;Clarke et al 1990;Hassan 2006), tobacco (Bisessar and Palmer 1984), watermelon (Fieldhouse 1978), peanut (Ensing et al 1985), radish (Kostka-Rick and Manning 1992;Hassan et al 1995), carrot (Tiwari and Agrawal 2010), bush bean (Kostka-Rick and Manning 1993a, c), snap bean (Vandermeiren et al 1995), mungbean Singh et al 2010b), soybean (Wahid et al 2001), wheat (Agrawal et al 2004;Tiwari et al 2005;Wang et al 2007;Singh and Agrawal 2009) and black gram (Singh et al 2010c).…”

Section: The Role Of Edu In Assessing Yield Lossesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Assessment of Ethylene Diurea-Induced Protection in Plants Against Ozone Phytotoxicity

Singh

¹

,

Singh

²

,

Agrawal

³

et al. 2014

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Volume 233

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urbanization, industrialization and unsustainable utilization of natural resources have made tropospheric ozone (03) one of the world's most significant air pollutants. Past studies reveal that 0 3 is a phytotoxic air pollutant that causes or enhances food insecurity across the globe. Plant sensitivity, tolerance and resistance to 0 3 involve a wide array of responses that range from growth to the physiological, biochemical and molecular. Although plants have an array of defense systems to combat oxidative stress from 0 3 exposure, they still suffer sizable yield reductions. In recent years, the ground-level 0 3 concentrations to which crop plants have been exposed have caused yield loses that are economically damaging. Several types of chemicals have been applied or used to mitigate the effects produced by 0 3 on plants. These include agrochemicals (fungicides, insecticides, plant growth regulators), natural antioxidants, and others. Such treatments have been effective to one degree to another, in ameliorating Or generated stress in plants. Ethylene diurea (EDU) has been the most effective protectant used and has also served as a monitoring agent for assessing plant yield losses from 0 3 exposure. In this review, we summarize the data on how EDU has been used, the treatment methods tested, and application doses found to be both protective and toxic in plants. We have also summarized data that address the nature and modes of action (biophysical and biochemical) of EDU. In general, the literature discloses that EDU is effective in reducing ozone damage to plants, and indicates that EDU should be more widely used on 0 3 sensitive plants as a tool for biomonitoring of 0 3 concentrations. Biomonitoring studies that utilize EDU are very useful for rural and remote areas and in developing countries where 0 3 monitoring is constrained from unavailability of electricity. The mechanism(s) by which EDU prevents 0 3 toxicity in plants is still not completely known. EDU possesses great utility for screening plant sensitivity under field conditions in areas that experience high 0 3 concentrations, because EDU prevents 0 3 toxicity only in 0 3 sensitive plants. Ozone-resistant plants do not respond positively to EDU applications. However, EDU application dose and frequency must be standardized before it can be effectively and widely used for screening 0 3 sensitivity in plants. EDU acts primarily by enhancing biochemical plant defense and delaying Or induced senescence, thereby reducing chlorophyll loss, and maintaining physiological efficiency and primary metabolites; these actions enhance growth, biomass and yield of plants. We believe that future studies are needed to better address the EDU dose response relationship for many plant species, and to screen for new cultivars that can resist 0 3 stress. Although some research on the physiological and biochemical mechanisms of action of EDU have been performed, the new 'omics' tools have not been utilized to evaluate EDUs mechanism of action. Such data are needed, as is gene exp...

show abstract

“…These authors suggest that "there appears to be no current research being conducted on the usefulness of fungicides and other antioxidants for O 3 injury to vegetation". A second observation that can be made from the present review is that many researchers have focused their attention on the use of a number of chemicals in protecting tobacco from injury in southern Ontario, Canada (Gayed 1983;Bisessar and Palmer 1984;Walker 1961Walker ,1966Walker ,1967, in the northeastern United States (Bertinuson et al 1961;Silber 1964;Taylor and Rich 1961,1962Taylor 1970;Miller and Taylor 1970;Miller et al 1976;Reinhart and Spun* 1972 Italy (Lorenzini et al 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Ozone protection in plants : the potential use of chemical protectants to measure atmospheric oxidant damage in Alberta crops /

Archambault¹,

Li²,

Śląski³

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yield loss assessments are performed by comparing the yield estimates of EDU-treated and untreated plants in O 3 polluted areas of the USA (Ensing et al 1985;Smith et al 1987), Asia (Wahid et al 2001;Agrawal et al 2004Agrawal et al , 2005Tiwari et al 2005;Wang et al 2007;Singh and Agrawal 2009;Singh et al 2010b, c), Africa (Hassan et al 1995;Hassan 2006) and Europe (Ribas and Penuelas 2000;Brunschon-Harti et al 1995a;Pleijel et al 1999). Yield increments after the application of EDU onto O 3 exposed plants have been reported for onion (Wukasch and Hofstra 1977), navy bean (Hofstra et al 1978;Temple and Bisessar 1979;Toivonen et al 1982), tomato (Legassicke and Ormrod 1981), potato (Bisessar 1982;Clarke et al 1990;Hassan 2006), tobacco (Bisessar and Palmer 1984), watermelon (Fieldhouse 1978), peanut (Ensing et al 1985), radish (Kostka-Rick and Manning 1992;Hassan et al 1995), carrot (Tiwari and Agrawal 2010), bush bean (Kostka-Rick and Manning 1993a, c), snap bean (Vandermeiren et al 1995), mungbean Singh et al 2010b), soybean (Wahid et al 2001), wheat (Agrawal et al 2004;Tiwari et al 2005;Wang et al 2007;Singh and Agrawal 2009) and black gram …”

Section: Effects Of Edu On Carbohydratesmentioning

confidence: 98%