Response of bean to applications of hydrophobic mineral particles

Abstract

Tworkoski, T. J., Glenn, D. M. and Puterka, G. J. 2002. Response of bean to applications of hydrophobic mineral particles. Can. J. Plant Sci. 82: 217-219. Foliar applications of hydrophobic mineral particles can protect plants from some insects, but plant response to particle applications is not known. Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants were grown for 8 wk in a greenhouse and the shoots were sprayed weekly with small-diameter hydrophobic mineral particles. Photosynthesis was similar in particle-treated and control bean plants over a photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) range from 0 to 1548 µmol m -2 s -1 . The shoot-to-root dry weight ratio was 56% greater and pod weight was 20% lower in particle-treated plants than control plants, suggesting that particle films may alter dry weight partitioning of plants. In bean, particle residues of 2.71 mg cm -2 leaf area altered plant development without affecting photosynthesis. Le ratio entre le poids sec des pousses et des racines avait augmenté de 56 % et les gousses étaient 20 % plus légères chez les plants traités, comparativement aux plants témoins, signe que les particules pourraient modifier la répartition du poids sec chez la plante. Des résidus de particules de 2,71 mg cm -2 de surface foliaire affectent le développement du haricot sans modifier la photosynthèse.

Particle film technology: A supplemental tool to save water

“…These results are in agreement with those obtained for bean (Tworkoski et al, 2002), as well as for other species, such as tomato and tea (Anandacoomaraswamy et al, 2000;Cantore et al, 2009) at a leaf and/or whole plant scale. However, they are contrary to the findings of Glenn et al (1999), who found that kaolin, marketed as Surround ® WP, due to its particular physical characteristics, does not impede g s and gas exchange in apple.…”

Kaolin influences tomato response to salinity: physiological aspects

“…On tomato, in agreement with reduction of A and E at leaf scale, Cantore et al (2009a) found also the reduction of net assimilation and evapotranspiration at canopy scale. The reduction of g s and, therefore, of E caused by the kaolin is also reported for many species such as apple (Le Grange et al 2004), pecan (Lombardini et al 2005), tea (Anandacoomaraswamy et al 2000), pepper (Sheikh & Mall 1978), bean (Tworkoski et al 2002;Cantore et al 2009b), Polianthes tuberosa L. (Moftah & Al-Humaid 2005), orange (Pace et al 2009), tomato (Srinivasa Rao 1985, 1986Nakano & Uehara 1996;Cantore et al 2009a) and potato (Cantore unpublished data). On grapevine, however, g s was reduced in well-watered crop, while it was not affected in stressed one (Shellie & Glenn 2008).…”

Particle films and their applications in horticultural crops

“…(Russo and Diaz-Perez, 2005), walnut (Juglans regia), almond (Prunus dulcis) (Rosati et al, 2006), and beans (Tworkoski et al, 2002); whereas some others reported significant reduction in carbon assimilation with PFs at the leaf level (Le Grange et al, 2004;Wunsche et al, 2004) which they attributed primarily to the reduced light at leaf surface, but none of these studies have linked leaf level responses to plant yield. The work by Glenn et al (2001bGlenn et al ( , 2002 suggested that under excessive heat conditions (air temperatures above 30°C), the kaolin applications reduced temperature, and thereby increased carbon assimilation and stomatal conductance.…”