Marta Fuentes, Eva Bacaicoa, Mikel Rivero, Ángel M. Zamarreño, José M. García-Mina
Abstract
Iron deficiency in plants is caused by a low availability of iron in the soil, and its main visual symptom is leaf yellowing due to a decrease in chlorophyll content, along with a reduction in plant growth and fruit quality. Foliar sprays with Fe compounds are an economic alternative to the treatment with expensive synthetic Fe-chelates applied to the soil, although the efficacy of foliar treatments is rather limited. Generally, plant response to Fe-foliar treatments is monitored by measuring chlorophyll content (or related parameters as SPAD index). However, different studies have shown that foliar Fe sprays cause a local regreening and that translocation of the applied Fe within the plant is quite low. In this context, the aim of this study was to assess the effects of foliar applications of different Fe compounds [FeSO4, Fe(III)-EDTA, and Fe(III)-heptagluconate] on Fe-deficient cucumber plants, by studying the main physiological plant root responses to Fe deficiency [root Fe(III) chelate reductase (FCR) activity; acidification of the nutrient solution; and expression of the Fe deficiency responsive genes encoding FCR, CsFRO1, Fe(II) root transporter CsIRT1, and two plasma membrane H+-ATPases, CsHA1 and CsHA2], along with SPAD index, plant growth and Fe content. The results showed that the overall assessment of Fe-deficiency root responses improved the evaluation of the efficacy of the Fe-foliar treatments compared to just monitoring SPAD indexes. Thus, FCR activity and expression of Fe-deficiency response genes, especially CsFRO1 and CsHA1, preceded the trend of SPAD index and acted as indicators of whether the plant was sensing or not metabolically active Fe due to the treatments. Principal component analysis of the data also provided a graphical tool to evaluate the evolution of plant responses to foliar Fe treatments with time.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,488,549
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#13,031
of 24,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,659
of 348,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#304
of 471 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,910 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 471 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
