Ethanol in the rhizosphere of seedlings of<i>Lupinus angustifolius</i>L.

Young, BR; Newhook, F. J.; Allen, R. N.

doi:10.1080/0028825x.1977.10432541

Cited by 19 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Diffusion of ethanol from roots could be a significant factor in Phytophthora infection since Phytophthora zoospores are attracted to roots exuding ethanol (1). Ethanol concentration in the rhizosphere of seedling Lupinus augustifolius has also been shown to be sufficient to account for some of the chemotactic behavior of Phytophthora zoospores to flooded roots (23). The lower ethanol concentration in alfalfa secondary roots (small diameter) as compared to the pri-mary roots (large diameter), even though ADH activity was higher in alfalfa secondary roots (Table 2), also suggests that ethanol diffusion out of the root may be occurring.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil¹

Barta¹

1980

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Susceptability of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) to waterlogging injury seriously limits its persistance and adaptability. Waterlogging injury and accumulation of ethanol under root anoxia may be causal agents which facilitate or promote infection by Phytophthora megasperma Drechsler zoospores and result in “root rot” of alfalfa. While induction of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and increased root accumulation of ethanol are general characteristics of flood‐intolerant species, these parameters have not been examined in alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) which vary greatly in flood tolerance and Phytophthora resistance. The objective of this greenhouse study was to compare the flooding response of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil and determine the effect of anoxia on the induction of ADH and accumulation of ethanol in flooded roots of both species. When flooded for 7 days, alfalfa exhibited much more severe shoot injury symptoms (wilted and yellowing leaves), reduced shoot dry weight, reduced shoot and root total nonstructural carbohydrates, and reduced rates of acetylene reduction than trefoil which is Phytophthora resistant. Induction of ADH activity was very rapid and reached similar levels in both alfalfa and trefoil. Flooding for 6 days at 22 C resulted in maximum ethanol concentration in alfalfa after which shoot injury symptoms rapidly developed. However, ethanol concentration in trefoil roots was several fold lower than alfalfa indicating that trefoil may effectively remove ethanol from the roots.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil¹

Barta¹

1980

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an ice core from Greenland, methanol concentrations were 83–1666 nM and ethanol 16–424 nM (Felix et al 2019 ). In soil ecosystems, methanol and ethanol are present in the rhizosphere as a component of root exudates or product of decomposition and fermentation (Young et al 1977 , Haldar and Sengupta 2015 , Macey et al 2020 ). Concentrations of ethanol in the rhizosphere of Lupinus angustifolius L. were found to be between 1 and 5 mM (Young et al 1977 ), which is significantly higher than in e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In soil ecosystems, methanol and ethanol are present in the rhizosphere as a component of root exudates or product of decomposition and fermentation (Young et al 1977 , Haldar and Sengupta 2015 , Macey et al 2020 ). Concentrations of ethanol in the rhizosphere of Lupinus angustifolius L. were found to be between 1 and 5 mM (Young et al 1977 ), which is significantly higher than in e.g. seawater and could potentially have minor inhibitory effect on ammonia oxidizers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alcohols as inhibitors of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria

Oudova-Rivera,

Crombie,

Murrell

et al. 2023

FEMS Microbiology Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ammonia oxidizers are key players in the global nitrogen cycle and are responsible for the oxidation of ammonia to nitrite, which is further oxidized to nitrate by other microorganisms. Their activity can lead to adverse effects on some human-impacted environments, including water pollution through leaching of nitrate and emissions of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O). Ammonia monooxygenase (AMO) is the key enzyme in microbial ammonia oxidation and shared by all groups of aerobic ammonia oxidizers. The AMO has not been purified in an active form, and much of what is known about its potential structure and function comes from studies on its interactions with inhibitors. The archaeal AMO is less well studied as ammonia oxidizing archaea were discovered much more recently than their bacterial counterparts. The inhibition of ammonia oxidation by aliphatic alcohols (C1-C8) using the model terrestrial ammonia oxidizing archaeon ‘Candidatus Nitrosocosmicus franklandus’ C13 and the ammonia oxidizing bacterium Nitrosomonas europaea was examined in order to expand knowledge about the range of inhibitors of ammonia oxidizers. Methanol was the most potent specific inhibitor of the AMO in both ammonia oxidizers, with half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of 0.19 and 0.31 mM, respectively. The inhibition was AMO-specific in ‘Ca. N. franklandus’ C13 in the presence of C1-C2 alcohols, and in N. europaea in the presence of C1-C3 alcohols. Higher chain-length alcohols caused non-specific inhibition and also inhibited hydroxylamine oxidation. Ethanol was tolerated by ‘Ca. N. franklandus’ C13 at a higher threshold concentration than other chain-length alcohols, with 80 mM ethanol being required for complete inhibition of ammonia oxidation.

show abstract

“…When 3,9 mol m"^ ethanol, a concentration typical of flooded soil, was applied to roots of pea plants, but under anaerobic eonditions to deerease oxidation losses, root and shoot growth was not measurably retarded (Table 3) even though the exogenous ethanol would have been supplemented by metabolically derived ethanol (Table 2), We therefore conclude that the ethanol content of the roots of flooded pea plants was unlikely to have affeeted significantly their growth or survival. In natural environments the most damaging consequences of the ethanol may be its positive, chemotaetic inlluence on motile zoospores of pathogenic fungae (Young, Newhook & Allen, 1977) and stimulating effect on fungal growth (Smucker, 1971;Cannell & Jackson, 1981, fig, 5,3-6),…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of the ethanol probably arose ftotn glycolysis in the roots and/or microbial ethanol fottnation at the root surface. The root environtnent is altnost cotnpletely anaerobic after 1 d of flooding (Fig, lc) and such a condition is known to stimulate ethanol production and its telease from roots (Hook, Brown & Kortnanik, 1971;Stnith & AP Rees, 1979a;Young, Newhook & Allen, 1977), We have found ethanol in the nutrient solution around the roots of pea plants grown for 68 h in anaerobic solution cultute (Table 2), The leakiness of anoxie roots to ethanol (Lee, 1978) tnay explain this, and also the appearance of ethanol in the xylem sap and flooded soil. The highest concentration we measured in soil was 3,9 mol m~^ (Fig, ld).…”

Section: Ethanol In Flooded Plants Atid Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

An examination of the importance of ethanol in causing injury to flooded plants

Jackson¹,

Herman²,

Goodenough³

1982

Plant Cell & Environment

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have examined the widely held theory that ethanol toxicity is a prime cause of the injury and death of plants in soil flooded with water. The tests were made on peas {Pisum sativum L.) at the early flowering or fruiting stages, when they ar"e known to be severely injured by flooding.Supplying ethanol in aerobie or anaerobic nutrient solution at similar eoneentrations to those we found in flooded soil (up to 3.9 mol m"^) or in the xylem sap of flooded pea plants (up to 2.1 mol tn -^) caused no injury. One hundred times these concentrations gave little extra effect and failed to simulate flooding injury. Isolated leaf protoplasts and detached leaves wer"e also r-esistant to damage by ethanol at these concentrations.Other published rneasur"enients of ethanol concentrations in flooded plants are similar to or less than those we t"eport for pea plants. Exceptions irielude root nodules and germinating pea seeds. Reports by others of responses to applied ethanol in a wide variety of circutnstances confir-m that in flooded plants the amounts ar-e probably too small to explain the observed irijur-y. Alternative mechanisms are diseussed.

show abstract

Ethanol in the rhizosphere of seedlings ofLupinus angustifoliusL.

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil¹

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil¹

Alcohols as inhibitors of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria

An examination of the importance of ethanol in causing injury to flooded plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ethanol in the rhizosphere of seedlings ofLupinus angustifoliusL.

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil1

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil1

Alcohols as inhibitors of ammonia oxidizing archaea and bacteria

An examination of the importance of ethanol in causing injury to flooded plants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil¹

Regrowth and Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity in Waterlogged Alfalfa and Birdsfoot Trefoil¹