| Literature DB >> 29681908 |
Marianne Hoogmoed1, Victor O Sadras1.
Abstract
Nitrogen dilution curves relate a crop's critical nitrogen concentration (%Nc) to biomass (W) according to the allometric model %Nc = a W -b . This model has a strong theoretical foundation, and parameters a and b show little variation for well-watered crops. Here we explore the robustness of this model for water stressed crops. We established experiments to examine the combined effects of water stress, phenology, partitioning of biomass, and water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), as driven by environment and variety, on the %Nc of wheat crops. We compared models where %Nc was plotted against biomass, growth stage and thermal time. The models were similarly scattered. Residuals of the %Nc - biomass model at anthesis were positively related to biomass, stem:biomass ratio, Δ13C and water supply, and negatively related to ear:biomass ratio and concentration of WSC. These are physiologically meaningful associations explaining the scatter of biomass-based dilution curves. Residuals of the thermal time model showed less consistent associations with these variables. The biomass dilution model developed for well-watered crops overestimates nitrogen deficiency of water-stressed crops, and a biomass-based model is conceptually more justified than developmental models. This has implications for diagnostic and modeling. As theory is lagging, a greater degree of empiricism might be useful to capture environmental, chiefly water, and genotype-dependent traits in the determination of critical nitrogen for diagnostic purposes. Sensitivity analysis would help to decide if scaling nitrogen dilution curves for crop water status, and genotype-dependent parameters are needed.Entities:
Keywords: Triticum aestivum; carbon isotope discrimination; phenology; water stress; water-soluble carbohydrates
Year: 2018 PMID: 29681908 PMCID: PMC5897705 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Average (± standard deviation) critical nitrogen concentration of wheat for Zadoks’ growth stages from early stem elongation to anthesis (Zadoks et al., 1974).
| Growth stage | Critical |
|---|---|
| 30–34 | 4.7 ± 0.5 |
| 35–39 | 4.4 ± 0.2 |
| 40–49 | 2.9 ± 0.7 |
| 50–59 | 2.1 ± 0.3 |
| 60–69 | 1.8 ± 0.2 |
Correlation matrix of crop traits at anthesis (biomass, mass stem fraction, mass ear fraction, Δ13C, concentration of water soluble carbohydrates) and environmental factor (water supply) that contributed to the scatter of the %Nc-biomass curve.
| Biomass | Mass fraction stem | Mass fraction ear | Δ13C | Water supply | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass fraction stem | 0.89∗∗ | ||||
| Mass fraction ear | -0.86∗∗ | -0.90∗∗ | |||
| Δ13C | 0.92∗∗ | 0.88∗∗ | -0.88∗∗ | ||
| Water supply | 0.87∗∗ | 0.65∗∗ | -0.81∗∗ | 0.90∗∗ | |
| Water soluble carbohydrates | -0.41 | -0.10 | 0.28 | -0.39 | -0.50∗ |
Correlation coefficient (r) for leaf, stem and ear mass fraction with total biomass and Δ13C among the six environments.
| Variable | Growth stage | Total biomass | Δ13C | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass fraction stem | 23–69 | 78 | 0.81** | -0.40** |
| 31 | 17 | 0.48* | -0.56* | |
| 40–49 | 19 | 0.36 | -0.16 | |
| 60–69 | 21 | 0.88** | 0.88** | |
| Mass fraction leaf | 23–69 | 78 | -0.81** | 0.65** |
| 31 | 17 | -0.54* | 0.59* | |
| 40–49 | 19 | -0.42 | 0.07 | |
| 60–69 | 21 | -0.29 | -0.23 | |
| Mass fraction ear | 60–69 | 21 | -0.86** | 0.88** |
Correlation coefficients (r) between residuals from biomass and thermal time nitrogen dilution models, and shoot biomass, mass fraction of stem, leaf, ear, concentration of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) in stem and shoot, Δ13C, water supply, cummulative reference evapotranspiration (ETo), and cummulative water supply per unit reference evapotranspiration.
| Variable | Model | |
|---|---|---|
| Biomass | Thermal time | |
| Biomass1 | 0.92** | -0.23 |
| Mass fraction stem1 | 0.75** | -0.47* |
| Mass fraction leaf1 | -0.07 | 0.57** |
| Mass fraction ear1 | -0.83** | 0.21 |
| Δ13C1 | 0.88** | -0.25 |
| WSC in stem1 | -0.54* | 0.04 |
| WSC in shoot1 | -0.17 | -0.18 |
| Water supply2 | 0.87** | 0.16 |
| ETo2 | -0.68** | 0.61** |
| Water supply/ ETo2 | 0.91** | -0.16 |