| Literature DB >> 32599619 |
Nicola M Capstaff1, Freddie Morrison1, Jitender Cheema1, Paul Brett1, Lionel Hill1, Juan C Muñoz-García2, Yaroslav Z Khimyak2, Claire Domoney1, Anthony J Miller1.
Abstract
The use of potential biostimulants is of broad interest in plant science for improving yields. The application of a humic derivative called fulvic acid (FA) may improve forage crop production. FA is an uncharacterized mixture of chemicals and, although it has been reported to increase growth parameters in many species including legumes, its mode of action remains unclear. Previous studies of the action of FA have lacked appropriate controls, and few have included field trials. Here we report yield increases due to FA application in three European Medicago sativa cultivars, in studies which include the appropriate nutritional controls which hitherto have not been used. No significant growth stimulation was seen after FA treatment in grass species in this study at the treatment rate tested. Direct application to bacteria increased Rhizobium growth and, in M. sativa trials, root nodulation was stimulated. RNA transcriptional analysis of FA-treated plants revealed up-regulation of many important early nodulation signalling genes after only 3 d. Experiments in plate, glasshouse, and field environments showed yield increases, providing substantial evidence for the use of FA to benefit M. sativa forage production.Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990 Medicago sativazzm321990 ; Forage crops; fulvic acid; humic substances; nodulation; transcriptomic analysis; yield
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32599619 PMCID: PMC7501823 DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eraa283
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Bot ISSN: 0022-0957 Impact factor: 6.992
Fig. 1.Vegetative biomass of Medicago cultivars and Lolium following treatment with fulvic acids or controls. Treatments were applied to seedlings at 7 d post-germination, and vegetative yields (DW in mg) were assessed at 21 d post-treatment. Treatments were: NA in dark grey; dH2O in grey; 0.5% MFA in blue; 0.5% MC in light blue; 1% VFA in orange; 1% VC in yellow. Three cultivars of Medicago were tested, cvs Daisy (a), Luzelle (b), and Gea (c). One cultivar of Lolium was tested, cv. AberMagic (d). Individual seedling biomass was measured for three independent experiments, as shown in black data points (Exp. 1=circles, Exp. 2=triangles, Exp. 3=squares). Box plots show variation across experiments. Multiple comparisons between treatments were conducted using a one-way ANOVA Tukey test shown with letters, and one-tailed Student’s t-tests were calculated for FAs and their controls, with P-value significance indicated on the left of the graphs.
Fig. 2.Medicago sativa cv. Daisy nodules following treatment with fulvic acids or controls. Treatments were applied to seedlings at 7 d post-germination and photographs were taken at 21 d post-treatment. Treatments were: 1. NA in dark grey; 2. dH2O in grey; 3. 0.5% MFA in blue; 4. 0.5% MC in light blue; 5. 1% VFA in orange; 6. 1% VC in yellow. Nodules are indicated as either early initiating nodules (EIN), white nodules (WN), or pink nodules (PN). Only white and pink nodules were counted as true nodules for this analysis. Scale included is 1 mm.
Fig. 3.Nodulation counts of two Medicago sativa cultivars following treatment with fulvic acids or controls. Treatments were applied to seedlings at 7 d post-germination and nodules were counted at 21 d post-treatment. Treatments were: NA in dark grey; dH2O in grey; 0.5% MFA in blue; 0.5% MC in light blue; 1% VFA in orange; 1% VC in yellow. Two cultivars of Medicago were tested, cv. Daisy (a) and cv. Luzelle (b). Individual seedling nodules were counted for three independent experiments, as shown in black data points (Exp. 1=circles, Exp. 2=triangles, Exp. 3=squares). Box plots show variation across experiments. Multiple comparisons between treatments were conducted using a one-way ANOVA Tukey test shown with letters, and one-tailed Student’s t-tests were calculated for FAs and their controls, with P-value significance indicated on the left of the graphs.
Fig. 4.Effects of fulvic acid on the growth of Sinorhizobium meliloti in culture, compared with controls. TY cultures containing treatments as follows were inoculated with S. meliloti: NA in dark grey; dH2O in grey; 0.5% MFA in blue; 0.5% MC in light blue; 1% VFA in orange; 1% VC in yellow. Average colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were obtained from triplicate samples on days 0–4 of incubation with shaking at 220 rpm at 28 °C. Average counts for three separate experiments (three individual experimental replicates (on separate days), each with three technical replicates) were calculated and are shown above with the SD. Multiple comparisons between treatments were conducted using a one-way ANOVA Tukey test shown with letters.
Fig. 5.Differentially expressed transcripts in Medicago sativa shoot and root tissue with treatments of either VFA (orange) or VC (yellow). RNA-seq was carried out on whole shoot and root RNA samples taken on the day of treatment (day 0) or 3 d after treatment (day 3). Transcripts from de novo transcriptome assembly with both an absolute log fold change of 0.585 (1.5×FC) and a false discovery rate- (FDR) adjusted P-value (q-value) <0.05 were considered as differentially expressed (DE); DE transcripts significantly expressed between treatments at day 0 were removed to negate for false positives due to experimental variance. The Venn diagram shows up-regulated (+) and down-regulated (–) DE transcripts for both treatments between day 0 and day 3, including those which are shared (overlapping region). This difference in DE transcript number is emphasized by differing sizes of the circles in the plot.
Enriched DE transcripts in VFA roots which are putatively classed as highly preferential nodulation regulatory genes and nodule-associated signalling-related genes as in Roux
| Gene/protein ID | Description | Annotation | logFC |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| XP_024635034 |
| TF MYB | 5.35 | 1.90E-06 |
| PNX91228 |
| LRR | 4.98 | 1.23E-11 |
| ABD33274, AES59362, RHN77255 |
| Calcium/lipid binding | 4.74 | 4.63E-06 |
| RIA81513 |
| Calcium/lipid binding | 4.67 | 6.36E-09 |
| RHN49201 |
| RLK | 4.60 | 3.35E-05 |
| KEH36571, RHN72042 |
| Ser/Thr protein kinase | 4.36 | 2.44E-07 |
| KEH28705, RHN58556 |
| LRR | 4.29 | 6.43E-05 |
| XP_003612592, AES95550, RHN54652 |
| TF ZnFg C2H2 | 4.28 | 1.63–75 |
| XP_024641562 |
| TF AP2/ERF | 4.08 | 1.74-04 |
| XP_003594815, AES65066, RHN73104 |
| COBRA | 4.00 | 1.78E-07 |
| XP_003598348, AES68599, RHN65475 |
| F‐box protein | 3.75 | 4.90E-07 |
| AES76072, AES76110, RHN52304 |
| NHL | 3.67 | 2.52E-04 |
| RHN60433 |
| LRR RLK | 3.64 | 7.66E-06 |
| XP_013443270, KEH17295, RHN51739 |
| CK activated | 3.60 | 6.29E-06 |
| XP_013466350, KEH40391, RHN77806 |
| RLK | 3.55 | 4.72E-06 |
| XP_003604023, AES74274 |
| COBRA | 3.53 | 7.35E-07 |
| RGB31681 |
| Calcium/lipid binding | 3.49 | 1.84E-06 |
| RHN72504 |
| RLK | 3.42 | 1.32E-05 |
| XP_003613167, AES96125, RHN55010 |
| TAA1‐like | 3.39 | 2.54E-04 |
| AES69839 |
| LRR | 3.32 | 7.54E-06 |
| AES91737 |
| F-box protein | 3.32 | 6.92E-06 |
| XP_024637477 |
| LRR | 3.24 | 1.65E-05 |
| EXX59026 |
| TF WD | 3.22 | 1.01E-04 |
| XP_024631685, RHN72543 |
| STY | 3.14 | 2.55E-05 |
| ABD28520 |
| CK activated | 3.09 | 9.33E-05 |
| XP_013451548, KEH25576, RHN50766 |
| TF ERF | 3.06 | 2.97E-05 |
| AES95938 |
| LRR RLK | 3.01 | 1.91E-05 |
| RZB96753 |
| LRR RLK | 2.99 | 5.78E-05 |
| KHN26259 |
| TF Zn finger | 2.95 | 1.31E-04 |
| XP_013451184, KEH25223, RHN50327 |
| NSP | 2.94 | 3.50E-05 |
| RHN42361 |
| RLK | 2.89 | 1.29E-04 |
| RIA84146 |
| Calcium/lipid binding | 2.87 | 8.02E-05 |
| AES60803 |
| F-box protein | 2.78 | 1.71E-04 |
| XP_013457946, KEH31977, RHN63702 |
| LRR RLK | 2.78 | 1.60E-04 |
| RIA97789 |
| E3 ligase | 2.72 | 2.11E-04 |
| XP_013445632 |
| Ser/Thr protein kinase | 2.71 | 1.84E-04 |
| AES73438 |
| NLP | 2.70 | 1.87E-04 |
| KEH38435 |
| CK activated | 2.69 | 1.22E-04 |
| RIA81779 |
| TF AP2/ERF | 2.69 | 1.26E-04 |
| AES61923, RHN81250 |
| TF Zn finger | 2.68 | 1.90E-04 |
| XP_024633471.1 |
| LysM receptor kinase | 2.68 | 1.41E-04 |
| XP_024625794 |
| RLK | 2.66 | 4.17E-05 |
| RHN81081 |
| PRP | 2.63 | 5.03E-05 |
| PF04909 |
| NIP | 2.56 | 2.00E-04 |
| XP_003615114, AES98072, RHN56135 |
| NIP | 2.56 | 6.80E-05 |
| XP_013450575, RHN49450 |
| RLK | 2.49 | 5.82E-05 |
| XP_013462891, KEH36925, RHN72571 |
| LysM receptor kinase | 2.48 | 9.25E-06 |
| XP_003601076.1, AES71327 |
| NSP | 2.11 | 1.43E-05 |
| XP_024641514, AES76606, RHN52721 |
| NFX1-type zinc finger | 1.75 | 1.68E-05 |
| XP_013460228, KEH34259, RHN67624 |
| Phospholipase A2 | 1.52 | 4.71E-06 |
| XP_024625319 |
| MtPUB | 1.37 | 1.14E-04 |
| XP_003631134, AET05610, RHN43936 |
| Kinase | 1.15 | 1.75E-04 |
| XP_003616008, AES98966, RHN56723 |
| Calcium binding, Ser/Thr protein kinase | 1.04 | 1.40E-04 |
| RHN48771 |
| NHL | 0.88 | 3.71E-05 |
The table includes a description of the protein, available gene/protein IDs, the annotation type, log fold change (logFC), and q-value for each DE transcript.
Fig. 6.Vegetative biomass of Medicago sativa cultivars in independent field trials following treatment with a fulvic acid or controls. Treatments were applied to field plots at the beginning of establishment, and vegetative yields were assessed before the first cut of the growing season; an area of 625 cm2 was sampled and total vegetative tissue was dried for biomass (in g). Treatments were: no addition (NA in dark grey); deionized water (dH2O in grey); 1% VFA (VFA in orange); and 1% VC (VC in yellow). Three trials of four cultivars were run over 2 years. In 2017, trials were performed at Dengie Crops Ltd (Southminster, Essex) with four plots per treatment of both cvs Daisy and Fado. In 2018, the trials were at both Blankney Estates Ltd (Blankney, Lincolnshire) and A Poucher and Sons (Bardney Dairies) Ltd (Market Rasan, Lincolnshire) with six plots per treatment of cvs Daisy and Gea, respectively. Individual plot samples are shown in black data points as indicated, and boxplots are for individual cultivar trials. Relative average increase in yield of VFA-treated plots compared with NA is shown as a percentage above the graph to the nearest 5%.