Plant Physiol.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Plant Physiology 63:692-695 (1979)
© 1979 American Society of Plant Biologists

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Christiansen, M. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Christiansen, M. N.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Christiansen, M. N.
Articles

Two Light Sources Differentially Affected Ferric Iron Reduction and Growth of Cotton

John C. Brown, Charles D. Foy, Jesse H. Bennett and Meryl N. Christiansen

United States Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Agricultural Research, Plant Physiology Institute, Plant Stress Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland 20705

In growth chambers, low pressure sodium (LPS) plus incandescent (Inc) lamps and fluorescent cool-white (FCW) plus Inc lamps were used to determine their effects on growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and on the reduction of Fe3+ to Fe2+. Cotton plants grown under LPS + Inc light developed chlorosis and grew poorly, whereas plants grown under FCW + Inc lights were green. The chlorophyll concentration and top and root weights of cotton grown under LPS + Inc were lower than those under FCW + Inc. In solution, FCW + Inc lamps reduced about eight times more Fe3+ to Fe2+ than did LPS + Inc lamps. Fe3+ is transported to plant tops as Fe3+ citrate and if we assume that FCW + Inc light reduces Fe3+ to Fe2+ in plant foliage as it did in the solutions, then reduction of Fe3+ by the light environment will make Fe2+ in the tops more available for biochemical reactions.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Plant Physiol.Home page
M. Nikolic and V. Romheld
Nitrate Does Not Result in Iron Inactivation in the Apoplast of Sunflower Leaves
Plant Physiology, July 1, 2003; 132(3): 1303 - 1314.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASPB Publications PLANT PHYSIOLOGY THE PLANT CELL
Copyright © 1979 by the American Society of Plant Biologists