Advertisement

Nanosilicon Particle Effects on Physiology and Growth of Woody Plants

  • Peyman Ashkavand
  • Masoud Tabari
  • Fatemeh Aliyari
  • Mehrdad Zarafshar
  • Gustavo Gabriel Striker
  • Pradeep Kumar Shukla
  • Ali Sattarian
  • Pragati Misra
Chapter

Abstract

Nanoparticles can influence key physiological processes including seed germination, photosynthesis, and thereby plant growth and yield. Despite several studies have addressed the effects of nanoparticles on crops, data for woody plant species is still scarce. In this report, the effects of silicon dioxide nanoparticles (SiO2 NPs) application, as potentially toxic elements, on physiological performance of 1-year-old woody plants, namely, hawthorn (Crataegus aronia L.) and mahaleb (Prunus mahaleb L.), were evaluated. Plants were irrigated with different concentrations of SiO2 NPs (0, 10, 50, and 100 mg L−1) for 45 days, and gas exchange parameters, relative water content (RWC), xylem water potential, growth, biomass allocation, and nutrient balance were recorded. Si concentration in leaves and its presence over the root surface were analyzed by XRF and SEM, respectively. Results showed diminishing RWC and xylem water potential with the increasing concentrations of SiO2 NPs, thereby confirming detrimental effects of SiO2 NPs irrigation on water status of the plants. Despite the poorer water status, photosynthesis rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), and transpiration rate (E) were not affected by SiO2 NPs treatments but improved marginally in both species. Overall, the application of SiO2 NPs slightly enhanced plant growth in both species, more evidently in hawthorn, particularly because roots were benefited in growth and length. The presence of SiO2 NPs on the root surfaces was pragmatic in both the species using SEM. XRF analysis of the leaf tissue confirmed that Si concentration in leaf tissues increased at increasing levels of SiO2 NPs, whereas concentrations of examined macronutrients, i.e., nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, remain unaffected at increasing levels of SiO2 NPs application. In conclusion, although water status of the woody plants was slightly disrupted by SiO2 NPs, such negative effects were not reflected on plant physiological performance. Therefore, the results should be carefully interpreted as current research reveals that SiO2 NPs application to a certain extent can (contrary to expected) aid slight improvement in leaf physiological performance as well as in root elongation, finally contributing to enhanced plant growth. However, toxic effects, as exhibited by exposure of longer duration and/or higher concentrations of SiO2 NPs, cannot be ruled out in plants, a topic that unavoidably merits further experimental investigation in woody species.

References

  1. Adatia MH, Besford RT (1986) The effects of silicon on cucumber plants grown in recirculating nutrient solution. Ann Bot 58:343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao-shan L, Shao-qi D, Chun-hui L et al (2004) Effect of TMS (nanostructured silicon dioxide) on growth of Changbai larch seedlings. J For Res 15(2):138–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basile-Doelsch I, Meunier JD, Parron C (2005) Another continental pool in the terrestrial silicon cycle. Nature 433:399–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Braunack MV (1995) Effect of aggregate size and soil water content on emergence of soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) and maize (Zea mays L.). Soil Tillage Res 33:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chalmardi ZK, Abdolzadeh A, Sadeghipour HR (2014) Silicon nutrition potentiates the antioxidant metabolism of rice plants under iron toxicity. Acta Physiol Plant 36(2):493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein E (1994) The anomaly of silicon in plant biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci 91:11–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein E, Bloom AJ (2005) Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  8. Falco WF, Botero ER, Falcão EA et al (2011) In vivo observation of chlorophyll fluorescence quenching induced by gold nano particles. J Photochem Photobiol A 225:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gautam S, Misra P, Shukla PK et al (2016a) Effect of copper oxide nanoparticle on the germination, growth and chlorophyll in soybean (Glycine max L.). Vegetos 29:157–160Google Scholar
  10. Gautam S, Misra P, Shukla PK et al (2016b) Effect of engineered iron-oxide and copper oxide nanoparticle on the germination and growth on soybean (Glycine max L.). Int J Plant Sci 11(1):51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Giraldo JP, Landry MP, Faltermeier SM et al (2014) Plant nano bionics approach to augment photosynthesis and biochemical sensing. Nat Mater 13:400–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Haghighi M, Pessarakli M (2013) Influence of silicon and nano-silicon on salinity tolerance of cherry tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.) at early growth stage. Sci Hortic 161:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodson MJ, White PJ, Mead A et al (2005) Phylogenetic variation in the silicon composition of plants. Ann Bot 96(6):1027–1046CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Karimi J, Mohsenzadeh S (2016) Effects of silicon oxide nanoparticles on growth and physiology of wheat seedlings. Russ J Plant Physiol 63(1):119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Khot LR, Sankaran S, Maja JM et al (2012) Applications of nanomaterials in agricultural production and crop protection: a review. Crop Prot 35:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Le VN, Rui Y, Gui X et al (2014) Uptake, transport, distribution and bio-effects of SiO2 nanoparticles in Bt-transgenic cotton. J Nanobiotechnol 12:50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li P, Song A, Li Z et al (2015) Silicon ameliorates manganese toxicity by regulating both physiological processes and expression of genes associated with photosynthesis in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Soil 397(1-2):289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lin D, Xing B (2008) Root uptake and phytotoxicity of ZnO nanoparticles. Environ Sci Technol 42:5580–5585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lin S, Reppert J, Hu Q et al (2009) Uptake, translocation, and transmission of carbon nano materials in rice plants. Small 5:1128–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Ma JF (2004) Role of silicon in enhancing the resistance of plants to biotic and abiotic stresses. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 50(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ma JF, Yamaji N (2006) Silicon uptake and accumulation in higher plants. Trends Plant Sci 11:392–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ma J, Yamaji N (2008) Functions and transport of silicon in plants. Cell Mol Life Sci 65:3049–3057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ma JF, Yamaji N (2015) A cooperative system of silicon transport in plants. Trends Plant Sci 20(7):435–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ma JF, Mitani N, Nagao S et al (2004) Characterization of the silicon uptake system and molecular mapping of the silicon transporter gene in rice. Plant Physiol 136:3284–3289CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Matichenkov VV, Bocharnikova EA, Kosobryukhov AA et al (2008) Mobile forms of silicon in plants. Dokl Biol Sci 418(1):39–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Misra P, Shukla PK, Pramanik K et al (2016) Nanotechnology for crop improvement. In: Kole C, Sakthi Kumar D, Khodakovskaya MV (eds) Plant nanotechnology: principles and practices. Springer, Cham, pp 219–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monica RC, Cremonini R (2009) Nanoparticles and higher plants. Caryologia 62:161–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nair R, Varghese SH, Nair BG et al (2010) Nanoparticulate material delivery to plants. Plant Sci 179(3):154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Noji T, Kamidaki C, Kawakami K et al (2011) Photosynthetic oxygen evolution in mesoporous silica material: adsorption of photosystem II reaction center complex into 23 nm nanopores in SBA. Langmuir 27(2):705–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Okuda A, Takahashi E (1965) The role of silicon. In: The mineral nutrition of the rice plant, Proceedings of symposium of the International Rice Research Institute, pp 123–146Google Scholar
  31. Parveen N, Ashraf M (2010) Role of silicon in mitigating the adverse effects of salt stress on growth and photosynthetic attributes of two maize (Zea Mays L.) cultivars grown hydroponically. Pak J Bot 42(3):1675–1684Google Scholar
  32. Rad JS, Karimi J, Mohsenzadeh S et al (2014) Evaluating SiO2 nano particles effects on developmental characteristic and photosynthetic pigment contents of Zea mays L. Bull Environ Pharmaco Life Sci 3:194–201Google Scholar
  33. Rajoriya P, Misra P, Shukla PK et al (2016) Light-regulatory effect on the phytosynthesis of silver nanoparticles using aqueous extract of garlic (Allium sativum) and onion (Allium cepa) bulb. Curr Sci 111(8):1364–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rawson HM, Long MJ, Munns R (1988) Growth and development in NaCl-treated plants. I. Leaf Na+ and Cl-concentrations do not determine gas exchange of leaf blades in barley. Funct Plant Biol 15(4):519–527Google Scholar
  35. Sabaghnia N, Janmohammadi M (2015) Effect of nano-silicon particles application on salinity tolerance in early growth of some lentil genotypes/Wpływ nanocząstek krzemionki na tolerancję zasolenia we wczesnym rozwoju niektórych genotypów soczewicy. Ann UMCS Biol 69(2):39–55Google Scholar
  36. Samuels AL, Glass AD, Ehret DL et al (1993) The effects of silicon supplementation on cucumber fruit: changes in surface characteristics. Ann Bot 72(5):433–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shi Y, Wang Y, Flowers TJ et al (2013) Silicon decreases chloride transport in rice (Oryza sativa L.) in saline conditions. J Plant Physiol 170(9):847–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shukla PK, Misra P, Kole C (2016) Uptake, translocation, accumulation, transformation, and generational transmission of nanoparticles in plants. In: Kole C, Sakthi Kumar D, Khodakovskaya MV (eds) Plant nanotechnology: principles and practices. Springer, Cham, pp 183-218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siddiqui MH, Al-Whaibi MH, Faisal M et al (2014) Nano-silicon dioxide mitigates the adverse effects of salt stress on Cucurbita pepo L. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(11):2429–2437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Singh A, Singh NB, Hussain I et al (2015) Plant-nanoparticle interaction: an approach to improve agricultural practices and plant productivity. Int J Pharm Sci Invent 4(8):25–40Google Scholar
  41. Sommer M, Kaczorek D, Kuzyakov Y et al (2006) Silicon pools and fluxes in soils and landscapes—a review. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 169(3):310–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Song A, Li P, Fan F et al (2014) The effect of silicon on photosynthesis and expression of its relevant genes in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under high-zinc stress. PLoS One 9(11):e113782CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Sun D, Hussain HI, Yi Z et al (2016) Mesoporous silica nanoparticles enhance seedling growth and photosynthesis in wheat and lupin. Chemosphere 152:81–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Suriyaprabha R, Karunakaran G, Yuvakkumar R et al (2012a) Growth and physiological responses of maize (Zea mays L.) to porous silica nanoparticles in soil. J Nanopart Res 14(12):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Suriyaprabha R, Karunakaran G, Yuvakkumar R et al (2012b) Silica nanoparticles for increased silica availability in maize (Zea mays L.) seeds under hydroponic conditions. Curr Nanosci 8(6):902–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tamai K, Ma JF (2008) Reexamination of silicon effects on rice growth and production under field conditions using a low silicon mutant. Plant Soil 307(1-2):21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker CD, Lance RC (1991) Silicon accumulation and 13C composition as indices of water-use efficiency in barley cultivars. Funct Plant Biol 18(4):427–434Google Scholar
  48. Wang P, Grimm B (2015) Organization of chlorophyll biosynthesis and insertion of chlorophyll into the chlorophyll-binding proteins in chloroplasts. Photosynth Res 126(2–3):189–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Xie Y, Li B, Zhang Q et al (2011) Effects of nano-TiO2 on photosynthetic characteristics of Indocalamus barbatus. J Northeast For Univ 39:22–25Google Scholar
  50. Xie Y, Li B, Zhang Q et al (2012) Effects of nano-silicon dioxide on photosynthetic fluorescence characteristics of Indocalamus barbatus McClure. J Nanjing Forest Univ (Nat Sci Ed) 2:59–63Google Scholar
  51. Zarafshar M, Akbarinia M, Askari H et al (2015) Toxicity assessment of SiO2 nanoparticles to pear seedlings. Int J Nanosci Nanotechnol 11(1):13–22Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peyman Ashkavand
    • 1
  • Masoud Tabari
    • 1
  • Fatemeh Aliyari
    • 3
  • Mehrdad Zarafshar
    • 2
  • Gustavo Gabriel Striker
    • 4
  • Pradeep Kumar Shukla
    • 5
  • Ali Sattarian
    • 6
  • Pragati Misra
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of ForestryTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Natural ResourcesFars Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEOShirazIran
  3. 3.Department of ForestryShahrkord UniversityShahrkordIran
  4. 4.IFEVA-CONICET, Facultad de AgronomíaUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  5. 5.Department of Biological SciencesSchool of Basic Sciences, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and SciencesAllahabadIndia
  6. 6.Department of ForestryGonbad-Kavoos UniversityGolestanIran
  7. 7.Department of Molecular and Cellular EngineeringJacob School of Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and SciencesAllahabadIndia

Personalised recommendations