Advertisement

Growth and Composition of Nitrogen and Water Stressed Pepper Plants, Their Assessment by Remote Sensing and Their Herbivory Effects

  • J. Peñuelas
  • C. Biel
  • M. Estiarte
  • I. Filella
  • R. Matamala
  • L. Serrano
  • R. Savé
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 16)

Abstract

Nitrogen and water deficiencies are expected to become more common as a result of global climate change. To test their effects, severe nitrogen (N) limitation and mild water stresses were imposed that reduced leaf, stem, root and fruit biomass of peppers (Capsicum annuum). Root/shoot ratio and specific leaf weight were increased in N-limited plants. Low water and N availability decreased stomatal conductance and resulted in higher leaf temperatures. Except in fruits, there was a decrease in the nitrogen content of all organs in N-limited plants that resulted in higher C/N ratios. Lower leaf N content and higher leaf phenolic concentration may have been responsible for the lower relative growth rate (RGR) of insects (Heliothis armigera) feeding on the foliage. The red edge of the reflectance spectra of leaves clearly showed a shift to shorter wavelengths (blue shift). This was a useful index of low chlorophyll levels in N-limited plants.

Keywords

Stomatal Conductance Relative Growth Rate Specific Leaf Area Pepper Plant Leaf Nitrogen Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amiott MJ, Aubert S, Gonnet M, Tacchini M (1989) Les composés phénoliques des miels: étude préliminaire sur l’identification et la quantification par familles. Apidologie 20: 115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryant JP, Chapin III FS, Klein DR (1983) Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40: 357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coley PD (1983) Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecological Monographs 53: 209–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Curran PJ, Dungan JL, Golz HL (1990) Exploring the relationship between reflectance red edge and chlorophyll content in slash pine. Tree Physiology 7: 33–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Curtis PS, Drake BG, Whigham DF (1989) Nitrogen and carbon dynamics in C3 and C4 estuarine marsh plants grown under elevated CO2 in situ. Oecologia 78: 297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demetriades-Shah TH, Steven MD (1988) High resolution spectral indices for monitoring crop growth and chlorosis. In: Proceedings 4th International Colloquium on ‘Spectral signatures of objects in remote sensing’, Aussois, France 18–22 January 1988, ESA SP-287, European Space Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Dijkstra P (1990) Cause and effect of differences in specific leaf area. In: Lambers H, Cambridge ML, Konings H, Pons TL (eds) Causes and consequences of variation in growth rate and productivity of higher plants. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 125–140Google Scholar
  8. Everitt JH, Richardson AJ, Gausman HW (1985) Leaf reflectance-chlorophyll relations in buffelgrass. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 51: 463–466Google Scholar
  9. Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defence. In: Wallace J, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interactions between plants and insects. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 10, Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  10. Hanks RJ, Rasmussen VP (1982) Predicting crop production as related to plant stress. Advances in Agronomy 35: 193–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes JT (1991) Global climate change and water resources. In: Wyman (ed) Global climate change and life on earth. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 18–42Google Scholar
  12. Horler DNH, Barber J, Barringer AR (1980) Effects of heavy metals on the absorbance and reflectance spectra of plants. International Journal of Remote Sensing 1: 121–136Google Scholar
  13. Keulen H van, Goudriean J, Seligman NG (1989) Modelling the effects of nitrogen on canopy development and crop growth. In: Russell G, Marshall B, Jarvis PG (eds) Plant canopies: their growth, form and function. Cambridge University Press, pp 83–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lambers H, Posthumus FS, Stulen I, Lanting L, Van de Dijk SJ, Hofstra R (1981) Energy metabolism of Plantago lanceolata as dependent on the supply of mineral nutrients. Physiologia Plantarum 51: 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lemon ED (ed) (1983) CO2 and plants. The response of plants to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. AASS Selected Symposium 84, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. MacAdam JW, Volenec JJ, Nelson CJ (1989) Effects of nitrogen on mesophyll cell division and epidermal cell elongation in tall fescue leaf blades. Plant Physiology 89: 549–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marigo G (1973) Sur une méthode de fractionnement et déstimation des composés phénoliques chez les vegetaux. Analisis 2: 106–110Google Scholar
  18. Mattson WJ (1980) Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annual Review of Ecology Systems 11: 119–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDonald AJS (1990) Phenotypic variation in growth rate as affected by N- supply: its effects on net assimilation rate (NAR), leaf weight ratio (LWR) and specific leaf area (SLA). In: Lambers H, Cambridge ML, Konings H, Pons TL (eds) Causes and consequences of variation in growth rate and productivity of higher plants. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  20. Monje OA, Bugbee B (1992) Inherent limitations of nondestructive chlorophyll meters. A comparision of two types of meter. Horcience 27: 69–71Google Scholar
  21. Peñuelas J, Filella I, Biel C, Serrano L, Savé R (1993) The reflectance of the 950–970 nm region as an indicator of plant water status. International Journal of Remote Sensing (in press)Google Scholar
  22. Peñuelas J, Matamala R (1990) Changes in N and S content, stomatal density and specific leaf area of 14 plant species during the last three centuries of CO2 increase. Journal of Experimental Botany 41: 1119–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peñuelas J, Savé R, Marfà O, Serrano L (1992) Remotely measured canopy temperature of greenhouse strawberries as an indicator of water status and yield under mild and very mild water stress conditions. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 58: 63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poitout S, Bues R (1970) Elevage de plusieurs espècies de lépidoptères Noctuidae sur milieu artificiel riche et sur milieu artificiel simplifié. Annual Zoology Ecology Animal 1: 245–264Google Scholar
  25. Porra RJ, Thompson WA, Kriemann PE (1989) Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: verification of the concentration of chlorophyll standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 975: 384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Radin JW, Ackerson RC (1981) Water relations of cotton plants under nitrogen deficiency. III Stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and abscisic acid accumulation during drought. Plant Physiology 67: 115–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas JR, Gausman HW (1977) Leaf reflectance v. leaf chlorophyll and carotenoid concentrations for eight crops. Agronomy Journal 69: 799CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Peñuelas
    • 1
  • C. Biel
    • 1
  • M. Estiarte
    • 1
  • I. Filella
    • 1
  • R. Matamala
    • 1
  • L. Serrano
    • 1
  • R. Savé
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia AgroalimentàriesCabrils, BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations