Advances in agronomy volume 54

371 14 0
  • Loading ...
1/371 trang
Tải xuống

Thông tin tài liệu

Ngày đăng: 08/05/2019, 15:40

DVANCES IN Lgronomy V O L U M5 E4 Advisory Board Martin Alexander Eugene J Kamprath Cornell University North Carolina State University Kenneth J Frey Larry P Wilding Iowa State University Texas A&M University Prepared in cooperation with the American Society of Agronomy Monographs Committee P S Baenziger J Bartels J N Bigham L P Bush M A Tabatabai, Chairnuan R N Carrow W T Frankenberger, J D M Kral S E Lingle G A Peterson D E Rolston D E Stott J W Stuck Edited by Donald L Sparks Department of Plant and Soil Sciences University of Delaware Newark, Delaware ACADEMIC PRESS, INC Harcourt Brace & Company San Diego New York Boston London Sydney Tokyo Toronto This book is printed on acid-free paper @ Copyright 1995 by ACADEMIC PRESS, INC All Rights Reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher Academic Press, Inc A Division of Harcourt Brace & Company 525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, California 92101-4495 United Kingdom Edition published by Academic Press Limited 24-28 Oval Road London NWl 7DX International Standard Serial Number: 0065-2 13 International Standard Book Number: 0- 12-000754- PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 95 96 9 99 O O Q W Contents CONTRIBUTORS PREFACE ix xi IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ON SUBSURFACE MICROBIAL ECOLOGY Eugene L Madsen I Introduction and Scope I1 Subsurface Microbial Ecology 111 Agricultural Practices and Their Impact on Subsurface Habitats Iv Impact of Agricultural Practices on Subsurface Microbial Ecology V Concluding Remarks References HERBICIDE-RESISTANT FIELD CROPS Jack Dekker and Stephen Duke I Introduction I1 Mechanisms of Herbicide Resistance i 35 46 56 57 111 Selection for Herbicide-Resistant Variants rv Herbicide-Resistant Crops by the Herbicide Chemical Family V Summary References 69 71 77 80 100 101 ACIDSOIL TOLERANCE IN WHEAT Brett F Carver and James D Ownby I T h e Problem: Causes Symptomatology and Severity I1 Physiology of Aluminum and Manganese ‘Tolerance in Wheat I11 Genetic Mechanisms of Tolerance to Acid Soils Iv Breeding for Acid Soil Tolerance v Sustainable Production in Acid Soils VI Conclusions References V 117 124 136 146 161 162 164 vi CONTENTS MICROBIAL REDUCTIONOF IRON MANGANESE AND OTHER METALS Derek R Lovley I Introduction Fe(II1) and Mn(rV) Reduction Uranium Reduction Selenium Reduction Chromate Reduction VI Microbial Reduction of Other Metals VII Conclusions References 11 111 IV V 176 176 202 205 210 216 216 217 NITRIFICATION INHIBITORSFOR AGRICULTURE HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT I I1 111 I v V VI VII Rajendra Prasad and J F Power Introduction Nitrification Inhibitors N l s NI I;/NO; Ratios and Plant Growth NIs and Crop Yields Phytotoxicity of NIs Health and Nitrates NIs and Environnient References PRODUCTION AND 234 235 243 246 252 254 262 269 BREEDINGOF LENTIL F.J Muehlbauer W.J Kaiser S L Clement and R J Summerfield 284 Introduction 285 I1 Background 286 I11 Origin Taxonomy Cytology and Plant Description 291 IV Production of Lentil V Fertilization and Weed Control 296 297 VI Principal Uses 298 VII Major Constraints to Production 303 Hybridization Methods VIII 307 Genetic Resources IX Genetics 308 X 317 XI Interspecific Hybridization VIII Methods Used for Lentil Breeding 318 CONTENTS ix Breeding Objectives X Summary References vii 321 326 327 USE OF APOMIXIS IN CULTIVAR DEVELOPMENT I I1 I11 rv v VI Wayne W Hanna Introduction T h e Gene(s) Controlling Apomixis Breeding impact on Seed Industry International Impact Evaluation References INDEX 333 334 337 345 346 347 347 351 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Contributors Numbers in parentheses indicate the pagcs on which the authors’ contributions begin BRETT F CARVER (I 17), Department OfAgronomy, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 S L CLEMENT ( ) , United States Department of Agriculture, Agriailtural Research Service, Regional Plant Introduction Station, WashingtonState University, Pidlman, Washington 991 64 JACK DEKKER (69), Agronomy Department, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 5001I STEPHEN DUKE (69), United States Department of Agrinclture, Agricultural Research Service, Southern Weed Science Laboratory, Stoneville, Mississippi 38776 WAYNE W HANNA ( 3 ) , United States Department of Agriculture, Ap’ailtziral Research Service, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifon, Georgia 31 793 W J KAISER ( ) , United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Regional Plant Introduction Station, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 991 64 DEREK R LOVLEY (17 S), Water Resozcrces Division, United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 22092 EUGENE L MADSEN (l), Division of Biological Sciences, Section of Mimobiology, Cornell University,Ithaca, New York 14853 F J MUEHLBAUER ( ) , United States Department of Agriailtzire, Agricultural Research Service, Grain Legiime Genetics and Physiology Research Unit, Washington State University, Piillman, Washington 991 64 JAMES D OWNBY (1 17), Department of Botany, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 J F POWER ( 3), United States Department of Agricziltiire, Agricultural Research Service, Universityof Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583 RAJENDRA PRASAD ( 3 ) , Division of Agronomy, Indian Agrikziltural Research Institute, New Dehli, India R J SUMMERFIELD, ( ) Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratoi-y, University of Reading, Berkshire RG2 9AD, United Kingdom ix 344 w w H A N N A high-yielding obligate apomictic plants in a population of tetraploid Bahia grass with the recessive gene for apomixis (Burton and Forbes, 1960; Burton, 1992) Apomictic plants homozygous for the recessive gene controlling apomixis occurred at a low frequency, less than the in 36 expected in tetraploid material, and failed to yield as well as the sexual plants in the population Burton (1992) developed another P notutum population of apomictic and sexual plants with apomixis controlled by a dominant gene After three cycles of RRPS, the best apomictic plants yielded more dry matter than Argentine Bahia grass Facultative Apomixis Facultative apomixis is useful in species where obligate sexual plants are not available for crossing with apomictic pollinators and where the frequency of apomixis can be increased by crossing diverse facultative types (Bashaw and Funk, 1987) It can be a disadvantage because it can complicate and make the breeding process unpredictable The same procedures could be used for breeding facultative apomicts as for obligate apomicts, except that more progeny testing would be required to establish the stability and frequency of apomixis of various apomictic genotypes Interspecific Hybrids Interspecific hybridization between a sexual and apomictic species can be used to release the genetic variability in apomictic species Lutts et ul (1991) crossed induced tetraploids of sexual Bruchiuriu ruziziensis with apomictic B decumbens which released the genetic variation of the apomictic species Burson (1989) identified sexual progenitors of obligate apomictic pentaploid Puspalum dilututum Poir for use as a female parent to release the genetic variability of the apomictic species Hanna and Dujardin (1990) developed apomictic interspecific hybrids with over 20 different chromosome and/or genome combinations from crosses among five Pennisetum species A number of the interspecific hybrids produced high yields of high quality forage (Hanna et al., 1989) Chemical Control Chemical control of the apomictic mechanisms by turning them “on” or “off’ at will would have a major impact on using them to produce hybrids Presently, little information is available on this subject The ability to turn apomixis “off’ would make sexual plants in apomictic species available and allow one to release at will the genetic variability of any genotype that reproduces by apomixis If apomixis could be turned “on” at will with a chemical, a sexual hybrid could be USE OF APOMIXIS 345 made temporarily apomictic in a commercial production field to increase seed The hybrid would be sexual in the farmer’s field if not treated with the chemical Chemical control of the apomictic mechanisms presents a challenge to biochemists and genetic engineers in the future D GENETIC VULNERABILITY A major concern for using apomixis in cultivar development is that a few superior cultivars would occupy most of the area planted to a particular crop A report published by the National Academy of Science (1972) showed that the area commercially planted to most of the major sexually reproducing agronomic and horticultural crops in the United States is already represented by a limited number of cultivars for each crop The impact of the corn blight in 1970 due to susceptibility of the major male sterility-inducing cytoplasm used to produce hybrid maize was discussed in the same report Sorghum uses the milo cytoplasm in most of its commercial hybrid production (Bosques-Vega et al., 1989; Schertz and Pring, 1982) Use of apomixis in cultivar development could actually enhance genetic diversity Each apomictic plant from a sexual X apomictic cross is potentially a unique cultivar regardless of the heterozygosity or homozygosity of its parents Apomixis would allow breeders to build and fix unique genotypes that would not be possible or at least very difficult with sexual reproduction Vulnerability due to cytoplasm would virtually be eliminated because a specific cytoplasmic-nuclear male sterility-inducing cytoplasm would not be needed to commercially increase a hybrid There could be as many different cytoplasms as there are commercial hybrids if apomixis is used in cultivar development IV IMPACT ON SEED INDUSTRY Apomixis would no doubt have an impact on the way commercial cultivars are produced and increased production practices would be radically changed and at the same time greatly simplified The need to maintain and increase parental lines (except for breeding) and the need to be concerned about isolation to prevent outcrossing would be eliminated The major concern in seed production would be to prevent mechanical mixtures Outcrossing would only be a problem when a cultivar reproduced by some degree of facultative apomixis Offtypes in facultative apomictic cultivars would need to be rogued The land needed to produce hybrid seed would be significantly reduced 46 W W HANNA Will farmers save their own seed instead of purchasing new seed each year? Some will probably save their own seed since obligate apomictic hybrids will breed true In the author’s opinion, most farmers will continue to purchase seed because they recognize the advantages of planting high quality, treated and sized seeds Apomixis would lower seed production costs for industry It will probably be more economical for farmers to purchase seed each year than to purchase and operate the equipment needed to process their own seed Another concern is control of rights to germ plasm Rights to specific apomictic cultivars can be controlled through patents since apomictic cultivars are vegetatively propagated through seed Cultivars would need to be documented by morphological, biochemical, and molecular methods and descriptors Documentation methods would need to be refined and precise because of a proliferation of cultivars in the market, some with only small genetic differences V INTERNATIONALIMPACT All farmers can benefit from apomictic hybrids because apomixis maximizes the opportunity to develop and make available superior genotypes to be grown on the farm However, the greatest impact of apomictic hybrids would be in lesser developed countries where the largest portion of the world’s population is located, hybrids may not be widely grown, and farmers are accustomed to saving their seeds from year to year Hybrids usually result in an increase in production, with the amount depending on genotypes and crop In countries where yields are low and food supplies are limited, any increase in production due to hybrid vigor is welcomed Ouendeba et al (1992) obtained an 81% increase in grain yield for pearl millet in a population cross between landraces from Sudan and Nigeria If the vigor of that landrace hybrid could be fixed, it would revolutionize pearl millet grain production in West Africa and at the same time maintain the adaptability and diversity of local germ plasm Up to 73% heterosis has been reported for rice hybrids (Virmini et al., 1982) Using apomixis to fix hybrid vigor in rice would have a major impact on food production around the world The widespread use of a few apomictic cultivars should be a concern but probably not a reality The ability to rapidly create new stable cultivars using apomixis would greatly reduce problems due to pest epidemics If an apomixis gene(s) was readily available to be used in cultivar development, there would be a proliferation of new cultivars with different heights, maturities, qualities, adaptations, etc Various combinations of these apomictic cultivars could be mixed in numerous combinations to provide reliable production in diverse environments to meet the needs of the farmer USE OF APOMLXIS 347 VI EVALUATION There is no genetically controlled character that could have a greater impact on food, forage, and fiber production around the world than apomixis Apomixis is being used to develop cultivars in forage and turf grasses and in Citrus rootstock We have made significant progress in transferring a gene(s) controlling obligate apomixis from a wild species to cultivated pearl millet Apomictic cultivars in pearl millet should be possible when the problem related to retaining seed set on apomictic backcross-derived plants is solved (Dujardin and Hanna, 1989a) Wild apomictic species have been crossed with maize and wheat, but high sterility and facultative apomictic behavior have been encountered Male fertility is needed in these species crosses to transfer apomixis to the cultivated species and to use it in cultivar development.Facultative apomixis has been reported in sorghum and rice but no obligate apomixis has been reported in the cultivated or wild species It appears that molecular methods may be needed to transfer genes controlling apomixis to our major grain crops such as maize, wheat, rice, sorghum, and soybean and many other important food, forage, and fiber crops if apomictic cultivars are to be developed in these species This will require isolation of a stable gene(s) (preferably dominant) controlling obligate apomixis, insertion of the gene(s) into the genome of a target species, expression of obligate apomixis in the target species, and replication of the gene(s) controlling apomixis in the genome of the target species One can readily see that many questions need to be answered and many obstacles overcome regarding the wide use of apomixis in cultivar development It will not be easy to isolate and transfer the gene controlling obligate apomixis and use it to produce apomictic cultivars in our major world crops, but it should be possible, especially with the major advances being made in molecular biology It is worth the effort because of its potential impact around the world REFERENCES Arthur, L., Ozias-Akins, P., and Hanna, W W 1993 Female sterile mutant in pearl millet: Evidence for initiation of apospory J Hered 84, 112- 115 Asker, S E., and Jerling, L 1992 “Apomixis in Plants.” CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL Bashaw, E C 1962 Apomixis and sexuality in buffelgrass Crop Sci 2,412-415 Bashaw, E C 1980a Registration of Nueces and Llano buffelgrass Crop Sci 20, 12 Bashaw, E C 1980b Apomixis and its application in crop improvement In “Hybridization of Crop Plants” (W R Fehr and H H Hadley, eds.), pp 45-68 Amer SOC.Agron., Madison, WI Bashaw, E C., and Funk, C R 1987 Breeding apomictic grasses In “Principles of Cultivar Development: Crop Species” (W R Fehr, ed.), Vol 2, pp 40-82 MacMillan Co., New York Bashaw, E C., and Iianna, W W 1990 Apomictic reproduction In “Reproductive Versatility in the Grasses” (G P.Chapman, ed.), pp 100- 130 Cambridge Univ Press, England Bashaw, E C., Hussey, M A,, and Hignight, K W 1992 Hybridization (N + N and 2n + N) 48 W W HANNA of facultative apomictic species in the Penniseturn agamic complex Ini J Plant Sci 153, 466-470 Bosques-Vega, A., Sotamayor, A., Torres-Cardona, S., Perrecly, H R., and Schertz, K F 1989 Maintainer and restorer reactions with A,, A, and A, cytoplasms of lines from the sorghum conversion program Publ MP-1676 Texas Agric Exp Station, College Station Burson, B L 1989 Phylogenetics of apomictic Paspalurn dilataium In “Proc XVI Int Grassl Congr.,” pp 479-485 Nice, France Burson, B L., Voigt, P W., and Bashaw, E C 1984 Approaches to breeding apomictic grasses In “Proc 40th Southern Pasture and Forage Crop Improvement Conf.,” pp 14-17 Baton Rouge, LA Burton, G W 1992 Manipulating apomixis in Paspalurn In “Proc Apomixis Workshop,” pp 16- 19 Atlanta, GA Burton, G W 1982 Effect of environment on apomixis in bahiagrass, Paspalum notafum Crop Sci 22,109-111 Burton, G W., and Forbes, I., Jr 1960 The genetics and manipulation of obligate apomixis in common bahiagrass (Paspalurn noiafum Flugge) In “Proc 8th Int Grassland Congr., Univ Reading, England,” pp 66-71, Alden Press, Great Britain Carman, J G., and Wang, R R.-C 1992 Apomixis in the Triticeae In “Proc Apomixis Workshop,” pp 26-29 Atlanta, GA Doggett, H 1964 Fertility improvement in autotetraploid Sorghum I Cultivated autotetraploids Heredity 19,403-419 Dujardin, M., and Hanna W 1986 An apomictic polyhaploid obtained from a pearl millet X Penniseturn squamularum apomictic interspecific hybrid Theor Appl Genet 72,33-36 Dujardin, M., and Hanna, W 1987 Inducing male fertility in crosses between pearl millet and Penniseium orieniale Rich Crop Sci 27,65-68 Dujardin, M., and Hanna, W W 1989a Developing apomictic pearl millet: Characterization of a BC, J Genet f lanr Breed 43, 145- 15 I Dujardin, M., and Hanna, W W 1989b Fertility improvement in tetraploid pearl millet Euphytica 42, 285-289 Elgin, J H., Jr., and Miksche, J P (ed.) 1992 Proc of the Apomixis Workshop, U.S Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS- 104 Gounaris, E K., Sherwood, R T., Gounaris I., Hamilton, R H., and Gustine, D L 1991 Inorganic salts modify embryo sac development in sexual and aprosporus Cenchrus ciliaris Sex Plant Reprod 4, 188-192 Gustafsson, A 1946 Apomixis in higher plants I The mechanism of apomixis Lunds Univ Arsskr Avd 2,42, 1-66 Hanna, W W 1979 Interspecific hybrids between pearl millet and fountaingrass J Hered 70, 425-427 Hanna, W W 1991 Apomixis in crop plants: Cytogenetic basis and role in plant breeding In “Chromosome Engineering in Plants: Genetics, Breeding, Evaluation” (P K Gupta and T Tsuchiya, eds.), Part A, pp 229-242 Elsevier, New York Hanna, W.W., and Bashaw, E C 1987 Apomixis: Its identification and use in plant breeding Crop Sci 27, 1136-1 139 Hanna, W.W.,and Dujardin, M 1990 Role of apomixis in building and maintaining genome combinations In “Proc Second Int Symp on Chromosome Engineering in Plants.” pp 112- 117 Univ Missouri, Columbia Hanna, W W., Dujardin, M., and Monson, W G 1989 Using diverse species to improve quality and yield in the fenniseium genus In “Proc XVI Int Grassl Congr.,” pp 403-404 Nice, France Hanna, W W., Dujardin, M., Ozias-Akins, P., and Arthur, L 1992 Transfer of apomixis in fenniserum In “Proc Apomixis Workshop.” pp 30-33 Atlanta, GA USE OF APOMIXIS 49 Hanna W., Dujardin, M., Ozias-Akins, P Lubbers, E., and Arthur, L 1993 Reproduction, cytology, and fertility of pearl millet X Pennisetum squatnulrrtum BC, plants J Hered 84,213-216 Hanna, W W., and Powell, J B 1973 Stubby head, an induced facultative apomict in pearl millet Crop Sri 13,726-728 Hanna, W W., Powell, J B., Millot, J C., and Burton, G W 1973 Cytology of obligate sexual plants in fanicum maximum Jacq and their use in controlled hybrids Crop Sci 13,695-697 Hanna, W W., Schertz, K F., and Bashaw, E C 1970 Apospory in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench Science 170,338-339 Hearn, C J Barrett, H C., and Niedz, R P 1992 Apomixis in citrus In “Proc Apomixis Workshop,” pp 49-52 Atlanta, GA Hermsen, J G 1980 Breeding for apomixis in potato: Pursuing a utopian scheme Euphytico 29, 595 -607 Hussey, M A., Bashaw, E C., Hignight, K W., and Dahmer, M L 1991 Influence of photoperiod on the frequency of sexual embryo sacs in facultatively apomictic buffelgrass Euphyrica 54, 141-145 Khokhlov, S S (ed.) 1976 “Apomixis and Breeding.” [Translated from Russian by Amerind Publishing Co Pvt Ltd., New Delhi, for USDA-ARS] Lutts, S., Ndikumana, J., and Louant, B P 1991 Fertility of Brachiaricr ruziziensis in interspecific crosses with Brachinria decumbens and Brrrrhictricr brizantha: Meiotic behavior, pollen viability and seed set Euphyrica 57,267-274 Miles, J W., Pedraza, F., Palacios, N., and Tohme, J 1994 Molecular marker for the apomixis gene in Brachiarifr In “Plant Genome 11,” p 51 San Diego, CA [Abstract] Nakajima, K 1990 Apomixis and its application to plant breeding In “Proc Gamma Field Symposia No 29,Ohmija-machi,” pp 71 -92 Ibaraki-ken, Japan National Academy of Science 1972 Genetic vulnerability of major crops NAS Printing and Publishing Office, Washington, D.C Nogler, G A 1984 Gametophytic apomixis In “Embryology of Angiosperms” (B M Johri, ed.) Springer-Verlag, New York Ouendeba, B., Ejeta, G., Nyquist, W., Hanna, W., and Kumar, A 1992 Heterosis and combining ability among African pearl millet landraces Crop Sci 33,735-739 Ozias-Akins, P., Lubbers, E L., and Hanna, W W 1992 Molecular research on apomixis in fenniseturn In “Proc Apomixis Workshop,” pp, 34-35 Atlanta, GA Ozias-Akins, P., Lubbers, E L., Hanna, W W., and MacNay, J W 1993 Transmission of the apomictic mode of reproduction in Pennisetum: Coinheritance of the trait and molecular markers Theor Appl Genet 85,632-638 Pepin, G W., and Funk, C R 1971 Intraspecific hybridization as a method of breeding, Kentucky Bluegrass (fooprrrtensis L.) for turf Crop Sci 11,445-448 Petrov, D F (ed.) 1984 “Apomixis and Its Role in Evolution and Breeding.” [Translated from Russian by Amerind Publishing Co., Pvt Ltd., New Delhi for USDA and National Science Foundation] Rutger, J N 1992 Searching for apomixis in rice In “Proc Apomixis Workshop,” pp 36-39 Atlanta, GA Savidan, Y I98 I Genetics and utilization of apomixis for the improvement of guineagrass (fcinicuriz tnnxitnutn Jacq.) In “Proc XIV Int Grassl Congr.,” pp 182- 184 Westview Press, Boulder, CO Savidan Y LeBlanc, O., and Berthaud, J 1993 Progress in the transfer of apomixis in maize In “Agronomy Abstracts,” p 101 Madison, WI Schertz, K F 1992 Apomixis i n sorghum In “Proc Apomixis Workshop,” pp 40-42 Atlanta, GA Schertz, K F., and Pring, D R 1982 Cytoplasmic sterility systems in sorghum In “Proc Interal Symp Sorghum’’ (L R House, L K Mughogho, and J M Peacock, eds.), pp 373-383 350 W W M A Smith, R L 1972 Sexual reproduction in Punicum maximum Jacq Crop Sci 12,624-627 Taliaferro, C M., and Bashaw, E C 1966 Inheritance and control of apomixis in breeding buffelgrass, Pennisetum ciliare Crop Sci 6,473-476 Virrnini, S S., Aquino, R C., and Khush, G S 1982 Heterosis breeding in rice Theor Appl Genet 63,373-380 Voigt, P W 1971 Discovery of sexuality in Erugrostis curvulu (Schrad) Nees Crop Sci 11,424-425 Wilson, K.J (ed.) 1993 In “Proc Int Workshop on Apomixis in Rice, Changsha, Peoples Republic of China.” The Rockefeller Foundation, New York Young, B A,, Sherwood, R T., and Bashaw, E C 1979 Cleared-pistil and thick-sectioning techniques for detecting aposporus apomixis in grasses Can J Bor 57, 1668- 1672 Index A Acetolactate synthatase inhibitors, crop resistance, 84-87 Acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors, crop resistance, 87-89 Agriculture definition, impact on subsurface microbial ecology, 1-57 background definitions, 3-4 dynamic bounding sphere metaphor, function, 22-35 metabolic status, 30-32 nutrient cycling, 32-35 responsiveness to change, 22-30 habitat structure, 5-22 geology, 5-8 hydrology, 5-8 organisms, 8-22 actinomycetes, 19-20 fungi, 19-20 protozoa, 21 -22 management practices, 36-46 crop, 39-43 livestock, 45-46 pest, 43-45 soil, 39 water, 37-38 measurement, 47-56 geochemical changes, 52-54 integrated effects testing, 54-56 physical changes, 49-52 subsurface versus surface habitats, 46-47 Aluminum phytotoxicity, 120- 122 wheat tolerance binding in cell wall, 129- 130 exclusion at the plasmalemma, 131- 132 genetic basis, 137- 143 manganese tolerance relationship, 145- 146 organic acid accumulation, 127- 129 root mucilage production, 130- 131 tolerant protein synthesis, 132- 134 351 Ametryne, crop resistance, 80-84 Ammonia nitrate ratio effect on plant growth, 243-246 volatilization, nitrification inhibitor induced, 240- 24 I Apomixis, 333-347 breeding, 337-345 advantages, 338-339 genetic vulnerability, 345 methods, 340-345 chemical control, 344-345 dominant gene, 341 facultative apomixis, 344 interspecific hybrids, 344 recessive gene, 341 -344 plant identification, 339-340 controlling genes, 334-337 expression, 336-337 genetics, 337 sources, 335-336 impact on seed industry, 345-346 international impact, 346 Arylox yphenoxypropionates, crop resistance, 87-89 Ascochyta blight, in lentil, 300 Asulam, crop resistance, 99 Atrazine, crop resistance, 80-84 B Bacteria, see Microbes Bipyridiliums, crop resistance, 98-99 Blight, ascochyta, in lentil, 300 Breeding, see Plant breeding Bromoxynil, crop resistance, 92-93 C Chromate, microbial reduction, 210-215 bioremediation of contaminated soils, 214-215 mechanisms, 212-214 microorganisms, 210-2 12 Contamination, see Environmental contamination 352 INDEX Corn, nitrification inhibitors effect on yield, 248-249 Fungi seedborne disease, in lentil, 300 subsurface habitat structure, 19-20 Cotton, nitrification inhibitors effect on yield, 252 Crops, see speciJiccrop Cyanamide, crop resistance, 96 G Cyanazine, crop resistance, 80-84 Cyclohexanediones, crop resistance, 87-89 Genetics, see Plant breeding Geology, subsurface microbial habitat structure, D Dalapon, crop resistance, 96-97 Denitritication, rate reduction by nitrification inhibition, 241 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaceticacid, crop resistance, 93-94 Dicyandiamide nitrification inhibition, 234-243 nitrogen loss and immobilization, 240-243 relative effectiveness, 236-238 soil factors affecting effectiveness, 239- 240 phytotoxicity, 252-254 Dihydropteroate synthase inhibitors, crop resistance, 99 Diquat, crop resistance, 98-99 Dynamic bounding sphere metaphor, impact of agricultural practices on subsurface microbial ecology, E Ecology, see Microbes, subsurface ecology Environmental contamination bioremediation by microbial reduction chromate, 214-215 organic compounds, 195- 197 selenium, 208-2 10 uranium, 204-205 nitrates, 256-264 ozone layer depletion, 264-269 F Fertilizers impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 39-43,52-54 lentil requirements, 296 nitrogen immobilization by microorganisms, 242-243 nitrogen use, 234-235 5-8 Global warming, 268-269 Glufosinate, crop resistance, 94-96 Glyphosate, crop resistance, 89-91 Greenhouse gases, 268-269 Groundwater, see also Water management definition, 3-4 nitrate contamination, 256-264 nutrient cycling, 32-35 subsurface microbial habitat structure, 5-8 H Herbicides, crop resistance, 69- 101 chemical families, 80- 100 acetolactate synthatase inhibitors, 84-87 acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors, 87-89 bipyridiliums, 98-99 bromoxynil, 92-93 cyanamide, 96 dalapon, 96-97 dihydropteroate synthase inhibitors, 99 glufosinate, 94-96 glyphosate, 89-91 mitotic inhibitors, 99- 100 phenoxycarboxylic acids, 93-94 phosphinothricin, 94-96 phytoene desaturase inhibitors, 97-98 protoporphyrinogen-oxidaseinhibitors, 98 triazines, 80-84 mechanisms, 71 -77 exclusion, 72-76 site of action alteration, 76-77 site of action overproduction, 77 variant selection, 77-80 biotechnological techniques, 78-80 genetic sources, 78 traditional plant-breeding techniques, 78 Human health, nitrate effects, 254-256 Hydrogen, oxidation by iron and manganesereducing microorganisms, 176- 181 Hydrology, see Groundwater: Water management INDEX I Imidazolinones, crop resistance, 84-87 Iron, microbial reduction, 176-201 activity monitoring, 186- 187 effects on plant growth, 201 effects on soil properties, 199-200 electron flow in anoxic soils, 192-195 electron transport, 183- 184 interaction with other microbially catalyzed redox processes, 190- 192 isolation, 184- 186 mechanisms, 187- 190 microorganisms, 176- 183 hydrogen oxidation, 176- 181 magnetotactic bacteria, 182- 183 organic matter oxidation, 176- 18 I sulfur-oxidizing reducers, 181- 182 organic contaminant degradation, 195- 197 oxide formation, 197- 199 Irrigation, impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 37-38.49-52 L Lentil, 283-327 background, 284-291 Cytology, 288-289 origin, 286-287 plant description, 289-291 taxonomy, 287-288 breeding methods, 18-32 I backcross, 320-321 bulk populations, 319 pedigree selection, 19-320 pure line selection, 18 single seed descent, 320 breeding objectives, 32 -326 cultivar quality, 324 diseases, 322-323 insects, 324 mechanical harvesting adaptation, 325-326 orobanche, 323-324 root rot/wilt complex, 323 seed yields, 32 1-322 straw yields, 321-322 fertilization 296 genetics, 307-3 17 germ plasm collection, 307-308 inherited traits, 308-3 17 353 association among traits, 317 cotyledon color, 10 epicotyl color, 12 flower color, 10-3 1 flower number, 312 genetic variance, 314-315 growth habit, 312 heritability estimates, 15-3 I6 isozymes, 313-314 pod indehiscence, 13 seed coat color, 11-3 12 virus resistance, 13 interspecific hybridization, 17 wild species, 308 hybridization methods, 303-307 environmental conditions, 303-304 equipment, 304 female flower emasculation, 304-305 pollination, 305-306 production, 291 -295 cultivars, 294-295 land requirements, 291 -292 seedbed preparation, 293 seeding, 293-294 seed quality, 292 seed treatment, 292 production constraints, 298-303 diseases, 299-302 environmental stress, 302-303 insects, 298-299 uses, 297-298 weed control, 297 Livestock management, impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 45-46 M Magnetotactic bacteria, iron reduction, 182-183 Malate, aluminum chelation in tolerant wheat, 128-129 Manganese microbial reduction, 176-201 activity monitoring, 186- 187 effects on plant growth, 201 effects on soil properties, 199-200 electron flow in anoxic soils, 192-195 electron transport, 183- 184 environmental reduction mechanisms, 187- I90 54 INDEX Manganese, (continued) interaction with other microbially catalyzed redox processes, 190- 192 isolation, 184- 186 microorganisms, 176- 183 hydrogen oxidation, 176- 181 organic matter oxidation, 176- 181 sulfur-oxidizing reducers, 181- 182 organic contaminant degradation, 195- 197 oxide formation, 197- 199 phytotoxicity, 120- 122, 134-135 wheat tolerance aluminum tolerance relationship, 145- 146 distribution, 134- 135 genetic basis, 143- 145 mechanisms, 135-136 uptake in roots, 134- 135 Methane, production inhibition by iron oxides, 191 Microbes chemical reduction, 175-217 chromate, 10-2 15 bioremediation of contaminated soils, 214-215 mechanisms, 12-214 microorganisms, 210-212 iron, 176-201 activity monitoring, 186-187 effect on plant growth, 201 effect on soil properties, 199-200 electron flow in anoxic soils, 192-195 electron transport, 183- 184 environmental reduction mechanisms, 187- 190 interaction with other microbially catalyzed redox processes, 190- 192 isolation, 184- 186 microorganisms, 176- I83 hydrogen oxidation, 176- I8 organic matter oxidation, 176- 181 reduction by magnetotactic bacteria, 182- 183 sulfur-oxidizing reducers, 181- 182 organic contaminant degradation, 195197 oxide formation, 197- 199 manganese, 176-201 activity monitoring, 186- 187 effect on plant growth, 201 effect on soil properties, 199-200 electron flow in anoxic soils, 192-195 electron transport, 183-184 environmental reduction mechanisms, 187-190 interaction with other microbially catalyzed redox processes, 190- 192 isolation, 184- 186 microorganisms, 176- 183 hydrogen oxidation, 176- 181 organic matter oxidation, 176- 181 sulfur-oxidizing reducers, 18 - 182 organic contaminant degradation, 195197 oxide formation, 197- 199 selenium, 205-2 10 bioremediation of contaminated soils, 208- 10 enzymatic mechanisms, 207-208 microorganisms, 205-207 uranium, 202-205 bioremediation of contaminated soils and water, 204-205 enzymatic mechanisms, 203 enzymatic versus nonenzymatic reduction, 203-204 microorganisms, 202-203 immobilization of nitrogen fertilizer, 242243 metabolic status in subsurface habitats, 3032 responsiveness to environmental change, 22-30 subsurface ecology, 1-57 agricultural impact, 35-57 management practices, 36-46 crop, 39-43 livestock, 45-46 pest, 43-45 soil, 39 water, 37-38 measurement, 47-56 geochemical changes, 52-54 integrated effects testing, 54-56 physical changes, 49-52 subsurface versus surface habitats, 46-47 background definitions, 3-4 dynamic bounding sphere metaphor, function, 22-35 metabolic status, 30-32 INDEX nutrient cycling, 32-35 responsiveness to change, 22-30 habitat structure, 5-22 geology, 5-8 hydrology, 5-8 organisms, 8-22 actinomycetes, 19- 20 fungi, 19-20 protozoa, 21 -22 Mitotic inhibitors, crop resistance, 99- 100 N Nitrapyrin nitrification inhibition, 234-243 nitrogen loss and immobilization, 240-243 relative effectiveness, 236-238 soil factors affecting effectiveness, 239240 phytotoxicity, 252-254 Nitrates ammonium ratio, effect on plant growth, 243 - 246 environmental effects, 262-269 global warming, 268-269 groundwater content, 262-264 ozone depletion, 264-268 health effects animal, 256 in drinking water, 256-261 human, 254-256 in vegetables, 261 -262 iron reduction inhibition, 190 Nitrification inhibitors, 233-269 ammoniumhitrate ratios, 243 -246 effect on crop yields, 246-252 corn, 248-249 cotton, 252 potato, 251 -252 rice, 247-248 sorghum, 249-250 sugarcane, 25 wheat, 249-250 environmental effects, 262-269 global warming, 268-269 groundwater content, 262-264 ozone depletion, 264-268 and nitrates animal health, 256 in drinking water, 256-261 355 human health, 254-256 in vegetables, 261 -262 nitrogen loss, 240-242 ammonia volatilization, 240-241 denitrification, 241 immobilization by microorganisms, 242243 from plants, 241 -242 urea hydrolysis, 240 phytotoxicity, 252-254 relative effectiveness, 236-238 soil factors affecting effectiveness, 239-240 organic matter, 238-239 pH, 240 soil water, 240 temperature, 239-240 Nitrogen annual fertilizer use, 234-235 immobilization by microorganisms, 242-243 IOSS, 240-242 Nitrous oxide, ozone depletion, 264-269 Nutrient cycling, in subsurface microbial habitats, 32-35 Organic matter effect on nitrification inhibitor effectiveness, 238 - 239 oxidation by iron and manganese-reducing microorganisms, 176- I8 Orobanche, in lentil, 323-324 Ozone, depletion, 264-269 P Paraquat, crop resistance, 98-99 Pesticides, see also speciJic chemical compound impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 54-56 Pest management impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 43-45 in lentil, 298-299,324 pH, effect on nitrification inhibitor effectiveness, 240 Phenoxycarboxylic acids, crop resistance, 93 -94 Phosphinothricin, crop resistance, 94-96 Phytoene desaturase inhibitors, crop resistance, 97-98 56 Phytotoxicity acid soils, 120-122, 134-135 nitrification inhibitors, 252-254 Plant breeding acid tolerance in wheat, 146- 161 approaches, 159- 161 cultivar development, 161 genetic pool variation, 149- 151 justification, 147- 149 screening strategies, 151- 159 apomixis, 333-347 advantages, 338-339 controlling genes, 334-337 expression, 336-337 genetics, 337 sources, 335-336 genetic vulnerability, 345 impact on seed industry, 345-346 international impact, 346 methods, 340-345 chemical control, 344-345 dominant gene, 341 facultative apomixis, 344 interspecific hybrids, 344 recessive gene, 341 -344 plant identification, 339-340 for herbicide resistance, 78 lentils genetics, 307-3 17 germ plasm collection, 307-308 inherited traits, 308-317 association among traits, 17 cotyledon color, 10 epicotyl color, I2 flower color, 10-3 I flower number, 12 genetic variance, 314-315 growth habit, 12 heritability estimates, 315-3 16 isozymes, 313-314 pod indehiscence, 313 seed coat color, I 1-3 12 virus resistance, 13 wild species, 308 hybridization, 303-307 environmental conditions, 303-304 equipment, 304 female flower emasculation, 304-305 pollination, 305-306 methods, 18-32 INDEX backcross, 320-321 bulk population, 319 pedigree selection, 19-320 pure line selection, 18 single seed descent, 320 objectives, 32 1-326 cultivar quality, 324 diseases, 322-323 insects, 324 mechanical harvesting adaptation, 325326 orobanche 323-324 root rot/wilt complex, 323 seed yields, 321 -322 straw yields, 32 1-322 screening strategies field evaluation, 157- 159 nutrient solution culture, 152- 156 soil bioassays, 156- 157 tissueculture, 151-152 Plant growth annual nitrogen fertilizer use, 234-235 effects of microbial reduction, 201 Plasmalemma, aluminum exclusion in tolerant wheat, 131-132 Pollution, see Environmental contamination Potato, nitrification inhibitors effect on yield, 25 1-252 Prometryn, crop resistance, 80-84 Protoporphyrinogen-oxidase inhibitors, crop resistance, 98 Protozoa, subsurface habitat structure, 8-22 R Reduction, see Microbes, chemical reduction Reproduction, see Plant breeding Rice, nitrification inhibitors effect on yield, 247-248 Root mucilage, production in aluminum tolerant plants, 130- 131 Root rot/wilt complex, in lentil, 299-302, 323 Rust, in lentil, 300 S Seed industry, see Plant breeding Selenium, microbial reduction, 205-2 10 bioremediation of contaminated soils, 208210 INDEX enzymatic mechanisms, 207-208 microorganisms, 205-207 Simazine, crop resistance, 80-84 Soil acidity causal elements, 117- 120 global severity, 122- 124 phytotoxicity, 120- 122 acid tolerance in wheat, 124-164 aluminum tolerance binding in cell wall, 129- 130 exclusion at the plasmalemma, 13I - 132 genetic basis, 137- 143 manganese tolerance relationship, 145- 146 organic acid accumulation, 127- 129 root mucilage production, 130- 131 tolerant protein synthesis, 132- 134 uptake in roots, 124- 127 breeding, 146- 161 approaches, 159- I6 I cultivar development, 161 genetic pool variation, 149- 15 justification, 147- 149 screening strategies, 15 1- 159 manganese tolerance aluminum tolerance relationship, 145146 distribution, 134- 135 genetic basis, 143- 145 mechanisms, 135- 136 uptake in roots, 134- 135 sustainable production, 161- 162 contamination, bioremediation by microbial reduction chromate, 14-2 I5 organic compounds, 195- 197 selenium, 208-210 uranium, 204-205 effects of microbial reduction, 199-200 electron flow to iron and manganese in anoxic sediments, 192- 195 horizons definition, subsurface microbial habitat structure, 5-9 management, impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 39 nitrification inhibitor effectiveness factors, 239 - 240 organic matter, 238-239 357 pH, 240 soil water, 240 temperature, 239-240 screening for plant breeding, 156- 157 subsurface microbial ecology, see Microbes, subsurface ecology Sorghum, nitrification inhibitors effect on yield, 249-250 Sugarcane, nitrification inhibitors effect on yield, 25 Sulfonylureas, crop resistance, 84-87 Sulfur, oxidation by iron and manganesereducing microorganisms, 181- 182 T Triazolopyrimidine sulfonanilides, crop resistance 84-87 U Uranium, microbial reduction, 202-205 bioremediation of contaminated soils and water, 204-205 enzymatic mechanisms, 203 enzymatic versus nonenzymatic reduction, 203-204 microorganisms, 202 - 203 Urea, hydrolysis retardation by nitrification inhibitors, 240 V Vadose zone, microbiology, I9 Viruses, in lentil, 300-302 W Water management, see also Groundwater impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 37-38 Weed control impact on subsurface microbial habitats, 43-44 in lentil, 297 Wheat acid soil tolerant 124- 164 aluminum tolerance binding in cell wall, 129- 130 exclusion at the plasmalemma, 13I - 132 358 Wheat, (conrinued) genetic basis, 137- 143 manganese tolerance relationship, 145146 organic acid accumulation, 127- 129 root mucilage production, 130- 131 tolerant protein synthesis, 132- 134 uptake in roots, 124- 127 breeding, 146-161 approaches, 159-161 cultivar development, 161 genetic pool variation, 149- 151 INDEX justification, 147- 149 screening strategies, 151 - 159 manganese tolerance aluminum tolerance relationship, 145I46 distribution, 134- 135 genetic basis, 143-145 mechanisms, 135-136 uptake in roots, 134- 135 sustainable production, 161 - 162 nitrification inhibitors effect on yield, 249250 ... in Fig by defining subsurface microbial ecology (emphasizing its unperturbed status and responsive capabilities), then by defining agricultural practices (emphasizing mechanisms for influencing... distinction between metabolic potential, determined by incubating field samples in the laboratory, and in siru microbial activity This distinction between what can be measured in laboratory-incubated... microorganisms In descending from the A to B soil horizons into the C horizon, a decline in nutrient levels is accompanied by a drastic decline in bacterial abundance Indeed, many reports in the older
- Xem thêm -

Xem thêm: Advances in agronomy volume 54 , Advances in agronomy volume 54 , Chapter 1. Impacts of Agricultural Practices on Subsurface Microbial Ecology, III. Agricultural Practices and Their Impact on Subsurface Habitats, IV. Impact of Agricultural Practices on Subsurface Microbial Ecology, II. Mechanisms of Herbicide Resistance, III. Selection for Herbicide-Resistant Variants, IV. Herbicide-Resistant Crops by the Herbicide Chemical Family, I. The Problem: Causes, Symptomatology, and Severity, II. Physiology of Aluminum and Manganese Tolerance in Wheat, III. Genetic Mechanisms of Tolerance to Acid Soils, IV. Breeding for Acid Soil Tolerance, V. Sustainable Production in Acid Soils, II. Fe(III) and Mn(IV) Reduction, VI. Microbial Reduction of Other Metals, Chapter 5. Nitrification Inhibitors for Agriculture, Health, and the Environment, III. Nls,NH4+/NO3 - Ratios, and Plant Growth, IV. NIs and Crop Yields, Chapter 6. Production and Breeding of Lentil, III. Origin, Taxonomy, Cytology, and Plant Description, VII. Major Constraints to Production, XII. Methods Used for Lentil Breeding, II. The Gene(s) Controlling Apomixis, IV. Impact on Seed Industry

Mục lục

Xem thêm

Gợi ý tài liệu liên quan cho bạn