4.7 Article

Hydrogen peroxide concentrations in leaves under natural conditions

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 57, Issue 10, Pages 2435-2444

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erl004

Keywords

bur oak; FACE studies; hydroperoxide; Ohio buckeye; oxidative metabolism; red mangrove; soybean; violet

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While H2O2 has been implicated in numerous plant environmental responses, normal levels and variabilities are poorly established, and estimates of leaf tissue concentrations span more than three orders of magnitude, even in a single species under similar conditions. Here, leaf tissue H2O2 contents under natural conditions are reported after determining (i) that H2O2 in extracts was stable with time, (ii) that H2O2 added to the extract was recovered quantitatively, and (iii) that the H2O2 calibration curve was unaffected (or quantifiably affected) by the extract. The broad applicability of the protocol and variability in leaf concentrations were demonstrated using tissue collected from several habitats in association with three, more extensive, experiments. The first involved nychthemeral studies of the mangrove, Rhizophora mangle L. Lowest H2O2 levels occurred in the early morning and near sunset, with higher levels both at midday and at night. Second, using five temperate species in Spring, concentrations were compared on a warm, sunny day and a cool, cloudy day. Higher concentrations were found on the warm day for Aesculus glabra Willd., Glechoma hederacea L., Plantago major L., and Viola sorada Wilid., while there were no differences in Ouercus macrocarpa Michx. Finally, the effects of elevated CO2 and ozone were examined in soybean, Glycine max L. Pioneer 9313115 under Free Air gas Concentration Enrichment (FACE) conditions. Both supplements led to elevated H2O2. Overall, mean leaf, midday, and mid-summer H2O2 concentrations ranged from 0.67 mu mol (gFW)(-1) in mangrove to 3.6 mu mol (gFW)(-1) in A. glabra Willd. Greatest within-species differences were only 2.5-fold in any of the studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available