4.6 Article

An optimized hydroponic pipeline for large-scale identification of wheat genotypes with resilient biological nitrification inhibition activity

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 238, 期 4, 页码 1711-1721

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.18807

关键词

bioassay; biological nitrification inhibition; high-throughput; hydroponics; Nitrosomonas europaea; wheat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various plant species can inhibit nitrification through their root exudates, known as biological nitrification inhibition (BNI). Identifying BNI activity in existing germplasms is crucial for mitigating nitrogen losses in agrosystems sustainably.
Several plant species have been reported to inhibit nitrification via their root exudates, the so-called biological nitrification inhibition (BNI). Given the potential of BNI-producing plants to sustainably mitigate N losses in agrosystems, identification of BNI activity in existing germplasms is of paramount importance.A hydroponic system was combined with an optimized Nitrosomonas europaea-based bioassay to determine the BNI activity of root exudates. The pipeline allows collecting and processing hundreds of root exudates simultaneously. An additional assay was established to assess the potential bactericide effect of the root exudates.The pipeline was used to unravel the impact of developmental stage, temperature and osmotic stress on the BNI trait in selected wheat genotypes. Biological nitrification inhibition activity appeared consistently higher in wheat at the pretillering stage as compared to the tillering stage. While low-temperatures did not alter BNI activities in root exudates, osmotic stress appeared to change the BNI activity in a genotype-dependent manner. Further analysis of Nitrosomonas culture after pre-exposure to root exudates suggested that BNI activity has no or limited bactericide effects.The present pipeline will be instrumental to further investigating the dynamics of BNI activity and to uncover the diversity of the BNI trait in plant species.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据