Abstract
The measurement of the
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2018
Masoero Giorgio, et al.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Interests:
Citation:
Introduction
The The aims of the present study were to pursuit the investigation of this paradox multifaceted parameter with address for either: i) a multi-species variation, and ii) a dependency on the aerial temperature and on the plant water status that, iii) a different susceptibility to fungal and or bacterial diseases. Four bodies of data were considered for the setup of the present work. Further comparative elaborations and suggested hypothesis are reported in the discussion.
Materials And Methods
The As a total forty-nine species ( Four The pH was measured on 176 leaves from 15 Sixteen pots of In a framework of symbiotic biofertilization on fields experiments, a complex commercial consortium mycorrhizal-based (Micosat F ®, by CCS Aosta s.r.l.) In the report published from the EFSA EU-ERA network
Results
The raw pH appeared as a very wide-distributed parameter across the species ( An apparent scenario of acidity, ( a..n Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different, after Tukey’s HSD test at P < 0.05 In the experiment with grapevine aimed to an assessment of the pH to the aerial temperature, it was observed a saddle trend from morning to evening ( Where regressing the pH and the aerial temperature ( The raw petiole pH was also sensible to divergent conditions in the soil moisture. In the pot experiment, with grapevines from Grenache vineyard ( Where looking at the individual values ( The experiment with Arabidopsis thaliana in a phytotrone raised highly significant level ( The main factors were significant, with the two factor interaction near significant ( According to the EFSA Report on Collection of Pesticide Application Data in EU12 in 2013 the average number of active ingredients, formulations, products and sprays (spray rounds/spray passes) applied to each of the environmental field crops was very variable among crops. As far as apple, grapes and carrots crops are concerned in Italy, Poland, UK, and Spain the number of fungicides sprays applied were on average 16.67, 12.03 and 2.25 respectively When looking at the fungal pest occurrences a strong inverse polynomial relationship (R2 = 0.9) was interpolated among the mean pH of 15 species and the number of fungicide sprays ( The apple (pH = 4.99,
_01_
Vitaceae
23
3.06
a
0.22
_02_
Vitaceae
18
3.1
a
0.22
_03_
Vitaceae
16
3.21
a
0.28
_04_
Vitaceae
12
3.27
a
0.18
_05_grape-
Vitaceae
2190
3.69
b
0.37
_06_
Ginkgoaceae
10
4.41
c
0.13
_07_
Platanaceae
10
4.66
d
0.14
_08_maize-
Graminacee
792
4.84
d
0.39
_09_oak-
Fagaceae
10
4.87
d
0.10
_10_maple-
Sapindaceae
13
4.89
de
0.13
_11_apple-
Rosaceae
76
5.04
e
0.27
_12_orange-
Rutaceae
12
4.99
ef
0.17
_13_apricot-
Rosaceae
17
5.03
ef
0.27
_14_raspberry-
Rosaceae
11
5.25
ef
0.34
_15_peach-
Rosaceae
19
5.09
fg
0.2
_16_plum-
Rosaceae
19
5.17
efgh
0.26
_17_cherry-
Rosaceae
31
5.24
fghi
0.24
_18_olive-
Oleaceae
121
5.26
gi
0.26
_19_pepper-
Solanacee
14
5.32
gi
0.16
_20_coffee-
Rubiaceae
121
5.31
gij
0.12
_21_
Simaroubaceae
30
5.35
gijk
0.19
_22_
Apocinaceae
10
5.41
gijkl
0.10
_23_
Magnoliaceae
13
5.44
gjkl
0.05
_24_tomato-
Solanacee
16
5.46
gjkl
0.19
_25_
Malvacee
11
5.46
gjkl
0.11
_26_aubergine-
Solanacee
10
5.48
gjklm
0.07
_27_kiwi-
Actinidiaceae
30
5.49
jklm
0.12
_28_lemon-
Rutaceae
14
5.49
jklmn
0.09
_29_poplar-
Salicaceae
21
5.5
jlmn
0.24
_30_Sage-
Lamiaceae
10
5.51
jlmn
0.15
_31_thistle-
Asteracee
14
5.51
jlmn
0.22
_32_pear-
Rosaceae
23
5.52
jlmn
0.11
_33_artichoke-
Asteracee
12
5.69
mn
0.49
_34_onion-
Amaryllidaceae
46
5.58
mno
0.13
_35_beet-
Amaranthaceae
10
5.73
mnop
0.16
_36_curcuma-
Zingiberaceae
10
5.66
mnopq
0.18
_37_celery_
Apiaceae
16
5.71
mopq
0.10
_38_leek-
Amaryllidaceae
25
5.77
oq
0.23
Solanacee
58
5.77
oq
0.23
_40_chicory-
Asteracee
33
5.81
oq
0.11
_41_fig-
Moraceae
14
5.87
oq
0.28
_42_
Crucifere
24
5.96
r
0.09
_43_lettuce-
Asteracee
43
5.97
r
0.14
_44_carrot-
Apiacee
31
5.99
rs
0.21
_45_
Araceae
11
6.05
rs
0.22
_46_basil-
Labiate
21
6.08
rs
0.28
_47_fennel-
Apiacee
26
6.08
rs
0.15
_48_cauliflower-
Crucifere
33
6.1
s
0.21
_49_pumpkin-
Cucurbitaceae
31
6.38
t
0.34
R2 = 0.86
4181
4.39
0.34
A
0.797
5.31
-0.073
0.003
<.0001
.
.
.
B
0.800
4.80
.
.
.
-0.00219
0.00009
<.0001
C
0.800
4.99
-0.027
0.023
0.24
-0.00139
0.00069
0.045
Raw pH
4.29
0.03
4.12
0.03
0.0002
Hydronium [H+]
58.05
5.61
84.81
5.37
0.0007
pH
0.024
0.05
0.024
0.0416
Model
0.84
2.70
0.16
6.07
<.0001
Water level High \ Normal \ Low
0.0563
Light regimen Light \ Dark
0.4894
Temperature (Water * Light)
<.0001
High
Dark
-0.0027
0.0037
0.4698
High
Light
-0.0097
0.0035
0.0069
Normal
Light
-0.0127
0.0039
0.0015
Low
Light
-0.0370
0.0035
<.0001
0.35
<.0001
0.0004
0.0523
Vine
1083
a
3.64
3.57
0.008
-2%
229
Corn
807
b
4.9
4.75
<.0001
-3%
13
Hazelnut
56
c
5.16
4.94
<.0001
-4%
7
Blueberry
46
cd
5.17
5
0.004
-3%
7
Cherry
40
de
5.43
5.05
0.014
-7%
4
Kiwi
29
e
5.44
5.54
0.474
2%
4
Olive
72
f
5.78
5.57
<.0001
-4%
2
Total/Means
2133
5.07
4.92
-3%
38
Grape
12.0
3.63
13.18
47.83
Apple
13.8
4.99
24.9
124.25
Coffee
4.0
5.33
28.41
151.42
Tomato
6.5
5.34
28.52
152.27
Pear
4.0
5.52
30.47
168.2
Artichoke
2.5
5.54
30.69
170.03
Leek
3.0
5.55
30.8
170.95
Onion
3.0
5.57
31.02
172.81
Beet
1.1
5.65
31.92
180.36
Celery
2.0
5.71
32.6
186.17
Potato
2.0
5.77
33.29
192.1
Chicory roots
1.0
5.81
33.76
196.12
Carrot
2.2
5.99
35.88
214.92
Cavolfiore
2.0
6.00
36.00
216.00
Pumpkins
2.1
6.38
40.72
259.81
D
Intercept
15
0.636
2.41
4.08
31.53
5.79
0.0001
pH
-4.97
1.0432
0.0004
E
Intercept
15
0.877
1.35
4.08
-847.83
159.48
0.0002
pH
539.37
98.77
0.0002
pH2
-109.29
19.86
0.0002
pH3
7.16
1.3
0.0002
F
Intercept
14
0.52
2.36
3.51
42.92
10.94
0.002
pH
-6.97
1.93
0.0036
G
Intercept
14
0.9
1.04
3.51
437.31
55.27
<.0001
pH
-146
19.43
<.0001
pH2
12.21
1.7
<.0001
Pear
19
53
171
11.31%
86
22.48%
Apple
72
158
8014
0.89%
20598
0.35%
Odds Ratio (Pear/Apple)
13
65
z test
9.34
30.4
Prob.
<0.0001
<0.0001
Discussion
In an acidic environment, around 4.9 pH values, young barley leaves equipped by microprobes for [H+] and infected by powdery mildew fungus, apoplastic pH showed a rapid increase towards 5.4, then a more stable decrease around 4.8 at 2 h after infection, but at longer-term pH increased at 5.2 values (+6%) In a broad scenario of plants the pH of phloem exudate is characteristically alkaline (pH 8.0 to 8.5) and belong from non-reducing sugars (sucrose), amides (glutamine and asparagine), amino acids (glutamate and aspartate) and organic acids The team of Cornelissen The authenticity of the pH parameter has been highlighted As to the positive relationships between the pH and the water availability a primary apparent sign of stress is the rise in leaf temperature, an infrared sensed measurement basic for plant-water relations, and specifically for stomatal conductancemonitoring An objective reason for the lack of studies is that measurement of the Faced with a multifaceted nature of the raw pH acidic wide range, it is possible to ask which lowest common denominator (a large entity) or which greatest common divisor (a small entity) should be considered? In the authors opinion, assuming the pH as a common divisor, in the pseudo-relationships NFS / pH ( In perspective, the warming from climate change scenarios, could affect a rise in raw acidity of plants, fearing that fungicide sprays could be increased by one per C° degree rise. In the The rise in aerial temperature will grew fungal as well as bacterial disease pressure. In a grapevine district Salinari et al.
3.85
4.10
5.20
4.10
5.20
4.50
5.25
4.65
5.30
4.90
5.40
5.10
5.50
5.18
5.50
5.25
5.55
5.30
5.55
5.35
5.85
5.49
5.90
5.93
5.95
6.00
6.00
6.01
6.02
6.05
6.05
6.05
6.27
7.60
Conclusion
At precision farming operational plan, the raw pH could be considered as metabolic signal of water stress; moreover, vibrational spectroscopy in NIR range could be correlated with it beyond the thermal infra-red (IR) signature. Symbiotic farming is a sustainable and resilient ausilium to preserve and improve soil fertility, where the raw pH could be a response sign of efficiency for microbial biota evolution in the rhizosphere. In perspective, the warming of plants from climate change scenarios, could push a rise in plant acidity, fearing that fungicide sprays could be increased in future, moreover when considering the consequences from a strong negative impact of the water stress on the raw pH. A suggestive paradoxal challenge is given by the acidifying reaction of arbuscular mycorrhizae which instead of favouring the conditions for development of fungus damages, apparently trigger defensive mechanisms against the mycotoxins The raw pH is candidate to became a multifaceted parameter in front of a dilemma: if the atmosphere, the oceans and the soils are acidifying why not the plants?