Plant nutrition for sustainable development and global health (2024)

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice

Ann Bot. 2010 Jun; 105(7): 1073–1080.

Published online 2010 Apr 29. doi:10.1093/aob/mcq085

PMCID: PMC2887071

PMID: 20430785

P. J. White^1,^* and P. H. Brown²

Abstract

Background

Plants require at least 14 mineral elements for their nutrition. These include the macronutrients nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S) and the micronutrients chlorine (Cl), boron (B), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo). These are generally obtained from the soil. Crop production is often limited by low phytoavailability of essential mineral elements and/or the presence of excessive concentrations of potentially toxic mineral elements, such as sodium (Na), Cl, B, Fe, Mn and aluminium (Al), in the soil solution.

Scope

This article provides the context for a Special Issue of the Annals of Botany on ‘Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Development and Global Health’. It provides an introduction to plant mineral nutrition and explains how mineral elements are taken up by roots and distributed within plants. It introduces the concept of the ionome (the elemental composition of a subcellular structure, cell, tissue or organism), and observes that the activities of key transport proteins determine species-specific, tissue and cellular ionomes. It then describes how current research is addressing the problems of mineral toxicities in agricultural soils to provide food security and the optimization of fertilizer applications for economic and environmental sustainability. It concludes with a perspective on how agriculture can produce edible crops that contribute sufficient mineral elements for adequate animal and human nutrition.

Keywords: Biofortification, fertilizer use efficiency, mineral nutrition, pollution, toxicity, transport protein

INTRODUCTION

In addition to oxygen, carbon dioxide and water, plants require at least 14 mineral elements for adequate nutrition (Marschner, 1995; Mengel et al., 2001). Deficiency in any one of these mineral elements reduces plant growth and crop yields. Plants generally acquire their mineral elements from the soil solution. Six mineral elements, nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S), are required in large amounts, whilst chlorine (Cl), boron (B), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo) are required in smaller amounts (Table1). In geographical areas of low phytoavailability, essential mineral elements are supplied to crops as fertilizers to achieve greater yields. In addition, fertilizers containing essential mineral elements for human nutrition are occasionally supplied to crops to increase their concentrations in edible portions for the benefit of human health (see ‘Plant nutrition for human health’).

Table1.

Critical leaf concentrations for sufficiency and toxicity of mineral elements in non-tolerant crop plants

	Essentiality		Critical leaf concentrations (mg g⁻¹ DM)
Element	Plant	Animal	Sufficiency	Toxicity
Nitrogen (N)	yes	yes	15 − 40
Potassium (K)	yes	yes	5 − 40	>50
Phosphorus (P)	yes	yes	2 − 5	>10
Calcium (Ca)	yes	yes	0·5 − 10	>100
Magnesium (Mg)	yes	yes	1·5 − 3·5	>15
Sulphur (S)	yes	yes	1·0 − 5·0
Chlorine (Cl)	yes	yes	0·1 − 6·0	4·0 − 7·0
Boron (B)	yes	suggested	5 − 100 × 10⁻³	0·1 − 1·0
Iron (Fe)	yes	yes	50 − 150 × 10⁻³	>0·5
Manganese (Mn)	yes	yes	10 − 20 × 10⁻³	0·2 − 5·3
Copper (Cu)	yes	yes	1 − 5 × 10⁻³	15 − 30 × 10⁻³
Zinc (Zn)	yes	yes	15 − 30 × 10⁻³	100 − 300 × 10⁻³
Nickel (Ni)	yes	suggested	0·1 × 10⁻³	20 − 30 × 10⁻³
Molybdenum (Mo)	yes	yes	0·1 − 1·0 × 10⁻³	1
Sodium (Na)	beneficial	yes	–	2 − 5
Selenium (Se)	beneficial	yes	–	10 − 100 × 10⁻³
Cobalt (Co)	beneficial	yes	–	10 − 20 × 10⁻³
Iodine (I)	–	yes	–	1 − 20 × 10⁻³
Fluorine (F)	–	suggested	–	0·1
Lithium (Li)	–	suggested		10 − 200 × 10⁻³
Lead (Pb)	–	suggested	–	10 − 20 × 10⁻³
Arsenic (As)	–	suggested	–	1 − 20 × 10⁻³
Vanadium (V)	–	suggested	–	1 − 10 × 10⁻³
Chromium (Cr)	–	suggested	–	1 − 2 × 10⁻³
Silicon (Si)	beneficial	suggested	–	nd
Aluminium (Al)	beneficial	–	–	40 − 200 × 10⁻³
Cadmium (Cd)	–	–	–	5 − 10 × 10⁻³
Mercury (Hg)	–	–	–	2 − 5 × 10⁻³

Open in a separate window

Essential elements for plants and animals are indicated. Mineral elements considered beneficial to plants, which improve the growth of various taxa under certain environmental conditions, are also indicated. The critical concentration for sufficiency is defined as the concentration in a diagnostic tissue that allows a crop to achieve 90 % of its maximum yield. The critical concentration for toxicity is defined as the concentration in a diagnostic tissue above which yield is decreased by more than 10 %. Data are taken from MacNicol and Beckett (1985), Brown et al. (1987), Marschner (1995), Mengel et al. (2001), White et al. (2004) and Pilon-Smits et al. (2009). It should be recognized that critical tissue concentrations depend upon the exact solute composition of the soil solution and can differ greatly both between and within plant species. The latter differences reflect both ancestral habitats and ecological strategies.

UPTAKE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MINERAL ELEMENTS

The uptake of mineral elements by plant roots and their subsequent distribution within the plant have been the subject of studies for many decades (see Marschner, 1995; Mengel et al., 2001; Karley and White, 2009; Miller et al., 2009; Miwa et al., 2009; Puig and Peñarrubia, 2009; White and Broadley, 2009). Mineral elements are acquired from the soil solution by plant roots. They traverse the root via apoplastic (extracellular) and/or symplastic (intracellular) pathways to the stele, where they are loaded into the xylem for transport to the shoot. All cytotoxic cations must be transported either through the apoplast or through the symplast in a chelated form. Several mineral elements are retained in the roots of some plant species. Examples are Ca, Mo, Na, Cd and Al (Marschner, 1995). The xylem delivers mineral elements to transpiring leaf tissues, where these are taken up from the apoplast by specific cell types. Recirculation of mineral elements within the plant, and the delivery of mineral elements to non-transpiring or xylem-deficient tissues, occurs via the phloem. K, Na, Mg, Cd, N, P, S, Se and Cl are transported readily, but Fe, Zn, Cu, Mo and iodine (I) are less mobile, and Mn and Ca are essentially immobile in the phloem of most plant species (Marschner, 1995). The phloem mobility of B varies between species (Brown et al., 2002). Mineral elements that have low phloem mobilities accumulate in tissues with high transpiration rates and are present at low concentrations in fruits, seeds and tubers (Karley and White, 2009; White and Broadley, 2009; White et al., 2009).

The ionome is defined as per Salt et al. (2008). It includes all mineral elements, whether essential or non-essential for life, in whatever chemical form these occur. Current interest is primarily focused on quantifying the ionome of different plant species, ecotypes and induced mutants, and on explaining differences in the ionome between and within plant species at the genetic level, although the ionome is also influenced profoundly by developmental and environmental factors (Watanabe et al., 2007; Baxter, 2009; Chen et al., 2009; White and Broadley, 2009; Broadley et al., 2010). It is self-evident that the uptake of mineral elements and their distribution within the plant determine the ionome of both the plant and its tissues. These processes are therefore fundamental not only to the mineral nutrition of the plant, but also for increasing the concentrations of mineral elements in edible tissues for human consumption.

Plants appear to be composed of relatively few different cell types (Martin et al., 2001). Each of these cell types is thought to perform a distinct physiological function and, consequently, to have a unique ionome (Punshon et al., 2009; Karley and White, 2009). In this Special Issue, Conn and Gilliham (2010) review the phenomenon of cell-specific accumulation of mineral elements in plants. They describe the techniques used to determine both the tissue and subcellular distributions of mineral elements and present the tissue distributions of diverse elements including K, P, Ca, Na and Cd. They speculate on the physiological reasons for these distributions and the transport processes that are likely to generate them. They observe that the accumulation and tissue distributions of Ca, Na and Cd can be defined by the expression of key transport proteins and suggest how this phenomenon might be utilized to prevent the accumulation of toxic elements by plants. Similar observations are made by Miwa and Fujiwara (2010), who report that the misexpression of genes encoding B transporters alter the uptake and distribution of B in plants, and by Kobayashi et al. (2010), who report that misexpression of the iron deficiency-responsive cis-acting element binding factors 1 and 2 (IDEF1 and IDEF2) alters the expression of various genes encoding transport proteins that impact the uptake and distribution of Fe in plants. Indeed, the role of transport proteins in the uptake and distribution of mineral elements is highlighted by many articles in this Special Issue. These articles reveal that the expression of genes affecting transport processes influence plant adaptation to soils with extreme phytoavailabilities of mineral elements (Eticha et al., 2010; Führs et al., 2010; Kobayashi et al., 2010; Miwa and Fujiwara, 2010), fertilizer use efficiencies in crops (Masclaux-Daubresse et al., 2010; White et al., 2010) and the biofortification of edible portions with essential mineral elements (Ding et al., 2010).

ADDRESSING MINERAL TOXICITIES IN AGRICULTURAL SOILS

Agriculture in many parts of the world is restricted by excessive concentrations of mineral elements in the soil solution. It is estimated that about 5 % of agricultural land is saline or sodic and contains toxic concentrations of Na, Cl or B (Marschner, 1995; Munns and Tester, 2008), that over 40 % of the world's arable land suffers from soil acidity and, therefore, Al and Mn toxicities (Von Uexküll and Mutert, 1995), and that Mn and Fe toxicities affect crop production in many waterlogged or flooded soils worldwide (Marschner, 1995). Traditional agronomic countermeasures can be employed to address these problems and plant breeders are developing crop genotypes that tolerate these adverse abiotic environments better, through either conventional breeding or transgenic strategies.

Crop production on acid soils is primarily limited by Al toxicity (Marschner, 1995; Mengel et al., 2001). The presence of excessive Al in the rhizosphere inhibits root elongation (Marschner, 1995; Mengel et al., 2001). Resistance is generally conferred by the release of organic acids, such as malate, citrate and oxalate, at the root apex that form Al-complexes and reduce the phytoavailability of toxic Al species in the root elongation zone (Ma et al., 2001). In some plant species, such as wheat and maize, the release of organic acids is constitutive, whereas in other plant species, such as soybean, sorghum and rye, it is induced by exposure to Al (Ma et al., 2001). In general, proteins that release malate from root cells into the rhizosphere belong to the Al-activated Malate Transporter (ALMT) family, whereas those that release citrate into the rhizosphere belong to the Multidrug and Toxin Extrusion (MATE) family (Delhaize et al., 2007). In common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), Al-resistance is effected by the Al-inducible release of citrate into the rhizosphere (Rangel et al., 2010). In this Special Issue, Eticha et al. (2010) confirm that, following exposure to Al, restoration of root growth in the common bean is correlated with the release of citrate into the rhizosphere. They then reveal that, although the initial restoration of root growth is dependent upon Al-induced expression of genes encoding citrate transporters of the MATE family, in the longer term, Al-tolerance is achieved by the maintenance of citrate synthesis in the roots of resistant genotypes through post-translational regulation. The implication is that continued synthesis and release of organic acids must be achieved to confer Al resistance and the potential for crop production on acid soils.

Mn toxicity also limits crop production on acid soils. Mn is required by plants for the manganese-protein in photosystem II and the manganese-containing superoxide dismutase and also acts as a cofactor for a number of enzymes that catalyse redox, decarboxylation and hydrolytic reactions (Marschner, 1995). Excessive Mn²⁺ is toxic because it can displace Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Fe²⁺ and Zn²⁺ in their essential cellular functions. Consequently, Mn-induced Ca, Mg and Fe deficiencies are common symptoms of Mn toxicity. Other symptoms of Mn toxicity are caused by the generation of reactive oxygen species in the cell wall. Low Mn²⁺ concentrations must be maintained in metabolic compartments, which can be achieved through its sequestration in the vacuole and/or the cell wall (Marschner, 1995; Pittman, 2005; Puig and Peñarrubia, 2009). Large differences in Mn tolerance exist both between and within plant species (Marschner, 1995). In this Special Issue, Führs et al. (2010) observe greater activity of leaf apoplastic peroxidases in barley, a Mn-sensitive species, than in rice, a Mn-tolerant species, and demonstrate that, in rice, the greater Mn tolerance of old leaves than young leaves is related to a greater capacity for binding Mn in the cell wall. They also conducted a proteomic study to identify proteins whose abundance was altered in response to high Mn availability in rice leaves, observing an increased abundance of proteins related to stress responses and changes in the profile of proteins related to photosynthesis.

B is essential for cross-linking the pectic polysaccharide rhamnogalacturonan-II in primary cell walls, but high tissue B concentrations are toxic to plants (Brown et al., 2002). Miwa and Fujiwara (2010) propose that plants maintain their tissue B concentrations within an optimum range by regulating B transport processes and review the properties of B transporters responsible for the uptake and distribution of B in plants. They describe evidence for two types of B transporters: Nodulin-26-like Intrinsic Proteins (NIPs) and Plasma-membrane Intrinsic Proteins (PIPs), several of which behave as boric acid channels, and B exporters (BORs), which remove B from plant cells. They observe that the activity of these transport proteins is finely regulated in response to B phytoavailability, and that the combined over-expresssion of AtNIP5;1 and AtBOR1 allows transgenic Arabidopsis thaliana to grow better than the wild-type in environments with low B phytoavailability, whereas the over-expression of AtBOR4 confers increased tolerance of high B concentrations in the environment. Similarly, greater expression of BOR genes in barley and wheat has been associated with an increased tolerance to high B concentrations in the environment (Reid, 2010). Thus, transgenic strategies based on expression of B transporters might enable the engineering of crops with greater yields in soils with low or high B phytoavailability.

FERTILIZER MANAGEMENT FOR OPTIMAL PRODUCTIVITY AND SUSTAINABILITY

Crops require a sufficient, but not excessive, supply of essential mineral elements for optimal productivity. An insufficient supply of mineral elements required in large quantities and/or mineral elements with low phytoavailability in soils often limits crop production. In many agricultural soils, there is rarely sufficient phytoavailable N, P or K to supply enough of these elements for the rapid growth of crop plants during their early growth. Hence, these elements are supplied as fertilizers in both intensive and extensive agricultural systems. In addition, in areas where mineral deficiencies occur in animals and/or humans, fertilizers are applied not only to increase crop production but also to increase concentrations of essential mineral elements in edible portions. However, there are both financial and environmental costs to the use of mineral fertilizers (Lægreid et al., 1999; Galloway et al., 2008; Conley et al., 2009; Ju et al., 2009). It is therefore important to optimize the efficiency with which fertilizers are used in crop production. Increased fertilizer use efficiency can be achieved agronomically, through improved fertilizer-management practices, and/or genetically, by cultivating crops that acquire and/or utilize mineral elements more effectively (Hirel et al., 2007; Rengel and Damon, 2008; White and Hammond, 2008; fa*geria, 2009; Ju et al., 2009). The latter can be addressed through conventional breeding and/or modern biotechnological approaches. Ultimately, sustainable crop production is achieved when stable levels of food production and quality are maintained without compromising economic profitability or the environment.

Agronomic mineral use efficiency (MUE) is generally defined as crop dry matter (DM) yield per unit of mineral element available (Ma) in the soil (g DM g⁻¹ Ma), which is equivalent to the product of the plant mineral content (Mp) per unit of available mineral (g Mp g⁻¹ Ma), often referred to as plant mineral uptake efficiency (MUpE), and the yield per unit plant mineral content (g DM g⁻¹ Mp), often referred to as the mineral utilization efficiency (MUtE). Considerable within-species genetic variation has been observed in all these measures for the mineral elements frequently supplied in fertilizers, including N, P and K (see reviews by Hirel et al., 2007; Rengel and Damon, 2008; White and Hammond, 2008; fa*geria, 2009; Sylvester-Bradley and Kindred, 2009). Several articles in this Special Issue explore the phenotypic traits and genetic factors affecting nitrogen use efficiency, phosphorus use efficiency and potassium use efficiency by crops.

Masclaux-Daubresse et al. (2010) review our current understanding of the physiology, metabolism and genetics of nitrogen uptake, assimilation and remobilization by plants, and discuss how misexpression of genes encoding transport proteins, metabolic enzymes and transcription factors have been manipulated in attempts to improve agronomic nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) in crops. They observe that the over-expression of genes encoding nitrate transporters, nitrate reductases or nitrite reductases rarely has any effect on NUE. However, the over-expression of genes encoding glutamine synthases, asparagine synthases or glutamate synthases (GOGAT) often increases the yield of transgenic plants and, concomitantly, improves NUE. They also observe that the over-expression of alanine aminotransferase can increase the nitrogen uptake efficiency (NUpE) and yields of plants grown with a low N supply, and that ectopic expression of Dof1, a transcription factor that regulates the expression of genes involved in organic acid metabolism, increases the accumulation of amino acids in transgenic A. thaliana. These observations are broadly consistent with reports that genes encoding glutamine synthases or the NAC transcription factor NAM-B1, which accelerates leaf senescence and the remobilization of nutrients to seeds, occur in quantitative trait loci (QTL) controlling NUE in various plant species (Hirel et al., 2007; Masclaux-Daubresse et al., 2010). They also provide a context for the papers by Couturier et al. (2010), who describe the processes of N remobilization from leaves to stem during autumn senescence in poplar (Populus trichocarpa), and Beatty et al. (2010), who consider the physiology of NUE in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare).

Forest soils have extremely low N availability and woody plants show characteristic adaptations to cope with seasonal N demand for growth (Cooke and Weih, 2005). In autumn, deciduous trees remobilize N from their senescing leaves for storage in woody tissues over winter. Couturier et al. (2010) observe that glutamine accumulates in senescing leaves of poplar, whereas arginine concentrations increase dramatically in the stem. They also observe that the expression of Pt-CAT11, which encodes a cationic amino acid transporter, increases in the phloem of senescing leaves, noting that the abundance of Pt-CAT11 transcripts was strongly correlated with leaf glutamine concentrations, and demonstrate that Pt-CAT11 transports glutamine. Simultaneously with the increased expression of Pt-CAT11, they observe an increase in the expression of arginine biosynthesis genes in the stem. Thus, they speculate that leaf proteins are converted to glutamine in senescing leaves, which is then loaded into the phloem by Pt-CAT11 and transported to the stem, where it is converted first to arginine and then to Bark Storage Proteins for winter storage.

Beatty et al. (2010) compare the morphological characteristics and seed yield of spring barley genotypes grown both in the field and in compost or hydroponics in growth chambers with low and high N supply to determine the efficiencies of N uptake (NUpE), N utilization (NUtE) and agronomic NUE in these two environments. The rank order of genotypes in these efficiency characteristics was consistent between environments, suggesting that trials scored in controlled environments can be used to identify phenotypic and genetic targets for improving NUE in spring barley. In addition, they observed that, in their experiments, NUtE contributed more than NUpE to NUE when plants were grown with a low N supply. This has also been observed for other crops grown in low N environments (fa*geria, 2009). Beatty et al. (2010) also note significant differences in tissue amino acid profiles between spring barley genotypes, which might be related to their NUtE.

The phytoavailability of P limits crop production worldwide and crop genotypes with better P-fertilizer use efficiencies are being sought (Vance et al., 2003; White and Hammond, 2008). Extensive screening of germplasm collections has indicated that differences between genotypes in their yield responses to P fertilization are often correlated with P acquisition efficiency (PUpE) but not P utilization efficiency (PUtE) within the plant (White and Hammond, 2008). Plant roots acquire P as phosphate. Because phosphate is present at exceedingly low concentrations in the soil solution, plant roots must forage for this element (White and Hammond, 2008). Strategies that improve PUpE include the exudation of protons, metabolites and enzymes into the rhizosphere to increase P availability and changes in root morphology and/or associations with microorganisms to explore the soil more effectively (Lynch, 2007; White and Hammond, 2008; Hammond et al., 2009; Hinsinger et al., 2009).

In this Special Issue, Devau et al. (2010) describe the use of a mechanistic model based on the adsorption of cations and anions to soil constituents to investigate the effects of root-induced chemical changes on P acquisition by durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). They reveal that, in addition to rhizosphere acidification, Ca uptake by roots can increase phosphate availability in the rhizosphere and therefore P acquisition by plants. They also observed that the effect of Ca uptake on P availability increased with increasing pH. Tian et al. (2009) have described the cloning of two genes encoding small purple acid phosphatases (PvPAP3, PvPAP4) from common bean, expression of which in both leaves and roots is increased by P-starvation and correlates well with both P acquisition and growth of progeny derived from a cross between P-efficient (G19833) and P-inefficient (DOR364) lines reported in a previous field experiment conducted with a low P supply (Liao et al., 2004). These enzymes are thought to hydrolyse extracellular organic phosphates.

It has been proposed that breeding crops that acquire and/or utilize K more effectively can reduce the use of expensive K fertilizers in agriculture (Rengel and Damon, 2008; fa*geria, 2009). In this Special Issue, White et al. (2010) report over two-fold variation in shoot K concentration ([K]_shoot) in a collection of Brassica oleracea L. genotypes thought to contain most of common allelic variation in this species when grown in the glasshouse. They also identify chromosomal loci (QTL) affecting K utilization efficiency (KUtE), defined as the reciprocal of shoot K concentration (1/[K]_shoot), and K acquisition efficiency (KUpE), defined as shoot K content, using a genetic mapping population grown in the glasshouse and field. They observe that shoot biomass is correlated with KUpE but not KUtE and that, although there is sufficient genetic variation in B. oleracea to breed for KUpE or KUtE, QTL associated with these traits differed between glasshouse and field environments. Hence, marker-assisted breeding programmes addressing KUE must consider carefully the conditions under which the crop will be grown.

PLANT NUTRITION FOR HUMAN HEALTH

Humans are likely to require at least 25 mineral elements for their well-being (Table1; Graham et al., 2007; Stein, 2010). The dietary source of most of these elements is plants. Regrettably, mineral malnutrition is prevalent in both developed and developing countries and it is estimated that up to two-thirds of the world's population might be at risk of deficiency in one or more essential mineral element (White and Broadley, 2009; Stein, 2010). This is considered to be one of the most serious challenges to humankind (Copenhagen Consensus 2008, http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Home.aspx). The mineral elements most commonly lacking in human diets are Fe, Zn, I, Se, Ca, Mg and Cu (White and Broadley, 2009; Stein, 2010).

Edible plant tissues can contain low concentrations of mineral elements for a variety of reasons: some plant species have inherently low concentrations of particular mineral elements – for example, the Poales have inherently low concentrations of Ca and Mg (Broadley et al., 2004; Watanabe et al., 2007); crops might be grown in areas with low mineral phytoavailability, such as occur throughout the world for Fe, Zn and Cu in calcareous or alkaline soils (Frossard et al., 2000; Rengel, 2001; Cakmak, 2004, 2008; Broadley et al., 2007), for Mg in coarse-textured, calcareous or strongly acidic soils (Wilkinson et al., 1990), for I in mid-continental regions (Lyons et al., 2004; Risher and Keith, 2009) and for Se in soils derived mostly from igneous rocks (Hartikainen, 2005; Broadley et al., 2006); or edible portions could be consumed that have intrinsically low concentrations of mineral elements with restricted phloem mobility, such as fruits, seeds and tubers (Karley and White, 2009; White and Broadley, 2009).

To address the occurrence of mineral deficiencies in human populations, plant scientists are devising methods of applying fertilizers and/or using plant breeding strategies to increase the concentrations and/or bioavailability of mineral elements in agricultural produce (Cakmak, 2004, 2008; Graham et al., 2007; Pfeiffer and McClafferty, 2007; White and Broadley, 2009). These approaches are termed ‘agronomic’ and ‘genetic’ biofortification, respectively. Agronomic strategies to increase the concentrations of mineral elements in edible portions of major crops have been reviewed recently by various authors in the contexts of both sustainable economic development and global health (Cakmak, 2004, 2008; Graham et al., 2007; White and Broadley, 2009). These have included reviews of appropriate methods, infrastructural requirements and practical benefits for food production, economic sustainability and human health, of agronomic biofortification of edible crops with Fe and Zn (Cakmak, 2004; Graham et al., 2007; White and Broadley, 2009), the successful use of inorganic Se fertilizers to increase dietary Se intakes in Finland, New Zealand and elsewhere (Hartikainen, 2005; Broadley et al., 2006; Ekholm et al., 2007), and the iodinization of irrigation water to increase dietary intakes of I in China (Jiang et al., 1997; Lyons et al., 2004).

Similarly, researchers are investigating genetic variation in mineral concentrations in edible portions of major crops, the interactions between genotype and environment, and the potential for breeding for increased concentrations of mineral elements in produce (Pfeiffer and McClafferty, 2007; Cakmak, 2008; White and Broadley, 2009). Although the total concentrations of Fe, Zn and Cu in most soils are sufficient to support mineral-dense crops, the accumulation of these mineral elements is often limited by their phytoavailability and acquisition by plant roots. White and Broadley (2009) have provided a detailed overview of genetic factors influencing the concentrations of essential mineral elements in edible tissues of common crops, and Pfeiffer and McClafferty (2007) have described the research undertaken by the HarvestPlus programme to increase concentrations of Fe and Zn in staple foods.

Recently, several authors have addressed sociological and economic aspects of genetic biofortification strategies, concluding that biofortification is an appropriate, achievable and cost-effective strategy to alleviate mineral malnutrition (Nestel et al., 2006; Graham et al., 2007; White and Broadley, 2009; Stein, 2010). In this Special Issue, Chatzav et al. (2010) report the genetic variation in concentrations of mineral elements in grain of wild emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. dicoccoides (Körn.) Thell.) and discuss the potential to exploit favourable alleles to increase the concentrations of mineral elements in domesticated wheats (Triticum aestivum; Triticum durum). Similarly, Ding et al. (2010) report chromosomal loci (QTL) affecting the concentrations of mineral elements in seed of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) grown in the field in two seasons with contrasting P-fertilization regimes. They discuss the likelihood that common QTL control seed concentrations of diverse mineral elements, but suggest that the lack of environmental robustness could compromise the use of these QTLs in breeding programmes to increase the concentrations of mineral elements in seed of B. napus.

SUMMARY

The articles in this Special Issue of the Annals of Botany provide examples of how knowledge of plant mineral nutrition is contributing to sustainable crop production and to human health.

Crop production is often limited by low phytoavailability of essential mineral elements and/or the presence of excessive concentrations of potentially toxic mineral elements in the soil. This can be addressed partially by traditional agronomic strategies and through the development of novel crop genotypes. In recent years, researchers have contributed to future breeding strategies by identifying traits and genes that can increase yields on soils with restricted phytoavailablity of essential mineral elements and soils compromised by excessive concentrations of mineral elements. Examples of this are presented in this Special Issue. In particular, authors have targeted improved use efficiencies of N, P and K fertilizers (Beatty et al., 2010; Couturier et al., 2010; Devau et al., 2010; Masclaux-Daubresse et al., 2010; White et al., 2010) and tolerance of sodic, acidic or waterlogged soils (Eticha et al., 2010; Führs et al., 2010; Kobayashi et al., 2010; Miwa and Fujiwara, 2010).

The essential mineral elements required by humans and other animals enter the food chain primarily through plants. The concentrations of mineral elements in edible plant tissues are therefore of fundamental importance to human nutrition. It is estimated that up to two-thirds of the world's population might be at risk of deficiency in one or more essential mineral element, with deficiencies of Fe and Zn being most common (White and Broadley, 2009; Stein, 2010). The concentrations of mineral elements in edible crops can be increased by the judicious application of mineral fertilizers and/or by cultivating genotypes with higher concentrations. The bioavailability of mineral elements can also be increased through crop husbandry, breeding or genetic manipulation (White and Broadley, 2009). In this Special Issue, Conn and Gilliham (2010) describe how transport processes and cell-specific accumulation affect the concentrations of mineral elements in edible tissues and Chatzav et al. (2010) and Ding et al. (2010) assess the potential for increasing the concentrations of essential mineral elements in wheat and brassica crops.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the Scottish Government Rural and Environment Research and Analysis Directorate (P.J.W.), the United States Department of Agriculture-SCRI and the Californian Department of Agriculture-FREP (P.H.B.).

LITERATURE CITED

Baxter I. Ionomics: studying the social network of mineral nutrients. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;3:381–386. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Beatty PH, Anbessa Y, Juskiw P, Carroll RT, Wang J, Good AG. Nitrogen use efficiencies of spring barley grown under varying nitrogen conditions in the field and growth chamber. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1171–1182. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Broadley MR, Bowen HC, Cotterill HL, et al. Phylogenetic variation in the shoot mineral concentration of angiosperms. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55:321–336. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Broadley MR, White PJ, Bryson RJ, et al. Biofortification of UK food crops with selenium. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society. 2006;65:169–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Broadley MR, White PJ, Hammond JP, Zelko I, Lux A. Zinc in plants. New Phytologist. 2007;173:677–702. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Broadley MR, Hammond JP, White PJ, Salt DE. An efficient procedure for normalizing ionomics data for Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytologist. 2010;186:270–274. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Brown PH, Welch RM, Cary EE. Nickel: a micronutrient essential for higher plants. Plant Physiology. 1987;85:801–803. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Brown PH, Bellaloui N, Wimmer MA, et al. Boron in plant biology. Plant Biology. 2002;4:205–223. [Google Scholar]
Cakmak I. Proceedings of the International Fertiliser Society 552. Identification and correction of widespread zinc deficiency in Turkey – a success story. York, UK: International Fertiliser Society; 2004. [Google Scholar]
Cakmak I. Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: agronomic or genetic biofortification? Plant and Soil. 2008;302:1–17. [Google Scholar]
Chatzav M, Peleg Z, Ozturk L, et al. Genetic diversity for grain nutrients in wild emmer wheat: potential for wheat improvement. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1211–1220. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Chen Z, Watanabe T, Shinano T, Okazaki K, Osaki M. Rapid characterization of plant mutants with an altered ion-profile: a case study using Lotus japonicus. New Phytologist. 2009;181:795–801. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Conley DJ, Paerl HW, Howarth RW, et al. Controlling eutrophication: nitrogen and phosphorus. Science. 2009;323:1014–1015. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Conn S, Gilliham M. Comparative physiology of elemental distributions in plants. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1081–1102. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Cooke JEK, Weih M. Nitrogen storage and seasonal nitrogen cycling in Populus: bridging molecular physiology and ecophysiology. New Phytologist. 2005;167:19–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Couturier J, Doidy J, Guinet F, Wipf D, Blaudez D, Chalot M. Glutamine, arginine and the amino acid transporter Pt-CAT11 play important roles during senescence in poplar. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1159–1170. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Delhaize E, Gruber BD, Ryan PR. The roles of organic anion permeases in aluminium resistance and mineral nutrition. FEBS Letters. 2007;581:2255–2262. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Devau N, Le Cadre E, Hinsinger P, Gérard F. A mechanistic model for understanding root-induced chemical changes controlling phosphorus availability. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1183–1198. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ding G, Yang M, Hu Y, et al. Quantitative trait loci affecting seed mineral concentrations in Brassica napus grown with contrasting phosphorus supplies. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1221–1234. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ekholm P, Reinivuo H, Mattila P, et al. Changes in the mineral and trace element contents of cereals, fruits and vegetables in Finland. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. 2007;20:487–495. [Google Scholar]
Eticha D, Zahn M, Bremer M, et al. Transcriptomic analysis reveals differential gene expression in response to aluminium in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1119–1128. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fa*geria NK. The use of nutrients in crop plants. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
Frossard E, Bucher M, Mächler F, Mozafar A, Hurrell R. Potential for increasing the content and bioavailability of Fe, Zn and Ca in plants for human nutrition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2000;80:861–879. [Google Scholar]
Führs H, Behrens C, Gallien S, et al. Physiological and proteomic characterization of manganese sensitivity and tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa) in comparison with barley (Hordeum vulgare) Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1129–1140. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Galloway JN, Townsend AR, Erisman JW, et al. Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and potential solutions. Science. 2008;320:889–892. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Graham RD, Welch RM, Saunders DA, et al. Nutritious subsistence food systems. Advances in Agronomy. 2007;92:1–74. [Google Scholar]
Hammond JP, Broadley MR, White PJ, et al. Shoot yield drives phosphorus use efficiency in Brassica oleracea and correlates with root architecture traits. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2009;60:1953–1968. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hartikainen H. Biogeochemistry of selenium and its impact on food chain quality and human health. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. 2005;18:309–318. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Hinsinger P, Bengough AG, Vetterlein D, Young IM. Rhizosphere: biophysics, biogeochemistry and ecological relevance. Plant and Soil. 2009;321:117–152. [Google Scholar]
Hirel B, Le Goulis J, Ney B, Gallais A. The challenge of improving nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants: towards a more central role for genetic variability and quantitative genetics within integrated approaches. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2007;58:2369–2387. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Jiang X-M, Cao X-Y, Jiang J-Y, et al. Dynamics of environmental supplementation of iodine: four years' experience in iodination of irrigation water in Hotien, Xinjiang, China. Archives of Environmental Health. 1997;52:399–408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ju X-T, Xing G-X, Chen X-P, et al. Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2009;106:3041–3046. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Karley AJ, White PJ. Moving cationic minerals to edible tissues: potassium, magnesium, calcium. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:291–298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Kesler SE. Mineral supply and demand into the 21st century. In: Briskey JA, Schulz KJ, editors. U.S. Geological Survey circular 1294: proceedings for a workshop on deposit modeling, mineral resource assessment, and their role in sustainable development. Reston, VA: US Geological Survey; 2007. pp. 55–62. [Google Scholar]
Kobayashi T, Ogo Y, Aung MS, et al. The spatial expression and regulation of transcription factors IDEF1 and IDEF2. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1109–1118. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lægreid M, Bøckman OC, Kaarstad O. Agriculture, fertilizers and the environment. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing; 1999. [Google Scholar]
Liao H, Yan X, Rubio G, Beebe SE, Blair MW, Lynch JP. Genetic mapping of basal root gravitropism and phosphorus acquisition efficiency in common bean. Functional Plant Biology. 2004;31:959–970. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Lynch JP. Roots of the second green revolution. Australian Journal of Botany. 2007;55:493–512. [Google Scholar]
Lyons GH, Stangoulis JCR, Graham RD. Exploiting micronutrient interaction to optimize biofortification programs: the case for inclusion of selenium and iodine in the HarvestPlus program. Nutrition Reviews. 2004;62:247–252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Ma JF, Ryan PR, Delhaize E. Aluminium tolerance in plants and the complexing role of organic acids. Trends in Plant Science. 2001;6:273–278. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
MacNicol RD, Beckett PHT. Critical tissue concentrations of potentially toxic elements. Plant and Soil. 1985;85:107–129. [Google Scholar]
Marschner H. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd edn. London: Academic Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
Martin C, Bhatt K, Baumann K. Shaping in plant cells. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2001;4:540–549. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Masclaux-Daubresse C, Daniel-Vedele F, Dechorgnat J, Chardon F, Gaufichon L, Suzuki A. Nitrogen uptake, assimilation and remobilisation in plants: challenges for sustainable and productive agriculture. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1141–1158. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mengel K, Kirkby EA, Kosegarten H, Appel T. Principles of plant nutrition. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic; 2001. [Google Scholar]
Miller AJ, Shen Q, Xu G. Freeways in the plant: transporters for N, P and S and their regulation. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:284–290. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Miwa K, Fujiwara T. Boron transport in plants: coordinated regulation of transporters. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1103–1108. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Miwa K, Kamiya T, Fujiwara T. Homeostasis of the structurally important micronutrients, B and Si. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:307–311. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2008;59:651–681. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Nestel P, Bouis HE, Meenakshi JV, Pfeiffer W. Biofortification of staple food crops. Journal of Nutrition. 2006;136:1064–1067. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pfeiffer WH, McClafferty B. HarvestPlus: breeding crops for better nutrition. Crop Science. 2007;47:S88–S105. [Google Scholar]
Pilon-Smits EAH, Quinn CF, Tapken W, Malagoli M, Schiavon M. Physiological functions of beneficial elements. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:267–274. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pittman JK. Managing the manganese: molecular mechanisms of manganese transport and homeostasis. New Phytologist. 2005;167:733–742. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Puig S, Peñarrubia L. Placing metal micronutrients in context: transport and distribution in plants. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 2009;12:299–306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Punshon T, Guerinot ML, Lanzirotti A. Using synchrotron X-ray fluorescence microprobes in the study of metal homeostasis in plants. Annals of Botany. 2009;103:665–672. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Rangel AF, Rao IM, Braun H-P, Horst WJ. Aluminium resistance in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) involves induction and maintenance of citrate exudation from root apices. Physiologia Plantarum. 2010;138:176–190. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Reid R. Can we really increase yields by making crop plants tolerant to boron toxicity? Plant Science. 2010;178:9–11. [Google Scholar]
Rengel Z. Genotypic differences in micronutrient use efficiency in crops. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2001;32:1163–1186. [Google Scholar]
Rengel Z, Damon PM. Crops and genotypes differ in efficiency of potassium uptake and use. Physiologia Plantarum. 2008;133:624–636. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Risher JF, Keith LS. Iodine and inorganic iodides: human health aspects. Geneva: WHO Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
Salt DE, Baxter I, Lahner B. Ionomics and the study of the plant ionome. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2008;59:709–733. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2008;363:789–813. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Stein AJ. Global impacts of human mineral malnutrition. Plant and Soil. 2010 in press (doi: 10·1007/s11104-009-0228-2) [Google Scholar]
Sylvester-Bradley R, Kindred DR. Analysing nitrogen responses of cereals to prioritize routes to the improvement of nitrogen use efficiency. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2009;60:1939–1951. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Tian J, Liang C, Yan X, Liao H. The Proceedings of the International Plant Nutrition Colloquium XVI. Davis, CA: U.C. Davis; 2009. Genetic improvement in crop phosphorus efficiency: a case study on purple acid phosphatases in common bean. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7gp0r4q5 . [Google Scholar]
Vance CP, Uhde-Stone C, Allan DL. Phosphorus acquisition and use: critical adaptations by plants for securing a nonrenewable resource. New Phytologist. 2003;157:423–447. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Von Uexküll HR, Mutert E. Global extent, development and economic impact of acid soils. Plant and Soil. 1995;171:1–15. [Google Scholar]
Watanabe T, Broadley MR, Jansen S, et al. Evolutionary control of leaf element composition in plants. New Phytologist. 2007;174:516–523. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wilkinson SR, Welch RM, Mayland HF, Grunes DL. Magnesium in plants: uptake, distribution, function, and utilization by man and animals. Metal Ions in Biological Systems. 1990;26:33–56. [Google Scholar]
White PJ, Broadley MR. Biofortification of crops with seven mineral elements often lacking in human diets – iron, zinc, copper, calcium, magnesium, selenium and iodine. New Phytologist. 2009;182:49–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
White PJ, Hammond JP. Phosphorus nutrition of terrestrial plants. In: White PJ, Hammond JP, editors. The ecophysiology of plant–phosphorus interactions. Dordrecht: Springer; 2008. pp. 51–81. [Google Scholar]
White PJ, Hammond JP. The sources of phosphorus in the waters of Great Britain. Journal of Environmental Quality. 2009;38:13–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
White PJ, Bowen HC, Parmaguru P, et al. Interactions between selenium and sulphur nutrition in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55:1927–1937. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
White PJ, Bradshaw JE, Dale MFB, et al. Relationships between yield and mineral concentrations in potato tubers. HortScience. 2009;44:6–11. [Google Scholar]
White PJ, Hammond JP, King GJ, et al. Genetic analysis of potassium use efficiency in Brassica oleracea. Annals of Botany. 2010;105:1199–1210. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Botany are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press