AOBPreview originally published online on September 21, 2005
Annals of Botany 2005 96(6):1027-1046; doi:10.1093/aob/mci255
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phylogenetic Variation in the Silicon Composition of Plants
1 School of Biological and Molecular Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Headington, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK, 2 Warwick HRI, University of Warwick, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF, UK and 3 Plant Sciences Division, School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, UK
* For correspondence. E-mail martin.broadley{at}nottingham.ac.uk
Received: 7 April 2005 Returned for revision: 8 June 2005 Accepted: 13 July 2005 Published electronically: 21 September 2005
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
• Background and Aims Silicon (Si) in plants provides structural support and improves tolerance to diseases, drought and metal toxicity. Shoot Si concentrations are generally considered to be greater in monocotyledonous than in non-monocot plant species. The phylogenetic variation in the shoot Si concentration of plants reported in the primary literature has been quantified.
• Methods Studies were identified which reported Si concentrations in leaf or non-woody shoot tissues from at least two plant species growing in the same environment. Each study contained at least one species in common with another study.
• Key Results Meta-analysis of the data revealed that, in general, ferns, gymnosperms and angiosperms accumulated less Si in their shoots than non-vascular plant species and horsetails. Within angiosperms and ferns, differences in shoot Si concentration between species grouped by their higher-level phylogenetic position were identified. Within the angiosperms, species from the commelinoid monocot orders Poales and Arecales accumulated substantially more Si in their shoots than species from other monocot clades.
• Conclusions A high shoot Si concentration is not a general feature of monocot species. Information on the phylogenetic variation in shoot Si concentration may provide useful palaeoecological and archaeological information, and inform studies of the biogeochemical cycling of Si and those of the molecular genetics of Si uptake and transport in plants.
Key words: Biogeochemistry, fertilizer, phytoliths, silica, transporter, uptake
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Silicon is the second most abundant element in the soil after oxygen (reviewed by Epstein, 1999
; Richmond and Sussman, 2003). Most Si is present in the soil as insoluble oxides or silicates, although soluble silicic acid occurs in the range of 0·1–0·6 mM. Silicon is also one of the most abundant mineral elements in plant tissues and shoot concentrations in excess of 10 % d. wt have been reported (Epstein, 1999). Plants growing under natural conditions do not appear to suffer from Si deficiencies. However, Si-containing fertilizers are routinely applied to several crops including rice (Pereira et al., 2004) and sugar cane (Savant et al., 1999) to increase crop yield and quality. Increased Si supply improves the structural integrity of crops and may also improve plant tolerance to diseases, drought and metal toxicities (reviewed by Epstein, 1999; Richmond and Sussman, 2003; Ma, 2004). For example, Si deposition in the cell walls of root endodermal cells may contribute to the maintenance of an effective apoplastic barrier and thereby improve plant resistance to disease and drought stresses (Lux et al., 2002, 2003a, b; Hattori et al., 2005), whilst intra- and extracellular deposition of aluminosilicates in roots and shoots is thought to protect some species from potential Al toxicity (Hodson and Evans, 1995; Hodson and Sangster, 1999; Britez et al., 2002; Jansen et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2004).
Early studies of Si in plants noted that species of Poaceae contained between 10 and 20 times the concentration of Si found in non-monocotyledonous species (de Saussure, 1804; Jones and Handreck, 1967). Recent reviews report that Si accumulation is, in general, higher in monocot than in non-monocot species (Epstein, 1999; Richmond and Sussman, 2003). However, detailed sampling of specimens from botanical gardens by Takahashi and colleagues (reviewed in Ma and Takahashi, 2002, and references therein) indicates that Si accumulation is largely restricted to primitive land plants and to certain monocot clades, namely the Poaceae, Cyperaceae and Commelinaceae. There is also evidence from these detailed studies that Si may accumulate in certain dicot clades such as the Urticaceae and Cucurbitaceae. In this study, the phylogenetic variation in shoot Si concentration amongst plant species has been quantified by analysing all of the appropriate literature data that could be sourced. These include the extensive data compiled by Takahashi and colleagues (Ma and Takahashi, 2002, and references therein). Using a recent consensus angiosperm phylogeny, it was thus possible to test the hypothesis that high shoot Si concentration is a general feature of monocot species, and it was also possible to identify Si accumulation features in several other well-represented clades of plant species.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Data from 125 studies, contained in 54 papers in the primary literature, were identified that reported Si concentrations of leaf or non-woody shoot tissues in at least two species growing in the same environment, and which contained at least one species in common with another study (studies listed in the Appendix; additional information is available online at http://aob.oxfordjournals.org). Wherever possible, species nomenclature was based on the original study. Where taxonomic uncertainties occurred, the closest species match was inferred. Angiosperm species nomenclature and familial assignment/informal groupings were based on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/index.pl) and the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification (APG, 1998
). Non-angiosperm species nomenclature and family assignment was based on information obtained from (a) The Flowering Plant Gateway (http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/newgate/gateopen.htm); (b) The International Plant Names Index (http://www.ipni.org/index.html); or (c) The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).
The mean relative shoot Si concentration of each species across all studies was estimated. To adjust for differences in shoot Si concentration between studies, a residual maximum likelihood (REML) procedure was used. All methods have been described previously (Broadley et al., 2003). Briefly, the REML procedure adjusts for differences in between-study variances and means in order to generate an overall treatment mean, which in this case is the shoot Si concentration for each species, i.e. species means are effectively averaged across studies. Since the REML fitting procedures can produce negative treatment means, species Si concentrations were considered as relative values on a linear scale. Estimates of variation in shoot Si concentration were simultaneously fit to a variance components model of [study+(group/order/family/genus/species)]. To test for significant differences between species classified by their higher-level phylogenetic position, one-way ANOVA was performed on restricted subsets of the data. All statistical analyses were performed using GenStat (Release 6.1.0.200
[EC]
, VSN International, Oxford, UK).
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Seven hundred and thirty-five species were sampled from 125 studies (Table 1; additional information is available online at http://aob.oxfordjournals.org), including 600 species of angiosperms, 67 gymnosperms, 59 ferns (Polypodiophyta), five clubmosses (Lycopodiophyta), two horsetails (Equisetophyta), one liverwort (Marchantiophyta) and one moss (Bryophyta). Within a variance components model of [study+(group/order/family/genus/species)], group and order accounted for 67 % of the variation in relative shoot Si concentration (Table 2). The remaining variation was attributed to within-order (17 %) and to between-study (16 %) variance components. Thus, high-level phylogenetic position influences the shoot Si concentration of plants. This observation is consistent with literature and experimental studies of other elements including Ca, K, Mg (Broadley et al., 2003
, 2004; White and Broadley, 2003; White, 2005), Ni and Zn (Broadley et al., 2001). In contrast, variation in the relative shoot concentrations of N, P (Broadley et al., 2004) and Se (White et al., 2004) is dominated by species-level variance components, and thus there is no evidence that the tissue concentration of these elements differs systematically between groups of species according to their phylogenetic position.
|
|
Across all plant species, relative shoot Si concentration varied from –2·139 in Colysis wrightii (Polypodiaceae) to 8·769 in Arundinaria gigantea (Poaceae); the mean was 0·722 (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Negative relative shoot Si concentration values can arise as a consequence of adjusting for between-study variation during REML fitting procedures. Mean relative shoot Si concentrations of some fern species from the study of Ma and Takahashi (2002)
formed a distinct distribution peak in the low relative shoot Si concentration range (Fig. 1, inset). However, since the mean relative shoot Si concentrations adjusted for differences between studies using the REML procedure corresponded closely to the arithmetic mean shoot Si concentration across all studies (Fig. 2), and since there was a minimal ‘study’ variance component (Table 2), data from Ma and Takahashi (2002) were retained in subsequent analyses.
|
|
Mean relative shoot Si concentrations differed significantly between the seven groups of plant species [one-way ANOVA, F6,728 = 18·11, P < 0·001, residual mean square (r.m.s.) = 1·053; Fig. 3]. Shoot Si concentration declined in the order liverworts > horsetails > clubmosses >mosses > angiosperms > gymnosperms > ferns. Notable Si accumulators included Equisetaceae species Equisetum arvense (3·992) and Equisetum hyemale (2·917). However, non-vascular plant species were poorly represented in this study and any inferences about the general Si biology of these groups are not possible without further representation in the analysis.
|
{residual mean square * [(1/n1) + (1/n2)]}. Groups are ranked from lowest to highest mean relative shoot Si concentration: ferns (n = 59), gymnosperms (67), angiosperms (600), mosses (1), clubmosses (5), horse-tails (2), liverworts (1).Relative shoot Si concentrations were, in general, low in angiosperms, gymnosperms and ferns. However, there was substantial variation in shoot Si concentration within these well-represented groups. The 59 species of ferns sampled in this study were assigned to 14 families representing seven orders (Table 1). The relative shoot Si concentration of ferns ranged from –2·139 in Colysis wrightii (Polypodiaceae) to 1·352 in Athyrium filix-femina (Woodsiaceae). Although there were no significant differences in mean relative shoot Si concentration between fern orders (one-way ANOVA, F6,52 = 1·29, P > 0·05, r.m.s. = 2·448), there were differences in the mean relative shoot Si concentration between the seven fern families sampled from the best-represented fern order (Aspleniales; one-way ANOVA, F6,36 = 4·27, P < 0·01, r.m.s. = 2·729). There were notable differences in relative shoot Si concentration between species in the Woodsiaceae (0·59, n = 11) and in the Dryopteridaceae (–1·68, n = 19).
The 67 species of gymnosperms sampled in this study were assigned to nine families representing five orders (Table 1). The relative shoot Si concentration of gymnosperms ranged from –0·078 in Ephedra sinica (Ephedraceae) to 4·512 in Abies pectinata (Pinaceae). There were no significant differences in mean relative shoot Si concentration between gymnosperm orders (one-way ANOVA, F4,62 = 0·46, P > 0·05, r.m.s. = 0·387). Further, there were no significant differences in the mean relative shoot Si concentration between the five gymnosperm families sampled from the best-represented gymnosperm order (Pinales; one-way ANOVA, F4,56 = 0·01, P > 0·05, r.m.s. = 0·428). In the three well-represented families from this order, mean relative shoot Si concentrations were 0·333 (Taxodiaceae, n = 6), 0·379 (Cupressaceae, n = 10) and 0·387 (Pinaceae, n = 43).
The 600 species of angiosperms sampled in this study were assigned to 114 families of plants representing 44 orders/families unassigned to order (Table 1). These comprised 34 non-monocot and ten monocot (five commelinoid and five non-commelinoid) clades. Mean relative shoot Si concentrations differed significantly between these 44 clades (one-way ANOVA, F43,556 = 5·17, P < 0·001, r.m.s. = 0·76; Fig. 4). Within non-monocot angiosperms, notable low relative shoot Si concentrations occurred amongst Brassicales (0·010, n = 9), Aquifoliales (0·102, n = 3), Cornales (0·196, n = 4) and Fabales (0·263, n = 36) species. High relative shoot Si concentrations were observed in species of Saxifragales (1·351, n = 5), with notable Si accumulation in two species of Crassulaceae (Rhodiola linearifolia, 2·679; Sedum hybridum, 3·329). High relative shoot Si concentrations were also observed in several species of Fagales (0·786, n = 25) including Fagus sylvatica (6·089) and Quercus spp. from the Fagaceae family, in the Rosales (0·764, n = 25) including species from the Celtidaceae, Elaeagnaceae, Ulmaceae and Urticaceae families, in the Asterales (e.g. Helianthus spp.), and in the Caryophyllales (Polygonum spp.). There was intermediate-to-high relative shoot Si concentration in the basal angiosperm groups, although these groups were poorly represented in the analysis (Magnoliales 0·578, n = 4; Laurales 0·592, n = 4; Piperales 0·617, n = 2; Nymphaeaceae 0·685, n = 1; Schisandraceae 1·209, n = 1).
|
Within monocots, shoot Si concentration was substantially lower in non-commelinoid monocot species than in commelinoid monocots (Fig. 5). Indeed, three of the four angiosperm orders containing the lowest shoot Si concentrations were the non-commelinoid monocot orders Acorales (–0·028, n = 2), Liliales (0·055, n = 3) and Asparagales (0·081, n = 24). In contrast, the well-replicated commelinoid monocot orders Arecales (1·204, n = 9) and Poales (1·554, n = 189) had consistently high relative shoot Si concentrations. The few species sampled from other commelinoid monocot clades had low relative shoot Si concentrations, similar to species in non-commelinoid monocot clades, e.g. species of Bromeliaceae (0·199, n = 2) and Commelinales (0·292, n = 1). Thus, from the available data in the published literature, it is concluded that high shoot Si concentration is not a general feature of monocots.
|
The main products of Si accumulation are the phytoliths, or silica bodies, which infill the cell walls and lumina of certain cells in plant tissues (Prychid et al., 2004
). The shapes and sizes of these phytoliths contain considerable taxonomic information (Powers, 1992; Prychid et al., 2004) and are increasingly being used in both palaeoecological (e.g. Parker et al., 2004) and archaeological (e.g. Ishida et al., 2003) research, since they provide useful information on past vegetation, agriculture and food. Notably, Prychid et al. (2004), working on phytolith systematics in monocots, suggested that silica accumulation was confined to the commelinoid monocots, with the single exception of the Orchidaceae. Since Piperno (1988, tables 2.2–2.4) found that phytolith production was closely related to plant Si content, the observation of Prychid et al. (2004) is consistent with this analysis of published shoot Si data, subject to the caveat that only two Orchidaceae species were represented in the present data set. Thus, this analysis of published shoot Si data indicates which phylogenetic groups are most likely to contain species that are good phytolith producers. Further, this analysis also indicates that shoot Si content, and thus phytolith production, will be influenced more by the higher-level phylogenetic position of a plant rather than by environmental effects such as water availability, temperature, and Si availability in the soil, although environmental effects will influence phytolith production under some circumstances (e.g. Rosen and Weiner, 1994).
In addition to providing useful potential palaeoecological and archaeological information, knowledge of phylogenetic variation in shoot Si accumulation may also inform studies of the biogeochemical cycling of Si, and those of the molecular genetics of Si uptake and transport in plants. For example, Carnelli et al. (2001) estimated the annual contribution of alpine plant communities to the Si biogeochemical cycle in alpine environments and, unsurprisingly, observed that grasslands were the greatest silica producers. Relative Si production in other plant communities could be estimated by multiplying the mean relative shoot Si concentration of each plant phylogenetic grouping represented (e.g. plant family), by the percentage abundance for each group.
To date, Si transporters have only been located in diatoms (Hildebrand et al., 1997). However, rice (a heavy Si accumulator with a mean relative shoot Si concentration of 4·167) has recently become a model plant for the study of Si uptake and transport in vascular plants (Ma et al., 2002, 2004; Mitani and Ma, 2005). Since a rice mutant with markedly decreased Si uptake compared with its wild type has recently been identified (Ma et al., 2002), it seems likely that Si transporter(s) in higher plants will be isolated in due course. The present data will facilitate comparative functional genetic analysis of these transporters (e.g. Mitani and Ma, 2005), by allowing closely related target species with contrasting Si accumulation patterns to be identified for gene/trait association analysis.
There are many phylogenetic groups of plant species that are not represented in this study. To remedy this, further field surveys or comparative experiments are needed and potential sampling strategies are described in Broadley et al. (2003). In the case of Si, field surveys are likely to yield more appropriate information than laboratory experiments for two reasons. First, it has been shown that relative shoot Ca and Mg data are broadly consistent between experimental and field conditions (Broadley et al., 2003, 2004). Since plant-available soil Si is likely to vary less than plant-available soil Ca and Mg between sites, and since there is a relatively small effect of site on relative shoot Si concentration, it is a reasonable (and testable) assumption that field data will correspond in relative terms to comparative experimental data. The second reason is that it is easier and cheaper to sample large numbers of species from their natural habitats—or from botanical collections—than to grow them experimentally from seeds or cuttings. Once further data are collected, it will be possible (1) to determine precisely where Si accumulation traits diverge within commelinoid monocots, (2) to test which of the non-vascular plant groups are characterized by high Si accumulation, and (3) to identify if distinct ordinal/family-level Si accumulation traits occur in groups of species not currently represented in the present data set.
|
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Online at http://aob.oxfordjournals.org provides raw shoot/leaf Si concentrations on a dry weight basis of 735 plant species sampled from 125 studies, contained in 54 papers in the primary literature (full references in the Appendix), in which Si concentrations of leaf or non-woody shoot tissue were reported.
|
APPENDIX |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
This Appendix provides data sources for meta-analysis to calculate mean relative shoot Si concentration in plants. Study numbers, in square brackets, are cited in Table 1 and in Supplementary Information.
Barbehenn RV. 1993. Silicon: an indigestible marker for measuring food consumption and utilization by insects. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 67: 247–251. [1]
Bartoli F, Beaucire F. 1976. Accumulation du silicium dans les plantes vivantes en milieux pédogénétiques tempérés aérés. Comptes rendues de l'Academie des Sciences, Paris 282: 1947–1950. [2, 3, 4]
Bertrand G, Ghitescu V. 1934. Sur la composition élémentaire de quelques plantes cultivées. Comptes rendues de l'Academie des Sciences, Paris 199: 1269–1273. [5]
Bezeau LM, Johnston A, Smoliak S. 1966. Silica and protein content of mixed prairie and fescue grassland vegetation and its relationship to the incidence of silica urolithiasis. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 46: 625–631. [6, 7][Web of Science]
Bilbro JD, Undersander DJ, Fryrear DW, Lester CM. 1991. A survey of lignin, cellulose, and acid detergent fiber ash contents of several plants and implications for wind erosion control. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46: 314–316. [8, 9, 10, 11]
Blank RR, Allen F, Young JA. 1994. Growth and elemental content of several sagebrush-steppe species in unburned and post-wildfire soil and plant effects on soil attributes. Plant and Soil 164: 35–41. [12, 13]
Butler JD, Hodges TK. 1967. Mineral composition of turfgrasses. HortScience 2: 62–63. [14]
Carnelli AL, Madella M, Theurillat J-P. 2001. Biogenic silica production in selected alpine plant species and plant communities. Annals of Botany 87: 425–434. [15]
Cooper HP, Paden WR, Garman WH, Page NR. 1948. Properties that influence availability of calcium in the soil to plants. Soil Science 65: 75–96. [16]
Cornelissen JHC, Thompson K. 1997. Functional leaf attributes predict litter decomposition rate in herbaceous plants. New Phytologist 135: 109–114. [Si data from experiments in paper provided by J. H. C. Cornelissen, personal communication] [17, 18][CrossRef]
Cowgill UM. 1989. The chemical and mineralogical content of the plants of the Lake Huleh Preserve, Israel. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B—Biological Sciences 326: 59–118. [19]
de Bakker NVJ, Hemminga MA, Van Soelen J. 1999. The relationship between silicon availability, and growth and silicon concentration of the salt marsh halophyte Spartina anglica. Plant and Soil 215: 19–27. [20][CrossRef]
Ellis JR, Watson DMH, Varvel GE, Jawson MD. 1995. Methyl-bromide soil fumigation alters plant-element concentrations. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59: 848–852. [21, 22]
Fu F, Akagi T, Yabuki S, Iwaki M. 2001. The variation of REE (rare earth elements) patterns in soil-grown plants: a new proxy for the source of rare earth elements and silicon in plants. Plant and Soil 235: 53–64. [23, 24][CrossRef]
Gadallah FL, Jefferies RL. 1995. Forage quality in brood rearing areas of the lesser snow goose and the growth of captive goslings. Journal of Applied Ecology 32, 276–287. [25]
Geis JW. 1973. Biogenic silica in selected species of deciduous angiosperms. Soil Science 116: 113–130. [26]
Geis JW. 1978. Biogenic opal in three species of Gramineae. Annals of Botany 42: 1119–1129. [27]
Genßler L. (unpublished data, courtesy of Northrhein-Westfalian State Agency for Ecology, Soil and Forestry, Germany). [28]
Grosse-Brauckmann E. 1953. Uber die kieselsaureaufnahme von pflanzen nach dungung mit kohlensaurem kalk. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenernahrung und Dungung in der Bodenkunde 62: 19–24. [29–32]
Hodson MJ, Sangster AG. 1998. Mineral deposition in the needles of white spruce [Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss]. Annals of Botany 82: 375–385. [33, 34]
Hodson MJ, Sangster AG. 2002. X-ray microanalytical studies of mineral localization in the needles of white pine (Pinus strobus L.). Annals of Botany 89: 367–374. [33, 34]
Hodson MJ, Williams SE, Sangster AG. 1997. Silica deposition in the needles of the gymnosperms. I. Chemical analysis and light microscopy. In: Pinilla A, Juan-Tresserras J, Machado M. eds. The state-of-the-art of phytoliths in soils and plants, Madrid, Spain: Monograph 4, Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales, 123–133. [35]
Hogenbirk JC, Sarrazin-Delay CL. 1995. Using fuel characteristics to estimate plant ignitability for fire hazard reduction. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 82: 161–170. [36][CrossRef]
Höhne H. 1963. Der mineralstoff- und stickstoffgehalt von waldbodenpflanzen in abhangigkeit vom standort. Archiv fur Forstwesen 12: 791–805. [37–51]
Höhne H, Richter B. 1981. Untersuchungen über den mineralstoff- und stickstoffgehalt von farnkräutern. Flora 171: 1–10. [52, 53]
Johnston A, Bezeau LM, Smoliak S. 1967. Variation in silica content of range grasses. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 47: 65–71. [54–64]
Jones LHP, Handreck KA. 1967. Silica in soils, plants, and animals. Advances in Agronomy 19: 107–149. [65]
Kalisz PJ, Stone EL. 1984. The longleaf pine islands of the Ocala National Forest, Florida: a soil study. Ecology 65, 1743–1754. [66, 67]
Klein RL, Geis JW. 1978. Biogenic silica in the Pinaceae. Soil Science 126: 145–156. [68]
Kolesnikov MP, Gins VK. 2001. Forms of silicon in medicinal plants. Applied Biochemistry and Microbiology 37: 616–620. [69, 70][Medline]
Lanning FC. 1966. Silica and calcium deposition in the tissues of certain plants. Advancing Frontiers of Plant Science 13: 55–66. [71, 72]
Lanning FC, Eleuterius LN. 1981. Silica and ash in several marsh plants. Gulf Research Reports 7: 47–52. [73]
Lanning FC, Eleuterius LN. 1983. Silica and ash in tissues of some coastal plants. Annals of Botany 51: 835–850. [74–78]
Lanning FC, Eleuterius LN. 1985. Silica and ash in tissues of some plants growing in the coastal area of Mississippi, USA. Annals of Botany 56: 157–172. [79]
Lanning FC, Eleuterius LN. 1987. Silica and ash in native plants of the central and south eastern regions of the United States. Annals of Botany 60: 361–375. [80, 81]
Lanning FC, Eleuterius LN. 1989. Silica deposition in some C3 and C4 species of grasses, sedges and composites in the USA. Annals of Botany 63: 395–410. [82]
Ma JF, Takahashi E. 2002. Soil, fertilizer, and silicon research in Japan. Elsevier: Amsterdam. [83, 84]
McManus WR, Robinson VNE, Grout LL. 1977. The physical distribution of mineral material on forage plant cell walls. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 651–662. [85][CrossRef]
Nakanishi T, Onishi R, Hodson MJ, Akagi T. 2003. Aluminium/silicon interactions in broad-leaved trees and shrubs. Poster presented at the Fifth Keele Meeting on Aluminium in Stoke-on-Trent, UK. (Feb. 2003). [86]
Pahkala K, Pihala M. 2000. Different plant parts as raw material for fuel and pulp production. Industrial Crops and Products 11: 119–128. [87]
Pereira CEDB, Felcman J. 1998. Correlation between five minerals and the healing effect of Brazilian medicinal plants. Biological Trace Element Research 65: 251–259. [88][Web of Science][Medline]
Reay PF, Bennett WD. 1987. Determination of amorphous silica and total silica in plant materials. Analytica Chimica Acta 198, 145–152. [89, 90][CrossRef]
Robbins CT, Mole S, Hagerman AE, Hanley TA. 1987. Role of tannins in defending plants against ruminants: reduction in dry matter digestion? Ecology 68: 1606–1615. [91]
Saijonkari-Pahkala K. 2001. Non-wood plants as raw material for pulp and paper. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 10, Suppl. 1: p. 101, Dissertation, Helsinki University. [92, 93]
Schnug E, von Franck E. 1985. Untersuchungen zur Silizium-Versorgung von Kulturpflanzen in Schleswig-Holstein. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde 148: 1–9. [94–96]
Smith GS, Nelson AB, Boggino EJA. 1971. Digestibility of forages in vitro as affected by content of ‘silica’. Journal of Animal Science 33: 466–471. [97]
Street JR. 1974. The influence of silica concentration on the chemical composition and decomposition rates of turfgrass tissue and water absorption rates among three turfgrass species. PhD Thesis, Ohio State University. [98–102]
Taber HG, Shogren D, Lu G. 2002. Extraction of silicon from plant tissue with dilute HCl and HF and measurement by modified inductive coupled argon plasma procedures. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 33: 1661–1670. [103][CrossRef]
Tirtapradja H. 1971. Quantitative investigations of silica cells in leaves and culms of Festuca pratensis Huds. and F. arundinacea Schreb. Angewandte Botanik 45: 231–247. [104, 105]
Tyler G. 1971. Distribution and turnover of organic matter and minerals in a shore meadow ecosystem. Studies in the ecology of Baltic sea-shore meadows IV. Oikos 22: 265–291. [106]
Van der Vorm PDJ. 1980. Uptake of Si by five plant species as influenced by variations in Si-supply. Plant and Soil 56: 153–156. [107, 108]
Wallace A. 1989. Relationships among nitrogen, silicon, and heavy metal uptake by plants. Soil Science 147: 457–460. [109–122]
Wallace A, Romney EM, Mueller RT. 1976. Nitrogen-silicon interaction in plants grown in desert soil with nitrogen deficiency. Agronomy Journal 68: 529–530. [123, 124]
Wilding LP, Drees LR. 1971. Biogenic opal in Ohio soils. Soil Science Society of America, Proceedings 35: 1004–1010. [125]
|
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
We thank D. Bowdery, J. H. C. Cornelissen, L. Genßler, D. Hart, C. Korndörfer, G. Korndörfer, K. Pahkala and H. G. Taber for providing unpublished data, clarifying data in their publications, and giving us some useful leads. Unfortunately, we were unable to use all of the data provided, as we could not locate overlaps with species in the main data set, but this has been kept on record for the future. This paper is dedicated to Dr Dafydd Wynn Parry who first introduced one of us (M.J.H.) to silicon research, who wrote many fine papers on this topic in Annals of Botany, and who still takes a keen interest in all things siliceous.
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONAPPENDIXACKNOWLEDGEMENTSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
-
APG. 1998. An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 85: 531–553.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Britez RM, Watanabe T, Jansen S, Reissmann CB, Osaki M. 2002. The relationship between aluminium and silicon accumulation in leaves of Faramea marginata (Rubiaceae). New Phytologist 156: 437–444.[CrossRef]
Broadley MR, Bowen HC, Cotterill HL, Hammond JP, Meacham MC, Mead A, White PJ. 2003. Variation in the shoot calcium content of angiosperms. Journal of Experimental Botany 54: 1431–1446.
Broadley MR, Bowen HC, Cotterill HL, Hammond JP, Meacham MC, Mead A, White PJ. 2004. Phylogenetic variation in the shoot mineral concentration of angiosperms. Journal of Experimental Botany 55: 321–336.
Broadley MR, Willey NJ, Wilkins JC, Baker AJM, Mead A, White PJ. 2001. Phylogenetic variation in heavy metal accumulation in angiosperms. New Phytologist 152: 9–27.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Carnelli AL, Madella M, Theurillat J-P. 2001. Biogenic silica production in selected alpine plant species and plant communities. Annals of Botany 87: 425–434.
Epstein E. 1999. Silicon. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 50: 641–664.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
Hattori T, Inanaga S, Araki H, An P, Morita S, Luxová M, Lux A. 2005. Application of silicon enhanced drought tolerance in Sorghum bicolor. Physiologia Plantarum 123: 459–466.[CrossRef]
Hildebrand M, Volcani BE, Gassmann W, Schroeder JI. 1997. A gene family of silicon transporters. Nature 385: 688–689.[Medline]
Hodson MJ, Evans DE. 1995. Aluminium/silicon interactions in higher plants. Journal of Experimental Botany 46: 161–171.
Hodson MJ, Sangster AG. 1999. Aluminium/silicon interactions in conifers. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 76: 89–98.
Ishida S, Parker AG, Kennet D, Hodson MJ. 2003. Phytolith analysis from the archaeological site of Kush, Ras al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates. Quaternary Research 59: 310–321.[CrossRef]
Jansen S, Watanabe T, Dessein S, Smets E, Robbrecht E. 2003. A comparative study of metal levels in leaves of some Al-accumulating Rubiaceae. Annals of Botany 91: 657–663.
Jones LHP, Handreck K. 1967. Silica in soils, plants and animals. Advances in Agronomy 19: 107–149.
Lux A, Luxova M, Abe J, Morita S, Inanaga S. 2003a. Silicification of bamboo (Phyllostachys heterocycla Mitf.) root and leaf. Plant and Soil 255: 85–91.
Lux A, Luxova M, Abe J, Tanimoto E, Hattori T, Inanaga S. 2003b. The dynamics of silicon deposition in the sorghum root endodermis. New Phytologist 158: 437–441.
Lux A, Luxova M, Hattori T, Inanaga S, Sugimoto Y. 2002. Silicification in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) cultivars with different drought tolerance. Physiologia Plantarum 115: 87–92.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ma JF. 2004. Role of silicon in enhancing the resistance of plants to biotic and abiotic stresses. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 50: 11–18.
Ma JF, Takahashi E. 2002. Soil, fertilizer, and silicon research in Japan. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ma JF, Mitani N, Nagao S, Konishi S, Tamai K, Iwashita T, Yano M. 2004. Characterization of the silicon uptake system and molecular mapping of the silicon transporter gene in rice. Plant Physiology 136: 3284–3289.
Ma JF, Tamai K, Ichii M, Wu GF. 2002. A rice mutant defective in Si uptake. Plant Physiology 130: 2111–2117.
Mitani N, Ma JF. 2005. Uptake system of silicon in different plant species. Journal of Experimental Botany 56: 1255–1261.
Parker AG, Eckersley L, Smith MM, Goudie AS, Stokes S, Ward S, White K, Hodson MJ. 2004. Holocene vegetation dynamics in the north eastern Rub' al-Khali desert, Arabian Peninsula: a phytolith, pollen and carbon isotope study. Journal of Quaternary Science 19: 665–676.[CrossRef]
Pereira HS, Korndörfer GH, Vidal AD, de Camargo MS. 2004. Silicon sources for rice crop. Scientia Agricola 61: 522–528.
Piperno DR. 1988. Phytolith analysis. An archaeological and geological perspective. London: Academic Press.
Powers AH. 1992. Great expectations: a short historical review of European phytolith sytematics. In: Rapp Jr G, Mulholland SC, eds. Phytolith systematics—emerging issues. Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science 1: 15–35.
Prychid CJ, Rudall PJ, Gregory M. 2004. Systematics and biology of silica bodies in monocotyledons. Botanical Review 69: 377–440.
Richmond KE, Sussman M. 2003. Got silicon? The non-essential beneficial plant nutrient. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 6: 268–272.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Rosen AM, Weiner S. 1994. Identifying ancient irrigation: a new method using opaline phytoliths from emmer wheat. Journal of Archaeological Science 21: 125–132.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
de Saussure T. 1804. Recherches chimiques sur la végétation. Paris: Nyon.
Savant NK, Korndörfer GH, Datnoff LE, Snyder GH. 1999. Silicon nutrition and sugarcane production: a review. Journal of Plant Nutrition 22: 1853–1903.
Wang YX, Stass A, Horst WJ. 2004. Apoplastic binding of aluminum is involved in silicon-induced amelioration of aluminum toxicity in maize. Plant Physiology 136: 3762–3770.
White PJ. 2005. Calcium. In: Broadley MR, White PJ, eds. Plant nutritional genomics. Oxford: Blackwell, 66–86.
White PJ, Broadley MR. 2003. Calcium in plants. Annals of Botany 92: 487–511.
White PJ, Bowen HC, Parmaguru P, Fritz M, Spracklen WP, Spiby RE, et al. 2004. Interactions between selenium and sulphur nutrition in Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Experimental Botany 55: 1927–1937.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Mercader, T. Bennett, C. Esselmont, S. Simpson, and D. Walde Phytoliths in woody plants from the Miombo woodlands of Mozambique Ann. Bot., July 1, 2009; 104(1): 91 - 113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Mitani, Y. Chiba, N. Yamaji, and J. F. Ma Identification and Characterization of Maize and Barley Lsi2-Like Silicon Efflux Transporters Reveals a Distinct Silicon Uptake System from That in Rice PLANT CELL, July 1, 2009; 21(7): 2133 - 2142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Mitani, N. Yamaji, and J. F. Ma Identification of Maize Silicon Influx Transporters Plant Cell Physiol., January 1, 2009; 50(1): 5 - 12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. D. Meunier, F. Guntzer, S. Kirman, and C. Keller Terrestrial plant-Si and environmental changes Mineralogical Magazine, February 1, 2008; 72(1): 263 - 267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. A. Currie and C. C. Perry Silica in Plants: Biological, Biochemical and Chemical Studies Ann. Bot., December 1, 2007; 100(7): 1383 - 1389. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. F. Ma, N. Yamaji, K. Tamai, and N. Mitani Genotypic Difference in Silicon Uptake and Expression of Silicon Transporter Genes in Rice Plant Physiology, November 1, 2007; 145(3): 919 - 924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Yamaji and J. F. Ma Spatial Distribution and Temporal Variation of the Rice Silicon Transporter Lsi1 Plant Physiology, March 1, 2007; 143(3): 1306 - 1313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||