Display options
Share it on

PeerJ. 2016 Sep 13;4:e2452. doi: 10.7717/peerj.2452. eCollection 2016.

Canopy position has a profound effect on soybean seed composition.

PeerJ

Steven C Huber, Kunzhi Li, Randall Nelson, Alexander Ulanov, Catherine M DeMuro, Ivan Baxter

Affiliations

  1. Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Urbana, IL, United States.
  2. Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
  3. Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
  4. Lab of Plant Nutrition Genetic Engineering, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming, Yunnan, China.
  5. Soybean/Maize Germplasm, Pathology, and Genetics Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Urbana, IL, United States.
  6. Metabolomics Facility, Carver Biotechnology Center, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
  7. Plant Genetics Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, St. Louis, MO, United States.
  8. Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, Creve Coeur, MO, United States.

PMID: 27672507 PMCID: PMC5028787 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2452

Abstract

Although soybean seeds appear homogeneous, their composition (protein, oil and mineral concentrations) can vary significantly with the canopy position where they were produced. In studies with 10 cultivars grown over a 3-yr period, we found that seeds produced at the top of the canopy have higher concentrations of protein but less oil and lower concentrations of minerals such as Mg, Fe, and Cu compared to seeds produced at the bottom of the canopy. Among cultivars, mean protein concentration (average of different positions) correlated positively with mean concentrations of S, Zn and Fe, but not other minerals. Therefore, on a whole plant basis, the uptake and allocation of S, Zn and Fe to seeds correlated with the production and allocation of reduced N to seed protein; however, the reduced N and correlated minerals (S, Zn and Fe) showed different patterns of allocation among node positions. For example, while mean concentrations of protein and Fe correlated positively, the two parameters correlated negatively in terms of variation with canopy position. Altering the microenvironment within the soybean canopy by removing neighboring plants at flowering increased protein concentration in particular at lower node positions and thus altered the node-position gradient in protein (and oil) without altering the distribution of Mg, Fe and Cu, suggesting different underlying control mechanisms. Metabolomic analysis of developing seeds at different positions in the canopy suggests that availability of free asparagine may be a positive determinant of storage protein accumulation in seeds and may explain the increased protein accumulation in seeds produced at the top of the canopy. Our results establish node-position variation in seed constituents and provide a new experimental system to identify genes controlling key aspects of seed composition. In addition, our results provide an unexpected and simple approach to link agronomic practices to improve human nutrition and health in developing countries because food products produced from seeds at the bottom of the canopy contained higher Fe concentrations than products from the top of the canopy. Therefore, using seeds produced in the lower canopy for production of iron-rich soy foods for human consumption could be important when plants are the major source of protein and human diets can be chronically deficient in Fe and other minerals.

Keywords: Canopy; Elemental composition; Ionome; Nutrition; Physiology; Soybean

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

References

  1. New Phytol. 2008;177(2):389-405 - PubMed
  2. Plant Cell Environ. 2007 Feb;30(2):165-75 - PubMed
  3. Front Plant Sci. 2014 Sep 03;5:437 - PubMed
  4. Plant Physiol. 1987 Nov;85(3):841-4 - PubMed
  5. Nature. 2014 Jun 5;510(7503):139-42 - PubMed
  6. Plant Physiol. 1986 May;81(1):136-41 - PubMed
  7. Nutr Rev. 1999 Sep;57(9 Pt 2):S27-33 - PubMed
  8. Int J Mol Sci. 2013 Mar 26;14(4):6674-89 - PubMed
  9. J Exp Bot. 2008;59(1):111-9 - PubMed
  10. Plant Cell Environ. 2013 Mar;36(3):697-705 - PubMed
  11. Nat Protoc. 2011 Jun;6(6):743-60 - PubMed
  12. J Exp Bot. 2012 May;63(8):3173-84 - PubMed
  13. Physiol Plant. 2015 Apr 21;:null - PubMed
  14. J Exp Bot. 2005 Jul;56(417):1951-63 - PubMed
  15. Public Health Nutr. 2009 Apr;12(4):444-54 - PubMed
  16. Front Plant Sci. 2015 May 13;6:317 - PubMed
  17. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2009 Jun;12(3):381-6 - PubMed
  18. Elife. 2014 May 07;3:e02245 - PubMed
  19. Front Plant Sci. 2014 Apr 23;5:149 - PubMed
  20. Metabolites. 2013 May 14;3(2):347-72 - PubMed
  21. Science. 2006 Nov 24;314(5803):1298-301 - PubMed
  22. J Agric Food Chem. 2012 Jul 11;60(27):6764-71 - PubMed
  23. Front Plant Sci. 2014 Apr 03;5:112 - PubMed
  24. J Agric Food Chem. 2012 Sep 26;60(38):9543-52 - PubMed

Publication Types