Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Frontiers in Plant Science logoLink to Frontiers in Plant Science
. 2019 May 22;10:675. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00675

Humic Substances Contribute to Plant Iron Nutrition Acting as Chelators and Biostimulants

Laura Zanin 1, Nicola Tomasi 1, Stefano Cesco 2, Zeno Varanini 3, Roberto Pinton 1,*
PMCID: PMC6538904  PMID: 31178884

Abstract

Improvement of plant iron nutrition as a consequence of metal complexation by humic substances (HS) extracted from different sources has been widely reported. The presence of humified fractions of the organic matter in soil sediments and solutions would contribute, depending on the solubility and the molecular size of HS, to build up a reservoir of Fe available for plants which exude metal ligands and to provide Fe-HS complexes directly usable by plant Fe uptake mechanisms. It has also been shown that HS can promote the physiological mechanisms involved in Fe acquisition acting at the transcriptional and post-transcriptional level. Furthermore, the distribution and allocation of Fe within the plant could be modified when plants were supplied with water soluble Fe-HS complexes as compared with other natural or synthetic chelates. These effects are in line with previous observations showing that treatments with HS were able to induce changes in root morphology and modulate plant membrane activities related to nutrient acquisition, pathways of primary and secondary metabolism, hormonal and reactive oxygen balance. The multifaceted action of HS indicates that soluble Fe-HS complexes, either naturally present in the soil or exogenously supplied to the plants, can promote Fe acquisition in a complex way by providing a readily available iron form in the rhizosphere and by directly affecting plant physiology. Furthermore, the possibility to use Fe-HS of different sources, size and solubility may be considered as an environmental-friendly tool for Fe fertilization of crops.

Keywords: Fe complex, Fe chelates, fulvic acids, root uptake, strategy I, strategy II, water-extractable humic substances (WEHS)

Introduction

Soil HS are generally considered as the result of the partial degradation and re-synthesis of organic material, especially of plant residues. They originate from polymerization/polycondensation of phenolic compounds, mainly deriving from microbial lignin degradation. As a consequence, soil HS have a strong aromatic nature; nonetheless, during the condensation process a number of organic molecules including aliphatic chains, peptides, amino acids, fatty acids and sugars can be incorporated, thus forming substances from medium to high molecular weight (Stevenson, 1994). Soil HS could also originate from associations of relatively small humic molecules linked together by hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonds (Piccolo, 2002). Humic molecules of different molecular masses can bind together forming a supramolecular humic network; the degree of aggregation may depend on the pH, ionic strength and mineral composition of the solution (Garcia-Mina, 2007; Esfahani et al., 2015).

These processes imply that HS of different molecular size and solubility are present in the soil. Some fractions are present in the soil solution, thus being able to directly interact with plant roots (Chen and Schnitzer, 1978; Gerke, 1997). These latter soluble HS are considered as part of the DOM (Bolan et al., 2011).

Humic substances are routinely extracted from the soil with alkaline solutions and then can be operationally fractionated, based on their different water solubility, into humic (HA) and fluvic (FA) acids (Stevenson, 1994).

Due to their heterogeneity, the molecular structure of soil HS cannot be unequivocally identified. Nevertheless, it has been clearly defined that the presence of some functional groups within their structure are responsible for the observed indirect and direct effects on plant growth and nutrition (Nebbioso and Piccolo, 2011; Muscolo et al., 2013; García et al., 2016a). Indirect effects refer to changes in the chemical and physical properties of soil and rhizosphere, while direct ones indicate actions on plasma membrane (PM)-bound activities and plant metabolic pathways (Varanini and Pinton, 2001; Nardi et al., 2002; Zandonadi et al., 2013; Canellas and Olivares, 2014; Rose et al., 2014; Olaetxea et al., 2018).

The occurrence of HS in soils, as representative of natural organic matter evolution, has been questioned; rather it has been proposed that they are the result of the alkali-based extraction procedure (Lehmann and Kleber, 2015). While this aspect is still under debate (Gerke, 2018; Olk et al., 2019), it is noteworthy that humic-like molecules have been extracted from soils treated with mild extractants (Hayes, 2006), found in aquatic environments (Alberts and Takács, 2004), peat water extracts and soil leachates (Pinton et al., 1997; Vujinovic et al., 2013).

Despite being the chemical nature of HS still controversial, it has been unequivocally demonstrated that organic materials of different origin can provide available Fe to plants as a results of Fe complexation by humic molecules (Chen et al., 2004a; Bocanegra et al., 2006; Kovács et al., 2013; Cieschi et al., 2017). Furthermore, soluble Fe-HS complexes could be formed and directly used by the plants (Pandeya et al., 1998; Pinton et al., 1999). The capacity of HS to complex metals and affect the mechanisms of nutrient acquisition and plant metabolism provide evidence for a multifaceted role of these organic fractions on Fe nutrition.

In the present work, we will summarize recent reports on the role of HS in plant Fe nutrition that can be attributed to their chelating and biostimulant effect, with a special emphasis on effects exerted by the water-soluble fractions.

Effects of Humic Substances on Iron Availability

Humic substances are able to form stable complexes with metal micronutrients, due to the presence in their structure of oxygen-, nitrogen- and sulfur-containing functional groups. This, in turn, would help maintaining micronutrients in solution and/or in bioavailable forms at pH values found in most soils (Senesi, 1992; Tipping, 2002). In the case of Fe, highly stable HS complexes mainly involve O-containing groups (carboxylic and phenolic groups) (Senesi, 1992; Tipping, 2002). More recently it was shown that carboxylic acids in aliphatic domains are also involved in Fe(III)-HS complexation (Fuentes et al., 2013).

The stability order of the complexes formed between metals and humic acids has been determined through potentiometric titration and follows the Irving-Williams series. Evaluation of stability constants for metal-HS complexes (Garcia-Mina et al., 2004) showed values somewhat lower than those observed for complexes between Fe and synthetic chelating agents (e.g., EDTA, EDDHA; Lucena, 2003) or organic compounds of biological origin (e.g., organic acids, siderophores, PS, phenols) (von Wirén et al., 2000; Crowley, 2001; Ryan et al., 2001; Mimmo et al., 2014).

Stability and solubility of the complexes are both affected by pH and molar ratio between micronutrients and HS (Chen et al., 2004a; Garcia-Mina, 2006). A high stability would be favored in the 5–9 pH range by a low metal:HS ratio, while a high solubility would be favored by alkaline pH and a low metal:HS ratio. This implies that plants growing in calcareous soils with limited Fe availability could benefit from the formation of stable and soluble Fe-HS complexes (Cieschi and Lucena, 2018), as well as of insoluble complexes with high molecular weight HS (Colombo et al., 2014).

Humic substances can affect Fe availability also through the stabilization of amorphous Fe oxides by high molecular weight humic fractions (Schwertmann, 1991). The poorly crystalline Fe phases, co-precipitated with insoluble HS (IHS) and maintained for a long period in this form, can represent a reservoir of iron suitable, via ligand mobilization, for plant Fe nutrition (Colombo et al., 2012, 2014).

The ability of HS to complex Fe can also be important for phosphorous nutrition, since phosphate can be bound to HS by Fe bridges (Gerke, 2010; Urrutia et al., 2013). This process would increase phosphate availability; in fact, complexation of Fe by ligands released by plant roots could promote uptake of both nutrients (Gerke, 1993; Urrutia et al., 2014).

Humic substances are known to be redox reactive and capable of chemically reducing metals including Fe3+ (Skogerboe and Wilson, 1981; Struyk and Sposito, 2001). Reduction of Fe3+ occurs at significant levels at pH values lower than 4; at higher pH values reduction is limited by formation of complexes between Fe3+ and humic molecules. It has been shown that dissolved and solid-phase HS can accelerate Fe(III)-oxide reduction in sediments (Nevin and Lovley, 2002; Roden et al., 2010) and bioreduction of Fe(III) minerals in soils (Rakshit et al., 2009), by shuttling electrons from bacteria to oxide surfaces.

Role of Humic Substances as Natural Chelates

Besides delaying the Fe crystallization processes, HS can contribute to Fe nutrition via formation of water-soluble Fe-HS complexes, which can move in the soil and reach the roots (Pandeya et al., 1998; Garcia-Mina et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2004b). These complexes would act as natural Fe-chelates interacting with plant uptake mechanisms. Using a water-extractable humic fraction (WEHS), purified from a water extract of sphagnum peat, it was demonstrated that a Fe-WEHS complex could be obtained by interaction between the humic fraction and a poorly soluble Fe form (Cesco et al., 2000). Fe-WEHS complex could, in turn, be used by Fe-deficient Strategy-I and Strategy-II plants. Uptake by Strategy-I plants could occur via the Fe(III) reduction-based mechanism (Pinton et al., 1999), while in Strategy-II plants, a ligand exchange between WEHS and PS was conceivably involved (Cesco et al., 2002). Uptake of 59Fe from 59Fe-WEHS complex was measured even at pH values compatible with those found in calcareous soils (Cesco et al., 2002; Tomasi et al., 2013) and the same held true for root Fe(III) reduction in Strategy-I plants (Tomasi et al., 2013; Zamboni et al., 2016). The recovery of Fe-deficient plants following the treatment with Fe-WEHS was paralleled by a stimulation of the acidification capacity of roots, a component of the Fe-deficiency response in Strategy-I plants (Pinton et al., 1999; Tomasi et al., 2013).

Iron from 59Fe-WEHS complex appeared to be accumulated in higher amount within the plant as compared with other natural chelates, such as 59Fe-citrate or 59Fe-PS (Tomasi et al., 2013; Zamboni et al., 2016). Furthermore, a higher translocation of Fe to the leaves was observed in Fe-deficient Strategy-I plants supplied with 59Fe-WEHS (Tomasi et al., 2009; Zanin et al., 2015) as compared with the other two natural Fe-chelates. This behavior was accompanied by an increase of Fe content in the xylem sap (Tomasi et al., 2009). In 59Fe-WEHS-treated cucumber plants Fe was more rapidly allocated into the leaf veins and transferred to interveinal cells (Zanin et al., 2015). Similar effects were reported by Bocanegra et al. (2006) who observed a rapid translocation of Fe from roots to leaves of plants treated with a low molecular weight humic fraction. These results indicate that HS could affect Fe nutrition not only by increasing the metal availability in the soil and in the rhizosphere, but also acting on the mechanisms involved in its uptake and its translocation within the plant.

Supply of HS or Fe-HS complexes has also been shown to affect expression of genes related to Fe-uptake mechanisms. Providing a Fe-WEHS complex to Fe-deficient tomato plants induced an up-regulation of root Fe(III)-chelate reductase (LeFRO1) and Fe transporter genes, LeIRT1 and LeIRT2 (Tomasi et al., 2013). The increase in transcript abundance was faster and reached a higher level than when Fe-citrate or Fe-PS were used. Aguirre et al. (2009) showed that the treatment of cucumber plants with HS purified from leonardite induced a transient up-regulation of genes involved in the Strategy-I uptake mechanism, that is CsHA2, CsFRO1 and CsIRT1, in cucumber roots. These effects were associated with an increase of the root Fe(III) chelate-reductase activity. Billard et al. (2013) showed that a humic fraction isolated from black peat could induce the up-regulation of the IRT1 gene in both the roots and leaves of rapeseed plants. These results were correlated to a significant increase of the Fe concentration in leaves.

Interestingly, also genes involved in Fe uptake in leaves (CsFRO1, CsIRT1, CsNRAMP) were up-regulated following Fe-WEHS supply to Fe-deficient cucumber plants, as compared with Fe-PS-fed plants (Zanin et al., 2015). The localization of CsFRO1, CsIRT1 transcripts was evident next to the midveins, while CsNRAMP expression was detected in the overall mesophyll region, supporting a role of this later gene in the Fe distribution within the whole leaf tissue.

Genome-wide transcriptional analysis revealed that the early response to Fe supply of Fe-deficient tomato plants was strongly influenced by the nature of the chelating agent (Zamboni et al., 2016). In fact, Fe-citrate and Fe-PS modulated, respectively the expression of 728 and 408 genes, showing a fast down-regulation of molecular mechanisms induced by Fe deficiency. On the other hand, Fe-WEHS did not determine relevant changes in the root transcriptome with respect to the Fe-deficient plants, suggesting that roots did not sense the restored cellular Fe accumulation. This behavior would account for the higher Fe accumulation in Fe-WEHS treated plants.

Effects of Humic Substances on Root Growth and Functions

Treatments of plants with HS have been shown to induce changes in root morphology and modulate plant membrane activities related to nutrient acquisition, pathways of primary and secondary metabolism, hormonal and reactive oxygen balance (Varanini and Pinton, 2001; Nardi et al., 2002; Canellas and Olivares, 2014; Olaetxea et al., 2018; Figure 1). These effects, which vary depending on the origin, molecular size and chemical characteristics of HS, suggest an action of these organic fractions on growth promotion and stress resistance in plants.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Physiological and molecular plant responses induced by HS (in the upper part) and role of Fe-HS complexes on Fe plant nutrition (in the lower part). Schematic drawings of Strategy-I and Strategy-II components on PM of root cells are shown (for Strategy I: a proton pump, a ligand efflux transporter, an Fe transporter and an FeIII-chelate reductase are depicted in the left; for Strategy II: a ligand efflux transporter and an Fe-chelate transporter are depicted in the right). ABA, abscisic acid; CK, cytokinin; ET, ethylene; GA, gibberellic acid; IAA, indole-3-acetic acids; IHS, insoluble HS; NO, nitric oxide; PS, phytosiderophores; ROS, reactive oxygen species; TCA, tricarboxylic acid; PM, plasma membrane; GS/GOGAT, glutamine synthase/glutamine oxoglutarate aminotransferase).

Many authors observed that plants treated with HS of different origin were able to induce proliferation of lateral roots and root hairs (Canellas et al., 2002; Nardi et al., 2002). This behavior has been related to the activation of signaling pathways involving phytohormones, especially auxin, nitric oxide, Ca2+ and ROS (Trevisan et al., 2010; Zandonadi et al., 2010; Mora et al., 2012; Ramos et al., 2015; García et al., 2016b,c). Up-regulation of auxin-regulated genes (Trevisan et al., 2011) and modulation of genes coding for enzymes involved in hormone metabolisms (Zanin et al., 2018) suggest that HS might influence the steady-state equilibrium of different plant hormones. However, stimulation of root growth was observed also independently of hormonal changes (Schmidt et al., 2007; Mora et al., 2012), suggesting that other signals might be involved in the morphological modifications elicited by HS.

A recognized target of HS action is the root PM H+-ATPase (Zandonadi et al., 2016). Evidence for activation of the PM proton pump has been observed both at transcriptional and post-transcriptional level and related to proton extrusion (Varanini et al., 1993; Canellas et al., 2002) and uptake of ions, such as nitrate (Pinton et al., 1999; Quaggiotti et al., 2004; Tavares et al., 2017), phosphate (Jindo et al., 2016) and sulfate (Jannin et al., 2012). Besides ion uptake, HS have been shown to promote nitrogen assimilation (Mora et al., 2010; Jannin et al., 2012; Vaccaro et al., 2015; Zanin et al., 2018), carbon metabolism (glycolysis and Krebs cycle; Nardi et al., 2007; Trevisan et al., 2011) and synthesis of secondary metabolites, such as phenylpropanoids (Schiavon et al., 2010; Jannin et al., 2012; García et al., 2016c).

In addition to the stimulation of proton release, HS have been shown to affect rhizodeposition. Humic acids promoted release of anionic species close to region of root acidification [apolar sugars from maize roots (Puglisi et al., 2009), impacting soil microbial community in the rhizosphere (Puglisi et al., 2013)]. Increase in root growth was accompanied by a greater release of low molecular weight exudates from maize plants treated with HS (Canellas et al., 2019). On the other hand, it has been reported that organic acids, such as those released by the roots, could disaggregate supramolecular structure of HS releasing low molecular weight humic fractions (Piccolo et al., 2003), which in turn might exert their effects on roots. Regarding this point is noteworthy that accumulation of HS at the root surface and in the apoplast has been observed (García et al., 2012; Kulikova et al., 2014). Furthermore, HS fractions obtained from rhizospheric soil showed different chemical characteristics to those isolated from bulk soil (D’Orazio and Senesi, 2009).

Effects of HS on root growth (signaling pathways), ion uptake (primary and secondary membrane transporters), primary metabolism (nitrogen and carbon), secondary metabolism (phenylpropanoids) and root exudation might be important for Fe acquisition and could improve the response of plants to Fe deprivation (Figure 1).

Conclusion and Perspective

Plenty of papers in the last decades have proven the capability of HS, isolated from different organic sources, to affect plant growth, nutrition and metabolism.

In natural soils, these substances, due to their heterogeneity and polydispersity, can be present as co-precipitates with mineral parts (e.g., Fe-oxides and clays) or in the solution where they contribute a considerable portion of the DOM.

Low-molecular-weight and water-soluble fractions have been shown to affect functionality of ion transporters operating on the PM of root cells, acting both at transcriptional and post-transcriptional level. This evidence has been achieved mostly using controlled experimental conditions, such as isolated HS and hydroponically grown plants. Conceivably, these HS could directly interact with plant roots, microorganisms and soil particles in the rhizosphere. Thus, study of structural and chemical characteristics of HS present in soil solution and in the rhizosphere are needed to allow the transfer of knowledge obtained in controlled systems to real soil/rhizosphere conditions. This would help to shed light on the direct contribution of HS to plant nutrition and growth and on their usefulness in the field. Evidence of a relationship between chemical structural characteristics of HS obtained from different sources and having variable molecular complexity and the biological effects they exert on plants has been already provided. This kind of studies can now be performed using new analytical techniques thus allowing a full characterization of HS based on their origin, either natural or anthropogenic.

Concerning Fe nutrition, these aspects would be very useful considering the dual role that has been attributed to HS, as chelating compounds and biostimulants (Table 1). The capability of HS to form stable complexes with Fe and to directly affect Fe-acquisition mechanisms would account for the relative contribution of Fe-HS complexes to plant Fe nutrition as compared to other Fe-complexes naturally occurring in the rhizosphere.

Table 1.

Reports focusing on the role of humic substances in iron plant nutrition.

Humic substances Crop HS Treatment Objectives Actions References
Source Fraction/ Size Species Organ
Humate (from leaf compost) N/A Solanum lycopersicum Shoots, Roots supply of humates (100 mg L-1 dm3) Influence of sodium humate on the uptake or some ions by tomato seedlings Facilitated the Fe transport from roots to shoots and stimulated the root uptake of K+, Rb+, Mg2+ and PO43-, while strongly inhibited the Cl- uptake Gumiński et al., 1983
FA (from sphagnum peat) WEHS Cucumis sativus, Hordeum vulgaris Plants supply of 59Fe-WEHS (1 μM Fe; 5 mg Corg L-1 WEHS) up to 3 days Strategy-I and Strategy-II plant capabilities to use Fe complexed by WEHS cucumber plants (Strategy I) utilize Fe-WEHS, presumably via reduction of Fe(III)-WEHS by PM Fe reductases, while barley plants (Strategy II) use an indirect mechanism involving ligand exchange between WEHS and PS Cesco et al., 2002
HA (from mollisol) N/A Helianthus annuus, Hordeum vulgare Plants 59Fe-HA complex and EDTA or DTPA (0.1 mM) for 1, 4, or 14 days Study the release and diffusion of Fe from Fe-HA chelates and its availability to growing plants EDTA and DTPA attracted and chelated substantial amounts of the 59Fe bonded by the HA, presumably by a ligand exchange process Bocanegra et al., 2004
HA (from mollisol) HA100,000 (>100 KDa); HA10,000 (<10 kDa) Helianthus annuus Plants supply of 59Fe-HA (50–100 mg L-1) for 15 days Plant uptake of iron chelated by humic acids of different size Rapid translocation of Fe to the leaves; the small size HA10,000 and EDTA were the most efficient in affecting transport of Fe from root to leaf tissue Bocanegra et al., 2006
HA (from leonardite) Cucumis sativus Roots supply of HA (2, 5, 100, and 250 mg Corg L-1 up to 92 h; 40 μM of Fe were added as Fe-EDTA Dose effect of HA on Fe-deficient response in cucumber plants HA treatments transiently up-regulated in roots CsFRO1, CsIRT1 and CsHA2 expression and increased the Fe(III) chelate-reductase and PM H+-ATPase activity Aguirre et al., 2009
FA (from sphagnum peat) WEHS Solanum lycopersicum Leaves supply of Fe-WEHS (1 μM Fe; 5 mg Corg L-1 WEHS) up to 24 h study on mechanisms induced by Fe-WEHS at the leaf level efficient use of Fe complexed by WEHS, at least in part, also the activation of Fe-acquisition mechanisms operating at the leaf level (upregulation of LeFRO1, LeIRT1 and Ferritin2 genes) Tomasi et al., 2009
Insoluble HS (from Leonardite) and FA (from sphagnum peat) HMW and WEHS Cucumis sativus Plants supply of Fe-HS (0.1–10 μM Fe; 5 mg Corg L-1 HS) up to 11 days efficiency of Fe-IHS complexes in alleviating Fe chlorosis use of Fe insoluble high-molecular weight complexes (Fe-IHS) as an effective product to correct the Fe nutritional disorder Colombo et al., 2012
high molecular weight HS (HA7 extract from black peat) 0.96–68 kDa Brassica napus Leaves, Roots supply of HA7 (100 mg Corg L-1 HA7) up to 1, 3 or 30 days Effect of HA treatment on rapeseed nutrition HA7 incresed the Fe content in shoots and induced the expressionof genes coding for BnIRT1, BnCOPT2, BnNRAMP3 Billard et al., 2013
water soluble HS (from Leonardite) WSHS Cucumis sativus Plants supply of Fe-WSHS (20 μM Fe; Fe:LN = 1:1.1) for 1 day study the use of Fe3+/Fe2+ species in Fe-LN for plant nutrition Fe2+-WSHS use efficiently by plants under hydroponic conditions, while Fe3+-WSHS is used more effectively under calcareous soil conditions Kovács et al., 2013
FA (from sphagnum peat) WEHS Solanum lycopersicum Roots supply of Fe-WEHS (1 μM Fe; 5 mg Corg L-1 WEHS) up to 24 h Physiology and molecular response of Fe-deficient plants increased the 59Fe hydroxide solubilization, the 59Fe root uptake and gene expression of LeFRO1 and LeIRT1 and LeIRT2 Tomasi et al., 2013
FA (from sphagnum peat) WEHS Cucumis sativus Leaves, Roots supply of Fe-WEHS (1 μM Fe; 5 mg Corg L-1 WEHS) up to 5 days Nutrient allocation in leaves of Fe-deficient lants Increased root uptake of nitrate, CO2 assimilation while changed the allocation of several nutrients from the vascular system (K, Cu, and Zn) or trichomes (Ca and Mn) to the entire leaf blade. Tomasi et al., 2014
FA (from sphagnum peat) WEHS Cucumis sativus Leaves supply of Fe-WEHS (1 μM Fe; 5 mg Corg L-1 WEHS) up to 5 days Iron allocation in leaves of Fe-deficient plants stimulated the Fe accumulation and allocation in leaves, the upregulation of three transcripts: CsFRO, CsIRT (both localized next to the midveins) and CsNRAMP (in the interveinal area) Zanin et al., 2015
HA (from leonardite) N/A Triticum aestivum Shoots, Roots Fe–HA (Fe 38.2 mg L-1; 98 mg L-1 HA) The effect of Fe-HA on photosynthesis and lipid profile in Fe-deficient plants Enhanced input of Zn and lipid content in Fe-deficient plants, effect of HAs on the antioxidant status of plants and the plant lipid metabolism Abros’kin et al., 2016
FA (from sphagnum peat) WEHS Solanum lycopersicum Roots supply of Fe-WEHS (1 μM Fe; 5 mg Corg L-1 WEHS) for 1 h Early transcriptomic response in Fe deficient roots Upregulation of Strategy I components, the feedback regulation of these components does not occured. Zamboni et al., 2016
humic fraction (from leonardite) HA, FA Glycine max Plants supply of Fe-HS (10–100 μmol Fe pot-1) up to 60 days Study the Fe-HS use efficiency in soybean roots for Fe nutrition under calcareous conditions Show the effect of HS accumulation on soybean roots in the iron transport from root to shoot and the Fe-biomineralization to form jarosite on the soybean root surface Cieschi and Lucena, 2018
Open in a new tab

It is noteworthy that HS induce a “nutrient acquisition response” even when plants are adequately supplied or during the recovery from a deficiency status, affecting functionality and regulation of nutrient uptake mechanisms. The signaling network at the basis of this behavior starts to be elucidated. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the cross-interaction between root exudates and HS might be part of the cross-talk between plant and soil. These features would favor a prompt adaptation of plants to a specific environment.

Another point of interest studying the behavior of HS is their possible use to develop environmentally friendly fertilization tools, being crucial in terms of circular economy. Although their chemical structure is not yet fully understood and the direct transfer of results obtained in controlled conditions to real soil has been questioned, it is quite clear that HS isolated from different organic sources, when added to nutrient solution or to the soil can favor plant nutrition, and especially nitrogen and Fe accumulation. This implies that humic fractions with different chemical and biological properties could be used to tailor HS-based fertilizers with high use efficiency. This tool could be particularly relevant for precision agriculture aimed at limiting external inputs and optimizing the use of natural resources by crops.

Author Contributions

LZ, NT, and RP wrote the manuscript and SC and ZV critically revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The reviewer YP declared a shared affiliation, though no other collaboration, with one of the authors SC to the handling Editor.

Abbreviations

ABA

abscisic acid

CK

cytokinins

DOM

dissolved organic matter

ET

ethylene

FA

fluvic acids

FRO

ferric chelate reductase

GA

gibberellic acid

HA

humic acids

HS

humic substances

IAA

indole-3-acetic acids

IHS

insoluble HS

IRT

iron transporter

NO

nitric oxide

NRAMP

natural resistance-associated macrophage proteins

PS

phytosiderophores

ROS

reactive oxygen species

TCA

tricarboxylic acid

WEHS

water extractable humic substances

Footnotes

Funding. This work was supported by Dipartimento di Scienze AgroAlimentari, Ambientali e Animali (Di4A), University of Udine (PRID Startup 2018: DOM-BIO).

References

  1. Abros’kin D. P., Fuentes M., Garcia-Mina J. M., Klyain O. I., Senik S. V., Volkov D. S., et al. (2016). The effect of humic acids and their complexes with iron on the functional status of plants grown under iron deficiency. Euras. Soil Sci. 49 1099–1108. 10.1134/s1064229316100021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguirre E., Leménager D., Bacaicoa E., Fuentes M., Baigorri R., Zamarreño A. M., et al. (2009). The root application of a purified leonardite humic acid modifies the transcriptional regulation of the main physiological root responses to Fe deficiency in Fe-sufficient cucumber plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 47 215–223. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2008.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Alberts J. J., Takács M. (2004). Comparison of the natural fluorescence distribution among size fractions of terrestrial fulvic and humic acids and aquatic natural organic matter. Org. Geochem. 35 1141–1149. 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2004.06.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Billard V., Etienne P., Jannin L., Garnica M., Cruz F., Garcia-Mina J. M., et al. (2013). Two biostimulants derived from algae or humic acid induce similar responses in the mineral content and gene expression of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). J. Plant Growth Regul. 33 305–316. 10.1007/s00344-013-9372-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bocanegra M. P., Lobartini J. C., Orioli G. A. (2004). Fe-humate as a source of iron for plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 35 2567–2576. 10.1081/lcss-200030378 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bocanegra M. P., Lobartini J. C., Orioli G. A. (2006). Plant uptake of iron chelated by humic acids of different molecular weights. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. 37 239–248. 10.1080/00103620500408779 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolan N. S., Adriano D. C., Kunhikrishnan A., James T., McDowell R., Senesi N. (2011). Dissolved organic matter: biogeochemistry, dynamics, and environmental significance in soils. Adv. Agron. 110 1–75. [Google Scholar]
  8. Canellas L. P., Olivares F. L. (2014). Physiological responses to humic substances as plant growth promoter. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 1 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  9. Canellas L. P., Olivares F. L., Canellas N. O. A., Mazzei P., Piccolo A. (2019). Humic acids increase the maize seedlings exudation yield. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 6:3. [Google Scholar]
  10. Canellas L. P., Olivares F. L., Okorokova-Façanha A. L., Façanha A. R. (2002). Humic acids isolated from earthworm compost enhance root elongation, lateral root emergence, and plasma membrane HC-ATPase activity in maize roots. Plant Physiol. 130 1951–1957. 10.1104/pp.007088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cesco S., Nikolic M., Römheld V., Varanini Z., Pinton R. (2002). Uptake of 59Fe from soluble 59Fe-humate by cucumber and barley plants. Plant Soil 241 121–128. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cesco S., Römheld V., Varanini Z., Pinton R. (2000). Solubilization of iron by water-extractable humic substances. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 163 285–290. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen Y., Clapp C. E., Magen H. (2004a). Mechanisms of plant growth stimulation by humic substances: the role of organo-iron complexes. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 50 1089–1095. 10.1080/00380768.2004.10408579 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen Y., De Nobili M., Aviad T. (2004b). “Stimulatory effects of humic substances on plant growth,” in Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture, eds Magdoff F., Weil R. R. (New York, NY: CRC Press; ), 103–130. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chen Y., Schnitzer M. (1978). The surface tension of aqueous solutions of soil humic substances. Soil Sci. 125 7–15. 10.1097/00010694-197801000-00002 16126246 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cieschi M. T., Caballero-Molada M., Menéndez N., Naranjo M. A., Lucena J. J. (2017). Long-term effect of a leonardite iron humate improving Fe nutrition as revealed in silico, in vivo, and in field experiments. J. Agr. Food Chem. 65 6554–6563. 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01804 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cieschi M. T., Lucena J. J. (2018). Iron and humic acid accumulation on soybean roots fertilized with leonardite iron humates under calcareous conditions. J. Agr. Food Chem. 66 13386–13396. 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b04021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Colombo C., Palumbo G., He J. Z., Pinton R., Cesco S. (2014). Review on iron availability in soil: interaction of Fe minerals, plants, and microbes. J Soils Sed. 14 538–548. 10.1007/s11368-013-0814-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Colombo C., Palumbo G., Sellitto V. M., Rizzardo C., Tomasi N., Pinton R., et al. (2012). Characteristics of insoluble, high molecular weight Fe-humic substances used as plant Fe sources. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76 1246–1256. [Google Scholar]
  20. Crowley D. (2001). “Function of siderophores in the plant rhizosphere,” in The Rhizosphere: Biochemistry and Organic Substances at the Soil-Plant Interface, eds Pinton R., Varanini Z., Nannipieri P. (New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; ), 223–261. [Google Scholar]
  21. D’Orazio V., Senesi N. (2009). Spectroscopic properties of humic acids isolated from the rhizosphere and bulk soil compartments and fractionated by size-exclusion chromatography. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41 1775–1781. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.02.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Esfahani M. R., Stretz H. A., Wells M. J. M. (2015). Abiotic reversible self-assembly of fulvic and humic acid aggregates in low electrolytic conductivity solutions by dynamic light scattering and zeta potential investigation. Sci. Total Environ. 537 81–92. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fuentes M., Olaetxea M., Baigorri R., Zamarreño A. M., Etienne P., Laîné P., et al. (2013). Main binding sites involved in Fe(III) and Cu(II) complexation in humic-based structures. J. Geochem. Exp. 129 14–17. 10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.12.015 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. García A. C., de Souza L. G. A., Pereira M. G., Castro R. N., García-Mina J. M., Zonta E., et al. (2016a). Structure-property-function relationship in humic substances to explain the biological activity in plants. Sci. Rep. 6:e20798. 10.1038/srep20798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. García A. C., Olaetxea M., Santos L. A., Mora V., Baigorri R., Fuentes M., et al. (2016b). Involvement of hormone-and ROS-signaling pathways in the beneficial action of humic substances on plants growing under normal and stressing conditions. BioMed. Res. Int. 2016:3747501. 10.1155/2016/3747501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. García A. C., Santos L. A., de Souza L. G. A., Tavares O. C. H., Zonta E., Gomes E. T. M., et al. (2016c). Vermicompost humic acids modulate the accumulation and metabolism of ROS in rice plants. J. Plant Physiol. 192 56–63. 10.1016/j.jplph.2016.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. García A. C., Santos L. A., Izquierdo F. G., Sperandio M. V. L., Castro R. N., Berbara R. L. L. (2012). Vermicompost humic acids as an ecological pathway to protect rice plant against oxidative stress. Ecol. Eng. 47 203–208. 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.06.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Garcia-Mina J. M. (2006). Stability, solubility and maximum metal binding capacity in metal–humic complexes involving humic substances extracted from peat and organic compost. Org. Geochem. 37 1960–1972. 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2006.07.027 3244675 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Garcia-Mina J. M. (2007). Advantages and limitations of the use of an extended polyelectrolyte model to describe the proton-Binding process in macromolecular systems. application to a poly(acrylic acid) and a humic acid. J. Phys. Chem. B 111 4488–4494. 10.1021/jp0689518 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Garcia-Mina J. M., Antolín M. C., Sanchez-Diaz M. (2004). Metal-humic complexes and plant micronutrient uptake: a study based on different plant species cultivated in diverse soil types. Plant Soil 258 57–68. 10.1023/b:plso.0000016509.56780.40 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gerke J. (1993). Solubilization of Fe(III) from humic-Fe complexes, humic/Fe-oxide mixtures and from poorly ordered Fe-oxide by organic acids - consequences for P adsorption. Z. Pflanzenernähr. Bodenk. 156 253–257. 10.1002/jpln.19931560311 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Gerke J. (1997). Aluminum and iron(III) species in the soil solution including organic complexes with citrate and humic substances. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 160 427–432. 10.1002/jpln.19971600313 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Gerke J. (2010). Humic (organic matter)-Al(Fe)-phosphate complexes: an underestimated phosphate form in soils and source of plant-available phosphate. Soil Sci. 175 417–425. 10.1097/ss.0b013e3181f1b4dd [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Gerke J. (2018). Concepts and misconceptions of humic substances as the stable part of soil organic matter: a review. Agronomy 8:76 10.3390/agronomy8050076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Gumiński S., Sulej J., Glabiszewski J. (1983). Influence of sodium humate on the uptake of some ions by tomato seedlings. Acta Soc. Bot. Pol. 52 149–164. 10.5586/asbp.1983.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hayes M. H. B. (2006). Solvent systems for the isolation of organic components from soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70 986–994. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jannin L., Arkoun M., Ourry A., Laîné P., Goux D., Garnica M., et al. (2012). Microarray analysis of humic acid effects on Brassica napus growth: involvement of N, C and S metabolisms. Plant Soil 359 297–319. 10.1007/s11104-012-1191-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jindo K., Soares T. S., Peres L. E. P., Azevedo I. G., Aguiar N. O., Mazzei P., et al. (2016). Phosphorus speciation and high-affinity transporters are influenced by humic substances. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 179 206–214. 10.1002/jpln.201500228 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kovács K., Czech V., Fodor F., Solti A., Lucena J. J., Santos-Rosell S., et al. (2013). Characterization of fe–leonardite complexes as novel natural iron fertilizers. J. Agr. Food Chem. 61 12200–12210. 10.1021/jf404455y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kulikova N. A., Badun G. A., Korobkov V. I., Chernysheva M. G., Tsvetkova E. A., Abroskin D. P., et al. (2014). Accumulation of coal humic acids by wheat seedlings: direct evidence using tritium autoradiography and occurrence in lipid fraction. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 177 875–883. 10.1002/jpln.201300648 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lehmann J., Kleber M. (2015). The contentious nature of soil organic matter. Nature 528 60–68. 10.1038/nature16069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lucena J. J. (2003). Fe chelates for remediation of Fe chlorosis in strategy I plants. J. Plant Nutr. 26 1969–1984. 10.1002/jsfa.5726 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mimmo T., Del Buono D., Terzano R., Tomasi N., Vigani G., Crecchio C., et al. (2014). Rhizospheric organic compounds in the soil–microorganism–plant system: their role in iron availability. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65 629–642. 10.1111/ejss.12158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mora V., Bacaicoa E., Zamarreño A. M., Aguirre E., Garnica M., Fuentes M., et al. (2010). Action of humic acid on promotion of cucumber shoot growth involves nitrate-related changes associated with the root-to-shoot distribution of cytokinins, polyamines and mineral nutrients. J. Plant Physiol. 167 633–642. 10.1016/j.jplph.2009.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mora V., Baigorri R., Bacaicoa E., Zamarreño A. M., García-Mina J. M. (2012). The humic acid-induced changes in the root concentration of nitric oxide, IAA and ethylene do not explain the changes in root architecture caused by humic acid in cucumber. Environ. Exp. Bot. 76 24–32. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.10.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Muscolo A., Sidari M., Nardi S. (2013). Humic substance: relationship between structure and activity. deeper information suggests univocal findings. J. Geochem. Explor. 129 57–63. 10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.10.012 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Nardi S., Muscolo A., Vaccaro S., Baiano S., Spaccini R., Piccolo A. (2007). Relationship between molecular characteristics of soil humic fractions and glycolytic pathway and Krebs cycle in maize seedlings. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39 3138–3146. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.07.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Nardi S., Pizzeghello D., Muscolo A., Vianello A. (2002). Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34 1527–1536. 10.1016/s0038-0717(02)00174-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Nebbioso A., Piccolo P. (2011). Basis of a humeomics science: chemical fractionation and molecular characterization of humic biosuprastructures. Biomacromolecules 12 1187–1199. 10.1021/bm101488e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Nevin K. P., Lovley D. R. (2002). Mechanisms for Fe(III) oxide reduction in sedimentary environments. Geomicrobiol. J. 19 141–159. 10.1080/01490450252864253 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Olaetxea M., De Hita D., Garcia C. A., Fuentes M., Baigorri R., Mora V., et al. (2018). Hypothetical framework integrating the main mechanisms involved in the promoting action of rhizospheric humic substances on plant root- and shoot- growth. Appl. Soil Ecol. 123 521–537. 10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Olk D. C., Bloom P. R., Perdue E. M., McKnight D. M., Chen Y., Farenhorst A., et al. (2019). Environmental and agricultural relevance of humic fractions extracted by alkali from soils and natural waters. J. Environ. Qual. 48 217–232. 10.2134/jeq2019.02.0041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Pandeya S. B., Singh A. K., Dhar P. (1998). Influence of fulvic acid on transport of iron in soils and uptake by paddy seedlings. Plant Soil 198 117–125. [Google Scholar]
  54. Piccolo A. (2002). The supramolecular structure of humic substances: a novel understanding of humus chemistry and implications in soil science. Adv. Agron. 75 57–134. 10.1016/s0065-2113(02)75003-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Piccolo A., Conte P., Spaccini R., Chiarella M. (2003). Effects of some dicarboxylic acids on the association of dissolved humic substances. Biol. Fertil. Soils 37 255–259. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pinton R., Cesco S., De Nobili M., Santi S., Varanini Z. (1997). Water and pyrophosphate-extractable humic substances fractions as a source of iron for Fe-deficient cucumber plants. Biol. Fertil. Soils 26 23–27. 10.1007/s003740050337 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Pinton R., Cesco S., Iacolettig G., Astolfi S., Varanini Z. (1999). Modulation of NO3- uptake by water-extractable humic substances: involvement of root plasma membrane H+ ATPase. Plant Soil 215 155–161. [Google Scholar]
  58. Puglisi E., Fragoulis G., Ricciuti P., Cappa F., Spaccini R., Piccolo A., et al. (2009). Effects of a humic acid and its size-fractions on the bacterial community of soil rhizosphere under maize (Zea mays L.). Chemosphere 77 829–837. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.07.077 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Puglisi E., Pascazio S., Suciu N., Cattani I., Fait G., Spaccini R., et al. (2013). Rhizosphere microbial diversity as influenced by humic substance amendments and chemical composition of rhizodeposits. J. Geochem. Explor. 129 82–94. 10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.10.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Quaggiotti S., Ruperti B., Pizzeghello D., Francioso O., Tugnoli V., Nardi S. (2004). Effect of low molecular size humic substances on nitrate uptake and expression of genes involved in nitrate transport in maize (Zea mays L.). J. Exp. Bot. 55 803–813. 10.1093/jxb/erh085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rakshit S., Uchimiya M., Sposito G. (2009). Iron(III) bioreduction in soil in the presence of added humic substances. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73 65–71. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ramos A. C., Dobbss L. B., Santos L. A., Fernandes M. S., Olivares F. L., Aguiar N. O., et al. (2015). Humic matter elicits proton and calcium fluxes and signalling dependent on Ca2+-dependent protein kinase (CDPK) at early stages of lateral plant root development. Chem. Biol. Tech. Agr. 2:3 10.1186/s40538-014-0030-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Roden E. E., Kappler A., Bauer I., Jiang J., Paul A., Stoesser R., et al. (2010). Extracellular electron transfer through microbial reduction of solid-phase humic substances. Nat. Geosci. 3:417 10.1038/ngeo870 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Rose M. T., Patti A. F., Little K. R., Brown A. L., Jackson W. R., Cavagnaro T. R. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of plant-growth response to humic substances: practical implications for agriculture. Adv. Agron. 124 37–89. 10.1016/b978-0-12-800138-7.00002-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Ryan P. R., Delhaize E., Jones D. L. (2001). Function and mechanism of organic anion exudation from plant roots. Annu. Rev. Plant Phys. 52 527–560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Schiavon M., Pizzeghello D., Muscolo A., Vaccaro S., Francioso O., Nardi S. (2010). High molecular size humic substances enhance phenylpropanoid metabolism in maize (Zea mays L.). J. Chem. Ecol. 36 662–669. 10.1007/s10886-010-9790-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Schmidt W., Santi S., Pinton R., Varanini Z. (2007). Water-extractable humic substances alter root development and epidermal cell pattern in Arabidopsis. Plant Soil 300 259–267. 10.1007/s11104-007-9411-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Schwertmann U. (1991). Solubility and dissolution of iron oxides. Plant Soil 130 1–25. 10.1007/bf00011851 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Senesi N. (1992). “Metal-Humic substance complexes in the environment. Molecular and mechanistic aspects by multiple spectroscopic approach,” in Biogeochemistry of Trace Metals, ed. Adriano D. M. (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers; ), 429–495. [Google Scholar]
  70. Skogerboe R. K., Wilson S. A. (1981). Reduction of ionic species by fulvic acid. Wilson A. Anal. Chem. 53 228–232. 10.1021/ac00225a023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Stevenson F. J. (1994). Humus Chemistry. Genesis, Composition, Reactions, 2nd Edn. New York, NY: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  72. Struyk Z., Sposito G. (2001). Redox properties of standard humic acids. Geoderma 102 329–346. 10.1016/s0016-7061(01)00040-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Tavares O. C. H., Santos L. A., Ferreira L. M., Sperandio M. V. L., da Rocha J. G., Garcia A. C., et al. (2017). Humic acid differentially improves nitrate kinetics under low and high-affinity systems and alters the expression of plasma membrane H+-ATPases and nitrate transporters in rice. Ann. Appl. Biol. 170 89–103. 10.1111/aab.12317 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  74. Tipping E. (2002). Cation Binding by Humic Substances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–434. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tomasi N., De Nobili M., Gottardi S., Zanin L., Mimmo T., Varanini Z., et al. (2013). Physiological and molecular aspects of Fe acquisition by tomato plants from natural Fe complexes. Biol. Fertil. Soil 49 187–200. 10.1007/s00374-012-0706-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Tomasi N., Mimmo T., Terzano R., Alfeld M., Janssens K., Zanin L., et al. (2014). Nutrient accumulation in leaves of Fe-deficient cucumber plants treated with natural Fe complexes. Biol. Fert. Soils 50 973–982. 10.1007/s00374-014-0919-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Tomasi N., Rizzardo C., Monte R., Gottardi S., Jelali N., Terzano R., et al. (2009). Micro-analytical, physiological and molecular aspects of Fe acquisition in leaves of Fe-deficient tomato plants re-supplied with natural Fe-complexes in nutrient solution. Plant Soil 325 25–38. 10.1007/s11104-009-0069-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Trevisan S., Botton A., Vaccaro S., Vezzaroa A., Quaggiotti S., Nardi S. (2011). Humic substances affect Arabidopsis physiology by altering the expression of genes involved in primary metabolism, growth and development. Environ. Exp. Bot. 74 45–55. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.04.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Trevisan S., Pizzeghello D., Ruperti B., Francioso O., Sassi A., Palme K., et al. (2010). Humic substances induce lateral root formation and expression of the early auxin-responsive IAA19 gene and DR5 synthetic element in Arabidopsis. Plant Biol. 12 604–614. 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00248.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Urrutia O., Erro J., Guardado I., Mandado M., Garcia-Mina J. M. (2013). Theoretical chemical characterization of phospho-metal humic complexes and relationships with their effects on both phosphorus soil fixation and phosphorus availability for plants. J. Sci. Food Agric. 93 293–303. 10.1002/jsfa.5756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Urrutia O., Erro J., Guardado I., San Francisco S., Mandado M., Baigorri R., et al. (2014). Physico-chemical characterization of humic-metalphosphate complexes and their potential application to the manufacture of new types of phosphate-based fertilizers. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 177 128–136. 10.1002/jpln.201200651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Vaccaro S., Ertani A., Nebbioso A., Muscolo A., Quaggiotti S., Piccolo A., et al. (2015). Humic substances stimulate maize nitrogen assimilation and amino acid metabolism at physiological and molecular level. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2:5 10.1186/s40538-015-0033-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Varanini Z., Pinton R. (2001). “Direct versus indirect effects of soil humic substances on plant growth and nutrition,” in The Rizosphere, eds Pinton R., Varanini Z., Nannipieri P. (Basel: Marcel Dekker; ), 141–158. [Google Scholar]
  84. Varanini Z., Pinton R., De Biasi M. G., Astolfi S., Maggioni A. (1993). Low molecular weight humic substances stimulate H+-ATPase activity of plasma membrane vesicles isolated from oat (Avena sativa L.) roots. Plant Soil 153 61–69. 10.1007/bf00010544 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. von Wirén N., Khodr H., Hider R. C. (2000). Hydroxylated phytosiderophore species possess an enhanced chelate stability and affinity for Iron(III). Plant Physiol. 124 1149–1158. 10.1104/pp.124.3.1149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Vujinovic T., Contin M., Cesco S., Pinton R., Tomasi N., Ceccon P., et al. (2013). “Characterization of humic fractions in leachates from soil under organic and conventional management and their interactions with the root zone,” in Functions of Natural Organic Matter in Changing Environment, eds Xu J., Wu J., He Y. (Dordrecht: Springer; ). [Google Scholar]
  87. Zamboni A., Zanin L., Tomasi N., Avesani L., Pinton R., Varanini Z., et al. (2016). Early transcriptomic response to Fe supply in Fe-deficient tomato plants is strongly influenced by the nature of the chelating agent. BMC Genomics 17:35. 10.1186/s12864-015-2331-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Zandonadi D. B., Santos M. P., Busato J. G., Peres L. E. P., Façanha A. R. (2013). Plant physiology as affected by humified organic matter. Theor. Exp. Plant Phys. 25 12–25. [Google Scholar]
  89. Zandonadi D. B., Santos M. P., Caixeta L. S., Marinho E. B., Peres L. E. P., Façanha A. R. (2016). Plant proton pumps as markers of biostimulant action. Sci. Agric. 73 24–28. 10.1590/0103-9016-2015-0076 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  90. Zandonadi D. B., Santos M. P., Dobbss L. B., Olivares F. L., Canellas L. P., Binzel M. L., et al. (2010). Nitric oxide mediates humic acids induced root development and plasma membrane H+-ATPase activation. Planta 231 1025–1036. 10.1007/s00425-010-1106-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Zanin L., Tomasi N., Rizzardo C., Gottardi S., Terzano R., Alfeld M., et al. (2015). Iron allocation in leaves of Fe-deficient cucumber plants fed with natural Fe complexes. Physiol. Plant. 154 82–94. 10.1111/ppl.12296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Zanin L., Tomasi N., Zamboni A., Sega D., Varanini Z., Pinton R. (2018). Water-extractable humic substances speed up transcriptional response of maize roots to nitrate. Environ. Exp. Bot. 147 167–178. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.12.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Plant Science are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES