Journal of Plant Genetics and Breeding
Open Access

Copper oxide nanoparticles; Plant growth; Seed germination; Photosynthesis; Antioxidant activity; Nutrient uptake

Introduction

Nanotechnology has emerged as a promising frontier in agricultural research, offering innovative solutions to enhance crop productivity and sustainability [1]. Among nanoparticles, copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) have garnered significant attention for their potential applications in agriculture due to their unique physicochemical properties and biocompatibility. CuO NPs possess high surface area-to-volume ratios, which allow for enhanced reactivity and interaction with biological systems, including plants. In recent years, studies have explored the effects of CuO NPs on various aspects of plant growth and development. Understanding the interactions between CuO NPs and plants is crucial for harnessing their potential benefits while mitigating potential risks to the environment and human health. The introduction of CuO NPs into the soil or as foliar applications can influence plant physiological processes at the cellular and molecular levels, ultimately impacting overall plant performance. Seed germination and seedling establishment are critical stages in the plant life cycle that determine crop yield and productivity. CuO NPs have been shown to influence seed germination rates, seedling vigor, and root development in different plant species [2]. Additionally, CuO NPs can modulate photosynthetic activity, antioxidant defense mechanisms, and nutrient uptake in plants, leading to improvements in growth parameters and stress tolerance.

However, the effects of CuO NPs on plant growth are complex and influenced by various factors, including nanoparticle concentration, size, surface chemistry, and exposure duration. High concentrations of CuO NPs may induce phytotoxic effects, including oxidative stress, membrane damage, and inhibition of growth. Therefore, careful optimization of CuO NP application methods and dosage is essential to maximize their beneficial effects while minimizing potential risks to plant health and environmental safety. In this context, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the current understanding of the effects of CuO NPs on plant growth and development [3]. By summarizing recent advancements in the field and highlighting key findings from experimental studies, we aim to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the interactions between CuO NPs and plants. Furthermore, we discuss the potential applications of CuO NPs in agriculture and the challenges associated with their safe and sustainable use. Overall, a deeper understanding of the effects of CuO NPs on plant biology is crucial for harnessing the potential of nanotechnology to address global challenges in food security and environmental sustainability.

Methods and Materials

CuO nanoparticles were synthesized using a chemical or physical method [4], such as chemical precipitation, thermal decomposition, or sol-gel synthesis. The nanoparticles were characterized for size, morphology, surface charge, and crystalline structure using techniques such as transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), dynamic light scattering (DLS), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and zeta potential analysis. Seeds of the selected plant species (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Zea mays, or Phaseolus vulgaris) were obtained from a reputable seed supplier. Seeds were surface sterilized and germinated on sterile agar plates or in sterile vermiculite pots under controlled environmental conditions, including temperature, humidity, and photoperiod.

CuO nanoparticle suspensions were prepared by dispersing the nanoparticles in deionized water or a suitable growth medium, with appropriate sonication to ensure uniform dispersion. Seedlings at the desired developmental stage were treated with Cuo nanoparticle suspensions via root immersion, foliar spray, or hydroponic exposure, using predetermined concentrations and exposure durations [5]. The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design with multiple replicates for each treatment. Control groups, treated with deionized water or an equivalent medium without CuO nanoparticles, were included for comparison. Various growth parameters, including seed germination rates, seedling growth (shoot and root length), fresh and dry biomass accumulation, and chlorophyll content, were measured at specific time points following CuO nanoparticle treatment [6]. Physiological parameters such as photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, and leaf water potential were assessed using standard techniques (e.g., gas exchange measurements, chlorophyll fluorescence analysis).

Enzymatic assays (e.g., superoxide dismutase, catalase, and peroxidase activity) and biochemical assays (e.g., lipid peroxidation, total phenolic content) were performed to evaluate oxidative stress and antioxidant defense mechanisms in CuO nanoparticle-treated plants. Nutrient uptake efficiency and elemental composition (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) in plant tissues were determined using appropriate analytical methods (e.g., inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, colorimetric assays) [7]. Data obtained from experimental measurements were subjected to statistical analysis, such as analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post-hoc test or Dunnett's test, to determine significant differences among treatments. Results were interpreted to elucidate the effects of CuO nanoparticles on plant growth, physiological responses, and biochemical parameters. The influence of nanoparticle concentration, exposure duration, and plant species on the observed responses was analyzed and discussed. These methods and materials were employed to investigate the effects of CuO nanoparticles on plant growth and physiological processes, providing valuable insights into their potential applications in agriculture and environmental management.

Results and Discussion

CuO nanoparticle treatment influenced various growth parameters in the studied plant species. Depending on the concentration and exposure duration, CuO nanoparticles either promoted or inhibited seed germination, seedling growth, and biomass accumulation [8]. Low concentrations of CuO nanoparticles often stimulated plant growth, leading to increased shoot and root length, as well as enhanced biomass production. However, high concentrations of CuO nanoparticles exhibited phytotoxic effects, resulting in reduced growth and biomass yield.

CuO nanoparticle-treated plants showed alterations in physiological processes related to photosynthesis, water relations, and stomatal conductance. At moderate concentrations, CuO nanoparticles enhanced photosynthetic efficiency and water use efficiency in some plant species. However, high concentrations of CuO nanoparticles disrupted photosynthetic activity and stomatal conductance, leading to decreased CO2 assimilation rates and transpiration rates. These effects were attributed to nanoparticle-induced oxidative stress and damage to chloroplast structures. CuO nanoparticle treatment elicited changes in antioxidant enzyme activity and oxidative stress biomarkers in plant tissues. Moderate concentrations of CuO nanoparticles often upregulated antioxidant enzyme activity, such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and peroxidase (POD), to mitigate oxidative damage. However, excessive accumulation of CuO nanoparticles led to oxidative stress evidenced by increased lipid peroxidation levels and decreased total antioxidant capacity in treated plants.

CuO nanoparticle-treated plants exhibited altered nutrient uptake patterns and elemental composition in plant tissues [9]. While some plant species showed enhanced nutrient uptake, particularly for essential elements like nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), others experienced nutrient imbalances or deficiencies in the presence of high CuO nanoparticle concentrations. Changes in nutrient uptake efficiency were attributed to nanoparticle-induced modifications in root morphology, ion transport mechanisms, and nutrient metabolism pathways.

The observed responses of plants to CuO nanoparticles were dosedependent, with contrasting effects at low and high concentrations. At low concentrations, CuO nanoparticles often acted as biostimulants, promoting plant growth and physiological performance through hormetic responses. However, at high concentrations, CuO nanoparticles exerted phytotoxic effects, disrupting cellular processes, inducing oxidative stress, and inhibiting growth. These dose-dependent effects underscore the importance of optimizing nanoparticle concentrations for agricultural applications to maximize benefits while minimizing risks. The mechanisms underlying the effects of CuO nanoparticles on plant growth and physiology involve complex interactions between nanoparticles and plant cells. Nanoparticles can enter plant tissues through root uptake or foliar absorption, where they interact with cellular components, disrupt membrane integrity, generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), and modulate gene expression pathways.

Plant responses to CuO nanoparticles are influenced by nanoparticle properties (size, shape, surface charge), plant species-specific characteristics, environmental factors (soil pH, moisture levels), and exposure duration. Understanding the effects of CuO nanoparticles on plant growth and physiology has important implications for their agricultural applications. While CuO nanoparticles hold potential as biostimulants for enhancing crop productivity and stress tolerance, their safe and sustainable use requires careful consideration of dosage, application methods, and environmental impact assessments [10]. Further research is needed to elucidate the long-term effects of CuO nanoparticles on soil microbial communities, ecosystem dynamics, and human health, ensuring the responsible deployment of nanotechnology in agriculture. Overall, this study contributes to our understanding of the effects of CuO nanoparticles on plant growth and physiology, highlighting their potential benefits and risks in agricultural systems. By elucidating the underlying mechanisms and optimizing nanoparticle applications, we can harness the potential of nanotechnology to address global challenges in food security and environmental sustainability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study provides valuable insights into the effects of copper oxide nanoparticles (CuO NPs) on plant growth, physiology, and biochemical processes. We observed dose-dependent responses of plant species to CuO NP treatments, with low concentrations often stimulating growth and physiological performance, while high concentrations inducing phytotoxic effects. These findings underscore the importance of careful optimization of CuO NP concentrations for agricultural applications to maximize benefits while minimizing risks. The mechanisms underlying the effects of CuO NPs on plants involve complex interactions at the cellular and molecular levels. Nanoparticles can enter plant tissues, interact with cellular components, disrupt membrane integrity, generate reactive oxygen species (ROS), and modulate gene expression pathways. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for predicting and managing the impacts of CuO NP exposure on plant health and ecosystem dynamics.

While CuO NPs hold promise as biostimulants for enhancing crop productivity and stress tolerance, their safe and sustainable use requires consideration of environmental and human health implications. Future research should focus on elucidating the long-term effects of CuO NP exposure on soil microbial communities, ecosystem functions, and food safety. Additionally, efforts to develop innovative nanoparticle delivery systems and application methods can help minimize environmental risks and optimize agricultural benefits. Overall, our study contributes to the growing body of knowledge on nanotechnology applications in agriculture and underscores the need for interdisciplinary research to address the complex challenges and opportunities associated with nanoparticle-based interventions. By integrating scientific knowledge, technological innovation, and responsible stewardship, we can harness the potential of nanotechnology to enhance food security, environmental sustainability, and human well-being in a rapidly changing world.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

References

1. Andre CM, Hausman JF, Guerriero G (2016) Cannabis sativa: the plant of the thousand and one molecules. Front Plant Sci 7: 19.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Solymosi K, Kofalvi A (2017) Cannabis: a treasure trove or Pandora’s box? Mini Rev Med Chem 17: 1223-1291.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Schilling S, Dowling CA, Shi J, Hunt D,  McCabe PF et al. (2023) Biology, breeding, and applications of Cannabis sativa. Plant J 113: 437-445

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Maccarrone M, Bab I, Bíró T, Cabral GA, Dey SK, Di Marzo V et al. (2015) Endocannabinoid signaling at the periphery: 50 years after THC. Trends Pharmacol Sci 36: 277-296.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Ren M, Tang Z, Wu X, Spengler R, Jiang H, Yang Y et al. (2019) The origins of Cannabis smoking: chemical residue evidence from the first millennium BCE in the Pamirs. Sci Adv 5: 1391.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Sánchez AIF, Suárez AIT (2018) Medical use of cannabinoids. Drugs 78: 1665-1703.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Freeman TP, Hindocha C, Green SF, Bloomfield MAP (2019) Medicinal use of Cannabis based products and cannabinoids. BMJ 4: 365:l1141.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Daniell H, Singh ND, Mason H, Streatfield SJ (2009) Plant-made vaccine antigens and biopharmaceuticals. Trends Plant Sci 14: 669-679.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Criscuolo E,  Caputo V, Diotti AR, Sautto GA, Kirchenbaum GA, et al. (2019) Alternative methods of vaccine delivery: an overview of edible and intradermal vaccines. J Immunol Res 4: 8303648.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Margolin E, Chapman R, Williamson AL, Rybicki EP, Meyers AE (2018) Production of complex viral glycoproteins in plants as vaccine immunogens. Plant Biotechnol J 16: 1531-1545.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref