DOCSLIB.ORG

The Microbiome of Acer Saccharum: Environmental Drivers of Microbial Communities in Different Plant Structures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Microbiome of Acer Saccharum: Environmental Drivers of Microbial Communities in Different Plant Structures UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL THE MICROBIOME OF ACER SACCHARUM: ENVIRONMENTAL DRIVERS OF MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES IN DIFFERENT PLANT STRUCTURES THESIS PRESENTED AS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT OF THE MASTERS OF BIOLOGY BY JESSICA WALLACE AUGUST 2016 UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL Service des bibliothèques Avertissement La diffusion de ce mémoire se fait dans le respect des droits de son auteur, qui a signé le formulaire Autorisation de reproduire et de diffuser un travail de recherche de cycles supérieurs (SDU-522 - Rév.0?-2011 ). Cette autorisation stipule que «conformément à l'article 11 du Règlement no 8 des études de cycles supérieurs, [l 'auteur] concède à l'Université du Québec à Montréal une licence non exclusive d'utilisation et de publication de la totalité ou d'une partie importante de [son] travail de recherche pour des fins pédagogiques et non commerciales. Plus précisément, [l 'auteur] autorise l'Université du Québec à Montréal à reprodu ire , diffuser, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de [son] travail de recherche à des fins non commerciales sur quelque support que ce soit, y compris l'Internet. Cette licence et cette autorisation n'entraînent pas une renonciation de [la] part [de l'auteur] à [ses] droits moraux ni à [ses] droits de propriété intellectuelle. Sauf entente contraire, [l 'auteur] conserve la liberté de diffuser et de commercialiser ou non ce travail dont [il] possède un exemplaire.» UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL LE MICROBIOME D'ACER SACCHARUM: L'INFLUENCE DES FACTEURS ENVIRONNEMENTAUX SUR LES COMMUNAUTÉS MICROBIENNES DES TISSUS VÉGÉTAUX MÉMOIRE PRÉSENTÉE COMME EXIGENCE PARTIELLE DE LA MAÎTRISE EN BIOLOGIE PAR JESSICA WALLACE AOÛT 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ......... .... .. .. .... .......... ............ .......................... ii LIST OF FIGURES ... ........ ........ .. ........................................ ..... .. ....... vi LIST OF TABLES ..... ..... ........................ .. .................. .. ... ................ viii ABSTRACT .......... ... .................. ................... .... ........ .... ... .... ... ...... .. x RÉSUMÉ ......... ........... ..... ....... .. .......... ..... ..... .. ........ ... ........ .... .... .. xi INTRODUCTION ................ ........................ ...................................... 1 CHAPTERI THE MICROBIOME OF ACER SACCHARUM SEEDLINGS: ELEVATIONAL RANGE LIMIT EFFECTS IN DIFFERENT PLANT STRUCTURES ......... ......... 9 1.1 Introduction .... .... ... ............. .. .. .... ..... ... ...... ... .............. .. .... ..... ....... 9 1.2 Materials and Methods .. ... .... ... ... ... ...... ... .... .. ......... ........ ........ ..... ... 14 1.2.1 Specimen collection .. .......................................... .... .. ............. 14 1.2.2 Functional traits and biometries ................................................. 15 1.2.3 Sample preparation and DNA extraction ................. ..... ... ...... .... .. ... 16 1.2.4 PCR and multiplexing for 16S rRNA gene sequencing .. .. .................. 18 1.2.5 PCR and multiplexing for ITS fungal sequencing ...... ............................... 19 1.2.6 DNA sequencing processing and data analysis .... .. .. .. .. .................... 21 1.2.7 Indicator species anal y sis ...... ... ................................................ 22 1.2.8 Statistical analysis ....... .. .. .... ...... .. ... .... .. .. ...... .... ..................... 23 1.3 Results .. .... .. .. ..... ...... .. ...... ... ....... ... .......... .. ... ......... ... ........ ......... 25 · 1.3 .1 Taxonomie composition of bacterial communities ..................... ....... 25 1.3 .2 Indicator species anal y sis of bac teri al taxa ........... .............. .. .. .... .. 26 1.3.3 Differences in bacterial community structure among structures and tissues .. .......... .... ..... .. ... ...... ..... .. ... .... ..... .... ... .. ... .. .... .. ................. ..... " 27 1.3.4 Differences in bacterial community phylogenetic structure .................. 28 1.3.5 Taxonomie composition offungal communities ... ............... ........ .... 28 1.3.6 Shannon diversity of bacterial communities ....... .............................. 29 111 1. 3.7 Correlations of microbial communities with functional traits of host plant ................ ....... ...... .. ............ .......... ... .. .... : ........ ..... ·········· ··· ······ 30 1.4 Discussion ............... ............ ... ................................. ................... 31 1.4.1 Taxonomie distribution of bacterial and fungal communities ............... 31 1.4.2 Microbial associations with different plant structures and tissues ........ .. 32 1.4.3 Analysis of variance between stmctures, tissues and enviromnents ........ 34 1.4.4 Microbial richness and diversity differed between plant structure and tissue ................. .. ........ ... .... ... .. .. .. .. ... ...... .... ......... .... ..................... ... 36 1.4.5 Correlations between microbial communities and host functional traits ···· ···· ···························· ............. ........ .................... ...... .. ..... .... 38 1.4.6 Comparison of bacterial and fungal results in root endophytic communities .... .... ..... ..... .... ... ..... ....... ... .... .. .. ... ...... ..... ..... .. ... .... ................... 39 1.5 Conclusion ... ... ....... ... .. .. .... ..... .. ................... ............. ... ............... 40 CHAPTER II THE MICROBIOME OF ACER SACCHARUM SAPLINGS: EFFECTS OF DIFFERE T SOILS AND CANOPY COVERS IN ENDOPHYTIC AND EPIPHYTie BACTERIAL AND FUN GAL COMMUNITIES ... ............. ......... 58 2.1 Introduction .. .... ............................. ............ ....... .... ........... ........... 58 2.2 Materials and Methods .................. .. ... ...... ..... .. .......... ... ..... ............. 62 2.2. 1 Specimen collection ................ .... ... .... .. ............... ............ ....... 62 2.2.2 Functional traits and biometries ......................... ... ... .. ....... ..... .. ... 63 2.2.3 Sample preparation and DNA extraction ... ... ...... .. ....... ..... .......... ... 64 2.2.4 PCR and multiplexing for 16S rRNA and ITS sequencing ........................ 66 2.2.5 DNA sequencing processing and data analysis ....... ............... .......... 67 2.2.6 Indicator species analysis of bacterial taxa .. ................. ....... ..... .. .... 69 - 2.2.7 Statistical analysis .... .. ......................................... ..... ........ ...... 70 2.3 Results ................... .... ..................................................... ......... 71 2.3 .1 Taxonomie composition of bac te rial cornmunities ........ ...... ............. 72 2.3 .2 lndicator species ana1ysis of bacterial taxa ... .. ....... ...... ...... .. ....... ... 73 lV 2.3 .3 Differences in bacterial community structure among structures and tissues .. .... .. ..... .................................... ... ..... .... .... ..... .. ... ......... ...... .. ... 74 2.3.4 Differences in bacterial commLmity phylogenetic structme .............. .... 75 2.3 .5 Taxonomie composition offungal communities ..... ... ...................... 75 2.3 .6 Differences in fungal cornmunity structure among tissues and soi! samples ·················· ·· ·· ··· ···· ·· ········ ······ ················· ···· .. ....... ... .... ....... .. .... 76 2.3.7 Shannon diversity offungal and bacterial communities .... ........ ... ... .. .. 76 2.3.8 Conelations of microbial communities with functional traits of host plant ·············· ········ ·· ············ ... ............... ........... .. .. .... .. ...... ........ ...... 77 2.4 Discussion .. .... .. ........... ..... .. ............... .................. ......... ............. 78 2.4. 1 Taxonomie distribution of bacterial and fungal communities ....... ..... .. 7~ 2.4.2 Microbial associations with different plant structures, tissues and envirorunents .. ............... .. ..................... ....... .... .. .. .. .. ... .......... .... .. 79 2.4.3 Analysis of variance between structures, tissues and envirorunents ... .. ............................ ... ...... ..... ..... .. .... .. .. ... .. ............... .. ..... ...... 81 2.4.4 Microbial richness and diversity differed between plant structure and tissue ......... ............... ... ... ...... ... .. .. .. ...... .............. ..... .... ......... .. .. .. ... ... 83 2.4.5 Conelations between microbial communities and host functional traits .... ... ........ ......... ................. .. ...... .... ............ .. ··· ········· ·· ·············· 84 2.4.6 Comparison of bacterial and fungal results in endophytic communities ... 85 2.5 Conclusion .............. ......... ........ ......... ... ............... ... ... ... .... .......... 86 CONCLUSION .............. .. ....... ... ....... ... ....... ... .. ...... .. .. .. ............. : ..... 102 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....... ..... ... ...... ... ..... ... .. ..... .... .... .. ... ... .... ............... 105 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 Relative abundances of bacteria and fungi ph y la in the different plant tissues and surfaces of sugar maple seedlings ................. 42 1.2 Cladograms ofLEfSe results showing bacterial indicator taxa at the phyla levels comparing epiphytie to endophytic and root- associated to leaf-associated communities .. .......... .... ......... .. 43 1.3 Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination using Bray-Curtis distance of the dissirnilarity between bacterial communities from different plant surfaces and tissues
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality
    2 Journal of Sugar Beet Research Vol. 52 Nos. 1 & 2 Relationships Among Impurity Components, Sucrose, and Sugarbeet Processing Quality L. G. Campbell and K.K. Fugate USDA-ARS Northern Crop Science Laboratory, Fargo, ND 58102-2765 Corresponding author: Larry Campbell ([email protected]) DOI: 10.5274/jsbr.52.1.2 ABSTRACT Sodium, potassium, amino-nitrogen, and invert sugar are nat- urally-occurring constituents of the sugarbeet root, referred to as impurities, which impede sucrose extraction during rou- tine factory operations. Three germplasm lines selected for low sodium, potassium, or amino-nitrogen and a line selected for high amino-nitrogen concentration from the same parental population and two lines selected from another source, one for high and the other for low amino-nitrogen concentration, were the basis for examining relationships among the impurity components and between the impurity components and sucrose concentration, sucrose loss to mo- lasses, and sucrose extraction rate. Concentrations of the three impurity components were altered through selection; however, in no case did this result in a consistent significant increase in sucrose concentration or estimates of the propor- tion of the sucrose that would be extracted. Correlation analyses indicated a larger role for sodium than for potas- sium or amino-nitrogen in determining relative sucrose con- centration. Selection for low sodium concentration, however, did not increase the percent extractable sucrose, relative to the parental population. The probability of significant im- provement in the processing quality of elite germplasm by re- ducing the concentration of individual impurity components appears to be low, based upon the populations examined in this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Biotechnology Statement Sugar Beet Derived Granulated, Brown And
    Biotechnology statement Sugar beet derived granulated, brown and liquid sugar produced by our partners, Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC, Spreckels Sugar Company, and Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, and marketed by NSM has been extracted from sugar beets grown from seed utilizing Monsanto event H7-1. The pure sugar does not contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins derived from genetically modified DNA. In the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (December 21, 2018), described in 7 CFR Part 66, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has affirmed “that foods with undetectable modified genetic material are not bioengineered foods.” Pursuant to 7 CFR Part 66 §66.9 (b)(2) the refining process completely excludes all genetic components. The sugar has been tested and shown to be PCR negative. The sugar is the same as that produced from traditional beet seed. Therefore, no bioengineered food labeling is required. Powdered sugar is produced by fracturing beet or cane sugar crystals to a defined particle size resulting in the various grades (6X,10X,12X, etc.) and adding a small amount (2- 4% by weight) of cornstarch. The cornstarch is added as an anti-caking agent to promote the flowability of the product. Powdered sugar is produced using two grades of cornstarch. Conventional cornstarch may be derived from genetically modified corn, and the powdered sugar could, therefore, be considered genetically modified. Identity preserved (IP) cornstarch is added to cane sugar to produce a non-GMO powdered sugar and is designated as non-GMO. Granulated and liquid cane sugar provided by National Sugar Marketing LLC (NSM) has been produced from sugar cane that has not been genetically modified nor does it contain genetically modified DNA and or proteins.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Branch Cooling Increases Foliar Sugar and Anthocyanin Concentrations in Sugar Maple at the End of the Growing Season Paul G
    696 NOTE Experimental branch cooling increases foliar sugar and anthocyanin concentrations in sugar maple at the end of the growing season Paul G. Schaberg, Paula F. Murakami, John R. Butnor, and Gary J. Hawley Abstract: Autumnal leaf anthocyanin expression is enhanced following exposure to a variety of environmental stresses and may represent an adaptive benefit of protecting leaves from those stresses, thereby allowing for prolonged sugar and nutrient resorption. Past work has shown that experimentally induced sugar accumulations following branch girdling triggers anthocyanin biosynthesis. We hypothesized that reduced phloem transport at low autumnal temperatures may increase leaf sugar concentrations that stimulate anthocyanin production, resulting in enhanced tree- and landscape-scale color change. We used refrigerant-filled tubing to cool individual branches in a mature sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) tree to test whether phloem cooling would trigger foliar sugar accumulations and enhance anthocyanin biosynthesis. Cooling increased foliar sucrose, glucose, and fructose concentrations 2- to nearly 10-fold (depending on the specific sugar and sampling date) relative to controls and increased anthocyanin concentrations by approximately the same amount. Correlation analyses indicated a strong and steady positive relationship between anthocyanin and sugar concentrations, which was consistent with a mechanistic link between cooling-induced changes in these constituents. Tested here at the branch level, we propose that low temperature induced
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Neonicotinoids in Pelleted Sugar Beet Seeds
    International Confederation of European Beet Growers CONFEDERATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG DES BETTERAVIERS EUROPEENS EUROPÄISCHER RÜBENANBAUER * * CONFEDERAZIONE INTERNAZIONALE MIĘDZYNARODOWA KONFEDERACJA DEI BIETICOLTORI EUROPEI EUROPEJSKICH PLANTATORÓW BURAKA 111/9 Boulevard Anspachlaan – B-1000 Brussels Tel: +32 2 504 60 90 – Fax: +32 2 504 60 99 www.cibe-europe.eu D.58/2.4.2018 Brussels, 2nd April 2018 The case for neonicotinoids in pelleted sugar beet seeds Introduction Within the context of the current debate on neonicotinoids, CIBE wishes to explain with the present note that the use of neonicotinoid-treated beet seed pellets is a good agricultural practice in sustainable sugar beet growing. 1. Neonicotinoid seed treatment in sugar beet does not endanger non-target organisms (including pollinators) and the environment Sugar beet is not attractive to pollinators since it does not flower/produce pollen during the growing period used for sugar production. The release of neonicotinoids to the environment via guttation or harvest residues is very low because: sugar beet is a low guttation crop with few and small droplets, and only at high humidity level (>90%); due to this comparative rareness of crop guttation in sugar beet (see illustration below), exposure to neonicotinoids from guttation seems to be unlikely because guttation droplets from sugar beet are unlikely to serve as a preferred source for e.g. water foraging bees; neonicotinoids and their metabolites occur in very low concentrations in the soil after harvest. This low concentration, combined with the fact that practically no flowering plants are found in a beet field during the early stage of crop development (EFSA Peer reviews of the pesticide risk assessment for the active substances imidacloprid & clothianidin, November 2016) and especially after harvest, makes it less likely that non-target organisms in general and pollinators in particular risk being exposed to neonicotinoids (Baker et al 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • The Viability of Tree Leaves for Cellulosic Ethanol
    The Viability of Tree Leaves for Cellulosic Ethanol. Testing Select Quercus & Acer saccharum species for glucose content through acid & enzyme hydrolysis Ryan Caudill Grove High School 2013-14 Purpose The purpose of this project is to measure the glucose levels in leaves collected from two varieties of sugar maple and two varieties of oak trees to see if they are viable sources for cellulosic ethanol production. The varieties to be tested are: Acer saccharum “Caddo” (Caddo sugar maple) Acer saccharum “Commemoration” (Commemoration sugar maple) Quercus rubra (red oak) Quercus alba (white oak) Hypothesis A. It is hypothesized that the leaves of two sugar maple varieties, Acer saccharum “Caddo” and Acer saccharum “Commemoration” will contain higher levels of glucose than the leaves of the two varieties of Oak, Quercus alba and Quercus rubra. B. It is also hypothesized that the leaves of all varieties chosen will contain enough glucose to be viable sources for cellulosic ethanol production. Background Research Carbon based fuels have been used in past generations and generations to come. Carbon based fuels are a great source of energy this is why they are used as fuels. When these fuels are burned for their energy to be released this will add carbon to the atmosphere, and that’s not a good thing. Carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity. Also Carbon fuels are in a limited supply, they are nonrenewable and they are being used up at a very quick rate. It is important for the introduction of good reliable fuels that can be used on a very large scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Picture Tour: Growing Sugarbeets
    1 Picture Tour: Growing Sugarbeets Saginaw Valley Research and Extension Center agbioresearch.msu.edu Images of: Plowing · Planting · Crop emergence · Growth · Fields · Harvest PLOWING Most beet ground is either moldboard or chisel plowed in the fall. Better stands are often achieved if the soil is worked early and seeds are planted into a stale seed bed. Land is tilled in the spring to level the ground and incorporate fertilizer, usually the day before or the day of planting. 2 Sugar beets are typically planted from March 31 to May 15. PLANTING Beets are planted in rowspacings from 15-30". Rows are planted as straight as possible to make it easier to cultivate and harvest. 3 Seed is dropped into the row and pressed firmly into moisture. CROP EMERGENCE Beets generally emerge 1-2 weeks after planting. 4 Leaves emerge in pairs. Beets are most susceptible to injury from frost, wind, disease, herbicides etc. during the first 30 days. 5 GROWTH As beets grow, the leaves develop a waxy coat and the taproot grows downward in search of water and nutrients. During July the root enlarges and stores sugar created by photosynthesis .Sugar beet roots continue to grow until harvest. 6 As beets mature the crown often extends above the surface of the soil. FIELDS Sugar beets will usually fill the rows by the end of June. Beet leaves continue to grow and expand, utilizing all available sunlight. 7 HARVEST Beet leaves are removed prior to harvest with a rotating drum topper. Rubber flails remove leaves and petioles in the topping operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethanol from Sugar Beets: a Process and Economic Analysis
    Ethanol from Sugar Beets: A Process and Economic Analysis A Major Qualifying Project Submitted to the faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Bachelor of Science Emily Bowen Sean C. Kennedy Kelsey Miranda Submitted April 29th 2010 Report submitted to: Professor William M. Clark Worcester Polytechnic Institute This report represents the work of three WPI undergraduate students submitted to the faculty as evidence of completion of a degree requirement. WPI routinely publishes these reports on its website without editorial or peer review. i Acknowledgements Our team would first like to thank Professor William Clark for advising and supporting our project. We greatly appreciate the guidance, support, and help he provided us with throughout the project. We also want to thank the scientists and engineers at the USDA who provided us with the SuperPro Designer file and report from their project “Modeling the Process and Costs of Fuel Ethanol Production by the Corn Dry-Grind Process”. This information allowed us to thoroughly explore the benefits and disadvantages of using sugar beets as opposed to corn in the production of bioethanol. We would like to thank the extractor vendor Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG (BMA) for providing us with an approximate extractor cost with which we were able to compare data gained through our software. Finally, we want to thank Worcester Polytechnic Institute for providing us with the resources and software we needed to complete our project and for providing us with the opportunity to participate in such a worthwhile and rewarding project. ii Abstract The aim of this project was to design a process for producing bioethanol from sugar beets as a possible feedstock replacement for corn.
    [Show full text]
  • Proximate, Chemical Compositions and Sensory Properties of Wine Produced from Beetroot (Beta Vulgaris)
    Chemical Science Review and Letters ISSN 2278-6783 Research Article Proximate, Chemical Compositions and Sensory Properties of Wine Produced from Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) Ezenwa Mo1*, Eze Ji1 and Okolo Ca2 1Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria 2Department of Food Science and Technology, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria Abstract Table wine was produced from juice which had been The vitamin and mineral contents of the anaerobic and extracted from washed and peeled beetroot. Fermentation aerobic fermented wine samples were Pro-vitamin A of the juice lasted for 21days at room temperature and (24.16-25.83mg/100mL), Vitamin B1, (0.523- aging for 21days at below 100C. The wine sample 0.433mg/100mL), Vitamin C (1.697- produced under anaerobic and aerobic fermentation was 1.873mg/100mL), Vitamin E (0.315-0.374mg/100mL) coded BN and BA respectively. A commercial table wine and iron content (0.750-0.773mg/100mL), potassium (WBO) was used as reference sample. There were (28.360-29.056 mg/100mL), Magnesium (0.780-0.803 gradual changes in the physicochemical properties of the mg/100mL). The commercial sample was the most must as fermentation (aerobic and anaerobic) and ageing preferred with highest score (7.70) in general lasted. There was reduction in the pH from 4.7 to 3.9, acceptability. The anaerobic fermented wine sample Specific gravity from 1.092 to 1.021, 0Brix from 21.84 to was more preferred with higher score (7.13) in general 6.22 and increase were recorded for alcohol from 0 to 8.4 acceptability.
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle AS1365
    AS1365 (Revised) Feeding Sugar Beet Byproducts to Cattle Reviewed by variety of options to choose from in Sugar Beet Processing alternative feeds; however, the choice Greg Lardy To better understand the nutrient of those feeds depends on several NDSU Animal Sciences characteristics of sugar beet Department Head factors, including availability and byproducts, understanding the nutrient composition, as well as process that is used to extract storage and handling characteristics. sugar from sugar beets is important. The Red River Valley region of One possibility is to incorporate At the processing plant, foreign Minnesota and North Dakota, along sugar beet byproducts into the diet. material, small beets and leaves with the Yellowstone and Upper Beet byproducts are fed predominantly are removed from the beets prior to Missouri River Valley regions of in northeastern South Dakota, western processing. This material is known North Dakota and Montana, are Minnesota and eastern North Dakota, as “sugar beet tailings,” which important sugar beet-producing as well as western North Dakota and also is used as livestock feed. regions. In fact, Minnesota, North eastern Montana. This is due to the The sugar beets are sliced into long Dakota and Montana ranked 1, 3 availability and the perishable strips called cossettes. The cossettes and 5, respectively, in sugar beet nature of the wet byproducts. are cooked in hot water to remove the production in 2014. Together, these sugar. This process is called diffusion. three states produced more than The predominant byproducts fed in At the end of the diffusion process, 52 percent of the U.S. sugar beet crop this region are wet beet pulp and beet the hot water and sugar mixture is in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Beets Beta Vulgaris
    Beets Beta vulgaris Entry posted by Yvonne Kerr Schick, Hamilton Horizons student in College Seminar 235 Food for Thought: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Food, Spring 2008. (Photo from flilkcr.com) Scientific Classification1 Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Class: Magnoliopsida Order: Caryophyllales Family: Chenopodiaceae Genis: Beta Species: vulgaris Binomial name Beta vulgaris Etymology The beet is derived from the wild beet or sea beet (Beta maritima) which grows on the coasts of Eurasia.2 Ancient Greeks called the beet teutlion and used it for its leaves, both as a culinary herb and medicinally. The Romans also used the beet medicinally, but were the first to cultivate the plant for its root. They referred to the beet as beta.3 Common names for the beet include: beetroot, chard, European sugar beet, red garden beet, Harvard beet, blood turnip, maangelwurzel, mangel, and spinach beet. Botanical Description The beetroot, commonly called the beet, is a biennial plant that produces seeds the second year of growth and is usually grown as an annual for the fleshy root and young 1 Wikipedia Foundation, Inc., website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beets. 2 A Modern Herbal website: http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/b/beetro28.html. 3 Health Diaries website: http://www.healthdiaries.com/eatthis/25-facts-about-beets.html. leaves. The Beta vulgaris has three basic varieties: chard, grown specifically for its leaves; beets, grown for its bulbous root, with edible leaves (with varieties in white, yellow and red roots); and sugar beets, grown for making sugar from the long, thick root. The beet is a root vegetable with purple-green variegated leaves.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 14 — Syrup
    Chapter 14—Syrup Description of the Product Maple trees become dormant in the winter and store food and Its Uses as liquid starches and sugars. In late winter as tempera- tures begin to rise, the trees start to mobilize these stored Maple syrup is a sweetener, famous for its use on sugars, and the sap begins to move up the trunk to the ° ° pancakes and waffles. It is made by boiling the sap of branches. A combination of cold nights (20 F to 32 F) ° ° maple trees until it thickens into sugary, sweet syrup. and warm days (45 F to 55 F) brings on the greatest sap About 30 to 40 gallons of sap are usually needed to make flow. 1 gallon of pure maple syrup. Both sap flow and sweetness are influenced by heredity Pure maple syrup can only be made from the kinds of and environmental factors. Chief among these is a large maples found in North America. While there are native crown with many leaves exposed to sunlight during the maples on other continents, only North American maples growing season for maximum sap and sugar production. have sap with the flavor cursor that creates the taste of Trees whose crowns have diameters greater than 30 feet maple. can produce as much as 100 percent more syrup than those with narrower crowns and can produce sap as much The sugar maple (Acer saccharum), also known as hard as 30 percent sweeter than narrower crowned trees. Sap or rock maple, is by far the species most often tapped for flow is further increased by large stem diameters, which sap production.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah's Pioneer Beet Sugar Plant: the LEHI FACTORY of the UTAH SUGAR COMPANY
    Utah's Pioneer Beet Sugar Plant: THE LEHI FACTORY of the UTAH SUGAR COMPANY BY LEONARD J. ARRINGTON The Lehi factory of the Utah Sugar Company occupies a pre-emi­ nent place among the early sugarbeet factories of America. Commencing operations in 1891, it was the first sugarbeet factory in the Mountain West, the first to utilize beets grown by irrigation, the first to have a systematic program for the production of its own beet seed, the first to use American- made machinery, the first to use the "osmose process" of reprocessing molasses, the first to build auxiliary cutting stations, and the first to have been established as part of a great social and religious movement. This factory also served as a training base for a high proportion of the technical leaders of the sugarbeet industry of the United States. After 75 years it is well to remind ourselves of the truly pioneering character of this first suc­ cessful sugar enterprise in Utah. The story of the construction of the Lehi plant begins with the efforts of Arthur Stayner, a Mormon horticulturist from England, to make sugar Leonard Arrington is professor of economics at Utah State University. This article was prepared under grants from the Utah-Idaho Sugar Company and the Utah State University Research Council. The photographs were furnished by Utah-Idaho Sugar Company and the author. 96 Utah Historical Quarterly from sugar cane, sorghum cane, and sugarbeets in the 1880's.1 In 1887 Stayner received a $5,000 bounty from the territorial legislature for the first 7,000 pounds of marketable sugar produced in Utah.
    [Show full text]