Next Article in Journal
Multi-Scale Correlation between Soil Loss and Natural Rainfall on Sloping Farmland Using the Hilbert–Huang Transform in Southwestern China
Previous Article in Journal
Biofumigation by Mustard Plants as an Application for Controlling Postharvest Gray Mold in Apple Fruits
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy13061491
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agronomic Biofortification and Yield of Beet Fertilization with Zinc

by
Romualdo Medeiros Cortez Costa
1,*,
Leilson Costa Grangeiro
1,
Francisco das Chagas Gonçalves
1,
Elizangela Cabral dos Santos
1,
José Francismar de Medeiros
1,
Francisco Vanies da Silva Sá
2,
Dalbert de Freitas Pereira
1,
Luiz Henrique de Araujo Carmo
1 and
Bruna de Paiva Souza
1
1
Department of Agronomic and Forestry Sciences, Federal Rural University of Semi-Arid, Mossoró 59625-900, RN, Brazil
2
Department of Agrarian and Exact Sciences, State University of Paraíba, Catolé do Rocha 58884-000, PB, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(6), 1491; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061491
Submission received: 14 April 2023 / Revised: 11 May 2023 / Accepted: 24 May 2023 / Published: 28 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Agronomic biofortification is a technique that helps reduce hidden hunger worldwide. Zinc (Zn) is important for human health and essential for plant development and growth. Thus, this research aimed to evaluate the effects of fertilization with Zn on agronomic performance and the agronomic biofortification of beet. Two experiments were conducted at the Rafael Fernandes Experimental Farm, belonging to the Federal Rural University of the Semi-arid, in Mossoró-RN. Each experiment was designed in complete randomized blocks, with five treatments and four replications. The treatments consisted of Zn doses (0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 kg ha−1). Zn fertilization did not affect the total and non-commercial yield of beet; however, the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn promoted maximum commercial yield (20.34 t ha−1). At the maximum dose, higher Zn content was also observed in the nutritional status diagnosis leaf and higher Zn accumulation was found in the leaf, tuberous root, and throughout the plant. There was also an effect on postharvest variables. There was only tuberous root biofortification in 2021. The recommended dose in beet cultivation is 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn.

1. Introduction

Micronutrient malnutrition can affect over two billion people worldwide, causing a severe health problem known as hidden hunger [1]. This malnutrition is caused by the deficiency of micronutrients available in food and by the low diversity of foods consumed [1,2].
Among micronutrients, zinc (Zn) deficiency affects approximately one-fifth of the world’s population [3,4]. Nutritional imbalance by Zn can affect the immune system, antioxidant defense, growth, and development of human beings [3,5]. In addition, social and economic aspects are also related to Zn deficiency [6] since less developed areas have a higher incidence.
Using agronomic biofortification is an alternative to mitigate the effects of hidden hunger. This technique comprises increasing the concentration of micronutrients in the edible parts of plants [1,2] through the optimized application of fertilizers via soil or foliar [7,8]. It is also possible to increase the availability of vitamins and improve other food quality attributes [9]. This practice is considered the cheapest technique to minimize the effects of hidden world hunger [2].
Zn is a micronutrient involved in plant protein synthesis, enzymatic activation, oxidation reaction, and carbohydrate metabolism [10,11]. Soil characteristics such as pH, calcium carbonate, organic matter, and interaction with other nutrients [12] influence the availability of Zn to plants. In the soils of the Brazilian semi-arid region, the Zn content is adequate for agricultural production [13]; however, plant species respond differently to exposure to Zn, where some can tolerate excess and even accumulate Zn in their organs [14].
In beet (Beta vulgaris L.), because of the action of Zn on metabolism, fertilization with this micronutrient increases plant growth [15]. It also promotes an increase in its concentration in the leaves and tuberous root, in its productivity, in the number of leaves, in the leaf area, and in the chlorophyll content [16], the latter due to the action of Zn as a catalyst and component of protein structure and as an enzymatic cofactor [15].
Despite the importance of this micronutrient and this vegetable, studies on agronomic biofortification with Zn in beet are incipient. Furthermore, information on the agronomic performance of beet as a function of Zn in the Brazilian semi-arid region is also scarce. The knowledge in the literature is primarily obtained in areas with distinct edaphoclimatic characteristics [15,16,17,18] or using the sugar variety [19,20,21,22].
Given this context, this research aimed to evaluate the effects of Zn fertilization on the performance and agronomic biofortification of beet.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Experimental Area

The experiments were conducted during June and September 2019 and July and October 2021 at the Rafael Fernandes Experimental Farm, belonging to the Federal Rural Semi-arid University (UFERSA), rural area of the municipality of Mossoró—RN (5° 03′ 37″ S and 37°23′50″ W and altitude of 72 m).
The climate in the region is of the BSh type, according to Köppen, dry and very hot, with two climatic seasons: a dry one that lasts from June to January and a rainy one from February to May. In 2019, during the months of the experiment, there was, on average, precipitation of 7.85 mm, temperature of 26.66 °C, and relative humidity of 73.80%. For the same climatological characteristics, in 2021, respectively, 0.30 mm, 28.20 °C, and 66.60% were obtained. Monthly averages are shown in Figure 1.
The soil is classified as ARGISOL [23], and the chemical attributes, from the depth of 0 to 20 cm, are described in Table 1. In addition, the Zn concentrations in the soil of the experimental area in the years 2019 and 2021 are classified as low and medium, respectively [24].

2.2. Treatments and Experimental Design

The experiment designs were in randomized blocks with four replicates. Treatments consisted of five doses of Zn (0, 1.5, 3.0, 4.5, and 6.0 kg ha−1), applied as zinc sulfate. The doses were defined based on the recommendation of Tivelli et al. [25].

2.3. Installation and Conduction of Experiments

Soil preparation consisted of plowing, harrowing, and making the beds. Plants were distributed in six rows, spaced 0.25 × 0.10 m. Experimental plots were dimensioned in 4.5 m2 (3.0 × 1.5 m), considering the four central rows as functional area (2.8 m2) and disregarding the plants at each end.
Basal fertilization was performed seven days before planting, using 190 kg ha−1 of P2O5 in the form of superphosphate [26]. After that, topdressing fertilization was carried out through fertirrigation with the split application of 120 kg ha−1 of nitrogen, 180 kg ha−1 of K2O, 13.7 kg ha−1 of magnesium, 47.25 kg ha−1 of calcium, and, only in 2021, 18.26 kg ha−1 of sulfur. Urea, magnesium sulfate, calcium nitrate, potassium chloride, and potassium nitrate were used as nutritional sources. No organic fertilization was carried out. Fertirrigation with Zn started 23 days after sowing (DAS) in 2019 and at 29 DAS in 2021, ending at 70 and 76 DAS, respectively.
From the foundation fertilization up to 20 DAS, micro-sprinkler irrigation was used. Later, the system was replaced by drip irrigation. Three drip tapes were distributed per bed, spaced 0.50 m apart, with self-compensating drippers and an average flow of 1.5 L/h, 0.30 m apart. The applied water depths were defined based on crop evapotranspiration (ETc).
The beet planting occurred through direct sowing, placing three beet glomeruli, cultivar Foturna, per hole. At 20 DAS, thinning was performed, leaving only one plant per hole. Chemical control was used for phytosanitary management when necessary. During the experiments, there was an occurrence of Cercospora beticola, Conoderus scalaris, Liriomyza ssp, Fusarium ssp., and Macrophomina ssp. In both experiments, manual weeding was carried out throughout the crop cycle.

2.4. Variables Analyzed

Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) (g kg−1), and Zn (mg kg−1) contents in the nutritional status diagnosis leaf (NSDL) of beet were determined at 55 DAS [27]. The leaves were cleaned in distilled water, dried in an oven with closed air circulation at 65 °C until they reached a constant mass, and then crushed in a Willey-type mill with a 1 mm mesh sieve. The crushed material was subjected to sulfuric digestion for subsequent quantification of nutrient content [28]. Nutrient content in leaf diagnosis and the other laboratory analyses were conducted at the Plant Nutrition Laboratory of UFERSA.
One day before the harvest of each experiment, five plants were randomly collected per plot to measure the average height and number of leaves per plant. Subsequently, the plants were sent to the laboratory, cleaned in distilled water, separated into shoots and tuberous roots, and dried in a closed air circulation oven at 65 °C until the mass remained constant. Thus, shoot dry mass (SDM), and tuberous root dry mass (TRDM) were determined (g plant−1), and, with the sum of both parts, the total dry mass was defined (TDM).
At 79 DAS, the harvests were carried out in 2019 and 2021. The commercial yield (CY) and non-commercial yield (NCY) of beet tuberous roots were quantified in tons per hectare (t ha−1). Those with a diameter greater than 50 mm were considered commercial, and those with a diameter < 50 mm and/or with severe defects and the occurrence of pests and diseases were considered non-commercial [29]. The total yield (TY) was obtained by adding the CY and NCY.
After harvesting, ten tuberous roots classified as commercial were randomly selected for postharvest quality analysis. After processing the tuberous roots to obtain the extracts, the pH was analyzed in a digital pH meter, the soluble solids content (%) (SS) using a digital refractometer, and the titratable acidity (mEq. 100 g−1) (TA) by titration with NaOH (0.1 N) [30]. The SS/TA ratio was found with the SS and TA data. The anthrone method was used to quantify total soluble sugars (%) (TSS) [31].
Zn content in the leaf and the tuberous root was quantified according to [28]. Zn accumulation (mg plant−1) was obtained from the multiplication between dry mass and Zn content in the plant fractions and total accumulation by the sum of Zn accumulated in the leaf and the tuberous root. The determination of the biofortification of the tuberous root of the beet with Zn occurred after the quantification of the accumulation of Zn.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data from the 2019 and 2021 experiments were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the F test separately. Then, a joint analysis of the data was performed when the ratio of the highest mean square value was not greater than four times the lowest value [32]. For the dose factor, regression analysis was applied, selecting the significant equation with the highest coefficient of determination. The software used for statistical analysis was SISVAR v.5.3 [33].

3. Results

3.1. Nutritional Status Diagnosis Leaf (NSDL)

The K content in the beet nutritional status diagnosis leaf differed in the years 2019 (p < 0.05) and 2021 (p < 0.01), depending on the Zn doses. The contents in the first experiment were higher than those in the second in all doses, with a maximum of 57 g kg−1 in the control treatment at the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn in 2019 and, in 2021, of 41.31 g kg−1 after fertilizing with 3.0 kg ha−1 of Zn (Figure 2A).
The average Ca content in 2019 was 4.56 g kg−1 between treatments; however, there were no adjusted equations. In 2021, fertilization with Zn promoted a linear increase in Ca content depending on the applied doses, where 4.98 g kg−1 of Ca was the maximum content reached (6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn) (Figure 2B). There was only an adjustment of the equations for Mg in 2019, with the content decreasing linearly at the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn (2.54 g kg−1) (Figure 2C).
Increasing doses of Zn also promoted an increase in foliar N and Zn contents. Maximum contents of 37.46 g kg−1 of N (Figure 2D) and 250.98 mg kg−1 of Zn (Figure 2E) were obtained at 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn.
Zn doses did not affect the P content (p < 0.05); however, there was a statistical difference in the mean contents of N, P, and Zn between experiments. Higher means of N (40.2 g kg−1) and Zn (538.4 g kg−1) were observed in the 2021 experiment, while for P (6.7 g kg−1), it occurred in 2019 (Table 2).

3.2. Growth, Dry Mass, and Yield

Plant height was influenced by Zn fertilization. In 2019, the maximum height (27.54 cm) was reached with 5.0 kg ha−1 of Zn and, in 2021, at the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn (33.13 cm) (Figure 3A).
The number of leaves increased up to the dose of 2.4 kg ha−1 of Zn, reducing at the doses above 4.8 kg ha−1 of Zn (Figure 3B). Between the years, the leaf number was statistically (p < 0.05) higher in 2021 (Table 3).
The maximum accumulated dry mass in the shoot was 4.64 g per plant when fertilizing with 3.6 kg ha−1 of Zn. In the tuberous root, the accumulation increased up to the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn (12.36 g per plant), while the highest total dry mass was reached with 4.3 kg ha−1 of Zn (16.54 g per plant) (Figure 3C). Between the years, there was only a statistical difference for DMRT and TDM, with higher averages in 2021 (Table 3).
The total (TY) and non-commercial (NCY) yields of beet tuberous roots were not influenced (p < 0.05) by Zn doses. However, Zn increased the yield of commercial tuberous roots by 18% (20.34 t ha−1 at the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn) compared to the control treatment (17.24 t ha−1) (p < 0.05) (Figure 3E). Among the experiments, there was a higher TY, CY, and NCY in 2021 (Table 3).

3.3. Postharvest Quality Attributes

The pH (Figure 4A) and soluble solids (Figure 4B) of the tuberous root were not influenced by Zn fertilization in 2019, whereas, in 2021, there was an increase in these variables compared to control with maximum values of 5.80 (pH) and 15.71% (SS) at the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn. For TA, there was an effect of Zn fertilization in 2019, with a lower TA (2.46 mEq. 100 g−1) at the dose of 4.7 kg ha−1 of Zn (Figure 4C).
Fertilization with Zn increased the total soluble sugars (7.91%) (Figure 4D) and the SS/TA ratio (Figure 4E) of the beet tuberous root, compared to the control, with maximums at the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn. By comparing the averages of the experiments, it was found that the AST was higher in the 2019 experiment compared to 2021 (Table 4); however, the opposite occurred between the mean values of the SS/TA ratio, with superior results in the second experiment compared to the first (Table 4).

3.4. Total and Leaf Zn Accumulation and Agronomic Biofortification of the Tuberous Root

In 2019, Zn fertilization did not biofortify the tuberous root or influence (p < 0.05) this micronutrient’s total and leaf accumulation. However, in the 2021 experiment, fertilization with 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn biofortified the tuberous root (8.63 mg plant−1) and increased the total accumulated Zn (42.56 mg plant−1) and that in the leaves (33.93 mg plant−1) (Figure 5). Table 5 shows the average Zn accumulation in TR, in the leaf and in total, in the years 2019 and 2021 for each dose.

4. Discussion

The nutrient content in the nutritional status diagnosis leaf indicates whether the plant may be deficient, have excess, or have adequate levels of nutrients. The following are estimated as ideal for beet: 20–40 g kg−1 of K, 25–35 g kg−1 of Ca, 3–8 g kg−1 of Mg, 30–50 g kg−1 of N, 4–8 g kg−1 of P, and 20–100 mg kg−1 of Zn [24].
In this research, the Ca contents in both experiments and the average Mg content in 2021 were below the minimum reported as ideal for the crop. In 2019, Zn doses above 2.8 kg ha−1 could cause Mg deficiency. However, for both nutrients, no visual symptoms of deficiency were observed.
In 2019, in all treatments, the K content was above 40 g kg−1. This result is explained by the K available in the soil (Table 1), which also explains the difference in K leaf content between the experiments. Although it does not differ depending on the doses, the difference in the average P content in the NSDL between the experiments can also be attributed to the P content in the soil, which was higher in 2019 (Table 1). For N, the content in all treatments was within the range reported as ideal.
The Zn content in the beet nutritional status diagnosis leaf was above 100 mg kg−1 in all treatments. The results suggest beet tolerance to excess Zn since deleterious effects on growth parameters were only observed at higher doses. In addition, damage from excess Zn was observed, especially in the aerial part of the plant, through the reduction in the number of leaves (Figure 3B) and the dry mass of the aerial part (Figure 3C).
Excess Zn can reduce the growth and development of leaves and roots, decrease the production of NADPH, and increase the production of free radicals in plants [10]. In addition, the same authors state that zinc toxicity also decreases the enzymatic activity of RUBP carboxylase and photosystem II, as well as ATP synthesis and chloroplast activity, resulting in less photosynthesis.
Some plants develop mechanisms that enable stress tolerance when exposed to stressful environments. For example, the defense of some cultures exposed to excess heavy metals occurs when the metal ion is complexed and inactivated upon entering the cell cytosol [34]. The toxic effect of Zn also depends on the bioavailable external concentration, genotype, and exposure time of the plant [14]. These findings may justify the failure to observe visual symptoms in beet plants fertilized with Zn.
The highest average, in 2021, of the growth variables, number of leaves, tuberous root dry mass, and total dry mass may be related to the N content in that year (Table 1). The increase in total dry mass, leaf, and tuberous root is attributed to the action of N on the development metabolism of beet [17].
Zn is essential for plant growth [35,36]. Plant growth due to Zn fertilization occurs due to the effect of this micronutrient on metabolism [15], acting in growth regulation processes and helping in the development of the chloroplast and the metabolism of auxins [36,37]. With adequate availability of Zn, the synthesis of tryptophan occurs, favoring the production of indoleacetic acid (IAA), an amino acid precursor of growth hormones [11].
Evaluating the effect of Zn doses (1.2, 50, 100, and 300 µM of ZnSO4) on sugar beet, a reduction in the number of leaves was observed compared to the control treatment (1.2 µM of ZnSO4) [38]. The authors also verified the effect of excess Zn on leaf area and the distortion or wrinkling of the leaf margin, in addition to leaves curling inward and showing symptoms of chlorosis. However, the mentioned symptoms were not observed in this research.
Observing the results obtained, it is possible to infer that there is a greater sensitivity of the aerial part of the beet to higher doses of Zn. This result is justified by the reduction in SDM from the fertilization with 3.7 kg ha−1 of Zn (Figure 3C), which is linked to the decrease in the number of leaves (Figure 3B). At the same time, the tuberous root had an increasing accumulation up to the highest doses (Figure 3C).
The increase in dry mass at initial doses may be due to the role of Zn in the activity of enzymes and its involvement in the biosynthesis of growth substances, such as auxin [39]. On the other hand, the reduction in dry mass at higher doses is possibly due to oxidative damage caused by excess Zn, which initiates the lipid peroxidation and degradation of different compounds in the plant [40].
The maximum commercial yield of beet tuberous roots was close to the results obtained by other authors in the same experimental area, 20.55 t ha−1 [41], 20.58 t ha−1 [42], and 25.40 t ha−1 [26]. However, these results are below the national average, which varies between 30 and 50 t ha−1 [24]. Limited knowledge about the nutritional requirements of beet produced in semi-arid conditions may explain the low yield of tuberous roots under these conditions [41].
The difference in the average tuberous root yield between the 2019 and 2021 experiments is explained by the greater intensity of phytosanitary problems in the first year, with plant losses during the experiment, especially at the end of the crop cycle.
The results of this research suggest that the dose of 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn provides greater commercial yield and tuberous roots with more palatable postharvest quality attributes, since they have a higher TSS content and a milder flavor due to the higher SS/TA ratio. In addition, zinc promotes a higher content of soluble solids in beet than acids. The increase in SS due to Zn fertilization may be related to the participation of this micronutrient in enzymatic activation, protein synthesis, and the metabolism of carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids [34].
The highest accumulation of Zn in beet in 2021 is due to the chemical difference between the soils of the two areas used. It is known that soils with high pH, low organic matter content, and high phosphorus content influence the availability of Zn [12,14,43,44]. These aspects were observed by comparing the chemical analyses of the two soils (Table 1).
The agronomic biofortification of foods with Zn is essential because the low consumption of this nutrient causes pathologies in humans. Zn deficiency can lead to anorexia, loss of taste, appetite, and smell, as well as damage to the immune system, leading to anemia and arteriosclerosis [45]. Adequate Zn supplementation helps reduce the risk of diarrhea, pneumonia, and malaria [46]. Zn is also important due to its pathophysiological role in neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, aging, diabetes, depression, and Wilson’s disease [45].

5. Conclusions

Zn influences the growth, nutritional content, production, and postharvest quality characteristics of beet. However, the results of the K, Ca, and Mg contents in the nutritional status diagnosis leaf, the height of the plant, the postharvest quality attributes (pH, SS, and TA), as well as the accumulation of Zn suggest that the soil chemical attributes influence the effect of Zn fertilization on these variables since there was an interaction between the doses and the years in which the experiments were carried out.
According to what was observed, there was only biofortification of the tuberous root with Zn in the 2021 experiment, considering that, in 2019, Zn fertilization did not affect the accumulation of this micronutrient in the tuberous root. Therefore, to obtain the highest commercial productivity (20.34 t ha−1), fertilization with 6.0 kg ha−1 of Zn is recommended, with no influence of doses on total and non-commercial productivity. In addition, Zn will also promote an increase in soluble sugars and the soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio, resulting in tuberous roots with characteristics that are more accepted by the consumer market.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology: R.M.C.C. and L.C.G.; investigation: R.M.C.C., L.C.G., F.d.C.G., D.d.F.P., L.H.d.A.C. and B.d.P.S.; writing—original draft preparation: R.M.C.C., L.C.G., E.C.d.S., J.F.d.M. and F.V.d.S.S.; writing—review and editing, R.M.C.C. and L.C.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development grant number 308508/2018-1.

Data Availability Statement

All data related to this manuscript are included here.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for granting the doctoral scholarship, the Federal Rural University of the Semi-arid (UFERSA), and the Graduate Program in Soil and Water Management at UFERSA for the support in the development of the research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Praharaj, S.; Skalicky, M.; Maitra, S.; Bhadra, P.; Shankar, T.; Brestic, M.; Hejnak, V.; Vachova, P.; Hossain, A. Zinc biofortification in food crops could alleviate the zinc malnutrition in human health. Molecules 2021, 26, 3509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Szerement, J.; Szatanik-Kloc, A.; Mokrzycki, J.; Mierzwa-Hersztek, M. Agronomic biofortification with Se, Zn, and Fe: An effective strategy to enhance crop nutritional quality and stress defense—A review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 1129–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carmona, V.M.V.; Cecílio Filho, A.B.; Almeida, H.J.; Silva, G.C.; Reis, A.R. Agronomic biofortification of beet plants with zinc via seed priming. Rev. Caatinga 2020, 33, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kachinski, W.D.; Ávila, F.W.; Reis, A.R.; Muller, M.M.L.; Mendes, M.C.; Petranski, P.H. Agronomic biofortification increases concentrations of zinc and storage proteins in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) grains. Food Res. Intern. 2022, 155, 111105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Salles, B.S.; Rodrigues, N.L.; Coelho, S.C. A importância do zinco na desnutrição humana e seus benefícios na infância. Rev. Bras. Nutr. Clín. 2013, 28, 245–250. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pedraza, D.F.; Rocha, A.C.D.; Queiroz, W.O.; Sousa, C.P.C. Estado nutricional relativo ao zinco de crianças que frequentam creches do estado da Paraíba. Rev. Nutr. 2011, 24, 539–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cakmak, I.; Kutman, U.B. Agronomic biofortification of cereals with zinc: A review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Delfin, J.; Moda-Cirino, V.; Santos Neto, J.; Buratto, J.S.; Ruas, P.M.; Gonçalves, L.S.A. Diversity of nutritional content in seeds of Brazilian common bean germplasm. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Prasad, R.; Shivay, Y.S. Agronomic biofortification of plant foods with minerals, vitamins, and metabolites with chemical fertilizers and liming. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 1534–1554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mousavi, S.R.; Galavi, M.; Rezaei, M. Zinc (Zn) importance for crop production—A review. Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 2013, 4, 64–68. [Google Scholar]
  11. Castillo-González, J.; OJeda-Barrios, D.; Hernández-Rodríguez, A.; González-Franco, A.C.; Robles-Hermnández, L.; López-Ochoa, G.R. Zinc metalloenymes in plants. Interciencia 2018, 43, 242–248. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hafeez, B.; Khanif, Y.M.; Saleem, M. Role of zinc if plant nutrition—A review. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2013, 3, 374–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Oliveira, M.L.J.; Valladares, G.S.; Vieira, J.S.; Coelho, R.M. Availability and spatial variability of copper, iron, manganese, and zinc in soils of the State of Ceará, Brazil. Rev. Ciênc. Agron. 2018, 49, 371–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Balafrej, H.; Bogusz, D.; Triqui, Z.A.; Guedira, A.; Bendaou, N.; Smouni, A.; Fahr, M. Zinc hyperaccumulation in plants: A review. Plants 2020, 2, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gashash, E.A.; Ashmawi, A.E.; El-Taher, A.M.; Omar, M.A.; Osman, N.A.; Taha, N.M.; Elkelish, A. Effect of fertilizing with different levels of phosphorous and zinc on the botanical characteristics of table beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2022, 50, 12579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Behtahs, F.; Tabatabaei, S.J.; Malakouti, M.J.; Sororadin, M.H. Effect of zinc and cádmium on growth, chlorophyll content, photosynthesis, and cádmium concentration in der beet. Iran. J. Soil Res. 2010, 24, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Olveira, R.J.P.; Gatiboni, L.C.; Brunetto, G.; Miquelluti, D.J.; Valicheski, R.R. Resposta da beterraba a adubação com nitrogênio, enxofre e micronutrientes em um Cambissolo Háplico. Hortic. Bras. 2017, 35, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Petek, M.; Toth, N.; Pecina, M.; Lazarević, B.; Palčić, I.; Herak Ćustić, M. Status of Fe, Mn, and Zn in red beet due to fertilization and environment. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2017, 18, 554–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sagardoy, R.; Vázquez, S.; Florez-Sarasa, D.; Albacete, A.; Ribas-Carbó, M.; Flexas, J.; Abadia, J.; Morales, F. Stomatal and mesophyll conductances to CO2 are the main limitations to photosynthesis in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) plants grown with excess zinc. New Phytol. 2010, 187, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sagardoy, R.; Morales, F.; Rellán-Álvarez, R.; Abadía, A.; Abadía, J.; López-MilLÁN, A.F. Carboxylate metabolism in sugar beet plants grown with excess Zn. J. Plant Physiol. 2011, 168, 730–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Barlóg, P.; Nowacka, A.; Blaszyk, R. Effect of zinc band application on sugar beet yield, quality, and nutrient uptake. Plant Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Piskin, A. Effect of zinc and compound fertilizer on yield and quality of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 2521–2531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária—EMBRAPA. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos, 5th ed.; EMBRAPA: Brasília, Brasil, 2018; p. 356. [Google Scholar]
  24. Trani, P.E.; van Raij, B.; Cantarella, H.; Figueiredo, G.J.B. Hortaliças, Recomendações de Calagem e Adubação Para o Estado de São Paulo; CATI: Campinas, Brasil, 2018; p. 88. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tivelli, S.W.; Factor, T.L.; Teramoto, J.R.S.; Fabri, E.G.; Moraes, A.R.A.; Trani, P.E.; May, A. Beterraba: Do Plantio à Comercialização; Instituto Agronômico: Campinas, Brasil, 2011; p. 51. [Google Scholar]
  26. Malavolta, E.; Vitti, G.C.; Oliveira, S.A. Avaliação do Estado Nutricional das Plantas: Princípios e Aplicações, 2nd ed.; POTAFOS: Piracicaba, Brasil, 1997; p. 319. [Google Scholar]
  27. Silva, G.A.; Grangeiro, L.C.; Sousa, V.F.L.; Silva, L.R.R.; Jesus, P.M.M.; Silva, J.L.A. Agronomic performance of beet cultivars as a function of phosphorus fertilization. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 2019, 23, 518–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária—EMBRAPA. Manual de Análises Químicas de Solos, Plantas e Fertilizantes, 2nd ed.; EMBRAPA: Brasília, Brasil, 2009; p. 627. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hortbrasil. Centro de Qualidade de Horticultura—Norma de Classificação da Beterraba (Beta vulgaris L.); CQH/CEAGESP: São Paulo, Brasil, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Instituto Adolfo Lutz. Normas Analíticas do Instituto Adolfo Lutz, Métodos Químicos e Físicos para Análises de Alimentos, 3rd ed.; Instituto Adolfo Lutz: São Paulo, Brasil, 1985; p. 533. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yemn, E.W.; Willis, A.J. The estimation of carbohydrate in plant extracts by anthrone. Biochem. J. 1954, 57, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ferreira, P.V. Estatística Experimental Aplicada às Ciências Agrárias, 1st ed.; Editora UFV: Viçoca, Brasil, 2018; p. 588. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ferreira, D.F. SISVAR: Computer analysis system to fixed effects Split plot type designs. Rev. Bras. Biom. 2019, 37, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jain, R.; Srivastava, S.; Solomon, S. Impact of excess zinc on growth parameters, cell division, nutrient accumulation, photosynthetic pigments and oxidative stress of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). Acta Physiol. Plant 2010, 32, 979–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sadeghzadeh, B. A review of zinc nutrition and plant breeding. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 13, 905–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Suganya, A.; Saravanan, A.; Manivannan, N. Role of zinc nutrition for increasing zinc availability, uptake, yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.) grains: An overview. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 2001–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mahapatra, C.K.; Bhadra, T.; Paul, S.K. Nutrient management in sugar beet: A review. Pak. Sugar J. 2020, 35, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sagardoy, R.; Morales, F.; LópEZ-Milián, A.F.; Abadia, A.; Abadia, J. Effects of zinc toxicity on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) plants grown in hydroponics. Plant Biol. 2009, 11, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Aboyeji, C.; Dunsin, O.; Adekiya, A.O.; Chinedum, C.; Suleiman, K.O.; Okunlola, F.O.; Aremu, C.O.; Owolabi, I.O.; Olofintoye, T.A.J. Zinc sulfate and boron-based foliar fertilizer affect on growth, yield, minerals, and heavy metal composition of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) grown on na alfisol. Int. J. Agron. 2019, 2019, 5347870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Silva, T.M.R.; Prado, R.M.; Vale, D.W.; Avalhães, C.C.; Puga, A.P.; Fonseca, I.M. Toxicidade do zinco em milheto cultivado em Latossolo Vermelho Distrófico. Rev. Bras. Ciênc. Agrár. 2010, 5, 336–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Costa, R.M.C.; Grangeiro, L.C.; Cortez, J.W.M.; Morais, E.G.; Oliveira, R.R.T.; Silva, I.B.M. Fertirrigation with manganese in beet. Ciênc. Agrotecnol. 2023, 47, e014622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Batista, M.A.V.; Bezerra Neto, F.; Silva, M.L.; Ambrósio, M.M.Q.; Cunha, J.L.X.L. Atributos de solo-planta e de produção de beterraba influenciados pela adubação com espécies da Caatinga. Hortic. Bras. 2016, 34, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mousavi, S.R. Zinc in crop production and interaction with phosphorus. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2011, 5, 1503–1509. [Google Scholar]
  44. Korkmaz, K.; Akgün, M.; Özcan, M.M.; Özkutlu, F.; Kara, Ş.M. Interaction effects of phosphorus (P) and zinc (Zn) on dry matter, concentration and uptake of P and Zn in chia. J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 755–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chasapis, C.T.; Loutsidou, A.C.; Spiliopoulou, C.A.; Stefanidou, M.E. Zinc and human health: An update. Arch. Toxicol. 2012, 86, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dalal, A.; Duary, S. A Review: Agronomic biofortification with zinc. Indian J. Nat. Sci. 2022, 13, 43221–43227. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 13 01491 g001 550
Figure 1. Meteorological data of the months of the experiments in the years 2019 and 2021 in Mossoró, RN.
Figure 1. Meteorological data of the months of the experiments in the years 2019 and 2021 in Mossoró, RN.
Agronomy 13 01491 g001
Agronomy 13 01491 g002 550
Figure 2. Content of K (A), Ca (B), Mg (C), N (D), and Zn (E) in the nutritional status diagnosis leaf of beet in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Figure 2. Content of K (A), Ca (B), Mg (C), N (D), and Zn (E) in the nutritional status diagnosis leaf of beet in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Agronomy 13 01491 g002
Agronomy 13 01491 g003a 550Agronomy 13 01491 g003b 550
Figure 3. Plant height (A), number of leaves (B), dry mass (C), and yield (D) of beet fertilized with Zn in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Figure 3. Plant height (A), number of leaves (B), dry mass (C), and yield (D) of beet fertilized with Zn in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Agronomy 13 01491 g003aAgronomy 13 01491 g003b
Agronomy 13 01491 g004 550
Figure 4. Attributes of postharvest quality, pH (A), soluble solids (B), titratable acidity (C), total soluble sugars (D), and soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio (E) of beet tuberous roots fertilized with Zn in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Figure 4. Attributes of postharvest quality, pH (A), soluble solids (B), titratable acidity (C), total soluble sugars (D), and soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio (E) of beet tuberous roots fertilized with Zn in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Agronomy 13 01491 g004
Agronomy 13 01491 g005a 550Agronomy 13 01491 g005b 550
Figure 5. Zn accumulation in the tuberous root (A), in the leaf (B), and in total (C) in beet fertilized with Zn, in the years 2019 and 2021, in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Figure 5. Zn accumulation in the tuberous root (A), in the leaf (B), and in total (C) in beet fertilized with Zn, in the years 2019 and 2021, in Mossoró, RN. Both the * (5%) and ** (1%) indicate the significance levels at which the equation was adjusted.
Agronomy 13 01491 g005aAgronomy 13 01491 g005b
Table
Table 1. Chemical characterization of soils in experimental areas at the Rafael Fernandes Experimental Farm in Mossoró, RN.
Table 1. Chemical characterization of soils in experimental areas at the Rafael Fernandes Experimental Farm in Mossoró, RN.
2019
pHMOBCuFeMnZnP 1KNaCaMgH + AlSBCECV
H2Og kg−1mg dm−3cmolc dm−3%
6.34.140.190.106.612.360.503.251.08.10.550.250.330.971.375
2021
pHMOBCuFeMnZnP 1KNaCaMgH + AlSBCECV
H2Og kg−1mg dm−3cmolc dm−3%
5.214.870.770.33163.0315.80.641.939.12.30.660.080.200.843.6923.04
1 Mehlich-1; OM: organic matter; H + Al: potential acidity; SB: sum of bases: CEC: cation exchange capacity; V: base saturation.
Table
Table 2. Difference in the content of K, Ca, and Mg between 2019 and 2021 in each dose of Zn, and average content of N, P, and Zn in 2019 and 2021 in nutritional status diagnosis leaf.
Table 2. Difference in the content of K, Ca, and Mg between 2019 and 2021 in each dose of Zn, and average content of N, P, and Zn in 2019 and 2021 in nutritional status diagnosis leaf.
Nutrient Content in the Nutritional Status Diagnosis Leaf
DosesKCaMg
g kg−1
201920212019202120192021
057.16 a34.87 b4.49 ns4.25 ns3.30 ns2.71 ns
1.559.97 a 39.47 b4.74 ns4.38 ns 3.47 a2.45 b
3.052.24 a41.56 b4.93 ns4.42 ns2.83 ns2.72 ns
4.554.89 a39.47 b4.34 ns4.57 ns2.73 ns3.04 ns
6.057.73 a34.45 b4.32 b5.19 a2.57 ns2.67 ns
YearsNPZn
g kg−1mg kg−1
201931.63 b6.75 a250.14 b
202140.22 a3.97 b538.39 a
For K, Ca, and Mg: different letters in the line differ significantly from each other at 5% probability (p < 0.05); for N, P, and Zn: different letters in the column differ significantly from each other at 5% probability (p < 0.05); ns: not significant at 5% probability (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Difference in the height of the beet plant in 2019 and 2021 as a function of Zn doses, and difference in the average dry mass, yield, and number of beet leaves in 2019 and 2021 in Mossoró, RN.
Table 3. Difference in the height of the beet plant in 2019 and 2021 as a function of Zn doses, and difference in the average dry mass, yield, and number of beet leaves in 2019 and 2021 in Mossoró, RN.
DosesPlant Height (cm)
20192021
023.90 b30.04 a
1.525.36 b30.72 a
3.026.55 b30.27 a
4.528.34 b32.21 a
6.027.02 b33.68 a
YearsSDMDMRTTDMNLCYNCYTY
g per plant t ha−1
20194.0 ns7.32 b11.32 b8.36 b9.92 b0.65 b11.04 b
20214.18 ns15.12 a19.30 a9.08 a 27.66 a1.11 a28.66 a
SDM: shoot dry mass; DMTR: dry mass tuberous root; TDM: total dry mass; NL: number leaves; CY: commercial yield; NCY: non-commercial yield; TY: total yield; for plant height: different letters in the line differ significantly from each other to 5% of probability (p < 0.05); for SDM, DMRT, TDM, NL, CY, NCY and TY: different letters in the column differ significantly from each other at 5% significance (p < 0.05); ns: not significant to 5% of significance (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 4. Difference in pH, TA, and SS between 2019 and 2021 as a function of Zn doses and mean TSS and SS/TA in 2019 and 2021 in Mossoró, RN.
Table 4. Difference in pH, TA, and SS between 2019 and 2021 as a function of Zn doses and mean TSS and SS/TA in 2019 and 2021 in Mossoró, RN.
DosespHTA (mEq. 100 g−1)SS (%)
201920212019202120192021
06.07 a5.47 b4.63 a3.17 b10.83 ns9.47 ns
1.55.96 a5.12 b3.41 ns3.11 ns10.83 ns12.02 ns
3.05.97 a5.43 b2.91 ns3.39 ns10.91 b15.46 a
4.55.95 ns5.82 ns2.32 b3.13 a10.20 b15.25 a
6.05.98 ns5.80 ns2.66 ns3.03 ns10.77 b15.25 a
YearsTSS (%)SS/TA
20198.50 a3.63 b
20215.66 b4.28 a
TA: titratable acidity; SS: soluble solids; TSS: total soluble sugars; SS/TA: soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio; for pH, TA and SS: different letters on the line differ significantly from each other at 5% probability (p < 0.05); ns: not significant at 5% probability (p < 0.05); for TSS and SS/TA: different letters in the column differ significantly from each other at 5% probability (p < 0.05); ns: not significant at 5% probability (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 5. Difference in zinc accumulated in the tuberous root, leaf, and total beet, in 2019 and 2021, as a function of Zn doses in Mossoró, RN.
Table 5. Difference in zinc accumulated in the tuberous root, leaf, and total beet, in 2019 and 2021, as a function of Zn doses in Mossoró, RN.
DosesTRLeafTotal
mg plant−1
201920212019202120192021
00.44 b2.09 a0.07 ns0.48 ns0.51 ns2.59 ns
1.50.53 b4.26 a0.24 a10.38 b0.77 b14.64 a
3.00.53 b4.35 a0.64 a15.97 b1.17 b20.33 a
4.50.73 b7.36 a0.74 a28.82 b1.48 b36.18 a
6.00.53 b8.71 a0.92 a32.17 b1.45 b40.89 a
TR: tuberous root; different letters in the line differ significantly from each other at 5% probability (p < 0.05); ns: not significant at 5% probability (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Costa, R.M.C.; Grangeiro, L.C.; Gonçalves, F.d.C.; Santos, E.C.d.; Medeiros, J.F.d.; Sá, F.V.d.S.; Pereira, D.d.F.; Carmo, L.H.d.A.; Souza, B.d.P. Agronomic Biofortification and Yield of Beet Fertilization with Zinc. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1491. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061491

AMA Style

Costa RMC, Grangeiro LC, Gonçalves FdC, Santos ECd, Medeiros JFd, Sá FVdS, Pereira DdF, Carmo LHdA, Souza BdP. Agronomic Biofortification and Yield of Beet Fertilization with Zinc. Agronomy. 2023; 13(6):1491. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061491

Chicago/Turabian Style

Costa, Romualdo Medeiros Cortez, Leilson Costa Grangeiro, Francisco das Chagas Gonçalves, Elizangela Cabral dos Santos, José Francismar de Medeiros, Francisco Vanies da Silva Sá, Dalbert de Freitas Pereira, Luiz Henrique de Araujo Carmo, and Bruna de Paiva Souza. 2023. "Agronomic Biofortification and Yield of Beet Fertilization with Zinc" Agronomy 13, no. 6: 1491. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061491

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop