Next Article in Journal
Evaluation and Influencing Factors of Industrial Pollution in Jilin Restricted Development Zone: A Spatial Econometric Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Determining the Optimum Level of Soil Olsen Phosphorus and Phosphorus Fertilizer Application for High Phosphorus-Use Efficiency in Zea mays L. in Black Soil
Previous Article in Journal
I Want to Teach Sustainable Development in My English Classroom: A Case Study of Incorporating Sustainable Development Goals in English Teaching
Previous Article in Special Issue
Combined Citric Acid and Glutathione Augments Lead (Pb) Stress Tolerance and Phytoremediation of Castorbean through Antioxidant Machinery and Pb Uptake
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/su13084192
sustainability-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

Assessing Yield Response and Relationship of Soil Boron Fractions with Its Accumulation in Sorghum and Cowpea under Boron Fertilization in Different Soil Series

by
Muhammad Babar Javed
1,2,
Zaffar Malik
1,
Muhammad Kamran
3,*,
Ghulam Hassan Abbasi
1,4,
Asma Majeed
4,
Muhammad Riaz
5,
Muhammad Adnan Bukhari
6,
Adnan Mustafa
7,
Sunny Ahmar
8,
Freddy Mora-Poblete
8,*,
Muhammad Rafay
6 and
Syed Asad Hussain Bukhari
9
1
Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur 63100, Pakistan
2
Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2H1, Canada
3
CAS Key Laboratory of Soil Environment and Pollution Remediation, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China
4
Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur 63100, Pakistan
5
College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
6
Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur 63100, Pakistan
7
National Engineering Laboratory for Improving Quality of Arable Land, Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
8
Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Talca, 2 Norte 685, Talca 3460000, Chile
9
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(8), 4192; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084192
Submission received: 14 March 2021 / Revised: 6 April 2021 / Accepted: 7 April 2021 / Published: 9 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agro-Ecosystems: The Role of Innovative Amendments in Crop Production Under Polluted Environments)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Boron (B) is an essential micronutrient in the growth of reproductive plant parts. Its deficiency and/or toxicity are widespread in arid and semi-arid soils with low clay contents. This study was planned to determine the response of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L., non-leguminous crop) and cowpea (Vigna sinensis L., leguminous crop) to boron (0, 2, 4, and 16 µg g−1) on four distinct soil series from Punjab, Pakistan i.e., Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic Torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region). Overall, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in yield between the sorghum (3.8 to 5.5 g pot−1 of 5 kg dry soil) and cowpea (0.2 to 3.2 g pot−1 of 5 kg dry soil) in response to B application. The highest yield was observed in both sorghum and cowpea either in control or at 2 µg g−1 B application in all four soils. Cowpea showed the same yield trend in all four soils (i.e., an increase in yield at 2 µg g−1 B application, followed by a significant decrease at the higher B levels). In contrast, sorghum exhibited greater variability of response on different soils; Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region) produced the greatest yield at low levels of B application. However, Halic Camborthid produced its lowest yield at that level. Boron concentration in shoots increased with the levels of B application, particularly in sorghum. In cowpea, the plant growth was extremely retarded—and most of the plants died at higher levels of B application even if a lower concentration of B was measured within the shoot. Hot water-extractable B was the most available fraction for cowpea (R2 = 0.96), whereas the easily exchangeable B was most available for sorghum (R2 = 0.90). Overall, these results have implications for micronutrient uptake for both leguminous and non-leguminous crops.

1. Introduction

Boron (B) is the only metalloid which is not uniformly distributed in the earth’s crust, being mainly present in phyllosilicate, borosilicate and borate minerals. Globally, borosilicate minerals are the key source of B in soils [1]. Borate ions (B(OH)4−) are mobile in soil and can be leached down from the root zone. However, the release/dissolution of B as borates from these minerals is very slow [2]. Therefore, after intense cultivation, natural B supply from these minerals is inadequate to fulfill the needs of crop plants. In addition, the natural occurrence of B in soil is very low, ranging from 2–200 mg kg−1, most of which is unavailable to plants [1,3]. Brdar–Jokanović [4] reported that soils having a hot water-extractable fraction of B < 0.5 mg kg−1 are categorized as B deficient. Boron is also known for its narrow range of deficiency to toxicity. Its deficiency is more common in saline, alluvial and calcareous soils [5]. B soil bioavailability depends on several factors, including soil type, soil temperature, quality of irrigation water, plant species, climatic variations, and agronomic practices [6]. B availability reduces as soil pH increases due to its high adsorption capacity in alkaline conditions. During drought periods when root activity is restricted, B deficiencies are more pronounced—and thus the growth and yield of plants are affected [7,8]. The crops that are susceptible to B deficiency include leguminous and non-leguminous crops, e.g., alfalfa, sugar beets, clovers, and legumes [9].
Boron is an indispensable micronutrient, and its role is as vital as the macronutrients (N, P and K) for agricultural plants [10,11]. It is required for normal plant growth, including reproductive plant parts, cell wall formation and stabilization, membrane integrity, carbohydrate utilization, stomatal regulation, sporogenesis, pollen germination, and development of meristematic tissues and pollen tube growth [12,13,14]. On the contrary, B deficiency induces a reduction in crop yields, cell enlargement in growing tissues (because of its structural role in the cell wall), male sterility, formation of the hollow stem, browning of curd, and various floral abnormalities [3,4,15,16]. FurtheFrmore, B deficiency mainly affects root morphology, inducing a higher leaf/root ratio due to the accumulation of lignin, amino acids and cellulose in root cells. This consequently restricts nutrient absorption and translocation [1]. A significant reduction has also been observed in antioxidative defense systems, leaf gas exchange attributes, and photosynthesis, all as a result of B deficiency in plants [17]. The occurrence of B toxicity is also an important aspect that limits plant growth in arid and semi-arid environments throughout the world [15]. Higher B concentrations may occur naturally in the soil and groundwater or be added to the soil from mining, fertilizers, or irrigation water [16]. Although of considerable agronomic importance, our understanding of B deficiency and/or toxicity is rather fragmented and limited.
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) is the fifth most important and largest cereal crop grown in the world after maize, wheat, rice and barley. The world produces 57.6 M tons of grains per year as of 2017 [18]. It has been reported that around 70% of world’s sorghum production and 90% of sorghum farmlands are based in hot and dry regions of developing countries, including Pakistan [19]. Sorghum grains are important for their nutritional quality and economic significance. For instance, sorghum is used as feed for meat-producing animals and a cheaper source of human nutrition, energy, protein, iron, and zinc compared to fruits, vegetables, meats, eggs, fish, and dairy products [20]. It is considered less sensitive to B deficiency compared to grain legumes [21]. Cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.), a major grain legume with significant nutritive value (i.e., rich in energy, protein and minerals) is grown on 14.5 M ha of agricultural farmlands around the world, yielding 6.2 M metric tons [22,23,24]. B fertilization improved the yield of many crop plants such as Oryza sativa L. [25], Triticum aestivum L. [26], Brassica oleracea L. [27], Vigna unguiculata L. [28], and Zea mays L. [29]. Because of the narrow window of toxic-to-deficient B concentrations [4], optimum B application rates differ from one soil to another [30].
Like other trace elements, total soil B is distributed among various geochemical fractions, including easily soluble, carbonate adsorbed, oxide bound, organic matter bound and residual fractions [31,32], all of which differ in their chemical behavior toward mobility and bioavailability in soil [33,34,35]. Moreover, only a small fraction (<5%) of the total B in the soil is available for plant uptake [33,36]. Recently, Bhupenchandra [6] claimed that B adsorption and desorption in the soil is the mechanism most responsible for regulating soil B supply for plant uptake. Therefore, exploring the chemical pools of B and their relationship with B accumulation in plants would be valuable to understand and predict their role in leaching and soil mobility dynamics. In this study, the interactive effects of different soil series and various B levels on cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) were studied. It was hypothesized that in different soils, B fractions would be different, which could impact B availability for different crops. Overall, the research herein aimed to find out how different fractions of B in soil would impact the growth of cowpea and sorghum. The main objectives of this greenhouse study were (i) to evaluate the yield responses of sorghum and cowpea to B fertilizer, (ii) to determine the optimum B level for sorghum and cowpea under four different soil series, and (iii) to examine the relationship of various B fractions and accumulations in both crops.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Sampling, Processing, and Characterization

Representative bulk surface soil samples from the top 15 cm were collected from four distinct soil series from the Punjab, Pakistan, namely: Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian series), Typic Torrifluvent (Shahdra series), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala series), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala series). The taxonomic classes of these soils have already been well described, according to Soil Management Support Service [37]. After collection, soils were air-dried, ground to pass through 2 mm sieve and characterized for basic physicochemical properties. Briefly, soil texture was determined by the hydrometer method, as explained by Day [38], CaCO3 by the acid dissolution method [39], and organic matter content by following the Ealkely–Black method [40]. Soluble salts were determined by measuring the electrical conductivity in 1:1 soil:water suspension. The same suspension was used to determine soil pH by a calomel-glass electrode assembly using a Beckman pH meter. Plant-available B in soil was determined after hot water extraction, and total B was determined following US-EPA method 3052. Boron concentration was determined using a spectrophotometer (Spectronic 21, Bausch and Lomb) following the azomethane-H procedure [41].

2.2. Greenhouse Study and Growth Conditions

A greenhouse study was conducted to determine the effects of boron on sorghum and cowpea yield, boron uptake and bioaccumulation. Five kilograms of each of the four soils were placed in polyethylene-lined plastic pots and spiked with different boron (H3BO3) levels (0, 2, 4 and 16 µg B g−1 soil). Each treatment contained 3 replications. Nitrogen (urea), phosphorus (DAP), and potassium (KClO3) were supplied in the solution forms to maintain the locally recommended doses for sorghum and cowpea. Prior to sowing, soils in all pots were moistened with distilled water, dried, and mixed thoroughly to establish equilibrium. After equilibrium, soil samples were collected from each pot for laboratory analysis.
Overall, 10 seeds of each crop were broadcast in individual pots, and the pots were arranged according to a completely randomized design in the greenhouse [42]. After germination, two uniform plants in each pot were allowed to grow by thinning. During the course of the growth, the moisture content in all the pots was maintained with distilled water at about 60% of the water-holding capacity by weight. The average temperature in the green-house was 30 ± 3 °C during the day and 22 ± 3 °C during the night. Relative humidity dropped to 35% at midday and increased to 85% at midnight. The light intensity varied between 300 and 1400 µmol photon m−2 s−1, depending upon the time of day and the cloud conditions.

2.3. Harvesting and Biomass Measurement

Both crops were allowed to grow for two months after germination, and then the shoots were harvested. Plant samples were washed with distilled water, blotted in filter paper sheets, dried to a constant weight at 65 °C in a forced air oven. After drying, the plant shoot samples were weighed to calculate dry biomass and then ground in a Wiley mill fitted with stainless steel blades for further processing and chemical analysis.

2.4. Boron Sequential Extraction

To determine the distribution of B in different soil phases—hot water-extractable (F1), easily exchangeable (F2), bound to carbonates (F3), bound to Fe and Mn oxides (F4), bound to organic matter (F5), and residual (F6)—a modified sequential extraction approach was employed [43]. The only modification to the original method was the inclusion of a hot water extraction step at the beginning of the extraction scheme. After extraction, the B concentration was determined in each extractant using the azomethine-H method [44] on a Spectronic-21 spectrophotometer (Bausch and Lomb).

2.5. Sample Processing for Total B Concentration in Plant and Soil

Fine-ground plant samples were digested with concentrated (98%) nitric acid (HNO3, 70%) and, after that, with a diacid mixture ((1:4) HNO3:HClO4), following the method of Jackson [45]. Bioavailable B in all soil series was extracted via hot water extraction protocol [41]. Total B content of the soils were determined by digesting it with HNO3:HF:HCl:H2O2 with a ratio of 9:3:2:1, respectively (US-EPA 3052). Boron concentration in the extracted solution and digests was determined by the azomethine-H method [44].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data collected were subjected to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the differences between the treatment means were evaluated using Tukey’s (HSD) multiple comparison test [42], using SAS 9.2. All graphical works were carried out with Origin-17 pro software. The correlation analysis was carried out using Rstudio software with a standard key.

3. Results

3.1. Physicochemical Properties of Soil

The soils used in the current study were different textures, ranging from sandy loam to clay loam, and originated from different parent materials (Table 1). There were significant differences in the sand, silt and clay contents of the soils; Udic Haplustalf was the sandiest (86.8% sand) and Typic Torrifluvent was the least sandy (46.8% sand). Halic Camborthid was saline (electrical conductivity; EC = 7.8 dS m−1), and rest of the soils were non-saline (EC < 2 dS m−1). Halic Camborthid also had higher sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) value (~40 mmol L−1) than the other soils (0.88 to 5.85 mmol L−1).

3.2. Boron (B) Fractionation in Soil

The fractionation of B into six different operationally defined fractions—(hot water-extractable (F1), easily exchangeable (F2), bound to carbonates (F3), bound to Fe and Mn oxides (F4), bound to organic matter (F5), and Residual (F6)—is provided in Figure 1. Total B in the soils ranged from ~27 to ~39 µg g−1 (Figure 1). Overall, a significant proportion of the total B was present in the residual fraction of all the soils (F6, 58 to 66% of the total B). Organic matter-bound (F5) and Fe and Mn oxide-bound (F4) B fractions were insignificant (<10%). A reasonable proportion of the total B was present in carbonate (F3, 7 to 13%) and easily exchangeable fractions (F2, 10 to 17%). Hot water-extractable B was 4–10% of the total B.

3.3. Effect of B on Yield of Sorghum and Cowpea

The effect of boron on shoot dry matter yield of sorghum and cowpea is shown in Figure 2. Overall, B application levels and soil types had a significant (p < 0.05) interactive effect on the shoot dry matter yield of both crops. For sorghum, shoot dry weight was significantly decreased with the application of B in Udic Haplustalf, whereas there was a significant increase in the yield in Halic Camborthid (Figure 2a). Boron level of 2 µg g−1 achieved optimum sorghum yield in all the soils except Halic Camborthid. For cowpea, shoot dry weight was significantly increased with the application of 2 µg g−1 B in all the soils (Figure 2b). However, increasing the application of B (i.e., 4 and 16 µg g−1) significantly reduced the yield and most of the plants showed toxic symptoms and died (~50%). The yield of cowpea showed the same trend on all four soils.

3.4. Effect of B on Its Accumulation in Sorghum and Cowpea

Boron concentration in the shoot of sorghum and cowpea is shown in Figure 3. For sorghum, B concentration significantly increased (p < 0.05) with the application of increasing B levels. For cowpea, a significant increase in the B concentration in the shoot was found, but at higher levels of B application (i.e., 4 and 16 µg g−1,) the plant growth was extremely retarded, which caused low plant growth and low B uptake. Calculating the B biological accumulation coefficient in both the crops showed that B accumulation in sorghum was directly related to B application (Figure 4a). For cowpea, the biological accumulation of B varied. Due to retarded growth, B accumulation was lower at higher B application levels (i.e., 16 µg kg−1) (Figure 4b).

3.5. Comparison of Shoot Dry Matter Yield in Crops

The results of shoot dry matter yield for both the crops are presented in Figure 2. On average, highest shoot dry matter yield for sorghum was observed at 2 and 4 µg kg−1 B application, whereas for cowpea, highest yield was found at 2 µg kg−1 B application. For both the crops, there was a significant yield reduction at higher B application.

3.6. Comparison of Different Soil Series

Different soils used in the current study had different total B concentrations (~27 to ~39 µg g−1, Table 1). B sequential extraction showed reasonable differences in the portioning of B into different fractions in different soils (Figure 1). Overall, Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian) appeared to be the best soil for both crops in term of shoot dry weight (Figure 2). For sorghum, two heavy-textured soils—Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala, non-saline soil) and Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala, saline sodic soil)—exhibited very different behaviors. Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region) produced relatively higher yield at all the B levels; Halic Camborthid was the lowest-yielding soil for sorghum. For cowpea, Halic Camborthid produced a similar shoot dry matter yield to all the other soils.

3.7. Role of Boron Geochemical Fractions on its Accumulation in Shoot

The relationship between B fractions in soil and accumulation of B in both crops are presented in Figure 5. Overall, the accumulation of B was much higher in sorghum than cowpea, and the response of sorghum was more evident in response to different B fractions in soil. For sorghum, B was exchangeable, and Fe and Mn oxide fractions were positively correlated with B accumulation (R2 = 0.90 and R2 = 0.56). However, the concentration of B in carbonate bound (R2 = 0.94), organic matter (R2 = 0.91), and residual fractions (R2 = 0.62) were negatively correlated with B accumulation in the shoot of sorghum. Interestingly, hot water-extractable B, which is considered more bioavailable, did not show any impact on B accumulation in sorghum (R2 = 0.02). For cowpea, hot water-extractable B showed a positive impact on B accumulation (R2 = 0.96). The rest of the B fractions in the soil did not significantly impact B accumulation in the cowpea crop.

3.8. Correlation Analysis

The correlations between shoot boron concentration and shoot dry matter yield of sorghum and cowpea grown under various boron application levels are presented in Figure 6. Boron concentration in sorghum shoot showed a significant positive (r = 0.98) correlation with the biological accumulation coefficient (BAC); however, it was not strongly (r = −0.20) correlated with the sorghum dry matter yield. On the other hand, a strong positive relation (r = 0.97) of boron concentration in cowpea shoot was noticed with the biological accumulation coefficient (BAC), while, for cowpea, a weak correlation (r = 0.31) with dry matter yield was highlighted.

4. Discussion

Boron is essential for optimal plant growth and productivity. However, there is a very small range between B deficiency and B toxicity. It has been shown that B toxicity and B deficiency limited plant growth and caused variations in the normal growth of plants [46,47]. Results showed that soil boron levels below 1.4 mM could cause crop productivity loss. The negative effects of B toxicity have been found all over the world. It is well-known that in all agricultural areas, the natural B content in soil or irrigation water may cause B toxicity, especially when the water originates near active geothermal areas. B-induced toxicity can adversely affect physiological attributes and yield of crops [48,49]. In addition, high levels of B toxicity occur in arid and semi-arid environments, and high salinity can increase crop stress [50]. However, the optimum doses of B and the cellular processes interrupted by boron stress are still unclear. Similarly, the mechanisms of boron toxicity or the adaptation mechanisms of plants to B excess is poorly understood, especially in cereal crops.
Boron is also very important for the optimum growth of legume crops; its required level in cowpea is higher than in sorghum [51]. The differences in the growth of crop plants under various application levels of boron were also previously reported [52]. With the addition of B, SDW first increased, and then decreased significantly—in both crops. These results are very similar to the findings of Turhan (2020) [49] and Metwally et al. (2018) [53], who observed significant yield reduction with increasing B levels in many crops. According to Marcar et al. (1999) [54] and Grieve and Poss (2000) [55], the dry matter production of sorghum remained constant up to 5 mM B and then decreased continuously with increasing B concentration.
It was noted, if the applied B concentration was increased, the boron content in sorghum increased. However, in salinized sorghum, B concentration decreased [56]. In different plants, B concentration increased with increasing concentrations of applied B in normal soils [56]. The combined effects of B concentration in shoot and salinity levels significantly reduced the dry matter production compared to the B toxicity alone. On the other hand, plant availability of B is limited on calcareous soils and is pH-dependent [57]. That is why sorghum B concentration in the shoot was lowest in the Khurianwala (Halic Camborthid) soil (Figure 2b). Contrarily, in sorghum, the concentration of B was decreased in saline soil conditions [58,59]. Sorghum is resistant to soil salinity, compared to other sensitive crops and legumes [60].
As the application of B increased, uptake in different parts of plants was promoted, causing B toxicity. Previous studies showed that the concentration of B in shoots was significantly higher than that in roots [46]. This might be due to the fact that dry biomass accumulation of roots was much lower than that of plant shoots, causing reduced accumulation of B in the roots as compared to shoots. All treatments receiving high B yielded a decrease in biomass, indicating that high levels of B led to a discrepancy in cell wall composition, which might have resulted in the inhibition of the rapid growth of pea plants [61,62]. Our results were in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. [63], i.e., that high B levels had a substantial harmful effect on cotton plants. It was also reported by Shah et al. [64]) that high B levels caused accumulation of oxidative stress in citrus plants and ultimately resulted in reduced plant development. The fact that a higher B concentration leads to more B accumulation could explain the difference in B concentration between treatments and cultivars. Cowpea has a higher B requirement than sorghum. Our results showed that the application of B had no positive effect on grain yield. These results confirmed our finding that a high B level reduced the yield in cowpea (Figure 2b). Cowpea B requirement is unknown, but 2 µg g−1 B level seemed to be optimized to get the best yield. At 2 µg g−1 B level, shoot dry matter increased in cowpea [65]. Similarly, the toxicity symptoms of B produced on the leaves of various crops were also previously observed [66,67]. Moreover, the results of Agbenin et al. [24] proved that cowpea had a low B requirement compared to most legume crops (e.g., soybean).
Salt tolerance varies from crop to crop [68,69,70,71]. Based on published information about the combined effects of salinity and B concentration [72,73], the current study used relatively higher salinity and B levels in order to test extreme conditions. Some early investigators reported that shoot dry weight responded independently to boron and salinity with no interactive effect [74,75]. Membrane permeability was reported to be the main cause of the difference in B concentration of the crops [56,76]. Therefore, it can be concluded that membrane permeability for B is higher in sorghum in normal soil conditions, and that in saline soils, cowpea is more susceptible to B uptake. Plant availability of B is limited on calcareous soils and is pH-dependent [57]. Camacho-Cristóbal and his colleagues [10] and Gupta et al. [77] reported that soil B concentrations above 1.5–2 µg g−1 or below 0.5 µg g−1 resulted in decreased root and shoot yield. Yield and yield components of crops were affected positively and negatively by B, depending upon soil status and doses. A large increase in the yield was reported in response to B application on soils low in B [78,79].
Boron toxicity is more severe in normal soil as compared to saline soils [80]. The maximum yield of many crops was obtained by applying 3 µg g−1, while significant yield reduction was observed at higher levels [30]. Our findings concerning optimum B levels (2 µg g−1) were very similar to [30,81]. The optimum B level observed by our experiment was within accepted critical health limits [82].

5. Conclusions

The yields of both sorghum and cowpea were optimum at 2 µg g−1 B application, but at a higher rate (>2 µg g−1 B) a sharp decrease was observed. Boron application increased sorghum and cowpea yields, indicating a B deficiency in the studied soils. Using data on both crops, the maximum yield was obtained at 2 µg g−1 B application on pindorian soil (Udic Haplustalf). More studies are needed, using different soils and initial B application rates, to determine if these critical soil-test values can be applied across the region. This study showed that the addition of B with traditional macronutrient fertilizer enhanced grain and straw of sorghum and cowpea crops grown in semi-arid tropical regions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B.J. and Z.M.; methodology, M.B.J.; software, M.K. and M.B.J.; validation, G.H.A., M.R. (Muhammad Riaz), and A.M. (Asma Majeed); formal analysis, M.B.J. and M.K.; investigation, M.B.J.; resources, M.B.J., M.K. and F.M.-P.; data curation, M.B.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K. and M.B.J.; writing—review and editing, M.R. (Muhammad Riaz), A.M. (Adnan Mustafa), S.A., M.R. (Muhammad Rafay), and S.A.H.B.; visualization, M.A.B. and S.A.; supervision, F.M.-P. and Z.M.; project administration, M.B.J.; funding acquisition, M.K. and F.M.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

F.M.-P. and S.A. thank the Chilean National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FONDECYT) under the grant number 1201973.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors declare that this research work is supported by the Department of Soil Science, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur and The University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan for providing experimental materials support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest either financially or otherwise.

References

  1. García-Sánchez, F.; Simón-Grao, S.; Martínez-Nicolás, J.J.; Alfosea-Simón, M.; Liu, C.; Chatzissavvidis, C.; Pérez-Pérez, J.G.; Cámara-Zapata, J.M. Multiple stresses occurring with boron toxicity and deficiency in plants. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 397, 122713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Havlin, J.L. Soil: Fertility and Nutrient Management. In Encyclopedia of Natural Resources: Land; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2014; pp. 460–469. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pandey, N.; Verma, P. Boron Deficiency and Toxicity and Their Tolerance in Plants: A Review. J. Glob. Biosci. 2017, 6, 4958–4965. [Google Scholar]
  4. Brdar-Jokanović, M. Boron toxicity and deficiency in agricultural plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Ryan, J.; Rashid, A.; Torrent, J.; Yau, S.K.; Ibrikci, H.; Sommer, R.; Erenoglu, E.B. Micronutrient constraints to crop production in the Middle East–West Asia region: Significance, research, and management. Adv. Agron. 2013, 122, 1–84. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhupenchandra, I.; Basumatary, A.; Dutta, S.; Singh, L.K.; Datta, N. Impact of boron fertilization on boron fractions at different crop growth stages in cauliflower_cowpea_okra sequence in an inceptisols of North East India. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 1175–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shorrocks, V.M. The occurrence and correction of boron deficiency. Plant Soil 1997, 193, 121–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lehto, T.; Ruuhola, T.; Dell, B. Boron in forest trees and forest ecosystems. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 260, 2053–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sarkar, D.; Batabyal, K.; Das, R.; Datta, A.; Hazra, G.C.; Mandal, B.; Saha, J.K. Boron in soils and crops of West Bengal. Dir. Res. 2012, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  10. Camacho-cristóbal, J.J.; Rexach, J.; González-Fontes, A. Boron in plants: Deficiency and toxicity. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2008, 50, 1247–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Aziz, M.Z.; Yaseen, M.; Abbas, T.; Naveed, M.; Mustafa, A.; Hamid, Y.; Saeed, Q.; XU, M. Foliar application of micronutrients enhances crop stand, yield and the biofortification essential for human health of different wheat cultivars. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 1369–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. 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 Sulphate and Boron-Based Foliar Fertilizer Effect on Growth, Yield, Minerals, and Heavy Metal Composition of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) Grown on an Alfisol. Int. J. Agron. 2019, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Zhao, D.; Oosterhuis, D.M. Cotton carbon exchange, nonstructural carbohydrates, and boron distribution in tissues during development of boron deficiency. Field Crop. Res. 2002, 78, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Saleem, M.; Khanif, Y.M.; Fauziah, I.; Samsuri, A.W.; Hafeez, B. Importance of Boron for Agriculture Productivity: A Review. Int. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Soil Sci. 2011, 1, 2251–44293. [Google Scholar]
  15. Simón, I.; Díaz-López, L.; Gimeno, V.; Nieves, M.; Pereira, W.E.; Martínez, V.; Lidon, V.; García-Sánchez, F. Effects of boron excess in nutrient solution on growth, mineral nutrition, and physiological parameters of Jatropha curcas seedlings. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 176, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Woods, W.G. An introduction to boron: History, sources, uses, and chemistry. Environ. Health Perspect. 1994, 102, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wimmer, M.A.; Eichert, T. Review: Mechanisms for boron deficiency-mediated changes in plant water relations. Plant Sci. 2013, 203–204, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Faostat Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database. 2018. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 14 April 2020).
  19. Kamtchoum, S.M.; Nchoutnji, I.; Temegne, C.N.; Tonfack, L.B.; Fofe, L.; Seutchueng, T.G.T.; Kemayou, C.M.; Notche, F.K.; Suh, C.; Youmbi, E. Comparative effect of biological fixation of nitrogen and chemical fertilizer on yield optimization of two sorghum varieties in the Western Highlands. Asian J. Agric. Hortic. Res. 2019, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sahrawat, K.L.; Rego, T.J.; Wani, S.P.; Pardhasaradhi, G. Sulfur, boron, and zinc fertilization effects on grain and straw quality of maize and sorghum grown in semi-arid tropical region of India. J. Plant Nutr. 2008, 31, 1578–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Sahrawat, K.L.; Wani, S.P.; Rego, T.J.; Pardhasaradhi, G.; Murthy, K.V.S. Widespread deficiencies of sulphur, boron and zinc in dryland soils of the Indian semi-arid tropics. Curr. Sci. 2007, 93, 1428–1432. [Google Scholar]
  22. Boukar, O.; Fatokun, C.A.; Huynh, B.L.; Roberts, P.A.; Close, T.J. Genomic tools in cowpea breeding programs: Status and perspectives. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kebede, E.; Bekeko, Z. Expounding the production and importance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) in Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1769805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Agbenin, J.O.; Lombin, G.; Owonubi, J.J. Effect of boron and nitrogen fertilization on cowpea nodulation, mineral nutrition and grain yield. Fertil. Res. 1990, 22, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shahid, M.; Nayak, A.K.; Tripathi, R.; Katara, J.L.; Bihari, P.; Lal, B.; Gautam, P. Boron application improves yield of rice cultivars under high temperature stress during vegetative and reproductive stages. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2018, 62, 1375–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Abdel-Motagally, F.M.F.; El-Zohri, M. Improvement of wheat yield grown under drought stress by boron foliar application at different growth stages. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018, 17, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Bhupenchandra, I.; Basumatary, A.; Datta, S.; Kanta Singh, L.; Bora, S.S.; Helena Devi, S.; Gogoi, B.; Kalita, P.; Das, J.; Tamuli, B. Micronutrient Content in Plant, Its Uptake, and Crop Yield in Cauliflower–cowpea-Okra Cropping Sequence as Impacted by Graded Level of Boron Fertilization. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 1870–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chatterjee, R.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Effect of boron, molybdenum and biofertilizers on growth and yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) in acid soil of eastern Himalayan region. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2017, 16, 332–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Anjum, S.A.; Saleem, M.F.; Shahid, M.; Shakoor, A.; Safeer, M.; Khan, I.; Farooq, A.; Ali, I.; Nazir, U. Dynamics of Soil and Foliar Applied Boron and Zinc to Improve Maize Productivity and Profitability. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 2017, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dursun, A.; Turan, M.; Ekinci, M.; Gunes, A.; Ataoglu, N.; Aslihan, E.; Yildirim, E. Effects of boron fertilizer on tomato, pepper, and cucumber yields and chemical composition. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2010, 41, 1576–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bhupenchandra, I.; Basumatary, A.; Singh, L.K.; Khwairakpam, R. Assessment of the complex relationship of boron fractions with available soil nutrient status as influenced by boron fertilization in cauliflower. IJCS 2019, 7, 4253–4256. [Google Scholar]
  32. Javed, M.B.; Shotyk, W. Estimating bioaccessibility of trace elements in particles suspended in the Athabasca River using sequential extraction. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 240, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Boparai, A.K.; Manchanda, J.S. Extractability of available boron and its sequential fractionation in alkaline calcareous soils of India. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 2197–2208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Javed, M.B. Distribution of Arsenic in Surficial Deposits in the Cold Lake Area of Alberta, Canada. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. Javed, M.B.; Kachanoski, G.; Siddique, T. Arsenic fractionation and mineralogical characterization of sediments in the Cold Lake area of Alberta, Canada. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 500, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hou, J.; Evans, L.J.; Spiers, G.A. Boron fractionation in soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1994, 25, 1841–1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ahmad, M.; Shabbir Baig, M.S.B.; Akram, M.; Yasin Javed, M.Y.J.; Riaz-ul-Amin, R.A. Xii International Forum on Soil Taxonomy and Agrotechnology Transfer, 9–23 October Soil Survey of Pakistan; Soil Management Support Services U.S.A: Lahore, Pakistan, 1986.
  38. Day, P.R. Particle Fractionation and Particle-Size Analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Properties, Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling; American Society of Agronomy, Inc.: Madison WI, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  39. Allison, L.E.; Moodie, C.D. Carbonate. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties; American So-ciety of Agronomy, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1965; Volume 9, pp. 1379–1396. [Google Scholar]
  40. Allison, L. Organic carbon. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2 Chemical and Microbiological Properties; American Society of Agronomy, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1965; Volume 9, pp. 1367–1378. [Google Scholar]
  41. Parker, D.R.; Gardner, E.H. The Determination of Hot-Water-Soluble Boron in Some Acid Oregon Soils Using a Modified Azomethine-H Procedure. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1981, 12, 1311–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Steel, R.G.D.; Torrie, J.H. Principles and Procedures of Statistics; McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1980; p. 481. [Google Scholar]
  43. Tessier, A.; Campbell, P.G.C.; Bisson, M. Sequential Extraction Procedure for the Speciation of Particulate Trace Metals. Anal. Chem. 1979, 51, 844–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gaines, T.P.; Mitchell, G.A. Boron determination in plant tissue by the azomethine h method. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1979, 10, 1099–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wu, X.; Lu, X.; Riaz, M.; Yan, L.; Jiang, C. Boron toxicity induced specific changes of cell ultrastructure and architecture of components in leaf center and tip of trifoliate orange [Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.]. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 246, 426–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Riaz, M.; Yan, L.; Wu, X.; Hussain, S.; Aziz, O.; Jiang, C. Boron deprivation induced inhibition of root elongation is provoked by oxidative damage, root injuries and changes in cell wall structure. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018, 156, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, G.; DiTusa, S.F.; Oh, D.H.; Herrmann, A.D.; Mendoza-Cozatl, D.G.; O’Neill, M.A.; Smith, A.P.; Dassanayake, M. Cross species multi-omics reveals cell wall sequestration and elevated global transcription as mechanisms of boron tolerance in plants. bioRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Turhan, A. Interactive effects of boron stress and mycorrhizal (AMF) treatments on tomato growth, yield, leaf chlorophyll and boron accumulation, and fruit characteristics. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Reid, R. Can we really increase yields by making crop plants tolerant to boron toxicity? Plant Sci. 2010, 178, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sinha, P.; Chatterjee, C.; Sharma, C.P.; Sinha, P. Changes in physiology and quality of pea by boron stress. Ann. Agric. Res 1999, 20, 304–307. [Google Scholar]
  52. Gill, M.A.; Kanwal, S.; Aziz, T. Differences in phosphorus-zinc interaction among sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) brassica (Brassica napus L.) and maize (Zea mays L.). Pakistan J. Agric. Sci. 2004, 41, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  53. Metwally, A.M.; Radi, A.A.; El-Shazoly, R.M.; Hamada, A.M. The role of calcium, silicon and salicylic acid treatment in protection of canola plants against boron toxicity stress. J. Plant Res. 2018, 131, 1015–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Marcar, N.E.; Guo, J.; Crawford, D.F. Response of Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh., E. globulus Labill. ssp. globulus and E. grandis W. Hill to excess boron and sodium chloride. Plant Soil 1999, 208, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Grieve, C.M.; Poss, J.A. Wheat response to interactive effects of boron and salinity. J. Plant Nutr. 2000, 23, 1217–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ismail, A.M. Response of maize and sorghum to excess boron and salinity. Biol. Plant. 2003, 47, 313–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Havlin, J.L.; Tisdale, S.L.; Nelson, W.L.; Beaton, J.D. Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management: An Introduction to Nutrient Management; Pearson: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 0138618992. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hu, H.; Brown, P.H. Absorption of boron by plant roots. Plant Soil 1997, 193, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Grattan, S.R.; Grieve, C.M. Salinity-mineral nutrient relations in horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 1998, 78, 127–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Inal, A.; Tarakcioglu, C. Effects of nitrogen forms on growth, nitrate accumulation, membrane permeability, and nitrogen use efficiency of hydroponically grown bunch onion under boron deficiency and toxicity. J. Plant Nutr. 2001, 24, 1521–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bogiani, J.C.; Sampaio, T.F.; Abreu-Junior, C.H.; Rosolem, C.A. Boron uptake and translocation in some cotton cultivars. Plant Soil 2014, 375, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Oliveira, K.R.; Souza Junior, J.P.; Bennett, S.J.; Checchio, M.V.; Alves, R.; Felisberto, G.; Prado, R.; Gratão, P.L. Exogenous silicon and salicylic acid applications improve tolerance to boron toxicity in field pea cultivars by intensifying antioxidant defence systems. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 201, 110778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Chen, W.; Jin, M.; Xian, Y.; Ferré, T.P.A. Combined effect of sodium chloride and boron in irrigation water on cotton growth. Agron. J. 2017, 109, 1388–1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shah, A.; Wu, X.; Ullah, A.; Fahad, S.; Muhammad, R.; Yan, L.; Jiang, C. Deficiency and toxicity of boron: Alterations in growth, oxidative damage and uptake by citrange orange plants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2017, 145, 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Chatterjee, C.; Sinha, P.; Agarwala, S.C. Boron nutrition of cowpea. Proc. Plant Sci. 1990, 100, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wang, B.L.; Shi, L.; Li, Y.X.; Zhang, W.H. Boron toxicity is alleviated by hydrogen sulfide in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) seedlings. Planta 2010, 231, 1301–1309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nable, R.O. Resistance to boron toxicity amongst several barley and wheat cultivars: A preliminary examination of the resistance mechanism. Plant Soil 1988, 112, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ali, M.; Afzal, S.; Parveen, A.; Kamran, M.; Javed, M.R.; Abbasi, G.H.; Malik, Z.; Riaz, M.; Ahmad, S.; Chattha, M.S.; et al. Silicon mediated improvement in the growth and ion homeostasis by decreasing Na+ uptake in maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars exposed to salinity stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 158, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kamran, M.; Parveen, A.; Ahmar, S.; Malik, Z.; Hussain, S.; Chattha, M.S.; Saleem, M.H.; Adil, M.; Heidari, P.; Chen, J.T. An overview of hazardous impacts of soil salinity in crops, tolerance mechanisms, and amelioration through selenium supplementation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Ali, M.; Kamran, M.; Abbasi, G.H.; Saleem, M.H.; Ahmad, S.; Parveen, A.; Malik, Z.; Afzal, S.; Ahmar, S.; Dawar, K.M. Melatonin-Induced Salinity Tolerance by Ameliorating Osmotic and Oxidative Stress in the Seedlings of Two Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Cultivars. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zulfiqar, H.; Shahbaz, M.; Ahsan, M.; Nafees, M.; Nadeem, H.; Akram, M.; Maqsood, A.; Ahmar, S.; Kamran, M.; Alamri, S.; et al. Strigolactone (GR24) Induced Salinity Tolerance in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) by Ameliorating Morpho-Physiological and Biochemical Attributes Under In Vitro Conditions. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ferreyra, R.E.; Aljaro, A.U.; Ruiz, R.S.; Rojas, L.P.; Oster, J.D. Behavior of 42 crop species grown in saline soils with high boron concentrations. Agric. Water Manag. 1997, 34, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Centofanti, T.; Bañuelos, G. Evaluation of the halophyte Salsola soda as an alternative crop for saline soils high in selenium and boron. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 157, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Shani, U.; Hanks, R.J. Model of Integrated Effects of Boron, Inert Salt, and Water Flow on Crop Yield. Agron. J. 1993, 85, 713–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Esteban, W.; Pacheco, P.; Tapia, L.; Bastías, E. Remediation of salt and boron-affected soil by addition of organic matter: An investigation into improving tomato plant productivity. Idesia (Arica) 2016, 34, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Reid, R. Understanding the boron transport network in plants. Plant Soil 2014, 385, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gupta, U.C.; Jame, Y.W.; Campbell, C.A.; Leyshon, A.J.; Nicholaichuk, W. Boron toxicity and deficiency: A review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1985, 65, 381–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mekdad, A.A.A.; Shaaban, A. Integrative applications of nitrogen, zinc, and boron to nutrients-deficient soil improves sugar beet productivity and technological sugar contents under semi-arid conditions. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 43, 1935–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Arunkumar, B.; Thippeshappa, G.; Anjali, M.; Prashanth, K. Boron: A critical micronutrient for crop growth and productivity. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 2738–2741. [Google Scholar]
  80. Grieve, C.M.; Poss, J.A.; Grattan, S.R.; Suarez, D.L.; Smith, T.E. The combined effects of salinity and excess boron on mineral ion relations in broccoli. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 125, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. dos Santos, A.R.; de Mattos, W.T.; Almeida, A.A.S.; Monteiro, F.A.; Corrêa, B.D.; Gupta, U.C. Boron nutrition and yield of alfalfa cultivar crioula in relation to boron supply. Sci. Agric. 2004, 61, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Smallwood, C.L.; Lipscomb, J.; Swartout, J.; Teuschler, L. Toxicological Report of Boron and Compounds; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
Sustainability 13 04192 g001 550
Figure 1. Boron (B) fractionation in soils collected from four different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. B fractions: hot water-extractable (F1), easily exchangeable (F2), bound to carbonates (F3), bound to Fe and Mn oxide (F4), bound to organic matter (F5), and residual fraction (F6). The soil series were: Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region).
Figure 1. Boron (B) fractionation in soils collected from four different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. B fractions: hot water-extractable (F1), easily exchangeable (F2), bound to carbonates (F3), bound to Fe and Mn oxide (F4), bound to organic matter (F5), and residual fraction (F6). The soil series were: Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region).
Sustainability 13 04192 g001
Sustainability 13 04192 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of different boron application levels on shoot dry matter yield (g pot−1) of sorghum (a) and cowpea (b) grown under different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. The bars sharing different lowercase letters show significant differences among all the soil series, based on Tukey’s (HSD) test at 5% probability level (p < 0.05). Data is the average of 3 replications (n = 3) ± SD values as error bars. The soil series were: Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region), respectively.
Figure 2. Effect of different boron application levels on shoot dry matter yield (g pot−1) of sorghum (a) and cowpea (b) grown under different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. The bars sharing different lowercase letters show significant differences among all the soil series, based on Tukey’s (HSD) test at 5% probability level (p < 0.05). Data is the average of 3 replications (n = 3) ± SD values as error bars. The soil series were: Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region), respectively.
Sustainability 13 04192 g002
Sustainability 13 04192 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of different boron application levels on shoot boron (B) concentration in sorghum (a) and cowpea (b) grown under different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. The bars sharing different lowercase letters show significant differences among all the soil series, based on Tukey’s (HSD) test at 5% probability level (p < 0.05). Data is the average of 3 replications (n = 3) ± SD values as error bars. The soil series were: Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region), respectively.
Figure 3. Effect of different boron application levels on shoot boron (B) concentration in sorghum (a) and cowpea (b) grown under different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. The bars sharing different lowercase letters show significant differences among all the soil series, based on Tukey’s (HSD) test at 5% probability level (p < 0.05). Data is the average of 3 replications (n = 3) ± SD values as error bars. The soil series were: Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region), respectively.
Sustainability 13 04192 g003
Sustainability 13 04192 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of different boron application levels on biological accumulation coefficient (BAC) of boron in sorghum (a) and cowpea (b) grown under different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. The bars sharing different lowercase letters show significant differences among all the soil series, based on Tukey’s (HSD) test at 5% probability level (p < 0.05). Data is the average of 3 replications (n = 3) ± SD values as error bars. The soil series were Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region), respectively.
Figure 4. Effect of different boron application levels on biological accumulation coefficient (BAC) of boron in sorghum (a) and cowpea (b) grown under different soil series of Punjab, Pakistan. The bars sharing different lowercase letters show significant differences among all the soil series, based on Tukey’s (HSD) test at 5% probability level (p < 0.05). Data is the average of 3 replications (n = 3) ± SD values as error bars. The soil series were Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region), respectively.
Sustainability 13 04192 g004
Sustainability 13 04192 g005 550
Figure 5. Regression coefficients (p < 0.05) between different sequentially extracted fractions of boron and concentrations of boron in the shoots of sorghum and cowpea supplied with various boron application levels.
Figure 5. Regression coefficients (p < 0.05) between different sequentially extracted fractions of boron and concentrations of boron in the shoots of sorghum and cowpea supplied with various boron application levels.
Sustainability 13 04192 g005
Sustainability 13 04192 g006 550
Figure 6. Relationship between shoot boron accumulation and shoot dry matter yield of sorghum and cowpea grown under various boron application levels. The blue and red colors indicate positive (+) and negative (-) correlation, respectively. The size of each circle and color deepness indicate the intensity (stronger or weaker) of correlations at p < 0.05, respectively. The abbreviations are as follows: Shoot-B—boron accumulated in the shoot; BA—biological accumulation coefficient of boron; SDW—shoot dry weight.
Figure 6. Relationship between shoot boron accumulation and shoot dry matter yield of sorghum and cowpea grown under various boron application levels. The blue and red colors indicate positive (+) and negative (-) correlation, respectively. The size of each circle and color deepness indicate the intensity (stronger or weaker) of correlations at p < 0.05, respectively. The abbreviations are as follows: Shoot-B—boron accumulated in the shoot; BA—biological accumulation coefficient of boron; SDW—shoot dry weight.
Sustainability 13 04192 g006
Table
Table 1. The basic physicochemical properties of soils collected from different soil series for the current study.
Table 1. The basic physicochemical properties of soils collected from different soil series for the current study.
Soil CharacteristicUnitSoil Series and Regions
Udic HaplustalfTypic TorrifluventHalic CamborthidUdic Haplustalf
Texture Sandy loamSilty clay loamClay loamClay loam
Parent material alluvialalluvialloessalluvial
Sand%86.846.862.860.8
Silt%3.335.320.020.7
Clay%9.917.917.219.2
pH 1:1 a 7.47.87.77.7
EC 1:1 a(dSm−1)1.11.87.80.8
SAR(mmol L−1)1/20.95.940.01.1
Organic matter%1.41.51.51.5
CaCO3 equal. b%1.53.53.56.0
Total Bµg g−126.930.134.939.0
a: 1:1-soil: water ratio; b: Calcium carbonate equivalent by acid dissolution. The soil series were: Udic Haplustalf (Gujranwala region), Typic torrifluvent (Shahdra region), Halic Camborthid (Khurianwala region), and Udic Haplustalf (Pindorian region), respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Javed, M.B.; Malik, Z.; Kamran, M.; Abbasi, G.H.; Majeed, A.; Riaz, M.; Bukhari, M.A.; Mustafa, A.; Ahmar, S.; Mora-Poblete, F.; et al. Assessing Yield Response and Relationship of Soil Boron Fractions with Its Accumulation in Sorghum and Cowpea under Boron Fertilization in Different Soil Series. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084192

AMA Style

Javed MB, Malik Z, Kamran M, Abbasi GH, Majeed A, Riaz M, Bukhari MA, Mustafa A, Ahmar S, Mora-Poblete F, et al. Assessing Yield Response and Relationship of Soil Boron Fractions with Its Accumulation in Sorghum and Cowpea under Boron Fertilization in Different Soil Series. Sustainability. 2021; 13(8):4192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084192

Chicago/Turabian Style

Javed, Muhammad Babar, Zaffar Malik, Muhammad Kamran, Ghulam Hassan Abbasi, Asma Majeed, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Adnan Bukhari, Adnan Mustafa, Sunny Ahmar, Freddy Mora-Poblete, and et al. 2021. "Assessing Yield Response and Relationship of Soil Boron Fractions with Its Accumulation in Sorghum and Cowpea under Boron Fertilization in Different Soil Series" Sustainability 13, no. 8: 4192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084192

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