Next Article in Journal
Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Microbial Fertilizer Changes Soils’ Microbial Structure and Promotes Healthy Growth of Cigar Tobacco Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Short-Term Water Deficit on Some Physiological Properties of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with Different Spike Morphotypes
 
 
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 12
10.3390/agronomy13122894
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agronomic Approach to Iron Biofortification in Chickpea

by
Tamanna Akter Jahan
and
Bunyamin Tar’an
*
Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(12), 2894; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122894
Submission received: 23 October 2023 / Revised: 16 November 2023 / Accepted: 21 November 2023 / Published: 24 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Precision and Digital Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a staple crop in many developing countries where iron (Fe) deficiency is severe. The biofortification of chickpea is a possible solution to address the Fe deficiency problem. A chickpea biofortification experiment was conducted under field conditions to evaluate the effects of different doses of Fe fertilizer (0 kg ha−1,10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1 of Fe-EDDHA) on the Fe content in seeds from 18 chickpea cultivars. The experiment was designed as a factorial combination of 18 chickpea cultivars and three Fe fertilizer doses in a randomized complete block design with four replications at two locations in Saskatchewan in 2015 and 2016. The Fe concentration in seeds across 18 different chickpea cultivars increased with Fe fertilization. Fe concentration in X05TH20-2 and CDC Frontier cultivars increased from 57 µg g−1 to 59 µg g−1 and from 56 µg g−1 to 58 µg g−1, respectively, after adding Fe fertilizer in both locations in 2015 and 2016. The biofortified seeds of these two cultivars can provide approximately 6 mg Fe 100−1 g seeds. Thus, 67 and 150 g of Fe biofortified chickpea seeds can provide 50% of the recommended dietary allowance of Fe for men and women.

1. Introduction

Fe is a key micronutrient for most living organisms to conduct ubiquitous metabolic processes involving electron transfer. Examples of such metabolic processes include DNA synthesis, oxygen transport, cellular respiration and photosynthesis. Moreover, Fe is vital as a co-factor in numerous heme complexes, for example, hemoglobin, catalase and DNA helicases [1,2,3]. Although Fe in many arable lands is relatively abundant (concentration range of 20–40 g kg−1), the low amount of the available form has resulted in an Fe deficiency that limits plant growth [4]. Since Fe is highly reactive to oxygen, the formation of insoluble oxidized Fe (III) restricts Fe uptake by roots, especially in high-pH and high-HCO3−, calcareous soils. In high-pH and well-aerated soils, the total conc. of Fe in the soil solution was around 10−10 M, which is 10−4–10−5-fold less than the required amount for optimum plant growth [5,6]. In terms of Fe uptake from soil, plants are divided into two categories: Strategy I, nongraminaceous plants, and Strategy II, graminaceous plants [6]. Strategy I plant species acquire Fe after the reduction of Fe (III) chelates at the root surface, followed by the absorption of Fe (II) ions throughout the plasma membrane [7]. Since one-third of the world’s arable land is too alkaline for optimum plant growth, many studies have focused on how plants acclimatized to Fe deficiency [8]. In addition, a limited uptake of Fe was mostly observed in Strategy I plant species that depend on ferric reductase for transferring Fe [3,9]. Consequently, this condition decreased plant productivity and led to low quality, including a low Fe content in seeds that ultimately results in a public health problem. The Fe in plant-based diets is a non-heme Fe that is less bioavailable than heme Fe. As such, the prevalence of Fe-deficiency-induced anemia often occurred in populations in which the total calorie intake came from monotonous plant-based diets [1].
Biofortification is a long-term food-based approach to alleviating micronutrient deficiency. It is a strategy of producing staple food crops with increasing concentrations of bioavailable micronutrients in the edible parts that is considered more sustainable and economical [10,11]. To increase bioavailable Fe in seeds, an Fe biofortification strategy can be implemented that includes agronomy, plant breeding and genetic engineering approaches [12]. An agronomic approach could be a rapid solution to boost the Fe content in plants. Furthermore, agronomic biofortification can be integrated with other breeding-based biofortification methods [13]. Agronomic biofortification, which is also known as ferti-fortification, involves the application of fertilizer either to soil and/or to foliage to increase the bioavailability of nutrients in the edible parts of a plant [14,15]. Adding micronutrients to soil is a functional strategy to enhance the nutritional status of a plant [16,17,18]. However, there are several factors that control the increase in bioavailable nutrients in seeds. For example, the source of the fertilizer, the time and method of applying the fertilizer, and the quantity of fertilizer [19,20]. As Fe can be rapidly converted into an unavailable form when it is applied to high-pH soil, the application of an inorganic fertilizer such as ferrous sulphate (FeSO4) could be ineffective [3]. Synthetic Fe chelates, in which Fe is combined with an organic chemical to form a chelate, create a form of Fe that is accessible to plants. Moreover, Fe chelates are soluble for a longer period than inorganic Fe. In this context, the application of chelated Fe fertilizers, for example, Fe-DTPA, Fe-EDTA and Fe-EDDHA, can be effective in high-pH soils. Among the three, Fe-EDDHA is the most effective Fe fertilizer compared to others [21].
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a staple food crop in many African and Asian countries in which the incidence of Fe deficiency is common [1,22,23]. Based on global production, chickpea is the second most important pulse after common bean [24]. Globally, chickpea production has increased mostly gradually (96%) in developing countries [24]. Like production, the highest chickpea consumption rates occurred in South Asia and the Middle East–North Africa at 4.25 kg person−1 and 2.11 kg person−1 year−1, respectively [25]. The growth of chickpea consumption has also increased in developed countries. In USA, the consumption of chickpea has increased almost double from 199.6 g in 2010 to 322.1 g per person per year in 2014 [26]. Chickpea is consumed in a variety of ways, for example, the green pods, immature seeds and young leaves are consumed as vegetables, whereas as the primary commodity, chickpea, is consumed as dried mature seeds in a whole, hulled or flour form [27,28]. Nutritionally, chickpea is a rich source of protein (20–22%) along with micronutrients including Fe (3.0–14.3 mg 100 g−1) [29,30]. Therefore, the Fe biofortification of chickpea to produce seeds with an increased Fe concentration can mitigate Fe deficiency in populations with poor Fe intake [22]. Several studies have reported that an agronomic approach could result in higher micronutrients in the edible parts of different crops. Examples of successful agronomic biofortification include zinc (Zn) fertilizer for wheat and selenium (Se) for maize [31,32]. Moreover, in chickpea, the soil application of Zn fertilizer increased the grain Zn content and Zn yield compared to a control [33]. In addition, the foliar application of Zn and Fe fertilizer also increased the grain Zn yield in chickpea and the Fe content in the leaves, stems and grains of mung bean [33,34]. The foliar application of Se fertilizer increased the Se concentration in pea and common bean seeds [35,36]. In addition, Fe and Zn concentrations in grains of cowpea increased after applying Zn-EDTA in potting compost [37]. The combined application of Zn-DTPA and ZnSO4 also increased Fe and Zn contents in bean under a hydroponic system [38]. Agronomic biofortification with Fe and Zn in chickpea increased yield and improved nutritional quality [39]. Fe biofortification in cowpea also showed that the combined application of ferrous sulfate and ferrous chelate in potting compost increased the Fe content of cowpea seeds compared to a control [40]. In terms of bioavailability, several authors reported that Zn and Se fertilization increased their bioavailability in human diets [41,42,43]. A previous study reported that an increase in the Fe concentration in chickpea seeds also increased Fe bioavailability [44]. The application of a bio-fertilization treatment in chickpea was the most effective at increasing seed yield [45].
Although there are few reports in chickpea biofortification with Fe and zinc (Zn), there are no reports on the agronomic approach for Fe biofortification in chickpea. Given the importance of soil Fe concentration, soil pH and HCO3− level, we hypothesised that the application of Fe fertilizer through soil increases the Fe concentration in seeds. The main objectives of this study were (1) to evaluate the effects of soil-applied Fe fertilizer on the Fe concentration in seeds; and (2) to determine a correlation between the Fe concentration and yield.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of Location and Year

This study was conducted at two locations, Elrose and Moose Jaw in Saskatchewan, Canada, during the growing seasons from May to September in 2015 and 2016. The geographical coordinates of Elrose and Moose Jaw are 51.2006° N, 108.0329° W and 50.3916° N, 105.5349° W, respectively. The soil texture at both locations is clay loam to clay. The soil climatic zones of Elrose and Moose Jaw are dark brown and brown soil zones, respectively.

2.2. Soil Sample Analysis

A soil sample analysis was conducted to examine the physico-chemical characteristics along with the concentrations of several micronutrients including Fe. Soils from both locations are calcareous (pH > 7.0), and the Fe status was above the marginal level (Figure 1).
Ten to twelve soil samples were collected diagonally from two layers (0–6″ and 6–12″) at each location for physico-chemical analyses before and after Fe fertilization. The samples were air-dried at 35 °C for five days, and a wooden roller was used to grind the soils. The ground soil samples were analyzed for different nutrients and chemical properties. A summary of soil properties prior to fertilization and after fertilization in 2015 and 2016 is shown in Table 1.

2.3. Plant Materials

Eighteen chickpea cultivars and advanced breeding lines were used in this experiment (Table 2). All the cultivars were obtained from the chickpea breeding program at the Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan.

2.4. Fe Fertilizer and Application

Synthetic Fe (III) chelates (Fe-EDDHA) were used as a soil-applied fertilizer as a chelating Fe fertilizer is more effective and stable in high-pH soil (Table 3).
Eighteen chickpea cultivars (Table 2) and three rates of Fe fertilizer (Fe-EDDHA) were used in the experiment. Fe fertilizer was applied at three rates, S0 (control: no Fe application), S1 (10 kg ha−1) and S2 (30 kg ha−1), of Fe (Fe-EDDHA) solution with 6% actual Fe and 38.7% EDDHA. The application of Fe fertilizer was carried out via the spraying method, using a nozzle sprayer to spray the soil immediately after planting. Each low-dose plot (S1) was supplied with 9 g of the Fe-EDDHA solution, whereas the high-dose plot (S2) received 27 g. The range of the solution prepared for regular agricultural practice was from 0.05 to 0.1 g/mL of H2O. The Fe-EDDHA solution containing 38.7% EDDHA was prepared with 0.07 g of Fe-EDDHA per ml of H2O. By this protocol, 128 mL and 385 mL of the Fe-EDDHA solution were sprayed on the S1 and S2 plots, respectively. The time of spraying in each row of the S1 plot was 6 s, whereas in each S2 plot, it was 18 s.

2.5. Experimental Design

To evaluate the interaction effects of different doses of Fe fertilizer and chickpea cultivars, the experiment was arranged as an 18 × 3 factorial randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications for each location and year. Each experimental plot was 4.2 m2, and the total number of plots was 216 for each location and year. The plot consisted of 3 rows with 0.31 m intra-row spacing. The seeding rate was 180 seeds per plot. The experiment was seeded using a plot seeder on 29 April and 1 May 2015 at Elrose and Moose Jaw, respectively, and on 3 May and 29 April 2016 in Elrose and Moose Jaw, respectively. General crop management practices were carried out, following the recommendation for chickpea crop in the area. No herbicide was used to manage weeds. When required, weeding at the experimental site was performed manually. In 2016, due to wet conditions in the second half of the growing season, both locations were infected with the ascochyta blight disease.

2.6. Data Collection

2.6.1. Agronomic Traits

Data were taken for the following agronomic characteristics: germination (%), node number, days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height (cm), disease score, 100-seed weight and seed yield (converted to kg ha−1). Germination % was determined by counting the total plant number at each plot and was then converted into %. Node number and plant height were recorded by randomly selecting five plants from the middle row of each plot. Days to flowering was calculated from the seeding date until 50% of the plants within a plot had flowered. Like days to flowering, days to maturity was counted when 50% of the plants had changed color. At maturity, five individual plants from each plot were taken randomly to determine the biomass (dry weight). The reaction to ascochyta blight disease was scored at late podding stage (before maturity) by using a 0–9 scale [47]. A detailed rating scale for ascochyta blight on chickpea is given in Table 4.
The 100seed weight was determined by randomly taking 200-seeds that were counted using seed counter, followed by weighing with a digital balance. The weight of 200-seeds was then converted into the 100seed weight. The seed yield of each plot was recorded in grams per plot and then converted into kg ha−1. The Fe yield was calculated by multiplying the seed Fe concentration by the seed yield and then converted into g ha−1.

2.6.2. Seed Fe Analysis

Fe concentrations (µg g−1) in mature seeds of eighteen different cultivars with three doses of Fe fertilizer were measured via flame atomic absorption spectrometry (F-AAS, Nova 300, Analytik Jena AG, Jena, Germany) at the analytical laboratory at the Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan. Before the Fe concentration analysis, a Vulcan digester (Vulcan 84, Questron Technology, Ontario, CA, USA) was used to digest the samples. The procedures for digestion and the Fe concentration analysis were described previously [30,48]. After harvest, mature seeds were cleaned to remove any soil particles using air pressure. Cleaned seeds were ground using a cyclone sample mill (UDY Corporation, Fort Collins, CO, USA). One-half gram of powdered sample was used for determining the seed Fe concentration with three replications.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

A statistical analysis was performed following the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS version 8.0 (SAS institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) for a factorial randomized complete block design. Initially, the analysis was conducted for each location and year, followed by a combined analysis across locations and years. The location and year and their interactions were considered random effects, whereas the effect of the cultivar and Fe fertilizer dose were considered fixed. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) test was used to separate mean values.

3. Results

The effects of the soil-applied Fe fertilizer across locations and years and their interaction (location × year) and across cultivars and doses and their interaction (cultivar*dose), along with all the two-, three- and four-way interactions on different parameters of chickpea cultivars, are presented in Table 5.
Across the sixteen different factors, cultivar (CUL) and the interaction of cultivar and location (CUL*LOC) were highly significant (p ≤ 0.01) for all parameters. Furthermore, the effect of location (LOC), year (YEAR) and replication (REP) and the interactions of location and year (LOC*YEAR), location and cultivar (LOC*CUL) and location, year and cultivar (LOC*YEAR*CUL) were also significant on most of the parameters. However, the effects of Fe fertilizer were significant only on plant biomass and seed Fe concentration. The interaction effects between cultivar and fertilizer dose (CUL*DOS), dose and year (DOS*YEAR), location, year and dose (LOC*YEAR*DOS), cultivar, year and dose (CUL*YEAR*DOS), cultivar, location and dose (CUL*LOC*DOS) and location, year, cultivar and dose (LOC*YEAR*CUL*DOS) on most of the parameters were not significant. However, the interaction effects of location and dose (LOC*DOS) were significant on most of the parameters except germination, node number, plant height and seed Fe concentration (Table 5).
The effects of soil-applied Fe fertilizer across locations, cultivars, doses and their interactions (location*cultivar), (location*dose), (cultivar*dose) and (location*cultivar*dose) on the disease ascochyta blight scores of chickpea cultivars in 2016 are presented in Table 6.
Across the eight different factors, location (LOC), cultivar (CUL), replication (REP) and the interaction of location and dose (LOC*DOS) were highly significant (p ≤ 0.01) for the ascochyta blight disease score. However, the effect of Fe fertilizer on the disease severity was not significant. The interaction effects between location and cultivar (LOC*CUL), cultivar and dose (CUL*DOS) and cultivar, location and dose (CUL*LOC*DOS) on disease were also not significant (Table 6).

3.1. Biomass

The biomass data were based on the mean dry weight of five randomly harvested plants per plot. The mean biomass (g) of each of the eighteen chickpea cultivars with three Fe fertilizer doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) at both locations in 2015 and 2016 are presented in Table 7.
The effects of locations, cultivars and their interactions on biomass were significant (Table 5). Moreover, the main effect of Fe fertilizer on biomass was highly significant (p ≤ 0.01). The highest biomass was obtained from the cultivar CDC Frontier (196 g per plant), followed by CDC Cory (194 g per plant), whereas the lowest was found for CDC Alma (128 g per plant). The highest mean biomass (268 g) was obtained with 30 kg ha−1 of Fe fertilizer at Elrose in 2015. The biomass of the cultivars grown with no Fe fertilizer was significantly lower than the other two doses. However, some cultivars at Moose Jaw in 2015 obtained the highest biomass with no Fe fertilizer compared to the other two doses. For instance, the cultivar CDC Luna had the highest biomass (102 g per plant) at 0 kg ha−1 of Fe fertilizer compared to the other two doses (Table 7).

3.2. Seed Fe

The mean seed Fe concentrations (µg g−1) of eighteen cultivars with three Fe fertilizer doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) at both locations in 2015 and 2016 are presented in Table 8.
The main effects of locations, years and cultivars as well as their interactions were highly significant (p ≤ 0.01) on seed Fe concentrations (Table 5). Moreover, significant differences were found among doses. Seed Fe concentrations obtained from Elrose in the years 2015 and 2016 were significantly higher than from Moose Jaw. The highest Fe concentration in seeds was observed for cultivar X05TH20-2 (58 µg g−1), followed by CDC Frontier (56 µg g−1). The highest mean dose (67 µg g−1) in seed Fe concentration was obtained at 30 kg ha−1 of Fe fertilizer at Elrose in 2016 compared to all other doses at both locations in 2015 and at Moose Jaw in 2016. The seed Fe concentrations obtained from the no-Fe fertilizer were the lowest compared to the other two doses except for cultivar X05TH47-3 at Elrose in 2016. The lowest mean dose (40 µg g−1) in seed Fe concentration was observed under the no-Fe-fertilizer treatment at Moose Jaw in 2015 compared to both locations in 2016 and Elrose in 2015 with other two doses (Table 8).

3.3. Fe Yield

The mean Fe yields (g ha−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three Fe fertilizer doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) at both locations in 2015 and 2016 are presented in Table 9.
There were significant differences in Fe yield among cultivars and doses. The Fe yield obtained from Elrose in 2015 was significantly higher than other locations and years. The highest cultivar mean Fe yield was obtained from CDC Consul (238 g ha−1), followed by CDC Corinne (230 g ha−1). Furthermore, Fe fertilizers with doses of 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1 yielded the highest Fe yields of 355 g ha−1 and 354 g ha−1, respectively, at Elrose in 2015 compared to the Fe yield at both locations in 2016 and at Moose Jaw in 2015. The Fe yield obtained from plants with no application of Fe fertilizer was lower than the other two doses for most cultivars. However, some cultivars were able to produce the highest Fe yield with a low dose (0 kg ha−1) of Fe fertilizer compared to the other two doses. For instance, cultivar 1173-1 had the highest Fe yield (129 g ha−1) at 0 kg ha−1 of Fe fertilizer (Table 9).

4. Discussion

The application of synthetic Fe chelates on chickpeas across two years and two locations in Saskatchewan had significant effects (p ≤ 0.01) on biomass and seed Fe concentration (Table 5). The chelated Fe fertilizer at 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1 improved the seed Fe concentration across cultivars and environments. In 2015 and 2016, Elrose yielded higher levels of seed Fe concentration compared to Moose Jaw. Moreover, the highest seed Fe concentration (58.5 µg g−1) was obtained from CDC Frontier with a 30 kg ha−1 dose of chelated Fe fertilizer, whereas the lowest (44.5 µg g−1) was obtained from CDC Vanguard with no fertilizer application. At 30 kg ha−1 Fe fertilizer, the seed Fe concentrations of CDC Frontier at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2016 increased by 15% and 16%, respectively, compared to the control. However, the seed Fe concentrations at different doses across environments only gained 5–11% increases compared to the control. This suggests that the application of chelated Fe, which is the dominant form of Fe in alkaline soil, provided readily available Fe to the roots of the chickpea plants. Consequently, the Fe concentration in seeds increased compared to the control. Our findings are in agreement with the findings of Moraghan et al. [49], who reported that application of Fe-EDDHA increased the seed Fe concentration in common bean. Moreover, the highest seed Fe concentration (65 µg g−1) was observed at Elrose in 2016 compared to the rest of the environments (Table 8). The cultivars X05TH20-2 (58 µg g−1) and CDC Frontier (56 µg g−1) had the highest mean seed Fe concentrations compared to the rest of the cultivars, whereas CDC Vanguard had the lowest concentration (46 µg g−1). The variability in Fe concentrations was mostly attributed to cultivars across locations and years. Similar findings were previously reported in chickpea [30].
The Elrose location produced a higher Fe yield compared to Moose Jaw in 2015 and 2016. The highest Fe yield (447 g ha−1) was found in the AB06-156-2 cultivar at 30 kg ha−1 of chelated Fe fertilizer. At the 30 kg ha−1 fertilizer rate, the Fe yield of the AB06-156-2 cultivar at Elrose in 2015 increased by 12% compared to the control. The overall Fe yield increased, varying from 4 to 19% in parallel with the Fe fertilizer doses across environments (Table 9). Kumar et al. [50] showed that the application of varying levels of Fe fertilizer up to 10 kg ha−1 significantly increased the Fe concentration in chickpea grain over a control. Similar findings were also reported by Sharma et al. [51], who observed that the application of chelated Fe fertilizer improved the Fe content in seeds of pigeon pea.
Locations, cultivars and their interaction significantly affected biomass. The highest biomass (228 g per five plants) was observed at Elrose in 2015 compared to the rest of the environments. These findings are similar to those reported by Kumawat et al. [52] and Sahu et al. [53], who observed that soil-applied Fe fertilizer increased biomass yield in chickpea. Similarly, in cowpea, Mahriya and Meena [54] reported that the application of Fe fertilizer improved biomass, which is consistent with our findings. Furthermore, the results are also similar to the findings of Bansal and Chahal [55], who reported that the application of 25 µg g−1 Fe in mung bean grown in alkaline soil significantly increased biomass and Fe content, which is in agreement with our findings. However, previous studies conducted in chickpea and soybean reported that application of Fe-EDDHA did not result in a significant increase in biomass, which contrasts with our findings [56,57,58].
The present study also showed that ascochyta blight disease affected the yield in both locations in 2016 (Table S1). The correlation analysis showed that ascochyta blight and yield were highly correlated (r = 0.75; p ≤ 0.01) at Moose Jaw in 2016 (Table S2). Due to ascochyta blight, Fe was most likely distributed to relatively a smaller number of plants that ultimately increased the seed Fe concentration level at Moose Jaw location in 2016 compared to 2015. These findings suggested that the magnitude of the effects of ascochyta blight on seed Fe concentration depended on the cultivars and environments.
Other characteristics such as the hundred-seed weight and seed yield varied significantly (p ≤ 0.01) among locations, years, cultivars and their interactions in the two-year experiment (Table 5). For the hundred-seed weight, both locations in 2015 produced a larger seed size compared to 2016. This is mostly attributed to the ascochyta blight disease that affected the plants at both locations in 2016 (Table S1). As a result, the hundred-seed weight decreased. The highest location mean of the hundred-seed weight (36.3 g) was observed at Elrose in 2015, whereas the lowest (25.0 g) was found at Elrose in 2016 (Table S3). The highest grain yield (6904 kg ha−1) was observed at Elrose in 2015, whereas the lowest (2421 kg ha−1) was found at Elrose in 2016. CDC Corinne had the highest mean yield (4832 kg ha−1), whereas CDC Alma had the lowest yield (2137 kg ha−1) (Table S4). Mevada et al. [59] reported that the application of Fe chelates increased grain yield significantly over a control in urdbean. By applying Fe fertilizer, Bashrat et al. [34] and Goutami and Ananda [60] also found increased growth, yield and Fe content in seeds of mung bean and groundnut, respectively. A previous study in pigeon pea showed that the application of Fe fertilizer increased yield compared to a control [61]. Similar findings were also reported by Pandit et al. [39], who found that the application of Fe fertilizer to soil increased grain production and nutritional status in chickpea. These findings suggest that the mechanism for increased Fe in seeds and the improved productivity of chickpea were due to an increased supply of Fe through an enhanced Fe status in the soil that resulted in a higher Fe uptake. Kumar et al. [50] and Sahu et al. [53] reported that the application of Fe fertilizer increased the grain yield of chickpea by 17.3%. Furthermore, the hundred-seed weight and seed yield were higher in resistant cultivars such as CDC Corinne, CDC Consul, CDC Leader and CDC Frontier compared to the susceptible cultivars CDC Alma and CDC Luna. The variations in the hundred-seed weight and seed yield among cultivars could be due to the differences in their genetic constitution, physiology, and the cultivar response to various environmental conditions. Similar observations were also made by many authors in previous studies in chickpea and common bean [30,62].
The effects of Fe fertilizer on germination, node number, days to flowering, days to maturity and plant height were not significant (Table 1). However, locations, years, cultivars and their interactions significantly affected germination, node number, days to flowering, days to maturity and plant height. Germination at both locations in 2015 was higher than in 2016. For instance, germination at Elrose in 2015 was 10% and 4% higher than at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2016 However, the node number, days to flowering, days to maturity and plant height were higher at both locations in 2016 than 2015. The variations in the above-mentioned characteristics were mostly due to ascochyta blight infestation, cultivar response to various environmental conditions, genetics and physiology. Current findings were consistent with previous studies in mung bean, chickpeas and common bean that showed that the application of Fe fertilizer did not improve vegetative growth attributes [30,50,62,63,64]. However, previous studies in cowpea, black gram and pea showed that growth characteristics were increased with the application of Fe fertilizer, which are in contrast with our findings [64,65].

5. Conclusions

Chickpea is a daily staple in many developing countries where people often affected by Fe deficiency and Fe-deficiency-related anemia. Improving the Fe concentration in the seeds of chickpea, along with increasing consumption, is one of the major strategies to correct Fe deficiency. The present study demonstrated that chickpea contained Fe at a 3.4–8.0 mg 100 g−1 concentration. One of the major findings from this study is that chelated Fe fertilizer at 30 kg ha−1 increased the seed Fe concentration. Results from the soil-applied Fe fertilizer show that the highest seed Fe concentration was obtained from the X05TH20-2 and CDC Frontier cultivars (58 and 56 µg Fe g−1 seed, respectively). Therefore, the Fe-biofortified seeds of these two cultivars can provide approximately 6 mg Fe 100−1 g seeds. Thus, 58 and 83 g servings of Fe-biofortified chickpea seeds can provide an adequate amount (50%) of Fe for children in the age groups 1–3 (7 mg Fe day−1) and 4–8 (10 mg day−1) years, respectively. Moreover, in the age group 19–50 years, 67 and 150 g of Fe-biofortified chickpea seeds can provide adequate amount (50%) of Fe for men (8 mg Fe day−1) and women (18 mg Fe day−1).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy13122894/s1, Table S1: Disease score (0–9) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three different doses of Fe-EDDHA at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2016. Table S2. Correlation between ascochyta blight score and yield as well as Fe yield of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three different doses of Fe-EDDHA at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2016. Table S3. Hundred seed weight (g) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three different doses of Fe-EDDHA at Elrose and Moose Jaw in the year 2015 and 2016. Table S4. Average yield (kg ha−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars across all doses of Fe-EDDHA at Elrose and Moose Jaw in the year 2015 and 2016.

Author Contributions

T.A.J. and B.T. conceived and designed the study; T.A.J. analysed the data; T.A.J. prepared the draft manuscript; B.T., reviewed all documents critically and approved the final manuscript for submission in the journal. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was funded by the Agricultural Development Fund from the Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture.

Data Availability Statement

The supporting data of this study are available from the corresponding author, upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge technical help from Jaret Horner, Scott Ife and Brent Barlow during the field trials. The authors also thank Barry Goetz for the seed iron analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Grillet, L.; Mari, S.; Schmidt, W. Fe in seeds—Loading pathways and subcellular localization. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 4, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tan, G.Z.H.; Das Bhowmik, S.S.; Hoang, T.M.L.; Karbaschi, M.R.; Johnson, A.A.T.; Williams, B.; Mundree, S.G. Finger on the pulse: Pumping Fe into chickpea. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zuo, Y.; Zhang, F. Soil and crop management strategies to prevent Fe deficiency in crops. Plant Soil 2011, 339, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Colombo, C.; Palumbo, G.; He, J.Z.; Pinton, R.; Cesco, S. Review on Fe availability in soil: Interaction of Fe minerals, plants, and microbes. J. Soils Sediments 2014, 14, 538–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boukhalfa, H.; Crumbliss, A.L. Chemical aspects of siderophore mediated Fe transport. Biometals 2002, 15, 325–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Römheld, V.; Marschner, H. Evidence for a specific uptake system for Fe phytosiderophores in roots of grasses. Plant Physiol. 1986, 80, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Robinson, N.J.; Procter, C.M.; Connolly, E.L.; Guerinot, M.L. A ferric-chelate reductase for Fe uptake from soils. Nature 1999, 397, 694–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Morrissey, J.; Guerinot, M. Fe uptake and transport in plants: The good, the bad, and the ionome. Chem. Rev. 2009, 109, 4553–4567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jeong, J.; Connolly, E.L. Fe uptake mechanisms in plants: Functions of the FRO family of ferric reductases. Plant Sci. 2009, 176, 709–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chugh, V.; Dhaliwal, H. Biofortification of Staple Crops. In Agricultural Sustainability; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mayer, J.; Pfeiffer, W.; Beyer, P. Biofortified crops to alleviate micronutrient malnutrition. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2008, 11, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Briat, J.F. Fe Nutrition and Implications for Biomass Production and the Nutritional Quality of Plant Products. In Molecular and Physiological Basis of Nutrient Use Efficiency in Crops; Hawkesford, M.J., Barraclough, P., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 309–328. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cakmak, I. Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: Agronomic or genetic biofortification? Plant Soil 2008, 302, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. De Valença, A.; Bake, A.; Brouwer, I.; Giller, K. Agronomic biofortification of crops to fight hidden hunger in sub-Saharan Africa. Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 12, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prasad, R. Ferti-fortifcation of grains an easy option to alleviate malnutrition of some micronutrients in human beings. Indian J. Fertil. 2009, 5, 129–133. [Google Scholar]
  16. Manzeke, G.; Mapfumo, M.; Mtambanengwe, P.; Chikowo, F.; Tendayi, R.; Cakmak, T. Soil fertility management effects on maize productivity and grain zinc content in smallholder farming systems of Zimbabwe. Plant Soil 2012, 361, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vanlauwe, B.; Descheemaeker, K.; Giller, K.; Huising, J.; Merckx, R.; Nziguheba, G.; Wendt, J.; Zingore, S. Integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: Unravelling local adaptation. Soil 2015, 1, 491–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Voortman, R.L.; Bindraban, P.S. Beyond N and P: Towards a Land Resource Ecology Perspective and Impactful Fertilizer Interventions in Sub-Sahara Africa; VFRC Report 2015/1; Virtual Fertilizer Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; p. 49. [Google Scholar]
  19. Singh, M.; Prasad, K. Agronomic Aspects of Zinc Biofortification in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci. 2014, 84, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rietra, R.P.J.J.; Heinen, M.; Dimpla, C.; Bindraban, P.S. Effects of Nutrients Antagonism and Synergism on Fertilizer Use Efficiency; VFRC Report 2015/5; Virtual Fertilizer Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2015; Available online: http://www.vfrc.org/getdoc/e738b7d3-8f70-4b18-b3d9-980694b5f26c/vfrc_2015-5_effects_of_nutrient_antagonism_and_syn.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2018).
  21. Walworth, D.J. Recognizing and Treating Fe Deficiency in the Home Yard. Available online: https://extension.arizona.edu/sites/extension.arizona.edu/files/pubs/az1415.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2019).
  22. Millán, T.; Madrid, E.; Cubero, J.I.; Amri, M.; Patricia, C.; Rubio, J. Chickpea. In Handbook of Plant Breeding; De Ron, A.M.D., Ed.; Springer: Pontevedra, Spain, 2015; pp. 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhu, H.; Choi, H.; Cook, D.R.; Shoemaker, R.C. Bridging model and crop legumes through comparative genomics. Plant Physiol. 2005, 137, 1189–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. FAOSTAT. FAO Statistical Database. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 15 May 2018).
  25. Akibode, C.S.; Maredia, M.K. Global and Regional Trends in Production, Trade and Consumption of Food Legume Crops; Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wells, H.F.; Bond, J.K. Vegetables and Pulses Yearbook Data. Economic Research Service, USDA. 2016. Available online: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/1n79h429p/z890rw81t/rj430695g/VGS-08-30-2016.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2019).
  27. Ibrikci, H.; Knewtson, S.; Grusak, M. Chickpea leaves as a vegetable green for humans: Evaluation of mineral composition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2003, 83, 945–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yadav, S.S.; Longnecker, N.; Dusunceli, F.; Bejiga, G.; Yadav, M.; Rizvi, A.H.; Manohar, M.; Reddy, A.A.; Xaxiao, Z.; Chen, W. Uses, consumption and utilization. In Chickpea Breeding and Management; Yadav, S.S., Redden, R.J., Chen, W., Sharma, B., Eds.; CABI: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 72–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Diapari, M.; Sindhu, A.; Bett, K.; Deokar, A.; Warkentin, T.; Tar’an, B. Genetic diversity and association mapping of Fe and zinc concentrations in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Genome 2014, 57, 459–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. USDA. National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Available online: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services?docs.htm?docid=8964 (accessed on 25 March 2018).
  31. Chilimba, A.; Young, S.; Black, C.; Meacham, M.; Lammel, J.; Broadley, M. Agronomic biofortification of maize with selenium (Se) in Malawi. Field Crops Res. 2012, 125, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yilmaz, A.; Ekiz, H.; Torun, B.; Gultekin, I.; Karanlik, S.; Bagci, S.A.; Cakmak, I. Effect of different zinc application methods on grain yield and zinc concentration in wheat cultivars grown on zinc-deficient calcareous soils. J. Plant. Nutr. 1997, 20, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hidoto, L.; Worku, W.; Mohammed, H.; Bunyamin, T. Effects of zinc application strategy on zinc content and productivity of chickpea grown under zinc deficient soils. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 17, 112–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ali, B.; Ali, A.; Tahir, M.; Ali, S. Growth, Seed yield and quality of mungbean as influenced by foliar application of Fe sulfate. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 2014, 12, 20–25. Available online: https://pjlss.edu.pk/pdf_files/2014_1/4)%20Ali%20et%20al%202014%20(1).pdf (accessed on 25 March 2018).
  35. Smrkolj, P.; Germ, M.; Kreft, I.; Stibilj, V. Respiratory potential and Se compounds in pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants grown from Se-enriched seeds. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 3595–3600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Smrkolj, P.; Osvald, M.; Osvald, J.; Stibilj, V. Selenium uptake and species distribution in selenium-enriched bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seeds obtained by two different cultivations. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2007, 225, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Molina, M.G.; Quiroz, C.M.; de la Cruz, L.E.; Martinez, J.R.V.; Parra, J.M.S.; Carrillo, M.G.; Vidal, J.A.O. Biofortification of cowpea beans (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) with Fe and zinc. Mex. J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 17, 3427–3438. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sida-Arreola, J.; Sánchez, E.; Ojeda-Barrios, D.; Ávila-uezada, G.; Flores-Córdova, M.; Márquez-Quiroz, C.; Preciado-Rangel, P. Can biofortification of zinc improve the antioxidant capacity and nutritional quality of beans? Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 237–241. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rathod, S.P.; Patil, D.H.; Bellad, S.B.; Haveri, V.R. Biofortification of Zn and Fe in Chickpea through Agronomic Intervention in Medium Black Soils of Karnataka. Legume Res. 2022, 45, 981–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Márquez-Quiroz, C.; De-La-Cruz-Lázaro, E.; Osorio-Osorio, R.; Sánchez-Chávez, E. Biofortification of cowpea beans with Fe: Fe’s influence on mineral content and yield. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 839–847. [Google Scholar]
  41. Hussain, S.; Rengel, Z.; Aziz, T.; Abid, M. Estimated Zinc Bioavailability in Milling Fractions of Biofortified Wheat Grains and in Flours of Different Extraction Rates. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2013, 15, 921–926. [Google Scholar]
  42. White, P.J.; Broadley, M.R. Biofortification of crops with seven mineral elements often lacking in human diets. New Phytol. 2009, 182, 49–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Alfthan, G.; Eurola, M.; Ekholm, P.; Venäläinen, E.; Root, T.; Korkalainen, K.; Hartikainen, H.; Salminen, P.; Hietaniemi, V.; Aspila, P.; et al. Effects of nationwide addition of selenium to fertilizers on foods, and animal and human health in Finland: From deficiency to optimal selenium status of the population. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2015, 31, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jahan, T.A.; Vandenberg, A.; Glahn, R.P.; Tyler, R.T.; Reaney, M.J.T.; Tar’an, B. Iron Fortification and Bioavailability of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Seeds and Flour. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Seleiman, M.; Abdelaal, M. Effect of Organic, Inorganic and Bio-fertilization on Growth, Yield and Quality Traits of Some Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Varieties. Egypt. J. Agron. 2018, 40, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cropnuts. Available online: https://cropnuts.helpscoutdocs.com/article/826-iron-fertilisation (accessed on 15 September 2020).
  47. Chongo, G.; Gossen, B.D.; Buchwaldt, L.; Adhikari, T.; Rimmer, S.R. Genetic diversity of Ascochyta rabiei in Canada. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. DellaValle, D.M.; Thavarajah, D.; Thavarajah, P.; Vandenberg, A.; Glahn, R.P. Lentil (Lens culinaris L.) as a candidate crop for Fe biofortification: Is there genetic potential for Fe bioavailability? Field Crops Res. 2013, 144, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Moraghan, J.; Padilla, T.; Etchevers, J.; Grafton, K.; Acosta-Gallegos, J. Fe accumulation in seed of common bean. Plant Soil 2002, 246, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kumar, V.; Dwivedi, V.N.; Tiwari, D.D. Effect of phosphorous and Fe on yield and mineral nutrition in chickpea. Ann. Plant Soil Res. 2009, 11, 16–18. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sharma, S.; Sharma, M.; Ramesh, A. Biofortification of crops with micronutrients through agricultural approaches. Indian Farming 2010, 60, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kumawat, R.N.; Rathore, P.S.; Pareek, N. Response of mung bean to sulphur and Fe nutrition grown on calcareous soil of Western Rajasthan. Indian Soc. Pulses Res. Dev. 2006, 19, 228–230. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sahu, S.; Lidder, R.S.; Singh, P.K. Effect of micronutrients and biofertilizers on growth, yield and nutrient uptake by chickpea (Cicer aeritinum L.) in Vertisols of Madhya Pradesh. Adv. Plant Sci. 2008, 21, 501–503. [Google Scholar]
  54. Mahriya, A.K.; Meena, N. Response of phosphorous and Fe on growth and quality of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Ann. Agri-Bio Res. 1999, 4, 203–205. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bansal, R.L.; Chahal, D.S. Interaction effect of Fe and Mn on growth and nutrient content of moong (Phaseolus aureus L.). Acta Agron. Hung. 1990, 39, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ghasemi-Fasaei, R.; Ronaghi, A.; Maftoun, M.; Karimian, N.; Soltanpour, P. Fe-Manganese Interaction in Chickpea as Affected by Foliar and Soil Application of Fe in a Calcareous Soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2005, 36, 1717–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Moosavi, A.A.; Ronaghi, A. Influence of foliar and soil applications of Fe and manganese on soybean dry matter yield and Fe-manganese relationship in a calcareous soil. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 1550–1556. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ronaghi, A.; Ghasemi-Fasaei, R. Field Evaluations of Yield, Fe-Manganese Relationship, and Chlorophyll Meter Readings in Soybean Genotypes as Affected by Fe-Ethylenediamine Di-o-hydroxyphenylacetic Acid in a Calcareous Soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2007, 31, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mevada, K.D.; Patel, J.J.; Patel, K.P. Effect of micronutrients on yield of urdbean. Indian Soc. Pulses Res. Dev. 2005, 18, 214–216. [Google Scholar]
  60. Gowthami, S.S.; Ananda, N. Effect of zinc and iron ferti-fortification on growth, pod yield and zinc uptake of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 2015, 10, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hanumanthappa, D.; Vasudevan; Maruthi, S.; Shakuntala, J.B.; Muniswamy, N.M.; Macha, S.I. Enrichment of iron and zinc content in pigeonpea genotypes through agronomic biofortification to mitigate malnutrition. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 4334–4342. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ariza-Nieto, M.; Blair, M.; Welch, R.; Glahn, R. Screening of Fe bioavailability patterns in eight bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes using the Caco-2 cell in vitro model. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 7950–7956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Janmohammadi, M.; Abdoli, H.; Sabaghnia, N.; Esmailpour, M.; Aghaei, A. The Effect Of Fe, Zinc and Organic Fertilizer on Yield of Chickpea (Cicer artietinum L.) in Mediterranean Climate. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2018, 66, 0049–0060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Shukla, V.S.I. Effect of Fe, Mo, Zn and P on symbiotic nitrogen fixation of chickpea. Indian J. Agric. Chem. 1994, 32, 118–123. [Google Scholar]
  65. Thapu, U.; Rai, P.; Suresh, C.P.; Pal, P. Effect of micronutrients on the growth and yield of pea in gangetic alluvial of West Bengal. Environ. Ecol. 2003, 21, 179–182. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 13 02894 g001aAgronomy 13 02894 g001b
Figure 1. The status of Fe and other macro- and micronutrients in lb ac−1 at the experimental sites at Elrose (A) and Moose Jaw (B), SK.
Figure 1. The status of Fe and other macro- and micronutrients in lb ac−1 at the experimental sites at Elrose (A) and Moose Jaw (B), SK.
Agronomy 13 02894 g001aAgronomy 13 02894 g001b
Table 1. Summary of soil properties prior to fertilization and after fertilization in 2015 and 2016.
Table 1. Summary of soil properties prior to fertilization and after fertilization in 2015 and 2016.
Before FertilizationAfter Fertilization
LocationLocation
ElroseMoose JawElroseMoose JawElroseMoose JawElroseMoose Jaw
2015201620152016
Depth (Inches)Depth (Inches)Depth (Inches)Depth (Inches)
Soil Properties0–66–120–66–120–66–120–66–120–66–120–66–120–66–120–66–12
pH7.57.97.98.27.98.17.58.27.27.67.98.27.48.17.78.2
N (mg kg−1)13.010.06.53.58.68.112.47.68.84.88.15.44.41.76.61.0
P (mg kg−1)13.03.59.52.03.62.014.43.919.37.510.82.011.92.013.22.1
K (mg kg−1)2702552702556995017566141120856849420932582885507
Fe (mg kg−1)20.511.413.39.419.819.818.317.022.123.016.713.820.721.322.119.7
Table 2. Description of eighteen cultivars used in the soil-applied Fe fertilization.
Table 2. Description of eighteen cultivars used in the soil-applied Fe fertilization.
EntryCultivarsTypes100 Seed Weight (g)
(Avg. of 2015 and 2016)
1.1173-1Kabuli34.9
2.1460-2Desi20.3
3.AB06-156-2Kabuli37.6
4.AmitKabuli25.2
5.CA05-75-45Kabuli26.5
6.CDC AlmaKabuli29.3
7.CDC CabriDesi28.6
8.CDC ConsulDesi29.9
9.CDC CorinneDesi25.5
10.CDC CoryDesi26.6
11.CDC FrontierKabuli30.9
12.CDC LeaderKabuli35.6
13.CDC LunaKabuli29.7
14.CDC OrionKabuli36.0
15.CDC PalmerKabuli39.3
16.CDC VanguardDesi21.9
17.X05TH20-2Kabuli37.1
18.X05TH47-3Kabuli35.1
Table 3. Fe (III) chelates and their stability level on high pH soil in order to correct Fe deficiency.
Table 3. Fe (III) chelates and their stability level on high pH soil in order to correct Fe deficiency.
Fe FertilizerStabilityFe Deficiency
Fe-EDTA, Fe-DTPA and Fe-HEDTALowLimited/no results
Fe-EDDHAHighEffective
Source: Adapted from [46].
Table 4. Disease rating scale (0–9) of ascochyta blight in chickpea.
Table 4. Disease rating scale (0–9) of ascochyta blight in chickpea.
RatingSymptoms
0No symptoms
1Few, very small (<2 mm2) lesions on leaves and/or stems, <2% plant area affected (PAA)
2Very small (<2 mm2) lesions, 2–5% PAA
3Many small lesions (#2–5 mm2), 5–10% PAA
4Many small lesions, few large (>5 mm2) lesions, 10–25% PAA
5Many large lesions, 25–50% PAA
6Lesions coalescing, 50–75% PAA
7Lesions coalescing with stem girdling, 75–90% PAA
8Stem girdling or breakage, >90% PAA
9Plant dead
Source: Chongo et al., 2004 [47].
Table 5. Analysis of variance table showing the F values of the effects of location (LOC), year (YEAR), replication (REP), cultivar (CUL), dose (DOS) and their interactions on germination (%), node no., days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height (cm), biomass (g), 100-seed weight (g), yield (kg ha−1), seed Fe (µg g−1) and Fe yield (g ha−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three doses of Fe-EDDHA over four replications at Elrose and Moose Jaw, SK.
Table 5. Analysis of variance table showing the F values of the effects of location (LOC), year (YEAR), replication (REP), cultivar (CUL), dose (DOS) and their interactions on germination (%), node no., days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height (cm), biomass (g), 100-seed weight (g), yield (kg ha−1), seed Fe (µg g−1) and Fe yield (g ha−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three doses of Fe-EDDHA over four replications at Elrose and Moose Jaw, SK.
Sources of VariationdfGerminationNode NumberDays to FloweringDays to MaturityPlant HeightBiomass100-Seed WeightYieldSeed Fe Conc.
LOC168.3 **3.6 ns1232 **536 **766 **101 **0.6 ns1254 **1248 **
YEAR1227 **93.8 **131 **12804 **5701 **0.8 ns1401 **1367 **884 **
REP30.9 ns3.0 *3.2*1.9 ns4.7 *2.4 *8.2 **22.0 **12.4 **
CUL174.3 **9.9 **12.2 **8.2 **17.5 **8.1 **117 **35.1 **19.3 **
DOS21.3 ns0.7 ns1.8 ns2.7 ns0.3 ns61.7 **1.7 ns0.0 ns14.1 **
LOC*YEAR10.9 ns19.0 **395 **968 **157 **1292 **99.9 **1866 **88.9 **
LOC*CUL171.4 ns1.4 ns2.1 *2.4*1.9 *6.0 **3.0 **5.9 **2.5 *
LOC*DOS21.6 ns1.4 ns4.3 *15.8 **2.0 ns25.5 **3.1 *3.6 *0.9 ns
CUL*YEAR176.9 **3.5 **6.8 **6.1 **3.2 **9.4 **17.3 **7.7 **11.0 **
CUL*DOS341.2 ns1.2 ns0.6 ns0.7 ns0.5 ns1.4 ns0.7 ns1.6 *0.6 ns
DOS*YEAR22.5 ns0.2 ns1.4 ns1.5 ns2.6 ns2.4 ns1.8 ns1.3 ns4.1 *
LOC*YEAR*CUL171.5 ns3.1 **6.0 **2.4 *2.6 *3.2 **4.2 **12.6 **2.0 *
LOC*YEAR*DOS22.0 ns0.4 ns0.5 ns11.3 **0.6 ns32.1 **1.5 ns1.3 ns1.4 ns
CUL*YEAR*DOS341.1 ns1.6 *0.7 ns0.8 ns0.7 ns1.0 ns0.8 ns2.4 **0.7 ns
CUL*LOC*DOS340.9 ns0.8 ns0.6 ns0.7 ns0.7 ns1.1 ns0.7 ns1.7 *0.9 ns
LOC*YEAR*CUL*DOS341.1 ns1.3 ns0.9 ns0.8 ns0.5 ns1.9 *0.8 ns1.5 *1.2 ns
* = significant at 5%; ** = significant at 1%; ns = nonsignificant; df = degrees of freedom.
Table 6. Analysis of variance and F values of the effect of location (LOC), replication (REP), cultivar (CUL), dose (DOS) and the interaction of LOC*CUL, LOC*DOS, CUL*DOS and CUL*LOC*DOS on the disease scores of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three doses of Fe-EDDHA over four replications at both sites in 2016.
Table 6. Analysis of variance and F values of the effect of location (LOC), replication (REP), cultivar (CUL), dose (DOS) and the interaction of LOC*CUL, LOC*DOS, CUL*DOS and CUL*LOC*DOS on the disease scores of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three doses of Fe-EDDHA over four replications at both sites in 2016.
Sources of VariationdfDisease Score
LOC162.4 **
REP337.7 **
CUL178.9 **
DOS22.1 ns
LOC*CUL170.6 ns
LOC*DOS213.2 **
CUL*DOS340.5 ns
LOC*CUL*DOS340.7 ns
** = significant at 1%; ns = nonsignificant; df = degrees of freedom.
Table 7. The mean biomass (g plant−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three Fe fertilizer doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2015 and 2016.
Table 7. The mean biomass (g plant−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three Fe fertilizer doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2015 and 2016.
CultivarsElroseMoose JawCultivar Mean
2015201620152016
kg ha−1kg ha−1kg ha−1kg ha−1
01030010300103001030
1173-11992082551091191278912599157166182153
1460-217523224411211712411889105171258171159
AB06-156-2149280295101118146149127157198201208177
Amit195220244126136160118125148216246247182
CA05-75-4517919826312512814987108139173189263167
CDC Alma183170208829210010211985162121113128
CDC Cabri1662603291291441618173111127178154159
CDC Consul1162152231331391438312686176208261159
CDC Corinne167226260147148170130138134196217219179
CDC Cory167250262160162174109143123229245301194
CDC Frontier238240263136161170136137121243265248196
CDC Leader195222235137141145948286205216259168
CDC Luna1502483041151351301029093100164165150
CDC Orion207316389130134148105109106191191197185
CDC Palmer16617021511913214111311295222229266165
CDC Vanguard201259261127129158157127149132238141173
X05TH20-2270302325117124147122122114172172178180
X05TH47-3160166258129156186131134111210214223173
Dose Mean182232269124134149112116115182206211169
LSD0.0551.972.958.13029.639.840.937.736.455.953.971.748.2
LSD = Least Significant Difference.
Table 8. Seed Fe concentrations (µg g−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three Fe fertilizer doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2015 and 2016.
Table 8. Seed Fe concentrations (µg g−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three Fe fertilizer doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2015 and 2016.
CultivarsElroseMoose JawCultivar
Mean
2015201620152016
0
kg ha−1		10
kg ha−1		30
kg ha−1		0
kg ha−1		10
kg ha−1		30
kg ha−1		0
kg ha−1		10
kg ha−1		30
kg ha−1		0
kg ha−1		10
kg ha−1		30
kg ha−1
1173-143.448.049.361.062.867.138.137.240.946.446.351.549.3
1460-247.452.154.356.259.561.238.839.543.645.144.349.849.3
AB06-156-250.952.257.167.170.371.541.142.541.046.749.154.853.7
Amit48.750.048.059.064.871.840.441.543.146.048.850.551.1
CA05-75-4548.042.548.857.856.759.034.934.134.348.944.450.746.7
CDC Alma43.450.149.664.971.879.937.739.138.548.450.353.952.3
CDC Cabri45.546.453.857.257.459.637.239.939.647.347.551.248.5
CDC Consul52.151.653.556.962.857.441.847.143.040.744.447.449.9
CDC Corinne45.749.750.155.154.660.440.639.440.640.840.842.846.7
CDC Cory46.948.451.256.059.564.342.343.944.942.144.947.849.3
CDC Frontier57.054.655.366.372.775.643.344.546.349.251.656.956.1
CDC Leader48.247.245.360.360.062.137.637.039.243.145.752.748.2
CDC Luna47.647.148.478.073.380.037.838.737.248.756.055.554.0
CDC Orion45.753.452.269.668.171.039.437.139.746.751.954.452.4
CDC Palmer48.448.448.564.163.368.836.540.139.445.644.547.849.6
CDC Vanguard43.547.547.852.948.856.540.339.447.141.044.048.446.4
X05TH20-255.257.457.975.072.175.648.550.546.150.351.453.657.8
X05TH47-352.649.555.571.967.370.045.748.948.348.652.351.455.2
Dose Mean48.349.851.562.763.767.340.141.141.845.947.751.250.9
LSD0.057.011.47.69.611.69.34.94.85.57.15.56.87.6
LSD = Least Significant Difference.
Table 9. The mean Fe yields (g ha−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three different doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) of Fe-EDDHA at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2015 and 2016.
Table 9. The mean Fe yields (g ha−1) of eighteen chickpea cultivars with three different doses (0 kg ha−1, 10 kg ha−1 and 30 kg ha−1) of Fe-EDDHA at Elrose and Moose Jaw in 2015 and 2016.
CultivarsElroseMoose JawCultivar
Mean
2015201620152016
kg ha−1kg ha−1kg ha−1kg ha−1
01030010300103001030
1173-1311347316129116318683111141131170164
1460-234033737013712512611391113171132184187
AB06-156-23964104471371711259310410414598199202
Amit306337335132113174938690132150150175
CA05-75-45305250311160132138745961112171126158
CDC Alma2342502476265638979109...133
CDC Cabri29132631928417218874999015272107181
CDC Consul430405419172171135132127129196253291238
CDC Corinne405438434174248211122110100149182189230
CDC Cory376351374262264155122144159127203141223
CDC Frontier443433428130150314140131131786275210
CDC Leader3594203671521356998104104190156165193
CDC Luna282294291149112141100107110148.030137
CDC Orion26737931514096185106961041068981164
CDC Palmer416342422190206204989698173170300226
CDC Vanguard272372288168151156105959410897104167
X05TH20-22633343061099714785928310498109152
X05TH47-3346367387133182113103141123198153209205
Dose Mean336355354157150149102102106135131155186
LSD0.0573.490.869.67398.8136.224.824.534.457.359.665.767.3
LSD = Least Significant Difference.
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

Jahan, T.A.; Tar’an, B. Agronomic Approach to Iron Biofortification in Chickpea. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2894. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122894

AMA Style

Jahan TA, Tar’an B. Agronomic Approach to Iron Biofortification in Chickpea. Agronomy. 2023; 13(12):2894. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122894

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jahan, Tamanna Akter, and Bunyamin Tar’an. 2023. "Agronomic Approach to Iron Biofortification in Chickpea" Agronomy 13, no. 12: 2894. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122894

APA Style

Jahan, T. A., & Tar’an, B. (2023). Agronomic Approach to Iron Biofortification in Chickpea. Agronomy, 13(12), 2894. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122894

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