Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances in Microbial Enzyme Applications for Sustainable Textile Processing and Waste Management
Previous Article in Journal
Contribution of Jitter and Phase Noise to the Precision of Sinusoidal Amplitude Estimation Using Coherent Sampling
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sci
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/sci7020045
sci-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

Effects of Physicochemical Characteristics of Two Soils on Agro-Morphological Traits of Two Chickpea Varieties (Cicer arietinum L.)

by
Sara Fahde
1,2,*,
Said Boughribil
2,
Lamyae Ed-daoudy
1,3,
Youssef Dadi
1,
Abdelali El Mekkaoui
4,
Badreddine Sijilmassi
1,
Zakaria Kehel
1 and
Ahmed Amri
1
1
Rhizobium Laboratory, Genetic Resources Section, ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas), Agdal, Rabat 10080, Morocco
2
Laboratory of Virology, Oncology, Biosciences, Environment and New Energies (LVO BEEN), Mohammedia 28806, Morocco
3
Laboratory of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Sciences in Rabat, Mohammed V University, Rabat 10000, Morocco
4
Research Unit on Environment and Conservation of Natural Resources, Regional Center of Agricultural Research of Rabat, National Institute of Agricultural Research, Rabat 10090, Morocco
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sci 2025, 7(2), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7020045
Submission received: 19 November 2024 / Revised: 25 February 2025 / Accepted: 5 March 2025 / Published: 9 April 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study investigated the impact of soil properties under greenhouse conditions on the growth and productivity of two chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes (V1 and V2) using two distinct soils collected from Marchouch and Beni Mellal sites. Soil analysis revealed significant differences in organic matter, phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen levels between the two sites. Marchouch soil, characterized by higher nutrient content, especially phosphorus, demonstrated a more favorable environment for chickpea growth, resulting in enhanced plant height, leaf number, chlorophyll content, seed number, and seed weight. Variety V2 showed slightly better performance than V1 across both soil types, particularly in terms of seed yield and mineral content. This research highlights the importance of soil nutrient availability. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the important role of phosphorus in chickpea growth, with Marchouch soil having a higher phosphorus level (62.9 mg kg−1), significantly boosting plant development and yield. Although soil mineral characteristics and genotypes had little effect on most minerals, zinc (19.77 mg uL−1) and iron (69.43 mg uL−1) levels stood out as significant exceptions. Therefore, further studies should focus on examining additional soil characteristics and expanding genotype selection. Based on the findings, Marchouch soil appears to be more favorable for chickpea cultivation. However, more research is needed on the effect of soil and genotypes on Rhizobium activity.

1. Introduction

The global population currently exceeds 8.1 billion individuals, among whom more than 1.6 billion are suffering from malnutrition. Feeding this population, expected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050 [1], will require a substantial increase in production and nutritional value of agricultural products amidst the challenges due to climate change, land degradation, and the decelerating increase in resources. Addressing these challenges requires an increasing reliance on high-quality crops to effectively fulfill the nutritional requirements of the expanding population [2]. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) has domesticated ancestors that originated over 10,000 years ago in an area encompassing present-day southeastern Turkey and adjoining Syria [3]. It is an important food legume crop of global significance recognized for its nutritional richness, including high levels of protein, fiber, and minerals [4]. Its nutritional qualities make it a significant contributor to overcoming malnutrition and promoting human health in North Africa and West Asia regions [5], where chickpea cultivation has a longstanding tradition owing to its low-input requirements. The nutritional composition of chickpea seeds shows ranges for carbohydrates (50–58%), protein (15–22%), fat (3.8–10.20%), and micronutrients (<1%) [6,7]. Among its carbohydrates, chickpeas contain a spectrum of compounds such as sugar alcohols, fructo-oligosaccharides, and resistant starch [8,9]. Notably, the protein content of chickpeas averages around 18% [Kabuli type: 18.4% (16.2–22.4%); Desi type: 18.2% (15.6–21.4%)], surpassing that of lentils and field peas [10]. Furthermore, chickpeas serve as a noteworthy reservoir of essential minerals, including iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and selenium (Se). Additionally, assessing the sustainability of intensive agricultural development relies upon the pivotal role of soil quality. Sustainable soil management practices are essential for preserving and enhancing soil and water quality [11]. The multifaceted concept of soil quality incorporates the interplay of physical, chemical, and biological attributes of the soil, facilitating crop growth, regulating water flow within the environment, and serving as a natural filter for pollutants [12]. Moreover, the resilience of soil quality is evaluated by its capacity to retain and release water and nutrients, uphold biodiversity, and resist adverse impacts from anthropogenic activities that can lead to its degradation [11]. Soil quality primarily depends on its inherent properties, geochemical and climatic conditions, and human utilization patterns [11]. Chickpea cultivation thrives across diverse soil types, yet exhibits a preference for well-drained sandy and silt loam soils [13,14]. Furthermore, chickpea attains peak productivity within a soil pH range of 6.0 to 9.0 [15]. The high calcium and magnesium content characteristic of certain soils underscores their important role in facilitating chickpea growth [15]. Additionally, elevated organic matter content (>0.5%) increases soil fertility and resilience [16]. While research on chickpea production has been conducted in a variety of environments, there have been few studies into the unique interaction between different soil qualities and chickpea cultivars, especially in semi-arid countries like North Africa. To address this gap, this study aims to evaluate the effects of soil physicochemical properties from different locations on the production and growth of two genotypes of chickpeas. Accordingly, we aim to investigate the following scientific questions: (1) How do the physiochemical properties of different soils influence chickpea growth and yield? (2) Do different chickpea genotypes respond differently to variations in soil quality? (3) What are the key soil characteristics that contribute to optimal chickpea production?
To answer these questions, the main objective of this research is to evaluate the impact of physicochemical soil properties on chickpea development (Cicer arietinum L.), as well as how these effects interact with different chickpea varieties. Specifically, this research aims to determine the optimal combinations of soil types and nutrients by assessing how various chickpea genotypes respond to different soil characteristics. By improving our understanding of these interactions, this study seeks to contribute to the development of tailored agricultural methods that promote sustainable farming and enhance food security in semi-arid environments.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Soil Analysis

Two Moroccan regions were chosen for soil collection, based on their known farming practices in Morocco and distinct agricultural characteristics. “Beni Mellal” is known for its dry weather and lack of precipitation, and “Marchouch” receives regular and higher precipitation, which makes it a more appropriate place for crop development. These locations were chosen in order to assess chickpea performance and possible constraints in various environmental settings, thereby offering information about the viability of growing chickpea production in areas with variable water availability.
Soil samples were collected from agricultural fields at two distinct sites where there had been no recent legume cultivation or use of fertilizers. Sampling was conducted at a depth of 20 cm, following a composite sampling approach in which multiple subsamples were collected from each field, thoroughly mixed, and homogenized to obtain a representative sample per site. The selected sites were chosen based on their contrasting climatic and agricultural characteristics: the INRA (National Institute of Agronomic Research) experimental station of Marchouch, situated in the Rabat-Sale-Kenitra region (Latitude: 33.561319 N; Longitude: −6.691883 W; Altitude: 428 m) [17], and the INRA-Tadla experimental station, positioned in the Beni Mellal-Khenifra Region of Morocco (Latitude: 32.2594952 N; Longitude: −6.5364051 W) [18].
The Marchouch station exhibits a semi-arid climatic profile, with average minimum temperatures around 10 °C and maximum temperatures reaching up to 24 °C, coupled with an annual average precipitation of 449 mm. Conversely, the INRA-Tadla station area shows a Mediterranean climate characterized by hot summers, with a mean yearly temperature of 24.5 °C. Additionally, it experiences relatively limited average annual rainfall, measured at 53.36 mm [18] [Figure 1].
Soil samples were subject to multiple soil analyses to characterize their textures, pH, and percentage of organic matter, nitrogen, P2O5, and K2O content.
Field-collected samples were subjected to initial processing upon arrival at the laboratory facility. They were air-dried and manually crushed, and then they were sieved at a 2 mm mesh size to eliminate any larger plant debris and stones. A portion of the sieved soil, passed through a 0.2 mm mesh size, was retained for further analysis, specifically targeting organic matter and nitrogen content. Post-sieving, the soil samples were carefully placed into labeled plastic bags, each labeled by a laboratory code, ensuring proper identification throughout the whole analysis process. These samples were then prepared for in-depth physicochemical analysis, conducted at the Research Unit on the Environment and Conservation of Natural Resources, situated within the Regional Center for Agronomic Research (INRA Rabat) [19].

2.1.1. Soil Texture

The particle size of the collected soil samples was assessed through sedimentation, employing the principles of Stokes law. This method facilitates the characterization of soil texture based on the diameter of its mineral components (clay < 2 μm, silt 2–50 μm, and sand > 50 μm) [20].

2.1.2. pH and Organic Matter

The pH measurement was determined using the potentiometric method with a Mettler Toledo Seven Easy-728 Metrohm pH meter [21]. The organic matter (OM) content was quantified through the oxidation of organic carbon using potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7 to 1N) [22].

2.1.3. Phosphorus

The available phosphorus (P2O5) concentration, expressed in mg kg−1, was assessed using the Olsen method [23]. This method involves the extraction of phosphorus using sodium hydrogen carbonate at pH 8.5. The process relies on the formation and subsequent reduction in a complex involving orthophosphoric acid and molybdic acid, resulting in a sky-blue coloration. The phosphorus content was determined using a JENWAY 6405 Visible-model UV spectrophotometer at a wavelength of 825 nm [24].

2.1.4. Potassium

Exchangeable potassium content (mg kg−1) was extracted using 1N ammonium acetate (CH3COONH4) at a pH of 7, following the method described by previous studies [21]. Quantification was performed using a flame photometer model CL 378.

2.1.5. Nitrogen

Total nitrogen content was quantified using the Kjeldahl method [25], while ammonium and nitrate fractions were extracted using a solution of potassium chloride (KCl) followed by distillation [26].

2.2. Plant Material

After conducting protein analysis on four chickpea genotypes supplied by the ICARDA genebank, this study was refined to focus on two contrasting genotypes: one exhibiting the highest protein content (“V2”-S170310) and the other with the lowest content (“V1”-S170126). Table 1 displays the main genotypic and phenotypic characteristics of the selected accessions.
Pre-germination of seeds was initiated by placing the seeds on sterile Petri dishes covered with autoclaved Whatman paper. Afterward, the seeds were submerged in sterile distilled water and incubated for 2–3 days at 25 °C in the dark [27].

2.3. Growth Conditions and Experimental Treatment

The experiment was conducted in the greenhouse at ICARDA-Rabat, Morocco, from March 2022 to July 2022. Plastic pots measuring 20 cm in upper diameter, 15 cm in lower diameter, and 18 cm in depth were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and filled with 1.5 kg of soil collected from either Marchouch or Beni Mellal. In each pot, four seeds were initially sown at a depth of 2 cm, and after germination, seedlings were thinned to three per pot, ensuring a uniform plant density.
A total of 12 replicates per soil type and variety were included, comprising approximately 48 pots in total. The pots were systematically arranged within the glasshouse, ensuring equal spacing between experimental units to prevent edge effects. The glasshouse conditions were maintained with daytime temperatures ranging between 23 and 28 °C, nighttime temperatures from 15 to 19 °C, and a relative humidity of 86.2% during the day and 58.1 at night, under a 20-h photoperiod. These environmental conditions persisted until the plants reached maturity [28]. Plants were irrigated regularly to maintain a soil field capacity of approximately 100%, ensuring adequate moisture availability. No additional fertilizers or soil amendments were applied to maintain the natural physicochemical qualities of the soils.

2.4. Data Collection

At the peak-flowering stage, chlorophyll content was measured from the second and third branches in the top of the plant stem by using a SPAD 502 chlorophyll meter. Additionally, the number of leaflets on each plant was recorded to evaluate leaf development.
Upon reaching maturity, the plants were cut at the soil surface. Data were collected on various metrics, including plant height (cm), stem dry weight, total seed and seed weight, biological yield (g), grain yield (g), and seed count per pod. Subsequently, cleaned seeds were analyzed to determine quality attributes such as 100-seed weight, seed size, seed morphology, and protein content. Furthermore, roots were carefully removed from the soil to avoid any damage or cutting. Following extraction, they were gently cleaned to eliminate any soil residues before being measured. Parameters were assessed using 12 replicates for each soil-variety combination, ensuring consistent sampling across the experimental design. This design was maintained across all soil types and varieties to accurately capture the interactions between genotype and soil type.

2.4.1. Nutritional Quality Assessment and Physicochemical Characterization of the Seeds

Post-harvest, the physicochemical properties of seeds were meticulously assessed using the cutting-edge OPTO-Agri: HSW and Seed Biometry system developed by optomachines in 2022. Each seed was precisely positioned within a transparent tray within the OPTO-Agri equipment. Swift and accurate seed weight measurements were obtained using an ultra-precise scale directly above the tray. The process was further enhanced by high-resolution camera illumination. After digitization and detailed image processing, various biometric characteristics, including seed area, length, width, and perimeter, were meticulously measured (Figure 2). Subsequently, both seed area and weight were quantified for each genotype/replication combination [28,29,30]. Additionally, the Fe and Zn contents in the seeds underwent analysis using the X-ray fluorescence technique with the HITACHI X-supreme XRF analyzer.

2.4.2. Mineral Analysis of the Leaves After Harvest

For the mineral analysis, chickpea leaflets were systematically collected at the flowering stage from the upper and middle portions of the plants, which represent the younger and actively growing regions. This part of the plant is known to exhibit the highest mineral accumulation compared to older plant tissues. Leaflet specimens underwent a rigorous cleaning process, followed by desiccation in a forced-air oven set at 70 °C. Subsequently, the dried samples were finely ground and homogenized to ensure uniformity prior to the analysis. The prepared samples were then transported to the Environment and Conservation of Natural Resources Research Unit at the National Institute of Agricultural Research (INRA) in Rabat for analysis. Phosphorus content was determined utilizing the phosphomolybdate-vanadate spectrophotometric method, while sodium and potassium levels were quantified through flame spectrophotometry. Additionally, calcium and magnesium concentrations were assessed using atomic absorption spectrometry techniques.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent samples t-tests were performed at a significance level of p < 0.05 to assess the effects of soil type, genotype, and their interactions on different parameters of chickpea plants and seeds, using IBM SPSS Statistics 25.

3. Results

3.1. Soil Analysis

3.1.1. Soil Texture

The findings from the particle size analysis of the soil samples revealed that the soil at Marchouch exhibits a clayey texture (Table 2), characterized by a clay content exceeding 60% and a sand content around 22%. Conversely, the soil at Beni Mellal demonstrates a sandy texture, comprising 75.8% sand and 15% clay. Further, silt content has intermediate values between 10% and 15.9% for Beni Mellal and Marchouch soils, respectively.

3.1.2. pH and Organic Matter

Soil pH measurements did not reveal significant differences between the two tested soils. The Marchouch soil is approximately neutral, with a pH of 6.9, while the Beni Mellal soil is slightly alkaline, with a pH of 7.7. The soil organic matter (OM) content of the two soils was measured at 3.1% for Marchouch soil and 4.3% for Beni Mellal soil (Table 2). These levels indicate that both soils have a moderate to high OM content, which is conducive to maintaining soil fertility and microbial activity [31,32].

3.1.3. Phosphorus and Potassium

The phosphorus content in Marchouch soil is notably higher, with 62.9 mg kg−1 of P2O5, compared to Beni Mellal soil, which presents a lower value of 20.3 mg kg−1. Similarly, Marchouch soil demonstrates elevated potassium levels with 539.2 mg kg−1 of K2O, compared to 162.7 mg kg−1 for Beni Mellal soil.

3.1.4. Nitrogen

The nitrogen test results reveal significant differences between Marchouch and Beni Mellal soils. While Marchouch soil exhibits a total nitrogen content of 1300 mg kg−1, Beni Mellal soil boasts a higher concentration at 2300 mg kg−1, indicating greater nitrogen availability in the latter. Moreover, Beni Mellal soil shows elevated ammonium levels (64.3 mg kg−1) alongside lower nitrate concentrations (28.6 mg kg−1) compared to Marchouch soil with 50 mg kg−1 ammonium and 42.9 mg kg−1 nitrate.

3.2. Morphological Traits

The results presented in Table 3 highlight the highly significant influence of soil type on various morphological traits of chickpea (p < 0.001), as well as a significant difference between chickpea genotypes (p < 0.05). Across multiple parameters, Marchouch soil consistently promoted superior growth and development compared to Beni Mellal soil (Figure 3A,B). Interestingly, while both genotypes responded positively to Marchouch soil, the morphological traits studied were not significantly influenced by genotype (Figure 3C,D). Plants grown in Marchouch soil exhibited significantly taller stems, a higher number of leaflets, and increased chlorophyll content compared to those grown in Beni Mellal soil, indicating that the observed effects were primarily attributed to soil type rather than genotype.
Moreover, reproductive traits such as seed number and seed weight were markedly higher in plants cultivated in Marchouch soil. The number of seeds produced by each chickpea variety grown in different soil types. The number of seeds was significantly higher in Soil Marchouch (10.25 seeds) compared to Soil Beni Mellal (4.62 seeds). Seed number was not influenced by genotype, since both varieties showed a slightly similar seed number of 7.41 and 7.45 for V1 and V2, respectively.

3.3. Mineral Analysis of Leaflets

The mineral analysis of chickpea leaflets from the two genotypes (V1 and V2) grown in Marchouch and Beni Mellal soils revealed similar levels of potassium (K+), sodium (Na+), phosphorus (P2O5), calcium (Ca2+), and magnesium (Mg2+), as shown in Figure 4; however, ANOVA did not show significant differences between soils and genotypes as well as their interactions (Table 4). Potassium levels ranged from 1.09 to 1.24 mg kg−1, with no consistent trend observed. Sodium concentrations were relatively constant, ranging from 0.05 to 0.06 mg kg−1. Phosphorus levels exhibited slight variability, ranging from 0.07 to 0.08 mg kg−1. Calcium concentrations showed some variation, ranging from 0.15 to 0.18 mg kg−1. Magnesium levels ranged from 0.27 to 0.33 mg kg−1.

3.4. Analysis of Harvested Seeds

ANOVA did not show significant effects of soils, genotypes, and their interaction on seed dimensions and protein content (Table 5). In terms of seed size parameters, the Beni Mellal soil led to a larger seed area of 47.36 mm2 and a perimeter of 35.39 mm compared to the Marchouch soil, which had a seed area of 46.04 mm2 and a perimeter of 32.69 mm (refer to Figure 5A). Genotype V1 exhibited a seed area of 46.84 mm2, which is larger than that of V2 (46.35 mm2); however, a smaller seed perimeter was present (33.54 mm) in comparison to that of V2 (34.27 mm) (Figure 5B). However, ANOVA tests revealed that these variations were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) (Table 5).
In addition to that, the Fe level was notably higher in the soil of Marchouch (69.43 mg kg−1) compared to the Beni Mellal soil (38.50 mg kg−1). On the other hand, zinc level was slightly higher in Beni Mellal soil (19.77 mg kg−1) compared to Marchouch soil (10.49 mg kg−1) (see Figure 5C). In terms of chickpea genotype, the V2 variety showed a higher iron content (74.66 mg kg−1) than the Vl variety (49.30 mg kg−1). The concentration of zinc was found to show slightly higher levels in variety V1 (10.43 mg kg−1) compared to variety V2 (19.05 mg kg−1) as shown in Figure 5D.

4. Discussion

4.1. Soil Analysis

4.1.1. pH

Soil pH is a key indicator of the chemical and biochemical processes occurring within soil [33]. It plays a crucial role in agronomy, as the soil’s acidity or alkalinity affects nutrient assimilation by plants, nutrient bioavailability, biological activity, and structural stability. pH variation depends on the seasonal variations and the buffering capacity of soil, the water status of the soil, its temperature, and the presence or not of a crop in the period of active growth phase [34]. The pH values of both Marchouch and Beni Mellal soils were neutral, with Marchouch soil at 6.9 and Beni Mellal at 7.7. Previous studies indicate that chickpeas grow optimally in soils with a pH between 6.0 and 9.0, confirming that both our soil samples are suitable for chickpea cultivation [15]. Therefore, other characteristics of the soil are most likely to be responsible for the variations in chickpea growth and nutrient content that were found in this study.

4.1.2. Organic Matter

Soil organic matter (OM) is an important indicator of soil characteristics, throughout its contribution to soil stability, increased soil water retention ability, nutrient fixation, as well as its role as a substrate for soil microorganisms [35]. The recorded organic matter levels of 3.1% for Marchouch soil and 4.3% for Beni Mellal soil fall within the typical range of 2% to 4%, which is considered adequate for supporting crop growth and soil health [31,32]. Although some soils may have up to 8% organic matter [32]. Soil organic matter within this range has been shown to contribute significantly to nutrient availability, water retention, and overall soil structure [31]. These levels primarily result from inputs originating from organic fertilizers and the residual root biomass left behind by preceding crop cycles [31,32]. This pattern aligns with broader trends in Moroccan soils, characterized by reduced organic matter [36] due to lower precipitation, sparse vegetation, and the use of crop residues as livestock feed. The observed organic matter levels reflect agricultural practices, environmental conditions, and historical land use patterns, contributing to understanding soil health and informing effective soil management strategies [37,38].

4.1.3. Phosphorus and Potassium Analysis

Marchouch soil showed a higher phosphorus level (62.9 mg kg−1 of P2O5) compared to Beni Mellal soil (20.3 mg kg−1). Phosphorus, mostly derived from agricultural inputs, exhibits limited mobility in soil and is prone to leaching, causing possible environmental problems such as groundwater contamination and nutrient pollution [39,40,41,42]. If not properly controlled, high phosphorus levels potentially deteriorate the quality of the soil. According to our research, Marchouch soil’s higher phosphorus concentration has been associated with enhanced shoot and root growth characteristics as well as increased production of chickpeas. This finding is consistent with earlier research indicating that soils with higher accessible phosphorus levels promote better phosphorus uptake and use by chickpea plants [43,44,45]. The much higher shoot height and root dry weight found in Marchouch soil can be due to phosphorus’s ability to stimulate root development and increase root surface area, which in turn enhances nutrient and water uptake efficiency [42,46]. Furthermore, phosphorus plays an important role in the production of root nodules, facilitating biological nitrogen fixation and supporting overall plant health and growth [46,47]. This eventually makes the interaction between phosphorus availability and nitrogen fixation a crucial element in explaining the observed differences in growth and yield between the two soils. Furthermore, it appears that enhanced phosphorus availability had a beneficial effect on reproductive development, which in turn contributed to the higher grain output, given the higher seed quantity and weight recorded in Marchouch soil. It has been noted during previous studies that phosphorus improves seed establishment, pod formation, and flowering, all of which are necessary to produce a high grain yield [48,49,50]. Further supporting biomass accumulation and seed production, phosphorus’s role in ATP synthesis and the synthesis of phospholipids in cell membranes is likely to contribute to increased photosynthetic efficiency, which is reflected in the increased chlorophyll content seen in plants grown in Marchouch soil.
Our findings further highlight the need for developing phosphorus management techniques depending on soil characteristics. Using techniques like split applications or slow-release formulations to administer phosphorus fertilizers could minimize phosphorus loss through runoff and lower the danger of environmental pollution for high phosphorus soils like Marchouch [51]. On the other hand, improving nutrient availability in phosphorus-deficient soils like Beni Mellal, like adding organic amendments or phosphorus-solubilizing microorganisms, would assist optimal chickpea yield and improve phosphorus use efficiency [42,52].
Potassium is a primary macronutrient for plants, essentially due to its high uptake and its pivotal role in optimizing yield production. It is integral to plant growth and metabolic processes, regulating key enzymatic functions involved in photosynthesis, carbohydrate metabolism, and protein synthesis [53]. Potassium levels were significantly higher in Marchouch soil (539.2 mg kg−1) than in Beni Mellal soil (162.7 mg kg−1). The appropriate amount of potassium recommended by previous studies for sandy soils is around 101 to 150 mg kg−1 [54], and Beni Mellal soil analysis showed a slightly high amount of potassium of 162.7 mg kg−1. Furthermore, the optimal potassium amount in clay soils is recommended to be between 181 and 300 mg kg−1 [54], which is lower than the level of potassium we have registered in Marchouch soil (539.2 mg kg−1). As demonstrated by prior research, elevated potassium levels in soil improve root growth and water-use efficiency, contributing to better plant establishment and productivity [55]. However, an overabundance of potassium can undergo conversion into salts, consequently leading to groundwater pollution through infiltration and percolation processes. Additionally, this excessive potassium presence can induce magnesium deficiency in crops and other cations, leading to potential nutrient imbalances as described by previous studies [19,56,57].

4.1.4. Nitrogen

Nitrogen stands as a fundamental element across various facets of plant development. Within agricultural ecosystems, total nitrogen emerges as a principal determinant and indicator of soil fertility and quality and is intimately linked with soil productivity [31,58]. Plants assimilate nitrogen primarily in the forms of nitrate (NO3−) and ammonium (NH4+). However, it is important to note that total nitrogen does not directly represent plant-available nitrogen and is not merely the sum of NH4+ and NO3− [31]. Nitrate (NO3−) content specifically reflects the immediate availability of nitrogen for plant uptake [31]. Generally, a soil NO3− concentration exceeding 30 mg kg−1 suffices for the majority of plant species [32], thus positioning our findings (42.9 mg kg−1 and 28.6 mg kg−1 for Marchouch and Beni Mellal soils, respectively) well within the recommended range. Maintaining nitrogen levels above 30 mg kg−1 is essential, as soil nitrogen demonstrates dynamic behavior influenced by soil moisture, leading to fluctuations dependent on soil water dynamics [59,60]. The ammonium content in Marchouch soil is lower (50 mg kg−1) compared to that in Beni Mellal soil. However, the nitrate concentration in Marchouch soil is higher than in Beni Mellal soil. This suggests it may be related to better microbial activity in Marchouch soil, despite its slightly lower organic matter content (3.1%) compared to Beni Mellal soil (4.3%). These findings imply that the higher levels of organic matter and ammonium in Beni Mellal soil are not sufficient to drive the nitrification process necessary for chickpea assimilation. This may indicate differences in microbial community composition or activity, affecting the soil’s nitrogen cycling efficiency according to prior research [61]. Additionally, previous studies suggest that factors such as soil pH, temperature, moisture content, and aeration influence the nitrification process and microbial dynamics, which eventually may be involved in the observed variations between our two analyzed soils [61,62,63]. These disparities suggest distinct nitrogen cycling dynamics, possibly influenced by varying soil fertility, organic matter decomposition rates, and previous fertilizer applications.
Soil tests measure the quantity of nutrients expected to become available to plants, rather than the total nutrient content in the soil [31]. Since only small portions of the total nutrients are accessible to plants, total nutrient measurements are not effective indicators of nutrient sufficiency for plant growth [31]. Plant roots absorb available nutrients from the soil in the form of positively or negatively charged ions.

4.2. Morphologic Traits

The morphological traits of chickpea genotypes were highly influenced by soil types. Marchouch soil, characterized by a clayey texture, showed higher stem height, leaflets numbers, and chlorophyll content, as well as higher seed number and seed weight compared to Beni Mellal soil across both genotypes. Similar findings have been observed in other studies, demonstrating significant effects of soil types on plant height, the number of leaves per plant, and the dry weight of the leaves [64]. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) is known to thrive in a variety of soil types, with a preference for sandy and silt loam soils [14,15], which are characteristic of Beni Mellal soil. However, the nutrient levels and richness of Marchouch soil provide a more favorable environment for our two chickpea genotypes. In this context, the phosphorus level in Marchouch soil (62.9 mg kg−1) is significantly higher than in Beni Mellal soil (20.3 mg kg−1). Such elevated phosphorus levels are crucial for chickpea growth, as they promote the development of extensive root systems and vigorous seedlings, enhancing nodule development, and nitrogen fixation, and resulting in earlier and more uniform maturity. Previous studies have confirmed these findings, demonstrating increased biomass in chickpea cultivars with higher soil phosphorus levels [65,66]. This suggests that the Marchouch soil may contribute to improving reproductive success and yield in chickpeas, thereby offering promising implications for cultivation practices. Interestingly, while both genotypes responded positively to the Marchouch soil, there were small variations in the extent of response, indicating genotype-specific adaptation or sensitivity to environmental factors. These findings underscore the genetic variability within chickpea populations and highlight the importance of considering genotype–environment interactions in agricultural practices. These findings underscore the pivotal role of soil type in shaping root development and overall plant biomass. Overall, the observed differences in morphological traits between the two soil types highlight the importance of soil management practices in optimizing chickpea production. Selecting suitable soil types, such as Marchouch, could significantly contribute to maximizing yield and quality in chickpea cultivation.

4.3. Mineral Analysis

Chickpeas (Cicer arietinum) are primarily consumed as a seed food due to their high protein content [67]. However, in some regions, particularly among malnourished populations, young chickpea leaves are also consumed as a cooked vegetable, providing a valuable source of dietary nutrients [68,69]. These leaves are rich in various micronutrient minerals [69,70]. Although data on the mineral concentration of chickpea leaves are limited, it is known that the stage of plant maturity significantly affects their nutrient content. Therefore, selecting the appropriate harvesting stage is crucial for maximizing nutrient retention [69,71]. The total mineral analysis in our study did not yield significant results, showing low values with no significant differences between the findings from Beni Mellal and Marchouch soils. Despite observed differences in mean values across combinations of genotypes and soils, ANOVA tests indicated that these variations were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Specifically, phosphorus levels ranged from 0.07 to 0.08 mg kg−1, consistent with previous findings [72]. Magnesium levels ranged from 0.27 to 0.33 mg kg−1, with no clear pattern observed, aligning with earlier studies [72]. These results suggest that neither soil type nor genotype significantly influences the mineral content of chickpea leaves under the conditions studied.

4.4. Analysis of Harvested Seeds

Seed size is a crucial trait for trade, yield components, and adaptation in chickpea [73]. In chickpeas, larger seed size positively affects seed yield and is generally preferred by Moroccan consumers. This preference contrasts with legumes such as lentils, where smaller seeds are often favored [74]. Chickpeas are generally categorized into three seed size groups: large-seeded (>9 mm), medium-seeded (8–9 mm), and small-seeded (7–8 mm) [60]. The length of the harvested seeds in our study ranges from 6.97 mm to 7.03 mm, placing them in the medium seed size category. These findings are consistent with previous studies, which reported seed length ranging from 8.15 mm to 9.06 mm and seed width from 6.86 mm to 9.29 mm, further corroborating our results, which show seed width between 6.87 mm and 7.14 mm [75,76,77]. Furthermore, the mineral composition of chickpea seeds revealed significant differences in iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) content between the two varieties. Variety V2 exhibited a broader range in both Fe and Zn concentrations compared to variety V1. These findings align with those reported in previous studies [78], highlighting the variability in mineral content among different chickpea varieties. This diversity shows the potential for developing or selecting chickpea cultivars with increased Fe and Zn contents to improve crop nutrition.
Additionally, in our research, we found variation in Fe and Zn concentration among chickpea varieties, which could be attributed to natural trade-offs between yield and nutrient composition. Previous research has demonstrated substantial negative associations between yield and Zn concentration in chickpeas and lentils, suggesting that breeding for higher yields results in lower Zn concentrations [79]. Similarly, another study found that desi-type chickpea varieties often have low grain yield but greater protein content, whereas kabuli-type varieties had high grain yield but lower protein content [80]. Our findings support this perspective, underlining the importance of breeding strategies that take yield and nutritional quality into account in order to generate chickpea cultivars that may achieve both agronomic and nutritional goals.

5. Conclusions

This study assessed the effects of physicochemical soil properties on chickpea development, with a significant soil×genotype interaction observed only for zinc (Zn) content. Our findings demonstrate that soil characteristics such as texture, organic matter content, and nutrient availability have a substantial impact on chickpea productivity, emphasizing the need to optimize soil management for improved crop performance. Marchouch soil provided better conditions for chickpea growth, reinforcing the need to identify soil characteristics that increase productivity in semi-arid regions.
Key findings include the following:
  • Genotypic effects were minor and had no significant impact on overall production, though slight differences in Fe and Zn accumulation were observed.
  • Selecting appropriate soil types and implementing effective nutrient management strategies are more critical than genotype selection for maximizing crop yields.
  • The complex interactions between soil characteristics, chickpea genotypes, and productivity highlight the need for further research to enhance agricultural outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.F. and S.B.; data curation, S.F., L.E.-d. and A.E.M.; formal analysis, Y.D.; funding acquisition, Z.K.; resources, Z.K. and A.A.; software, Z.K.; supervision, S.B., B.S. and A.A.; validation, A.A.; writing—original draft, S.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Genetic Resources Section at ICARDA funded this research.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) for allowing access to the microbiology laboratory and the National Center for Scientific and Technical research (CNRST) for the Research Excellence Scholarship Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Nations, U. World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100. 2017. Available online: https://www.un.org/tr/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100 (accessed on 3 June 2024).
  2. Merga, B.; Haji, J. Economic importance of chickpea: Production, value, and world trade. Cogent Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1615718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Redden, R.J.; Berger, J.D. History and origin of chickpea. In Chickpea Breeding and Management; Yadav, S.S., Redden, R.J., Chen, W., Sharma, B., Eds.; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2007; pp. 1–13. ISBN 978-1-84593-213-8. [Google Scholar]
  4. Venkidasamy, B.; Selvaraj, D.; Nile, A.S.; Ramalingam, S.; Kai, G.; Nile, S.H. Indian pulses: A review on nutritional, functional and biochemical properties with future perspectives. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 228–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rastgoo, M.; Nezami, A.; Hasanfard, A.; Nabati, J.; Ahmadi-Lahijani, M.J. Freezing stress induces changes in the morphophysiological of chickpea and wild mustard seedlings. Legume Sci. 2023, 5, e173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jukanti, A.K.; Gaur, P.M.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Chibbar, R.N. Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): A review. Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, S11–S26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Madurapperumage, A.; Tang, L.; Thavarajah, P.; Bridges, W.; Shipe, E.; Vandemark, G.; Thavarajah, D. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as a Source of Essential Fatty Acids—A Biofortification Approach. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 734980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Elhazzat, N.; Adnani, M.; Berber, F.; Boughribil, S.; Mouden, N.; Errifi, A.; Chliyeh, M.; Selmaoui, K.; Benkirane, R.; Ouazzani Touhami, A.; et al. Comparative pathogenesis of Fusarium spp. obtained from diseased chickpea plants in Morocco. Not. Sci. Biol. 2023, 15, 11361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Johnson, N.; Johnson, C.R.; Thavarajah, P.; Kumar, S.; Thavarajah, D. The roles and potential of lentil prebiotic carbohydrates in human and plant health. Plants People Planet 2020, 2, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Upadhyaya, H.D.; Bajaj, D.; Narnoliya, L.; Das, S.; Kumar, V.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Sharma, S.; Tyagi, A.K.; Parida, S.K. Genome-Wide Scans for Delineation of Candidate Genes Regulating Seed-Protein Content in Chickpea. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lahmar, M.; El Khodrani, N.; Omrania, S.; Dakak, H.; Douaik, A.; Laaich, H.; Yachou, H. GIS and statistical evaluation of soil quality of Sidi Yahya, Gharbplain (Morocco). J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2021, 9, 881–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Karlen, D.L.; Mausbach, M.J.; Doran, J.W.; Cline, R.G.; Harris, R.F.; Schuman, G.E. Soil Quality: A Concept, Definition, and Framework for Evaluation (A Guest Editorial). Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Azeem, M.; Hayat, R.; Hussain, Q.; Ahmed, M.; Pan, G.; Ibrahim Tahir, M.; Imran, M.; Irfan, M.; Mehmood-ul-Hassan. Biochar improves soil quality and N2-fixation and reduces net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a dryland legume-cereal cropping system. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 186, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fikre, A.; Desmae, H.; Ahmed, S. Tapping the Economic Potential of Chickpea in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Parwada, C.; Parwada, T.F.; Chipomho, J.; Mapope, N.; Chikwari, E.; Mvumi, C. Evaluation of Cicer arietinum (chickpea) growth performance and yield in different soil types in Zimbabwe. J. Curr. Opin. Crop Sci. 2022, 3, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Davies, S.L.; Turner, N.C.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Leport, L.; Plummer, J.A. Seed growth of desi and kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in a short-season Mediterranean-type environment. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1999, 39, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sijilmassi, B.; Filali-Maltouf, A.; Fahde, S.; Ennahli, Y.; Boughribil, S.; Kumar, S.; Amri, A. In-Vitro Plant Growth Promotion of Rhizobium Strains Isolated from Lentil Root Nodules under Abiotic Stresses. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Weather and Climate. Afourer, Béni Mellal-Khénifra, MA Climate. Zone, Monthly Averages, Historical Weather Data. Available online: https://weatherandclimate.com/morocco/beni-mellal-khenifra/afourer (accessed on 21 May 2024).
  19. Lahmar, M.; El Khodrani, N.; Omrania, S.; Dakak, H.; Moussadek, R.; Douaik, A.; Iaaich, H.; El Azzouzi, M.; Mekkaoui, M.; Zouahri, A. Assessment of the Quality of Soil and Groundwater of the Agricultural Area of Sidi Yahya Region, Morocco. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 150, 01001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Petard, J. Les Méthodes D’analyse; ORSTON: Nottinghamshire, UK, 1993; p. 196. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mweetwa, A.M.; Lubungo, A.C.; Chishala, B.H.; Phiri, M. Selected Chemical Properties, Microbial Activity and Biomass of Soils Amended with Aqueous Neem Leaf Extract. SAR 2016, 5, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Walkley, A.; Black, I.A. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tévez, H.R.; Afonso, M.D. pH dependence of Glyphosate adsorption on soil horizons. Boletín Soc. Geológica Mex. 2015, 67, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Olsen, S.R. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bremner, J.M.; Mulvaney, C.S. Nitrogen-Total. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties; American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; Volume 9, pp. 595–624. [Google Scholar]
  26. Carter, M.R.; Gregorich, E.G. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; ISBN 978-0-8493-3586-0. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ekpong, B. Effects of seed maturity, seed storage and pre-germination treatments on seed germination of cleome (Cleome gynandra L.). Sci. Hortic. 2009, 119, 236–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aloui, K.; Choukri, H.; El Haddad, N.; Gupta, P.; El Bouhmadi, K.; Emmrich, P.M.F.; Singh, A.; Edwards, A.; Maalouf, F.; Bouhlal, O.; et al. Impact of Heat and Drought Stress on Grasspea and Its Wild Relatives. Plants 2023, 12, 3501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kehel, Z.; Sanchez-Garcia, M.; El Baouchi, A.; Aberkane, H.; Tsivelikas, A.; Charles, C.; Amri, A. Predictive Characterization for Seed Morphometric Traits for Genebank Accessions Using Genomic Selection. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 8, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Farida Traoré, F.; El-Baouchi, A.; En-nahli, Y.; Hejjaoui, K.; Metougui, M.L.; Hamwieh, A.; Sohail, Q.; Istanbuli, T.; Boughribil, S.; Amri, M. Exploring the Genetic Variability and Potential Correlations Between Nutritional Quality and Agro-Physiological Traits in Kabuli Chickpea Germplasm Collection (Cicer arietinum L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 905320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Horneck, D.A.; Sullivan, D.M.; Owen, J.S.; Hart, J.M. Soil Test Interpretation Guide; Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  32. Center for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment Interpreting Your Soil Test Results. Available online: https://ag.umass.edu/soil-plant-nutrient-testing-laboratory/fact-sheets/interpreting-your-soil-test-results (accessed on 21 May 2024).
  33. Omrania, S.; Khodrani, N.E.; Zouahri, A.; Douaik, A.; Iaaich, H.; Lahmar, M.; Hajjaji, E. Physico-Chemical Characterization of Water and Soil of the M’nasra region in the Gharb plain (Northwest Morocco). Moroc. J. Chem. 2019, 7, 482–492. [Google Scholar]
  34. Neina, D. The Role of Soil pH in Plant Nutrition and Soil Remediation. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2019, 2019, 5794869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Slimane, S. Evaluation the Impact of Intensive Agriculture on Physic-Chemical Properties of Soil and Groundwater in the Rural Commune Sfafaa. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2017, 8, 2339–2346. [Google Scholar]
  36. Edahbi, M.; Khaddor, M.; Salmoun, F. Caractérisation des sols du Nord du Maroc (Bassin Loukkos) (Characterization of the soils in North Morocco (Loukkos area)). J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2014, 5, 2133–2138. [Google Scholar]
  37. Laghrour, M.; Moussadek, R.; Mrabet, R.; Dahan, R.; El-Mourid, M.; Zouahri, A.; Mekkaoui, M. Long and Midterm Effect of Conservation Agriculture on Soil Properties in Dry Areas of Morocco. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2016, 2016, 6345765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Moussadek, R. Impacts de l’agriculture de conservation sur les propriétés et la productivité des vertisols du Maroc Central1. Afr. Focus 2012, 25, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Coale, F.J.; Sims, J.T.; Leytem, A.B. Accelerated Deployment of an Agricultural Nutrient Management Tool: The Maryland Phosphorus Site Index. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 1471–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yang, Y.-Y.; Toor, G.S. Stormwater runoff driven phosphorus transport in an urban residential catchment: Implications for protecting water quality in urban watersheds. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 11681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Adams, R.; Quinn, P.; Barber, N.; Burke, S. Identifying Flow Pathways for Phosphorus Transport Using Observed Event Forensics and the CRAFT (Catchment Runoff Attenuation Flux Tool). Water 2020, 12, 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Delfim, J.; Moreira, A.; Moraes, L.A.C.; Silva, J.F.; Moreira, P.A.M.; Lima Filho, O.F. Soil Phosphorus Availability Impacts Chickpea Production and Nutritional Status in Tropical Soils. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2024, 24, 3115–3130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Olivera, M.; Tejera, N.; Iribarne, C.; Ocaña, A.; Lluch, C. Growth, nitrogen fixation and ammonium assimilation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris): Effect of phosphorus. Physiol. Plant 2004, 121, 498–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mitran, T.; Meena, R.S.; Lal, R.; Layek, J.; Kumar, S.; Datta, R. Role of Soil Phosphorus on Legume Production. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Meena, R.S., Das, A., Yadav, G.S., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 487–510. ISBN 9789811302527. [Google Scholar]
  45. Jakobsen, I. The role of phosphorus in nitrogen fixation by young pea plants (Pisum sativum). Physiol. Plant 1985, 64, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ahmed, K.; Mohammed, B.; Cherk, G. Effect of Soil Available Phosphorus Levels on Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)—Rhizobia Symbiotic Association. Legume Res. Int. J. 2020, 43, 878–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shukla, U.C.; Yadav, O.P. Effect of phosphorus and zinc on nodulation and nitrogen fixation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Soil 1982, 65, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mohammed, S.B.; Dzidzienyo, D.K.; Yahaya, A.L.; Umar, M.; Ishiyaku, M.F.; Tongoona, P.B.; Gracen, V. High Soil Phosphorus Application Significantly Increased Grain Yield, Phosphorus Content but Not Zinc Content of Cowpea Grains. Agronomy 2021, 11, 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Adusei, G.; Gaiser, T.; Boukar, O.; Fatokun, C. Growth and yield responses of cowpea genotypes to soluble and rock P fertilizers on acid, highly weathered soil from humid tropical West Africa. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2017, 10, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Krasilnikoff, G.; Gahoonia, T.; Nielsen, N.E. Variation in phosphorus uptake efficiency by genotypes of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) due to differences in root and root hair length and induced rhizosphere processes. Plant Soil 2003, 251, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cordell, D.; White, S. Life’s Bottleneck: Sustaining the World’s Phosphorus for a Food Secure Future. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 161–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Richardson, A.E.; Simpson, R.J. Soil Microorganisms Mediating Phosphorus Availability Update on Microbial Phosphorus. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 989–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Jadeja, A.S.; Rajani, A.V.; Kaneriya, S.C.; Hirpara, D.V. Nutrient Content, Uptake, Quality of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and Fertility Status of Soil as Influenced by Fertilization of Potassium and Sulphur. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2019, 8, 2351–2355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Agriculture Victoria Understanding Soil Tests for Pastures—Agriculture. Available online: https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/farm-management/soil/understanding-soil-tests-for-pastures (accessed on 19 May 2024).
  55. López-Bucio, J.; Cruz-Ramírez, A.; Herrera-Estrella, L. The role of nutrient availability in regulating root architecture. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2003, 6, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Gurav, P.P.; Ray, S.K.; Choudhari, P.L.; Biswas, A.K.; Shirale, A.O. A review on soil potassium scenario in vertisols of India. Open Access J. Sci. 2018, 2, 89–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Daliparthy, J.; Barker, A.V.; Mondal, S.S. Potassium fractions with other nutrients in crops: A review focusing on the tropics. J. Plant Nutr. 1994, 17, 1859–1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, M.; Han, X.; Li, L.-J. Total Nitrogen Stock in Soil Profile Affected by Land Use and Soil Type in Three Counties of Mollisols. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 945305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Horiba Instruments Soil Nitrate Measurement for Determination of Plant-Available Nitrogen. Available online: https://www.horiba.com/deu/water-quality/applications/agriculture-crop-science/soil-nitrate-measurement-for-determination-of-plant-available-nitrogen/ (accessed on 21 May 2024).
  60. Chiroma, H.D.; Ayinla, G.T.; Orish, O.E.; Emmanuel, O.O.; Jigam, A.A.; Makun, H.A.; Sani, G.M.; Johnson, A.O.; Humphrey, P. Seasonal Nitrate Content of Stream Water, Soil and Some Foodstuffs Samples in Abuja Municipal Area of Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria. J. Health Sci. 2007, 53, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhu, L.; Liang, A.; Wang, R.; Shi, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, R.; Wang, M.; Guo, S. Harnessing nitrate over ammonium to sustain soil health during monocropping. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1190929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sahrawat, K.L. Factors Affecting Nitrification in Soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2008, 39, 1436–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Boer, W.D.; Kowalchuk, G.A. Nitrification in acid soils: Micro-organisms and mechanisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 853–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hakimzadeh Ardakani, M.A.; Haghjoo, M.; Moradi, G.; Esfandiari, M. Investigating the effect of different soil textures on morphological characteristics and the amount of essential oil of Lippia citriodora medicinal Plant. Water Soil Manag. Model. 2022, 3, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bolland, M.D.A.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Loss, S.P.; Baker, M.J. Comparing responses of grain legumes, wheat and canola to applications of superphosphate. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1999, 53, 157–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wouterlood, M.; Cawthray, G.R.; Turner, S.; Lambers, H.; Veneklaas, E.J. Rhizosphere carboxylate concentrations of chickpea are affected by genotype and soil type. Plant Soil 2004, 261, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Edelman, M.; Colt, M. Nutrient Value of Leaf vs. Seed. Front. Chem. 2016, 4, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. 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; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 72–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ibrikci, H.; Knewtson, S.J.; Grusak, M.A. Chickpea leaves as a vegetable green for humans: Evaluation of mineral composition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2003, 83, 945–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ma, S.; Khetarpaul, N.; Chand, G. Minerals Profile and Antioxidants Properties of Chickpea Leave of Desi and Kabuli Varieties at Different Stages of Maturity. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 3171–3177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yu, P.; Christensen, D.A.; McKinnon, J.J. In situ rumen degradation kinetics of timothy and alfalfa as affected by cultivar and stage of maturity. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 84, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Khattak, A.M.; Ullah, S.; Anjum, F.; Shah, H.U.; Alam, S. Proximate Composition and Mineral Content of Selected Chickpea Cultivars. Sarhad J. Agric. 2021, 37, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Upadhyaya, H.D.; Kumar, S.; Gowda, C.L.L.; Singh, S. Two major genes for seed size in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 2006, 147, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Biçer, B.T. The effect of seed size on yield and yield components of chickpea and lentil. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 1482–1487. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sastry, D.; Upadhyaya, H.; Gowda, C. Determination of Physical Properties of Chickpea Seeds and their Relevance in Germplasm Collections. Indian J. Plant Genet. Resour. 2014, 27, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  76. Avelar, R.I.S.; Costa, C.A.D.; Brandão, D.D.S., Jr.; Paraíso, H.A.; Nascimento, W.M. Production and quality of chickpea seeds in different sowing and harvest periods. J. Seed Sci. 2018, 40, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ozgun, O.S.; Bicer, B.T.; Sakar, D. Agronomic and Morphological Characters of Chickpea Under Irrigated Conditions in Turkey. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2004, 6, 606–610. [Google Scholar]
  78. Kahraman, A.; Pandey, A.; Khan, M.K. Nutritional Diversity Assessment in Chickpea-A Prospect for Nutrient Deprived World. Harran Tarım Gıda Bilim. Derg. 2017, 21, 357–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vandemark, G.J.; Grusak, M.A.; McGee, R.J. Mineral concentrations of chickpea and lentil cultivars and breeding lines grown in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Crop J. 2018, 6, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gaur, P.M.; Singh, M.K.; Samineni, S.; Sajja, S.B.; Jukanti, A.K.; Kamatam, S.; Varshney, R.K. Inheritance of protein content and its relationships with seed size, grain yield and other traits in chickpea. Euphytica 2016, 209, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sci 07 00045 g001
Figure 1. Location of the two soil study sites provided by Google Maps—Google Earth.
Figure 1. Location of the two soil study sites provided by Google Maps—Google Earth.
Sci 07 00045 g001
Sci 07 00045 g002
Figure 2. Examples of GrainScan input and output. Panel (A): Scanned chickpea grains for GrainScan input. Panel (B): GrainScan output highlighting segmented grains as determined by the software. Different colors indicate different grains.
Figure 2. Examples of GrainScan input and output. Panel (A): Scanned chickpea grains for GrainScan input. Panel (B): GrainScan output highlighting segmented grains as determined by the software. Different colors indicate different grains.
Sci 07 00045 g002
Sci 07 00045 g003
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of morphological traits measured in both Beni Mellal (Bm) and Marchouch (Mch) soils: (A,B) and in both genotypes: (C,D).
Figure 3. Comparative analysis of morphological traits measured in both Beni Mellal (Bm) and Marchouch (Mch) soils: (A,B) and in both genotypes: (C,D).
Sci 07 00045 g003
Sci 07 00045 g004
Figure 4. Comparative analysis of mineral composition of chickpea leaves in both Marchouch and Beni Mellal soils.
Figure 4. Comparative analysis of mineral composition of chickpea leaves in both Marchouch and Beni Mellal soils.
Sci 07 00045 g004
Sci 07 00045 g005
Figure 5. Analysis of the main effect of soil and genotype on morphological parameters (A,B) and mineral content (C,D).
Figure 5. Analysis of the main effect of soil and genotype on morphological parameters (A,B) and mineral content (C,D).
Sci 07 00045 g005
Table 1. Chickpea genotypes used in this study and the characteristics of their seeds.
Table 1. Chickpea genotypes used in this study and the characteristics of their seeds.
AbbreviationGenotypeTypeWeight of 100 Seeds (g)Protein Content (%)Area
(mm2)		Perimeter
(mm)		Length
(mm)		Width
(mm)
V1S170126Kabuli27.9829.07341.7631.017.936.76
V2S170310Kabuli38.3631.32350.4533.968.737.42
V3S170279Kabuli33.7631.05752.7336.239.847.14
V4S170160Kabuli40.830.99643.8331.418.076.95
Table 2. Soil texture, pH, and mineral analysis measurements of the two soils before the start of the experiment.
Table 2. Soil texture, pH, and mineral analysis measurements of the two soils before the start of the experiment.
Texture (%)pH (KCl)Nitrogen (mg kg−1)P2O5
(mg kg−1)		K2O
(mg kg−1)		Organic Matter (%)
SoilClaySiltSandTotal NitrogenAmmonium (NH4+)Nitrate (NO3−)
Marchouch63.715.922.16.913005042.962.9539.23.1
Beni Mellal15.010.075.87.7230064.328.620.3162.74.3
Table 3. Effect of soil, genotype, and their interaction on morphological traits of chickpea.
Table 3. Effect of soil, genotype, and their interaction on morphological traits of chickpea.
SH (cm)LeafletChlo (%)SNSW (g)RDW (g)SDW (g)
Source of Variation (p Value)
Soil0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.000 ***0.948 ns
Genotype0.018 *0.028 *0.001 ***0.975 ns0.480 ns0.437 ns0.482 ns
Soil ∗ Genotype0.109 ns0.245 ns0.236 ns0.392 ns0.668 ns0.728 ns0.789 ns
SH: stem height. Chlo: chlorophyll. SN: seed number. SW: seed weight. RDW: root dry weight. SDW: stem dry weight. ns: not significant; *: significant at p < 0.05; ***: very highly significant at p < 0.001.
Table 4. Effect of soil, genotype, and their interaction on mineral composition in the leaf of chickpea.
Table 4. Effect of soil, genotype, and their interaction on mineral composition in the leaf of chickpea.
K+ (%)P (%)Na+ (%)Ca2+ (%)Mg2+ (%)
Source of Variation (p Value)
Soil0.100 ns0.653 ns0.953 ns0.172 ns0.578 ns
Genotype0.403 ns0.748 ns0.770 ns0.537 ns0.778 ns
Soil × Genotype0.771 ns0.182 ns0.770 ns0.849 ns0.539 ns
K+: potassium. P: phosphorus. Na+: sodium. Ca2+: calcium. Mg2+: magnesium. ns: not significant
Table 5. Effect of soil, genotype, and their interaction on the shape, protein, Fe, and Zn contents of chickpea seeds.
Table 5. Effect of soil, genotype, and their interaction on the shape, protein, Fe, and Zn contents of chickpea seeds.
Area
(mm2)		Perimeter (mm)Length
(mm)		Width
(mm)		Protein (g/100g)Fe
(mg kg−1)		Zn
(mg kg−1)
Source of Variation (p Value)
Soil0.454 ns0.050 ns0.070 ns0.973 ns0.226 ns0.006 **0.040 *
Genotype0.990 ns0.352 ns0.808 ns0.681 ns0.476 ns0.007 **0.032 *
Soil×Genotype0.238 ns0.190 ns0.114 ns0.377 ns0.790 ns0.384 ns0.014 *
ns: not significant; *: significant at p < 0.05; **: highly significant at p < 0.01
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

Fahde, S.; Boughribil, S.; Ed-daoudy, L.; Dadi, Y.; El Mekkaoui, A.; Sijilmassi, B.; Kehel, Z.; Amri, A. Effects of Physicochemical Characteristics of Two Soils on Agro-Morphological Traits of Two Chickpea Varieties (Cicer arietinum L.). Sci 2025, 7, 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7020045

AMA Style

Fahde S, Boughribil S, Ed-daoudy L, Dadi Y, El Mekkaoui A, Sijilmassi B, Kehel Z, Amri A. Effects of Physicochemical Characteristics of Two Soils on Agro-Morphological Traits of Two Chickpea Varieties (Cicer arietinum L.). Sci. 2025; 7(2):45. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7020045

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fahde, Sara, Said Boughribil, Lamyae Ed-daoudy, Youssef Dadi, Abdelali El Mekkaoui, Badreddine Sijilmassi, Zakaria Kehel, and Ahmed Amri. 2025. "Effects of Physicochemical Characteristics of Two Soils on Agro-Morphological Traits of Two Chickpea Varieties (Cicer arietinum L.)" Sci 7, no. 2: 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7020045

APA Style

Fahde, S., Boughribil, S., Ed-daoudy, L., Dadi, Y., El Mekkaoui, A., Sijilmassi, B., Kehel, Z., & Amri, A. (2025). Effects of Physicochemical Characteristics of Two Soils on Agro-Morphological Traits of Two Chickpea Varieties (Cicer arietinum L.). Sci, 7(2), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci7020045

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop