4.3 Article

Interaction of iron with copper, zinc, and manganese in wheat as affected by iron and manganese in a calcareous soil

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 839-848

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01904160802043148

关键词

Fe-EDDHA; copper; zinc; manganese; foliar; wheat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron (Fe) availability is low in calcareous soils of southern Iran. The chelate Fe-ethylenediamine di (o-hydroxy-phenylacetic acid) (Fe-EDDHA), has been used as an effective source of Fe in correcting Fe deficiency in such soils. In some cases, however, its application might cause nutritional disorder due to the antagonistic effect of Fe with other cationic micronutrients, in particular with manganese (Mn). A greenhouse experiment was conducted to evaluate the influence of soil and foliar applications of Fe and soil application of manganese (Mn) on dry matter yield (DMY) and the uptake of cationic micronutrients in wheat (Triticum aestivum L. var. Ghods) in a calcareous soil. Results showed that neither soil application of Fe-EDDHA nor foliar application of Fe sulfate had a significant effect on wheat DMY. In general, Fe application increased Fe uptake but decreased that of Mn, zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu). Application of Mn increased only Mn uptake and had no significant effect on the uptake of the other cationic micronutrients. Iron treatments considerably increased the ratio of Fe to Mn, Zn, Cu, and (Mn + Zn + Cu). Failure to observe an increase in wheat DMY following Fe application is attributed to the antagonistic effect of Fe with Mn, Zn, and Cu and hence, imbalance in Fe to (Mn + Zn + Cu) ratio. Due to the nutritional disorder and imbalance, it appears that neither soil application of Fe-EDDHA nor foliar application of Fe-sulfate is appropriate in correcting Fe deficiency in wheat grown on calcareous soils. Hence, growing Fe-efficient wheat cultivars should be considered as an appropriate practice for Fe chlorosis-prone calcareous soils of southern Iran.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据