4.7 Article

Soil type influences crop mineral composition in Malawi

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 505, 期 -, 页码 587-595

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.038

关键词

Crop composition; Geochemistry; Malawi; Mineral micrbnutrient deficiencies

资金

  1. British Geological Survey (BGS)
  2. University of Nottingham (UoN)
  3. Malawi Government Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
  4. UoN
  5. BGS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food supply and composition data can be combined to estimate micronutrient intakes and deficiency risks among populations. These estimates can be improved by using local crop composition data that can capture environmental influences including soil type. This study aimed to provide spatially resolved crop composition data for Malawi, where information is currently limited. Six hundred and fifty-two plant samples, representing 97 edible food items, were sampled from >150 sites in Malawi between 2011 and 2013. Samples were analysed by ICP-MS for up to 58 elements, including the essential minerals calcium (Ca), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), magnesium (Mg), selenium (Se) and zinc (Zn). Maize grain Ca, Cu, Fe, Mg, Se and Zn concentrations were greater from plants grown on calcareous soils than those from the more widespread low-pH soils. Leafy vegetables from calcareous soils had elevated leaf Ca, Cu, Fe and Se concentrations, but lower Zn concentrations. Several foods were found to accumulate high levels of Se, including the leaves of Moringa, a crop not previously been reported in East African food composition data sets. New estimates,of national dietary mineral supplies were obtained for non-calcareous and calcareous soils. High risks of Ca (100%), Se (100%) and Zn (57%) dietary deficiencies are likely on non-calcareous soils. Deficiency risks on calcareous soils are high for Ca (97%), but lower for Se (34%) and Zn (31%). Risks of Cu, Fe and Mg deficiencies appear to be low on the basis of dietary supply levels. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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