4.7 Article

Reactivity and effectiveness of traditional and novel ligands for multi-micronutrient fertilization in a calcareous soil

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PLANT SCIENCE
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00752

关键词

o,p-EDDHA; S,S-EDDS; IDHA; micronutrient chelates; fertilizers

资金

  1. Spanish MINECO Project from Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [AGL2013-44474-R]
  2. Syngenta Agro S.L

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compares the effectiveness of multi-micronutrient formulations containing iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and zinc (Zn) with traditional (EDTA, DTPA, HEEDTA, and EDDHAm) or novel chelates (o,p-EDDHA, S,S-EDDS, and IDHA) and natural complexing agents (gluconate and lignosulfonate). The stability and reactivity of the formulations were studied on batch experiments with calcareous soil and by speciation modeling. Formulations containing traditional ligands maintained higher Mn but lower Zn concentration in soil solution than the novel ligands. The gluconate and lignosulfonate maintained low concentrations of both Mn and Zn in soil solution. Selected formulations were applied into calcareous soil and their efficacy was evaluated in a pot experiment with soybean. The formulation containing DTPA led to the highest Zn concentration in plants, as well as the formulation containing S,S-EDDS in the short-term, which correlated with its biodegradability. The application of traditional or novel ligands in formulations did not result in sufficient plant Mn concentrations, which was related to the low Mn stability observed for all formulations under moderate oxidation conditions. The results highlight the need to consider the effect of metals and ligands interactions in multi-nutrient fertilization and the potential of S,S-EDDS to be used for Zn fertilization. Furthermore, it is necessary to explore new sources of Mn fertilization for calcareous soils that have greater stability and efficiency, or instead to use foliar fertilization.

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