Abstract
To evaluate the effects of different levels of iron (Fe) (from Fe-nano-chelate and Fe-EDDHA sources) on growth parameters, concentration and absorption of Fe and some nutrients in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in a calcareous soil, a greenhouse experiment was conducted based on completely randomized design with three replications. Treatments consisted of four levels of Fe (0, 0.135, 0.270 and 0.405 mg Fe per kg soil as Fe-nano-chelate or Fe-EDDHA). The studied soil (Fine-loamy, carbonatic, thermic, Typic Calcixerepts) had a loam texture with low available Fe content. Results showed that application of both Fe fertilizers increased shoot dry-matter yield, root dry matter yield, number of pods per plant, weight of pods and seeds per plant, grain weight per pot, shoot Fe concentration and Fe uptake by cowpea as compared to control treatment. Some of the evaluated growth parameters at all levels of Fe from Fe-nanochelate source were higher than the Fe-EDDHA source and some were the same and had no significant difference. Application of both Fe-nano-chelate and Fe-EDDHA decreased phosphorus and manganese concentrations in shoots as compared to control treatment. Concentration of zinc and cooper in shoots was not significantly affected by the Fe level. In conclusion, lower rates of Fe-nano-chelate were required, as compared to Fe-EDDHA, to alleviate iron deficiency in cowpea grown in calcareous soils.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Both Fe fertilizers increased cowpea shoot and root dry matter yield, pod number, pod and seed weight, and grain weight versus control.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Treatment
- both Fe fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- shoot dry-matter yield, root dry matter yield, number of pods per plant, weight of pods and seeds per plant, grain weight per pote0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“application of both Fe fertilizers increased shoot dry-matter yield, root dry matter yield, number of pods per plant, weight of pods and seeds per plant, grain weight per pot, shoot Fe concentration and Fe uptake by cowpea as compared to control treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both Fe fertilizers increased cowpea shoot Fe concentration and Fe uptake versus control.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- both Fe fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- shoot Fe concentration and Fe uptake by cowpeae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“application of both Fe fertilizers increased shoot dry-matter yield, root dry matter yield, number of pods per plant, weight of pods and seeds per plant, grain weight per pot, shoot Fe concentration and Fe uptake by cowpea as compared to control treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Some growth parameters under Fe-nanochelate were higher than under Fe-EDDHA.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- Fe-nanochelatee0
- Outcome
- evaluated growth parameterse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- Fe-EDDHAe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Some of the evaluated growth parameters at all levels of Fe from Fe-nanochelate source were higher than the Fe-EDDHA source”
e1“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”
Claim · model-written summary
Other growth parameters did not differ significantly between Fe sources.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae2
- Treatment
- Fe-nanochelatee1
- Outcome
- somee0
- Direction
- the samee0
- Comparator
- Fe-EDDHAe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“and some were the same and had no significant difference.”
e1“Fe from Fe-nanochelate source were higher than the Fe-EDDHA source”
e2“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”
Claim · model-written summary
Both Fe sources decreased shoot phosphorus and manganese concentrations versus control.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- both Fe-nano-chelate and Fe-EDDHAe0
- Outcome
- phosphorus and manganese concentrations in shootse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of both Fe-nano-chelate and Fe-EDDHA decreased phosphorus and manganese concentrations in shoots as compared to control treatment.”
e1“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fe level did not significantly affect shoot zinc and copper concentrations.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- Fe levele0
- Outcome
- Concentration of zinc and cooper in shootse0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Concentration of zinc and cooper in shoots was not significantly affected by the Fe level.”
e1“cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower Fe-nano-chelate rates than Fe-EDDHA are needed to alleviate cowpea iron deficiency in calcareous soils.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Outcome
- lower rates of Fe-nano-chelate were requirede0
- Comparator
- Fe-EDDHAe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower rates of Fe-nano-chelate were required, as compared to Fe-EDDHA, to alleviate iron deficiency in cowpea grown in calcareous soils.”
The same questions in other papers
iron atom · nutrient: content · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
iron atom · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →fertilization · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
274 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
288 papers more in this group
See all 292 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.