Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iron chlorosis is a problem that affects crops grown on calcareous soils. In this work, we assessed the effectiveness of nanosized siderite (FeCO₃) to prevent iron chlorosis, the underlying hypothesis being that the oxidation products of siderite in soil are poorly crystalline, and hence plant-available, iron oxides. RESULTS: Nanosized siderite was prepared by mixing FeSO₄ and K₂CO₃ solutions, either pure or doped with phosphate (siderite SID and SIDP, respectively). The average specific surface area was ∼140 m² g⁻¹ for SID and ∼220 m² g⁻¹ for SIDP. Experimental oxidation in a calcite suspension yielded goethite for SID and a mixture of lepidocrocite and goethite for SIDP. Two pot experiments in which a SID or SIDP suspension was applied to a calcareous soil at a rate of ∼2 g Fe kg⁻¹ showed nanosiderite to prevent iron chlorosis in chickpea. In a pot experiment with five successive crops, one initial application of ∼0.7 g Fe kg⁻¹ soil in the form of SID or SIDP was as effective as FeEDDHA in preventing Fe chlorosis. The residual effect of nanosiderite when applied to the first crop alone clearly exceeded that of FeEDDHA. CONCLUSION: Nanosiderite suspensions applied at rates of ∼0.7 g Fe kg⁻¹ soil were highly effective in preventing iron chlorosis and have a great residual effect.
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
Nanosiderite suspensions applied to calcareous soil prevented iron chlorosis in chickpea
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinume1 - Treatment
- SID or SIDP suspensione1
- Outcome
- iron chlorosise1
- Direction
- prevente1
- Setting
- pot experimentse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Two pot experiments in which a SID or SIDP suspension was applied to a calcareous soil at a rate of ∼2 g Fe kg⁻¹ showed nanosiderite to prevent iron chlorosis in chickpea”
Claim · model-written summary
One initial application of SID or SIDP was as effective as FeEDDHA in preventing iron chlorosis in chickpea over five successive crops
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- one initial application of ∼0.7 g Fe kg⁻¹ soil in the form of SID or SIDPe2
- Outcome
- Fe chlorosise2
- Direction
- as effective ase2
- Comparator
- FeEDDHAe2
- Setting
- pot experiment with five successive cropse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“showed nanosiderite to prevent iron chlorosis in chickpea”
e2“In a pot experiment with five successive crops, one initial application of ∼0.7 g Fe kg⁻¹ soil in the form of SID or SIDP was as effective as FeEDDHA in preventing Fe chlorosis”
Claim · model-written summary
The residual effect of nanosiderite applied to the first crop alone exceeded that of FeEDDHA in chickpea
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinume1
- Treatment
- nanosiderite when applied to the first crop alonee3
- Outcome
- residual effecte3
- Direction
- exceedede3
- Comparator
- FeEDDHAe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“showed nanosiderite to prevent iron chlorosis in chickpea”
e3“The residual effect of nanosiderite when applied to the first crop alone clearly exceeded that of FeEDDHA”
Claim · model-written summary
Experimental oxidation of SID yielded goethite
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e4“Experimental oxidation in a calcite suspension yielded goethite for SID and a mixture of lepidocrocite and goethite for SIDP”
Claim · model-written summary
Experimental oxidation of SIDP yielded a mixture of lepidocrocite and goethite
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e4“Experimental oxidation in a calcite suspension yielded goethite for SID and a mixture of lepidocrocite and goethite for SIDP”
Claim · model-written summary
The average specific surface area of SID was ∼140 m² g⁻¹
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e5“The average specific surface area was ∼140 m² g⁻¹ for SID and ∼220 m² g⁻¹ for SIDP”
Claim · model-written summary
The average specific surface area of SIDP was ∼220 m² g⁻¹
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e5“The average specific surface area was ∼140 m² g⁻¹ for SID and ∼220 m² g⁻¹ for SIDP”
The same questions in other papers
iron atom · physiology: pigments · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.