Abstract
Previous work had suggested microbially‐produced chelates as potential sources of plant available iron for crops grown on alkaline‐calcareous soils. A “hot spot”; soil (Pernitas fine sandy loam) which historically produced severe iron stress on field grown grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) was used in this greenhouse study. Iron utilization by grain sorghum was examined where Fe was supplied as three types of ferrated microbially‐produced hydroxamate siderophores; ferrioxamine B (FOB), rhodotorulic acid (RA) and a mixture of ferrichrome‐ferrichrome A (1: 3; Fc‐FcA). Also included in the experiment were ferrated synthetic chelate ethylenediamine [di(o‐hydroxyphenylacetic)acid] (Fe‐EDDHA) and Amaranthus spp plant complexed iron (Fe‐AR). Soil applications were compared with foliar spray treatments using ferrous sulfate, FOB and the Fc‐FcA mixture. Each siderophore source was applied at rates of 1.1 and 3.3 kg Fe ha‐1 soil. The synthetic chelate and Fe‐AR sources were applied at 3.3 kg Fe ha‐l soil. Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively. More severe chlorosis was evident on plants treated with ferrated siderophores regardless of iron rates. Sorghum responded to foliar sprays of ferrous sulfate whereas little response to foliarly applied Fc‐FcA mix and FOB was observed. Dry matter yields were highly variable with Fe source and ranged in the following order for soil applications: Fe‐EDDHA ≫ Fe‐AR > Fc‐FcA = Fe‐FOB = Fe‐RA. Iron uptake generally followed similar trends with the exception of FOB, from which there was slightly higher uptake than other siderophore carriers. Response to foliar sprays were highest for the ferrous sulfate source.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Soil application of Fe‐EDDHA gave only very slight sorghum chlorosis, versus severe chlorosis in untreated soil.
- Treatment
- soil applications of Fe‐EDDHAe1
- Outcome
- Fe chlorosis symptomse1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede1
- Value
- very slighte1
- Comparator
- Untreated soile1
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil application of Fe‐AR gave moderate sorghum chlorosis, versus severe chlorosis in untreated soil.
- Treatment
- Fe‐ARe1
- Outcome
- Fe chlorosis symptomse1
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede1
- Value
- moderatee1
- Comparator
- Untreated soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Plants treated with ferrated siderophores showed more severe chlorosis regardless of iron rate.
- Treatment
- ferrated siderophorese2
- Outcome
- chlorosise2
- Direction
- More severee2
- Qualifier
- regardless of iron ratese2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively”
e2“More severe chlorosis was evident on plants treated with ferrated siderophores regardless of iron rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum responded to foliar sprays of ferrous sulfate.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Sorghum responded to foliar sprays of ferrous sulfate whereas little response to foliarly applied Fc‐FcA mix and FOB was observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar Fc‐FcA mix and FOB gave little sorghum response.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Sorghum responded to foliar sprays of ferrous sulfate whereas little response to foliarly applied Fc‐FcA mix and FOB was observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum dry matter yields from soil applications were highly variable by Fe source, in the order Fe‐EDDHA ≫ Fe‐AR > Fc‐FcA = Fe‐FOB = Fe‐RA.
- Outcome
- Dry matter yieldse4
- Qualifier
- ranged in the following order for soil applications: Fe‐EDDHA ≫ Fe‐AR > Fc‐FcA = Fe‐FOB = Fe‐RAe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively”
e4“Dry matter yields were highly variable with Fe source and ranged in the following order for soil applications: Fe‐EDDHA ≫ Fe‐AR > Fc‐FcA = Fe‐FOB = Fe‐RA”
Claim · model-written summary
FOB gave slightly higher iron uptake by sorghum than other siderophore carriers.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively”
e5“Iron uptake generally followed similar trends with the exception of FOB, from which there was slightly higher uptake than other siderophore carriers”
Claim · model-written summary
Iron uptake by sorghum generally followed similar trends to dry matter yield, except for FOB.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively”
e5“Iron uptake generally followed similar trends with the exception of FOB, from which there was slightly higher uptake than other siderophore carriers”
Claim · model-written summary
Response to foliar sprays was highest for the ferrous sulfate source.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Untreated soil produced severely chlorotic and stunted sorghum plants, some of which died prior to harvest. However, sorghum receiving soil applications of Fe‐EDDHA and Fe‐AR exhibited only very slight and moderate Fe chlorosis symptoms, respectively”
e6“Response to foliar sprays were highest for the ferrous sulfate source”
The same questions in other papers
siderophore · physiology: pigments · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
iron atom · physiology: pigments · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
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.