Paper · 2023 · Plant and Soil

Increasing grain selenium concentration via genetic and agronomic innovations

Mohammed Feizel Bin Daud; Leonidas Rempelos; Ismail Cakmak; et al.

10
claims
16
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Aims To evaluate the potential to enhance grain Selenium (Se) concentration in wheat through agronomic innovation practices and exploitation of existing genetic variation. Methods Grain samples from field experiments carried out as part of the EU projects Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE-CROPS), Healthy Minor Cereals (HMC) and Quality Low Input Food (QLIF) were analysed to identify the effects of wheat species/variety, fertiliser type and crop protection regime on grain yield, grain protein and selenium concentrations. Results Fertiliser type significantly affected grain Se concentration. In the NUE-CROPS and QLIF trials the use of farm-yard manure (FYM) resulted in significantly higher grain Se concentration when compared with mineral fertiliser applied at the same N input level. Similarly, in the HMC trial, FYM and cattle slurry resulted in a significantly higher grain Se concentration compared with biogas digestate and mineral fertiliser. In the QLIF trials, organic crop protection resulted in significantly higher grain Se concentration when compared with conventional crop protection. The NUE-CROPS and HMC trials detected significant differences between varieties of both common wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) and spelt ( T. spelta ). Correlation analyses across the trials identified a negative correlation between yield and grain Se concentration for spelt and positive correlation between plant height and Se concentration for both species. Conclusions Higher Se concentrations in the taller spelt varieties suggest that there is considerable potential to breed/select for high grain Se by exploiting traits/genetic variation present in older, traditional wheat species (e.g. spelt).

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer type significantly affected grain selenium.

Treatment
Fertiliser typee0
Outcome
grain Se concentratione0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fertiliser type significantly affected grain Se concentration”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 538–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat through agronomic innovation practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–132 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Farm-yard manure gave higher grain selenium than mineral fertilizer at equal N input in NUE-CROPS and QLIF.

Treatment
farm-yard manure (FYM)e0
Outcome
grain Se concentratione0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
same N input levele0
Comparator
mineral fertilisere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in the NUE-CROPS and QLIF trials the use of farm-yard manure (FYM) resulted in significantly higher grain Se concentration when compared with mineral fertiliser applied at the same N input level”

✓ located after whitespace/quote normalisation · abstract, characters 601–795 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat through agronomic innovation practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–132 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Farm-yard manure gave higher grain selenium than biogas digestate and mineral fertilizer in HMC.

Treatment
FYMe0
Outcome
grain Se concentratione0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
biogas digestate and mineral fertilisere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in the HMC trial, FYM and cattle slurry resulted in a significantly higher grain Se concentration compared with biogas digestate and mineral fertiliser”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 808–959 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat through agronomic innovation practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–132 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cattle slurry gave higher grain selenium than biogas digestate and mineral fertilizer in HMC.

Treatment
cattle slurrye0
Outcome
grain Se concentratione0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
biogas digestate and mineral fertilisere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in the HMC trial, FYM and cattle slurry resulted in a significantly higher grain Se concentration compared with biogas digestate and mineral fertiliser”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 808–959 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat through agronomic innovation practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–132 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic crop protection gave higher grain selenium than conventional protection.

Treatment
organic crop protectione0
Outcome
grain Se concentratione0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
conventional crop protectione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“organic crop protection resulted in significantly higher grain Se concentration when compared with conventional crop protection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1108 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat through agronomic innovation practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–132 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Common wheat varieties differed significantly.

Taxon
Triticum aestivumTriticum aestivume0
Material
common wheate0
Outcome
differences between varietiese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significant differences between varieties of both common wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) and spelt ( T. spelta )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1148–1256 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Spelt varieties differed significantly.

Taxon
T. speltaTriticum speltae0
Material
spelte0
Outcome
differences between varietiese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum spelta
Triticum spelta · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significant differences between varieties of both common wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) and spelt ( T. spelta )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1148–1256 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spelt yield was negatively correlated with grain selenium.

Outcome
grain Se concentratione0
Direction
negativee0
Comparator
yielde0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum spelta
Triticum spelta · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a negative correlation between yield and grain Se concentration for spelt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1308–1381 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant height positively correlated with grain selenium in both wheat species.

Outcome
Se concentratione0
Direction
positivee0
Comparator
plant heighte0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“positive correlation between plant height and Se concentration for both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1386–1465 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat through agronomic innovation practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 88–132 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend selecting taller traditional spelt varieties for higher grain selenium.

Material
taller spelt varietiese0
Outcome
breed/select for high grain See0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum spelta
Triticum spelta · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Higher Se concentrations in the taller spelt varieties suggest that there is considerable potential to breed/select for high grain Se by exploiting traits/genetic variation present in older, traditional wheat species (e.g. spelt).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1479–1709 · show in text ↑

fertilization · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

959 papers: 854 positive, 105 negative or no effect

853 papers in the same direction as this paper · 95 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

955 papers more in this group

See all 959 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.