Paper · 2024 · Polish Journal of Environmental Studies

Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor Iron (Fe) Using Vermicompstand Biochar along with Fe Application

Iqra Mushtaq; Muhammad Athar; Saqib Bashir; et al.

11
claims
21
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Iron-biofortification is a sustainable method of addressing iron (Fe) deficiency in crops by increasing iron content and bioavailability under alkaline conditions. In this regard, the management of Fe-deficient soil is becoming a serious matter of concern for soil health and the food web. The current research was carried out to investigate the possible impact of vermicompost (VC) and biochar (BC) along with iron (Fe) for improving the Fe fortification in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in alkaline soil. The wheat genotype “Fakher-e-Bakkhr” was used as a test plant. The findings showed the highest variations among all the measured parameters. The use of Fe along with VC and BC significantly improved plant height, root length, root and shoot weight, number of leaves, and overall plant biomass of wheat crop. A greater increment was noticed in available Fe in soil when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil by 31.4%, 36.4%, and 41.5%, respectively, over control. Additionally, Fe contents in plants were increased by 16.5%, 22.6%, and 25.1% when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil. Similarly, maximum increases in soil OM, available P, and K by 53%, 21.9%, and 19% were recorded when VC+BC+Fe was added in combined form relative to control. This study indicated that using organic amendments like BC and VC along with iron can have the potential to improve the bioavailability of iron and enhance wheat nutritional quality, thereby enhancing the Fe fortification in wheat under alkaline conditions.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fe with VC and BC significantly improved wheat height, root length, root and shoot weight, leaf number and biomass.

Material
Fakher-e-Bakkhrt0
Treatment
Fe along with VC and BCe0
Outcome
plant height, root length, root and shoot weight, number of leaves, and overall plant biomasse0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

“The use of Fe along with VC and BC significantly improved plant height, root length, root and shoot weight, number of leaves, and overall plant biomass of wheat crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 653–818 · show in text ↑
t0

“The wheat genotype “Fakher-e-Bakkhr””

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 512–548 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

VC with Fe increased soil available Fe by 31.4% over control.

Treatment
VCe0
Outcome
available Fe in soile0
Direction
incremente0
Value
31.4%e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
alkaline soile0

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

“A greater increment was noticed in available Fe in soil when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil by 31.4%, 36.4%, and 41.5%, respectively, over control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 820–997 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BC with Fe increased soil available Fe by 36.4% over control.

Treatment
BCe0
Outcome
available Fe in soile0
Direction
incremente0
Value
36.4%e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
alkaline soile0

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

“A greater increment was noticed in available Fe in soil when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil by 31.4%, 36.4%, and 41.5%, respectively, over control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 820–997 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

VC+BC with Fe increased soil available Fe by 41.5% over control.

Treatment
VC+BC along with Fee0
Outcome
available Fe in soile0
Direction
incremente0
Value
41.5%e0
Comparator
controle0
Setting
alkaline soile0

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

“A greater increment was noticed in available Fe in soil when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil by 31.4%, 36.4%, and 41.5%, respectively, over control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 820–997 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

VC with Fe raised plant Fe content by 16.5%.

Treatment
VCe0
Outcome
Fe contents in plantse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
16.5%e0
Setting
alkaline soile0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Fe contents in plants were increased by 16.5%, 22.6%, and 25.1% when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1013–1143 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

BC with Fe raised plant Fe content by 22.6%.

Treatment
BCe0
Outcome
Fe contents in plantse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
22.6%e0
Setting
alkaline soile0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Fe contents in plants were increased by 16.5%, 22.6%, and 25.1% when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1013–1143 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

VC+BC with Fe raised plant Fe content by 25.1%.

Treatment
VC+BC along with Fee0
Outcome
Fe contents in plantse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
25.1%e0
Setting
alkaline soile0

Not reportedComparator

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

“Fe contents in plants were increased by 16.5%, 22.6%, and 25.1% when VC, BC, and VC+BC along with Fe were applied in alkaline soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1013–1143 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

VC+BC+Fe increased soil OM by 53% relative to control.

Treatment
VC+BC+Fee0
Outcome
soil OMe0
Direction
increasese0
Value
53%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

“maximum increases in soil OM, available P, and K by 53%, 21.9%, and 19% were recorded when VC+BC+Fe was added in combined form relative to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1156–1302 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

VC+BC+Fe increased soil available P by 21.9% relative to control.

Treatment
VC+BC+Fee0
Outcome
available Pe0
Direction
increasese0
Value
21.9%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

“maximum increases in soil OM, available P, and K by 53%, 21.9%, and 19% were recorded when VC+BC+Fe was added in combined form relative to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1156–1302 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

VC+BC+Fe increased soil K by 19% relative to control.

Treatment
VC+BC+Fee0
Outcome
Ke0
Direction
increasese0
Value
19%e0
Comparator
controle0

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

“maximum increases in soil OM, available P, and K by 53%, 21.9%, and 19% were recorded when VC+BC+Fe was added in combined form relative to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1156–1302 · show in text ↑
t0

“Assessment of Wheat Biofortificationfor”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–39 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Authors suggest organic amendments with iron can improve iron bioavailability and wheat nutritional quality in alkaline conditions.

Treatment
BC and VC along with irone0
Outcome
improve the bioavailability of iron and enhance wheat nutritional qualitye0
Setting
alkaline conditionse0

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

“using organic amendments like BC and VC along with iron can have the potential to improve the bioavailability of iron and enhance wheat nutritional quality, thereby enhancing the Fe fortification in wheat under alkaline conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1330–1560 · show in text ↑

iron atom · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

54 papers: 41 positive, 13 negative or no effect

40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

50 papers more in this group

See all 54 papers →

iron atom · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

74 papers: 61 positive, 13 negative or no effect

60 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

70 papers more in this group

See all 74 papers →

iron atom · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

biochar · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

23 papers: 21 positive, 2 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

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

63 papers: 59 positive, 4 negative or no effect

58 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

biochar · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

85 papers: 80 positive, 5 negative or no effect

79 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

81 papers more in this group

See all 85 papers →

fertilization · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

214 papers: 190 positive, 24 negative or no effect

189 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

210 papers more in this group

See all 214 papers →

fertilization · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

755 papers: 663 positive, 92 negative or no effect

662 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

751 papers more in this group

See all 755 papers →

8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.