| Literature DB >> 32218586 |
Abdul Majeed1, Waqas Ahmed Minhas1, Noman Mehboob1, Shahid Farooq2,3, Mubshar Hussain1,4, Sardar Alam5, Muhammad Shahid Rizwan6.
Abstract
Malnutrition is among the biggest threats being faced globally, and Pakistan is among the countries having high malnutrition rate. Pulses grown in Pakistan have lower amounts of micronutrients, especially iron (Fe) in grains compared to developed world. Biofortification, -a process of integrating nutrients into food crops-, provides a sustainable and economic way of increasing minerals/micronutrients' concentration in staple crops. Mungbean fulfills protein needs of large portion of Pakistani population; however, low Fe concentration in grains do not provide sufficient Fe. Therefore, current study was conducted to infer the impact of different Fe levels and application methods on yield, economic returns and grain-Fe concentration of mungbean. Mungbean was sown under four levels of Fe, i.e., 0, 5, 10 and 15 kg Fe ha-1 applied by three methods, i) as basal application (whole at sowing), ii) side dressing (whole at 1st irrigation) and iii) 50% as basal application + 50% side dressing (regarded as split application). Iron levels and application methods significantly influenced the allometry, yield, economic returns and grain-Fe concentration of mungbean. Split application of 15 kg Fe ha-1 had the highest yield, economic returns and grain-Fe concentration compared to the rest of Fe levels and application methods. Moreover, split application of 15 kg Fe ha-1 proved a quick method to improve the grain-Fe concentration and bioavailability, which will ultimately solve the Fe malnutrition problem of mungbean-consuming population in Pakistan. In conclusion, split application of Fe at 15 kg ha-1 seemed a viable technique to enhance yield, economic returns, grain-Fe concentration and bioavailability of mungbean.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32218586 PMCID: PMC7100969 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Weather data of experimental site during the whole course of experiment.
| Months | Mean monthly temperature (°C) | Mean monthly relative humidity (%) | Total monthly rainfall (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| March | 21.8 | 68.4 | 0.0 |
| April | 30.0 | 53.5 | 5.3 |
| May | 34.0 | 63.1 | 0.1 |
| June | 33.1 | 74.9 | 45.6 |
Source: Pakistan Central Cotton Committee (PCCC), Multan, Pakistan
Statistical summary of growth yield and related traits, grain-Fe concentration and economics of mungbean grown under varying iron levels and application methods.
| Crop variables | Iron levels (Fe) | Iron application methods (M) | Fe × M |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of roots/plant | NS | NS | |
| Chlorophyll density (SPAD value) | NS | NS | |
| Leaf area index | |||
| Crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1) | |||
| Number of monopodial branches/plant | |||
| Number of sympodial branches/plant | NS | ||
| Number of grains per pod | |||
| 1000-grain weight (g) | |||
| Grain yield (t ha-1) | |||
| Biological yield (t ha-1) | |||
| Gross income (US$ ha-1) | |||
| Net income (US$ ha-1) | |||
| Benefit: cost ratio |
* = Significant at p 0.05
** = Significant at p 0.01; NS = Non-significant
Fig 1Effect of different iron levels and application methods on leaf area index (A), crop growth rate (B), number of roots/ plant (C) and chlorophyll density (D) of mungbean ± SE (n = 4) Here B = Basal application of Fe; S = Side dressing of Fe; Chl = Chlorophyll; CGR = Crop growth rate.
Fig 2Effect of different iron levels and application methods on number of monopodial branches (A), sympodial branches (B) and pods per plant (C), and number of seeds per pod (D) mungbean ± SE (n = 4) Here B = Basal application of Fe; S = Side dressing of Fe.
Fig 3Effect of different iron levels and application methods on 1000-grain weight (A), grain yield (B), biological yield (C), grain-Fe concentration (D) mungbean ± SE (n = 4) Here B = Basal application of Fe; S = Side dressing of Fe.
Economic analysis growing mungbean under different Fe levels and application methods.
| Treatments | Total cost (US$ ha-1) | Gross income (US$ ha-1) | Net income (US$ ha-1) | Benefit: cost ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Application methods | Iron levels (kg ha-1) | ||||
| Control (No iron application) | 463 | 1502 f | 1039 f | 3.20 f | |
| Basal application | 5 | 469 | 1552 de | 1083 de | 3.31 de |
| 10 | 471 | 1585 bc | 1114 b-d | 3.36 b-d | |
| 15 | 473 | 1567cd | 1094 c-e | 3.31 c-e | |
| Side dressing | 5 | 469 | 1552 de | 1083 de | 3.31 de |
| 10 | 471 | 1591 bc | 1120 bc | 3.38 bc | |
| 15 | 473 | 1606 b | 1133 b | 3.39 b | |
| Split application | 5 | 471 | 1575 b-d | 1104 b-d | 3.35 b-d |
| 10 | 472 | 1576 b-d | 1194 b-d | 3.33 b-e | |
| 15 | 474 | 1668 a | 1116 a | 3.52 a | |
Means not sharing the similar letters, within a column, differ significantly from each other at p ≤ 0.05