Journal of Plant Nutrition GROWTH AND IRON-MANGANESE ...

This article was downloaded by: [Ronaghi, A.] On: 21 June 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 923084794] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Plant Nutrition

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713597277

GROWTH AND IRON-MANGANESE RELATIONSHIPS IN DRY BEAN AS AFFECTED BY FOLIAR AND SOIL APPLICATIONS OF IRON AND MANGANESE IN A CALCAREOUS SOIL A. A. Moosavia; A. Ronaghia a Department of Soil Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran Online publication date: 15 June 2010

To cite this Article Moosavi, A. A. and Ronaghi, A.(2010) 'GROWTH AND IRON-MANGANESE RELATIONSHIPS IN

DRY BEAN AS AFFECTED BY FOLIAR AND SOIL APPLICATIONS OF IRON AND MANGANESE IN A CALCAREOUS SOIL', Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33: 9, 1353 — 1365 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2010.484095 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2010.484095

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33:1353–1365, 2010 C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC Copyright ISSN: 0190-4167 print / 1532-4087 online DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2010.484095

GROWTH AND IRON-MANGANESE RELATIONSHIPS IN DRY BEAN AS AFFECTED BY FOLIAR AND SOIL APPLICATIONS OF IRON AND MANGANESE IN A CALCAREOUS SOIL

Downloaded By: [Ronaghi, A.] At: 19:42 21 June 2010

A. A. Moosavi and A. Ronaghi Department of Soil Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

2

Manganese (Mn) deficiency may be induced by adding large quantities of iron (Fe), provided that soil manganese is marginally deficient. Results of a greenhouse study showed that iron soil application did not influence shoot dry matter yield of dry bean due to the fact that the iron:manganese ratio in aerial parts of dry bean was higher than 0.4. A foliar spray of 2% iron sulfate significantly reduced it probably due to the high level of shoot iron and iron:manganese ratio greater than 4. Iron application decreased concentration/uptake of shoot manganese due to the iron-manganese antagonistic relationships. Mangenese soil application is not an effective method in correction of manganese deficiency induced by iron fertilizers. Iron did not affect root manganese uptake, indicating that manganese absorption was not affected by iron application. Both manganese/iron soil tests are recommended in calcareous soils with manganese soil test in marginal range. Keywords:

iron, manganese, soil and foliar applications, dry bean, calcareous soil

INTRODUCTION Iron (Fe) deficiency, being responsible for low yield and poor plant quality in some parts of the word, results in economic loss to growers (Mortvedt, 1991). Certain soil conditions such as high pH (e.g., in calcareous soils), poor aeration, and accumulation of phosphorus (P) are conducive to Fe deficiency (Lindsay and Schwab, 1982). Inorganic and organic sources of Fe mainly iron sulfate (FeSO4 ) and Fe chelates are used to correct Fe deficiency (Martens and Westerman, 1991). A large amount of FeSO4 (1000 mg kg−1) was required to correct Fe deficiency and increase yield of sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] and bermuda grass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.] in a calcareous soil (Ryan et al., 1975). Since organic sources of Fe (Fe-chelates) Received 26 October 2008; accepted 25 July 2009. Address correspondence to A. Ronaghi, Department of Soil Science, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]

1353


1354

A. A. Moosavi and A. Ronaghi

are generally more effective in correcting Fe deficiency, therefore soil application of Fe chelates is more commonly practiced in calcareous soils. However, Salardini and Murphy (1978) reported a yield reduction in grain sorghum following the application of 80 mg Fe kg−1 as iron-ethylenediamine di-o-hydroxyphenylacetic Acid (Fe-EDDHA) due to the toxic level of Fe in plant tissue. Martens and Westerman (1991) believe that direct toxicity of Fe fertilizer is not expected due to the fact that inorganic compounds of Fe are rapidly converted into insoluble forms in soils. Conversion of Fe to insoluble form is, however, less likely with chelate forms and conversion rate is inversely related to the stability constant of the chelate. Ronaghi and Ghasemi-Fasaei (2008) reported that application of Fe-EDDHA did not result in significant increase in soybean yield, probably due to the competition of Fe with manganese (Mn). The chelate Fe-EDDHA with high stability constant has been shown to be more effective in correcting Fe deficiency in sorghum compared to ferrous sulfate or other chelates (Lindsay and Schwab, 1982). Moraghan et al. (2002) showed that soil application of 4 mg Fe kg−1 soil as Fe-EDDHA increased seed yield, iron concentration or uptake but decreased seed Mn concentration or uptake of bean genotypes in calcareous soil. Moraghan (2004) reported that soil application of 2 mg Fe kg−1 soil as Fe-EDDHA increased shoot Fe concentration and uptake of bean and soybean genotypes but had no significant effect on shoot dry matter yields. Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005) stated that soil or foliar application of Fe decreased chickpea shoot dry matter yield and Mn concentration and uptake due to the antagonistic effect of Fe on Mn translocation from root to shoot. Overfertilization with Fe chelates may leads to absorption of relatively large amounts of Fe, which might cause nutritional imbalance in plants and may induce deficiency of Mn, copper (Cu), or zinc (Zn) as a consequence (Ronaghi and Ghasemi-Fasaei, 2008). Manganese deficiency may be induced by adding large quantities of Fe, provided that soil Mn is marginally deficient (Havlin et al., 2005). Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2003) reported that soil application of Fe-EDDHA significantly increased soybean shoot Fe concentration and uptake but decreased shoot Mn concentration due to the reduction in Mn absorption and translocation from root to shoot. Roomizadeh and Karimian (1996) reported that application of Fe had no significant effect on dry matter of soybean plants or even decreased it and they concluded that the negative effect of Fe application was attributed to the interference of Fe with Mn nutrition. Sanchez-Raya et al. (1974) showed that Fe supply influenced the amount of Mn absorbed by tomato plant and stated that when Fe supply was low, Mn uptake and translocation from root to shoot increased. However, with excessive Fe supply an increase in Mn uptake resulted but it was not translocated to aerial parts of plants. They stated that the antagonistic effect of Fe on Mn could be due to the increased dry matter yield in such a rate that leads to dilution effect. Parvizi et al. (2004) reported that dry matter yield and shoot Fe uptake of wheat were not influenced by


Growth and Fe-Mn Relationships in Dry Bean

1355

soil application of Mn sulfate but shoot Mn concentration significantly increased and shoot Fe concentration decreased. Bajapai and Chauhan (2001) showed that soil application of 20 mg Mn kg−1 soil as Mn sulfate increased okra seed and fruit dry matter yield. Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005) stated that soil application of 30 mg Mn kg−1 soil significantly increased chickpea shoot Mn concentration and uptake. Frossard et al. (2000) reported that Fe foliar application may be the only practical method to increase seed Fe content in plants. Goos and Johnson (2000) reported two foliar applications of FeEDDHA increased seed yield of three soybean genotypes. Accumulation of Fe to toxic levels, reduction of root:shoot ratio (Mortvedt, 1991), reduction of Mn uptake and/or translocation from root to shoot (Roomizadeh and Karimian, 1996) could be the negative effects of Fe on Mn. Due to the lack of information on the interactive effect of soil and foliar applications of Fe and Mn on shoot and root yield and chemical composition of dry bean, the objective of this experiment was to study the effect of soil and foliar applications of Fe and Mn on the shoot and root dry matter yield, concentration and uptake of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu and chlorophyll meter readings of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgarise L.) in a calcareous soil of southern Iran.

MATERIALS AND METHODS A greenhouse experiment was conducted on a loam calcareous soil (fineloamy, carbonatic, thermic, Typic Calcixerepts) with pH of 7.8; electrical conductivity (ECe) of 0.40 dS m−1; calcium carbonate equivalent (CCE) of 45%; organic matter (O.M.) of 1.5%; sodium bicarbonate extractable P (Olsen et al., 1954) of 4.5 mg kg−1 soil; diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-extractable Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978) of 2.3, 3.7, 0.96 and 1.0 mg kg−1 soil, respectively. The experiment was a 5 × 5 factorial arranged in a randomized complete block with three replicates. Treatments consisted of five Fe levels [foliar application (1 and 2% FeSO4 ·7H2 O), soil application (0, 4 and 8 mg Fe kg−1 soil of Fe-EDDHA)] and five Mn levels [foliar application 0.5 and 1% manganese sulfate (MnSO4 ·4H2 O)], soil application (0, 15 and 30 mg Mn kg−1 soil as MnSO4 ·4H2 O)]. Each pot contained 2.5 kg soil. Pots were watered with distilled water to a near field capacity and maintained at this moisture level by adding water to a constant weight. All pots received uniform application of 50 mg P kg−1 soil as monocalcium phosphate [Ca(H2 PO4 )2 ], H2 O, 50 mg nitrogen (N) kg−1 soil as ammonium nitrate (NH4 NO3 ) (one half of N was added at the time of planting and the other half was shoot-dressed in the third week after emergence), 3 mg Cu and 5 mg Zn kg−1 soil as their sulfates and in aqueous forms. Six dry bean seeds were planted about 2.5-cm deep and were thinned to three uniform stands one week after emergence. Iron and Mn sulfates were applied using a hand-held sprayer 15 and 30 days after emergence.

1356



Polyoxyethylene Sorbitanmonodaurates (Tween 20) was added as a surfactant agent to ferrous and Mn sulfate solutions. Leaf greenness was measured using a Minolta SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter (Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan) before harvesting. Eight weeks after planting, shoots were harvested and roots were separated from soil, both parts were rinsed with distilled water, dried at 65◦ C for 48 hours, weighed, ground, and dry ashed at 550◦ C. The ash was dissolved in 2 normal hydrochloric acid (HCl) and concentration of Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu was determined using atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Shoot and root dry matter, nutrient concentration and uptake in both parts of plants were used as plant responses. Data were analyzed statistically using MSTATC (Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA) and Excel (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA) software packages.

RESULTS AND DISSUCSION Soil application of Fe did not affect shoot dry matter yield (SDMY), whereas addition of 4 mg Fe kg−1 soil increased root dry matter yield (RDMY) by 16.5 percent as compared to that of control (Table 1). Foliar application of 2% Fe sulfate significantly decreased SDMY probably due to the high level of shoot Fe concentration; however, foliar application of Fe had no significant effect on RDMY (Table 1). Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2003) reported that soil application of 2.5 mg Fe kg−1 soil as Fe-EDDHA on 12 soybean TABLE 1 Effects of Fe and Mn on dry bean shoot and root dry weight Fe levels 0

4∗

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

3.25 ab 2.99 ab 3.59 ab 3.44 ab 3.36 ab 3.33 A

3.39 ab 3.08 ab 3.67 a 3.56 ab 3.67 a 3.47 A

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

1.11 ab 1.03 b 1.27 ab 1.28 ab 1.12 ab 1.16 BC

1.54 a 1.34 ab 1.32 ab 1.26 ab 1.31 ab 1.36 A

Mn levels

8∗

1∗∗

2∗∗

Mean

Shoot (g pot−1) 3.44 ab 3.12 ab 3.69 a 3.20 ab 3.37 ab 3.55 ab 3.29 ab 3.34 ab 3.50 ab 2.94 ab 3.46 A 3.23 AB

3.11 ab 2.81 b 3.10 ab 2.94 ab 3.14 ab 3.02 B

3.27 A 3.15 A 3.46 A 3.32 A 3.32 A

Root (g pot−1) 1.25 ab 1.08 b 1.35 ab 1.29 ab 1.25 ab 1.32 ab 1.25 ab 1.13 ab 1.39 ab 1.15 ab 1.30 AB 1.19 ABC

1.11 ab 1.04 b 1.10 b 1.14 ab 1.06 b 1.09 C

1.22 A 1.21 A 1.25 A 1.21 A 1.21 A

∗ , ∗∗ : Soil (mg kg−1 soil) and foliar (%) applications, respectively. Means in each row or column followed by the same lowercase or capital letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncans Multiple Range Test.



1357

genotypes increased shoot dry weight of two genotypes and 5 mg Fe kg−1 soil increased this parameter of two others. However, dry matter of some genotypes decreased when Fe was added, probably due to the reduction of Mn concentration in plant tissue. Niebur and Fehr (1981) reported that application of Fe-chelate to 19 soybean genotypes increased the yield of only 7 genotypes. Goos and Johnson (2000) stated that two foliar applications of Fe as Fe-EDTA at 1 to 2 and 4 to 5 trifoliate stages increased yield of soybeans. Zaiter et al. (1992) showed that foliar applications of Fe as FeEDTA increased yield of dry bean genotypes as compared to control. In our experiment foliar or soil application of Mn had no significant effect on SDMY or RDMY (Table 1) probably due to the fact that Mn soil test was in marginal range. Randall et al. (1970) reported that broadcast application of MnSO4 by 17, 34 or 68 Kg ha−1 and foliar application of Mn-EDTA at 0.17, 0.34 or 0.51 kg ha−1 resulted in higher yield and Mn content of soybean leaves. They noted that, in general, foliar treatments resulted in somewhat lower yields (although not significant at the P ≤ 0.05) than the soil applied MnSO4 treatments. Robertson et al. (1973) concluded that soybean yield response to MnSO4 was significant (P ≤ 0.05) and highest yield was obtained when leaf Mn (86 mg kg−1) was in the sufficiency range; however, yield was lower when Mn level was 119 mg kg−1, possibly due to Mn toxicity. Gettier et al. (1985) observed that application of 1.12 kg Mn ha−1 as foliar application increased soybean yield and plants sprayed at early and late growth stages had greatest yield as compared to that of control. Boswell et al. (1981) reported that preplant Mn broadcast application, as row at planting, sidedress or preplant broadcast plus foliar spray at 5.6, 11.2 or 22.4 kg ha−1 did not significantly influence soybean yields. In our experiment the highest SDMY was obtained with addition of 8 mg Fe kg−1 plus 15 mg Mn kg−1 as soil application and the lowest SDMY was obtained with foliar application of 2% Fe sulfate and soil application of 15 mg Mn kg−1 (Table 1). The highest and the lowest RDMY were obtained with soil application of 4 mg Fe kg−1 plus 15 mg Mn kg−1, respectively (Table 1). Root to shoot ratio was not affected by either Fe or Mn treatments (data not shown). Soil application of 8 mg Fe kg−1 and foliar application of 1 and 2% Fe sulfate increased mean shoot Fe concentration by 1.9, 5.3 and 6.6 fold and shoot Fe uptake by 1.9, 5.2 and 6.0 fold, respectively (Tables 2 and 3). However, Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005) stated that soil application of Fe had no significant effect on shoot Fe concentration or uptake, whereas foliar application, similar to our results, increased both parameters. Foliar spray of 1% Fe sulfate improved plant Fe content and had no negative effect either on SDMY or on shoot Mn concentration; hence it is considered as an appropriate treatment in the present study. This is in agreement with findings of Liebenberg (2002) which stated that Fe deficiencies can be rectified by foliar spray of a 1% Fe sulfate solution or chelate. The

1358


TABLE 2 Effects of Fe and Mn on dry bean shoot and root concentrations of Fe Fe levels


Mn levels

0

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

73 e 64 e 61 e 57 e 56 e 62 D

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

1769 b-f 1783 b-f 1657 d-h 1157 i 1868 b-f 1647 B

4∗

70 e 89 e 89 e 87 e 76 e 82 CD 1516 e-i 1889 b-e 1766 b-g 1351 hi 1676 c-h 1640 B

8∗

1∗∗

2∗∗

Mean

Shoot (mg Kg−1DW) 108 e 310 cd 117 e 367 bc 127 e 312 cd 139 e 261 d 85 e 379 bc 115 C 326 B

379 bc 431 ab 479 a 373 bc 387 a-c 410 A

188 A 214 A 214 A 184 A 197 A

Root (mg Kg−1DW) 1509 f-i 1549 d-h 2044 bc 1464 g-i 2531 a 1564 d-h 1899 b-d 2120 b 1473 g-i 1439 g-i 1891 A 1627 B

1656 d-h 1550 d-h 1611 d-h 2046 bc 1893 b-e 1752 AB

1600 B 1794 AB 1826 A 1715 AB 1670 B

∗ , ∗∗ :

Soil (mg kg−1soil) and foliar (%) applications, respectively. Means in each row or column followed by the same lowercase or capital letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncans Multiple Range Test.

highest shoot Fe concentration or uptake obtained with application of 2% Fe sulfate and application of 30 mg Mn kg−1. Iron concentration and uptake in root were only affected by 8 mg Fe kg−1 rate which increased them by 1.1 and 1.3 fold, respectively. Hodgson et al. (1992) observed that Fe-chelate TABLE 3 Effects of Fe and Mn on dry bean shoot and root uptake of Fe Fe levels Mn levels

0

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

231 d 189 d 217 d 193 d 190 d 204 D

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

1957 bc 1831 bc 2117 bc 1468 c 2076 bc 1890 B

4∗

239 d 279 d 322 d 309 d 279 d 286 CD 2396 a-c 2525 a-c 2357 a-c 1701 bc 2252 a-c 2246 AB

8∗

1∗∗

2∗∗

Mean

Shoot (µg pot−1) 377 d 981 bc 430 d 1180 a-c 415 d 1122 a-c 457 d 870 c 296 d 1156 a-c 395 C 1062 B

1179 a-c 1224 a-c 1414 a 1096 a-c 1236 ab 1230 A

601 A 660 A 697 A 585 A 632 A

Root (µg pot−1) 1903 bc 1658 c 2739 ab 1885 bc 3178 a 2072 bc 2369 a-c 2387 a-c 2058 bc 1691 bc 2449 A 1939 B

1814 bc 1595 c 1790 bc 2345 a-c 2012 bc 1917 B

1951 A 2115 A 2303 A 2054 A 2018 A

∗ , ∗∗ : Soil (mg kg−1soil) and foliar (%) application, respectively. Means in each row or column followed by the same lowercase or capital letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncans Multiple Range Test.

1359

Growth and Fe-Mn Relationships in Dry Bean TABLE 4 Effects of Fe and Mn on dry bean shoot and root concentrations of Mn Fe levels 0

4∗

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

82 e-h 95 d-g 95 d-g 215 ab 227 ab 143 A

26 i 29 hi 30 hi 138 cd 205 ab 85 B

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

105 b-e 140 a 119 b 90 d-h 109 b-d 113 A

94 c-h 95 c-h 101 b-g 85 f-h 88 e-h 93 C


Mn levels

8∗

1∗∗

2∗∗

Mean

Shoot (mg kg−1DW) 22 i 62 e-i 25 i 68 e-i 28 hi 66 e-i 116 de 114 de 250 a 186 bc 88 B 99 B

51 g-i 59 f-i 81 e-h 108 d-f 178 bc 96 B

48 C 55 C 60 C 138 B 209 A

Root (mg kg−1DW) 87 e-h 95 c-h 108 b-d 105 b-e 110 bc 117 b 83 gh 103 b-f 80 h 97 c-h 93 C 106 AB

108 b-d 111 bc 108 b-d 102 b-f 105 b-e 107 AB

98 B 112 A 111 A 93 B 96 B

∗ , ∗∗ :

Soil (mg kg−1soil) and foliar (%) applications, respectively. Means in each row or column followed by the same lowercase or capital letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncans Multiple Range Test.

increased active Fe concentration in soybean leaves up to 42% as compared to control. Soil and foliar application of Fe decreased shoot Mn concentration by more than 30% (Table 4) and uptake by over 1.5 fold (Table 5). TABLE 5 Effects of Fe and Mn on dry bean shoot and root uptake of Mn Fe levels Mn levels

0

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

250 e-h 280 e-g 337 d-f 730 a 767 a 473 A

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

117 a 145 a 151 a 115 a 120 a 129 A

4∗

8∗

1∗∗

2∗∗

Mean

83 h 90 h 107 gh 490 b-d 743 a 303 B

Shoot (µg pot−1) 77 h 190 f-h 93 h 213 e-h 90 h 233 e-h 380 c-e 380 c-e 843 a 543 bc 297 B 312 B

153 f-h 163 f-h 250 e-h 317 ef 567 b 290 B

151 C 168 C 203 C 459 B 693 A

147 a 127 a 134 a 108 a 116 a 126 A

Root (µg pot−1) 109 a 103 a 144 a 133 a 137 a 153 a 104 a 116 a 111 a 113 a 121 A 124 A

121 a 115 a 119 a 117 a 112 a 117 A

119 AB 133 AB 139 A 120 B 114 B

∗ , ∗∗ : Soil (mg kg−1soil) and foliar (%) applications, respectively. Means in each row or column followed by the same lowercase or capital letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncans Multiple Range Test.


1360


Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2003) reported that soil application of Fe-EDDHA caused a drastic decrease in shoot Mn concentration of 12 soybean genotypes. Soil Fe treatments decreased root Mn concentration by 17% which was due to the dilution effect. Mortvedt (1991) reported that the antagonistic interaction between Fe and Mn was probably due to the reduction of Mn concentration by dilution effect, reduction in root to shoot ratio, reduced Mn uptake, or toxic concentration of Fe in plant tissue. Roomizadeh and Karimian (1996) stated that Fe might interfere with Mn absorption and/or translocation from root to shoot. Data in Table 5 shows that Fe treatments did not affect root Mn uptake significantly, which is in agreement with findings of Moraghan (1992) and Moraghan et al. (1986). Results indicate that there is no evidence for preventing root Mn uptake or translocation from root to shoot by Fe application which was considered as a reason for interfering of Fe in Mn nutrition in some plants. Therefore, other reasons such as elemental antagonistic relations between Fe and Mn needs more investigation in future studies. Regression equations between Fe and Mn levels (X) and Fe: Mn ratios (Y) in shoot of dry bean are presented in Equations (1) and (2) for soil and foliar applications of Fe, and Eqations (3) and (4) for soil and foliar applications of Mn, respectively: R2 = 0.99 (p < 0.01)

Y = 0.1123x + 0.4524 Y = 1.905x + 0.7871

R = 0.91 (p < 0.01) 2

(1) (2)

Y = −0.0182x + 4.0541

R = 0.82 (p < 0.01)

(3)

Y = −3.0682x + 3.5896

R2 = 0.84 (p < 0.01)

(4)

2

Where, x is in mg kg−1 soil in Eqs. 1 and 3, and in% in Eqs. 2 and 4, respectively. Equation 2 shows that foliar application of Fe remarkably increased shoot Fe:Mn ratio but soil application of Fe increased this ratio less than foliar application (Eqation 1). Equation 4 shows that foliar application of Mn drastically decreased shoots Fe:Mn ratio through increasing shoot Mn concentration or uptake, but Eqation 3 indicates that soil application of Mn did not affect it significantly. The lowest (0.43) and the highest (4.24) shoot Fe:Mn ratio were obtained in control and foliar application of 2% Fe sulfate, respectively (data not shown). Lack of positive responses of SDMY to Fe and Mn applications in our study at least partially attributes to Fe: Mn ratios higher than 0.4 and the Fe:Mn ratio of higher than 4 is responsible for the reduction of SDMY with foliar spray of 2% Fe sulfate. Our results are in agreement with findings of Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005) who observed that only soybean genotypes with a Fe: Mn ratio of less than 0.4 in control responded positively to Fe-EDDHA applications.

1361

Growth and Fe-Mn Relationships in Dry Bean TABLE 6 Effects of Fe and Mn on dry bean shoot and root uptakes of Zn Fe levels 0

4∗

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

66.7 h-j 88.8 d-f 37.3 l 64.1 i-k 147.3 c 80.8 C

80.3 e-i 195.3 b 47.2 kl 77.3 e-i 102.5 d 100.5 B

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

113.1 a-c 85.0 c 100.6 bc 106.9 a-c 97.9 bc 100.7 A

131.4 ab 116.5 a-c 101.9 bc 113.5 a-c 97.2 bc 112.1 A


Mn levels

8∗

1∗∗

2∗∗

Mean

Shoot (µg pot−1) 85.5 d-h 89.9 de 55.7 jk 68.7 g-j 70.2 f-j 91.1 de 63.4 i-k 87.6 d-g 295.3 a 68.7 g-j 114.0 A 81.9 C

78.9 e-i 90.0 de 68.9 g-j 82.4 e-i 84.4 d-h 80.9 C

80.3 C 99.7 B 62.9 D 74.9 C 139.6 A

Root (µg pot−1) 112.6 a-c 99.5 bc 146.2 a 105.0 a-c 97.2 bc 121.8 a-c 95.3 bc 95.3 bc 107.4 a-c 104.6 a-c 111.7 A 105.2 A

105.8 a-c 89.7 bc 101.2 bc 98.5 bc 96.1 bc 98.3 A

112.5 A 108.5 A 104.5 A 101.9 A 100.7 A

∗ , ∗∗ :

Soil (mg kg−1soil) and foliar (%) application, respectively. Means in each row or column followed by the same lowercase or capital letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncans Multiple Range Test.

Shoot Zn concentration was not affected by Fe applications (data not shown); however, Zn uptake increased by 24 and 41% when 4 or 8 mg Fe kg−1 was applied, respectively (Table 6). Foliar application of Fe had no significant effect on shoot Zn uptake compared to that of control (Table 6). Iron did not affect root Zn concentration (data not presented) or uptake (Table 6). These observations indicate that Zn translocation from roots to shoots was facilitated by soil Fe application but it was not influenced by foliar spray. However, Kaya et al. (1999) reported that foliar application of supplementary Fe decreased Zn concentration in the leaves and roots of tomato plants. Applications of 4 and 8 mg Fe kg−1 significantly increased mean shoot Cu concentration by 19 and 23 and Cu uptake by 23 and 40%, respectively. Addition of Fe also significantly increased both root Cu concentration (data not presented) and uptake (Table 7) by 2- and 3-fold, respectively. Foliar application of Fe sulfate had no significant effect on these parameters. Greater increase in Cu uptake by root than shoot due to the soil Fe application reveals that soil application of Fe increased Cu absorption more than Cu translocation from root to shoot. Thus soil application of Fe resulted in high concentration of shoot Fe and nutrient imbalance. Similarly, Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005) reported that addition of 8 mg Fe kg−1 soil increased shoot Cu concentration and uptake by 66 and 36%, respectively, but foliar application of Fe did not show any significant effect. Manganese had no significant effect on shoot Fe concentration or uptake compared to that of control (Tables 2 and 3). Soil application of 30 mg

1362


TABLE 7 Effects of Fe and Mn on dry bean shoot and root uptakes of Cu Fe levels 0

4∗

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

54.0 g-j 26.7 l 64.3 e-h 51.3 g-k 84.0 a-d 56.1 BC

78.3 b-f 29.7 l 42.3 I-l 98.7 a 95.7 ab 68.9 A

0 15∗ 30∗ 0.5∗∗ 1∗∗ Mean

51.7 f 36.8 f 71.1 def 65.6 def 43.7 f 53.8 C

128.1 abc 96.9 cde 97.1 cde 123.2 abc 105.2 bcd 110.1 B


Mn levels

8∗

1∗∗

Shoot (µg pot−1) 82.3 b-f 35.7 j-l 42.7 i-l 67.3 d-h 50.0 h-k 29.7 l 90.3 a 70.0 d-g 89.0 a-c 32.3 kl 78.6 A 47.0 C Root (µg pot−1) 149.8 a 32.8 f 149.5 a 49.6 f 138.6 ab 47.5 f 160.8 a 41.2 f 157.2 a 41.7 f 151.2 A 42.6 C

2∗∗

Mean

57.0 g-i 62.3 f-h 77.0 c-f 37.0 j-l 38.7 i-l 54.4 C

61.5 A 45.7 B 52.7 B 69.5 A 67.9 A

48.9 f 32.7 f 48.9 f 47.1 f 57.2 ef 46.9 C

82.3 A 73.1 A 80.6 A 87.6 A 81.0 A

∗ , ∗∗ :

Soil (mg kg−1soil) and foliar (%) application, respectively. Means in each row or column followed by the same lowercase or capital letters are not significantly different (P < 0.05) by Duncans Multiple Range Test.

Mn kg−1 soil increased root Fe concentration by 14% compared to that of control but did not affect root Fe uptake significantly. Heenan and Campbell (1983) argued that Fe uptake by soybean plants grown in solution culture was independent of solution Mn concentration but increased with increasing solution Fe. Shoot Mn concentration or uptake was not influenced by soil application of Mn; whereas, foliar application of 0.5 and 1% Mn sulfate increased it by 2.9 and 4.4 fold and shoot Mn uptake by 3.0 and 4.6 fold, respectively (Tables 4 and 5). However, Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005) stated that addition of 3o mg Mn kg−1 soil increased mean Mn concentration compared to control and lower level of Mn. Soil application of Mn increased root Mn concentration by 1.14-fold; whereas root Mn uptake was not influenced by soil applications of Mn. Foliar application of MnSO4 had no significant effect on root Mn concentration or uptake (Tables 4 and 5). Shoot Zn concentration and uptake increased only with foliar application of 1% MnSO4 by 64 and 74% respectively, probably due to the imbalanced increase in shoot Mn concentration and uptake. Soil application of 30 mg Mn kg−1 decreased shoot Zn uptake by 22%, whereas soil application of 15 mg Mn kg−1 increased this parameter by 24%. This indicates that soil application of 15 mg Mn kg−1 increased Zn translocation from root to shoot, whereas a higher rate decreased it, probably due to the competition between Mn and Zn translocation. However, Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005) stated that neither Fe nor Mn application had significant effect on shoot Zn concentration or uptake in cheakpea. Root Zn concentration decreased with soil application of 30 mg Mn kg−1 by 9% and also decreased with foliar application of 0.5 and



1363

1% MnSO4 by 9 and 10%, respectively (data not shown). Manganese had no significant effect on root Zn uptake (Table 6). Application of 15 and 30 mg Mn kg−1 decreased shoot Cu concentration (data not presented) by 22 and 17% and shoot Cu uptake (Table 7) by 26 and 14%, respectively. Root Cu concentration or uptake was not influenced by Mn (Table 7). These results indicate that the decrease in shoot Cu concentration and uptake followed by a decrease in Cu translocation from root to shoot was the consequence of soil application of Mn. These observations are in agreement with findings of Ghasemi-Fasaei et al. (2005), who reported that shoot Cu concentration and uptake of cheakpea increased in response to soil application of Mn. Foliar or soil applications of Fe or Mn had no significant effect on chlorophyll meter readings (CMR) (data not presented). Parvizi et al. (2004) stated that chlorophyll meter readings in wheat were not influenced by soil application of Mn in a greenhouse experiment. However, Shenker et al. (2004) stated that the optimal level of Mn in solution culture was in the range of pMn 7.6 to 8.6 in which chlorophyll concentration and growth of tomato plants were the highest. Moraghan (2004) reported that soil application of 2 mg Fe kg−1 significantly increased CMR in bean and soybean genotypes and Alvarez-Fernandez et al. (2003) showed that foliar application of ferrous sulfate increased chlorophyll concentration in chlorotic leaves of pear trees.

CONCLUSIONS Foliar application of 2% Fe sulfate significantly decreased shoot dry mater yield (SDMY) probably due to the high level of shoot Fe (410 mg kg−1 DW) or Fe:Mn ratio (>4) whereas other Fe and Mn treatments did not affect it probably due to the fact that Fe and Mn soil tests were in marginal ranges or Fe:Mn ratios greater than 0.4. Application of Fe increased root dry matter yield (RDMY) and root to shoot ratio but, did not affect shoot dry matter yield (SDMY). These results showed that the suppressing effect of Fe on root Mn concentration was due to the dilution effect and reduction in root to shoot ratio was not due to the antagonistic effect of Fe on plant Mn concentration. Iron concentration in aerial parts was up to 410 mg kg−1 when plants were sprayed with 2% Fe sulfate; thus, high level of Fe was responsible for reduction in shoot Mn concentration. Neither soil nor foliar application of Fe had significant effect on root Mn uptake indicating that Fe had no antagonistic effect on root Mn absorption. Soil and foliar Fe treatments decreased shoot Mn uptake indicating that Fe prevented Mn translocation from roots to shoots. Probably the antagonistic effect of Fe on Mn translocation from root to shoot and reduction of root Mn concentration due to the dilution effect are the main reasons for reduction of Mn concentration in dry bean. Zinc translocation from root to shoot was facilitated by soil application of Fe but it was not influenced by foliar spray. Higher increase in roots Cu uptake

1364


than shoot uptake reveals that soil application of Fe increased Cu absorption more than Cu translocation from root to shoot. In contrary to Fe, Mn did not affect Cu absorption but decreased Cu translocation from root to shoot. Our results showed that Mn had no significant effect on Fe absorption or translocation from root to shoot. Due to the fact that shoot Mn concentration or uptake was not affected by soil application of Mn, therefore soil application of Mn is not an effective method in preventing Mn reduction in dry bean induced by Fe fertilizer applications in calcareous soils. Whereas foliar spray of Mn or use of Fe-efficient genotypes remains effective and economic sound alternatives for preventing yield loss and nutrient imbalance in dry bean.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge financial support from the Department of Soil Science College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. REFERENCES Alvarez-Fernandez, A., P. Garcia-Lavina, C. Fidalgo, J. Abadia, and A. Abadia. 2003. Foliar fertilization to control iron chlorosis in pear (Pyrus communis L.) trees. Plant and Soil 263: 1–11. Bajapai, S., and S. V. S. Chauhan. 2001. Effect of zinc, boron and manganese on yield in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 71: 332–333. Boswell, F. C., K. Ohki, M. B. Parker, L. M. Shuman, and D. O. Wilson. 1981. Methods and rates of applied manganese for soybeans. Agronomy Journal 73: 909–912. Frossard, E., M. Bucher, F. Machler, A. Mozafar, and R. Hurrell. 2000. Potential for increasing the content and bioavailability of Fe, Zn and Ca in plants for human nutrition. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 80: 861–879. Gettier, S. W., D. C. Martens, and T. B. Brumback. 1985. Timing of foliar manganese application for correction of manganese deficiency in soybean. Agronomy Journal 77: 627–630. Ghasemi-Fasaei, R., A. Ronaghi, M. Maftoun, N. Karimian, and P. N. Soltanpour. 2003. Influence of FeEDDHA on iron-manganese interaction in soybean genotypes in calcareous soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition 26: 1815–1823. Ghasemi-Fasaei, R., A. Ronaghi, M. Maftoun, N. A. Karimian, and P. N. Soltanpour. 2005. Iron-manganese interaction in chickpea as affected by foliar and soil application of iron in a calcareous soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 36: 1–9. Goos, R. J., B. E. Johnson. 2000. A comparison of three methods for reducing iron-deficiency chlorosis in soybean. Agronomy Journal 92: 1135–1139. Havlin, J. L., J. D. Beaton, S. L. Tisdale, and W. L. Nelson. 2005. Soil Fertility and Nutrient Management: An Introduction to Nutrient Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Heenan, D. P., and L. C. Campbell. 1983. Manganese and iron interactions on their uptake and distribution in soybean. Plant and Soil 70: 317–326. Hodgson, A. S., J. F. Holland, and E. F. Rogers. 1992. Iron deficiency depresses growth of furrow–irrigated soybean and pigeon pea on Vertisols on Northern N. S. W. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 43: 635–644. Kaya, C., D. Higgs and A. Burton. 1999. Foliar application of iron as a remedy for zinc toxic tomato plants. Journal of Plant Nutrition 22: 1829–1837. Liebenberg, A. J. 2002. Dry bean production. Pretoria: Directorate of Agricultural Information Services, in cooperation with ARC–Grain Crops Institute. Available at: http://www.nda.agric.za/ docs/drybeans2.pdf



1365

Lindsay, W. I., and W. A. Norvell. 1978. Development of a DTPA test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal 42: 421–448. Lindsay, W. L. and A. P. Schwab. 1982. The chemistry of iron in soils and its availability to plants. Journal of Plant Nutrition 5: 821–840. Martens, D. C., and D. T. Westerman. 1991. Fertilizer application for correcting micronutrient deficiency. In Micronutrients in Agriculture, eds. J. J. Mortvedt, F. R. Cox, L. M. Shuman, and R. M. Welch, pp. 549–592. Madison, WI: SSSA. Moraghan, J. T. 1992. Iron-manganese relationship in white lupine, grown on a Calciaquoll. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56: 471–475. Moraghan, J. T. 2004. Accumulation and within-seed distribution of iron in common bean and soybean. Plant and Soil 264: 287–297. Moraghan, J. T., T. P. Freeman, and D. Whitehead. 1986. Influence of FeEDDHA and soil temperature on the growth of two soybean varieties. Plant and Soil 95: 57–67. Moraghan, J. T., J. Padilla, J. D. Etchevers, K. Grafton, and J. T. Acosta-Gallegos. 2002. Iron accumulation in seed of common bean. Plant and Soil 246: 175–183. Mortvedt, J. J. 1991. Correcting iron deficiency in annual and perennial plants: Present technologies and future prospects. Plant and Soil 130: 273–279. Niebur, W. S., and W. R. Fehr. 1981. Agronomic evaluation of soybean genotypes resistant to iron deficiency chlorosis. Crop Science 21: 551–554. Olsen, S. R. C., V. Cole, F. S. Watanable, and L. A. Dean. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Parvizi, Y., A. Ronaghi, M. Maftoun, and N. Karimian. 2004. Growth, nutrient status, and chlorophyll meter reading in wheat as affected by nitrogen and manganese. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 35: 1387–1399. Randall, G. W., E. E. Schulte, and R. B. Corey. 1970. Effect of soil and foliar-applied manganese on the micronutrient content and yield of soybeans. Agronomy Journal 67: 502–507. Robertson, W. K., L. G. Thompson, and F. G. Martin. 1973. Manganese and copper requirements for soybeans. Agronomy Journal 65: 641–644. Roomizadeh, S., and N. Karimian. 1996. Manganese-iron relationship in soybean grown in calcareous soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition 19: 397–406. Ronaghi, A., and R. Ghasemi-Fasaei. 2008. Field evaluation of yield, iron-manganese relationship, and chlorophyll meter readings in soybean genotypes as affected by iron-ethylenediamine di-ohyroxyphenylacetic acid in calcareous soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition 31: 81–89. Ryan, J., J. L. Stroehlein, and S. Miyamoto. 1975. Sulfuric acid application to calcareous soil: Effects on growth and chlorophyll content of common bermudagrass in the greenhouse. Agronomy Journal 67: 633–637. Salardini, A. A., and L. S. Murphy. 1978. Grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor Pres.) responses to organic iron on calcareous soils. Plant and Soil 49: 17–29. Sanchez-Raya, J., A. Leal, M. Gomez-Ortega, and L. Recalde. 1974. Effect of iron on the absorption and translocation of manganese. Plant and Soil 41: 429–434. Shenker, M., O. E. Plessner, and E. Tel-Or. 2004. Manganese nutrition effects on tomato growth, chlorophyll concentration, and superoxide dismutase activity. Journal of Plant Physiology 161: 197–202. Zaiter, H. Z., R. B. Clark, D. T. Lindgren, P. T. Nordqnist, W.W. Stroup, and L. A. Pavlish. 1992. Leaf chlorosis and seed yield of dry beans grown on high pH calcareous soil following iron sprays. Horticultural Science 27: 983–985.