Next Article in Journal
Influence of Irrigation Scheduling Using Thermometry on Peach Tree Water Status and Yield under Different Irrigation Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Round-Bale Silage Harvesting and Processing Effects on Overwintering Ability, Dry Matter Yield, Fermentation Quality, and Palatability of Dwarf Napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 7
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy7010011
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Towards Zinc Biofortification in Chickpea: Performance of Chickpea Cultivars in Response to Soil Zinc Application

by
Legesse Hidoto
1,2,
Bunyamin Tar’an
3,*,
Walelign Worku
1 and
Hussein Mohammed
1
1
School of Plant and Horticultural Sciences, Hawassa University, P.O. Box 5, Hawassa, Ethiopia
2
Hawassa Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 6, Hawassa, Ethiopia
3
Crop Development Centre/Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2017, 7(1), 11; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7010011
Submission received: 16 November 2016 / Revised: 19 January 2017 / Accepted: 2 February 2017 / Published: 7 February 2017
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A field experiment was conducted at three locations in the southern region of Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 cropping seasons to evaluate chickpea cultivars for their response to soil zinc application, including agronomic performance, grain yield, grain zinc concentration, zinc and agronomic efficiency. Fifteen chickpea cultivars were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with three replications at each location and year. The highest number of pods (237) plant−1 was obtained from Butajira local landrace. The cultivar Naatolii produced the highest grain yield (2895 kg·ha−1), while the breeding line FLIP03-53C had the lowest yield (1700 kg·ha−1). The highest zinc concentrations of 47.5, 47.4, and 46.4 mg·kg−1 grain were obtained from the cultivar Arerti, and the two breeding lines FLIP07-27C and FLIP08-60C, respectively. The highest zinc efficiency (88%) was obtained from the Wolayita local landrace, whereas the highest agronomic efficiency of 68.4 kg yield increase kg−1 zinc application was obtained from the cultivar Naatolii. The current research identified chickpea cultivars with high grain zinc concentration, zinc efficiency, agronomic efficiency, and grain yield. The identification of cultivars with high grain zinc concentration allows the use of chickpea as a potential alternative to help to correct zinc deficiency, which is highly prevalent in the population of the region.

1. Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important grain legume in the world ranking second after dry bean and constitutes 20% of the world’s pulses production [1]. The crop plays an important role in human diet and agricultural systems [2]. Chickpea is high in protein, low in fat and sodium, cholesterol free, and is an excellent source of both soluble and insoluble fiber, complex carbohydrates, vitamins, folate, and minerals, especially calcium, phosphorus, iron, zinc, and magnesium [3,4,5].
Ethiopia is the largest producer of chickpea in Africa, accounting for 46% of the continent’s chickpea production during 1994–2006 [6]. In 2011, Ethiopia produced 400,208 tons of chickpea from a total area of 231,300 hectares [7]. In 2012, the chickpea seeded area in Ethiopia increased by 8200 hectares from the previous year, totaling 239,500 hectares with the total production of about 409,733 tons [8]. The consistent increase in cultivated area and production implies the importance of the crop to the country.
Currently, there are major challenges to chickpea production in Ethiopia, such as soil nutrient deficiency of both macro and micronutrients, since the crop is often grown on marginal land, limited availability of improved cultivars, diseases, insects, and moisture stress. Chickpea, in particular, is considered highly sensitive to zinc deficiency, which is common in the major chickpea-growing regions of the world, including Ethiopia, and limits the crop productivity [9].
Wuehler et al. reported that approximately 20.5% of the world’s population is estimated to be at risk of inadequate Zn intake, with the percentage of individuals at risk highest in the South East Asia (33%) followed by Sub Saharan Africa (28%), South Asia (27%), Latin America and the Caribbean (25%) [10]. In Ethiopia, micronutrient deficiency remains a significant public health concern, especially deficiencies in iron, vitamin A, folic acid, iodine, and zinc (Zn), affecting the physical and mental functioning and growth, brain development during pregnancy, visual impairment, increased susceptibility to diseases, and increased mortality risk [11]. The problem is more acute in southern Ethiopia where the diets are heavily dependent on cereals and root crops, which inherently are low in micronutrients and high in carbohydrates.
A number of studies have reported the growth and yield responses of chickpea cultivars grown under micronutrient deficient soils [12,13,14,15,16]. The magnitude of yield losses in chickpea due to nutrient deficiency varies among the nutrients [17]. The use of fertilizer can be considered an important complementary approach to the breeding efforts to develop cultivars adapted to soils with low micronutrient availability. A recent report by Shivay et al. [18] indicated that the application of Zn had a positive effect on grain yield and seed Zn concentration, especially under Zn deficient soils. However, such information for Ethiopian agro-climatic and diverse soil conditions and the currently available chickpea cultivars is not available.
Sadeghzadeh reported that plant cultivars vary in their tolerance to soils with low plant-available Zn with respect to Zn uptake and utilization [19]. Tolerance of plant cultivars to Zn deficiency is usually referred to as Zn efficiency and is defined as the ability of a cultivar to grow and yield well in soils that are deficient in Zn to support a given cultivar. The physiological and molecular mechanisms of tolerance to low Zn are just beginning to be understood, and these mechanisms can be exploited in crop improvement programs [20]. Cultivars with better Zn utilization may contain higher amounts of chelators that bind Zn and increase its physiological availability at the cellular level [21]. A better understanding of the response to zinc deficiency of different cultivars is needed for the development of fast, simple, and reliable screening procedures for identifying and breeding cultivars for Zn efficiency [22].
The experiment presented in this paper was conducted to examine the response to soil zinc application of chickpea cultivars available in the southern region of Ethiopia. Specifically, we evaluated the grain zinc concentration, zinc and agronomic efficiency, general agronomic performance, and yield potential of the released chickpea cultivars, newly introduced breeding lines, and local landraces in response to soil Zn application.

2. Results

The variations among cultivars, environments, and their interactions for most of the parameters were significant. However, grain zinc concentration was not affected by this interaction (Table 1).

2.1. Plant Height

Significant differences in plant height were observed among cultivars across locations and years ranging from 48 cm for Wolayita local landrace at Huletegna Choroko in 2012 to 90 cm for the advanced breeding line (FLIP03-128C) at Jolle Andegna in 2013. In general, the advanced breeding lines were taller than either the released cultivars from the national program or the local landraces (Table 2).

2.2. Above Ground Biomass

There was a significant (p < 0.05) cultivar by environment interaction effect on the aboveground biomass of the chickpea plants. Mean aboveground biomass obtained at Jolle Andegna 2013, Taba 2013, and Huletegna Choroko 2013 was significantly higher than the biomass produced at the same locations in 2012. More than a fivefold biomass difference was observed between Jolle Andegna in 2013 and Jolle Andegna in 2012. The highest aboveground biomass was obtained from the FLIP03-128C breeding line, which had 36% more biomass than that obtained from the lowest cultivar Wolayita landrace (Table 3).

2.3. Number of Pods Plant−1

There was a significant number of pods plant−1 variations among the cultivars across the environments. The Butajira landrace at Jolle Andegna in 2013 produced the largest number of pods (237) plant−1, whereas cultivar Cheffe at Huletegna Choroko in 2012 produced the least (18) pods plant−1. The difference between the highest and the lowest mean number of pods plant−1 for genotypes across the environments was 107%. In general, the local materials produced more pods plant−1 than the improved or advanced breeding lines across the environments (Table 4).

2.4. Thousand Seed Weight

Thousand seed weight was significantly affected by cultivar and environment interaction. The local materials had significantly lower seed weight than the released cultivars and advanced breeding lines across the environments (Table 5).

2.5. Grain Yield

Results of a homogeneity of variance test revealed that environments were heterogeneous for grain yield. The grain yield data were then log transformed and used for combined analysis. The original yield data are presented in the results while the transformed values were included in parentheses. The grain yield of each cultivar obtained at each location in 2012 was significantly lower than that obtained in 2013 (Table 6). Overall, cultivar Naatolii produced the highest grain yield (2.9 t·ha−1) across all environments.

2.6. Grain Zinc Concentration

Main effects of cultivar and environment were significant on grain zinc concentration. However, no significant interaction effect of environments and cultivars was observed (Table 1). Significant variation in grain zinc concentration was observed among the cultivars. The cultivar Arerti and the two breeding lines (FLIP07-27C and FLIP08-60C) had the highest grain zinc concentration compared to the rest of the cultivars and breeding lines (Table 7). There was no significant difference in seed zinc concentration among the chickpea groups.
Grain zinc concentrations obtained from both Jolle Andegna 2012 and 2013 were significantly lower than the rest of the environments. For instance, zinc concentration values obtained from Jolle Andegna in both years were lower by 17% and 43% than Taba 2012 and Taba 2013, respectively (Table 8).

2.7. Zinc and Agronomic Efficiency

Zinc efficiency is defined as the ability of a plant to grow and yield well under zinc-deficient conditions. As previously presented in Table 7, zinc efficiency varied among the cultivars and breeding lines. The Wolayita landrace had the highest zinc efficiency (88%) followed by the cultivar Arerti and the breeding line FLIP07-27C with 81% each. The lowest zinc efficiency of 33% was obtained from the FLIP07-81C breeding line. Cultivar Naatolii had the highest agronomic efficiency of 68.4 kg yield increase per kg zinc application, whereas the Wolayita landrace only responded by 11.5 kg yield increase for every kg zinc application.

3. Discussion

There was a highly significant (p < 0.001) difference among environments (site-year) for all the parameters. For instance, grain yield at Jolle Andegna 2013, Taba 2013, and Huletegna Choroko 2013 was 689%, 111%, and 116% greater than Jolle Andegna 2012, Taba 2012, and Huletegna Choroko 2012, respectively. This huge variation in grain yield among environments was attributed mostly to weather variation between the two years (2012 and 2013). Total precipitation during the growing season (August–December) in 2013 was much higher than that of 2012 at each location. For instance, the total rainfall for the growing season at Huletegna Choroko in 2013 was greater by 285 mm than that of 2012 at the same location. Rainfall in October and November at Jolle Andegna in 2012 was 15.8 mm and 8.8 mm, respectively. Consequently, plants were stressed and forced to mature with most of the pods aborted. Besides the amount of rainfall, its distribution during 2012 crop growing period was uneven with most of the days without rain and some days with less than 5 mm precipitation. Despite the large environmental effect, there were highly significant (p < 0.01) differences among the cultivars across environments (site-year) for grain yield and yield components. The newly introduced chickpea breeding lines had the highest plant height and aboveground biomass than either the local or the released cultivars. The highest number of pods plant−1 was obtained from the landraces; however, these did not translate into grain yield. The mean grain yield across environments indicated that cultivar Naatolii produced the highest grain yield (2.90 t·ha−1), which was 71% higher than the yield of the FLIP03-53C (1.70 t·ha−1) breeding line. The significant differences among cultivars attributed to the variation in the genetic potential of the cultivars in response to the stress and local environmental conditions. Some cultivars produced relatively better yield in harsh environments while others did not perform well, possibly due to their physiological and genetic makeup.
Identifying and promoting the use of chickpea cultivars with high seed Zn concentration is one strategy for improving human nutrition while increasing protein intake associated with consumption of the product. There was a highly significant variation in grain zinc concentration among the cultivars observed in the present study. The cultivar Arerti and the two breeding lines (FLIP07-27C and FLIP08-60C) had the highest seed zinc concentration compared to the rest of the cultivars and breeding lines. Several authors reported that there are significant variations in seed zinc concentration among chickpea cultivars [4,23,24,25]. The variation in seed zinc concentration of the current chickpea cultivars and breeding lines could be due to variation in seed physiology, morphology, and tissue zinc distribution, which all are under genetic control [26,27]. The variation in grain zinc concentration among the environments was also significant in the present study. The variation in grain Zn concentration across environments was due to the amount and distribution of rainfall. Moisture stress occurred at vegetative and pod setting stage may have reduced zinc absorption and accumulation in the seeds, as shown across locations in 2012; while relatively sufficient moisture was available in 2013, resulting in higher grain yield, but dilution of grain zinc by grain carbohydrate increments. Previously, significant environment variation in grain zinc concentration was reported [4,28]. When the soil remains wet and becomes reduced, the availability of Mn, Fe, Cu, and P usually increases, and this condition is reversed under dry soil conditions [29].
The variation in zinc efficiency between the highest and the lowest cultivars was about 167%. The physiological basis for Zn efficiency and its importance for plant adaptation under low soil Zn availability have been reported by several authors [30,31,32]. The genotypic differences in Zn efficiency may be associated with different mechanisms in rhizosphere and within a plant system. These included higher uptake of zinc by roots and efficient use and re-translocation of Zn [31]. Cakmak et al. [33] reported that Zn efficiency in cereal is mainly related to the difference in the acquisition of Zn by the roots. Graham and Rengel [34] reported that plant species vary significantly in response to micronutrient deficiency; some are able to cope with low micronutrient availability, and thus, grow well even when other species or cultivars suffer from reduced yield due to micronutrient deficiency.
Our results demonstrated that chickpea is a rich source of zinc (3.99–4.75 mg 100 g−1). Similar results were observed previously [35]. Serving 42 g grain seeds of chickpea cultivars Arerti and FLIP07-27C (47.5 and 47.4 mg zinc kg−1 seed, respectively) could provide adequate zinc for infants 0–6 months; 63 g for 7 months–3 years; 105 g for 4–8 years; 168 g for 8–13 years; 232 g for 14+ years male and 19+ years pregnant; 253 g for 14–18 years pregnant and 19+ years lactating mother; and 274 g for 14–18 years lactating mother [36]. Thus, a single serving of zinc enriched chickpea could provide a marked amount of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of zinc. Identification of cultivars with better zinc concentration like Arerti and FLIP07-27C may enable the use of chickpea as a potential whole food solution to micronutrient malnutrition in Ethiopia.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Description of the Study Area

The experiment was conducted at three locations (Huletegna Choroko, Jolle Andegna, and Taba) in the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region of Ethiopia during the growing seasons from August to December of 2012 and 2013. The altitude of the test locations ranges from 1807 to 1923 meters above sea level (m a.s.l.), annual rainfall ranged from 774 mm to 989 mm (which is ideal for chickpea production). The amount of rainfall in the 2012 growing season was much lower than that in the 2013 growing season, especially in October and November when the plants were at flowering and pod filling stages, respectively (Table 9).

4.2. Soil Analysis

Before sowing, composite soil samples were randomly collected across the research area using auger from the depth of 0–30 cm. The collected soil samples were air dried, cleaned of any stones and plant residues, and ground to pass a 2 mm sieve for the required analyses, including soil pH, electro conductivity (EC), organic carbon (OC), available P, total N, and Zn concentration. Soil organic carbon was determined by the Walkley procedure [38]. Soil P was extracted with NaHCO [39]. Soil Zn concentration was extracted with DTPA (diethylene triaminepenta acetic acid) and determined by AAS (Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer) [40]. Analyses were conducted at the School of Plant and Horticultural Sciences, College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.
Soils were considered to have low Zn availability when there was less than 1.1 mg Zn kg−1 soil following DTPA extraction [41]. For chickpea, the critical Zn concentrations in soils vary from 0.48 mg·kg−1 to 2.5 mg·kg−1, depending on soil type [9]. The DTPA extracted zinc concentration in the soils of the research sites ranged from 0.13 mg·kg−1 at Taba in 2012 to 0.98 mg·kg−1 at Huletegna Choroko in 2012, indicating that the soils were deficient in zinc (Table 10).

4.3. Plant Materials

Fifteen chickpea cultivars (seven released cultivars, six breeding lines, and two landraces) were used for the study. Seeds of the released cultivars were obtained from the Agronomy Section of the School of Plant and Horticultural Sciences, College of Agriculture, Hawassa University. The advanced breeding lines were obtained from ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas) through Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Institute, Ethiopia. Seeds of the local materials (land races) were obtained from the farmers in the local vicinity of the study areas. The description of the cultivars is provided in Table 11.

4.4. Design of the Experiment and Trial Management

A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications was used for the experiment at each location and year. Plot size was 11.2 m2, consisting of eight rows that were 3.5 m long each (Figure 1). Inter and intra-row spacing was 40 cm and 10 cm, respectively, resulting in 35 plants per row and 280 plants per plot. Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) (18:46:0; N:P:K) at the rate of 60 kg·ha−1 was uniformly applied followed by zinc fertilizer (ZnSO4·7H2O) at 25 kg·ha−1 drilled in rows and incorporated into the soil before chickpea sowing. Similarly, these cultivars (Table 11) were evaluated separately with no zinc fertilization on satellite plots at each location in the 2013 cropping season for evaluation of grain yield, zinc concentration, and zinc and agronomic efficiency. The experiments were planted at different dates across the locations and years based on the rainfall pattern and soil moisture content. At Huletegna Choroko the experiment was planted on 8 September 2012 and 23 August 2013. At Jolle Andegna, planting was done on 20 September 2012 and 4 September 2013, while at Taba planting was done on 14 September 2012 and 17 September 2013, respectively. Chickpeas are slow to emerge and initially grow slowly. They are notoriously poor competitors with weeds. Even moderate weed infestation can result in severe yield losses. Therefore, the plots were thoroughly and frequently weeded by hoeing and hand pulling when required. Herbicide was not used to control weeds. There was no serious problem of diseases or insects across the locations in both years.

4.5. Agronomic Data Collection

Plant height and number of pods plant−1 were recorded from 10 randomly selected plants from the middle six rows of each plot. Seed weight was determined by randomly selecting 250 seeds (10% moisture content) then weighed with a digital balance sensitive to the nearest 0.001 g. The value was then converted to 1000 seeds weight. Above ground biomass and grain yield were measured from the harvested plants of the middle six rows at maturity. The grain yield per plot was adjusted to storage moisture content (10%) determined using a digital grain moisture tester (HOH-EXPRESS HE 50).

4.6. Grain Analysis for Zinc Concentration

Grain zinc analysis was done at the College of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. Subsamples of seed (25 g) for measurement of zinc concentration were taken from each plot at each location and year. The samples were dried in an oven at 70 °C for 24 h, and ground using a sample rotating mill. A ground sample of 0.5 g was weighed on a balance sensitive to the nearest 0.00001 g and put into a digestion tube. The samples were prepared by a standard HNO3–H2O2 digestion method using wet digestion with nitric acid [42]. The Zn concentration was measured using flame AAS (AJ ANOVA 300, Lab Synergy). Zinc concentrations measured by this method were validated using the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reference material 1573a. Lentil (Lens culinaris) seeds (cv. CDC Redberry) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were used as laboratory reference materials and measured periodically to ensure consistency in the procedure.
Zinc efficiency (ZnE) and agronomic efficiency (AE) were calculated following [43] as follows:
ZE = ( YdZn − YdZn + ) × 100
where ZE is Zinc efficiency, YdZn − is grain yield in no Zinc supplied, and YdZn + is grain from zinc fertilized plots;
AE = ( YdZn + ) − ( YdZn − ) ZnS
where AE is Agronomic efficiency, YdZn + is grain yield from Zinc fertilized plots; YdZn − is grain yield from no Zinc application, and ZnS is supplied Zinc in kg·ha−1.

4.7. Statistical Analysis

Each location-year combination was considered as a separate environment in this study, producing six environments (E1–E6) which were considered random. The General Linear Model (GLM) of the SAS software [44] was used for ANOVA of data from individual locations and for the combined data. Prior to the combined ANOVA, homogeneity of error variances over the six environments was tested. Mean separation was done using Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at the 5% level.

5. Conclusions

Chickpea cultivars evaluated in this study differed in grain zinc concentration, agronomic efficiency, zinc efficiency, growth, and yield. The cultivar with high yield and highest agronomic efficiency (Naatolii), the cultivar and breeding lines with better grain zinc concentration (Arerti, FLIP07-27C, and FLIP08-60C), and the cultivars with higher zinc efficiency (Wolayita landrace and breeding line FLIP07-27C) were identified. Serving chickpea grain seeds from the genotypes identified for their higher zinc concentrations could provide a marked amount of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of zinc for infants, children, and pregnant and lactating mothers. This may enable development of chickpea-based whole food solutions to correct zinc malnutrition. Zn fertilization can also be blended with other Zn-containing fertilizer elements to reduce expenditure in terms of labor and time. Thus, this study provided a possibility for zinc biofortification through screening chickpea cultivars, which could be an attractive option for resource poor farmers across Ethiopia who cannot afford fortified foods or animal sources for their zinc nutritional requirement.

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund (CIFSRF) of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) of the Government of Canada. The authors wish to thank Sheleme Beyene of Hawassa University for the support during the project and to Barry Goetz at the University of Saskatchewan for micronutrient analysis using AAS.

Author Contributions

Legesse Hidoto is the student who conducted the experiment. Bunyamin Tar’an is co supervisor and corresponding author. Walelign Worku and Hussein Mohammed are major and co supervisors for the study, in same order.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations: Statistics Division 2012. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx (accessed on 20 October 2013).
  2. ICRISAT. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Genetic Variability and Interrelationships of Phenological, Physicochemical and Cooking Quality Traits in Chickpea. Available online: http://www.icrisat.org/crop-chickpea.htm (accessed on 4 April 2013).
  3. Nwokolo, E.; Smartt, J. Food and Feed from Legumes and Oilseeds; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1996; pp. 82, 84. [Google Scholar]
  4. Diapari, M.; Sindhu, A.; Bett, K.; Deokar, A.; Warkentin, T.D.; Tar’an, B. Genetic Diversity and Association Mapping of Iron and Zinc Concentrations in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Available online: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com (accessed on 15 July 2014).
  5. Jha, A.B.; Ashokkumar, M.K.; Diapari, S.; Ambrose, J.; Zhang, H.; Tar’an, B.; Bett, K.E.; Vandenberg, A.; Warkentin, T.D.; Purves, R.W. Genetic diversity of foliate profiles in seeds of common bean, lentil, chickpea and pea. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 42, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Directorate. In Crop Variety Register; Issue No. 17; Ministry of Agriculture (MoA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2014; pp. 93–96. [Google Scholar]
  7. Central Statistical Agency (CSA). Agricultural Sample Survey 2011/2012: Area and Production of Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season); Statistical Bulletin 532; Central Statistical Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2012.
  8. Central Statistical Agency (CSA). Agricultural Sample Survey 2012/2013: Area and Production of Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season); Statistical Bulletin 532; Central Statistical Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013.
  9. Ahlawat, I.P.S.; Gangaiah, B.; Ashraf, Z.M. Nutrient management in chickpea. In Chickpea Breeding and Management; Yadav, S.S., Redden, R., Chen, W., Sharma, B., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 213–232. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wuehler, S.E.; Peerson, J.M.; Brown, K.H. Use of National Food Balance Data to Estimate the Adequacy of Zinc in National Food Supplies: Methodology and Regional Estimates. Public Health Nutr. 2005, 8, 812–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Nutrition, Media & External Relations Section and Nutrition Section. Available online: www.unicef.org/ethiopia (accessed on 20 December 2015).
  12. Bakhsh, A.; Gull, T.; Mailk, B.A.; Sharif, A. Comparison between F1s and their parental cultivars for the patterns of character correlation and path coefficients in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pak. J. Bot. 1998, 30, 209–219. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brancourt, H. Crop diagnosis and probe cultivars for interpreting cultivar × environment interaction in winter wheat trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1999, 99, 1018–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Güler, M.; Adak, M.S.; Ulkan, H. Determining relationships between yield and some yield components using path co-efficient analysis in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Eur. J. Agron. 2001, 14, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, S.K.; Saxena, H.K.; Das, T.K. The effect of kind of micronutrients and their method of application on mungbean (Vignaradiata (L.) Wilczek) under Zaid condition. Ann. Agric. Res. 1998, 19, 454–457. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zvereny, D.C.; Anlarsal, A.E.; Cel, C.Y. Genetic variability, correlation and path analysis of yield, and yield components in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Turk. J. Agric. 2004, 30, 183–188. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ali, S.; Riazm, A.; Mairaj, G.; Arif, M.; Fida, M.; Bibi, S. Assessment of different crop nutrient management practices for yield improvement. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2008, 2, 150–157. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shivay, Y.S.; Prasad, R.; Pal, M. Genetic Variability for Zinc Use Efficiency in Chickpea as Influenced by Zinc Fertilization. Int. J. Bio-Resour. Stress Manag. 2014, 5, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sadeghzadeh, B. A review of zinc nutrition and plant breeding. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 13, 905–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hacisalihoglu, G.; Kochian, L.V. How do some plants tolerate low levels of soil zinc? Mechanisms of zinc efficiency in crop plants. New Phytol. 2003, 159, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H.; Schulin, R.; Chaney, R.L.; Daneshbakhgn, B.; Afyuni, M. Micronutrient efficient cultivars for crop yield and nutritional quality in sustainable agriculture. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 83–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rengel, Z. Genotypic differences in micronutrient use efficiency in crops. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2001, 32, 1163–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Akay, A. Effect of zinc fertilizer applications on yield and element concentrations of some registered chickpeas cultivars. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 12890–12896. [Google Scholar]
  24. Shaban, M.; Lak, M.; Hamidv, Y.; Nabaty, E.; Khodae, F.; YarahmadiAzimi, M.; Rahmat, G.; Shaban, M.; Motlagh, Z. Response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars to integrated application of Zinc nutrient with water stress. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2012, 4, 1074–1082. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rabieyan, Z.; Fakharian, Z.K. The effect of irrigation and biofertilizer on seed and yield index on two chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) verities. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2012, 6, 1528–1533. [Google Scholar]
  26. Morgan, J.A.W.; Bending, G.D.; White, P.J. Biological costs and benefits to plant-microbe interactions in the rhizosphere. J. Exp. Bot. 2005, 56, 1729–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ariza-Nieto, M.; Blair, M.W.; Welch, R.M.; Glahn, R.P. Screening of iron bioavailability patterns in eight bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars using the Caco-2 cell in vitro model. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 7950–7956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Norton, G.J.; Douglas, A.; Lahner, B.; Yakubova, E.; Guerinot, M.L.; Pinson, S.R. Genome wide association mapping of grain arsenic, copper, molybdenum and zinc in rice (Oryza sativa L.) grown at four international field sites. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e89685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Walter, D.J.; Aulakh, M.S.; Doran, J.W. Effect of soil aeration, legume residue, soil texture on transformation of macro and micronutrients in soils. Soil Sci. 1992, 153, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Erenoglu, B.; Eker, S.; Cakmak, I.; Derici, R.; Romheld, V. Effect of iron and zinc deficiency on release ofphytosiderophores by barley cultivars differing in zinc efficiency. J. Plant Nutr. 2000, 23, 1645–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rengel, Z.; Romheld, V. Root exudation and Fe uptake and transport in wheat cultivars differing in tolerance to Zn deficiency. Plant Soil 2000, 222, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gökhan, H.; Hart, J.J.; Wang, Y.-H.; Cakmak, I.; Kochian, L.V. Zinc efficiency is correlated with enhanced expression and activity of zinc-requiring enzymes in wheat. Plant Physiol. 2003, 131, 595–602. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cakmak, I.; Yilmaz, A.; Kalayci, M.; Ekiz, H.; Torun, B.; Erenoglu, B.; Brown, H.J. Zinc deficiency as a critical problem inwheat production in central Anatolia. Plant Soil 1996, 180, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Graham, R.D.; Rengel, Z. Genotypic variation in zinc uptake and utilization by plants. In Zinc in Soils and Plants; Robson, A.D., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  35. Thavarajah, D.; Thavarajah, P. Evaluation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) micronutrient composition: Biofortification opportunities to combat global micronutrient malnutrition. Food Res. Int. 2012, 49, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silken, Vanadium and Zinc; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  37. National Meteorology Agency (NMA). Available online: http://www.ethiomet.gov.et (accessed on 20 December 2014).
  38. Walkley, A. A critical examination of a rapid method for determining organic carbon in soils. Effect of variation in digestion condition and of organic soil constituents. Soil Sci. 1947, 63, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Olsen, S.R.; Sommers, L.E. Phosphorus. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed.; Page, A.L., Ed.; Agronomy No. 9; American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 403–430. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lindsay, W.L.; Norvell, W.A. Development of DTPA soil test for Zinc, Iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1978, 42, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ankerman, D.; Large, R. Soil and Plant Analysis; A&L Agricultural Laboratories, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  42. Thavarajah, D.; Thavarajah, P.; Sarker, A.; Vandenberg, A. Lentils (Lens culinarisMedikus Subspecies culinaris): A whole food for increased iron and zinc intake. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 5413–5419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Shadab, N.S.; Shahid, U.; Muhammad, I. Searching for Chickpea Cultivars with High Zn-Accumulating capacity: A way to Identify Nutrient-Efficient Crop Plants. Int. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 2013, 4, 1697–1705. [Google Scholar]
  44. SAS Institute, Inc. The SAS System for Windows; Release 9.3; SAS Institute, Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 07 00011 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing treatment randomization and the experiment set up of satellite plots at one location. The same set up was used for each location and year. Plot sizes are the same for both experimental plots and satellite plots. Note: 1 = Arerti; 2 = Butajira Local; 3 = Cheffe; 4 = Ejeri; 5 = Habru; 6 = Mastewal; 7 = Naatolii; 8 = Shasho; 9 = Wolayita Local; 10 = FLIP03-53C; 11 = FLIP03-102C; 12 = FLIP03-128C; 13 = FLIP07-81C; 14 = FLIP08-60C; 15 = FLIP07-27C.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing treatment randomization and the experiment set up of satellite plots at one location. The same set up was used for each location and year. Plot sizes are the same for both experimental plots and satellite plots. Note: 1 = Arerti; 2 = Butajira Local; 3 = Cheffe; 4 = Ejeri; 5 = Habru; 6 = Mastewal; 7 = Naatolii; 8 = Shasho; 9 = Wolayita Local; 10 = FLIP03-53C; 11 = FLIP03-102C; 12 = FLIP03-128C; 13 = FLIP07-81C; 14 = FLIP08-60C; 15 = FLIP07-27C.
Agronomy 07 00011 g001
Table
Table 1. Analysis of variance table showing mean squares (MS) of the effect of ENV (site-year) and their interaction on plant height, biomass, pods plant−1, seed weight, and grain zinc concentration across 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines (GEN).
Table 1. Analysis of variance table showing mean squares (MS) of the effect of ENV (site-year) and their interaction on plant height, biomass, pods plant−1, seed weight, and grain zinc concentration across 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines (GEN).
Sources of VariationdfPlant HeightBiomassPods Plant−11000 Seed WeightGrain YieldGrain Zn
ENV51082 **543,137,609 **84,752 **6191 **8000.8 **2757 **
REP(ENV)12691,938,876170818324.8 *50
GEN14911 **2,826,6723094 **98,717 **152.299 **
ENV × GEN7061 **2,017,462 **832 **573 **90.6 ***30
ERROR16822537,04539027411.623
CV% 6.5213.5423.675.966.8%10.89
* = significant at 5%, ** = significant at 1%, df = degrees of freedom, REP = replication, CV = coefficient of variation.
Table
Table 2. Plant height (cm) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Table 2. Plant height (cm) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
CultivarsJolle AndegnaTabaHuletegna ChorokoCultivar Mean
201220132012201320122013
Wolayita local73776670485164
Butajira local70736771505364
Arerti65686770606366
Cheffe77816973616471
Ejeri71757175687272
Habru77806872616470
Mastewal69736568545764
Naatolii68716164596264
Shasho66707377636669
FLIP03-53C85898084818584
FLIP03-102C76807478798378
FLIP03-128C86907477788281
FLIP07-81C80847479697377
FLIP08-60C85897377747879
FLIP07-27C85897175818581
Env. mean76797074666972
SE (±)3.43.62.012.122.392.471.11
LSD0.059.7710.407.156.156.925.823.11
SE = standard error, LSD = least significant difference.
Table
Table 3. Aboveground biomass (t·ha−1) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Table 3. Aboveground biomass (t·ha−1) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
CultivarsJolle AndegnaTabaHuletegna ChorokoCultivar Mean
201220132012201320122013
Wolayita local1.979.631.646.432.115.004.46
Butajira local1.769.881.777.834.145.505.15
Arerti1.3710.502.519.402.836.505.52
Cheffe1.3112.132.588.273.056.505.64
Ejeri1.979.952.708.421.896.235.19
Habru1.709.831.948.032.206.505.03
Mastewal2.659.872.777.732.875.855.29
Naatolii1.999.472.007.603.456.325.14
Shasho2.609.332.619.382.596.675.53
FLIP03-53C1.959.732.799.473.217.635.80
FLIP03-102C2.0210.653.008.431.588.125.63
FLIP03-128C3.2610.701.899.632.838.136.07
FLIP07-81C2.329.832.887.452.626.535.27
FLIP08-60C1.4011.801.668.232.548.435.68
FLIP07-27C2.0910.131.587.076.167.775.80
Env. Mean (t·ha−1)2.0210.232.298.222.946.785.41
SE (±)0.210.640.350.540.230.390.17
LSD0.050.61NS1.011.580.681.130.48
SE = standard error, LSD = least significant difference, NS = non-significant.
Table
Table 4. Number of pods plant−1 of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Table 4. Number of pods plant−1 of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
CultivarsJolle AndegnaTabaHuletegna ChorokoCultivar Mean
201220132012201320122013
Wolayita local532226052499589
Butajira local502374254446382
Arerti381613949347366
Cheffe211223837186150
Ejeri451583041385361
Habru321443839297159
Mastewal471884439445670
Naatolii431194136404554
Shasho381245136356358
FLIP03-53C261302528265348
FLIP03-102C291403036265052
FLIP03-128C341462355315758
FLIP07-81C30952359304647
FLIP08-60C33872639335646
FLIP07-27C311042135313343
Env. mean371453542345859
SE (±)4.223.24.796.933.8011.774.65
LSD0.05126711NS14NS6.42
SE = standard error, LSD = least significant difference, NS = non-significant.
Table
Table 5. Thousand seed weight (g) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Table 5. Thousand seed weight (g) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
CultivarsJolle AndegnaTabaHuletegna ChorokoCultivar Mean
201220132012201320122013
Wolayita local104112119127111119115
Butajira local108116111119113121115
Arerti243260265285235251257
Cheffe293315305329297320310
Ejeri287307299321289311302
Habru276297301324272292294
Mastewal229247221237193209223
Naatolii283304300321248267287
Shasho273293281303243260276
FLIP03-53C309332325349315339328
FLIP03-102C329353329353355381350
FLIP03-128C289311320344321345322
FLIP07-81C324348328352328352339
FLIP08-60C299321279299305329305
FLIP07-27C325349313336349376341
Env. mean265284273293265285278
SE (±)9.19.811.2812.036.707.233.90
LSD0.0526.328.432.734.819.420.910.89
SE = standard error, LSD = least significant difference.
Table
Table 6. Grain yield (kg·ha−1) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Table 6. Grain yield (kg·ha−1) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
CultivarsJolle AndegnaTabaHuletegna ChorokoCultivar Mean
2012 (E1)2013 (E2)2012 (E3)2013 (E4)2012 (E5)2013 (E6)
Wolayita local783 (36)5600 (70)1103 (41)3433 (62)1013 (41)2667 (57)2433 (51)
Butajira local697 (34)5800 (71)1070 (41)3600 (63)2110 (53)2500 (56)2630 (53)
Arerti493 (28)6067 (72)1230 (44)3133 (60)1680 (49)3100 (60)2617 (52)
Cheffe183 (11)5667 (70)1483 (47)2800 (58)2040 (53)2900 (58)2512 (50)
Ejeri683 (34)5533 (69)1407 (46)3400 (62)1013 (41)3033 (60)2512 (52)
Habru590 (31)5100 (69)1187 (43)2400 (55)1547 (48)3167 (60)2332 (51)
Mastewal713 (34)5733 (71)1677 (49)2333 (55)1620 (49)3267 (61)2557 (53)
Naatolii660 (33)7267 (75)1173 (42)2467 (56)2470 (56)3333 (61)2895 (54)
Shasho870 (38)4500 (66)1207 (43)2800 (62)2070 (53)2933 (58)2397 (53)
FLIP03-53C583 (31)3467 (62)1060 (41)1800 (58)622 (32)2667 (58)1700 (47)
FLIP03-102C470 (27)4867 (68)1440 (47)1833 (55)577 (31)2367 (55)1926 (46)
FLIP03-128C860 (38)4800 (67)857 (37)2300 (54)780 (36)2133 (54)1955 (48)
FLIP07-81C913 (39)5200 (69)1567 (47)2700 (58)653 (33)2767 (58)2300 (50)
FLIP08-60C673 (33)4367 (66)873 (38)2167 (58)670 (33)2833 (58)1933 (47)
FLIP07-27C703 (34)4033 (64)917 (38)2500 (54)300 (19)2233 (54)1751 (44)
Environment mean658 (33)5200 (69)1217 (43)2644 (57)1278 (42)2793 (58)2298 (50)
SE (±)57.2 (1.52)515.5 (1.92)180.39 (2.76)356.57 (2.42)65.72 (0.96)262.92 (1.66)118.1 (2.24)
LSD0.05(4.14)(5.57)(NS)(7.00)(2.79)(NS)(NS)
SE = standard error, LSD = least significant difference, NS = non-significant; Numbers in parentheses refer to average data obtained from the analysis of variance of log-transformed data.
Table
Table 7. Grain zinc concentration (mg·kg−1), zinc efficiency (ZnE), and agronomic efficiency (AE) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested with (+Zn) and without zinc (−Zn) fertilizer application over the locations in 2012 and 2013.
Table 7. Grain zinc concentration (mg·kg−1), zinc efficiency (ZnE), and agronomic efficiency (AE) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested with (+Zn) and without zinc (−Zn) fertilizer application over the locations in 2012 and 2013.
CultivarsGrain Zinc (−Zn) (mg·kg−1)Grain Zinc (+Zn) (mg·kg−1)Yld (−Zn) (t·ha−1)Yld (+Zn) (t·ha−1)ZnE (%)AE
Wolayita local36.743.62.142.4388.111.5
Butajira local37.245.41.902.6372.329.1
Arerti42.347.52.132.6281.419.5
Cheffe39.243.81.312.5152.048.2
Ejeri36.240.31.552.5161.638.6
Habru37.441.51.552.3366.331.5
Mastewal37.039.91.452.5656.644.4
Naatolii36.342.41.192.9041.068.4
Shasho38.142.81.272.4053.145.0
FLIP03-53C38.943.61.111.7065.023.6
FLIP03-102C40.245.11.041.9353.835.6
FLIP03-128C39.343.91.341.9668.324.8
FLIP07-81C37.441.80.772.3033.461.3
FLIP08-60C41.646.41.101.9357.133.1
FLIP07-27C42.547.41.451.7581.413.2
Mean38.743.71.422.3061.835.5
SE (±)0.551.120.100.043.884.22
LSD1.55NS0.06NS--
Yld (−Zn) (ton·ha−1) = yield obtained from no zinc fertilization; Yld (+Zn) (ton·ha−1) = yield obtained from zinc fertilization; ZnE (%) = zinc efficiency = (yld (−Zn)/yld (+Zn)) × 100; AE = agronomic efficiency = (yld (+Zn)) − (yld (−Zn))/zinc supplied; SE is standard error of the mean; Note: 25 kg ZnSO4·7H2O ha−1 was applied uniformly for all zinc amended plots. SE = standard error, LSD = least significant difference, NS = non-significant.
Table
Table 8. Grain zinc concentration (mg·kg−1) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
Table 8. Grain zinc concentration (mg·kg−1) of 15 chickpea cultivars and breeding lines tested under zinc fertilized soil across three locations in southern Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons.
CultivarsJolle AndegnaTabaHuletegna ChorokoCultivar Mean
201220132012201320122013
Wolayita local36.5342.6330.8351.1051.7048.6743.58
Butajira local36.1032.4742.8751.3058.6350.7745.36
Arerti38.7734.6344.8355.3058.0353.7047.54
Cheffe35.0038.7741.9349.2352.0345.5743.76
Ejeri33.7729.5335.2745.9750.6046.6740.30
Habru34.2030.7333.2350.3050.7350.0341.54
Mastewal31.5732.4037.8746.6744.6746.2039.89
Naatolii34.2028.6042.7351.5048.2349.0342.38
Shasho34.2730.9039.9350.1054.2347.4342.81
FLIP03-53C35.7031.4739.5051.5354.9348.6043.62
FLIP03-102C34.8032.3345.3349.3755.0353.5345.07
FLIP03-128C36.4338.4343.1050.3052.0345.2044.25
FLIP07-81C32.2336.0745.0345.0747.6742.4741.42
FLIP08-60C38.1037.7045.7349.9755.0752.0746.44
FLIP07-27C35.9044.3345.9353.4358.1346.6347.39
Env mean35.1734.7340.9450.0852.7848.4443.69
SE (±)1.32.15.172.121.832.111.12
LSD5%3.906.06NSNS5.306.12NS
SE = standard error, LSD = least significant difference, NS = non-significant.
Table
Table 9. Geographic coordinates, altitude (meters above sea level, m a.s.l.), monthly rainfall (mm), and temperature (maximum, minimum, and mean) data during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons for each research location.
Table 9. Geographic coordinates, altitude (meters above sea level, m a.s.l.), monthly rainfall (mm), and temperature (maximum, minimum, and mean) data during the 2012 and 2013 growing seasons for each research location.
LocationGeographic CoordinatesAltitude (m a.s.l.)MonthsRain Fall (mm)Temperature (°C)
MaximumMinimumMean
20122013201220132012201320122013
Taba7°01′01.9″ N and 37°53′57.6″ E1915August169.7223.021.521.513.513.417.517.5
September135.3210.022.723.213.613.618.218.4
October13.0150.026.224.213.513.619.918.9
November32.639.026.925.913.213.120.119.5
December16.816.027.326.512.812.620.119.6
Jolle Andegna8°12′25.9″ N and 38°28′33.2″ E1923August143.9164.722.623.010.211.016.417.0
September88.048.124.128.49.911.217.019.8
October15.850.127.026.89.810.018.418.4
November8.833.527.026.89.19.518.118.2
December3.52.326.526.48.58.217.517.3
Huletegna Choroko7°20′34.5″ N and 38°06′30″ E1807August89.5178.125.324.914.417.619.921.3
September100.7138.827.128.214.117.420.622.8
October10.0118.930.329.011.816.721.122.9
November9.060.331.730.212.011.821.921.0
December2.60.231.030.012.512.321.821.2
Source: National Meteorological Agency [37], Southern Zone, Hawassa Branch, Ethiopia.
Table
Table 10. Soil properties of the experimental sites at each location in 2012 and 2013.
Table 10. Soil properties of the experimental sites at each location in 2012 and 2013.
LocationYearpH (H2O)EC (ds/m)Zn (mg·kg−1)OC (%)Total N (%)Available P (mg·kg−1)Soil Texture
Taba20126.360.050.130.990.7136.5Silty loam
20136.40.070.161.10.8335.6
Jolle Andegna20126.770.20.171.710.5727.1Silty clay loam
20136.820.220.191.70.6530.2
Huletegna Choroko20126.730.080.981.780.4437.6Clay loam
20136.930.090.941.730.4638
EC: electro conductivity; OC: organic carbon.
Table
Table 11. Description of chickpea cultivars tested for their response to soil applied zinc fertilizer.
Table 11. Description of chickpea cultivars tested for their response to soil applied zinc fertilizer.
No.NameTypeTested Line Number Status
1Wolayita localDesiNot availableLandrace
2Butajira localDesiNot availableLandrace
3ArertiKabuliFLIP89-84CCultivar released in 1999
4CheffeKabuliICCV92318Cultivar released in 2004
5EjeriKabuliFLIP97-263CCultivar released in 2005
6HabruKabuliFLIP88-42CCultivar released in 2004
7MastewalDesiICCV92006Cultivar released in 2006
8NaatoliiDesiICCX910112-6Cultivar released in 2007
9ShashoKabuliICCV93512Cultivar released in 1999
10FLIP03-53CKabuliFLIP03-53CBreeding line
11FLIP03-102CKabuliFLIP03-102CBreeding line
12FLIP03-128CKabuliFLIP03-128CBreeding line
13FLIP07-81CKabuliFLIP07-81CBreeding line
14FLIP08-60CKabuliFLIP08-60CBreeding line
15FLIP07-27CKabuliFLIP07-27CBreeding line
Source: Released materials adopted from Ministry of Agriculture [6].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hidoto, L.; Tar’an, B.; Worku, W.; Mohammed, H. Towards Zinc Biofortification in Chickpea: Performance of Chickpea Cultivars in Response to Soil Zinc Application. Agronomy 2017, 7, 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7010011

AMA Style

Hidoto L, Tar’an B, Worku W, Mohammed H. Towards Zinc Biofortification in Chickpea: Performance of Chickpea Cultivars in Response to Soil Zinc Application. Agronomy. 2017; 7(1):11. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7010011

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hidoto, Legesse, Bunyamin Tar’an, Walelign Worku, and Hussein Mohammed. 2017. "Towards Zinc Biofortification in Chickpea: Performance of Chickpea Cultivars in Response to Soil Zinc Application" Agronomy 7, no. 1: 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy7010011

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop