Potential Challenges to Agronomic Biofortification

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Demeke Teklu	--	1660	2023-08-22 13:13:38	\|
2	format correct	Catherine Yang	Meta information modification	1660	2023-08-23 02:55:13	\| \|
3	Fertilizer manufacturing, application method and time, eniviromental impact, mineral interaction	Demeke Teklu	-4 word(s)	1656	2023-11-07 09:11:13	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/agronomy13082173

Agronomic biofortification is the strategy to enhance the micronutrient contents in the edible parts of food crops through the application of mineral fertilizers. Agronomic biofortification can enrich crops with multiple elements, but the most common ones are Fe, Se, Zn, and I. It may be a suitable approach to reach resource-poor rural populations, provided they have access to chemical fertilizers. Soil-to-plant transfer and the accumulation of minerals in the edible portion of food crops determine the success of biofortification. In addition, the bioavailability of minerals from biofortified crops in the body influences the effectiveness of biofortification programs.

agronomic biofortification dietary intake effectiveness fertilizers

1. Mineral Fertilizer Manufacturing

One of the major challenges of agronomic biofortification as a strategy is the manufacturing of fertilizers containing a suitable quantity of mineral micronutrients, especially in many developing countries, where most fertilizer is imported. Strategies aiming to reduce MNDs are likely to be more effective where the intervention is case-sensitive in local situations ^[1]^[2]. To produce a fertilizer blend for a specific location is likely to require the close involvement of public and private fertilizer production and distribution sectors.

2. Mineral Fertilizer Application Method

There are two approaches for the application of mineral fertilizers—foliar and basal application. The two approaches have their costs and benefits in terms of logistics, economic feasibility, and final grain mineral concentration.

In the short term, foliar Zn applications are more effective than soil applications at increasing grain Zn concentrations in wheat ^[3]^[4]. For example, foliar Zn application to rice and wheat represents an effective agronomic practice to enhance the grain Zn concentration up to 66%, while soil application has no effect ^[3]^[5]. Soil applications of Zn are less effective than foliar applications to increase grain Zn concentration. The study by Joy et al. ^[6] indicated that soil Zn application led to increases in the median Zn concentrations in maize, rice, and wheat grains of 23%, 7%, and 19%, respectively, while foliar application led to increases of 30%, 25%, and 63%, respectively. The authors suggested that Zn fixation in the soil makes foliar applications more cost-effective than soil applications; however, the deployment might be more complicated. Botoman et al. ^[7] reported that many studies on soil Zn applications are underpowered to detect small increases in crop Zn concentration; they reported a 15% increase in maize Zn concentration as a result of 30 kg ha⁻¹ elemental Zn application. A study from Zimbabwe aimed at quantifying the potential health benefits of alleviating dietary Zn deficiency with soil-applied Zn fertilizer and improved soil fertility management (ISFM) to increase maize grain Zn concentration reported that soil Zn fertilizers were estimated to increase the dietary Zn supply from 9.3 to 11.9 mg Zn capita⁻¹ day⁻¹, reduce the dietary Zn deficiency prevalence from 68% to 31%, and save 6576 DALYs lost per year. On the other hand, soil Zn fertilizer, together with ISFM, is estimated to increase the dietary Zn supply from 9.3 to 12.5 mg Zn capita⁻¹ day⁻¹, reduce the dietary Zn deficiency prevalence from 68 to 25%, and save 7606 DALYs lost per year ^[8]. Therefore, the report indicates strong effects of other ISFM approaches on the effectiveness of soil-applied Zn.

One benefit of soil application of Zn fertilizer is its potential residual effects in subsequent cropping seasons. For example, Narwal et al. ^[9] reported that soil application of Zn to wheat has a significant effect for multiple years and could be more effective and economical for wheat in the long run as compared to foliar application. Another study reported that soil application of 28 kg ha⁻¹ ZnSO₄ fertilizer was an effective strategy to correct soil Zn deficiencies for about 7 years ^[10]. Similarly, Frye et al. ^[11] reported the residual effect ranging from 4 to 5 years as a result of soil application of 34 kg ha⁻¹ ZnSO₄ fertilizer. Similar researchers reported that soil application of ZnSO₄ ranging from 18 to 28 kg h⁻¹ is adequate to correct Zn deficiency in plants for four to seven years ^[12]^[13]^[14]. Therefore, the argument is, if the application of Zn fertilization is planned for more than one season, basal application could be a more cost-effective method due to its residual effect, whereas foliar application may provide the highest grain Zn concentration for a single production season.

Some studies have indicated that the combined application of soil and foliar Zn and Fe are more effective than a single soil or foliar application. The results indicate an increase from 25 to 100% grain mineral content due to combined soil and foliar fertilization application ^[3]^[5]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]. However, it is very crucial to consider the soil type effect since the combined foliar and basal application method of Zn on wheat is reported to highly depend on the soil type ^[4].

Ngigi et al. ^[19] suggested that foliar application of Se was more effective than soil application for maize and beans. However, it is important to consider that Se can act both as an antioxidant and a pro-oxidant, and in its concentrated form, Se is toxic ^[20], therefore, blended or granular Se applied to soils is the only safe approach for farmers. Ros et al. ^[21] argued that soil application of Se could result in similar responses to foliar-applied Se fertilizer, and the effects of soil-applied Se lasted longer than foliar-applied Se since residual effects were observed for up to 4 years. Chilimba et al. ^[22] also reported no significant difference between basal and foliar application of Se. They reported for each gram of Se ha⁻¹ applied, the Se concentration in maize grain increased by 11–29 µg Se kg⁻¹ and by 11–33 µg Se kg⁻¹ for foliar and basal applications, respectively. The only comprehensive nationwide experience that has deployed Se fertilization with basal application, in Finland, reported a 15-fold increase in crop Se content ^[23].

Soil application of Fe usually has no or only limited residual effects, as Fe²⁺ is rapidly converted into Fe³⁺ in soils; therefore, foliar application has been considered the most effective method, especially for plants that develop grain months after germination ^[3]^[9]^[24]^[25]. However, other studies found that neither soil nor foliar application of Fe fertilization was an effective method to enhance wheat, barley, or oat Fe concentrations ^[26]^[27]. In contrast, regular foliar Fe application could result in a potential environmental hazard ^[28]. Manzeke-Kangara et al. ^[29] and Aciksoz et al. ^[26] argued that the efficiency of soil Fe application is more dependent on other factors, especially the integration of N fertilization and ISFM, compared to the Fe fertilizer application method (foliar or basal).

Studies have suggested the potential of a multi-mineral agronomic biofortification strategy to address multiple mineral deficiencies, based on a site-specific biofortification strategy. Mao et al. ^[2] reported that combined Se, Zn, and I fertilizers were as effective as singly-applied fertilizers when applied to maize, soybean, potato, and cabbage. This suggests that multi-mineral agronomic biofortification has the potential to address multiple MNDs simultaneously. However, knowledge about the elemental antagonistic and synergetic interaction effect is very critical. Pahlavan-Rad and Pessarakli, ^[24] reported 8% and 13% increases in wheat grain Fe and Zn concentrations, respectively, as a result of Fe and Zn interaction in their study on the combined application of Fe and Zn fertilization. Even though the mechanism of Zn and Fe interaction is not well understood ^[30], it has been reported that Zn treatment resulted in Fe accumulation in soybean roots and increased root-to-fruit Fe translocation in tomato plants ^[31].

3. Mineral Interaction Effect

Interactions between phosphorus (P) and Zn and between P and Fe in soils and plants have long been recognized and well documented. Studies have reported that high soil P levels can negatively affect Zn and Fe uptake by crops by inhibiting the mycorrhizal colonization of roots and resulting in impaired nutrient uptake ^[32]^[33]. Multiple studies have reported that P deficiency in soil results in a higher accumulation of Zn, whereas Zn deficiency in soil leads to a higher accumulation of P in plants ^[34]^[35]^[36]. Similarly, Fe deficiency stimulates the absorption of P in both roots and shoots ^[37]^[38]^[39]^[40]. Erdal ^[41] reported that soil Zn application enhances wheat grain Zn, and at the same time, significantly reduces grain P concentration. Another study also reported the association between Zn fertilization and a reduction in the phytic acid in rice grain, ranging from 14.8 to 30.4% ^[15]. These findings suggest that agronomic biofortification with Fe and Zn might also be a useful strategy to reduce antinutritional factors, such as phytate, in addition to increasing the grain mineral concentration.

A study that employed a factorial design involving the application of N up to 60 kg ha⁻¹ and Zn up to 10 kg ha⁻¹ on pearl millet indicated that the highest grain Zn concentration was observed at the application of 20 kg N ha⁻¹ and 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹ ^[42]. Similarly, the Zn uptake rate was enhanced by 4-fold due to the increased N application ^[43]. Similarly, multiple studies have indicated that N significantly enhances grain Zn ^[44]^[45] and Fe ^[26]^[29]^[46]^[47] concentrations. Nitrogen can increase the activity of transporter proteins and nitrogenous compounds, like nicotianamine, which helps to maintain Zn root uptake and shoot translocation ^[47]^[48], and by increasing the activity and abundance of Fe transporter proteins, such as yellow stripe 1 (YS1), in root cell membranes ^[49]^[50], which positively affects the root uptake and shoot transport of Fe. Similarly, the Se concentration of rice grains increased by 54.6% as a result of a combined Se and N application compared to only Se application as a fertilizer ^[51]. These findings suggest the application of Zn, Fe, and Se as a fertilizer is more effective when they are applied along with N fertilization and ISFM.

4. Environmental Impact

Uncontrolled and excessive mineral fertilizer use could cause contamination risk in the environment from the minerals of interest. It has been reported that about 28 tons of extra Cu per year is released into the soil in parts of the United Kingdom as a result of Cu fertilizer ^[52]. Furthermore, the long-term application of mineral fertilizer was reported to adversely affect important rhizospheric microorganisms that play major roles in plant nutrition and health ^[53]^[54]^[55]. In such cases, it is recommended to use nanoparticle fertilization, which potentially reduces the release of excessive mineral fertilizers into the environment. For instance, the application of Fe oxide nanoparticles on wheat ^[56], Zn oxide on maize ^[57], and Se nanoparticles on soybean ^[58] effectively improved grain Fe, Zn, and Se concentrations, respectively, without extra mineral release into the environment.

References

Lyons, G.H.; Judson, G.J.; Ortiz-Monasterio, I.; Genc, Y.; Stangoulis, J.C.; Graham, R.D. Selenium in Australia: Selenium status and biofortification of wheat for better health. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2005, 19, 75–82.
Mao, H.; Wang, J.; Wang, Z.; Zan, Y.; Lyons, G.; Zou, C. Using agronomic biofortification to boost zinc, selenium, and iodine concentrations of food crops grown on the loess plateau in China. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2014, 14, 459–470.
Phattarakul, N.; Rerkasem, B.; Li, L.J.; Wu, L.H.; Zou, C.Q.; Ram, H.; Sohu, V.S.; Kang, B.S.; Surek, H.; Kalayci, M.; et al. Biofortification of rice grain with zinc through zinc fertilization in different countries. Plant Soil 2012, 361, 131–141.
Zia, M.H.; Ahmed, I.; Bailey, E.H.; Lark, R.M.; Young, S.D.; Lowe, N.M.; Joy, E.J.; Wilson, L.; Zaman, M.; Broadley, M.R. Site-specific factors influence the field performance of a Zn-biofortified wheat variety. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 135.
Cakmak, I.; Kalayci, M.; Kaya, Y.; Torun, A.A.; Aydin, N.; Wang, Y.; Arisoy, Z.; Erdem, H.A.; Yazici, A.; Gokmen, O.; et al. Biofortification and localization of zinc in wheat grain. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9092–9102.
Joy, E.J.; Stein, A.J.; Young, S.D.; Ander, E.L.; Watts, M.J.; Broadley, M.R. Zinc-enriched fertilisers as a potential public health intervention in Africa. Plant Soil 2015, 389, 1–24.
Botoman, L.; Chimungu, J.G.; Bailey, E.H.; Munthali, M.W.; Ander, E.L.; Mossa, A.W.; Young, S.D.; Broadley, M.R.; Lark, R.M.; Nalivata, P.C. Agronomic biofortification increases grain zinc concentration of maize grown under contrasting soil types in Malawi. Plant Direct 2022, 6, e458.
Manzeke-Kangara, M.G.; Joy, E.J.; Mtambanengwe, F.; Chopera, P.; Watts, M.J.; Broadley, M.R.; Mapfumo, P. Good soil management can reduce dietary zinc deficiency in Zimbabwe. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2021, 2, 20210026618.
Narwal, R.P.; Malik, R.S.; Dahiya, R.R. Addressing variations in status of a few nutritionally important micronutrients in wheat crop. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Brisbane, QL, Australia, 1–6 August 2010; Volume 3, pp. 1–6.
Robertson, L.S.; Lucas, R.E. Essential micronutrients: Zinc . In Extension Bulletin-Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service (USA); Michigan state University Press: East Lansing, MI, USA, 1976; pp. 4–8.
Frye, W.W.; Miller, H.F.; Murdock, L.W.; Peaslee, D.E. Zinc Fertilization of Corn in Kentucky. Available online: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/pss_notes/110 (accessed on 22 July 2022).
Martens, D.C.; Westermann, D.T. Fertilizer applications for correcting micronutrient deficiencies. Micronutr. Agric. 1991, 4, 549–592.
Singh, M.V.; Abrol, I.P. Direct and residual effect of fertilizer zinc application on the yield and chemical composition of rice-wheat crops in an alkali soil. Fertil. Res. 1985, 8, 179–191.
Takkar, P.N.; Walker, C.D. The distribution and correction of zinc deficiency. In Zinc in Soils and Plants: Proceedings of the International Symposium on ‘Zinc in Soils and Plants’; Robson, A.D., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1993; pp. 151–165.
Saha, S.; Chakraborty, M.; Padhan, D.; Saha, B.; Murmu, S.; Batabyal, K.; Seth, A.; Hazra, G.C.; Mandal, B.; Bell, R.W. Agronomic biofortification of zinc in rice: Influence of cultivars and zinc application methods on grain yield and zinc bioavailability. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 210, 52–60.
Kumar, N.; Salakinkop, S.R. Agronomic biofortification of maize with zinc and iron micronutrients. Mod. Concepts Dev. Agron. 2018, 1, 1–4.
Yilmaz, A.; Ekiz, H.; Torun, B.; Gultekin, I.; Karanlik, S.; Bagci, S.A.; Cakmak, I. Effect of different zinc application methods on grain yield and zinc concentration in wheat cultivars grown on zinc-deficient calcareous soils. J. Plant Nutr. 1997, 20, 461–471.
Meena, N.; Fathima, P.S. Nutrient uptake of rice as influenced by agronomic biofortification of Zn and Fe under methods of rice cultivation. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2017, 5, 456–459.
Ngigi, P.B.; Lachat, C.; Masinde, P.W.; Du Laing, G. Agronomic biofortification of maize and beans in Kenya through selenium fertilization. Environ. Geochem. Health 2019, 41, 2577–2591.
Chauhan, R.; Awasthi, S.; Srivastava, S.; Dwivedi, S.; Pilon-Smits, E.A.; Dhankher, O.P.; Tripathi, R.D. Understanding selenium metabolism in plants and its role as a beneficial element. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 49, 1937–1958.
Ros, G.H.; Van Rotterdam, A.M.D.; Bussink, D.W.; Bindraban, P.S. Selenium fertilization strategies for bio-fortification of food: An agro-ecosystem approach. Plant Soil 2016, 404, 99–112.
Chilimba, A.D.; Young, S.D.; Black, C.R.; Meacham, M.C.; Lammel, J.; Broadley, M.R. Agronomic biofortification of maize with selenium (Se) in Malawi. Field Crop. Res. 2012, 125, 118–128.
Alfthan, G.; Eurola, M.; Ekholm, P.; Venäläinen, E.R.; Root, T.; Korkalainen, K.; Hartikainen, H.; Salminen, P.; Hietaniemi, V.; Aspila, P.; et al. Effects of nationwide addition of selenium to fertilizers on foods, and animal and human health in Finland: From deficiency to optimal selenium status of the population. J. Trace Elem. Med. Biol. 2015, 31, 142–147.
Pahlavan-Rad, M.R.; Pessarakli, M. Response of wheat plants to zinc, iron, and manganese applications and uptake and concentration of zinc, iron, and manganese in wheat grains. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2009, 40, 1322–1332.
Zhang, J.; Wu, L.H.; Wang, M.Y. Iron and zinc biofortification in polished rice and accumulation in rice plant (Oryza sativa L.) as affected by nitrogen fertilization. Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant Sci. 2008, 58, 267–272.
Aciksoz, S.B.; Yazici, A.; Ozturk, L.; Cakmak, I. Biofortification of wheat with iron through soil and foliar application of nitrogen and iron fertilizers. Plant Soil 2011, 349, 215–225.
Gupta, U.C. Iron status of crops in Prince Edward Island and effect of soil pH on plant iron concentration. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1991, 71, 197–202.
Sperotto, R.A.; Ricachenevsky, F.K.; de Abreu Waldow, V.; Fett, J.P. Iron biofortification in rice: It’s a long way to the top. Plant Sci. 2012, 190, 24–39.
Manzeke-Kangara, M.G.; Mtambanengwe, F.; Watts, M.J.; Broadley, M.R.; Lark, R.M.; Mapfumo, P. Can nitrogen fertilizer management improve grain iron concentration of agro-biofortified crops in Zimbabwe? Agronomy 2021, 11, 124.
Xie, X.; Hu, W.; Fan, X.; Chen, H.; Tang, M. Interactions between phosphorus, zinc, and iron homeostasis in nonmycorrhizal and mycorrhizal plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1172.
Ibiang, Y.B.; Innami, H.; Sakamoto, K. Effect of excess zinc and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus on bioproduction and trace element nutrition of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Micro-Tom). Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2018, 3, 342–351.
Lynch, J.; Marschner, P.; Rengel, Z. Effect of internal and external factors on root growth and development. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 331–346.
Watts-Williams, S.J.; Patti, A.; Cavagnaro, T.R. Arbuscular mycorrhizas are beneficial under both deficient and toxic soil zinc conditions. Plant Soil 2013, 371, 299–312.
Bouain, N.; Kisko, M.; Rouached, A.; Dauzat, M.; Lacombe, B.; Belgaroui, N.; Ghnaya, T.; Davidian, J.C.; Berthomieu, P.; Abdelly, C.; et al. Phosphate/zinc interaction analysis in two lettuce varieties reveals contrasting effects on biomass, photosynthesis, and dynamics of Pi transport. BioMed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 548254.
Khan, G.A.; Bouraine, S.; Wege, S.; Li, Y.; de Carbonnel, M.; Berthomieu, P.; Poirier, Y.; Rouached, H. Coordination between zinc and phosphate homeostasis involves the transcription factor PHR1, the phosphate exporter PHO1, and its homologue PHO1; H3 in Arabidopsis. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 871–884.
Ova, E.A.; Kutman, U.B.; Ozturk, L.; Cakmak, I. High phosphorus supply reduced zinc concentration of wheat in native soil but not in autoclaved soil or nutrient solution. Plant Soil 2015, 393, 147–162.
Briat, J.F.; Rouached, H.; Tissot, N.; Gaymard, F.; Dubos, C. Integration of P, S, Fe, and Zn nutrition signals in Arabidopsis thaliana: Potential involvement of PHOSPHATE STARVATION RESPONSE 1 (PHR1). Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 290.
Nafady, N.A.; Elgharably, A. Mycorrhizal symbiosis and phosphorus fertilization effects on Zea mays growth and heavy metals uptake. Int. J. Phytoremediat. 2018, 20, 869–875.
Ward, J.T.; Lahner, B.; Yakubova, E.; Salt, D.E.; Raghothama, K.G. The effect of iron on the primary root elongation of Arabidopsis during phosphate deficiency. Plant Physiol. 2008, 147, 1181–1191.
Zheng, L.; Huang, F.; Narsai, R.; Wu, J.; Giraud, E.; He, F.; Cheng, L.; Wang, F.; Wu, P.; Whelan, J.; et al. Physiological and transcriptome analysis of iron and phosphorus interaction in rice seedlings. Plant Physiol. 2009, 151, 262–274.
Erdal, I. Effects of Various Zinc Application Methods on Grain Zinc and Phytic Acid Concentration of Different Cereal Species and Wheat Cultivars Grown in Central Anatolia. Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, 1998.
Prasad, S.K.; Singh, R.; Singh, M.K.; Rakshit, A. Zinc biofortification and agronomic indices of pearl millet under semi-arid region. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 2015, 8, 171–175.
Monsant, A.C.; Wang, Y.; Tang, C. Nitrate nutrition enhances zinc hyperaccumulation in Noccaea caerulescens (Prayon). Plant Soil 2010, 336, 391–404.
Pal, V.; Singh, G.; Dhaliwal, S.S. Agronomic biofortification of chickpea with zinc and iron through application of zinc and urea. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 1864–1877.
Römheld, V. The role of phytosiderophores in acquisition of iron and other micronutrients in graminaceous species: An ecological approach. Plant Soil 1991, 130, 127–134.
Hussain, S.T.; Bhat, M.A.; Hussain, A.; Dar, S.A.; Dar, S.H.; Ganai, M.A.; Telli, N.A. Zinc fertilization for improving grain yield, zinc concentration and uptake in different rice genotypes. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 287–291.
Kutman, U.B.; Yildiz, B.; Ozturk, L.; Cakmak, I. Biofortification of durum wheat with zinc through soil and foliar applications of nitrogen. Cereal Chem. 2010, 87, 1–9.
Erenoglu, E.B.; Kutman, U.B.; Ceylan, Y.; Yildiz, B.; Cakmak, I. Improved nitrogen nutrition enhances root uptake, root-to-shoot translocation and remobilization of zinc (65Zn) in wheat. New Phytol. 2011, 189, 438–448.
Murata, Y.; Harada, E.; Sugase, K.; Namba, K.; Horikawa, M.; Ma, J.F.; Yamaji, N.; Ueno, D.; Nomoto, K.; Iwashita, T.; et al. Specific transporter for iron (III): Phytosiderophore complex involved in iron uptake by barley roots. Pure Appl. Chem. 2008, 80, 2689–2697.
Curie, C.; Cassin, G.; Couch, D.; Divol, F.; Higuchi, K.; Le Jean, M.; Mission, J.; Schikora, A.; Czernic, P.; Mari, S. Metal movement within the plant: Contribution of nicotianamine and yellow stripe 1-like transporters. Ann. Bot. 2009, 103, 1–11.
Reis, H.P.; de Queiroz Barcelos, J.P.; Junior, E.F.; Santos, E.F.; Silva, V.M.; Moraes, M.F.; Putti, F.F.; dos Reis, A.R. Agronomic biofortification of upland rice with selenium and nitrogen and its relation to grain quality. J. Cereal Sci. 2018, 79, 508–515.
Stuart, J.; Nicholson, F.; Rollett, A.; Chambers, B.; Gleadthorpe, A.D.A.S.; Vale, M. The Defra “Agricultural Soil Heavy Metal Inventory” for 2008 Report 3 for Defra Project SP0569. 2010. Available online: http://pstorage-cranfield-168447862.s3.amazonaws.com/14636414/Defra_SP0569Report3.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2023).
Semenov, M.V.; Krasnov, G.S.; Semenov, V.M.; van Bruggen, A.H. Long-term fertilization rather than plant species shapes rhizosphere and bulk soil prokaryotic communities in agroecosystems. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 154, 103641.
Semenov, M.V.; Krasnov, G.S.; Semenov, V.M.; van Bruggen, A. Mineral and organic fertilizers distinctly affect fungal communities in the crop rhizosphere. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 251.
Wu, L.; Jiang, Y.; Zhao, F.; He, X.; Liu, H.; Yu, K. Increased organic fertilizer application and reduced chemical fertilizer application affect the soil properties and bacterial communities of grape rhizosphere soil. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 9568.
Sundaria, N.; Singh, M.; Upreti, P.; Chauhan, R.P.; Jaiswal, J.P.; Kumar, A. Seed priming with iron oxide nanoparticles triggers iron acquisition and biofortification in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grains. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 122–131.
Umar, W.; Hameed, M.K.; Aziz, T.; Maqsood, M.A.; Bilal, H.M.; Rasheed, N. Synthesis, characterization and application of ZnO nanoparticles for improved growth and Zn biofortification in maize. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2021, 67, 1164–1176.
Xiong, Y.; Xiang, X.; Xiao, C.; Zhang, N.; Cheng, H.; Rao, S.; Cheng, S.; Li, L. Illumina RNA and SMRT Sequencing Reveals the Mechanism of Uptake and Transformation of Selenium Nanoparticles in Soybean Seedlings. Plants 2023, 12, 789.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Mineralogy

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Demeke Teklu

Dawd Gashu

Edward J. M. Joy

Tilahun Amede

Martin R. Broadley

View Times: 1.5K

Update Date: 07 Nov 2023

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm