Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 285, Issue 1–2, pp 81–96 | Cite as

Effect of environment on multi-element grain composition of pigeonpea cultivars under farmers’ conditions

  • H. Høgh-Jensen
  • F. A. Myaka
  • D. Kamalongo
  • J. Rasmussen
  • A. Ngwira
Research article

Abstract

Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) is often intercropped with maize (Zea mays L.) in eastern and southern Africa. The studies aimed at determining how different genotypes of pigeonpea responded in terms of grain element composition under farmers’ cropping conditions. Approx. 78 farmers participated. They came from four study sites in Tanzania (Babati and Gairo) and Malawi (Nyambi and Ntonda) that differed in terms of tradition for using pigeonpea as well as in environmental conditions. The individual grain weight of the pigeonpea crops from Malawi were 21% (P < 0.05) higher than those from Tanzania. However, only B, Cu, Mo, N, Ni, P and S were affected by grain weight (P < 0.05). Weak (r 2 < 0.10) negative correlations existed between grain yield and the grains’ proportion of Ca, Mg, P, and Zn. The proportion of every element, with the exception of Cr, in the grain differed between sites (P < 0.05) but not between varieties (P > 0.05). The amounts of K, Mg, S and Fe accumulated per grain were slightly lower (P < 0.11) in ICEAP00040 compared to the more traditional varieties. Variations in DTPA-exchangeable Zn and Fe in the soil were not reflected in grain concentrations but grain P had a curvi-linear relation (r 2 = 0.44) to the soil NaHCO 3 -exchangeable P indicating P deficiency for several soils. The P and Zn content were correlated (r 2 > 0.41) as the only two grain elements. Unique fingerprinting by multivariate statistics was possible for each site when using the element proportion of the grain dry matter with or without soil characteristics. In all cases, different elements contributed with varying weight to the discrimination between the sites. However, it was not possible to distinguish between the varieties when considering all four environments. Reducing the models to include Fe, K, Mg, P, S and Zn only, did however allow some distinction between the two genotypes, which indicates that genotypic variability is expressed in a fairly limited number of elements. In the cases of Gairo and Nyambi, it was possible to distinguish between varieties. In the case of Gairo, the models distinguished between ICEAP00068 and the others, i.e. ICEAP00040 and Babati White where ICEAP00068 was associated with a higher proportion of Fe, P, S, and Zn in the grain. In the case of Nyambi, the models distinguished between ICEAP00040 and ICP9145 where ICEAP00040 was associated with a lower proportion of Ca, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, P, S, and Zn and a higher proportion of Cr and Na in the grain. It is thus possible in some cases to separate varieties based on multi-element grain content across a relatively narrow environmental gradient but not generally across all environments. These findings should be included in breeding programmes focusing on the improvement of the nutritional value of our food crops.

Keywords

Cajanus cajan Cultivar variations Nutrient deficiencies Nutritional values Element interactions Intercropping Pigeonpea 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson JM, Ingram JSI (1996) Tropical soil biology and fertility. A handbook of methods. CABInternational, Wallingford, 221 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Beebe S, Gonzalez AV, Rengifo J (2000) Research on trace minerals in the common bean. Food Nutrit Bull 21:387–391Google Scholar
  3. Bibak A, Sturup S, Haahr V, Gundersen P, Gundersen V (1999) Concentrations of 50 major and trace elements in Danish agricultural crops measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. 3. Potato (Solanum tuberosum folva). J Agric Food Chem 47:2678–2684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cakmak I, Millet E, Feldman M, Fahima T, Korol A, Nevo E, Bruun HJ, Özkan H (2004) Triticum dicoccoides: an important genetic resource for increasing zinc and iron concentration in modern cultivated wheat. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 50:1047–1054Google Scholar
  5. Esbensen KH (2002) Multivariate data analysis – in practice. CAMO Process AS, Oslo, Norway, 598 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. Fageria NK, Baligar VC, Jones CA (1997) Growth and mineral nutrition of field crops, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, 624 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Gianquinto G, Abu-Rayyan A, Tola LD, Piccotino D, Pezzarossa B (2000) Interaction effects of phosphorus and zinc on photosynthesis, growth and yield of dwarf bean grown in two environments. Plant Soil 220:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibson RS, Huddle J-M (1998) Suboptimal zinc status in pregnant Malawian women: its association with low intakes of poorly available zinc, frequent reproduction cycling, and malaria. Am J Clin Nutr 67:702–709PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Giller KE, Amijee F, Brodric SJ, McGrath SP, Mushil C, Fdje OT, Smithson JB (1992) Toxic concentrations of iron and manganese in leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris L. growing on freely-drained soils of pH 6.5 in Northern Tanzania. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 23:787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giller KE, Cadisch G (1995) Future benefits from biological nitrogen fixation: an ecological approach to agriculture. Plant Soil 174:255–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gundersen V, Bechmann IE, Behrens A, Sturup S (2000) Comparative investigation of concentrations of major and trace elements in organic and conventional Danish agricultural crops. 1. Onions (Allium cepa Hysam) and peas (Pisum sativum ping pong). J Agric Food Chem 48: 6094–6102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hacisalihoglu G, Ozturk L, Cakmak I, Welch RM, Kochian L (2004) Genotypic variation in common bean in response to zinc deficiency in calcareous soil. Plant Soil 259:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinsinger P, Plassard C, Tang C, Jaillard B (2003) Origins of root-mediated pH changes in the rhizosphere and their responses to environmental constraints: a review. Plant Soil 248:43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. House WA, Welch RM, Beebe S, Cheng Z (2002) Potential for increasing the amounts of bioavailable zinc in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) through plant breeding. J Sci Food Agric 82:1452–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Husted S, Mikkelsen BF, Jensen J, Nielsen NE (2004) Elemental fingerprint analysis of barley (Hordum vulgare) using inductive coupled plasma mass spectrometry, isotope-ratio mass spectrometry, and multivariate statistics. Anal Bioanal Chem 378:171–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ishikawa S, Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Nakamura T, Yoshihara T, Watanabe T, Wagatsuma T (2002) Genotypic variability in phosphorus solubilizing activity of root exudates by pigeonpea grown in low-nutrient environments. Plant Soil 245:71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA (1978) Development of a DTPA micronutrient soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J 42:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Loneragan JF, Grunes DL, Welch RM, Aduayi EA, Tengah A, Lazar VA, Cary EE (1982) Phosphorus accumulation and toxicity in leaves in relation to zinc supply. Soil Sci Soc Am J 46:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mergeai M, Kimani P, Mwang’ombe A, Olubayo F, Smith C, Audi P, Baudoin J-P, Roi AL (2001) Survey of pigeonpea production systems, utilization and marketing in semi-arid lands of Kenya. Biotechnol Agron Soc Environ 5:145–153Google Scholar
  20. Myaka FM, Sakala WD, Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Kamalongo D, Ngwira A, Odgaard R, Nielsen NE, Høgh-Jensen H (2006) Yields and accumulations of N and P in farmermanaged intercrops of maize–pigeonpea in semi-arid Africa. Plant Soil: 10.1007/s11104-006-9006-6Google Scholar
  21. Nene YL, Sheila VK (1990) Pigeonpea: geography and importance. In: Nene YL, Hall SD, Sheila VK (eds) The pigeonpea. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  22. Oikeh SO, Menkir A, Maziya-Dixon B, Welch RM, Glahn RP, Gauch Jr. G (2004) Environmental stability of iron and zinc concentrations in grain of elite early-maturing tropical maize genotypes grown under field conditions. J Agric Sci 142:543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. U.S.D.A. Circular No 939,19Google Scholar
  24. Otani T, Ae N (1996) Phosphorus (P) uptake mechanisms of crops grown in soils with low P status. I. Screening of crops for efficient P uptake. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 42:1 55–163Google Scholar
  25. Peña RM, García S, Iglesias R, Barro S, Herrero C (2001) Authentication of Galician (N.W. Spain) quality brand potatoes using metal analysis. Classical pattern recognition techniques versus a new vector quantization-based classification procedure. The Analyst 126:2186–2193PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  26. Sakala WD, Kumwenda JDT, Saka AR (2003) The potential of green manures to increase soil fertility and maize yields in Malawi. Biol Agric Hort 21:121–130Google Scholar
  27. SAS Institute Inc. (1993) SAS/STATSoftware: Syntax, Version 6, 1st edn. SASInstitute Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh JB, Karamanos RE, Stewart JWB (1988) The mechanism of phosphorus-induced zinc deficiency in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Can J Soil Sci 68:345–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snapp SS, Mafongoya PL, Waddington S (1998) Organic matter technologies for integrated nutrient management in smallholder cropping systems of southern Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Solanki IS, Kapoor AC, Singh U (1999) Nutritional parameters and yield evaluation of newly developed genotypes of lentils (Lens culinaris Medik.). Plant Foods Human Nutr 54:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sood DR, Dhindsa KS (1986) Studies on food value of some varieties of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.). Bull Grain Technol 24:114–119Google Scholar
  32. Taylor V, Longrich H, Greenough J (2003) Multielement analysis of Canadian wines by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and multivariate statistics. J Agric Food Chem 51:856–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walworth JL, Sumner ME (1988) Foliar diagnosis: a review. In: Tinker B, Läuchli A (eds) Advances in plant nutrition. pp 193–241Google Scholar
  34. Welch RM, Graham RD (2002) Breeding crops for enhanced micronutrient content. Plant Soil 245:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welch RM, Graham RD (2004) Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. J Exp Bot 55:353–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Welch RM, House WA, Beebe S, Cheng Z (2000) Genetic selection for enhanced bioavailable levels of iron in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seeds. J Agric Food Chem 48:3576–3580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang F, Li L (2003) Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant Soil 248: 305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Høgh-Jensen
    • 1
  • F. A. Myaka
    • 2
  • D. Kamalongo
    • 3
  • J. Rasmussen
    • 1
  • A. Ngwira
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural SciencesRoyal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityTaastrupDenmark
  2. 2.Ilonga Agricultural Research InstituteKilosa, MorogoroTanzania
  3. 3.Chitedze Agricultural Research StationLilongweMalawi

Personalised recommendations