Plant Uptake of Iron Chelated by Humic Acids of Different Molecular Weights

Bocanegra, M. P.; Lobartini, J. C.; Orioli, Gustavo Adolfo

doi:10.1080/00103620500408779

Cited by 61 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In a model soil system without plants, fulvic acid was reported to complex Fe 3+ in soil in a soluble form that could be taken up by plants (Esteves da Silva et al 1998). A subsequent study on sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in Hoagland solution with 59 Fe confirmed that fulvic acid chelated Fe 3+ and increased iron availability to the plant (Bocanegra et al 2006). Treatment of rice with fulvic acid in calcareous soils enhanced iron uptake, and the efficiency of FeFulvic acid as a fertilizer was greater than that of FeCl 3 (Pandeya et al 1998).…”

Section: Specific Effects Of Fulvic Acids On Plantsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Given their small molecular size, fulvic acids can pass through micropores of biological or artificial membrane systems, while humic acids cannot. The combined capacity of fulvic acids both to chelate nutrients such as Fe and move through membranes has suggested the fulvic acids may play similar roles as natural chelators in the mobilization and transport of Fe and other micronutrients (Bocanegra et al 2006). It has also been suggested that since they have smaller molecular weights, FAs can remain in soil solution even at high salt concentrations and at a wide range of pH (Zimmerli et al 2008;Zhuang et al 2007;Zhang et al 2010;Zhang & Ervin 2008;Zhang & Ervin 2004;Zhang et al 2006).…”

Section: Fulvic Acidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As stated above, fulvic acid is considered to be the soil organic fraction that is soluble in both alkali and acid (Stevenson 1994). Fulvic acids have greater total acidity, greater numbers of carboxyl groups, and higher adsorption and cation exchange capacities than humic acid (Bocanegra et al 2006). Fulvic acids are responsible for chelation and mobilization of metal ions, including Fe and Al (Esteves da Silva et al 1998;Lobartini et al 1998).…”

Section: Fulvic Acidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Plant biostimulants are diverse substances and microorganisms used to enhance plant growth. The global market for biostimulants is projected to increase 12 % per year and reach over $2,200 million by 2018. Despite the growing use of biostimulants in agriculture, many in the scientific community consider biostimulants to be lacking peer-reviewed scientific evaluation. Scope This article describes the emerging definitions of biostimulants and reviews the literature on five categories of biostimulants: i. microbial inoculants, ii. humic acids, iii. fulvic acids, iv. protein hydrolysates and amino acids, and v. seaweed extracts.Conclusions The large number of publications cited for each category of biostimulants demonstrates that there is growing scientific evidence supporting the use of biostimulants as agricultural inputs on diverse plant species. The cited literature also reveals some commonalities in plant responses to different biostimulants, such as increased root growth, enhanced nutrient uptake, and stress tolerance.

show abstract

Section: Specific Effects Of Fulvic Acids On Plantsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Fulvic Acidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fulvic Acidsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After that, pH was adjusted to 8 using HCl. The dialyzed fraction contains compounds with a greater molecular mass than that used by Pinton et al (1999) but in the range of that used by Bocanegra et al (2006). According to De Santiago et al (2008a) an application rate of 0.06 g kg -1 can be considered adequate to improve Fe supply to plants.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Humic substances or beet vinasses have been proved to increase the efficiency of vivianite and ferrous sulphate in decreasing the incidence of Fe chlorosis in sensitive plants grown on calcareous media (De Santiago et al, 2008a;De Santiago & Delgado, 2010). This enhancement of the effect of inorganic Fe sources increasing Fe availability to plants when they are applied with an organic source has been explained by: (i) the effect of organic matter contributing to metal reduction (Chen et al, 2003), (ii) the decrease in the crystallization of Fe oxides resulting from applied Fe fertilizers (Schwertmann et al, 2005;De Santiago et al, 2008a), and (iii) the formation of complexes with Fe that can be an effective Fe source for plants (Pinton et al, 1998(Pinton et al, , 1999Bocanegra et al, 2006;De Santiago & Delgado, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of mixtures of vivianite and organic materials in preventing iron chlorosis in strawberry

Santiago¹,

Carmona²,

Quintero³

et al. 2013

Span. j. agric. res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La aplicación de sales de hierro con materia orgánica de diferentes fuentes ha demostrado ser efectiva en la prevención de la clorosis férrica. El principal objetivo de este trabajo fue estudiar la efectividad de distintas fuentes de Fe formadas a partir de la mezcla de sustancias húmicas o compost con vivianita, en la prevención de este desorden nutricional en fresa (Fragaria x ananassa cv Camarosa). Para ello, se dispuso en un invernadero un experimento diseñado en bloques al azar, con 4 repeticiones (3 plantas por repetición) y un solo factor (la fuente de Fe), usando un medio calcáreo como soporte para las plantas. Las fuentes de Fe estudiadas fueron: (i) testigo sin Fe, (ii) testigo con una fuente efectiva de Fe en medios calcáreos (EDDHA-Fe, 0.1g kg-1), (iii) vivianita (1 g kg-1 medio, dosis recomendada), (iv) vivianita (1 g kg-1) + sustancias húmicas (–SH– 0.06 g kg-1), (v) vivianita (0.5 g kg-1) + SH (0.06 g kg-1) y (vi) una mezcla de corcho compostado y vivianita en una relación 6:1 en peso (CORVIV) aplicada a una dosis de 6 g kg-1 medio. Todas las fuentes de Fe fueron efectivas incrementando las medidas de clorofila SPAD cuando se compararon con el testigo sin Fe. Los tratamientos basados en vivianita no produjeron diferencias significativas respecto a aquellos obtenidos con EDDHA-Fe. Sin embargo, solo el CORVIV no mostró diferencias significativas con respecto al quelato de Fe en cuanto a la producción de materia seca (MS), el área foliar y el contenido en Fe total presente en la parte aérea. Las sustancias húmicas y la vivianita aplicadas en la dosis recomendada (1 g kg–1) incrementaron la producción de MS en las plantas con respecto a la vivianita sin sustancias húmicas. Además la vivianita aplicada sin mezclar con materia orgánica resultó comportarse de forma similar a la dosis inferior de vivianita (0.5 g kg–1) aplicada junto con sustancias húmicas. Se podría concluir que las fuentes de materia orgánica estudiadas incrementaron la eficiencia de la vivianita en la prevención de la clorosis en fresa, especialmente cuando la vivianita se enriqueció con compost de corcho, siendo tan efectiva como el EDDHA-Fe.

show abstract