--- title: "5.6.1. The effects of genotypical/cultivar differences on plant mineral content" canonical: "https://wiki.groenkennisnet.nl/space/CPC/11993590/5.6.1.%20The%20effects%20of%20genotypical%2Fcultivar%20differences%20on%20plant%20mineral%20content" format: markdown --- As described in [§5.1.3](https://wiki-groenkennisnet.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CPC/pages/11993168) all higher plants require almost the same mineral elements. However, [Figure 5.11](#Figure 5) there shows that there is considerable genetic variation in mineral concentration of these elements between crop species. This variation can be used for breeding and implementation of sustainable biofortification strategies. Varieties with increased mineral concentrations in their edible portions are already available (White and Broadley 2005). There are large differences in mineral concentration between different plant groups. For example, commelinoid monocots, such as cereals, have lower tissue Ca and Mg concentrations than eudicot species grown under comparable conditions. This difference is thus a hard-coded ancient genetic limitation and might explain Ca-deficiency disorders in populations changing from bean-rich to cereal-rich diets (Graham et al. 2001). There are, moreover, reports of Fe and Zn-deficiency when communities replace traditional mineral-rich crops like legumes, vegetables and fruits for cereals (Welch 2002). For other minerals like N, P, S, Se, Cr and Cu variation appears also in closely related species. That is, for these elements crop varieties can differ markedly in their tissue concentrations. For biofortification programs this is a good thing as it creates ample breeding potential for plants with higher mineral content. ![image](media://57e94703-3ab7-43e2-ac7f-580cc8049ac8) ###### Figure 5.11: Frequency distributions: (a) natural variation among angiosperms in shoot concentrations of Zn (70 species) [25], Ca and P (117 species) [26]; (b) natural variation in Fe, Zn, Ca and P concentrations in shoots of 424 Brassica oleracea genotypes (P.J. White and M.R. Broadley, unpublished); (c) seeds of 439 Andean bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) accessions [48]; (d) grain from 132 bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) varieties [22]. Abbreviation: DM, dry mass. (Copied from: White and Broadley 2005) Since most impact can be gained by fortification of staple foods, most research on mineral nutients like Fe and Zn has been done for rice (Oryza sativa), wheat (Triticum aestivum), maize (Zea mays), common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and cassava (Manihot esculenta). Landraces, and later tetraploid and diploid progenitors of hexaploid wheat were identified as high Fe and Zn accumulators (Cakmak *et al.* 1999; Monasterio and Graham 2000). Genetic ranges in Zn values typically range between 15 and 40 mg/g and Fe concentrations range from 20 to 60 mg/g (Oury *et al.* 2006). Some genotypes show values as high as 142 mg/g of Zn. Note, however, that during evaluation of these genotypes conditions were not equal and in some locations manure had been applied in a recent previous trail. As discussed in [§5.3.4](https://wiki-groenkennisnet.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CPC/pages/11993577) fertilisation can greatly influence Zn and Fe values. Not only fertilisation, but also slower growth, reduced yield, low harvest index or smaller seeds might increase mineral content of the edible plant part. This information is crucial when selecting for genetical traits that can be used to biofortify crops. Iron and Zinc concentration in root crops and leafy vegetables (e.g. spinach and brassicas) are higher than in cereal grain and show substantial genetic variation ([5.6.1. The effects of genotypical/cultivar differences on plant mineral content-Table 5.4](#Table 5.4)). This table shows that varieties can differ a several fold in mineral concentration showing that there is considerable genetic potential to breed for higher Fe and Zn concentrations in vegetable crops. From [5.6.1. The effects of genotypical/cultivar differences on plant mineral content-Figure 5.11](#Figure 5.11) we can see that cereal grain have particularly low Ca concentrations opposed to leafy vegetables which are rich source of Ca. However, bioavailability in these leafy vegetables depends on oxalate, as calcium-oxalate is not taken up by the human gut. Thus, although edible plants in the Oxalidaceae, such as oca (*Oxalis tuberosa*), Caryophyllales, such as beet, rhubarb and spinach, and Malpighiales, such as castor bean and linseed, can contain high concentrations of Ca, their Ca-bioavailability is low (White and Broadley 2003; White 2005) [29,60]. Nevertheless, in general there is ample variation in Ca concentrations between genotypes of edible crops. ![image](media://931b33c2-3aaa-4eab-919e-194f67794edf) ###### Table 5.4: Variation in iron and zinc concentrations in edible portions (Copied from: White and Broadley 2005). Reeve et al (2016) reviewed that side-by-side comparisons between old and modern cultivars of grains and vegetables has revealed decreased nutrient contents in modern, higher-yielding cultivars. The authors list examples for: wheat (genus: Triticum) (Monasterio and Graham 2000; Garvin et al. 2006; Murphy et al. 2008), maize (Zea mays L.) (Scott et al. 2006), rice (Oryza sativa L.) (Anandan et al. 2011), broccoli (B. oleracea L.) (Farnham et al. 2000, 2011; Davis 2013), cabbage (B. oleracea L.) (Singh et al. 2013), and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) (Mou 2005), but not in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) (White et al. 2009). The declines have been quantified as either (i) negative slopes in plots of nutrient content versus yield, versus cultivar introduction date, or (in broccoli and cabbage) versus head weight, or (2) negative correlation coefficients between the same measures. The declines resemble those caused by the dilution effect from fertilization and irrigation see [§5.1.7](https://wiki-groenkennisnet.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/CPC/pages/11993506) and Jarrell and Beverly (1981), except that the yield increases derive from selective breeding and hybridization and not from environmental factors. Thus, they may be termed “genetic dilution effects” as opposed to previously discussed “environmental dilution effects.” We also discussed selective breeding to counteract the mineral declines (genetic biofortification). But both genetic and environmental dilution effects generally decrease most or all minerals simultaneously, while breeding efforts may affect single nutrients only.  > ℹ️ **References** > ℹ️ Anandan A, Rajiv G, Eswaran R, Prakash M. 2011. Genotypic Variation and Relationships between Quality Traits and Trace Elements in Traditional and Improved Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Genotypes. Journal of Food Science 76: H122–H130. DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02135.x. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Cakmak I, Kalaycı M, Ekiz H, Braun HJ, Kılınç Y, Yılmaz A. 1999. Zinc deficiency as a practical problem in plant and human nutrition in Turkey: A NATO-science for stability project. Field Crops Research 60: 175–188. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-4290(98)00139-7. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Davis DR. 2013. Comments on “mineral concentration of broccoli florets in relation to year of cultivar release,” by Mark W. Farnham, Anthony P. Keinath, and Michael A. Grusak, in crop science 2011 51:2721-2727. Crop Science 53: 1827–1829. DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2012.10.0579le. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Farnham MW, Grusak MA, Wang M. 2000. Calcium and Magnesium Concentration of Inbred and Hybrid Broccoli Heads. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 125: 344–349. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Farnham MW, Keinath AP, Grusak MA. 2011. Mineral concentration of broccoli florets in relation to year of cultivar release. Crop Science 51: 2721–2727. DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2010.09.0556. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Garvin DF, Welch RM, Finley JW. 2006. Historical shifts in the seed mineral micronutrient concentration of US hard red winter wheat germplasm. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86: 2213–2220. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2601. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Graham RD, Welch RM, Bouis HE. 2001. Addressing micronutrient malnutrition through enhancing the nutritional quality of staple foods: Principles, perspectives and knowledge gaps In: Advances in Agronomy.77–142. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2113(01)70004-1 > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Jarrell WM, Beverly RB. 1981. The Dilution Effect in Plant Nutrition Studies In: Advances in agronomy. New York, 197–224. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60887-1 > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Monasterio I, Graham RD. 2000. Breeding for Trace Minerals in Wheat. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 21: 392–396. DOI: 10.1177/156482650002100409. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Mou B. 2005. Genetic variation of beta-carotene and lutein contents in lettuce. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 130: 870–876. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Murphy KM, Reeves PG, Jones SS. 2008. Relationship between yield and mineral nutrient concentrations in historical and modern spring wheat cultivars. Euphytica 163: 381–390. DOI: 10.1007/s10681-008-9681-x. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Oury F-X, Leenhardt F, Rémésy C, et al. 2006. Genetic variability and stability of grain magnesium, zinc and iron concentrations in bread wheat. European Journal of Agronomy 25: 177–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2006.04.011. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Reeve JR, Hoagland LA, Villalba JJ, et al. 2016. Organic farming, soil health, and food quality: Considering possible links. Elsevier Inc. DOI: 10.1016/bs.agron.2015.12.003 > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Scott MP, Edwards JW, Bell CP, Schussler JR, Smith JS. 2006. Grain composition and amino acid content en maize cultivars representing 80 years of commercial maize varieties. Maydica 51: 417–423. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Singh HP, Mahajan P, Kaur S, Batish DR, Kohli RK. 2013. Chromium toxicity and tolerance in plants. Environmental Chemistry Letters 11: 229–254. DOI: 10.1007/s10311-013-0407-5. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ Welch RM. 2002. The impact of mineral nutrients in food crops on global human health. Plant and Soil 247: 83–90. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021140122921. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ White PJ, Broadley MR. 2003. Calcium in Plants. Annals of Botany 92: 487–511. DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcg164. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ White PJ, Broadley MR. 2005. Biofortifying crops with essential mineral elements. 10. DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2005.10.001. > ℹ️ > ℹ️ White PJ, Bradshaw JE, Dale MFB, Ramsay G, Hammond JP, Broadley MR. 2009. Relationships between yield and mineral concentrations in potato tubers. HortScience 44: 6–11.