Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35025919›Full record

ArticlePloS one

Organic dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) biofortification for better human health.

Dil Thavarajah, Tristan J Lawrence, Sarah E Powers, Joshua Kay, Pushparajah Thavarajah, Emerson Shipe, Rebecca McGee, Shiv Kumar, Rick Boyles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Dil ThavarajahPlant and Environmental Sciences, Pulse Quality and Nutritional Breeding, Biosystems Research Complex, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4251-7476
Tristan J LawrencePlant and Environmental Sciences, Pulse Quality and Nutritional Breeding, Biosystems Research Complex, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0899-0136
Sarah E PowersPlant and Environmental Sciences, Pulse Quality and Nutritional Breeding, Biosystems Research Complex, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.
Joshua KayPlant and Environmental Sciences, Pulse Quality and Nutritional Breeding, Biosystems Research Complex, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3639-6508
Pushparajah ThavarajahPlant and Environmental Sciences, Pulse Quality and Nutritional Breeding, Biosystems Research Complex, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.
Emerson ShipePlant and Environmental Sciences, Pulse Quality and Nutritional Breeding, Biosystems Research Complex, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, United States of America.
Rebecca McGeeUSDA Agriculture Research Service, Grain Legume Genetics and Physiology Research Unit, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, United States of America.
Shiv KumarBiodiversity and Crop Improvement Program, International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Rabat, Morocco.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8407-3562
Rick BoylesPlant and Environmental Sciences, PeeDee Research and Education Center, Florence, South Carolina, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A primary criticism of organic agriculture is its lower yield and nutritional quality compared to conventional systems. Nutritionally, dry pea (Pisum sativum L.) is a rich source of low digestible carbohydrates, protein, and micronutrients. This study aimed to evaluate dry pea cultivars and advanced breeding lines using on-farm field selections to inform the development of biofortified organic cultivars with increased yield and nutritional quality. A total of 44 dry pea entries were grown in two USDA-certified organic on-farm locations in South Carolina (SC), United States of America (USA) for two years. Seed yield and protein for dry pea ranged from 61 to 3833 kg ha-1 and 12.6 to 34.2 g/100 g, respectively, with low heritability estimates. Total prebiotic carbohydrate concentration ranged from 14.7 to 26.6 g/100 g. A 100-g serving of organic dry pea provides 73.5 to 133% of the recommended daily allowance (%RDA) of prebiotic carbohydrates. Heritability estimates for individual prebiotic carbohydrates ranged from 0.27 to 0.82. Organic dry peas are rich in minerals [iron (Fe): 1.9-26.2 mg/100 g; zinc (Zn): 1.1-7.5 mg/100 g] and have low to moderate concentrations of phytic acid (PA:18.8-516 mg/100 g). The significant cultivar, location, and year effects were evident for grain yield, thousand seed weight (1000-seed weight), and protein, but results for other nutritional traits varied with genotype, environment, and interactions. "AAC Carver," "Jetset," and "Mystique" were the best-adapted cultivars with high yield, and "CDC Striker," "Fiddle," and "Hampton" had the highest protein concentration. These cultivars are the best performing cultivars that should be incorporated into organic dry pea breeding programs to develop cultivars suitable for organic production. In conclusion, organic dry pea has potential as a winter cash crop in southern climates. Still, it will require selecting diverse genetic material and location sourcing to develop improved cultivars with a higher yield, disease resistance, and nutritional quality.

Indexed as

BiofortificationNutritive ValueGenotypeHumansMineralsPhytic AcidPisum sativumPlant BreedingPrebioticsStarchMineralsPhytic AcidPrebioticsStarch

Identifiers

PMID35025919
PMCPMC8757916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.