Effect of humic acid on grain yield and yield components in chickpea under different irrigation levels

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Agricultural Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

In order to investigate the effect of soil application of humic acid on grain yield and yield components inchickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), an experiment was conducted as factorial based on randomized complete block design with three replications in 2016 and 2017. Factors were irrigation at two levels of full irrigation and drought stress (20% of full irrigation from flowering to harvesting) and humic acid at four levels of 0, 2.5, 5 and 7.5 mg per pot. The results showed that drought stress reduced dry weight of leaf, number of grains and pods, total dry weight and grain yield. Application of humic acid in two years increased the value of all studied traits under full irrigation. In the first year, application of 2.5 and 5 mg humic acid increased 1000-grain weight, and total and leaf dry weight under drought stress conditions, respectively. In the second year, with higher consumption of humic acid, grain yield, total dry weight and harvest index increased significantly under drought stress conditions. Application of 7.5 mg humic acid in the second year, produced the highest proline under optimum irrigation (393.10 mg kg-1 DW) and drought stress (507.90 mg kg-1 DW) conditions.

Keywords

References

Abdel-Mawgoud AMR, El-Greadly NHM, Helmy YI and Singer SM, 2007. Responses of tomato plants to different rates of humic-based fertilizer and NPK fertilization. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(2): 169-174. 
Albayrak S and Camas N, 2014. Effect of different levels and application times of humic acid on root and leaf yield and yield components of forage turnip (Brassica rapa L.). Journal of Agronomy 4(2): 130-133.
Barzegar T, Moradi P, Nikbakht J, Ghahremani Z, 2016. Physiological response of okra cv. Kano to foliar application of putrescine and humic acid under water deficit stress. International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology 3(2): 187-197.
Bates LS, 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205-207.
Beheshti S and Tadayyon A, 2017. Effects of drought stress and humic acid on some physiological parameters of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.).  Journal of Plant Process and Function 6(19): 1-14 (In Persian with English abstract).
Beheshti S, Tadayyon A and Falah S, 2016. Effect of humic acid on the yield and yield components of Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) under drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 7(2): 175-187.
Ben Ahmed C, Ben Rouina B, Sensoy S,  Boukhriss M and Ben Abdullah F, 2010. Exogenous proline effects on photosynthetic performance and antioxidant defense system of young olive trees. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58(7): 4216-4222.
Cacco G, Attina E, Gelsomino A and Sidari M, 2000. Effect of nitrate and humic substances of different molecular size on kinetic parameters of nitrate uptake in wheat seedlings. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 163(3): 313-320.
Celik H, Katkat AV, Asik BB and Turan MA, 2011. Effect of foliar-applied humic acid to dry weight and mineral nutrient uptake of maize under calcareous soil conditions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42(1): 29-38. 
Chen Y and Aviad T, 1990. Effects of humic substances on plant growth. In: MacCarthy P, Clapp CE, Malcolm RL and Bloom PR (eds.) Humic Substances in Soil and Crop Sciences: Selected Readings. Pp. 161-186. ASA, SSSA, Madison, WI, USA.
Danyali SF, Moghaddam Vahed M, Aalavikia SS, Samizadeh Lahiji H and Norouzi M, 2019
Effects of drought on expression patterns of genes encoding the antioxidant enzymes associated with chloroplasts in wheat. Biologia Plantarum 63: 575-585.
Daryanto S, Wang L and Jacinthe PA, 2015. Global synthesis of drought effects on food legume production. PLoS One 10: e0127401. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127401.
Davies G, Ghabbour EA, Jansen S and Varnum J, 1995. Humic acids are versatile natural polymers. In: Prasad PN, Mark JE and Fai TJ (eds.) Polymers and Other Advanced Materials: Emerging Technologies and Business Opportunities. Pp. 677- 685. Springer, Netherlands.
Delfine S, Tognetti R, Desiderio E and Alvino A, 2005. Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth and yield of durum wheat. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 25(2): 183-191.
El-Ghamry AM, Abd El-Hai KM and Ghoneem KM, 2009. Amino and humic acids promote growth, yield and disease resistance of Faba bean cultivated in clayey soil. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 3(2): 731-739.
FAO, 2016. Yearbook production. FAO Publication, Rome, Italy.
Gad El-Hak SH, Ahmed AM and Moustafa YMM, 2012. Effect of foliar application with two antioxidants and humic acid on growth, yield and yield components of peas (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Horticultural Science and Ornamental Plants 4(3): 318-328.
HaghParast M, Maleki Farahani S, Sinaki JM and Zarei GH, 2012. Mitigation of drought stress in chickpea through application of humic acid and seaweed extract. Crop Production in Environmental Stress 4(1): 59-71 (In Persian with English abstract).
Jahan M, Sohrabi R, Doayee F and Amiri MB, 2013.  Effect of super absorbent water application in soil and humic acid foliar application on some agroecological characteristics of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Mashhad (Iran). Journal of Agroecology 3(2): 71-90 (In Persian with English abstract).
Jindo K, Soares TS, Peres LEP, Azevedo IG, Aguiar NO, Mazzei P, Spaccini R, Piccolo A, Olivares FL and Canellas LP, 2016. Phosphorus speciation and high-affinity transporters are influenced by humic substances. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 179(2): 206-214.
Johansen C, Krishnamurthy L, Saxena NP and Sethi SC, 1994. Genotypic variation in moisture response of chickpea grown under line–sources sprinklers in a semi-arid tropical environment. Field Crops Research 37(2): 103-112.
Kaur G and Asthir B, 2015. Proline: a key player in plant abiotic stress tolerance. Biologia Plantarum 59(4): 609-619. 
Khaled H and Fawy HA, 2011. Effect of different levels of humic acids on the nutrient content, plant growth, and soil properties under conditions of salinity. Soil and Water Research 6(1): 21–29.
Kuznetsov VI and Shevyakova NI, 1999. Proline under stress: biological role, metabolism, and regulation. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology 46(2): 274-287.
Liu C, Cooper RJ and Bowman DC, 1998. Humic acid application affects photosynthesis, root development and nutrient content of creeping bentgrass. HortScience 33(6): 1023-1025.
Mohsen Nia O and Jalilian J, 2012. Effect of drought stress and fertilizer sources on the yield and yield components of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Agroecology 4(3): 235-245 (In Persian with English abstract).
Munns R, 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant, Cell and Environment 25: 239-250.
Nakhzari Moghaddam A, Parsa N, Sabouri H and Bakhtiari S, 2017. The effect of humic acid, plant density and supplementary irrigation on quantity and quality of local chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) of Neishabur.  Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences 10(2): 183-192 (In Persian with English abstract).
Osman ASh and Rady MM, 2012. Ameliorative effects of sulphur and humic acid on the growth, anti-oxidant levels, and yields of pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants grown in reclaimed saline soil. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 87(6): 626-632.
Rady Mostafa M, 2011. Effects on growth, yield, and fruit quality in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) using a mixture of potassium humate and farmyard manure as an alternative to mineral-N fertilizer. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 86(3): 249-254.
Raei Y, Demaghsi N and Seyed Sharifi R, 2008. Effect of different levels of irrigation and plant density on grain yield and its components in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Desi type cv. Kaka. Iranian Journal of Crop Science 9(4): 371-381 (In Persian with English abstract).
Saeed A and Darvishzadeh R, 2017. Association analysis of biotic and abiotic stresses resistance in chickpea (Cicer spp.) using AFLP markers. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment 31(4): 698-708.
Saini HS and Westgate ME, 2000.  Reproductive development in grain crops during drought. Advances in Agronomy 68: 59-95.
Sanchez FJ, Manzanares M, de-Andres EF, Tenorio JL and Ayerbe L, 1998. Turgor maintenance, osmotic adjustment and soluble sugar and proline accumulation in 49 pea cultivars in response to water stress. Field Crops Research 59(3): 225-235.
Saruhan V, Kusvuran A and Babat S, 2011. The effect of different humic acid fertilization on yield and yield components performances of common millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Scientific Research and Essays 6(3): 663-669.
Souza RP, Machadoa EC, Silva JAB, Lagoa AMMA and Silveira JAG, 2004. Photosynthetic gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence and some associated metabolic changes in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) during water stress and recovery. Environmental and Experimental Botany 51: 45-56.
Tahir MM, Khurshid M, Khan MZ, Abbasi MK and Kazmi MH, 2011. Lignite-derived humic acid effect on growth of wheat plants in different soils. Pedosphere 21(1): 124-131.
Tavakoli M, Poustini K and Alizadeh H, 2016. Proline accumulation and related genes in wheat leaves under salinity stress. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 18: 707-716.
Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding
Volume 9, Issue 2
December 2019
Pages 19-29

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics