Assess the Effect of Humic Acid Foliar Application on the Seed yield Its Components of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) under Low Irrigation Conditions in Iran (Southern Khuzestan)
Subject Areas : Journal of Crop Nutrition ScienceAli Sobhani 1 , Alireza Shokoufar 2
1 - MSc. Graduated, Department of Agronomy, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.
Keywords: Crop production, Nutrition, Organic matter, Pulse, Water stress,
Abstract :
BACKGROUND: Water is the limiting factor for the production of agricultural products in arid and semi-arid climatic conditions, including Iran, and its optimal use is very important. The use of natural fertilizers, including humic acid without harmful environmental effects, can be effective to increase yield. OBJECTIVES: Current study was done to investigate the effect of different levels of low irrigation and humic acid foliar application on cowpea crop production. METHODS: This research was conducted according split plot experiment based on randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The main factor included different levels of low irrigation (I1:70 or control, I2: 90, I3: 110 and I4: 130 mm of evaporation from the surface of the Class A evaporation pan) and secondary factor included different amounts of humic acid fertilizer (F1: none use or control, F2:4 lit.ha-1, F3: 6 lit.ha-1). RESULT: The difference between different levels of low irrigation and humic acid in terms of plant height, pod length, number of sub-branches, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, weight of 1000 seeds, seed yield, biological yield and harvest index are statistically significant at the probability level of 1% was significant. The interaction effect of treatments on plant height and number of pods per plant was significant at 1% probability level and pod length, 1000 seed weight and seed yield was significant at 5% probability level. The highest seed yield belonged to the irrigation treatment of 70 mm evaporation and foliar spraying with 6 lit.ha-1 with an average yield of 3755 kg.ha-1. The lowest seed yield was obtained from the irrigation treatment of 130 mm of evaporation and without foliar spraying with an average of 987 kg.ha-1. The highest and lowest harvest index belonged to the irrigation treatment of 70 and 130 mm of evaporation pan, respectively (with an average of 41.25 and 25.67%). CONCLUSION: Based on the results of the research, foliar application of 6 lit.ha-1 of humic acid at different levels of low irrigation increased seed yield compared to the control (no foliar application).
Aminifar J., M. H. Biglouei, G. Mohsenabad. and H. Samiezadeh. 2012. Effect of deficit irri-gation on quantitative and qualitative yield of seven soybean cultivars in rasht region. Electronic J. Crop Prod. 5(2): 93-109.
Ayas, H. and F. Gulser. 2005. The effects of sulfur and humic acid on yield components and macronutrient contents of spinach (Spinacia Oleracea Var. Spinoza). J. Biol. Sci. 5 (6): 801-804.
Bashteni, A. 1997. Study of plant density effects on bean yield and yield components. M.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. 82p.
Bayat, A. A., A. Sepehri, G. Ahmadvand. and H. R. Dorri. 2010. Effect of water deficit stress on yield and yield components of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Iranian J. Crop Sci. 12(1): 42-54.
Beheshti, S., A. Tadayyon. and S. Fallah. 2017. Effect of Humic acid on the yield and yield components of Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) under drought stress conditions. Iranian J. Pulses Res. 7(2)2: 175-187.
Beheshti, S. and A. Tadayyon. 2018. Effects of drought stress and humic acid on some physio-logical parameters of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L). J. Plant Process and Function. 6(19): 1-14.
Benjamin, J. 2007. Effects of water stress on corn production. USDA Agricultural Res. Service. Akron Univ. 3-5.
Boyer, J. S. and H. G. Mcpherson. 1998. Physiology water deficit in cereal crops. Agron. J. 27: 1-23.
Bronick, E. J. and R. Lai. 2005. Soil structure and management. A review. Geoderma. 124: 3-22.
Chamani, F., N. Khodabande, D. Habibi, A. Asgharzade. and M. Davoodi Fard. 2012. Ef-fects of salinity stress on yield and yield components of inoculated wheat by plant growth pro-moting bacteria (Azotobacter chroocccum, Azospirillum lipoferum, and Pseudomonase putida) and humic acid. J. Agron. Plant Breed. 8(1): 25-37.
Cheong, Y. H., K. N. Kim, G. K. Pandey, R. Gupta, J. J. Grant. and S. Luan. 2003. CLB1. a calcium sensor that differentially regulates salt, drought, and cold responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 15: 1833-1845.
Cox, W. J. 1996. Whole-plant physiological and yield response to plant density. Agron. J. 88: 489-496.
Dadnia, M. R. 2017. Effect of humic acid on activity of antioxidant enzymes and yield of Cas-tor Bean (Ricinus commonis) under water deficit condition. J. Crop Eco-Physiol. 11(1): 85-98.
Davoodi, S. H., A. Rahemi Karizaki, A. Nakhzari Moghadam. and E. Gholamalipour Alamdari. 2018. The effect of deficit irrigation on yield and physiological traits of Bean culti-vars. Plant Prod. Tech. 18(1): 83-95.
El-Bassiony, A. M., Z. F. Fawzy, M. M. H. Abd El- Baky. and R. Mahmoud Asmaa. 2010. Response of snap bean plants to mineral fertilizers and humic acid application. Res. J. Agri. Biol. Sci. 6(2): 169-175.
Emadi, N., H. R. Balohchi. and Sh. Jahanbin. 2012. Effect of drought stress and plant density on yield, yield components and some morphological characters of Pinto bean (cv. C.O.S16) in Yasouj region. Crop Prod. 5(2)2: 1-18.
Emam, Y. and Gh. Ranjbar. 2000. Effect of plant density and drought stress in vegetative growth on yield, traits of yield and water use efficiency in grain Corn. Iranian J. Crop Sci. 2 (3): 510-562.
Erkossa, T., K. Stah. and G. Tabo. 2002. Integration of organic and inorganic fertilizers: effect on vegetable productivity. Ethiopian Agri. Res. Org. Debre Zeit. EIAR. 82: 247-256.
Fadaiean, M. R. 1996. The effect of different levels of irrigation on growth indicators. Grain yield and water use efficiency in sorghum and corn. Msc. Agri. School of Agri. Khorasan Islamic Azad University.
Gayathri, B. and C. A. Srinivasamurthy. 2016. Effect of different levels and sources of humic acid extracted from organic wastes on soil properties, growth, yield and nutrient uptake by maize. Mysore J. Agri. Sci. 50(2): 463-468.
Gergis Dawood, M., Y. Refaai Abdel-Baky, M. El-Sayed El-Awadi. and G. Sh. Bakhoum. 2019. Enhancement quality and quantity of faba bean plants grown under sandy soil conditions by nicotinamide and/or humic acid application. Bulletin of the Natl. Res. Center. 1-8.
Ghafari, M. and H. Pashapour. 2006. Evaluation of sunflower cultivars and lines under drought stress conditions. Scientific and applied conference of vegetable oil industry. Tehran. Iran.
Giasuddin, A. B. M., S. Kanel. and H. Choi. 2007. Adsorption of humic acid onto nanoscale zerovalent iron and its effect on arsenic removal. J. Environment Sci. Tech. 41(6): 2022-2027.
Gohari AbdZad, A. and O. Sadeghipour. 2019. Effect of deficit irrigation and humic acid on yield and water use efficiency in Common Bean. J. Water Res. Agri. 33(3): 383-395.
Goksoy, A. T., A. O. Demir, Z. M. Turan. and N. Daustu. 2004. Responses of Sunflower to full and limited irrigation at different growth stages. Field Crop Res. 87: 167-178.
Hashemi Dezfuli, A. 2008. Crop Physiology. Chamran University of Ahwaz.
Hosseinzadeh, H., H. M. Mobaser, A. Amiri. and A. Abdzad Gohri. 2011. Reaction of bean plant under different amounts of irrigation management and nitrogen fertilizer. The Sixth Natl. Conf. New Ideas Agri. Islamic Azad University. Khorasgan Branch. 110 pp.
Jahan, M., R. Sohrabi, F. Doaei. and M. B. Amiri. 2017. Effect of soil moisture superabsor-bent hydrogel and foliar application of humic acid on some of Agro-Ecological characteristics of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Mashhad. J. Ecol. Agri. 8(2)16: 71-90.
Jaleel, C. A., P. Manivannan, A. Wahid, M. Farooq, R. Somasundaram. and R. Pan-neerselvam. 2009. Drought stress in plants: A review on morphological characteristics and pig-ments composition. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Engineering. 11: 100–105.
Jalota, S., A. Sood, J. Vitale. and R. Srinivasan. 2007. Simulated crop yields response to irriga-tion water and economic analysis. Agron. J. 99 (4): 1073-1084.
Jazizadeh, E. and F. Mortezaiee Nejad. 2017. Effects of water stress on morphological and physiological indices of Cichorium intybus L. for introduction in urban landscapes. J. Plant Pro-cess and Function. 6(21): 279-290.
Kalamian, S., S. A. M. Modarres Sonavy. and A. Sepehri. 2005. Effect of water deficit stress on reproductive and vegetative growth in commercial and leafy hybrids of corn. Agri. Res. Wa-ter, Soil and Plant in Agri. 5: 38-53.
Khoshvaghti, H. 2006. Effect of water limitation on growth pattern, grain filling and yield of three pinto bean cultivars. MSc. Thesis. Tabriz University, Iran.
Kocheki, A., M. Hosseini. and M. Nasiri Mahalati. 1993. Water and soil relationship in crops. Publications University of Mashhad. 111 pp.
Koocheki, A. and M. Bayan Aval. 2007. Cultivation of legumes. Mashhad University Press. 236 pp.
Lalinia, A. A., N. Majnon Hoseini, N. Galostian, M. Esmaeilzadeh Bahabadi. and M. Mare-fatzadeh Khameneh. 2012. Echo physiological impact of water stress on growth and develop-ment of Mung bean. Intl. J. Agron. Plant Prod. 3: 599-607.
Larcher. W. 2003. Physiological plant ecology: Ecophysiology and stress physiology of func-tional groups, 4th. Edition. Springer. New York. USA. 514p.
Mahlouji, M., S. F. Mousavizadeh. and H. Karimi. 2001. Effect of drought stress and sowing date on Pinto bean grain yield and yield components. J. Agric. Nat. Res. Sci. Tech. 4: 57-67.
Mendham, N. J. and P. A. Salisbury. 1995. Physiology. Crop development. Growth and yield in: Kimbers, D. and Mc Greagor. D. I (Eds). CAB international. 11-67.
Mirhajian, A. 2012. What is humic acid? Monthly Analytical News, Educational Agricultural Engineering. 33: 7-16.
Moradi, A., A. Ahmadi. and A. Hossein-Zadeh. 2008. Agro-physiological responses of mung bean (cv. Partov) to severe and moderate drought stress applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. J. Sci. Tech. Agri. Nat. Res, Water and Soil Sci. 12(45): 659-671.
Mozaffari, S. and H. Gorgini Shabankareh. 2016. Effects of Irrigation content based on field capacity percent and Humic acid on morphophysiological traits on medicinal plant (Portulaca oleracea L). 9(3): 153-175.
Naderi, S., D. Pizzeghello, A. Muscolo. and A. Vianello. 2002. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants, Soil Biol. 34: 1527-1536.
Palmer, J. E., J. Dunphy. and P. Reese. 1995. Managing drought- stressed soybeans in the southeast. North Carolina cooperative extension service as publication number AG-519-12.
Pazoki, A. R. 2016. Effects of humic acid and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) on yield and yield components of durum wheat under drought stress condition in Shahr-e-Rey re-gion. Cereal Res. 6(1): 105-117.
Pessarakli, M. 2001. Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology. Second Edition, Marcel Dekker Inc. New York. USA. 997.
Popescu, G, C. and M. Popescu. 2018. Yield, berry quality and physiological response of grapevine to foliar humic acid application. Crop Production and management. 77(2): 273-282.
Rahi, A. R., M. Davoodi Fard, F. Azizi. and D. Habibi. 2012. Effects of different amounts of humic acid and response curves in the Dactylis glomerata. J. Agri. Plant Breed. 8(3): 15-28.
Rahimzadeh, M., E. Soltani, A. Kashani, A. Zare Feyz Abadi. and H. Madani. 2010. Effect of micronutrient fertilizers on Sunflower growth and yield in drought stress condition. Electronic J. CROP Prod. 3(1): 57-72.
Sadeghipour, O. and P. Aghaei. 2012. Response of common bean to exogenous application of salicylic asid under water stress conditions. Environmental Biol. 6: 1160-1168.
Saeidi Aboueshaghi, R., A. R. Yadavi, M. Movahhedi Dehnavi. and H. R. Baluch. 2014. Ef-fect of irrigation intervals and foliar application of iron and zinc on some physiological and mor-phological characteristics of Red bean (Phaseolous vulgaris L). J. Plant Process and Function. 3(7): 27-42.
Shabani, R. and M. Armin. 2017. The effect of foliar application of urea and humic acid in rain-fed conditions on yield and yield components of chickpea. Crop Sci. Res. Arid Region. 1(1)1: 77-88.
Tadayyon, M. R. 2009. Physiological responses of plants to environmental stresses. Shahrekord University Press. 214 p.
Taleei, A., C. Postini. and S. Davazdahemami. 2008. Effect of plant density on some physio-logical characteristics of Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Agri. Sci. 31(3): 477-488.
Torabi Jefrodi, A., A. Hasanzade. and A. Fayaz. 2008. Effect of plant population on some morpho-physiological characteristics of two Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivar. J. Pajohesh. Sazandegi. 74: 63-71. (Abstract in English)
Veisi, A., B. Passari. and A. Rokhzadi. 2019. Investigating the effect of humic acid and micro-nutrient nano fertilizers on the response of rainfed Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in autumn culti-vation. Crop Physiol. J. 10(40): 93-110.
Yuan, T., J. Wang, X. Sun, J. Yan, Z. Wang. and J. Niu. 2017. Effect of combined applica-tion of humic acid and nitrogen fertilizer on nitrogen uptake, utilization and yield of winter wheat. Chinese J. Eco-Agri. 3: 74-82.
Zabet, M. and A. H. Hoseinzadeh. 2011. Determination of the most effective traits on yield in mung bean (Vigna radiata L. wilczek) by multivariate analysis in stress and non-stress conditions. Iranian J. Pulses Res. 2(1)1: 87-98.
Zhang, X., E. H. Ervin. and R. E. Schmidt. 2003. Physiological effect of liquid applications of a Seaweed extracts and Humic acid on Creeping. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 128(4): 492-496.
Ziaiee, S. M., H. R. Khazaiee. and A. Nezami. 2017. Investigation the effect of different levels of irrigation on morph physiological and biochemical traits in five genotypes of Mung bean (Vigna radiate L). 9(34): 5-21.