اثر سطوح اسید هیومیک بر عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد لوبیا لیما (Phaseolus lunatus L.) در شرایط تنش خشکی

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

مقاله 12، دوره 7، شماره 2، دی 1395، صفحه 175-187   

نوع مقاله: مقالات پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/ijpr.v7i2.46533

نویسندگان

صدیقه بهشتی¹؛ علی تدین^{* 1}؛ سیف اله فلاح²

¹دانشگاه شهرکرد

²شهرکرد

چکیده

به‌منظور بررسی اثر سطوح مختلف تنش خشکی و محلول‌پاشی اسید ‌هیومیک بر عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد لوبیا لیما آزمایشی به‌صورت کرت‌های خُرد‌شده در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سه‌تکرار در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشگاه شهرکرد در سال زراعی 93-1392 اجرا شد. فاکتور اصلی شامل چهارسطح مختلف تنش خشکی (50، 70، 90 و 110‌ میلی‌متر تبخیر از تشتک‌تبخیر کلاس A) و فاکتور فرعی شامل محلول‌پاشی چهارسطح اسید‌ هیومیک (صفر، 1، 3 و 6‌ لیتر در هکتار) بود. در این آزمایش صفات تعداد غلاف در بوته، طول، عرض و وزن غلاف، تعداد دانه در غلاف، وزن صد‌دانه، عملکرد دانه و شاخص برداشت مورد‌بررسی قرار گرفتند. نتایج نشان‌داد تنش خشکی باعث کاهش معنی‌دار همة صفات مورد‌بررسی به‌جُز عرض غلاف گردید. اسید هیومیک نیز باعث افزایش معنی‌دار تعداد غلاف، طول غلاف، وزن صد‌دانه، عملکرد و شاخص‌ برداشت گردید؛ درحالی‌که بر عرض و وزن غلاف و تعداد دانه در غلاف تأثیر معنی‌داری نداشت. اثر متقابل تنش خشکی و محلول‌پاشی اسید‌ هیومیک بر تعداد غلاف، وزن صد‌دانه، عملکرد و شاخص برداشت معنی‌دار بود، ولی در سایر صفات تفاوت معنی‌داری ایجاد نکرد. استفاده از اسید هیومیک در شرایط تنش خشکی (70میلی‌متر تبخیر) در نهایت باعث افزایش عملکرد (46‌درصد) و شاخص برداشت (18درصد) گردید. این افزایش برآیند افزایش تعداد غلاف (متعاقباً افزایش تعداد دانه در بوته) و وزن دانه‌هاست که از مهم‌ترین صفات مورد‌توجه در گیاهان دانه‌ای محسوب می‌شوند.

واژه‌های کلیدی: شاخص برداشت، کم‌آبیاری، محلول‌پاشی، مواد آلی

کلیدواژه‌ها

شاخص برداشت؛ کم‌آبیاری؛ محلول‌پاشی؛ مواد آلی

مراجع

1. Abdel-Mawgoud, A.M.R., El-GreadlyHelmy, N.H.M., Helmy, Y.I., and Singer, S.M. 2007. Responses of tomato plants to different rates of humic based fertilizer and NPK fertilization. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 3(2): 169-174.

2. Amiri-Dehahmadi, S.R., Parsa, M., Nezami, A., and Ganjali, A. 2009. Effects of water stress at different phenological stages on the growth indexes of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under greenhouse condition. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research 1(2): 69-84. (In Persian).

3. Bagheri, A., Mahmudi, A., and Ghezeli, F.d. 2001. Common Beans, Research for Crop Improvement. Mashhad University Jihad Press. (In Persian)

4. Bandani, M., Mobasser, H.R., and Sirusmehr, A. 2014. Effect of organic fertilizer on length of pod, biological yield and number of seeds per pod in mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 8(7): 763-766.

5. Beebe, S.E., Rao, I.M., Blair, M.W., and Acosta- Gallegos, J.A. 2013. Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Journal of Frontiers in Plant Physiology 4)35(: 1-20.

6. Beebe, S., Ramirez, J., Jarvis, A., Rao, I.M., Mosquera, G., Bueno, J.M., and Blair, W. 2011. Genetic Improvement of Common Beans and the Challenges of Climate Change. In: S.S. Yadav, R.J. Redden, J.L. Hatfield, H.L. Campen & A.E. Hall (Eds.). Crop Adaptation to Climate Change, First Edition. 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2011 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. P. 356-369.

7. Cavani, L., Ciavatta, C., and Gessa, C., 2003. Identification of organic matter from peat, leonardite and lignite fertilizers using humification parameters and electrofocusing. Bioresour Technology 86: 45-52.

8. 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 Sustain 25: 183-191.

9. Ebrahimi, M., Behamta, M., Hoseinzadeh, A., Khialparast, F., and Gholbashi, M. 2010. Evaluation of yield, yield components and some agronomic traits of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes under climatic conditions of Karaj. Journal of Agroecology 2(1): 134-150. (In Persian with English Summary).

10. Ehdaie, B., Alloush, G.A., Madore, M.A., and Waines, J.G. 2006. Genotypic variation for stem reserves and mobilization in wheat: I. postanthesis changes in internode dry matter. Journal of Crop Science 46: 735-746.

11. Emam, Y., and Niknejad, M. 2004. An Introduction to the Physiology of Crop Yield. (Translation) Shiraz University Publication (In Persian).

12. Falah, S. 2009. Agricultural (General and Specialized) (Translation). Shahrekord University Publications 200 pp. (In Persian).

13. Gerardine, M., Butare, L., Cregan, P.B., Blai, M.W., and Kelly J.D. 2013. Quantitative trait loci associated with drought tolerance in common bean. Journal of Crop Science 54: 923-938.

14. Giasuddin, A.B.M., Kanel, S., and Choi, H. 2007. Adsorption of humic acid onto nanoscale zerovalent iron and its effect on arsenic removal. Journal of Environment Science Technology 41(6): 2022-2027.

15. Habibi, G., and Bihamta, M.R. 2007. Study of seed yield and some traits associated with pinto bean under reduced irrigation. Journal of Research and Conservation in Agriculture and Horticulture 74: 34-46. (In Persian).

16. Hagh-Parast, M., Maleki Farahani, S., Masoud Sinaki, J., and Zare, G.H. 2012. Reduction of negative effects of dry tension and stress in chickpea with the application of humic acid and seaweed extract. Journal of ‍Production of Agricultural Plants in Environmental Stresses 4(1): 59-71. (In Persian with English Summary).

17. Hasanzade-Valuie, M. 1994. Effect of foliar application time of humic acid on the yield, component yield protein and nitrogen remobilization and dry matter of two wheat cultivars. MSc. Thesis. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary).

18. Jahan, M., Sohrabi, R., Doaei, F., and Amiri, M.B. 2012. Effect of soil moisture superabsorbent hydrogel and foliar application of humic acid on some of agro-ecological characteristics of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Mashhad. Journal of Ecological Agriculture 6 (In Press). (In Persian with English Summary).

19. Kafi, M., Zand, E., Kamkar, B., Mahdavi Damghani, A.A., Abasi, F., and Sharifi, H. 2007. Plant Physiology. Vol. I Mashhad Jahad-e- Daneshgahi Publication. 732 pp. (In Persian).

20. Khoshvaghti, H. 2006. Effect of water limitation on growth pattern, grain filling and yield of three pinto bean cultivars. MSc. Thesis. Tabriz University, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary).

21. Koocheki, A., and Alizadeh, A. 1996. Principles of Agriculture in Arid Regoin. (Translation) Astan Quds Razavi Publications. 270 pp (In Persian).

22. Larcher, W. 2001. Physiological Plant Ecology. Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg Germany.

23. Mohsen-Nia, O., and Jalilian, J. 2011. The effect of water stress and fertilizer sources on the yield and yield components of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Journal of Agroecology 4(3): 235-245. (In Persian with English Summary).

24. Moradi, A., Ahmadi, A., and Hossein- zadeh, A. 2008. Agro-physiological responses of mung bean (cv. Partov) to severe and moderate drought stress applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Journal of Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Water and Soil Science 12(45): 659-671. (In Persian with English Summary).

25. Nardi, S., Pizzeghello, D., Muscolo, A., and Vianello, A. 2002. Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34: 1527-1536.

26. Pandy, R.K., Marienville, J.W., and Adum, A. 2000. Deficit irrigation and nitrogen effect on maize in a sahelian environment I. Grain yield components. Journal Agricultural Water Management 46: 1-13.

27. Roshdi, M., Boyaghchi, D., and Rezadoost, S. 2011. The effect of micronutrients on growth and yield of chiti bean under water deficit treatments. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 2(5): 131-141. (In Persian with English Summary).

28. Saeedi, M., and Moradi, F. 2010. Effects of water stress after pollination on remobilization of carbohydrates solution from the last and second last internode in the developing grains of two cultivars of bread wheat. Iranian Journal of Crop Science 3: 548-564. (In Persian with English Summary).

29. Saini, H.S., and Westgate, M.E. 2000. Reoroductive development in grain crops during drought. Advances in Agronomy 68: 59-95.

30. Szilagyi, L. 2003. Influence of drought on seed yield components in common beanbulg. Journal Plant Phisiology. Special Issue: 320-330.

31. Taleei, A., Postini, C., and Davazdahemami, S. 2008. Effect of plant density on some physiological characteristics of Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Agricultural Sciences 31(3): 477-488. (In Persian).

32. Ullah, A., Bakht, J., Shafi, M., and Islam, W.A. 2002. Effect of various irrigations levels on different chickpea varieties. Asian Journal of Plant Science 4: 355-357.

33. Veisipoor, A., Majidi, M.M., and Mirlohi, A.F. 2013. Response of physiological traits to drought stress in some varieties of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia). Iranian Journal of Rangelands and Forests Plant Breeding and Genetic Research 21(1): 87-102. (In Persian with English Summary).

34. Winnyfred, A., Nkalubo, S.T., Gibson, P., Edema, R., and Ochwo-Ssemakula, M. 2014. Genetics of drought tolerance in common bean genotypes adapted to Ugandan conditions. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 7(1): 18-27.

35. Zhu, J.K. 2002. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annual Review. Plant Biology 53: 247-316.