Effects of Jasmonic Acid and Humic Acid to Mitigate Drought Stress Effect During Pollination of Forage Maize

آب و خاک

Article 6, Volume 31, Issue 5 - Serial Number 55, November 2018, Pages 1396-1408   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v31i5.62540

Authors

Elham Madadi; Seyfollah Fallah^*

Shahrekord University

Abstract

Introduction: Drought stress is one of the most important limiting factors for plant growth in the arid and semi-arid regions. This stress affecting crop production such as maize (Zea mays L.). Maize can play an important role in providing forage for silage animals, especially in the winter season in most parts of Iran due to high production capability . The application of plant growth regulators such as jasmonic acid and humic acid is one of the fastest ways to increase crop tolerance to environmental stresses viz. drought stress. The role of these acids is to prevent aging and falling of leaves, hormonal effects and improve nutrient uptake, which leads to increase of root and shoot biomass. Due to the expansion of industrial livestock, maize silage supply is essential. On the other hand, maize pollination and grain filling occur in the summer season and it overlaps with the peak of water limitation. Thus, in this experiment, the effect of jasmonic acid and humic acid on morpho-physiological characteristics and water use efficiency of forage maize under drought stress were studied.
Materials and Methods: In order to investigate the effects of jasmonic acid and humic acid to mitigate the impact of drought stress during pollination of forage maize (KSC 704), an experiment was conducted in research farm of the Shahrekord University, in 2016. The experiment was performed as a split plot in a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The treatments consisted of different levels of drought stress (no drought stress (field capacity), moderate drought stress (0.75 field capacity) and severe stress (0.50 field capacity)) as main plots and plant growth regulators (without hormone, jasmonic acid and humic acid) as sub plots. In no hormone condition, distilled water was used. Foliar application was done 10 mM jasmonic acid and humic acid content of 1500 grams per hectare before maize flowering. The volume of water consumed for each irrigation was measured by contour system. In this experiment leaf relative water content (RWC), proline, chlorophyll content, carotenoids, leaf area index (LAI), leaf weight, stem weight, ear weight, forage yield and water use efficiency (WUE) were measured. The analysis of data was performed using SAS software. Mean comparisons of study characteristics were done by LSD test at the 5% probability level.
Results and Discussion: The results showed that the relative water content, proline, chlorophyll, carotenoids, leaf area index, shoot weight, ear weight, forage yield and water use efficiency were affected by drought stress conditions. Although drought stress was reduced forage yield and related traits, the use of jasmonic acid compared to the control and humic acid under mild stress was significantly increased relative water content (61.1 and 39.3 %, respectively), leaf weight (60.4 and 41.8%, respectively), stem (14.8 and 25.12%, respectively), ear weight (13 and 23.8%, respectively), proline content (16 and 32.1 %, respectively), forage yield (24.4 and 24.2%, respectively). Under severe stress conditions, jasmonic acid significantly increased relative water content of leaf, weight of leaf, weight of stem and leaf area index. Under severe drought stress, jasmonic acid and humic acid had no significant difference. It was observed that under non-stress conditions, jasmonic acid wasn’t effective on water use efficiency and humic acid showed a negative effect. Under moderate drought stress, jasmonic acid was effective with increase 21.15 %, in moderating drought stress for maize and under severe stress jasmonic acid and humic acid had no significant effect.
Conclusion: According to the results, the occurrence of drought stress during pollination has a significant effect on maize yield. So that the severe drought stress (50% soil moisture depletion) leads to decrease in yield of maize forage due to decrease weight of leaf and ear. Although the most positive results of the use of growth regulators on maize yield were obtained under non-stress (full irrigation), the effect of moderate drought stress was mainly observed on forage production on jasmonic acid. The positive effect of foliar application of jasmonic acid in reducing the damage of drought stress and increasing of water use efficiency under moderate drought stress indicated that the use of this hormone could be useful in increasing production and quality of maize silage.

Keywords

Moderate drought stress; Growth regulator; Relative water content; Water use efficiency

References

1- Altenbach S.B., Du Pont F.M., Kothari K.M., Chan R., Johnson E.L., and Lieu D. 2003. Temperature, water and fertilizer influence the timing of key events during grain development in US Spring wheat. Journal of Cereal Science, 37(1):9-20.

2- Arnon A.N. 1967. Method of extraction of chlorophyll in the plants. Agronomy Journal. 23:112-121.

3- Bates L.S., Waldren R.P., and Teare I.D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39:205-207.

4- Cakir R. 2004. Effect of water stress at different development stages on vegetative and reproductive growth of corn. Field Crops Research, 89:1-16.

5- Chougan R. 1996. Review and compare the performance and yield components of hybrid varieties of maize silage. Seed and Plant Journal, 12:36-40. (in Persian).

6- Cosculleola F., and Fact J.M. 1992. Determination of the maize (Zea mays L.) yield function in respect to water using a line source sprinkler. Field Crops. Abstract, 93:5611-5612.

7- Curran B., and Posch J. 2000. Agronomic management of silage for yield and quality: silage cutting height. Crop Insights. 10(2). Pioneer Hi-bred International .INC.

8- Deman J.M. 1999. Principles of Food Chemistry (3th ed). Aspen publishers, Inc. Maryland.

9- El-Tayeb M.A. 2005. Response of barley grain to the interactive effect of salinity and salicylic acid. Plant Growth Regulation, 45:215-225.

10- Farooq M., Wahid A., Kobayashi N., Fujita D., and Basra S.M. 2009. Plant drought stress: effects mechanisms and management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 29: 185-212.

11- Flagella Z., Rotunno T., Tarantino E., Di Caterina R., and De Caro A. 2002. Changes in seed yield and oil fatty acid composition of high oleic sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) hybrids in relation to the sowing date and the water regime. European Journal of Agronomy, 17: 221-230.

12- Forghany A., and javanmard E. 2005. Humic and fulvic acid additive effect of the different soils. 9th Congress of Iranian soil science. Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, 28-31 July. 2005. Soc., Karaj, Iran.

13- Gavloski J.E., Whitfield G.H., and Ellis C.R. 1992. Effect of restricted watering on sap flow and growth in corn (Zea mays L.). Canadian Journalof Plant Science, 72(2): 361-368.

14- Good A.G., and Zaplachiniski S.T. 1994. The effects of drought on free amino acid accumulation and protein synthesis in Brassica napus. Physiological Plantarum, 90:9-14.

15- Haghjoo M., and bohrani A. 2014. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer on grain yield, yield components and dry matter remobilization of maize cv. SC260. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 4(16):278-292. (in Persian).

16- Heuer B. 1994. Osmoregulatory role of prolin in water stress and salt-stressed plants. pp. 363-481. In: M. Pessarkli (ed.), Handbook of Plant and Crop stress. Marcel Dekker Pub, New York.

17- Khan H.U., Link W., Hhocking T., and Stoddard F. 2007. Evaluation of physiological traits for improving drought tolerance in fababean (vicia faba L.). Plant and Soil, 292:205-217.

18- Koo A.J.K., and Howe G.A. 2009. The wound hormone jasmonate. Phytochemistry, 70:1571-1580.

19- Koocheki A., and Sarmadnia G.H. 1999. Crop Physiology (Translation). ACECR of Mashhad.

20- Lamm F. 2004. Corn production as related to sprinkler irrigation capacity. 16th annual central plains irrigation conference, 17-18 Feb. 2004. Soc., Kearney, Nebraska.

21- Leoni L., Ambrosia C., Petrucca A., and Visca P. 2002. Transcriptional regulation of pseudo actin synthesis in the plant growth promoting pseudomonas B10. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 208(2): 219-225.

22- Lichtenthaler H.K., and Wellburn A.R. 1983. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochemical Society Transactions, 11(5):591-592.

23- Neisani S., Fallah S., and Raiesi F. 2012. The Effect of Poultry manure and urea on agronomic characters of forage maize under drought stress conditions. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21(4):63-74. (in Persian with English abstract).

24- Osborne S.L., Schepper J.S., Francis D.D., and Schlemmer M.R. 2002. Use of spectral radiance to in-seasen biomass and grain yield in nitrogen and water- stressed corn. Crop Science, 42:165-171.

25- Reddy, G.R.C. and S.S. Vittala. 2014. Water use efficiency through drip irrigation in water scarcity area-a case study. In: Proceedings of 4th international conference.

26- Rezaei estakhroee A., Boroomandnasab S., Hooshmand A., and Khangani M. 2012. Effects of deficit irrigation and partial root zone drying on morphological and physiological characteristics of corn. Iranian of Irrigation & Water Engineering, 2(6):67-76. (in Persian).

27- Richard G.A., Pereira S., Rae,s D., and Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. No. 56, Rome Italy.

28- Ritchie S.W., Nguyun H.T., and Holaday A.S. 1990. Leaf Water Content and Gas-Exchange Parameters of Two Wheat Genotypes Differing in Drought Resistance. Crop Science, 30(1):105-111.

29- Rubio V., Bustos R., Luisa M., Irigoyen L., Cardona-Lopez X., Rojas-Triana M., and Paz-Ares J. 2009. Plant hormones and nutrient signaling. PlantMolecular Biology, 69:361-373.

30- Samavat S., and Malakoti M.J. 2005.The necessity of using organic acids (humic and Fluvic) to increase the quantity and quality of agricultural products.Technical Bulletin 463, Soil and Water Research Institute, Press the Sana.

31- Schussler J.R., and Westgate M.E. 1991. Maize kernel set at low water potential: II. Sensitivity to reduced assimilates at pollination. Crop Science, 31(5):1196-1203.

32- Sharif M., Khattak R.A., and Sarir M.S. 2002. Effect of different levels of ligniticcoal derived humic acid on growth of maize plants. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 33:3567-3580.

33- Sheteawi S.A., and Tawfik K.M. 2007. Interaction effect of some biofertilizers and irrigation water regime on Mungbeen (Vigna radiat) growth and yield. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 3(3):251-262.

34- Stewart C.R. 1982. The physiology and Biochemistry of Drought Resistance in Plants. In: L.G. Paleg and D. Aspinall (eds.), Academic Press, New York.

35- Tambussi E.A., Bartoli C.G., Beltrano J., Guiamet J.J., and Araus J.L. 2000. Oxidative damage to thylakoids proteins in water stressed leaves of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Physiologia Plantarum, 108:398-404.

36- Tardieu F. 2005. Plant tolerance to water deficit: Physical limits and possibilities for progress.Comptes Rendus Geoscience, 337:57-67.

37- Turhan H., and Baser I. 2004. In vitro and in vivo water stress in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.). HELIA, 27:227-236.

38- Turner N.C. 1987. Crop water deficits: a decade of progress. Advances in Agronomy, 39:1-51.

39- Yang C.M., Fan M.J., and Hsiang W.M. 1993. Growth and yield respones of maize (Zeamays L.) to soil water deficits. II. Effects of water deficit timing and strength. Journal of Agricultural Research of China, 42(2):173-186.

40- Zudan X. 1986. The effect of foliar application of fulvic acid on water use, nutrient uptake and wheat yield. Australian. Journal of Agricultural Research, 37: 343-350.