Effect of Humic acid on the yield and yield components of Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) under drought stress conditions

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

• Sedighe Beheshti ¹
• Ali Tadayyon ²
• Seyfollah Fallah ²

¹ Sharekord

² Shahrekord

10.22067/ijpr.v7i2.46533

Abstract

Introduction
Drought stress is one of the most yield reduction factor of lima bean where effects on the more than 60% of bean world production. In this regard, solutions that help increase productivity with high water efficiency in this region can change the agricultural crop production. One of the solutions is using organic materials (acid humic). Humic acid with linkage of water molecules and folic acid and penetration into plant tissues link to water molecules reduce evaporation and transpiration and finally helps inner plant water.

Materials and Methods
In order to evaluate the effects of humic acid on yield and yield components of lima bean under water stress conditions, a field experiment was conducted as split plot arrangement in RCBD design with three replications at the Research Station of Shahrekord University in year 1994. Main factors include four treatments of water deficit (irrigation after 50, 70, 90 and 110 mm evaporation from evaporate pan of class A) and sub factor include four levels of humic acid (0, 1, 3, and 6 lit/ha). For this purpose, a semi-deep plowing in the spring then by the two vertical discs were leveling land and finally by furrower created 80 cm row width. Lima bean seeds were prepared by Pars Khomein Company. Seeds were planted in the wet soil. In this way, sterilized seeds were planted in both side of 80 cm width row with 20 cm row plant space in depth of 5 cm at plots area of 3×4 m2. During the plant growth period, the plots were irrigated by furrow irrigation, hand weeding were applied through the experiment. Chemical fertilizers were applied based on the soil test analysis and plant requirements. After achieving the desired density and complete plant establishment, where the plants had two stem nodes, irrigation treatment were applied as cumulative evaporation from class A evaporation pan, and this trend continued until harvest. Humic acid used in the composition of the liquid phase include 12% of humic acid, 3% of folic acid and 3% of potassium oxide. The recommended concentration of humic acid (1, 3, and 6 lit/ha) before flowering was applied two times within two weeks. Plants were harvested when the pods reach 80 to 90% maturity. After harvesting the plants for measurements number of pods per plant, length, width and weight of pods, number of seeds per pod, 100 seeds weight, seed yield and harvest index were transported to the laboratory. Data traits were analyzed by SAS 9, mean comparison of treatments using the least significant difference (LSD) at 5% by MSTAT-C were evaluated. Excel was used to plot the graphs.

Results and Discussion
The results showed that the humic acid in drought conditions increased yield of pods per plant, 100 seeds weight, grain yield and harvest index was followed. In this experiment, as the width of the seed was not influenced by drought stress and humic acid. Traits of pod weight and seeds number per pod were only affected by drought stress and pod length significantly affected by drought stress and humic acid was used. Drought stress by drying pollen grains, reducing the duration of flowering and young pods loss reduced pod per plant. The current decrease in photosynthesis leads to founder grains shrink and ultimately decreased 100 seeds weight under drought stress. Humic acid appears to increase plant photosynthesis activity as increased enzyme activity of Rubiscoand to improve production of sugar, protein and vitamins in plant and has a positive effect on the various aspects of photosynthesis, seed storage compounds increased. In general, many of the economical yield of a plant, is the result of the growth process that occurs during growth and development. Drought stress can affect performance by influencing these yield processes. The yield was decreased due to stress, so that the performance of the plants in drought stress levels were less than optimum irrigation. Humic acid increased cell membrane permeability, thereby facilitating the entry of potassium, resulting in increased pressure moved into the cell and cell division. On the other hand, increasing energy inside cells leads to the production of chlorophyll and photosynthesis rate. Followed by an important factor in the growth of the nitrogen uptake into cells is developed resonance and finally, the effects of nitrate production decreases, which leads to the increased production. Reduced harvest index in drought stress treatment may be due to reduction of photosynthetic level, reduced photosynthesis remobilization in grain filling stage and more sensitive of vegetative growth compared to vegetative growth to the adverse conditions.

Conclusion
A total of 6 liters per hectare application of humic acid under drought stress and moderate stress (irrigation after 70 mm evaporation) is recommended. Because under stress condition, caused the highest yield. Therefore, usage of organic materials in arid and semi-arid areas to fight drought stress and in order to deal with drought stress is recommended for sustainable agriculture.

Key words: Foliar application, Lima bean, Organic matter, Water deficit

Keywords

• Foliar application
• Lima bean
• Organic matter
• Water deficit

---

References

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.