Study of Irrigation Halt and Humic Acid on Seed Yield, Its Components and Correlation between Traits of Red Bean

Authors

1 Graduated PhD, Department of Agronomy, Khuzestan Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Arak Branch, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran.

4 Professor, Department of Agronomy, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran.

5 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, Iran.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Humic acid is a natural polymeric composition which is produced as a result of decaying organic matters in soil, peat and lignin to increase crop product.
OBJECTIVES: Assessment the effect of different irrigation regime and humic acid on red bean production and correlation coefficient between measured traits.
METHODS: Current research was done via split plots experiment based on completely randomized blocks design with three replications. Main factor consisted irrigation halt at three levels (I1: Complete irrigation or control, I2: halt irrigation at flowering stage, I3: halt irrigation at pod stage) and humic acid foliar application dosages at three levels (H1: Control, H2: using 1.5 L.ha-1, H3: 3 L.ha-1 humic acid) belonged to subplots.
RESULT: The effect of irrigation halt and humic acid on biological yield, seed yield, harvest index, number of pods per plant and seeds per pod and 100 seed weight were significant. Mean comparison result of interactions effect of treatments revealed the highest seed yield (3758.4 kg.ha-1) was in complete irrigation with 3 L.ha-1 humic acid consumption and the lowest one (2170.1 kg.ha-1) belonged to irrigation halt at flowering stage. So, this reduction in the irrigation at flowering stage was about 6% by consumption of 3 L.ha-1, and was improved to 38%.
CONCLUSION: flowering stage is the most critical stage of growth of red beans in response to irrigation regimes and foliar application of humic acid could be used as a new method to decrease damage caused by halt irrigation, so halt irrigation in pod stage with use 3 L.ha-1 humic acid is recommended to achieve maximum yield.

Keywords


Ayas, H. and F. Gulser. 2005. The effect of sulfur and humic acid on yield components and macronutrient contents of spinach. J. Biol. Sci. 5(6): 801-804.

Beebe, S. E., I. M. Rao, C. Cajiao. and M. Grajales. 2008. Selection for drought resistance in common bean also improves yield in phosphorus limited and favorable environments. Crop Sci. 48(2): 582-592.

Beebe, S. E., I. M. Rao, M. W. Blair. and J. A. Acosta-Gallegos. 2010. Phenotyping common beans for adaptation to drought. Drought Phenotyping in Crops: From Theory to Practice. pp. 311-334.

Canellas, L. P., F. L. Olivares, N. O. Aguiar, D. L. Jones, A. Nebbioso, P. Mazzei. and A. Piccolo. 2015. Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 196: 15-27. Doi:10.1016/j. scienta.2015.09.013

Chavoshia, S., Gh. Nourmohammadi, H. Madani, H. Heidari sharif abad. and M. Alavi fazel. 2016. Halt irrigation and red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars responses. Natl. Acad. Agri. Sci. 4(7): 2203-2211.

Delfine, S., R. Tognetti, E. Desiderio. and A. Alvino. 2005. Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth and yield of durum wheat. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag, EDP Sciences, INRA. 25: 183-191.

El-Bassiony, A. M., Z. F. Fawzy, M. M. H. Abd El-Baky. and A. R. Mahmoud. 2010. Response of snap bean plants to mineral fertilizers and humic acid application. Res. J. Agri. Biomass Sci. 6: 169-175.

El–Ghamry, A. M., K. M. Abd El–Haiand. and K. M. Ghoneem. 2009. Amino and humic acids promote growth, yield and disease resistance of Faba bean cultivated in clayey soil. Aust. J. Basic and Appl. Sci. 3(2): 731–739.

El-Habbasha, S. F., A. G. Ahmed. and M. H. Mohamed. 2012. Response of some chickpea varieties to compound foliar fertilizer under sandy soil conditions. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 8: 5177-5183.

Fagbenro, J. A. and A. A. Agboola. 1993. Effect of different levels of humic acid on the growth and nutrient uptake of teak seedlings. J. Plant Nutr. 16: 1465-1483.

Fujio, C., Y. Daoqi, W. Qingsheng. 1995. Physiological effects of humic acids on drought resistance of wheat. China J. Appl. Ecol. pp: 363-373.

German, C. and H. Teran. 2006. Selection for drought resistance in dry bean landraces and cultivars. Crop Sci. 46: 2111-2120.

Ghadimian, T., H. Madani. and M. Gomarian. 2017. Effect of irrigation halt and humic acid foliar application on agronomic, qualitative and physiological characteristics in red bean cultivar D81083. Iranian J. Pulses Res. 8(2): 141-155. (Abstract in English) DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v8i2.53136

Haghparast, M. and S. Maleki Farahani. 2013. Effect of water deficit irrigation and natural vegetative characteristics of different products on Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties. Iranian J. Pulses Res. 4: 77-86. (Abstract in English)

Haouari, M. and M. N. Azaiez. 2001. Optimal cropping pattern under water deficits. Europe. J. Operation Res. 130: 133-146.

Horst, M. G., S. S. Shamutalov, L. S. Pereira. and J. M. Goncalves. 2005. Field assessment of the water saving potential with furrow irrigation in Fergana, Aral Sea basin. Agri. Water Manage. 77: 210-231.

Kaya, M. and K. M. Khawar. 2005. Effect of pre-sowing seed treatment with zinc and foliar spray of humic acids on yield of common bean. Intl. J. Agri. Biol. 7: 875-878.

Kazemi, N. and D. Habibi. 2008. Effect of drought stress on yield, yield components and antioxidant enzymes activity in different varieties of red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agri. Res. 1(1): 10-19. (Abstract in English)

Khan, A., M. Z. Khan, F. Hussain, M. E. Akhtar, A. R. Gurmani. and S. Khan. 2012. Effect of humic acid on the growth, yield, nutrient composition, photosynthetic pigment and total sugar contents of peas (Pisum sativum L.). J. Chemical Soc. Pakistan. 35: 206-211.

Khattak, R. A. and D. Muhammad. 2006. Effect of pre-sowing seed treatments with humic acid on seedling growth and nutrient uptake. Internship Report. Department of Soil and Environmental Science. NWFP Agriculture Univ. Peshawar. Pakistan.

Mendham, N. J., P. A. Shipway. and R. K. Scot. 1981. The effects of delayed sowing and weather on growth, development and yield of winter oilseed rape. J. Agri. Sci. 96: 389-416.

Mintesinot, B., H. Verplancke. and E. Van Ranst. 2002. Assessment and optimization of traditional irrigation of Vertisols in northern Ethiopia: a case study at Gumselasa microdam using maize as an indicator crop. Ph.D. Thesis. Ghent Univ. Belgium.

Mouhouche, B., F. Ruget. and R. Delecolle. 1998. Effects of water stress applied at different phenological phases on yield components of dwarf bean. Agron. J. 18(3): 197-207.

Mousavi, S. F. 2005. Agricultural drought management in Iran. In: National Research Council, Water Conservation, Reuse, and Recycling. Proc. Iranian American Workshop. National Academies Press. USA. pp. 106-113.

Munoz-Perea, C. G., H. Teran, R. G. Allen, J. L. Wright, D. T. Westermann. and S. P. Singh. 2006. Selection for drought resistance in dry bean landraces and cultivars. Crop Sci. 46: 2111-2120.

Nasiri, Z., A. Khalighi. and E. Matlabi. 2015. The effect of humic acid, fulvic acid, and Kristal on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of geranium. Intl. J. Biosci. 6(5): 34-41.

Nunez-Barrios, A., G. Hoogenboom. and D. S. Nesmith. 2005. Drought stress and the distribution of vegetative and reproductive traits of a bean cultivar. Scientia Agricola. 62: 18-22.

Rauthan, B. S. and M. Schnitzer. 1981. Effect of soil fulvic acid on the growth and nutrient content of growth and yield of durum wheat. Agron. Sust. 25: 183-191.

Rezaei, A. R., A. A. Kamkarhaghighi. 2009. Effects of water stress in different growth stages on yield of cowpea. J. Soil Res. Water Sci. 23(1): 117-124. (Abstract in English)

Sabzevari, S., H. R. Khazaie. and M. Kafi. 2008. Effect of humic acid on root and shoot growth of two wheat cultivars. J. Water and Soil. 23: 87-94. (Abstract in English)

Sibi, M. and M. Mirzakhani. 2012. Studying index of harvesting chickpea affected by consumption of Salicylic acid of seaweed extract and humic acid. Proc. 12th Iranian Plant Breed. Agri. Sci. Cong. Islamic Azad Univ. Karaj Branch. pp: 19-24.

Singh, S. P. 2007. Drought resistance in the race Durango dry bean landraces and cultivars. Agron. J. 99(5): 1219-1225.

Shafeek, M. R., Y. I. Helmy, M. Nadia. A. R. Omer. and Fatma. 2013. Effect of foliar fertilizer with nutritional compound and humic acid on growth and yield of broad bean plants under sandy soil conditions. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 9: 3674-3680.

Shekari, F. 2000. Study traits related to drought tolerance in beans. Res. Rep. Physiol. Biotech. Center. Zanjan Univ. p. 53.

Spaeth, S. C., H. C. Randall, T. R. Sinclair. and J. S. Vendeland. 1984. Stability of soybean (Glycine max L.) harvest index. Agron. J. 76: 482-486.

Teran, H. and S. P. Singh. 2002. Comparison of sources and lines selected for drought resistance in common bean. Crop Sci. 421: 64-70.

Turk, M. A., A. Rahman, M. Tawaha. and K. D. Lee. 2004. Seed germination and seedling growth of three lentil cultivars under moisture stress. Asian J. Plant Sci. 3(3): 394-397.

Turkmen, O., S. Demir, S. Ensoy. and A. Dursun. 2005. Effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and humic acid on the seedling development and nutrient content of pepper grown under saline soil conditions. J. Biomass Sci. 5: 565-574. DOI: 10.3923/ jbs. 2005. 568. 574

Waqas, M., B. Ahmad, M. Arif, F. Munsif, A. L. Khan, M. Amin, S. M. Kang, Y. H. Kim. and I. J. Lee. 2014. Evaluation of humic acid application methods for yield and yield components of mungbean. Am. J. Plant Sci. 5: 2269-2276.

Yildirim, E. 2007. Foliar and soil fertilization of humic acid affect productivity and quality of tomato. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science. 57: 182-186. DOI: 10.1080/09064710600813107.

Zobayed, S. M. A., F. Afreen. and T. Kozai. 2007. Phytochemical and physiological changes in the leaves of St. John’s wort plants under a water stress condition. Environ. Exp. Bot. 59(2): 109-116.