بررسی تاثیرکاربرد بهبود دهنده‎های رشد و کودهای شیمیایی بر رشد و عملکرد سیب زمینی (Solanum tuberosum)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه تولیدات گیاهی، دانشکده علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه گنبد کاووس

2 دانشجوی کارشناسی گنبد کاووس

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: سیب‌زمینی، پنجمین محصول کشاورزی در جهان است که نقش مهمی در تغدیه مردم دارد و منبعی سرشار از کربوهیدرات، پروتئین و اسید آمینه‌های ضروری برای انسان به حساب می‌آید. این گیاه جزء مهم‌ترین گیاهان غده‌ای است. کودهای شیمیایی، نقش اساسی در افزایش عملکرد و کیفیت سیب‌زمینی دارند. با این‌حال، مصرف غیر اصولی و بی‌رویه کودهای شیمیایی با مشکلات زیادی از نظر سلامتی و مسائل زیست محیطی و ایجاد آلودگی در منابع آب و خاک همراه است. پژوهش حاضر به‌منظور بررسی اثر بهبود دهنده‌های رشد و کودهای شیمیایی بر رشد و عملکرد سیب زمینی رقم میلوا انجام گردید.
مواد و روش: آزمایشی در مزرعه تحقیقاتی دانشکده کشاورزی دانشگاه گنبد کاووس در قالب طرح بلوک کامل تصادفی با سه تکرار در سال 1395 انجام گردید. تیمارها شامل مصرف کودهای نیتروژن، فسفر و پتاس به میزان عرف منطقه (100NPK)، مصرف 100NPK + هیومیک اسید (HMC)، 100NPK + Equilibrate vegetative organic (EVEO)، مصرف کودهای نیتروژن، فسفر و پتاس به میزان نصف عرف منطقه (50NPK) + هیومیک اسید، 50NPK+ EVEO، EVEO به تنهایی و کاربرد هیومیک اسید به تنهایی بودند. صفات مورد اندازه‎‌گیری شامل تعداد غده در بوته، وزن تر و خشک غده‎های تک بوته و وزن تر بوته در هکتار، عملکرد بیولوژیک، عملکرد غده سیب زمینی و شاخص برداشت بود.
یافته‌ها: نتایج نشان داد که کاربرد اسید هیومیک و EVEO همراه با کود شیمیایی به‌طور معنی‌داری باعث افزایش تعداد غده در هر بوته، وزن خشک غده هر بوته، عملکرد غده، عملکرد بیولوژیک و شاخص برداشت شد، اما تأثیر معنی‌داری بر وزن بوته در هکتار و وزن خشک تک بوته نداشتند. بالاترین تعداد غده در بوته، وزن خشک غده هر بوته، عملکرد غده، عملکرد بیولوژیک و شاخص برداشت در تیمار 100NPK + EVEO بدست آمد، اگرچه اختلاف معنی‌داری با تیمارهای 100NPK + HMC و 50NPK + EVEO نداشت. کمترین میزان این صفات در تیمار 100NPK حاصل شد، ولی تفاوت معنی داری با تیمارهای کاربرد اسید هیومیک و EVEO به‌تنهایی مشاهده نشد. عملکرد غده در تیمارهای 100NPK+EVEO، 100NPK+HMC و 50NPK+EVEO به‌ترتیب 64/27، 21/18 و 75/15 درصد نسبت به تیمار کاربرد کود شیمیایی 100NPK افزایش یافت.
نتیجه‌گیری: براساس این نتایج، با کاربرد بهبود دهنده رشد EVEO می‌توان مصرف کود شیمیایی را به میزان 50 درصد کاهش داد؛ به عبارت دیگر در تیمار 50NPK+EVEO علاوه بر این که عملکرد قابل قبول سیب زمینی، مقدار کود شیمیایی مصرفی نیز نسبت به بقیه تیمارها 50 درصد کمتر بود. همچنین نتایج نشان داد که بین عملکرد غده در تیمار کود شیمیایی و کاربرد تنهای اسید هیومیک و EVEO تفاوت معنی-داری مشاهده نشد. بنابراین، کاربرد این مواد آلی می‌تواند با افزایش جذب و کارایی مواد غذایی و به دنبال آن کاهش مصرف کودهای شیمیایی کمک شایانی به کاهش آلودگی‌های زیست محیطی کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Study the effect of growth improver and chemichal fertilizer application on growth and yeild of Solanum tuberosum

چکیده [English]

Background and objectives: Potato is the fourth most important food crop in the world that plays an important role in people feeding. This crop is a source of carbohydrates, protein and essential amino acids for human being and it is one of the important tuber plants. Low yield of crops in many countries often related to the deficiency of soil nutrients. Chemical fertilizers have an important role in improving yield and quality of potatoes. However, excessive use of chemical fertilizers is associated with many health and environmental problems and pollution in water and soil. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of organic fertilizers and growth promoters on potato (cultivar Milva) yield to reduce the consumption of chemical fertilizers.
Materials and methods: Experiment was conducted at the Agricultural Research Station of Gonbad Kavous University in a randomized complete block design with three replications in 2016. Treatments included the use of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium to amount of common use of region (100 NPK), 100 NPK + Humic acid (HMC), 100 NPK + Equilibrate vegetative organic (EVEO), the use of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium at a rate of half of the region convention (50 NPK) + HMC, 50 NPK + EVEO, application of EVEO and HMC alone. Traits of tuber number plant-1, fresh and dry weight of tubers plant-1, plant fresh weight ha-1, biological yield, tuber yield, and harvest index were measured.
Results: the results indicated that application of HMC and EVEO with chemical fertilizers significatly increased tuber number plant-1, tuber weight plant-1, biological yield, tuber yield, and harvest index; but they had no significant effect on plant weight. The highest tuber number plant-1, dry weight of tuber plant-1, biological yield, tuber yield, and harvest index were obtained in 100 NPK + EVEO; although there was no significant difference with treatments of 100 NPK + HMC and 50 NPK + EVEO. The lowest amount of these traits were achieved in the treatment 100 NPK. However, it had no significant difference with treatments of application of EVEO and HMC alone.
Conclusion: Based on these results, the use of EVEO can reduce consumption of chemical fertilizers by 50%. Also, significant difference was not observed between chemical fertilzer treatment (100 NPK) and application of EVEO and HMC alone. Therefore, use of these organic materials can increase the absorption and efficiency of nutrition and consequently reducution of the consumption of chemical fertilizers will help to reduce environmental pollution.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Chemichal Fertilizer
  • Growth improver
  • Humic acid
  • Potato yeild
1. Abdel Mawgoud, A., El Greadly, M.R.N., Helmy, Y.I., and Singer, S.M. 2007. Responses of
tomato plants to different rates of humic based fertilizer and NPK fertilization. J. of Applied
Sci. Res., 3: 169-174.
2. Abu-Zinada, I.A., and Sekh-Eleid, K.S. 2015. Humic Acid to Decrease Fertilization Rate on
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Americ. J. Agri. Forest., 3: 234-238.
3. Akinci, S., Tamer, B., Ahmet, E., and Erdoğan, B.E. 2009. The Effect of humic acid on
nutrient composition in broad bean (Vicia faba L.) roots. Notulae Scientia Biologicae., 1: 81-
87.
4. Ali, H., Akbar, Y., Razaq, Dr.A., and Muhammad, D. 2014. Effect of Humic acid on root
elongation and percent seed germination of wheat seeds. Int. J. Agri. Crop Sci., 7: 196-201.
5. Atiyeh, R.M., Edwards, C.A., Metzger, J.D., Lee, S., Arancon, N.Q. 2002. The influence of
humic acids derived from earthworm-processed organic wastes on plant growth. Bioresource
Technol., 84: 7–14.
6. Buono, V., Paradiso, A., Serio, F., Gonnella, M., De-Gara, L., and Santamaria, P. 2009.
Tuber quality and nutritional components of early potato subjected to chemical haulm
desiccation. J. Food Composition Analysis., 22: 556-562.
7. Darwish, T., Atallah, T., Elkhatb, M., and Hajasan, S. 2002. Impact of irrigation and
fertigation on NO3 leaching and soil-griound water contamination in Lebanon. 17th WCSS,
14-21 August, Thailand.
8. Doring, T.F., Brandt, M., Heb, J., Finckh, M.R., and Saucke, H. 2005. Effects of straw much
on soil nitrate dynamics, weeds, and yield and soil nitrogen in organically grown potatoes.
Field Crops Res., 94: 238-249.
9. EL-Desuki, M. 2004. Response of onion plants to humic acid and mineral fertilizers
application. Annals of Agri. Sci. Moshtohor., 42: 1995-1964.
10. El-Gamal, A.M. 1985. Effect of potassium level on potato yield and quality. J. Agri. Sci.
Mansoura Uni., 10: 1473-1476.
11. El-Sayed Hameda, E.A., Saif El Dean, A., Ezzat, S., and El Morsy, A.H.A. 2011. Responses
of productivity and quality of sweet potato to phosphorus fertilizer rates and application
methods of the humic acid. Int. Res. J. Agri. Sci. Soil Sci., 1: 383-393.
12. Emani, A., and Rasoli, M. 2006. Impact of tuber size and growth of seed potato varieties
Moran. Iran J. Agri. Sci., 1: 165-172. (In Persian)
13. Ezzati Gharalar, A., Shahrokhi, S.H., Hasanpanah, D., and Azizi, S.H. 2011. The effect of
different organic fertilizer on yield and yield components of mini tuber on Agrai and Savalan
varieties in Ardabil region. The sixth national conference on new ideas in agriculture. 10
March, Islamic Azad University Branch of Khoresgan. Iran. (In Persian)
14. FAO. 2011. FAO Statistical Database. Production Crops. Rome, Italy, http://faostat.fao.org/
15. Ghannad, M., Ashraf, S.H., and Taj Aliour, Z. 2014. Enhancing yield and quality of potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) tuber using an integrated fertilizer, Management. Int. J. Agri. Crop
Sci., 7: 742-748.
16. Ghasemi, A., Tavakoloo, M.R., and Zabihi, H.R. 2012. Effect of nitrogen, potassium and
humic acid on vegetative growth, nitrogen and potassium uptake of potato minituber in
greenhouse condition. J. Agro. Plant Breed., 8: 39-56. (In Persian)
17. Hafez, M.M. 2003. Effect of some sources of nitrogen fertilizer and concentration of humic
acid on the productivity of squash plant. Egyptian J. Applied Sci., 19: 293-309.
18. Hartwigson, J.A., and Evans, M.R. 2000. Humic acid seed and substrate treatments promote
seedling root development. Hort Sci., 35: 1231-1233.
19. Hasanzade daluie, M. 1994. Effect of foliar application time with humic acid on yield,
component yield protein and nitrogen remobilization and dry matter of two wheat cultivars.
Ph.D. Thesis. Fedowsi Uni. of Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian)
20. Hopkins, B., and Stark, J. 2003. Humic acid effects on potato response to phosphorus. Idaho
potato conference, January, 22-23.
21. Humadi, F.M. 1986. Influence of potassium rates on growth and yield of potato. Iraq J. Agri.
Sci. Zanco., 4(2): 69-75.
22. Joleini, M., and Dousti, F. 2011. The study of nitrate accumulation in potato and tomato.
Iranian J. Envir., 50: 62-71. (In Persian)
23. Lashgaripour, Gh., and Ghafouri, M. 2002. The study of nitrate accumulation in potato and
tomato. J. Water and Wastewater. 41: 2-7. (In Persian)
24. Mahmoud, A.R., and Hafez, M.M. 2010. Increasing productivity of potato plants (Solanum
uberosum L.) by using potassium fertilizer and humic acid application. Int. J. Academic
Res., 2: 83-88.
25. Malakouti, M.J., Noori, A., Samavati, S., and Basitat, M. 2005. Reasons of the accumulation
of nitrate in fruit vegetables (cucumbers, tomatoes, etc.) and its control solutions. Technical
Bulletin 114, Sina Press. Ministry of Agriculture, the Soil and Water Research Institute. (In
Persian)
26. Mojaddam, M., Dashti, M., and Derogar, N. 2016. Effect of humic acid and nitrogen
fertilizer application on quantitative and qualitative characteristics and nitrogen use
efficiency of spring corn. J. Crop Prod. Res., 8: 43-51. (In Persian)
27. Mousavi, M. 2011. Weed Management, Principles and Methods. Marz-e- danesh Press.
28. Najafi, A., AghaAlikhani, M., and Hasanpanah, D. 2015. Effect of planting bed and foliar
application of supplementary organic matter (Humi-ferthi) on mini-tuber production from
micro-tubers in two potato cultivars. Iranian J. Crop Sci. 17: 88-103. (In Persian)
29. Nardi, S., Pizzeghello, D., Muscolo, A., and Vianello, A. 2002. Physiological effects of
humic substances on higher plants. Soil Bio. Biochem. 34: 1527-1536.
30. Nosulya, V. 2016. Technical manual EVEO. www.thermoflora.com/
31. Ohta, K., Morishitai S., Sudai, K., Kobayashii, N., and Hosoki, T. 2004. Effects of chitosan
soil mixture treatment in the seedling stage on the growth and flowering of several
ornamental plants. J. Japanese Society for Horti. Sci., 73: 66-68.
32. Rajpar, I., Bhatti, M., Hassan, Z., and Shah, A. 2011. Humic acid improves growth, yield
and oil content of Brassica compestris L. Parkisan J. Agri. Engineering and Veterinary Sci.,
27: 125-133.
33. Rehman, F., Lee, S.K., and Joung, H. 2002. Effects of various chemicals on carbohydrate
content in potato microtubers after dormancy breaking. Asian J. Plant Sci., 3: 224-225.
34. Rizk, F.A., Shaheen, A.M., Singer, S.M., and Sawan, O.A. 2013. The Productivity of potato
plants affected by urea fertilizer as foliar Spraying and humic acid added with irrigation
water. Middle East J. Agri. Res., 2: 76-83.
35. Rosen, C.J., Kelling, K.A., Stark, J.C., and Porter, G.A. 2014. Optimizing phosphorus
fertilizer management in potato production. American J. Potato Res., 91(2): 145-160.
36. Sanchez–Sanchez, A., Sanchez-Andreu, J., Juarez, M., Jorda, J., and Bermudez, D. 2002.
Humic substances and amino acids improve effectiveness of chelate FeEDDHA in lemon
trees. J. Plant Nutrition., 25: 2433–2442
37. Sassi-Aydi, S., Aydi, S., and Abdelly, C. 2014. Inorganic nitrogen nutrition enhances
osmotic stress tolerance in Phaseolus vulgaris: Lessons from a drought-sensitive cultivar.
Hort Sci., 49: 550-555.
38. Selim, E.M., Mosa, A.A., and El-Ghamry, A.M. 2009. Evaluation of humic acid fertigation
through surface and subsurface drip irrigation systems on potato grown under Egyptian
sandy soil conditions. Agri. Water Manag., 96: 1218-1222.
39. Shabani, R., and Armin, M. 2015. Effects of time and integrated applications of biological
and chemical fertilizers on yield and yield components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in
dry land condition. J. Applied Res. Plant Ecophysiology. 1: 31-43. (In Persian)
40. Suganya, S., and Sivasamy, R. 2006. Moisture retention and cation exchange capacity of
sandy soil as influenced by soil additives. J. Applied Sci. Res., 2: 949-951.
41. Sure, S., Arooie, H., Sharifzade, K., and Dalirimoghadam, R. 2012. Responses of
productivity and quality of cucumber to application of the two biofertilizers (humic acid and
nitroxin) in fall planting. Agri. J. 7: 401-404.
42. Tabatabai, S.J., and Malakouti, L.J. 1997. The effect of different amounts of urea and
interaction with phosphorus and potassium on yield and nitrate accumulation in potato.
Iranian J. Soil Res. (Soil and Water Sci.)., 11: 32-39. (In Persian)
43. Tan, K.H. 2003. Humic Matter in Soil and Environment. Marcel Dekker, New york.
44. Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L., and Beaton, J.D. 1985. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Macmillan
Publication Co. New York. Pp: 249-91.
45. Turkman, O., Demir, S., Sensoy, S., and Dursun, A. 2005. Effect of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal
fungus and Humic acid on the seedling development and nutrient content of pepper grown
under saline soil conditions. Biological Sci., 50: 574-565.
46. Ulukan, H. 2008. Effect of soil applied humic acid at different sowing times on some yield
components in wheat (Triticum spp.) hybrids. Int. J. Botany., 4: 164-175.
47. Verlinden, G., Pycke, B., Mertens, J., Debersaques, F., Verheyen, K., Baert, G., Brif, S.J.,
Haesaert, G. 2009. Application of humic substances results in consistent increases in crop
yield and nutrient uptake. J. Plant Nutrition. 32: 1407-1426.
48. Ziaeian, A. 2003. The Use of Micronutrients in Agriculture. Agricultural Education
Publishing. 207p. (In Persian)