کاهش اثر تنش شوری آب آبیاری توسط محلول‏پاشی سولفات پتاسیم در پنبه (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت علمی مرکز تحقیقات،آموزش ومنابع طبیعی اصفهان

2 استاد داشکده کشاورزی گرگان

3 استاد دانشکده کشاورزی گرگان

چکیده

سابقه و هدف: کمبود آب شیرین، افزایش نیاز به مواد غذایی و وجود آبهای شور فراوان، کشاورزان را ناگزیر به استفاده از آبهای شور نموده است. استفاده از عنصر پتاسیم به صورت محلول‏پاشی می‏تواند گیاه را در دسترسی سریع به عناصر غذایی و کاهش اثرات شوری کمک نماید. استفاده از ارقام موتانت به ‌عنوان گیاهان متحمل به شوری می‌تواند به منظور مدیریت بهتر زراعی در جهت افزایش تولید در شرایط شور مورد استفاده قرار گیرد. لذا این پژوهش به منظور بررسی اثر شوری آب آبیاری و محلول‏پاشی سولفات پتاسیم بر برخی ویژگی‏های فیزیولوژیک، عملکرد و محتوای یونی دو موتانت پنبه انجام شد.
مواد و روش‏ها: آزمایش به صورت کرت‌های خرد شده فاکتوریل در قالب طرح بلوک‌ کامل تصادفی با چهار تکرار در ایستگاه تحقیقات شوری رودشت اصفهان در طی سال زراعی 93-94 به اجرا در آمد. در این مطالعه کرت‌های اصلی شامل تیمارهای آبیاری با آب دارای هدایت الکتریکی 4 (شاهد)، هشت و 12 دسی‏زیمنس بر متر و کرت‏های فرعی شامل تلفیق فاکتوریل سه ژنوتیپ (موتانت ال ام 1673 و ال ام 1303 و ژنوتیپ شاهد شایان) با محلول‏پاشی چهار سطح سولفات پتاسیم به میزان صفر، دو، چهار و شش کیلوگرم در 1000 لیتر آب در هکتار بود. صفات مورد مطالعه در این آزمایش عبارت بودند از درصد کیل و عملکرد وش و خصوصیات فیزیولوژیک از قبیل محتوای نسبی آب برگ، آب نسبی از دست رفته برگ‌ها، شاخص پایداری غشا و محتوای نسبی کلرفیل برگ.
یافته‏ها: عملکرد وش تحت تأثیر آبیاری با آب شور، محلول‏پاشی با سولفات پتاسیم و ژنوتیپ قرار گرفت، اما اثر متقابل بین عوامل آزمایش بر عملکرد وش معنی‌دار نبود. نتایج حاکی از عدم کاهش عملکرد وش با افزایش سطح شوری آب آبیاری از چهار به هشت دسی زیمنس بر متر بود، درحالی‌که هنگام استفاده از آب با هدایت الکتریکی 12 دسی زیمنس بر متر، عملکرد وش 5/48 درصد نسبت به شاهد (چهار دسی زیمنس بر متر) کاهش یافت. عملکرد وش در تیمار محلول‏پاشی چهار کیلوگرم در هکتار سولفات پتاسیم دارای بالاترین مقدار و حدود 55 درصد افزایش عملکرد داشته ولی با تیمارهای کاربرد دو و شش کیلوگرم در هکتار سولفات پتاسیم اختلاف معنی‏دار نداشت. در بین ژنوتیپ‏ها بالاترین و عملکرد وش در ژنوتیپ ال ام 1303 و به میزان 3721 کیلوگرم در هکتار بود که نسبت به رقم شایان (3165 کیلوگرم در هکتار) اختلاف معنی‏دار داشت. بیشترین محتوای آب نسبی برگ در مرحله اول و در همه سطوح محلول‏پاشی با سولفات پتاسیم در تیمار شوری هشت دسی زیمنس بر متر و حدود 80 درصد به‌ دست آمد و در این سطح شوری بین تیمارهای مختلف محلول‏پاشی اختلاف معنی‏داری مشاهده نشد. محتوای نسبی کلرفیل نیز در تیمار شاهد 59 درصد بود و با افزایش شوری آب آبیاری از میزان آن کاسته شده و در تیمار شوری 12 دسی زیمنس بر متر به 54 درصد رسید.
نتیجه‏گیری: نتایج این تحقیق نشان داد که برای دستیابی به حداکثر محصول در شرایط شوری آب آبیاری می‏توان از ژنوتیپ موتانت ال ام 1303 استفاده نمود. همچنین برای کاهش اثرات شوری می‏توان از محلول‏پاشی 4 کیلوگرم در هکتار سولفات پتاسیم استفاده کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The decrease of salinity effect of irrigated water by foliar application of K2SO4 in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

نویسنده [English]

  • Majid Jafaraghaei 1
1 Agriculture Natural Resources Research Center of Isfahan
چکیده [English]

saline water in ground, agronomists have to use of this salt water. Foliar application of nutrients such as potassium can have quick access to the nutrients in the plant and reduce the effects of salinity assist. In order to better agronomic management for achieve to higher yield, identify of varieties with high yield potential in these conditions can assist researchers to achieve high yield. Using mutant varieties as tolerant plants to salinity can be one of the solutions. Hence this study was performed to evaluate the effect of salinity of irrigated water and foliar application of potassium sulfate on some physiological characteristics, yield of two mutant cottons.
Material and methods: The experiment was laid out using of split factorial arrangement based on complete block design with four replications in Isfahan Agricultural and Natural Resources Center, Rudasht, Isfahan, Iran during 2014-2015. In this study, experimental treatments were three irrigation water [4 (as control), 8 and 12 dS m-1] at main plots and three cotton genotypes (LM1673, LM1303 and Shayan) with four levels of K2SO4 such as 0 (as control), 2, 4 and 6 kg in 1000l/ha in sub plots. In this experiment studied traits were fiber percent, lint yield, and physiological traits such as RWC, RWL, membrane stability index and chlorophyll content.
Results: Lint yield significantly affected by irrigation with saline water, foliar application of potassium sulfate and genotype, but the interaction between experimental factors on lint yield was not statistically significant. The results showed no significant decrease in yield with increasing of salinity levels of irrigation water from 4 to 8 dS.m-1, while when using 12 dS.m-1 saline water for irrigation, lint cotton yield reduced as 48.5% compared to control (4 dS.m-1) and fell from 4174 to 2149 kg per ha. Foliar application of potassium sulfate treatment at rate of 4 kg per hectare had the highest yield was 4425 kg per hectare compared to the control (2462 kg) was 55% increasing of yield, but had not significant differences with 2 and 6 kg per hectare sulfate potassium treatments. Between genotypes, LM-1303 genotype had the highest lint yield in rate of 3721 kg per hectares that had significant differences with Shayan genotype (3165 kg per hectares). Highest RWC in first sampling at all foliar application of potassium sulfate treatments was obtained in 8 dS.m-1 treatment at rate of 80% and in this saline treatment were not significant differences between foliar treatments. Chlorophyll content was 59 in control treatment and increasing of salinity treatment decreased it and was 54 in 12 dS.m-1 treatments.
Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that in saline water treatments, LM-1303 mutant had the highest fiber percent and lint yield that in results can proposed this genotype for achieve to high yield in saline condition. Also, for achieve to higher yield and reducing of salinity effects can apply 4 kg per hectares potassium sulfate by spraying.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Membrane stability index
  • Salinity
  • seed cotton yield

مراجع

  1. Ahmad, S., Khan, N., Iqbal, M.Z., Hussain, A., and Hassan, M. 2002. Salt tolerance of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Asian J Plant Sci. 1: 715–719
  2. Akram, M.S. 2006. Influence of exogenously applied K from different sources on Sunflower under salt stress. University of Agric. Faisalabad, Pakistan
  3. Babaeianejelodar, N., and Ziatabareahmadi, M. 2001. Plant Growth in Saline Lands (translate). Mazandaran University Press. 408 pp. (In Persian).
  4. Blum, A., and Ebercon, A. 1980. Cell membrance stability as a measure of drought and heat tolerance in wheat. Crop Sci. 21: 43- 47.
  5. Cassman, K.G., Kerby, T.A., Roberts, B.A., Bryant, D.C., and Higashi, S.L. 1990. Potassium effects on lint yield and fiber quality of Acala cotton. Crop Sci. 30: 672-677.
  6. Cornic, G. 1994. Drought stress and high light effects on leaf photosynthesis. In ‘Photoinhibition of Photosynthesis. From Molecular Mechanisms to the Field’. (Eds N.R. Baker and J. R. Bowyer.) pp. 297-313. (BIOS: Oxford(
  7. David, C., Harper, D.M., Lambert, J.A., Larson, C., and Owen, G. 2012. Potassium carryover dynamics and optimal application policies in cotton production. Agric. Systems. 106: 84-93.
  8. Dewdar, M.D.H., and Rady, M.M. 2013. Influence of soil and foliar applications of potassium fertilization on growth, yield and fiber quality traits in two Gossypium barbadense L. varieties. Afric. J.Agric. Res. 8(19): 2211-2215.
  9. Dhindsa, R.S., Beasley, C.A. and Ting, I.P. 1975. Osmoregulation in cotton fiber. Plant Physiol. 56: 394–398.
  10. Farshadfar, E., and Mohamadi, R. 2003. Evaluation of drought tolerance of bread wheat genotypes by use of agronomic and physiological indeces. Sci. J. Agric. 29(1): 87-97. (In Persian)
  11. Farshadfar, E., Ghasempour, H., and Vaezi, H. 2008. Molecular aspects of drought tolerance in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum). Pakistan. J. Biol. Sci. 11(1): 118-121.
  12. Feyzi, M. 2008. Economic uses from saline waters in cotton agronomy. J. Soil and water. 22(2): 181-188. (In Persian)
  13. Glass, A.D.M. 1989. Plant Nutrition: An Introduction to Current Concepts. MA, US: Jones & Bartlett Publisher. pp 24–28.
  14. Gormus, O., and Yucel C. 2002. Different planting date and potassium fertility effects on cotton yield and fiber properties in the Cukurova region, Turkey. Field Crop Res. 78: 141- 149.
  15. Gwathmey, C.O., Main, C.L., and Yin, X. 2009. Potassium uptake and partitioning relative to dry matter accumulation in cotton cultivars differing in maturity. Agron. J. 101:1479–1488.
  16. Hamdy, A. 1993. Saline irrigation practices and management. In: Towards the rational use of high salinity tolerant plants. H. Lieth and A. Almasson eds. Klumer Academic Publisher, The Netherlands. 2: 553-570.
  17. Hamudi, H., Heydari, R., Nojavan, M., and Zare, S. 1999. Effect of drought stress on biochemical and biophysical traits in sunflower (cv. Record). M.Sc. thesis. Uromia University. 125pp. (In Persian)
  18. Hanson, B., Hutmachr, R.B., and D., May. 2006. Drip irrigation of tomato and cotton under shallow saline ground water conditions. Irrigat. Drain. Systems. 20: 155-177.
  19. Horvath, E., Szalai, G., and Janda, T. 2007. Induction of Abiotic stress tolerance by salicylic acid signaling. Plant gro. Reg. 26: 290-300.
  20. Howard, D.D., Gwathmey, C.O., and Sams, C.E. 1998. Foliar feeding of cotton: Evaluating potassium sources, potassium solution buffering, and boron. Agro.  J. 90: 740-746.
  21. Jafaraghaei, M., and Jalali, A.H. 2011. Effect of saline irrigated water on yield and water used efficiency of three cotton cultivars. J. Prod. Technol. Agri. Gar. 2(5): 97-107. (In Persian)
  22. Jamal, Z., Hamayun, M., Ahmed, N., and Chaudhary, M.F. 2006. Effect of soil and foliar application of different concentrations of NPK and foliar application of (NH4)2SO4 on different yield parameters in wheat. Asian. J. Agron. 5(2):251-256.
  23. Katerji, N., Van-Hoorn, J.W., Hamdy, A., Mastrorilli, M., and Mou-Karzel, E., 1997.  Osmotic adjustment of sugar beets in response to soil salinity and its influence on stomatal conductance, growth and yield. Agric. Water Manage. 34: 57–69.
  24. Kocheva, K., and Georgive, G. 2003. Evaluation of the reaction of two contrasting Barley (Hordeum vulgar L.) cultivars in response to osmotic stress with PEG600. Blog. J. Plant Physiol. 51: 290-294.
  25. Kumar, J., Arya, K.C., and Sidduqe, M.Z. 2011. Effect of foliar application of KNO3 on growth, yield attributes, yield and economics of hirsutum cotton. J. Cotton. Res. Dev. 25(1):122-123.
  26. Leigh, R.A., and Wyn-Jones, R.G. 1986. Cellular Compartmentation in Plant Nutrition: Advances in Plant Nutrition. New York: Praeger Publishers, pp 249–280.
  27. Levitt, J. 1980. Response of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Vol. II. Water, radiation, salt and other stresses. Academic press. New York. 3- 211.
  28. Levy, R., Vulkan, I.R., Mantell, A., and Frenkel, H.F. 1998. Effect of water supply and salinity on pima cotton. Agri. Water. Manag. 37: 121-132.
  29. Liu, R.G., Wu, M.J., and Lu, F.M. 1998. Study on effects of K fertilizer for crops in coastal saline soil. Soils. 30: 222–223 (In Chinese).
  30. Maas, E.V. 1986. Salt tolerance of plants. Appl. Agri. Res., 1: 12-26.
  31. Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. 2nd ed, Academic Press Inc., San Diego.
  32. Moreno, F., Cabrera, F., Fernandez-Boy, E., Giron, I.F., Fernandez, J.E., and Bellido. B. 2001. Irrigation with saline water in the reclaimed marsh soils of south- west spain: Impact on soil properties and cotton and sugar beet crops. Agric. Water Manag. 48 (2): 133-150.
  33. Munns, R., and Tester, A. 2008. Whole-plant response to salinity. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13: 60-140.
  34. Nazeri, M., Majnoon-Hosseini, N., and Jalal-Kamali, M.R. 2003. Effect of canopy temperature reduction and RWC on yield of Hegzaploide triticale genotypes under water crisis. Iran. Agric. Res., 1: 292-303. (In Persian)
  35. Parida, A.K., Das, A.B., Mittra, B., and Mohanty, P. 2004. Salt-stress induced alterations in protein profile and protease activity in the mangrove. Brug. Parv. L. Nat., 59: 408-414.
  36. Pettigrew, W.T. 2008. Potassium influences on yield and quality production for maize, wheat, soybean and cotton. Physiol. Plant., 133(4): 670-681.
  37. Prasad, M.N.V. 1996. Plant Ecophysiology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York 542 pages: 173-206.
  38. Razzouk, S., and Whittington, W.J. 1991. Effects of salinity on cotton yield and quality. Field Crops Res. 26: 305-314.
  39. Reddy, K.R., and Zhao, D. 2005. Interactive effects of elevated CO2 and potassium deficiency on photosynthesis, growth, and biomass partitioning of cotton. Field Crops Res. 94:201-213.
  40. Roshani, GH., Gharanjiki, A., and Mirghasemi, S.J. 2015. Evaluation and Comparison of Salinity Tolerance of Several Cotton Genotypes in a Saline Soil. Iran. J. Cotton. Res., 2(2): 13-26. (In Persian)
  41. Sairam, R.K., and Tyagi, A. 2002. Physiology and molecular biology of salinity stress tolerance in plants. Curr. Sci.,86: 407-421.
  42. Sairam, R.K., Deshmukh, P.S., and Saxena, D.C. 1998. Role of antioxidant systems in wheat genotype tolerance to water stresses. Biol. Plant. 41(3): 387-394.
  43. Saurbeck, B.C., and Helal, H.M. 1990. Factors affecting the nutrient efficiency of plants. In: Bassam N.E.L, Bassam M., Dambroth B.C., Loughman, eds., Genetic Aspects of Plant Mineral Nutrition. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. pp. 361-372.
  44. Siosemardeh, A. 2002. Effect of water stress on some physiological and agronomical cases of wheat. Ph.D thesis. Tehran University. 182pp. (In Persian)
  45. Summart, J., Thanonkeo, P., Panichajakul, S., Prathepha, P., and McManse, M.T. 2010. Effect of salt sress on growth, inorganic ion and proline accumulation in Thai aromatic rice, Kaho Dawk Mail 105. Call. Cult., 9(2): 145-152.
  46. Tupper, G.R., Calhoun, D.S., and Ebelhar, M.W. 1996. Sensitivity of earlymaturing varieties to potassium deficiency. p. 625–628. In P. Dugger and D. Richter (ed.) Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Nashville TN. 9–12 Jan. 1996. Natl. Cotton Council of Am., Memphis TN.
  47. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA, ERS). 2011. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Cotton/> (accessed 18.07.11).
  48. Wu, S.J., Ding, L., and Zhu, J.K. 1996. SOS1 a genetic locus essential for salt tolerance and potassium acquisition. Plant Cell., 8: 617–627.
  49. Zhao, D., Oosterhuis, D.M., and Bednarz, C.W. 2001. Influence of potassium deficiency on photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, and chloroplast ultrastructure of cotton plants. Photosyn. 39:103-109.

مجله تولید گیاهان زراعی
دوره 12، شماره 1
خرداد 1398
صفحه 17-22

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار