The effect of irrigation intervals on growth, physiological and biochemical indices of coneflower (Echinaceae purpurea (L.) Monch) under humic acid foliar application

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Faculty member of Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources

2 jahad keshavarzi of golestan province

3 Assistant professor of Golestan University

Abstract

Background: Drought is one of the most important factors limiting the growth of plants around the world and the most common environmental stress. Considering the serious risk of drought and water scarcity, the use of appropriate methods to improve the negative effects of drought has attracted special interest. Recently, different types of organic acids have been widely used to improve the quality and quantity of crops and horticultural products. Due to the hormonal compounds, extremely low amounts of organic acids have significant effects on the improvement of physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil and the production and quality of agricultural products. In this regard, an experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of irrigation intervals and the foliar application of humic acid on some morphophysiological and biochemical characteristics of coneflower.
Materials and Methods: This experiment was conducted in the 2016-17 crop year with split plot arrangement in a randomized complete block design with three replications at the research farm of the Baharan non-profit organization in Gorgan. The treatments were included four levels of irrigation intervals (including the irrigation every one, three, six and nine days) and four levels of humic acid foliar application (including 450, 300, 150 and 0 mg/L). The evaluated traits included fresh and dry weight of plant, fresh and dry weight of root, proline, relative water content (RWC) of leaves, antioxidant activity, total phenol and soluble sugar. After planting, growing and harvesting, the measurement of proline growth performance was done by the Bates method, total phenol by the Folin-Ciocalteu method, carotenoid by the Barnes method, and soluble sugar by the Omokolo method.
Results: The results showed that the increased levels of irrigation intervals caused a significant decrease in plant height, root length, fresh weight of plant, and fresh and dry weight of root, while the highest dry weight of the plant (9.41 g per plant) and root length (10.40 cm) was observed from the second and third levels of irrigation interval, respectively. Also, the effect of irrigation interval at the highest level resulted in 29.88% reduction in the relative water content of leaf and 69.29% increase in proline compared with the control. The level of antioxidant activity and soluble sugar was increased with the irrigation intervals, and at the third level of irrigation (irrigation every six days), it was at most 71.39 and 43.56 mg/mL, respectively. Humic acid treatment had a significant effect on all of the measured traits except carotenoid, and the effect reached to the maximum level at 450 mg/L. In the conditions of irrigation every nine days, the foliar application with 450 mg/L resulted in a 0.58% increase in proline compared with not to use it in this condition. The maximum level of antioxidant activity (82.67 mg/mL) from the third level of irrigation interval and application of 150 mg/L of humic acid and the highest level of soluble sugar (53.56 mg/g) from the third level of irrigation interval and application 300 mg/L of humic acid was observed.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that increasing the irrigation interval significantly reduced the morphological traits. In contrast, some traits such as proline, antioxidant activity, total phenol, and soluble sugar were increased. However, humic acid protects the coneflower plants from the drought stress and reduces the drought damage. In general, the results of this study introduced the foliar application of 300 mg/L of humic and every 9 days irrigiration as the best treatment, economically. Because with less water and humic acid can be reached to the same methabolites yield that higher levels of them.

Keywords

References

Abedi, T., and Pakniyat, H. 2010. Antioxidant enzyme changes in response to drought stress in ten cultivars of oilseed rape (Brassicanapus L.). Czech J. Genet. Pl. Breed. 46: 27-34.
2.Abedini, T., Moradi, P., and Hani, A. 2015. Effect of organic fertilizer and foliar application of humic acid on some quantitative and qualitative yield of Pot marigold. J. No. App. Sci. 4: 10. 1100-1103.       
3.Ahmadpour Dehkordi, S., and Balouchi, H.R. 2012.  Effect of seed priming on antioxidant enzymes and lipids peroxidation of cell membrane in Black cumin (Nigella sativa) seedling under salinity and drought stress. J. Crop. Sci. 5: 63-85. (In Persian)
4.Alizade ahmad abadi, A., khorasaninejad, S., and  Hemmati, Kh. 2017. The Effect of Limited irrigation Stress and Humic Acid on the Some Morphological and Root Phytochemical Characteristics of Purple coneflower. J. Crop Improvement. 19: 1. 1-14. (In Persian)
5.Aminifard, M.H., Aroiee, H., Azizi, M., Nemati, H., and Jaafar, H.Z. 2012. Effect of humic acid on antioxidant activities and fruit quality of hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). J. Herbs Spices Med Plants. 18: 360-369.
6.Anjum, S.A., Xie, X.Y., Wang, L.C., Saleem, M.F., Man, C. and Lei, W. 2011. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 6: 2026-2032.
7.Asgari, M., Habibi, D., and Brojerdi, G.N. 2012. Effect of vermicompost, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and humic acid on growth factors of Mentha piperita L. in Central province. J. Agro. plant Breed. 7: 4. 41-54. (In Persian)
8.Ashrafi, M., Azimi-moqadam, M., Moradi, P., Mohsenifard, E., Shekari, F., and Kompany-zareh, M. 2018. Effect of drought stress on metabolite adjustments in drought tolerant and sensitive thyme. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 132: 391-399.
9.Askari, M., Habibi, D., and NaderiBrujerdi, G. 2012. Effect of vermicompost, plant growth, porpmitingRhizobacteria and humicasid on grieth factor of Menthapiperata L. in Centaralprovience. J. Agron. plant Breeding. 4: 41-54.
10.Barnes, J.D., Balaguer, L., Manrique, E., Elvira, S., and Davison, A.W. 1992. A reappraisal of the use of DMSO for the extraction and determination of chlorophyll a and b in lichens and higher plants. Environ. Exp. Bot. 32: 2. 85-90.
11.Bartels, D., and Sunkar, R. 2005. Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 24: 23-58.
12.Bates, S., Waldern, R.P., and Teare, E.D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil. 39: 205-207.
13.Boscaiu, M., Sanchez, M., Bautista, I., Donat, P., Lidon, A., Llinares, J., Llul, C., Mayoral, O., and Vicente, O. 2010. Phenolic compounds as stress markers in plants from gypsum habitats. Bulletin of the University of 14. Bulletin UASVM Agriculture. 67: 44-49.
15.Brahmi, C., Kopp, C., Domart-Coulon, I., Stolarski, J., and Meibom, A. 2012. Skeletal growth dynamics linked to trace-element composition in the scleractinian coral Pocillopora damicornis. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 99: 146-158.
16.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. Agron. Sustain Dev. 25: 183-191.
17.Erkossa, T., Stahr, K., and Tabor, G. 2002. Integration of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers: Effect on Vegetable Productivity. Ethiopian Agricultural research Organization, Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Centre, Ethiopia. 82: 247-256.
18.Esmaeilizadeh, M., Lotfi, A., Mirdehghan, S.H., and Shamshiri, M.H. 2018. Effects of irrigation intervals on some physiological and biochemical characteristics in four Iranian grapevine cultivars. J. Crop Improv. 20: 1. 1-15.
19.Farzanian, M., and Yarnia, M. 2014. Effects of microelement fertilizers and phosphate biofertilizer on some morphological, physiological traits, yield and essence of Purple coneflower in water stress conditions. Electron. J. Crop Prod. (EJCP), 7: 3. 145-161. (In Persian)
20.Gorgini Shabankareh, H., Fakheri, B.A., and Mohammadpour Vashvaie, R. 2017. The Effect of Bio-fertilizers on Growth, Grain and Essential Oil Yield of Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) under Drought Stress. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 19: 1. 50-62. (In Persian)
21.Guo, Z., Tan, H., Zhu, Z., Lu, S., and Zhou, B. 2005. Effects of intermediates on ascorbic acid and oxalate. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 1: 3. 210-215.
22.Hashemi Fadaki, S.E., Fakheri, B.A., Nezhad, N., and  Mohammad Pour, R. 2018. Effects of nano and nano bio-fertilizer on physiological, biochemical characteristics and yield of roselle under drought stress. J. Crop Improv, 20: 1. 45-66. (In Persian)
23.Heidari, M., and Minaei, A. 2014. Effects of drought stress and humic acid application on flower yield and content of macro-elements in medical plant borage (Borago officinalis L.). J. of Plant Prod. Res., 21: 1. 159-170. (In Persian)
24.Khazaie, H.R., and Borzooei, A. 2006. Effects of water stress on antioxidant activity and physiological characteristics of wheat. The first international conference on the theory and practices in Biological Water Saving (ICTPB) Beijing China.
25.Khorasaninejad, S., Mousavi, A., Soltanloo, H., Hemmati, Kh., and Khalighi, A. 2011. The effect of drought stress on growth parameters, essential oil yield and constituent of Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.). J. Medicin. J. Plant Res, 5: 22, 5360-5365. (In Persian)
26.Khorasaninejad, S., Soltanloo, H., Ramezanpour, S.S., Hadian, J., and Atashi, S. 2015. The Effect of Drought Stress on the Growth, Essential Oil Yield and Chemical Composition of Lavender. J. Crop Improv, 17: 4. 979-988. (In Persian)
27.Khorasaninejad, S., Alizadeh Ahmadabadi, A., and Hemmati, K. 2018. The effect of humic acid on leaf morphophysiological and phytochemical Properties of Echinacea purpurea L. under water deficit stress. Sci. Hortic.239: 314–323.
28.Liu, C., and Cooper, R.J. 2000. Humic substances influence creeping bentgrass growth. Golf Course Management. 12: 49-53.
29.McDonald, R.P., and Ho, M.H.R. 2002. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psy. Meth. 7: 1. 64.
30.Miliauskas, G., Venskutonis, P.R., and Van Beek, T.A. 2004. Screening of radical scavenging activity of some medicinal and aromatic plant extracts. Food chem. 85: 2. 231-237.
31.Mirhajian, A. 2011. What is humic acid? Monthly News Analysis. Agricultural Engineering, 33: 7-16.
32.Nasoutimiandob, R., Samavat, S., and Tehrani, M. 2010. Characterization of humic acid fertilizer on plants and soil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 101: 55-53. (In Persian)
33.Nikbakht, A., Kafi, M., Babalar, M., Xia, YP., Luo, A., and Etemadi, N.A. 2008. Effect of humic acid on plant growth, nutrient uptake, and postharvest life of Gerbera. J. Plant. Nut. 31: 2155-2167.
34.Omokolo, N.D., Nankeu, D.J., Niemenak, N. and Djocgoue, P.F. 2002. Analysis of amino acids and carbohydrates in the cortex of nine clones of Theobroma cacao L. in relation to their susceptibility to Phytophthora megakarya Bra. and Grif. J. Crop Prot. 21: 5. 395-402.
35.Parkhideh, J., Barzegar, T., Nekonam, F., and Nikbakht, J. 2018. Evaluation of growth, yield, and physiological responses of Bitter Apple (Citrullus colocynthis) under deficit irrigation stress conditions. J. Crop Improv. 20:  2. 357-369. (In Persian)
36.Rad, M.H., Assareh M.H., and Soltani M. 2010. Response of the root of Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh. to drought stress. I.J. Forest Pop. Res. 18: 2. 286-296.
37.Rahbarian, P., Afsharmanesh, G., and Shirzadi, M.H. 2010. Effects of drought stress and manure on relative water content and cell membrane stability in dragonhead (Dracocephalum moldavica). Scientific J. Plant. J. Ecophys, 2: 1. 13-19.
38.Ramroudi, M., and Khamar, A.R. 2013. Interaction effects of salicylic acid spraying and different irrigation levels on some quantity and quality traits, and osmoregulators in basil (Ocimum basilicum). App. Res. Plant. Ecophy. 1: 1. 19-31.
39.Ramroudi, M.,  Chezgi, M., and Galavi, M. 2017. Effect of methanol spraying on quantitative traits and osmatic adjustments in Moldavian (Dracocephlum moldavica L.) under low irrigation conditions. J. Crop. Prod. 48: 1. 149-158. (In Persian)
40.Rimmer, D.L. 2006. Free radicals, antioxidants, and soil organic matter recalcitrance. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 57: 91-94.
41.Sadat Hosseini, M., Samsampour, D., Ebrahimi, M., Abadía, J., and Khanahmadi, M. 2018. Effect of drought stress on growth parameters, osmolyte contents, antioxidant enzymes and glycyrrhizin synthesis in licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra L.) grow. Phytochem. 156: 124-134.
42.Saedi, F., Mosavi Nik, S.M., and  Rahimian Boger, A.R. 2017. Effects of different fertilizers on the morphophysiological characteristics of chicory under drought stress. J. Crop Improv. 19: 1. 119-132.
43.Safaei, Z., Azizi, M., Davarynejad, GH., and Aroiee, H. 2014. The effect of foliar application of humic acid and nanofertilizer on yield and yield components of black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). J. Medic. Plant By-Prod. 2: 133-140.
44.Safari, M., Arghavani, M., and Kheiri, A. 2018. Effect of salicylic acid on morphological and physiological characteristics of vetiver grass under water deficit stress conditions. J. Crop Improv. 19: 3. 591-603. (In Persian)
45.Sanjari mijani, M.,  Siroosmehr, A.R., and Fakheri, B.A. 2015. The effects of drought stress and humic acid on some physiological characteristics of roselle. J. Crop Improv. 17: 2. 403-414. (In Persian)
46.Sebastiano, D., Roberto, T., Ersilio, D., and Arturo, A. 2005. Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth and yield of durum wheat. J. Agri. Res. 25: 183-191.
47.Sharif, M., Khattak, R.A., and Sarir, M.S. 2002. Effect of different levels of lignitic coal drivedhumic acid on growth of maize plants. Commun. Soil. Sci. Plant Anal. 33: 3567-3580.
48.Sodaii zadeh, H., Shamsaie, M., Tajamoliyan, M., Mohammad Mirmohammady maibody, A., and Hakim zadeh, M.A. 2016. The Effects of Water Stress on some Morphological and physiological Characteristics of Satureja hortensis.  J. Plant Proc. Func. 5: 15, 1-12. (In Persian)
49.Tian, X., and Lei, Y. 2006. Nitric oxide treatment alleviates drought stress in wheat seedlings. Biol. Plant. 50: 4. 775-778.
50.Tsai, Y.L., Chiou, S.Y., Chan., K.C., Sung, J.M., and Lin, S.D. 2012. Caffeic acid derivatives, total phenols, antioxidant and anti-mutagenic activities of Echinacea purpurea flower extracts. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 46: 169-176.
51.Yamasaki, S., and Dillenburg, L.R. 1999. Measurements of leaf relative water content in Araucaria angustifolia. Rev. Brasill. Fisio. Veg. 11: 2. 69-75.
52.Yousefi, M., Enteshari, Sh., and Saadatmand, M. 2014. Effects of silica treatment on some morphological, anatomical and physiological characteristics of Iranian borage (Echium amoenum Fisch & C.A. Mey).Soil. Cultu. Res. Center. SCRC. 5: 2. 83-94.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 12, Issue 3
December 2020
Pages 101-120

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics