The effect of nitrogen fertilizer management and heat stress during quinoa anthesis

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 National Salinity Research Center Nahalestan Ave. Airport Bulevard

2 Soil and Water Research Institute(SWRI) Meshkin-dasht road, Imam Khomeini Ave. Karaj, Iran P.O. Box: 3177993545

Abstract

Background and objectives:
Chenopodium quinoa is a facultative halophyte plant which has been considered for cultivation in saline soils. Although most studies of the nutritional requirement of quinoa focus on nitrogen consumption management. Since the plant is considered for organic production in Peru and Bolivia and is also grown after crops such as potatoes, fertilizer is not recommended and the plant uses the fertilizer residues of the previous crop (19). Under these conditions, the optimal use of fertilizers, especially nitrogen fertilizers, to prevent lodging, mechanized harvesting and increase yield is very important. Climate conditions have a major impact on quinoa performance. The most important stress on the central plateau, in addition to salinity, is heat stress during the pollination and grain filling period, which causes a sharp decrease in yield (21). The purpose of this experiment is to optimize nitrogen fertilizer management in changing environmental conditions.

Materials and methods:
In order to determine quinoa fertilizer requirements under normal and heat stress during pollination period the experimental was conducted based on complete randomized block design in three replications, it was performed in Sadough Research Station of Yazd. Treatment consisted of nine treatments with different amounts of nitrogen (50, 100, 150 and 200 kg of urea ha-1) and splitting (two splitting at planting and early floral initiation and three splitting at planting, early floral initiation and flowering) plus a control treatment with three replications. Quinoa cultivation of Titicaca was carried out on September 1, 2017 and August 7, 2018. Applied irrigation water salinity after sowing was 8 dS/m and after emergence 14 dS/m saline water applied every two weeks. After harvesting, yield and yield components and nitrogen percentage of grain were measured. The efficiency of nitrogen consumption, partial efficiency, recycling of nitrogen consumption and the growing degree day for each growth stage were calculated. Data analysis was performed for each year separately due to the significance of the Bartlett test with SAS v9.1 software.
Results:
The results showed that the level of application of fertilizer treatment had a significant effect on yield and biomass production. In the first year, the maximum grain yield obtained at 200 kg ha-1 with seed yield of 2 t ha-1. At lower level of fertilizer application, the adsorption efficiency and the amount of nitrogen recycled were higher, and the treatments of the three splitting were better than the two. At higher levels of fertilizer, the effect of splitting was less than lower levels of fertilizer. The amount of harvested available nitrogen in the control treatment was 2.8 and at 200 kg ha-1 was 6.3 g m-2. The highest recycling efficiency was observed in 50 kg treatment with 3 splitting. The percentage of seed nitrogen in the control was significantly lower than the fertilizer treatments and there was no significant difference between the fertilizer treatments, which shows the plant's ability to remobilize nitrogen to seeds and maintain protein percentage in low-input systems under saline condition. In the second year with heat stress during the anthesis period, grain yield and nitrogen yield decreased by 62% and 59%, respectively. The effect of thermal stress during the quinoa pollination period reduced the efficiency of fertilizer use and severely reduced yield, but did not affect the percentage of grain nitrogen and the thousand kernel weight.
Conclusion:
The fertilizer requirement, the efficiency of fertilizer application and the recovery of quinoa seed nitrogen changed under different climatic conditions, although the percentage of nitrogen accumulated in the grain did not change significantly, so to achieve the desired result, fertilizer management would be altered in different climatic and soil conditions.

Keywords


  1. Abugoch James, L.E. 2009. Chapter 1 Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa): Composition, Chemistry, Nutritional, and Functional Properties. Vol. Volume 58: pp. 1-31. In L. T. Steve (eds), Advances in food and nutrition research. Elsevier Inc.
  2. Adolf, V. , Jacobsen, S. E., and Shabala, S. 2012. Salt tolerance mechanisms in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Env. Exp. Bot. 92: 43-54.
  3. Adolf, V.I., Shabala, S., Andersen, M.N., Razzaghi, F., and Jacobsen, S.E. 2012. Varietal differences of quinoa’s tolerance to saline conditions. Plant and Soil. 357: 1-13.
  4. Alandia, G., Jacobsen, S.E., Kyvsgaard, N.C., Condori, B., and Liu, F. 2016. Nitrogen sustains seed yield of quinoa under intermediate drought. J. Agron. Crop 202: 4. 281-291.
  5. Alvar-Beltrán, J., Dao, A., Dalla Marta, A., Saturnin, C., Casini, P., Sanou, J., and Orlandini, S. 2019. Effect of drought, nitrogen fertilization, temperature and photoperiodicity on quinoa plant growth and development in the Agron. 9: 10. 1-16.
  6. Bastidas, E., Roura, R., Rizzolo, D., Massanés, T., and Gomis, R. 2016. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd), from nutritional value to potential health benefits: an integrative review. J. Nutr. Food Sci. 6: 3. 2-10.
  7. Bazile, D., Bertero, H.D., and Nieto, C. 2015. State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013: FAO. 605 p.
  8. Cole, D.L., Woolley, R.K., Tyler, A., Buck, R.L., and Hopkins, B.G. 2020. Mineral nutrient deficiencies in quinoa grown in hydroponics with single nutrient salt/acid/chelate sources. J. Plant Nut. 43: 11. 1661-1673.
  9. Fawy, H.A., Attia, M.F., and Hagab, R.H. 2017. Effect of nitrogen fertilization and organic acids on grains productivity and biochemical contents of quinoa plant grown under soil conditions of ras sader-sinai. Egyptian. J. Desert Res. 67: 1. 171-185.
  10. Garcia, M., Condori, B., and Castillo, C.D. 2015. Agroecological and agronomic cultural practices of quinoa in South America. (pp. 25-46). In Murphy, K., and Matanguihan, J. (eds). Quinoa: Improvement and Sustainable Production: Wiley Online Library.
  11. Gomaa, E.F. 2013. Effect of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Biofertilizers on Quinoa Plant (Chenopodium quinoa). J. Appl. Sci. Res. 9: 8. 5210-5222.
  12. Hinojosa, L., Matanguihan, J.B., and Murphy, K.M. 2019. Effect of high temperature on pollen morphology, plant growth and seed yield in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 205: 1. 33-45.
  13. Jacobsen, S.E., and Christiansen, J. 2016. Some agronomic strategies for organic quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 202: 454-463.
  14. Kakabouki, I.P., Hela, D., Roussis, I., Papastylianou, P., Sestras, A.F., and Bilalis, D.J. 2018. Influence of fertilization and soil tillage on nitrogen uptake and utilization efficiency of quinoa crop (Chenopodium quinoa). J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 18: 1. 220-235.
  15. Kansomjet, P., Thobunluepop, P., Lertmongkol, S., Sarobol, E., Kaewsuwan, P., Junhaeng, P., and Ivan, M. 2017. Response of physiological characteristics, seed yield and seed quality of quinoa under difference of nitrogen fertilizer management. Am. J. Plant Physiol. 12: 20-27.
  16. Erley, S.A.G., Kaul, H.P., Kruse, M., and Aufhammer, W. 2005. Yield and nitrogen utilization efficiency of the pseudocereals amaranth, quinoa, and buckwheat under differing nitrogen fertilization. Eur. J. Agron. 22: 1. 95-100.
  17. Koyro, H.W., Lieth, H., and Eisa, S.S. 2008. Salt tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa, grains of the andes: Influence of salinity on biomass production, yield, composition of reserves in the seeds, water and solute relations. pp: 133-145. In: Lieth, H et al. (eds.), Mangroves and Halophytes: Restoration and Utilisation.
  18. Mahmoud, A.H., and Sallam, S. 2017. Response of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) plant to nitrogen fertilization and irrigation by saline water. Alex. Sci. Exch. J. 38: 2. 326-334.
  19. Murphy, K.S., and Matanguihan, J. 2015. Quinoa: Improvement and sustainable production: John Wiley Sons. 258 p.
  20. Razzaghi, F., Plauborg, F., Jacobsen, S.E., Jensen, C.R., and Andersen, M.N. 2012. Effect of nitrogen and water availability of three soil types on yield, radiation use efficiency and evapotranspiration in field-grown quinoa. Agric. Water Manag. 109: 20-29.
  21. Salehi, M., Soltani, V., and Dehghani, F. 2019. Effect of sowing date on phenologic stages and yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) under saline condition. Env. Stresses in Crop Sci. 12: 3. 923-932. (In Persian)
  22. Sanchez, L.A.H. 2018. Effect of heat and drought stress in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa): Ph.D thesis, Washington State University.
  23. Soltani, A.Sinclair, T.R. 2011. A simple model for chickpea development, growth and yield. Field Crops Res. 124:252-260.
  24. Shams, A. 2012. Response of quinoa to nitrogen fertilizer rates under sandy soil conditions. Paper presented at the Proc. 13th International Conf. Agron., Fac. of Agric., Benha Univ., Egypt.
  25. Shoman, A. 2018. Effect of sowing dates and nitrogen on productivity of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) at desert areas. J. Plant Prod. 9: 4. 327-332.
  26. Tovar, J.C., Quillatupa, C., Callen, S.T., Castillo, S.E., Pearson, P., Shamin, A., Gehan, M.A. 2020. Heating quinoa shoots results in yield loss by inhibiting fruit production and delaying maturity. The Plant J. 102: 5. 1058-1073.
  27. Wang, N., Wang, F., Shock, C.C., Meng, C., and Qiao, L. 2020. Effects of management practices on quinoa growth, seed yield, and quality. Agron. 10: 3. 445-460.

 

  1. Wieme, R.A., Carpenter-Boggs, L.A., Crowder, D.W., Murphy, K.M., and Reganold, J.P. 2020. Agronomic and economic performance of organic forage, quinoa, and grain crop rotations in the Palouse region of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Agric Syst. 177: 102709.
  2. Wieme, R.A., Reganold, J.P., Crowder, D.W., Murphy, K.M., and Carpenter-Boggs, L.A. 2020. Productivity and soil quality of organic forage, quinoa, and grain cropping systems in the dryland Pacific Northwest, USA. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 293: 106838.