Printer Friendly

Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield and yield components in wheat (T. aestivum and T. durum) genotypes.

Introduction

Cereals are an important crop throughout the world, because they constitute the main protein and energy supply in most countries [7]. Wheat is one of the major cereal crops with a unique protein, which is consumed by humans and is grown around the world in diverse environments. Average yield of wheat in Iran is low, which is due to substandard methods of cultivation, imbalanced nutrition, poor plant protection measures and lack of high yielding varieties. Crop management factors such as the application of fertilizers have effect on wheat yield and quality. Organic agriculture is one of the ways that can produce high quality crops and increase yield [13].

The continued use of chemical fertilizers causes health and environmental hazards such as ground and surface water pollution by nitrate leaching. So reducing the amount of nitrogen fertilizers applied to the field without a nitrogen deficiency will be the main challenge in field management. One of the possible options to reduce the use of chemical fertilizer could be using of organic matter. It is generally acknowledged that organic matter plays an important role in maintaining a high level of soil fertility. The positive influence of organic fertilizers on soil fertility, on crop yield and quality has been demonstrated in the works of many researchers [26,17,8,22]. Also, some studies showed that biofertilizers technologies are safer for plants and the environment than inorganic (chemical) products. Improper biofertilizers application can also contribute to surface and ground water pollution, may induce a plant nutrient deficiency or toxicity, or cause salt burn. [10,9]. Seed inoculation of wheat verities with biofertilizers showed a significantly increased yield and vegetative growth [15].

The benefits of bio-organic fertilizers for increasing wheat grain yield are not always easy to optimize because of N content and its subsequent release being difficult to predict. Increasing wheat yield by combined effect of bio-organic and organic and chemical fertilizers is a promising goal in wheat production for decreasing high doses of chemical fertilizer also, get more clean product with low undesirable high doses of heavy metals and other pollutants, these benefits reported by Radwan et al., [20], Abdel-Magid et al., [1], Fares, [11], Mikhaeel et al., [16] and Sushila et al., [23].

The present paper aims at finding the effect of bio-organic and organic manures and chemical fertilizers on yield and quality of six durum and bread wheat genotypes under Khuzestan condition.

Materials And Methods

Site description:

A filed experiment was conducted at Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University in Ahwaz, south--western of Iran, in the 2008-2009 growing season. This University is located at 50 m above see level (31[degrees]36' N, 48[degrees]53'E). The result soil analysis is shown in Table 1.

Treatments and experimental design:

Treatments were arranged as a split--plot experiment in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Fertilizer treatments were in main plots and wheat genotypes were in sub--plots. Four type of organic and inorganic treatments were used, which were as following:

S1= inorganic1 (80 kg ha-1 N, 75kg ha-1

Superphosphate (15.5% P2O5) and 75 kg ha-1 potash)

S2= inorganic2 (control) (140 kg ha-1 N, 150kg ha-1

Superphosphate (15.5% P2O5) and 150 kg ha-1 potash)

S3= chicken manure (8 t/ha)

S4= chicken manure (8 t/ha) + Nitroxin* (1 lit/ha) + Barvar-2**(1kg/ha)

*(Nitroxin) is a commercial product of biofertilizer contains Azotobacter and Azospirillum produced by Asia Bio Technology Institute, Iran.

**( Barvar-2) is a commercial product of biofertilizer contains Pesudomonas putida and Bacilla Lentus produced by Green Biotech, Iran.

Six genotypes with different growth durations were used. The genotypes included three bread wheat (Veenak, Chamran and Star) and three durum wheat (D-79-15, Karkheh and SP-50).

The experiment site had a hot climate with a moderate winter a dry and hot summer. In experimental design used, each plot consisted of 6 rows, 3 meters in length spaced 20 cm apart. Based on this, the sub--plot size was 3.6 m2 (6* 3*0.2) and seed density for bread and durum wheat was 400 and 500 seed m-2 based on 1000- kernel weight, respectively.

Sampling and analyses:

Chlorophyll content of 20 youngest fully expanded leave/pot was measured using a chlorophyll meter (Model SPAD 502, Minolta, Japan) at anthesis stage. At the maturity stage wheat plants were harvested and samples from grain and whole plants of each treatment were oven dried at 70= C for analysis. Total dray matter, grain yield, harvest index (HI) and yield components were estimated. Protein (% dry matter) was calculated by multiplying the corresponding total nitrogen (by Kjeldahl) content by factor 5.7 using an automated N analyzer (Kjeltec system 1002, Foss Tecator AB, Sweden) [6].

Statistical analysis:

All data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures using MSTATC software package. Treatment means were separated by Duncan's multiple range tests at (Duncan 0.05).

Results And Discussion

Grain yield:

Analysis of variance indicated significant difference between fertility systems for grain yield (Table, 3), and effects were consistent across cultivars. The highest grain yield was in integrated chicken manure with biofertilizer (7042.5 kg x [ha.sup.-1]) Amujoyegbe et al., [3] and Rizwan et al., [21] showed that, Application integrated chicken manure with biofertilizer caused to be produce highest yield compared with application chemical and chicken manure treatment alone (Table, 3). But this treatment ([S.sub.4]) was not significant variation with chicken manure ([S.sub.3]) (6486.9 kg x [ha.sup.-1]) and control ([S.sub.2]) (6530.9 kg x [ha.sup.-1]). Organic and biofertilizer applied to the soil affect the plant physiological processes and improved water holding capacity [12] and N uptake, which serves important instruments in yield development. The lowest grain yield of 6142.9 kg x [ha.sup.-1] was obtained under inorganic 1 system ([S.sub.1]). Data in table 2 showed that interaction between the effect of cultivars and fertility system on grain yield was statistically significant (P <0.01). The highest grain yield (Fig, 1) were in all fertility systems, in late maturing bread (star) and durum (SP50) wheat cultivars were long growth season and extensive root system.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Biological yield:

The effect of cultivars and various organic and inorganic treatments were significant on biological yield (Table 2). The inorganic 1 system produced significantly lower biological yield (16319.4 kg x [ha.sup.-1]) than the other fertility treatments (Table, 3). There was no significance difference in biological yield production among other fertility treatments. However, the mixed organic treatment produced more biological yield (19006.9 kg x [ha.sup.-1]) than the control and chicken manure treatments. The superiority of mixed organic manure may be attributed to balanced and gradual release of plant nutrients and increased nutrient uptake to support growth. Similar results were obtained by Afifi et al., [2] who reported that higher biological yield were recorded with organic and biofertilizer treatments. There was a significant variation between cultivars for biological yield (P <0.01) but the cultivar x fertility system interaction was not significant. Maximum biological yield was in star (20583.3 kg x [ha.sup.-1]) and SP50 (19281.3 kg x [ha.sup.-1]) cultivars and minimum in D-79-15 (15166.7 kg x [ha.sup.-1]).

Harvest index:

Harvest index of wheat was significantly (Table 2) affected by fertility system. The data (Table, 3) revealed that highest index (39.68%) was recorded with application chicken manure ([S.sub.3]). The lowest harvest index (34.92%) was noted with control (S2). The harvest index was significantly influenced by cultivars (Table, 2). The highest harvest index of 38.75% was achieved by early maturating variety D-79-15 (Fig, 2). Interaction between cultivar x fertility system was significant for this trait (Table 2). The cultivar veenak showed highest harvest index with fertility system 4 ([S.sub.4]). Whereas, cultivar Karkheh gave lowest harvest index with fertility system1 ([S.sub.1]). There was an inverse relationship between application of chemical fertility and harvest index, this may be due to increased rate of photosynthesis and utilization of assimilates obtained by organic fertility systems which turn resulted in heavier grains, there by increased the harvest index. The same result was observed by White and Wilson, [25].

Thousand grain weight:

D-79-15 cultivar produced highest 1000-grain weight at integrated chicken manure and biological fertilizers (Fig, 3). Generally, late maturing cultivars in inorganic fertility systems had lowest 1000-grain weight. The grain weight gain could have been due to higher rates of photosynthesis and photoassimilate partitioning to the grains, or longer periods of grain filling or both [24]. The effect of fertilizer treatments weren't significant on 1000-grain weight, but application of organic fertility systems increased the 1000-grain weight (Fig, 3). Grain weight is a genetically controlled trait, which is greatly influenced by environment during the process of grain filling [14].

Kernel number per spike:

Data presented in Table 2 clear that fertility systems and cultivars and their interactions had significant effects on the kernel number per spike. The number of grains in spike in mentioned cultivars shows an increase relative under control treatment; however the increase was higher in Star cultivar (Fig, 4). The lower kernel number per spike obtained at control treatment (39 kernels per spike) in this treatment Star cultivar had highest kernel number per spike (47 kernels per spike). The increase in kernel number per spike may result from increase in the various components of kernel set: the number of spikelets per spike, the frequency of spikelets bearing grains, the number of differentiated florets, the survival of florets, the frequency of grain setting by florets [19].

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Chlorophyll content:

Application of organic manure especially mixed treatment ([S.sub.4]) (56.43), resulted in a significant increase in chlorophyll content of wheat leaves (Table 2). A promotion effect of organic fertilizers on chlorophyll contents might be attributed to the fact that N is a constituent of chlorophyll molecule. Moreover, nitrogen is the main constituent of all amino acids in proteins and lipids that acting as a structural compounds of the chloroplast [4,5].

Grain protein content:

Data on protein content in wheat grain showed variable response to different fertilizer treatments (Table 2). For example control produced significantly greater protein content in wheat grain compared with the other treatments. It was noted that maximum protein content of 12.63% was found in control (Table, 3). Generally, inorganic treatment had the highest protein content. This may be due to negative correlation between grain yield and protein content. Dilution of protein by non-nitrogen compounds in grain seemed to be the primary cause for the negative association between grain yield and protein content [18].

Among cultivars, early maturing cultivars (veenak (11.43 %) and D-79-15(11.67 %)) had the highest protein content (Table, 3). In early maturing cultivars that shorten the duration of grain filling period, starch deposition appears to be more affected than protein deposition. Therefore, the increase in grain protein percentage obtained in Veenak and D-79-15 cultivars, may be mainly attributed to reduced starch accumulation.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Conclusion:

Our results suggested that wheat yield and its component can be raised significantly by modifying agronomic practices. Yields were increased, by application of animal manure and biofertilizer, as well as from application of inorganic nutrients. In addition to, the integrated use of animal manure and biofertilizer performed better than the use of inorganic fertility or animal manure alone. Also animal manure combined with biofertilizer was benefit to the environment because with decrease use of chemical fertilizer and use of inputs organic can move to sustainable agriculture.

References

[1.] Abdel Magid, H.M., S.I. Abdel Aal, R.K. Rabie and R.E.A. Sabrah, 1995. Chicken manure as a biofertilizer for wheat in the sandy soils of Saudi Arabia. J. Arid Environ., 29: 413-420.

[2.] Afifi, M.H., F.M. Manal and A.M. Gomaa, 2003. Efficiency of applying biofertilizers to maize crop under different levels of mineral fertilizers. Annal. Agric. Sci. Moshtohor, 41: 1411-1420.

[3.] Amujoyegbe, B.Y., J.T. Opbode and A. Olayinka, 2007. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer on yield and chlorophyll content of Zea mays and Sorghum bicolor. Dept. Plant Sci., 46:186-174.

[4.] Arisha, H.M. and A. Bradisi, 1999. Effect of mineral fertilizers and organic fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of potato under sandy soil conditions. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 26: 391-405.

[5.] Badr, L.A.A. and W.A. Fekry, 1998. Effect of intercropping and doses of fertilization on growth and productivity of taro and cucumber plants. 1-vegetative growth and chemical constituents of foliage. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 25: 1087-1101.

[6.] Bremner, J.M. and Mulvaney, C.S., 1982. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keeney, D.R. (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2 2nd Ed. Agron. 9, pp. 595-624.

[7.] Bos C, Juillet B, Fouillet H, Turlan L, Dare S, Luengo C, N'tounda R, Benamouzig R, Gausseres N, Tome D, Gaudichon C (2005) Postprandial metabolic utilization of wheat protein in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 81: 87-94.

[8.] Dauda, S.N., F.A. Ajayi and E. Ndor, 2009. Growth and yield of water melon (Citrullus lanatus) as affected by poultry manure application. J. Env. Agric. foo. Che., 8(4): 305-311.

[9.] El-Ghany, A. and F. Bouthaina, 1994. Effect of biofertilization and chemical fertilizers on soil microbial properties and fodder beet production under calcareous soil conditions. Desert Inst. Bull., 44: 247-262.

[10.] El-Hamid, A. and E. Amal, 1994. Studies on the role of microorganisms in utilizing phosphate in desert soils. M.Sc. Thesis, Agricultural Microbiology, Faculty of Agricultural, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

[11.] Fares, C.N., 1997. Growth and yield of wheat plants as affected by biofertilization with associative symbiotic N -fixers and endomycorohizae in the 2 presence of different P fertilizers. Annals Agric. Sci. Cairo, 42: 51-60.

[12.] Gangwar, K.S., K.K. Singh, S.K. Sharma and O.K. Tomar, 2006. Alternative tillage and crop residue management in wheat after rice in sandy loam soils of Indo-Gangetic Plains. Soil Tillage Res., 88: 242-252.

[13.] Higa, T., 1994. The Complete Data of Em Encyclopedia. 2nd Edn., Sogo-Unicom in Japanese, Tokyo, pp: 385-388.

[14.] Kausar, K., M. Akbar, E. Rasul and A.N. Ahmad, 1993. Physiological responses of nitrogen and potassium on growth and yield of wheat. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 14: 2-3.

[15.] Narula, N., V. Kumar and R.K. Behl, 2001. Effect of phosphate-solubilizing strains of Azotobacter chroococcum on yield traits and their survival in the rhizosphere of wheat genotypes under field conditions. Acta Agronimica Hungarica, 49: 141-149.

[16.] Mikhaeel, F.T., A.N. Estefanous and G.G. Antoun, 1997. Response of wheat to mycorrhizal inoculation and organic fertilisation. Bull. Fac. Agric. Univ. Cairo, 48: 175-186.

[17.] Naeem, M., J. Iqbal and M.A.A. Bakhsh, 2006. Comparative study of inorganic fertilizers and organic manures on yield and yield components of mungbean (Vigna radiat L.). J. Agric. Soc. Sci., 2: 227-229.

[18.] Pleijel, H., L. Mortensen, J. Fuhrer, K. Ojanpera and H. Danielsson, 1999. Grain protein accumulation in relation to grain yield of spring wheat (Triticum eastivum L.) grown in open-top chambers with different concentrations of ozone, carbon dioxide and water availability. Agric. Ecosys. Environ., 72: 265-270.

[19.] Peltonen-Sainio, P., A. Kangas, Y. Salo and L. Jauhiainen, 2007. Grain number dominates grain weight in temperate cereal yield determination: Evidence based on 30 years of multi-location trials. Field Crops Res., 100: 179-188.

[20.] Radwan, S.M., H.F. Hussein, J.L. Rubio, R.P. Morgan, S. Asins and V. Andreu, 2002. Response of wheat plants to bio and organic fertilization under different weed control treatments: Man and Soil at the Third Millennium. Proceeding of the International Congress of the European Society of Soil Conservation, March-28-April 1, Valencia, Spain, pp: 1015-1023.

[21.] Rizwan, A., M. Arshad, A. Khalid and A. Zahir, 2008. Effectiveness of organic bio-fertilizer supplemented with chemical fertilizer for improving soil water retention. Aggregate stability, growth and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays.). J. Sustain. Agric., 34: 57-77.

[22.] Suresh, D., S. Goyala, K. Kapoora and M. Mundrab, 2004. Microbial biomass carbon and microbial activities of soils receiving chemical fertilizers and organic amendments. Archives Agron. Soil Sci., 50: 641-647.

[23.] Sushila, R., G. Gajendra and G. Giri, 2000. Influence of farmyard manure, nitrogen and biofertilizers on growth, yield attributes and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under limited water supply. Indian J. Agron., 45(3): 590-595.

[24.] Turk, M.A. and A.R.M. Tawaha, 2002. Response of winter wheat to applied N With or without ethrel spray under irrigation planted in semi-arid environments. Asian J. Plant Sci., 4: 464-466.

[25.] White, E.M. and F.E.A. Wilson, 2006. Responses of grain yield, biomass and harvest index and their rates of genetic progress to nitrogen availability in winter wheat varieties. Irish J. Agricul. Food Res., 45: 85-101.

[26.] Wong, J.W.C., K.K. Ma, K.M. Fang and C. Cheung, 1999. Utilization of manure compost for organic farming in Hong Kong. Bio-resource Technol., 67: 4346.

(1) Amin Lotfi Jala-Abadi, (2) S.A. Siadat, (3) A.M. Bakhsandeh, (4) G. Fathi and (5) K.H. Alemi Saied

(1) Ph.D, Student Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Ramin Agricultural Research and Natural resources University, Mollasani, Ahvaz, Iran.

(2) Professor Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Ramin Agricultural Research and Natural resources University, Mollasani, Ahvaz, Iran.

(3) Professor Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Ramin Agricultural Research and Natural resources University, Mollasani, Ahvaz, Iran.

(4) Professor Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Ramin Agricultural Research and Natural resources University, Mollasani, Ahvaz, Iran.

(5) Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Ramin Agricultural and Natural Resources University, Mollasani, Ahvaz, Iran.

Corresponding Author

Amin Lotfi Jala-Abadi, Ph.D, Student Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Ramin Agricultural Research and Natural resources University, Mollasani, Ahvaz, Iran.

E-mail: aminlo2020@gmail.com, Tel.: 0098-913-2338805; Fax: 0098-6123222425
Table 1: Soil properties of experimental field.

 Depth        EC (a)       pH    Texture   Sand    Silt     Clay
 (cm)     (dS[m.sup.-1])
                                             (gr [kg.sup.-1])

 0-30          3.1         7.9     Lc      394     354      252
 30-60         2.3         7.8             234     474      292

Organic       avr. P        avr. K
matter
  (%)            (mg [kg.sup.-1])

 0. 89         0.87           143
 0.47          0.59           125

(a) EC, Electrical Conductivity; cL, Loam; dCL, Clay Loam;

Table 2: Analysis of variance for grain, yield
component, Chlorophyll content and protein content.

S.O.V         Degree    Grain           Biological      Harvest
              Freedom   Yield           yield           index
                        (kg.            (kg.            (%)
                        [ha.sup.-1])    [ha.sup.-1])

Rep           2         105740.01 *     2034071.18 *    16.53 *
Fertilizer
system (S)    3         2475488.177 *   27345196.76 *   101.11 **
Error 1       6         551581.18       5086733.2       6.69
Variety (V)   5         7567872.87 **   43830555.6 **   17.69 **
S*V           15        1831077.44 **   6083217.6 ns    31.9 **
Error 2       40        292349.33       3472786.5       5.46
C.V. (%)      --        8.25            10.42           6.24

S.O.V         1000-grain   Kernels          Chlorophyll   Grain
              weight       [spike.sup.-1]   content       protein
              (g)                                         (%)

Rep           8.97ns       10.76ns          22.19ns       0.50ns
Fertilizer
system (S)    24.34 ns     97.13 *          116.67 *      13.22 *
Error 1       9.00         21.82            12.92         2.10
Variety (V)   696.16 **    59.71 **         85.03 **      1.47 *
S*V           15.17 **     52.65 **         3.55 ns       0.83 ns
Error 2       5.28         15.24            6.84          0.68
C.V. (%)      4.61         10.43            4.90          7.44

* and **: Significant at 5 and 1% levels of
probability, respectively (* P <0.05 and ** P <0.01).

ns: Nonsignificant

Table 3: Mean comparison of grain, yield component, Chlorophyll
content and protein content as affected by different fertility
system and cultivar.

Treatments   Grain yield   Biological     Harvest     1000-grain
             (kg. [ha      yield (kg.     index (g)   weight
             .sup.-1])     [ha.sup.-1])               [spike.sup.-1]
                           (%)

Fertilizer system (S)

[S.sub.1]    6142.9 b      16319.4 b      35.92 b     50.01 a
[S.sub.2]    6530.9 ab     18701.4 a      34.92 b     48.16 a
[S.sub.3]    6486.9 ab     17458.3 ab     39.68 a     50.63 a
[S.sub.4]    7042.5 a      19006.9 a      39.22 a     50.59 a

Variety (V)

[V.sub.1]    5725.6 e      17458.3 c      37.82 ab    42.82 c
[V.sub.2]    6500.9 c      18052.1 bc     36.53 bc    .50 b
[V.sub.3]    7902.8 a      20583.3 a      37.16 abc   46.92 b
[V.sub.4]    5962.6d e     15166.7 d      38.75 a     59.15 a
[V.sub.5]    6225.8 cd     16687.5 cd     35.68 c     59.27 a
[V.sub.6]    6987.0 b      19281.3 ab     38.66 a     42.43 c

Treatments   Kernels       Chlorophyll   Grain
             content (%)                 protein

Fertilizer system (S)

[S.sub.1]    34 b          50.24 c       10.57 b
[S.sub.2]    39 a          53.03 bc      12.63 a
[S.sub.3]    37 ab         53.75 ab      10.48 b
[S.sub.4]    38 a          56.43 a       10.54 b

Variety (V)

[V.sub.1]    38 ab         51.42 b       11.43 ab
[V.sub.2]    34 c          50.32 b       11.13 ab
[V.sub.3]    39 ab         56.39 a       10.64 b
[V.sub.4]    35 bc         56.24 a       11.67 a
[V.sub.5]    37 abc        54.41 a       10.74 b
[V.sub.6]    40 a          51.40 b       10.71 b

Means, in each column and for each treatment, followed by similar
letters are not significantly different at the 5% of probability
level--using Duncan 's Multiple Range Test.
COPYRIGHT 2012 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Original Article
Author:Jala-Abadi, Amin Lotfi; Siadat, S.A.; Bakhsandeh, A.M.; Fathi, G.; Saied, K.H. Alemi
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7IRAN
Date:Feb 1, 2012
Words:3601
Previous Article:Investigation on colour and fastness properties of wool fabrics dyed with colours obtained from the flowers of the Papaver Rhoeas L. (Common Poppy).
Next Article:Interaction effects of weed interference and berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum) as a living mulch on corn (Zea mays).
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |