Document Type : Research papers
Authors
Plant Production Department, The Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Egypt
Abstract
Keywords
Main Subjects
INTRODUCTION
Wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.) is the most widely grown crop in the world with its unique protein characteristics that serves as an important source of food and energy (Abedi et al., 2010). Mature wheat grains contain 8–14% protein, which are divided into two major categories: prolamins including gliadins and glutenins and non-prolamins consisting of water-soluble albumins and salt-soluble globulins (Singh and Skerritt, 2001).
Introduction of the first generation of technology to agriculture resulted in the green revolution and changed the traditional agriculture to modern intensive agriculture. Today, nanotechnology as a novel technology has solved many problems in different fields of science and industry and has found its position and functions in agriculture. Nanotechnology has various functions in all stages from production, processing, storage, packing and transportation of agricultural products (Scott and Chen, 2003).
The use of nano- compounds leads to reduce the toxicity of the soil and increased efficiency of the elements to at least reach the negative effects caused by the consumption of excessive consumption of fertilizers and reduce the frequency of application of fertilizers (Naderi and Danesh Shahraki, 2011).
The mechanism of humic acid activity in promoting plant growth is not completely known, but several explanations have been proposed by some researchers such as increasing cell membrane permeability, oxygen uptake, respiration and photosynthesis, phosphate uptake, and root cell elongation (Türkmen et al., 2004), Moreover addition of HA to soil increases the rate of absorption of ions on root surfaces and their penetration into the cells of the plant tissue. Humic acid (HA) application positively affected the plant parameters of plants grown in salinity condition (Türkmen et al., 2005). It also increases both mater and fertilizer retention and stimulate beneficial microbial activity.
Humic acid is an important constituent of soil organic matter which enhances the growth and yield of crops and improves soil physical and chemical characteristics, such as aeration, permeability, water holding capacity, aggregation, availability and transportation of ions through pH buffering (Khan et al., 2012).
This investigation aims to improve some wheat cultivars productivity using nano- technology compound (hypertonic) and humic acid in salt- affected soils.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two field experiments were conducted at the Experimental Station Farm of the Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Egypt, during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 growing seasons, to investigate the effect of nanocompound and humic acid on some wheat cultivars under salinity conditions.
A split- plot design with three replicates was used. N and humic acid (HA) application) i.e. Hypertonic (Nano), Humic acid, Hypertonic + humic acid, and control treatment were arranged in main plots. Wheat cultivars (Sakha 93, Sids 12, and Giza 168) were allocated in sub-plots.
The size of each plot was 10.5 m2 (3.5 x 3.0 m) surrounded by ditches to avoid water movement into adjacent plots.
Humic acid (Table 1) was applied with sowing at rate of 5 kg/fed. While Nano- compound (Hypertonic which structured from 10% Ca, 15 % carbocyclic acids, 10 % Seaweed extract and 5 % Biosac) was applied at rate of 5.00 L/fed., with each irrigation every 25 days.
Table (1). Humic acid analysis
Product analysis |
|
Product name |
Techno Potas- Humic acid |
Formula (W/W) |
12% K2O – HA 75 % |
Potassium K2O (on dry basis) |
12 % (W/W) |
Humic acid (on dry basis) |
75 % (W/W) |
Moisture |
15 (Max.) |
PH (1% solution) |
9 -10 (Max.) |
Water solubility |
95 % (Min.) |
The sowing method was broadcasting in both seasons. Sowing dates were 21th and 28th November in both seasons 2014/2015 and 2015/2016, respectively, while, seeding rate was 70 - 80 kg grains/fed., according to wheat cultivar. First irrigation was applied 25 days after sowing and then plants were irrigated every 25 days till the dough stage.
Nitrogen fertilizer at rate of 75 kg N/fed. In the form of urea (46.50 %N), was added in three doses. The first dose (20 kg N/fed.) was added at sowing time, the second dose (35 kg N/fed.) was added with the first irrigation (25 days after sowing) and the third dose (20 kg N/fed.) was added (25 days after the first irrigation). Calcium Super phosphate fertilizer (15.5 % P2O5) was applied before sowing at rate of 100 kg/fed., (the recommended dose). Potassium fertilizer was applied before sowing (during seedbed preparation) at rate of 50 kg/fed., in the form of potassium sulphate (48 % K2O) (the recommended dose).
The preceding crop was maize (Zea mays L.) in both cropping seasons. Soil samples of the experimental sites were taken at the depth of (0-30 cm). Physical and chemical analysis were done according to Chapman and Pratt (1978)are presented in Table (2)
Table (2). Some Physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil in 2014 / 2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
Soil properties |
||
|
Season |
|
2014/2015 |
2015/2016 |
|
A) Mechanical analysis |
||
Clay % Sand % Silt % |
38 32 30 |
37 33 30 |
Soil texture |
Clay loam soil |
|
B) Chemical properties |
||
PH ( 1 : 1) EC (dS/m) |
8.20 3.80 |
8.31 3.70 |
1) Soluble cations (1:2) (cmol/kg soil) |
|
|
K+ Ca++ Mg++ Na++ |
1.52 9.4 18.3 13.50 |
1.54 8.7 18.5 13.8 |
2) Soluble anions (1 : 2) (cmol/kg soil) |
||
CO3--+ HCO3- Cl- SO4— Calcium carbonate (%) Total nitrogen (%) Available phosphorus (mg/kg) Organic matter (%) |
2.90 20.4 12.50 6.50 1.00 3.70 1.41 |
2.80 19.80 12.60 7.00 0.91 3.55 1.40 |
Plant height (cm), yield and its components were characterized as spike length (cm), spike number/m2, spikelets number /spike, grains number /spike, 1000-grains weight (g), grain yield, straw yield, biological yield (kg/fed) and harvest index (%).
All data collected were subjected to analysis of variance according to Gomez and Gomez (1984). All statistical analysis was performed using analysis of variance technique by means of CoStat computer software package (CoStat, Ver. 6.311., 2005).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Data presented in Table (3) reveal the effect of nano- compounds (hypertonic) and humic acid (HA) application on plant height (cm), spikes number/m2, spikelets number/spike, grains number/spike and 1000- kernel weight (gm) of Sakha 93, Sids 12 and Giza 168 wheat cultivars under salinity soil conditions in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons. Whereas nano- compounds (hypertonic) and humic acid, significantly, affected on these attributes during both cropping seasons. Whereas, the highest mean values of those characters were recorded with Hypertonic + humic acid as compared with other treatments in both seasons. The increase in these characters may be due to the role of hypertonic and humic acid decreasing salinity effect on wheat plants. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Tahir et al. (2009); Saruhan et al. (2011); Harsini et al. (2014); Akhtar et al. (2015)who concluded that humic acid and nano- compound increased growth and yield and its components.
Significant, differences among wheat cultivars for plant height (cm), spikes number/m2, spikelets number/spike, grains number/spike and 1000- kernel weight (gm) are shown in Table (3) during the two cropping seasons. The cultivar “Sids 12” recorded the highest mean values of above mentioned attributes, while “Giza 168” cultivar gave the lowest ones during the two growing seasons. These differences between wheat cultivars are mainly due to genetic differences between the three cultivars.Hafez (2007); Majer et al. (2008); Abo-Marzoka (2009); Jatoi et al. (2011); Raza et al. (2012); Al-Temimi et al. (2013) who found high significant differences between the wheat cultivars under their studies for plant height.
Salinity alleviated compounds interact, significantly, with wheat cultivars for plant height (cm), spikes number/m2, spikelets number/spike, grains number/spike and 1000- kernel weight (g) in both cropping seasons Table (3). Likewise, “Sids 12” cultivar treated with hypertonic + humic acid gave the highest values of these traits. Meanwhile the lowest ones were recorded by the untreated “Giza 168” cultivar (without hypertonic or humic acid) in the first and the second season, respectively.
Table (3). Average of plant attributes for three wheat cultivars (C) as affected by hypertonic, humic acid (S) and their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
Attributes |
Salinity alleviated compounds (S) |
|
Season 2014/2015 |
|
|
Season 2015/2016 |
|
|||||||||
Sakha 93 |
Sids 12 |
Giza 168 |
Average (S) |
L.S.D (S) at 0.05 |
L.S.D (C) at 0.05 |
L.S.D (CxS) at 0.05 |
Sakha 93 |
Sids 12 |
Giza 168 |
Average (S) |
L.S.D (S) at 0.05 |
L.S.D (C) at 0.05 |
L.S.D (CxS) at 0.05 |
|
||
Plant height (cm) |
Hypertonic(Nano) |
99.23 |
108.20 |
88.33 |
98.59b |
3.53
|
3.78
|
7.55
|
97.93 |
107.67 |
87.13 |
97.58b |
2.47
|
3.70
|
7.39
|
|
Humic |
93.67 |
106.67 |
92.67 |
97.67b |
88.63 |
108.57 |
91.23 |
96.14b |
|
|||||||
Hypertonic +humic |
110.00 |
119.60 |
104.00 |
111.20a |
108.70 |
118.90 |
103.47 |
110.36a |
|
|||||||
Control |
98.83 |
111.17 |
84.33 |
98.11b |
96.40 |
109.97 |
83.47 |
96.61b |
|
|||||||
Average (C) |
100.43b |
111.41a |
92.33c |
|
97.92b |
111.28a |
91.33c |
|
|
|||||||
Spikes number /m2 |
Hypertonic(Nano) |
211.67 |
245.00 |
204.00 |
220.22ab |
43.85
|
30.10
|
60.21
|
213.50 |
253.33 |
215.33 |
227.39ab |
40.10
|
29.51
|
59.01
|
|
Humic |
245.00 |
270.33 |
219.33 |
244.89ab |
260.50 |
285.83 |
234.83 |
260.39a |
|
|||||||
Hypertonic +humic |
231.67 |
281.33 |
266.00 |
259.67a |
243.00 |
280.67 |
264.00 |
262.56a |
|
|||||||
Control |
152.33 |
243.00 |
210.33 |
201.89b |
153.17 |
260.00 |
217.17 |
210.11b |
|
|||||||
Average (C) |
210.17b |
259.92a |
224.92b |
|
217.54b |
269.96a |
232.83b |
|
|
|||||||
Spikelets number/spike |
Hypertonic(Nano) |
17.67 |
20.67 |
18.37 |
18.90bc |
1.23
|
1.06
|
2.12
|
16.00 |
18.67 |
17.20 |
17.29c |
0.741
|
1.08
|
2.15
|
|
Humic |
17.17 |
22.83 |
17.67 |
19.22b |
17.37 |
22.33 |
16.33 |
18.68b |
|
|||||||
Hypertonic +humic |
20.83 |
22.13 |
22.83 |
21.93a |
20.33 |
22.33 |
21.83 |
21.50a |
|
|||||||
Control |
17.50 |
19.53 |
16.67 |
17.90c |
16.17 |
18.50 |
15.33 |
16.67c |
|
|||||||
Average (C) |
18.29b |
21.29a |
18.89b |
|
17.47b |
20.46a |
17.67b |
|
|
|||||||
Grains number/spike |
Hypertonic(Nano) |
47.17 |
55.00 |
48.50 |
50.22c |
2.06
|
1.41
|
2.82
|
47.17 |
55.00 |
48.50 |
50.22c |
2.06
|
1.41
|
2.82
|
|
Humic |
52.53 |
65.67 |
48.17 |
55.46b |
52.53 |
65.67 |
48.17 |
55.46b |
|
|||||||
Hypertonic +humic |
56.00 |
70.33 |
53.00 |
59.78a |
56.00 |
70.33 |
53.00 |
59.78a |
|
|||||||
Control |
47.27 |
52.37 |
43.67 |
47.77d |
47.27 |
52.37 |
43.67 |
47.77d |
|
|||||||
Average (C) |
50.74b |
60.84a |
48.34c |
|
50.74b |
60.84a |
48.34c |
|
|
|||||||
1000- kernel weight (g) |
Hypertonic(Nano) |
46.20 |
50.17 |
42.83 |
46.40c |
1.280
|
1.284
|
2.56
|
47.67 |
53.37 |
44.83 |
48.62c |
1.81
|
1.34
|
2.67
|
|
Humic |
46.90 |
53.50 |
48.57 |
49.66b |
48.33 |
56.00 |
48.27 |
50.87b |
|
|||||||
Hypertonic +humic |
48.43 |
59.00 |
52.87 |
53.43a |
50.53 |
61.67 |
54.20 |
55.47a |
|
|||||||
Control |
38.43 |
48.00 |
38.33 |
41.59d |
38.00 |
44.67 |
38.93 |
40.53d |
|
|||||||
Average (C) |
44.99b |
52.67a |
45.65b |
|
46.13b |
53.93a |
46.56b |
|
|
-Mean values in the same column/row marked with the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability.
The obtained data in Table (4) indicate the effect of nano- compounds (hypertonic) and humic acid (HA) application on grain, straw, and biological yields, and harvest index (H.I. %) of Sakha 93, Sids 12 and Giza 168 wheat cultivars under salinity soil conditions in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons. Whereas salinity alleviated compounds (nano- compounds (hypertonic) and humic acid), significantly, affected on these characters in both cropping seasons. Whereas, the highest mean values of these character were recorded with the hypertonic + humic as compared with other treatments in both seasons. The increase in these characters may be due to the role of hypertonic and humic acid in decreasing salinity effect on wheat plants. These results are in harmony with those obtained by Saruhan et al. (2011); El-Bassiouny et al. (2014); Akhtar et al. (2015); Vafa et al. (2015)who reported that humic acid and nano- compound increased growth and yield and its components.
Significant, differences among wheat cultivars for grain, straw, and biological yields, and harvest index (H.I. %) are shown in Table (3) during the two cropping seasons. The cultivar “Sids 12” recorded the highest mean values of above mentioned attributes, while “Giza 168” cultivar gave the lowest ones during the two growing seasons. These differences between wheat are mainly due to genetic differences between the three cultivars.El-Esh (2007); Ganbalani et al., (2009); Buhedma (2011); Raza et al. (2012); Al-Temimi et al. (2013); Bakry et al. (2013) found high significant differences between the wheat cultivars under their studies for yield and its components.
Salinity alleviated compounds interact, significantly, with wheat cultivars for grain, straw, biological yields, and harvest index (H.I. %) in both cropping seasons Table (4). Likewise, “Sids 12” cultivar treated with hypertonic + humic acid achieved the highest mean values of these traits. Meanwhile the lowest ones were recorded by the untreated “Giza 168” cultivar (without hypertonic or humic acid) in the first and the second season, respectively.
Table (4). Average of plant attributes for three wheat cultivars (C) as affected by hypertonic, humic acid a(S) nd their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
Attributes |
Salinity alleviated compounds (S) |
|
Season 2014/2015 |
|
|
Season 2015/2016 |
|||||||||
Sakha 93 |
Sids 12 |
Giza 168 |
Average (S) |
L.S.D. (S) at 0.05 |
L.S.D. (C) at 0.05 |
L.S.D. (C x S) at 0.05 |
Sakha 93 |
Sids 12 |
Giza 168 |
Average (S) |
L.S.D. (S) at 0.05 |
L.S.D. (C) at 0.05 |
L.S.D. (C x S) at 0.05 |
||
Grain yield (kg/fed.) |
Hypertonic (Nano) |
1975.00 |
2487.04 |
1591.00 |
2017.68c |
84.79
|
60.01
|
120.02
|
1980.00 |
2320.00 |
1656.00 |
1985.33b |
83.75
|
110.57
|
221.14
|
Humic |
1949.67 |
2495.33 |
1966.89 |
2137.30b |
1878.00 |
2141.67 |
1944.80 |
1988.16b |
|||||||
Hypertonic+humic |
2357.27 |
3085.27 |
1955.13 |
2465.89a |
2658.67 |
3226.60 |
1914.50 |
2599.92a |
|||||||
Control |
1624.23 |
1986.53 |
1299.17 |
1636.64d |
1662.23 |
1862.67 |
1316.50 |
1613.80c |
|||||||
Average (C) |
1976.54b |
2513.54a |
1703.05c |
|
2044.73b |
2387.74a |
1707.95c |
|
|||||||
Straw yield (kg/fed.) |
Hypertonic (Nano) |
2424.47 |
2767.49 |
1835.63 |
2342.53c |
114.27
|
202.43
|
404.86
|
2851.83 |
2959.63 |
1900.50 |
2570.65b |
164.68 |
95.56 |
191.13 |
Humic |
2421.00 |
2714.87 |
2340.87 |
2492.25b |
2435.33 |
3214.67 |
2452.60 |
2700.87b |
|||||||
Hypertonic+humic |
2846.67 |
3247.10 |
2206.13 |
2766.63a |
2933.53 |
3839.13 |
2559.33 |
3110.66a |
|||||||
Control |
2133.00 |
3220.53 |
1543.63 |
2299.05c |
2196.60 |
3284.13 |
1679.22 |
2386.65c |
|||||||
Average (C) |
2456.29b |
2987.50a |
1981.57c |
|
2604.32b |
3324.39a |
2147.91c |
|
|||||||
Biological yield |
Hypertonic(Nano) |
4399.47 |
5254.53 |
3426.63 |
4360.21c |
114.21
|
236.12
|
472.23
|
4831.83 |
5279.63 |
3556.50 |
4555.99b |
189.83
|
128.58
|
257.16
|
Humic |
4370.67 |
5210.20 |
4307.76 |
4629.54b |
4313.33 |
5356.34 |
4397.40 |
4689.02b |
|||||||
Hypertonic+humic |
5203.94 |
6332.37 |
4161.26 |
5232.52a |
5592.20 |
7065.73 |
4473.83 |
5710.59a |
|||||||
Control |
3757.23 |
5207.06 |
2842.80 |
3935.70d |
3858.83 |
5146.80 |
2995.72 |
4000.45c |
|||||||
Average (C) |
4432.83b |
5501.04a |
3684.61c |
|
4649.05b |
5712.13a |
3855.86c |
|
|||||||
Harvest index(H.I. %) |
Hypertonic(Nano) |
44.89 |
47.33 |
46.43 |
46.22a |
1.80
|
1.92
|
3.85
|
40.98 |
43.94 |
46.56 |
43.83ab |
1.73
|
1.69
|
3.38
|
Humic |
44.61 |
47.89 |
45.66 |
46.05a |
43.54 |
39.98 |
44.23 |
42.58bc |
|||||||
Hypertonic+humic |
45.30 |
48.72 |
46.98 |
47.00a |
47.54 |
45.67 |
42.79 |
45.33a |
|||||||
Control |
43.23 |
38.15 |
45.70 |
42.36b |
43.08 |
36.19 |
43.95 |
41.07c |
|||||||
Average (C) |
44.51a |
45.52a |
46.19a |
|
43.78a |
41.45b |
44.38a |
|
-Mean values in the same column/row marked with the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability.
CONCLUSION
From the above results of this two growing seasons field’s study, it was concluded that nano compound and humic acid increased yield and its components of wheat crop by decreasing the effect of salinity and Sids 12 cultivar gave more response with this treatment under study conditions at Abess Region, Alexandria governorate, Egypt.