Gomaa, M., kandil, E., Abuo Zeid, A., Salim, B. (2016). Response of Some Faba Bean to Fertilizers Manufactured by Nanotechnology. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 21(3), 384-399. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2016.237120
Mahmoud Gomaa; Essam Esmail kandil; Abuo Zeid AbdElMohsen Abuo Zeid; Bilkess Salim. "Response of Some Faba Bean to Fertilizers Manufactured by Nanotechnology". Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 21, 3, 2016, 384-399. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2016.237120
Gomaa, M., kandil, E., Abuo Zeid, A., Salim, B. (2016). 'Response of Some Faba Bean to Fertilizers Manufactured by Nanotechnology', Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 21(3), pp. 384-399. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2016.237120
Gomaa, M., kandil, E., Abuo Zeid, A., Salim, B. Response of Some Faba Bean to Fertilizers Manufactured by Nanotechnology. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 2016; 21(3): 384-399. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2016.237120
Response of Some Faba Bean to Fertilizers Manufactured by Nanotechnology
1Plant production Department, The Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Egypt.
2Legumes Crops Department, Field Crops Institute, Agric. Res. Center (ARC), Egypt.
Abstract
Two field experiments were conducted at the Nubaria Region, Egypt, during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 growing seasons, in split plot design with three replications to investigate the response of some faba bean (Vicia faba L.) cultivars to mineral and nano-fertilizer applications and their interaction. The main plots were designated for foliar fertilizer with Nano fertilizer (NPK + micronutrients at vegetative stage, flowering stage, and seed filling stage, (vegetative + flowering, (vegetative + filling), (flowering + filling), (vegetative + flowing + filling) stages and Mineral fertilizer(NPK + Micronutrients), while subplot were allocated for three faba bean cultivars (Nubaria 1, Nubaria 2 and Nubaria 3).Significant increase was recorded on plant height (cm), pod length (cm), number of pods/plant, number of seeds/pod, 100- seed weight (g), grain, straw, and biological yield (tons/fed.) as well as harvest index % with fertilizing “Nubaria 2” cultivar by foliar nano- fertilizer at two or three stages (vegetative, flowering or filling) in both growing seasons. Nubaria 2 cultivar recorded the highest mean values for most characters studied.
Faba bean (Vicia faba) is a winter growing food legume crop. There are three main reasons for growing this crop, 1. Cash crop through marketing dry seeds, 2. As a component of a rotation based on winter or summer cereals or cotton, and 3. Green manure where soils have been degraded in organic and physical fertility.
Nanotechnology can present solutions for increasing the value of agricultural products and reducing environmental problems. With using Nano-particles and Nano-powders, we can produce controlled or delayed releasing fertilizers. Nano-particles have high reactivity because of more specific surface area, more density of reactive areas, or increased reactivity of these areas on the particle surfaces. These features simplify the absorption of fertilizers and pesticides that produced in Nano scale (Anonymous, 2009). The use of nanofertilizers causes an increase in their efficiency, reduces soil toxicity, minimizes the potential negative effects associated with over dosage and reduces the frequency of application. Nanofertilizers mainly delay the release of the nutrients and extend the fertilizer effect period. Obviously, there is an opportunity for nanotechnology to have a significant influence on energy, the economy and the environment, by improving fertilizers. Hence, nanotechnology has a high potential for achieving sustainable agriculture, especially in developing countries (Naderi and Danesh-Shahraki, 2013).Furthermore, it is known that under nutrient limitation, crops secrete carbonaceous compounds into rhizosphere to enable biotic mineralization of N and/or P from soil organic matter and of P associated with soil inorganic colloids. Since, these root exudates can be considered as environmental signals and be selected to prepare nanobiosensors that will be incorporated into novel Nano fertilizers (Al-Amin Sadek and Jayasuriya, 2007, Sultan et al., 2009).
Synthesized nanoparticle size ranged between 15 and 25 nm caused a significant improvement in shoot length (15.1 %), root length (4.2 %), root area (24.2 %), chlorophyll content (24.4 %), total soluble leaf protein (38.7 %), plant dry biomass (12.5 %), and enzyme activities of acid phosphatase (76.9 %), alkaline phosphatase (61.7 %), phytase (322.2 %), and dehydrogenase (21 %) were observed over control in 6 weeks old plants. The grain yield at crop maturity was improved by 37.7 % due to application of zinc nanofertilizer (Tarafdar et al., 2014).Maximum production of maize was recorded for normal irrigation as 7 day irrigation period and application of nano- Zn nutrient and nanobiofertilizer nutrient, while severe water stress without application of nano- Zn nutrient and nano-biofertilizer produced minimum production (Farnia and Omidi, 2015). Synthesized nano-practices SNPs, significantly, enhanced most of the growth and yield attributes NPK uptake and nutrient use efficiency of wheat. Silver nanoparticles in 25 mg/L concentration showed significant improvement in maximum leaf area and highest grain yield of wheat) Jhanzab et al., 2015).The maximum plant height, Leaf fresh and dry weights, number of leaves per plant, and Chlorophyll content were gained with nano Zn chelated fertilizer treatment at rate of 100 mg on 600 liters water. Minimum plant height, leaf fresh and dry weight, number of leaves per plant, and chlorophyll content were obtained with control treatment (without fertilizer) (Vafa et al., 2015).
The main objective of this study was to investigate the response of some faba bean (Vicia faba L.) cultivars to mineral and nano-fertilizer and their interaction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two filed experiments were conducted at Nubaria Agriculture Research Station, Alexandria, Egypt, during the growing seasons of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 to study the effect of foliar mineral and Nano fertilizers on growth and yield of three faba bean cultivars under Nubaria conditions.
Treatments were arranged in a split plot design with three replications during both growing seasons of study. Whereas, the main plots were designated for foliar fertilizer (Nano fertilizer at vegetative stage, Nano fertilizer at flowering stage, Nano fertilizer at seeds filling stage. Nano fertilizer at (vegetative + flowering) stages, Nano fertilizer at (vegetative + filling), Nano fertilizer at (flowering + seeds filling) stages, Nano fertilizer at (vegetative + flowing + seeds filling) stages, and Mineral (NPK + Micronutrients), while subplot was alocated for three faba bean cultivars (Nubaria 1, Nubaria 2 and Nubaria 3)
Nano-fertilizer (8% Total N, 5 % total P, 3% total K, 10% micronutrients, 5% Amino acids and 5% Seaweed extract) at rate of 1 cm3/fed., and Mineral fertilizer (10 % N, 8% P, 5% K and 10% micronutrients) at rate of 0.5 litter/fed. used as foliar application.
A representative soil sample (0-30 cm) was taken before planting to determine some physical and nutritional properties of the experimental site (Pageet al., 1982) and are presented in Table (1).
Table (1). Some soil properties of the experimental sites at Nubaria in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
Mechanical analysis
Season
Clay (%)
Silt (%)
Sand (%)
Organic matter (%)
Texture class
2014/2015
23.35
21.17
52.20
0.78
Sandy clay loam
2015/2016
22.63
23.61
53.38
0.81
Chemical analysis
pH
EC
(dS/m)
HCO3-
(%)
Ca CO3
(%)
Available element (mg/kg)
N
P
K
Fe
B
Zn
Cu
Mn
2014/2015
8.05
1.96
12.21
24.78
28.2
7.39
199.1
5.3
1.0
0.75
1.2
4.5
2015/2016
8.15
1.88
11.65
24.43
25.7
6.45
186.9
4.2
0.8
0.96
2.5
5.6
The preceeding crop in the experimental site was Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum, L.) in the first season and wheat (Triticum aestivum, L.) in the second season. Each sub plot consisted of 6 ridges, 3 meters in length, 60 cm width and 20 cm between hills.
The field experiment was ploughed twice then it was fertilized by phosphorus fertilizer before planting as single Calcium- Super Phosphate (15.5 % P2O5) at the rate of 200 kg/fed., and potassium sulphate (48 % K2O), was added at rate of 50 kg/fed., before planting with soil preparation. Other agricultural practices for growing faba bean plants were applied as recommendation by Ministry of Agriculture.
Plant height (cm), total chlorophyll content (µg/cm2), pod length (cm), number of pods/plant, number of seeds/pod, 100- seed weight (g), seed yield (kg/fed.), straw yield (kg/fed.), biological yield (kg/fed.), and harvest index (HI) were recorded in both seasons.
The chlorophyll pigments were measured by using digital reading of chlorophyll meter SPAD-502, where the value measured by the chlorophyll present in the plant leaf. The values are calculated based on the amount of light transmitted by the leaf in two wave lengths in which the absorbance of chlorophyll is different. Total chlorophyll was determined by digital apparatus (SPAD-502) according to Murillo-Amador et al. (2004) who suggested the following equation to transfer SPAD units to µg cm-2.
Y = –2.79 + 0.88 * X ; Where, X= SPAD units
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 in Tables (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) indicates the effect of foliar application of Nano and mineral fertilization on some growth attributes such as plant height (cm) and chlorophyll content (µg/cm2), yield and its component i.e. number of pods/plant, pod length (cm), number of seeds/pod, 100- seed weight (g), seed, straw, biological yields as well as harvest index (HI %) of three faba bean cultivars (Nubaria1, Nubaria 2, and Nubaria3) at different growth stages (vegetative, flowering and filling) and their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
The presented data in above mentioned Tables (2 to 6) show that foliar application of nano and mineral fertilization, significantly, affected these characters in both cropping seasons.
Table (2) reveal that, the highest mean values of plant height (cm) were recorded with foliar application of nanofertilization in both growth stages (vegetative and filling) followed by foliar nanofertilization at the three growth stages (vegetative, flowering and seeds filling) and at the two stages (vegetative and flowering) of faba bean as compared with other treatments but the highest concentration of chlorophyll (µg/cm2) was achieved by nanofertilizer spraying at stages (flowering and seeds filling) as compared with other treatments. Meanwhile, the lowest ones were recorded with foliar nano- fertilization in vegetative stage of faba bean during two cropping seasons. These results are in agreement with who that obtained by Karimia et al. (2014), Tarafdar et al. (2014) and Vafa et al. (2015) stated maximum plant height and chlorophyll content gained from Nano fertilizer treatment and lowest value of plant height was related to the treatment without nanofertilizer (check treatment). Also, data in Table (2) indicate that, the faba bean cultivar “Nubaria 2” recorded the tallest plants height and highest value of chlorophyll concentration (µg/cm2), while "Nubaria 1” cultivar gave the lowest ones in both growing seasons. On the other hand, there was no significant difference between “Nubaria1” and “Nubaria 3” cultivar on plant height in the first season and on chlorophyll content during the two seasons. These differences between field bean are mainly due to genetical differences make up between the three cultivars. These results are in harmony with those obtained by Nosser (2011), Hendawey and Younes (2013), and Kandil et al. (2015). In Table (2) foliar application of nanofertilization in both stages (vegetative and filling) with “Nubaria 2” cultivar gave the tallest plants in the first season and it recorded the highest concentration of chlorophyll (µg/cm2) in both seasons. Meanwhile the lowest ones were achieved by foliar nano fertilization at vegetative stage of “Nubaria 1” cultivar.
Table (3) indicate that, the highest mean values of number of pods/plant and pod length (cm) were recorded with foliar application of nanofertilization in both stages (vegetative and seeds filling) followed by foliar nanofertilization at the three stages (vegetative, flowering and filling) and at the two stages vegetative and flowering of faba bean as compared with other treatments. Meanwhile, the lowest ones were recorded with foliar nano- fertilization in vegetative stage of faba bean during the two cropping seasons. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Nosser (2011), and Nazanin et al. (2013). Again Table (3) clarify that the faba bean “Nubaria 2” cultivar gave the highest values for number of pods/plant and pod length (cm), on the other hand, "Nubaria 1” cultivar recorded the lowest ones in the two growing seasons. On the other side, there was no significant difference between “Nubaria1” and “Nubaria 3” cultivar on pod length in the first and second season. These results are in harmony with those obtained by Turk and Tawaha (2001), Khafaga et al. (2009), Osman et al. (2010). At last Table (3) reveal that, interact of foliar application of nanofertilization in both stages (vegetative and seeds filling) with “Nubaria 2” cultivar achieved the highest number of pods/plant and pod length (cm). Meanwhile the lowest ones were achieved by foliar nano fertilization at vegetative stage “Nubaria 1” cultivar.
Table (4) shows that, the highest mean values for number of seeds/pod (5.00 and 4.44 seeds) and 100- seed weight (95.82 and 98.33 g), respectively, were recorded with nanofertilization in stages (vegetative and seeds filling) as compared with other treatments. Meanwhile, the lowest ones were recorded for nano- fertilization in vegetative stage of faba bean during the two cropping seasons. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Nosser (2011), Nazanin et al. (2013). On the other hand, Table (4) reported that the faba bean “Nubaria 2” cultivar gave the highest values for number of seeds/pod (4.67 and 5.41 pods) and 100- seed weight (97.47 and 98.92 g), respectively, while, the lowest ones were achieved by planting "Nubaria 1” cultivar in the two growing seasons. On the other side, there was no significant difference between “Nubaria1” and “Nubaria 3” cultivar for seeds number/pod in the first and second seasons, and only in the second season for 100- seed weight (g). These results are in harmony with those obtained by Khafaga et al. (2009), and Osman et al. (2010). Interaction effect as shown in Table (4) show that, fertilizing “Nubaria 2” by nano- fertilizer as foliar spraying in (vegetative and filling) stages gave the highest number of seeds/pod but the heaviest 100- seed weight were recorded by fertilizing “Nubaria 2” by nano- fertilizer at (flowering and seeds filling) stages. Meanwhile fertilizing “Nubaria 1” by nano- fertilizer at (vegetative) stage achieved the lowest ones.
Table (5) show that, the highest mean values for seed yield (1693.93 and 1679.67 kg/fed) were recorded for nanofertilization in (vegetative and seeds filling) stages as compared with the other treatments but the heaviest straw yield (2479.82 and 2477.18 kg/fed.) were achieved by fertilizing faba bean plants by nano- fertilizer as foliar application at vegetative, flowering and seeds filling stages in both seasons. Meanwhile, the lowest seed yield (1000.78 and 992.55 kg/fed.) were recorded with nano- fertilization in vegetative stage of faba bean during the two cropping seasons, while the lowest straw yield was achieved by nano- fertilizer application at flowering stage. These findings are in agreement with those obtained by Nosser (2011), and Nazanin et al. (2013). Table (5) again, referred that the faba bean “Nubaria 2” cultivar gave the highest values for number of seeds/pod (4.67 and 5.41 pods) and 100- seed weight (97.47 and 98.92 g), respectively, while, the lowest ones achieved by planting "Nubaria 1” cultivar in the two growing seasons. On the other side, there was no significant difference between “Nubaria1” and “Nubaria 3” cultivar on straw yield/fed., in the first and second seasons. These results are in harmony with those obtained by Khafaga et al. (2009), and Osman et al. (2010). Interaction effect as shown in Table (5) indicate that, fertilizing “Nubaria 2” by nano- fertilizer as foliar spray in (vegetative and seeds filling) stages gave the highest seed yield/fed., and straw yield/fed. Meanwhile fertilizing “Nubaria 1” by nano- fertilizer at (vegetative) stage achieved the lowest ones.
Table (6) reveal that, the highest mean values for biological yield (3807.59 and 3792.62 kg/fed) were recorded for nanofertilization in (vegetative, flowering and seeds filling) stages as compared with other treatments but the highest HI % (46.08 and 45.75) were achieved by fertilizing faba bean plants by nano- fertilizer as foliar application at vegetative, and seeds filling stages in both seasons, respectively. Meanwhile, the lowest biological yield (2613.79 and 2619.76 kg/fed.) and HI (37.82 and 37.20 %) were recorded for nano- fertilization in vegetative stage or mineral fertilizer of faba bean during the two cropping seasons, respectively. These findings are in agreement with those obtained by Nosser (2011), and Nazanin et al. (2013). Table (6) again, indicated that the faba bean “Nubaria 2” cultivar gave the highest values for biological yield (3650.83 and 3678.65 kg/fed.) respectively, in respect of HI %, there was significant difference among the three cultivars only in the second season. Meanwhile, the lowest ones were achieved by planting "Nubaria 1” cultivar in the two growing seasons. On the other side, there was no significant difference between “Nubaria1” and “Nubaria 3” cultivar on straw yield/fed., in the first and second seasons. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Khafaga et al. (2009), and Osman et al. (2010). Interaction effect between the two was significant, whereas fertilizing “Nubaria 2” cultivar by nano- fertilizer as foliar spray in (vegetative and filling) stages gave the highest biological yield/fed., and HI %. Meanwhile fertilizing “Nubaria 1” by nano- fertilizer at vegetative stage achieved the lowest ones (Table 6).
Table (2). Plant height (cm) and chlorophyll (µg/cm2) of three faba bean cultivars as influenced by foliar mineral and nanofertilizer and their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons.
Treatments
Plant height (cm)
Chlorophyll
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
B). Faba bean cultivars
B). Faba bean cultivars
A). Foliar fertilizer
Nubaria 1
Nubaria
2
Nubaria
3
Nubaria 1
Nubaria
2
Nubaria 3
Nano at vegetative
94.83
108.40
103.33
102.19d
24.67
39.57
26.31
30.18bc
Nano at flowering
103.57
112.00
101.83
105.80cd
23.76
34.32
25.22
27.77d
Nano at filling
108.60
103.73
103.33
105.22cd
27.66
37.10
29.92
31.56b
Nano at Veg. + Flow.
114.40
118.33
117.57
116.77ab
25.84
38.72
27.60
30.72bc
Nano at Veg. + Fill.
105.33
130.47
123.67
119.82a
28.74
44.03
22.73
31.83b
Nano at Flow. + filling
117.33
119.50
107.40
114.74
31.53
47.08
36.08
38.23a
Nano (Veg. + Flow. + filling.).
117.50
127.23
112.73
119.15ab
25.84
42.68
21.41
29.98bc
Mineral at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
101.33
118.53
105.33
108.40c
23.02
40.62
24.20
29.28cd
Average (B)
107.86b
117.27a
109.40b
26.38b
40.52a
26.68b
LSD0.05 “A”
4.680
2.110
LSD0.05 “B”
2.560
1.460
LSD0.05“A x B”
7.510
4.120
Season 2015/2016
Season 2015/2016
Nano at vegetative
99.50
118.67
103.67
107.28d
22.76
29.92
24.26
25.65cd
Nano at flowering
103.00
114.50
106.00
107.83d
23.02
32.56
21.62
25.73cd
Nano at filling
104.67
113.00
108.33
108.67cd
24.37
29.18
21.88
25.14d
Nano at Veg. + Flow.
115.67
126.67
118.33
120.22a
25.66
34.61
26.84
29.04b
Nano at Veg. + Filling
114.00
128.83
119.50
120.78a
34.49
45.79
30.24
36.84a
Nano at Flow. +filling
115.00
125.27
111.53
117.27ab
24.99
31.76
26.90
27.88bcd
Nano at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
109.83
117.00
112.83
113.22bc
27.16
34.49
22.73
28.13bc
Mineral at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
100.97
123.83
106.53
110.44cd
24.34
33.47
25.52
27.78 bcd
Average (B)
107.83c
120.97a
110.84b
25.85b
33.97a
25.00b
LSD0.05 “A”
4.980
2.900
LSD0.05 “B”
2.410
1.100
LSD0.05 “A x B”
N.S.
3.120
- Average values in the same column/row marked with the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability.
- N.S.: not significant difference at 0.05 level of probability.
Table (3). Number of pods/plant and pod length (cm) of faba bean cultivars as influenced by foliar mineral and nanofertilizer and their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
Treatments
Number of pods/plant
Pod length (cm)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
B). Faba bean cultivars
B). Faba bean cultivars
A). Foliar fertilizer
Nubaria 1
Nubaria2
Nubaria 3
Nubaria 1
Nubaria2
Nubaria 3
Nano at vegetative
8.00
13.33
12.00
11.11e
8.67
11.83
8.00
9.50e
Nano at flowering
10.33
13.66
11.67
11.89e
9.50
9.83
9.20
9.51e
Nano at filling
13.33
16.67
14.33
14.78d
9.33
11.67
9.80
10.27cd
Nano at Veg. + Flow.
14.67
18.33
15.67
16.22c
9.27
11.00
10.00
10.09de
Nano at Veg. + Fill.
18.00
25.00
19.67
20.89a
11.67
15.53
12.17
13.12a
Nano at Flow. + filling
17.67
22.33
19.67
19.89ab
11.10
11.33
11.83
11.42b
Nano (Veg. + Flow. + filling.).
19.33
20.33
18.67
19.44b
12.33
13.33
11.83
12.50a
Mineral at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
14.33
19.67
17.00
17.00c
10.00
11.90
10.50
10.80bc
Average (B)
14.46 c
18.67 a
16.09 b
10.23b
12.05a
10.42b
LSD0.05 “A”
1.160
0.7037
LSD0.05 “B”
0.813
0.6062
LSD0.05“A x B”
N.S.
N.S.
Season 2015/2016
Season 2015/2016
Nano at vegetative
7.00
13.67
11.00
10.56e
8.67
11.67
7.83
9.39e
Nano at flowering
10.33
12.67
11.67
11.56e
9.83
9.83
8.70
9.45e
Nano at filling
12.33
15.67
13.33
13.78d
9.20
11.17
9.30
9.89cd
Nano at Veg. + Flow.
14.33
17.67
16.33
16.11c
9.27
11.17
9.50
9.98de
Nano at Veg. + Filling
17.67
24.33
19.00
20.33a
12.33
15.53
12.50
13.45a
Nano at Flow. +filling
17.33
21.00
18.67
19.00b
11.63
10.83
11.33
11.26b
Nano at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
18.67
20.00
18.67
19.11b
11.83
12.83
11.33
12.00a
Mineral at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
14.33
18.67
16.67
16.56c
9.50
12.13
10.70
10.78bc
Average (B)
14.00c
17.96a
15.67b
10.28 b
11.90a
10.15b
LSD0.05 “A”
1.170
0.7047
LSD0.05 “B”
0.600
0.6052
LSD0.05 “A x B”
2.300
1.710
- Average values in the same column/row marked with the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability.
- N.S.: not significant difference at 0.05 level of probability.
Table (4). Number of seeds/pod and 100- seed weight (g) of faba bean cultivars as influenced by foliar mineral and nanofertilizer and their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
Treatments
Number of seeds/pod
100- seed weight (g)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
B). Faba bean cultivars
B). Faba bean cultivars
A). Foliar fertilizer
Nubaria 1
Nubaria2
Nubaria 3
Nubaria 1
Nubaria2
Nubaria 3
Nano at vegetative
3.67
4.33
3.67
3.89b
68.93
93.03
86.33
82.76de
Nano at flowering
4.67
4.33
3.67
4.22 b
76.50
98.93
87.00
87.48c
Nano at filling
4.33
4.33
4.00
4.22 b
73.00
94.73
75.10
80.94e
Nano at Veg. + Flow.
4.33
4.67
3.67
4.22 b
88.17
92.17
86.47
88.94bc
Nano at Veg. + Fill.
5.00
5.33
4.67
5.00a
87.67
102.83
96.97
95.82a
Nano at Flow. + filling
4.33
4.67
3.33
4.11 b
86.57
104.17
87.67
92.80ab
Nano (Veg. + Flow. + filling.).
4.33
4.67
4.33
4.44 b
90.67
99.20
87.43
92.43ab
Mineral at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
4.33
5.00
3.00
4.11 b
85.43
94.73
75.87
85.34cd
Average (B)
4.37 b
4.67a
3.79 b
82.12c
97.47a
85.36b
LSD0.05 “A”
0.502
3.99
LSD0.05 “B”
0.367
2.25
LSD0.05“A x B”
N.S.
6.36
Season 2015/2016
Season 2015/2016
Nano at vegetative
2.67
5.33
2.67
3.56c
71.50
94.57
88.83
84.97c
Nano at flowering
4.33
5.67
3.00
4.33a
79.00
101.43
89.50
89.98b
Nano at filling
3.33
5.33
3.67
4.11b
75.20
97.23
77.60
83.34c
Nano at Veg. + Flow.
3.67
5.33
3.33
4.11 b
90.40
94.67
88.97
91.35b
Nano at Veg. + Filling
3.67
5.66
4.00
4.44a
90.17
105.33
99.50
98.33a
Nano at Flow. +filling
4.00
5.33
3.67
4.33a
89.07
101.67
84.53
91.76b
Nano at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
4.00
5.33
3.67
4.33 b
91.87
101.13
83.83
92.28b
Mineral at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
3.67
5.33
3.33
4.11 b
84.50
95.30
77.33
85.71c
Average (B)
3.67b
5.41a
3.42b
83.96b
98.92a
86.26b
LSD0.05 “A”
0.222
3.77
LSD0.05 “B”
0.410
2.52
LSD0.05 “A x B”
N.S.
7.13
- Average values in the same column/row marked with the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability.
- N.S.: not significant difference at 0.05 level of probability.
Table (5). Seed and straw yields (kg/fed.) of faba bean cultivars as influenced by foliar mineral, nanofertilizer and their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
Treatments
Seed yield (kg/fed.)
Straw yield (kg/fed.)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
B). Faba bean cultivars
B). Faba bean cultivars
A). Foliar fertilizer
Nubaria 1
Nubaria2
Nubaria 3
Nubaria 1
Nubaria
2
Nubaria 3
Nano at vegetative
932.76
1131.20
938.39
1000.78e
1540.76
1690.29
1607.96
1613.00d
Nano at flowering
1240.14
1513.14
1148.44
1300.57c
1578.13
1986.15
1597.58
1720.62c
Nano at filling
1214.59
1448.22
1218.87
1293.89c
1671.29
1768.06
1673.23
1704.19cd
Nano at Veg.+ Flow.
1220.57
1420.57
1284.61
1308.58c
1839.66
1989.02
1516.48
1781.72c
Nano at Veg.+ Fill.
1549.56
2199.43
1332.81
1693.93a
1668.13
2459.44
1778.61
1968.73b
Nano at Flow.+ filling
1340.56
1527.04
1282.15
1383.25b
1910.56
2202.59
1762.43
1958.53b
Nano (Veg. + Flow.+ filling.).
1250.83
1373.98
1358.50
1327.77bc
2195.56
3025.93
2217.97
2479.82a
Mineral at Veg.+ Flow.+ filling.
1145.11
1381.37
1042.89
1189.79d
1939.35
2090.35
1964.56
1998.09b
Average (B)
1236.77b
1499.37a
1200.83c
1792.93b
2151.48a
1764.85b
LSD0.05 “A”
69.210
93.00
LSD0.05 “B”
35.800
52.77
LSD0.05“A x B”
101.30
149.30
Season 2015/2016
Season 2015/2016
Nano at vegetative
899.33
1107.31
971.00
992.55e
1588.67
1687.66
1605.32
1627.22d
Nano at flowering
1084.33
1544.81
1251.00
1293.38cd
1575.49
1983.51
1594.94
1717.98cd
Nano at filling
1191.67
1518.33
1222.00
1310.67cd
1668.66
1765.42
1670.59
1701.56cd
Nano at Veg.+ Flow.
1088.67
1472.67
1299.00
1286.78cd
1837.02
1986.38
1513.84
1779.08c
Nano at Veg.+ Filling
1326.67
2262.67
1449.67
1679.67a
1665.49
2456.81
1775.97
1966.09b
Nano at Flow.+filling
1313.13
1551.64
1308.87
1391.21b
1907.92
2199.95
1759.79
1955.89b
Nano at Veg.+Flow.+filling.
1212.30
1434.03
1300.00
1315.44c
2192.92
3023.29
2215.33
2477.18a
Mineral at Veg.+ Flow.+filling.
1166.00
1347.00
1208.67
1240.56d
2215.33
2087.71
1929.38
2077.47b
Average (B)
1160.26c
1529.81a
1251.28b
1831.44b
2148.84a
1758.15b
LSD0.05 “A”
72.679
93.21
LSD0.05 “B”
32.763
53.21
LSD0.05 “A x B”
2.699
151.35
- Average values in the same column/row marked with the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability.
- N.S.: not significant difference at 0.05 level of probability.
Table (6). Biological yield (kg/fed.) and harvest index % of faba bean cultivars as influenced by foliar mineral and nanofertilizer and their interaction during 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 seasons
Treatments
Biological yield (kg/fed.)
Harvest index %
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
Season 2014/2015
Average (A)
B). Faba bean cultivars
B). Faba bean cultivars
A). Foliar fertilizer
Nubaria 1
Nubaria
2
Nubaria 3
Nubaria 1
Nubaria2
Nubaria 3
Nano at vegetative
2473.52
2821.50
2546.35
2613.79f
37.68
40.01
36.89
38.19d
Nano at flowering
2818.26
3499.29
2746.03
3021.19e
43.99
43.24
41.82
43.02bc
Nano at filling
2885.89
3216.28
2892.10
2998.09e
42.08
45.06
42.14
43.09b
Nano at Veg.+ Flow.
3060.23
3409.44
2801.09
3090.25de
39.89
41.66
45.93
42.49bc
Nano at Veg.+ Fill.
3217.69
4658.87
3111.43
3662.66b
48.16
47.22
42.86
46.08a
Nano at Flow.+ filling
3251.11
3729.63
3044.57
3341.77c
41.24
40.99
42.14
41.46c
Nano (Veg.+ Flow.+ filling.).
3446.39
4399.91
3576.47
3807.59a
36.29
31.23
37.99
35.17e
Mineral at Veg.+ Flow.+ filling.
3084.28
3471.72
3007.45
3187.82d
37.12
39.80
34.68
37.20d
Average (B)
3029.67b
3650.83a
2965.69b
40.81a
41.15a
40.56a
LSD0.05 “A”
122.71
1.600
LSD0.05 “B”
66.420
N.S.
LSD0.05“A x B”
187.90
2.790
Season 2015/2016
Season 2015/2016
Nano at vegetative
2488.00
2794.97
2576.32
2619.76f
36.13
39.58
37.74
37.82c
Nano at flowering
2659.82
3528.32
2845.94
3011.36e
40.74
43.80
43.98
42.84b
Nano at filling
2860.32
3283.75
2892.59
3012.22e
41.57
46.25
42.24
43.35 b
Nano at Veg. + Flow.
2925.69
3459.05
2812.84
3065.86e
37.21
42.57
46.25
42.01 b
Nano at Veg. + Filling
2992.16
4719.47
3225.64
3645.76b
44.31
47.97
44.97
45.75a
Nano at Flow. +filling
3221.04
3751.60
3068.65
3347.10c
40.78
41.42
42.68
41.63 b
Nano at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
3405.22
4457.32
3515.33
3792.62a
35.58
32.17
36.99
34.91d
Mineral at Veg. + Flow. + filling.
3102.54
3434.71
3138.05
3225.10d
37.60
39.25
38.52
38.46c
Average (B)
2956.85b
3678.65a
3009.42b
39.24 b
41.63a
41.67a
LSD0.05 “A”
102.21
2.111
LSD0.05 “B”
68.311
0.840
LSD0.05 “A x B”
193.21
2.376
- Average values in the same column/row marked with the same letters are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability.
- N.S.: not significant difference at 0.05 level of probability.
CONCLUSION
From the obtained results and from the economic point of view under the same conditions of this research, it could be recommended that using foliar nano- fertilizer with the rate of 1 cm3/fed and at the two or three growth stages (vegetative, flowering and filling) with Nubaria 2 cultivar to obtained the highest seed yield and its components under study conditions at Nubaria Region, El-Behira governorate, Egypt.
References
REFERENCES
Abido W.A.E. and S.E. Seadh (2014). Rate of variation between filed bean cultivars due to sowing dates and foliar spraying treatments. Sci. Intern.,(3) 1-12.
Al-Amin Sadek, M.D. and H.P. Jayasuriya (2007). Nanotechnology prospects in agricultural context: An overview. In: proceedings of the International Agricultural Engineering Conference, 3-6 December, Bangkok, 548.
Anonymouse (2009). Nano technology in agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and technology. (In Persian),114: 54-655.
CoStat Ver. 6.311 (2005). Cohort software798 light house Ave. PMB320, Monterey, CA93940, and USA. email: info@cohort.com and Website: http://www.cohort.com/DownloadCoStatPart2.html.
Farnia A. and M. M. Omidi (2015). Effect of nano-zinc chelate and nano-biofertilizer on yield and yield components of maize (Zea mays L.), under water stress condition. Indian J. of Natu. Sci., 5:4614-46
Gomez, K.A. and A.A. Gomez (1984). Statistical Produces for Agriculture Research. 2nd Ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York.
Hendawey M. H. and A.M.A. Younes (2013). Biochemical evaluation of some faba bean cultivars under rainfed conditions at El-Sheikh Zuwayid. Annal. Agric. Sci., 58(2):183–193.
Jhanzab, H. M., A. Razzaq, Gh. Jilani, A. Rehman, A. Hafeez and F. Yasmeen (2015). Silver nano-particles enhance the growth, yield and nutrient use efficiency of wheat.Int. J. Agron. & Agric. Res., 7(1): 15-22.
Kandil, E. E. E., A. M. Kordy and A. A. Abou Zied (2015). New approach for controlling Broomrape plants in faba bean. Alex. Sci. Exch. J., 36, (3):281-291.
Karimia, Zahra, L. Pourakbarb and H. Feizie (2014). Comparison effect of Nano-Iron Chelate and Iron Chelate on Growth Parameters and Antioxidant Enzymes activity of MUNG bean (Vigna Radiate L.). Advan. . Environ. Biology, 8(17): 68-81.
Khafaga, H. S., A. H. Raeefa, M. M. Hala and S. A. Alaa (2009). Response of two faba bean cultivars to application of certain growth regulators under salinity stress condition at Siwa oasis growth traits, yield and yield components. Conf. on Recent Technol. Agric.Abst.236.
Murillo-Amador, B., N.Y. Avila-Serrano, J. L. Garcia-Hernandez, R. Lopez- Aguilar, E. Troyo-Dieguez and Kaya C., (2004). Relationship between a nondestructive and an extraction method for measuring chlorophyll contents in cowpea leaves. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc., 167:363–364.
Naderi, M. R. and A. Danesh-Shahraki (2013). Nanofertilizers and their roles in sustainable agriculture.Intl. J. Agri. Crop Sci., 5 (19), 2229-2232.
Nazanin, M., S. M. Sadeghi and S. Bidarigh (2013). Effect of bohr nanofertilizer and chelated iron on the yield of peanut in province guilan, iran. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3 (4) october-december, 45-62
Nosser M. A. (2011). Effect of some foliar application on yield and its components in broad bean (Vicia faba, L.). Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 89 (3):1071-1087.
Osman A. A. M., Samia O. Yagoub and O. A. Tut (2010). Performance of faba bean (Vicia faba L) cultivars grown in new Agro-ecological Region of Sudan (Southern Sudan). Australian J. Basic and Appl. Sci., 4(11): 5516-5521.
Page, A.L.; R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney. (ed.). (1982). "Methods of soil analysis". Part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties. Amer. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wisconsin.
Sultan, Y., R. Walsh C.M. Monreal and M.C. DeRosa (2009). Preparation of Functional Aptamer Films Using Layer-by-Layer Self-Assembly, Biomacromolecules J., 10:1149-1154.
Tarafdar, J. C., R. Raliya, H. Mahawar and I. Rathore (2014). Development of zinc nanofertilizer to enhance crop production in pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum). Agric. Res. (September), 3(3):257–262.
Turk, M.A. and A.R.M. Tawaha (2001). Effect of dates of sowing and seed size on yield and yield components of local faba bean under semi-arid conditions. Legume Res., 25:301-302.
Vafa, Zahra N., A. R. Sirousmehr, A. Ghanbari, I. Khammari, and N. Falahi (2015). Effects of nano zinc and humic acid on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of savory (Satureja hortensis L.). International Journal of Biosciences, 6(3):124-136.