2023.08.03.131
Files > Volume 8 > Vol 8 No 3 2023 > Diyala 3
Effect of foliar application of Humic acid on some Growth properties and forage yield of Oat cultivars (Avena sativa L.)
Sabreen H. Alrubaiee1 and Mohanad A. alsulaiman2*
1 Department of Field Crops, College of Agriculture, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq, [email protected].
2 Department of Field Crops, College of Agriculture, University of Basrah, Basrah, Iraq
*Correspondence: [email protected].
Available from. http://dx.doi.org/10.21931/RB/2023.08.03.131
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted in the winter session of 2019-2020 at Almahawil, 10 Km north of Babylon governorate, Iraq (32° 29' 0.0024'' N, 44° 26' 0.0024'' E). The aim was to understand the effect of foliar application humic acid on some growth properties and forage yield of three Oat cultivars (Avena sativa ); the experiment included two factors; the first one is humic acid at three levels ( control, 2, 4 ml L-1) which they are symbolized by H0, H1 and H2 respectively. The second factor is three Oat verities (Shifaa, Ganzania, Carlop). The experiment design was applied as a factorial experiment using a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The results showed that Ganzania, under foliar application of H2 concentration of humic acid, gave the highest leaf area index and crop growth rate by 7.847 and 14.661 g m-2 day-1, respectively. Moreover, the foliar application of H2 and H1 on the Ganzania cultivar gave the highest green forage yield by 22.733, 22.500 t ha-1 without significant differences from the foliar application of H2 on Shifaa by 22.733 t ha-1. In addition, foliar application of H2 and H1 on Ganzania cultivars gave the highest dry forage yield by 6.106 and 5.902 t ha-1, respectively.
Keywords: Oats, humic acid, cultivars, Forage yield
INTRODUCTION
Oat (Avena sativa L.) is a significant winter forage and cereal crop. It ranks sixth in world cereal production, exceeded by wheat, maize, rice, barley, and sorghum 1. On the one hand, the world's oats production has been trending downward because of the emphasis on competitive crops that produce more significant amounts of energy or protein. On the other hand, decreased soil fertility due to continued cultivation of this crop with a lack of attention to using a good nutrition program and a lack of interest in applying appropriate soil and crop service operations 2. Global grain production of oats was 22.19 million tons, coming from 9.41 million hectares by 2.36 t. ha-1 3. In most production countries, Oat is usually cultivated in areas that are not optimal for wheat and barley, with less input. Recently, there has been high interaction by Oats to produce green and dry forage during the low forage production season. A large number of diverse materials can serve as sources of plant nutrients. The majority of nutrient input to agriculture comes from commercial mineral fertilizers. Organic manures are considered to play a significant but lesser role in nutrient contribution, leaving aside their beneficial effects on soil physicochemical and biological properties. For instance, humates are organic fertilizers that significantly impact growth and plant development in crops 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. One of the forms of humates is humic acid, a commercial organic fertilizer that can be used as a source of nutrients to improve and stimulate plant growth and production. In addition, humic acid is environmentally friendly compared to chemical fertilizer 9. Recently, studies revealed that treating Oat with humic acid leads to increased forage yield 10, 11 and 12. Hence, the objectives of this study were to determine the effects of different concentrations of humic acid on growth and forage yield and to evaluate Oat verities growth under experimental conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A field experiment was conducted during the 2019-2020 season at Almahawil, 10 Km north of Babylon governorate, Iraq (32° 29' 0.0024'' N, 44° 26' 0.0024'' E). The aim was to investigate the effect of foliar application of humic acid on some growth properties and forage yield of three Oat cultivars (Avena sativa L.). A factorial experiment with three replicates was applied to the randomized complete block design. Tincludesriment includes the factors; the first is humic acid at three levels ( control, 2, 4 1), a symbol used by H0, H1 and H2, respectively. Deferent concentrations of humic acid are applied twice during the tillering and stem elongation stages. The second factor was three Oat verities (Shifaa, Ganzania, Carlop). The total number of experimental units is 27, with a distance of 6 m-2 ( 3 x 2). Two orthogonal tillages prepared experimental soil, and then, the ground was leveled and grained by disc harrows. Random samples were taken from field soil before planting (depth of 0-30cm ), dried and passed in a 2 mm sieve to determine the field's physical and chemical properties (Table 1). Nitrogen fertilizer was added to the soil as urea, 46% N at 180 kg h-1 time so equal timing, the first week after seed sowing, and the second one at stem elongation stage. Phosphate fertilizer was added to the soil at seed sowing as triple superphosphate 21% P2O5 at 140 kg h-1. Seeds were sowed as strips on 15 November 2019, and the distance is 20 cm between one line and another. Humic acid was used as human plant fertilizer (80% HA) and spring three times 25, 50 and 75 days after planting. Tween 20 was used to decrease the surface tension of the solution. Some growth and quality traits were measured: tellers m-2, plant height of 10 plants, leaf area index of 10 plants, crop growth rate, relative growth rate and Green and Dry forage yield from one m-2. The data were collected and analyzed statistically by GenStat statistical software 12. Data averages were compared by least significant difference (LSD) at a probability level of 0.05 (LSD (P<0.05)).
Table 1. Some physical and chemical properties of experimental soil before seed sowing
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Tillers number (tillers m-2)
Tillers number per plant is a genetic trait and depends on the inborn ability of the plant and its interaction with field environmental conditions. The results of Table 2 revealed that humic acid (H) significantly affects tillers m-2. The increase of humic acid concentration to H2 significantly increased tillers m-2 by 633.67 tillers m-2 compared to control (H0) 470.33 tillers m-2. Table 2 showed that Oat varieties differed substantially in tillers m-2. That is, the Ganzania variety produced the highest tillers. m-2 by 615.78 compared to Carlop, which gave the lowest mean of 502.22 tillers m-2. The interaction of combinations and humic acid significantly affects tillers m-2. Ganzania under H2 concentration of humic acid showed the highest increase of tillers m-2 by 682.00 compared to the lowest tillers m-2, obtained by Carlop under control 454.67 tillers m-2.
Plant height (cm)
Plant height is among the most crucial biomass yield components 13. The results of Table 2 revealed that the foliar application of humic acid has a significant effect on plant height, and the concentration of H2 gave the high plant height of 81.81 cm compared to the control of 72.75 cm. Oat Cultivars differed significantly in plant height (Table 2). Carloop cultivar gave the highest plant height of 83.12 compared to Ganzania, which gave the lowest plant height of 72.88 cm. In addition, the results revealed that the interaction of Oat cultivars and humic acid was significant. The cultivar of Carloop under H1 concentration of humic acid gave the highest plant height by 93.15. while under the control treatment of humic acid, the Ganzania and Carlop gave the lowest plant height by 69.29 and 69.55 cm, respectively.
Leaf area index
The results of Tale 3 showed that foliar applicatihasfa humic acid has a significant effect on leaf area index, and the concentration of H2 gave the highest leaf area index (LAI) by 6.943 as compared to control 4.859. Oat Cultivars differed significantly in LAI (Table 2). The Ganzania cultivar gave the highest leaf area index by 6.241 without any significant differences from the Shifaa variety, whereas Carlop gave the lowest leaf area index of 4.988. The interaction of cultivars and humic acid was significant; Ganzania under H2 concentration of humic acid showed the highest LAI of 7.847, whereas Carlop under control treatment produced the lowest LAI by 4.117.
Crop Growth Rate (g m-2 day-1)
Crop growth rate (CGR) is the gain in dry matter production on a unit of land in a team of tune 14, 15. The results of Table 2 showed that the addition of humic acid has a significant effect on crop growth rate (CGR), and the concentration of H2 gave the highest (CGR) by 13.652 g m-2 day-1 as compared to the control, which gave the lowest average by 8.312 g m-2 day-1. Oat cultivars differed significantly in CGR (Table 2). Ganzania showed the highest CGR by 11.625 g m-2 day-1 compared to Carloop, which gave a low average of 10.480 g m-2 day-1. The interaction between cultivars and humic acid has a significant effect on CGR. Ganzania cultivar under H2 humic acid concentration gave the highest CGR by 14.661 g m-2 day-1. At the same time, Carlop, under the control treatment of humic acid, showed the lowest CGR of 8.013 g m-2 day-1.
Relative Growth Rate (g g-1 day-1)
Relative growth rate (RGR) is a growth rate close to size, that is, a growth rate per unit of time, as a proportion of its size at that moment in time15. It is also called the exponential growth rate or the continuous growth rate. The results of Table 2 showed that foliar application of humic acid has a significant effect on Relative growth rate (RGR). The concentration of H2 gave the highest (RGR) of 15.030 g m-2 day-1, while the control the control treatment showed the lowest RGR of 10.559 g m-2 day-1 (Table 2). Oat cultivars differed significantly in RGR. Ganzania gave the highest RGR by 13.665 g m-2 day-1 with no significant differences with Shifaa by 13.560 g m-2 day-1 (Table 2). At the same time, Carlop gave the lowest average of 13.203 g m-2 day-1. The interaction of cultivars and humic acid has a significant effect on RGR. Ganzania and Shifaa cultivars under H2 and H1 application of humic acid gave the highest RGR by 15.653 and 15.497 g m-2 day-1, respectively. Whereas, Carlop under control treatment of humic acid (H0) showed the lowest RGR by 10.237 g m-2 day-1
Green forage yield (t ha-1)
Table 2 shows that foliar application of humic acid leads to increased green forage yield (GFY). The concentration of H2 and H1 gave the highest (GFY) by 22.534 and 21.904 t ha-1, respectively. While (H0) gave the lowest (GFY) by 20.997 t ha-1. The results of Table 2 indicated significant differences between cultivars in GFY. Ganzania gave the highest green forage yield by 22.237 t ha-1. At the same time, Carloop and Shifaa gave the lowest (GFY) by 21.538 and 21.661 t ha-1, respectively. The interaction of cultivars and humic acid has a significant effect on GFY. Foliar application of H2 on Ganzania and shifaa cultivars gave the highest GFY by 22.963, 22.500 t ha-1 without substantial differences from foliar application of H2 on Shifaa by 22.733 t ha-1. At the same time, shifta under the control treatment of humic acid (H0) gave the lowest GFY by 20.747 t ha-1.
Dry forage yield (t ha-1)
Table 2 shows that foliar application of humic acid leads to increased dry forage yield (DFY). Foliar application of H2 and H1 gave the highest DFY by 5.839 and 5.704 t ha-1. At the same time, the control treatment (H0) showed the lowest DFY by 5.517 t ha-1. The results indicated that there is a significant difference between cultivars in DFY. Ganzania gave the highest dry forage yield by 5.877 t ha-1. At the same time, Carloop and Shifaa gave the lowest DFY by 5.589 and 5.594 t ha-1. The interaction of cultivars and humic acid has a significant effect on DFY. Foliar application of H2 and H1 on Ganzania cultivars gave the highest DFY by 6.106 and 5.902 t ha-1, respectively. While under control treatment of humic acid, Shifaa and Carlop cultivars gave the lowest DFY by 5.402 and 5.525 t ha-1, respectively.
Table 2 .Effect of foliar application of humic acid Oat varieties and their interaction on some growth properties; Ti =Tillers (m-2); P.h (cm)= plant height (cm); LAI= leaf area index; CGR (g g-1 day-1)=Crop Growth Rate (g m-2 day-1); RGR (g m-2 day-1)= Relative Growth Rate (g m-2 day-1); GFY (t h-2)=Green Forage yield (t h-1); DFY (t h-1)= Dry Forage yield (t h-1)
Figure 1. Effect of foliar application of humic acid on relative growth rate (RGR in g g-1 day-1), crop growth rate (CGR in g m-2 day-1) and dry forage yield (DFY in t ha-1) of three Oat cultivars. RGR and CGR data come from harvested plants of 0.5 m2. DFY data come from harvested plants of 1 m2
Table 2 showed that foliar application of humic acid led to increased tillers m-2, plant height (cm), and leaf area index. The concentration of H2 produced higher tillering m-2, plant height (cm) and leaf area index by 34.00%, 12.45% and 42.89%, respectively, compared to the control. Foliar application of humic acid has a positive effect on some growth properties, probably due to the hormone-like activity of humicincreases, which increase the living movement of the plant: enzyme systems and intensified, cell division is accelerated 16.
Growth analysis parameters crop growth rate (CGR) and Relative growth rate (RGR) are some of the primary growth factors that may directly reflect forage and grain yield 15, 17. CGR is a product of LAI. At the same time, RGR measures the increase in dry matter with a given amount of assimilatory material at a given time. Table 2 shows that foliar application of humic acid improved crop growth rate (CGR) and relative growth rate (RGR). The H2 concentration of humic acid increased CGR and RGR by 64.24% and 42.34% as compared to control, respectively. This may be due to humic acid properties that improve plant growth, tillers m-2, plant height (cm), and leaf area index (Table 2). The study of [18] showed that adding humic acid leads to increased enzymatic activity of photosynthesis, carbohydrate synthesis, and plant yield.
Moreover, the results of Table 2 revealed that foliar application of humic acid leads to increased green forage yield. In addition, foliar application of humic acid at H2 concentration increased dry forage yield by 7.32% compared to the control. The positive role of foliar application of humic acid supported plant growth through increased tiller numbers m-2 and plant height, leading to an increase in CGR and RGR, consequently increasing green and dry forage yield (Table 2 and Figure 1). The results indicated in Figure 1 showed that there was a high positive correlation on the one hand between RGR and DFY and, on the other hand, between CGR and DFY (R2=99). Our results agreed with those of 6 who reported that humic acid increased the growth and productivity of crops.
The results of Table 2 showed that oat varieties significantly differed in most traits of this study. Ganzania produced higher tillers m-2, leaf area index (LAI), crop growth (CGR), Relative growth rate (RGR) and green and dry forage yield by 22.13% as compared to Carlop, 25.12% as compared to Shifaa, 10.93% as compared to Carlop, 3.50% as compared to Carlop, 3.25% as compared to Carlop and 5.15% as compared to Carlop respectively. This could be due to the difference between cultivars in their genetic ability. The results revealed that Ganzania was more suitable than other cultivars studded to produce dry forage yield (Table 2). These results are consistent with those found by 19, 20 and 21; their results indicated that Oat verities differed significantly in growth properties and yield.
The results of Table 2 revealed that the interaction of humic acid and Oat varieties significantly affects all treaties studied. Foliar application of humic acid (H2) led to an increase in all the traits studied for all Oat cultivars compared to the control (H0). Ganzania at H2 concentration gave high tillers m-2, leaf area index, crop growth rate (CGR), relative growth rate (RGR), green forage yield (GFY) and dry forage yield (DFY) by 40.88%, 61.22%, 66.04%, 45.11%, 8.08%, 8.55% as compared to control treatment of humic acid (H0). This indicated that the Ganzania cultivar appears to have a high response to foliar application of humic acid compared to other varieties (Table 2). That may be due to a single effect of the treatments 22,23.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that humic acid is an essential source of nutrition for Oat cultivars. Foliar application of humic acid (4 men increase leads to increased green dry forage yield for all Oat cultivars by increased leaf area index, crop growth rate, and relatiTanzaniah rate. Ganzania produced higher greenfield dry forage yield by 22.237, respectively,a-1, as compared to other Oat cultivars.
REFERENCES
1. Ma, B.-L., Zheng, Z., Ren, C., 2021. Crop physiology case histories for major crops. Elsevier, pp. 222-248.
2. Al-Taey, D.K.A., Al-Shareefi, M.J.H., Mijwel, A.K., Al-Tawaha, A.R., Al-Tawaha, A.R., The beneficial effects of bio-fertilizers combinations and humic acid on growth, yield parameters and nitrogen content of broccoli grown under drip irrigation system. Jornal of Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science ,2019; 25, 959-966.
3. USDA, 2022. World Agricultural Production. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/PSDOnline/Circulars/2022/02/production.pdf
4. Ali, H. H.; AL-Rawi, K.; Khalaf, Y.; Alaaraji, S.; Aldahham, B.; Awad, M.; Al-ani, O.; Al-ani, F.; Ali, A. T. Serum Caveolin-1 Level Is Inversely Associated with Serum Vaspin, Visfatin, and HbA1c in Newly Diagnosed Men with Type-2 Diabetes. Rep Biochem Mol Biol 2022, 11 (2).
5. El-Sherbeny, S.E., Hendawy, S., Youssef, A., Naguib, N., Hussein, M. Response of turnip (Brassica rapa) plants to minerals or organic fertilizers treatments. Journal of Applied Sciences Research. 2012; 8, 628-634.
6. Daur, I., Bakhashwain, A.A. Effect of humic acid on growth and quality of maize fodder production. Jornal of Pak, 2013;. J. Bot 45, 21-25.
7. Kandil, A.A., Sharief, A.E.M., Seadh, S.E., Altai, D. Role of humic acid and amino acids in limiting loss of nitrogen fertilizer and increasing productivity of some wheat cultivars grown under newly reclaimed sandy soil. Journal of Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci, 2016; 3, 123-136.
8. Teileb, W.M.K., Mourad, K. Effect of different levels of humic acid and mineral fertilizers on growth and productivity of sunflower. Journal of Journal of Plant Production Sciences, 2019; 8, 11-18.
9. Klučáková, M., Pavlíková, M. Lignitic Humic Acids as Environmentally-Friendly Adsorbent for Heavy Metals. Journal of Chemistry , 2017;195-200.
10. Barsila, S.R. The fodder oat (Avena sativa) mixed legume forages farming: nutritional and ecological benefits. Journal Natural Resources of Agriculture, 2018; 1, 206-222.
11. Alabdulla, S.A. Effect of foliar application of humic acid on fodder and grain yield of Oat (Avena sativa L.). Journal of Research on Crops, 2019; 20, 880-885.
12. Alfreeh, L.M. Influence of on Spraying Humic Acid and Number of Cutting Forage Yield of Oat (Avena sativa L.). Indian Journal of Ecology, 2021; 48 86-89.
13. Fernandez, M.G.S., Becraft, P.W., Yin, Y., Lübberstedt, T. From dwarves to giants? Plant height manipulation for biomass yield. Journal of Trends in Plant Science, 2009; 14, 454-461.
14. Barret, F. D., Justes, E., Machet, J. M. and Mary, B. Integrated Control of Nitrate Uptake by Crop Growth Rate and Soil Nitrate Availability under Field Conditions. Journal of Annals of Botany, 2000; 86: 995±1005.
15. Rajput, A., Rajput, S. S. and Jha, G. Physiological Parameters Leaf Area Index, Crop Growth Rate, Relative Growth Rate and Net Assimilation Rate of Different Varieties of Rice Grown Under Different Planting Geometries and Depths in SRI. Int. J. Pure App. Biosci, 2017; 5 (1): 362-367.
16. Al-Rawi, K. F.; Ali, H. H.; Guma, M. A.; Alaaraji, S. F. T.; Awad, M. M. The Relationships of Interleukin-33, Ve-Cadherin and Other Physiological Parameters in Male Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Pertanika J Sci Technol 2022, 30 (1), 123–140.
17. Al-Rawi, K. F.; Ali, H. H.; Guma, M. A.; Alaaraji, S. F. T.; Awad, M. M. The Relationships of Interleukin-33, Ve-Cadherin and Other Physiological Parameters in Male Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis. Pertanika J Sci Technol 2022, 30 (1), 123–140.
18. Canellas, L.P., Olivares, F.L. Physiological responses to humic substances as plant growth promoter. Journal of Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 2014; 1, 1-11.
19. Alzarkani, M.S.M., 2017. Effect of soaking seeds with pyridoxine and spraying boron on grain yield and its components for four oats (Avena sativa L.). Ph.D Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Baghdad University, Iraq.
20. Majid, H., Salim, H. Impact of Planting Distances and Humic Acid on Oat (Avena sativa). Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Health care, 2018; 8, 2224-3208.
21. Hussien, S. A. .; Doosh, . K. S. . Extraction And Purification Of Β-Galactosidase From (Ziziphus Spina-Christi). JLSAR 2022, 3, 12-22.
22. Ghanim, I. .; Ebrahim, S. E. . Preparing Of Bio-Cement Mortar By Using Bacillus Licheniformis Bacterial Cells. JLSAR 2022, 3, 23-29
23. Alrubaiee, S.H. Responce of three cultivars of Oat (Avena sativa L.) to humic acid and its effect on yield and its components. Int. J. Agricult. Stat. Sci, 2021; 17, 2201-2205.
Received: 25 June 2023/ Accepted: 26 August 2023 / Published:15 September 2023
Citation: Alrubaiee S. H.; Alsulaiman, M. A. F.; Effect of foliar application of Humic acid on some Growth properties and forage yield of Oat cultivars (Avena sativa L.). Revis Bionatura 2023;8 (3) 131 http://dx.doi.org/10.21931/RB/2023.08.03.131