Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Gonbad Kavous University

2 Msc. of Agroecology

3 Assistant Professor of Azad University of Neishabur

Abstract

Legumes are from important food and feed resources with rich of protein for human and animals. Pulse seeds by having 18-32% protein have important role in human food regim specially in low input human feeding (Majnoun Hosseini, 2008). Nayyar et al (2006) have believed that flowering and pod setting stages are the sensitive stages of chickpea to drought and water stress at flowering stage with reducing of flowers fertility will reduce number of seeds per plant. Gad et al. (2012) reported that spraying of humic acid increased seed yield, 1000-seed weight and protein percent of peas. The aim of this study was to determine effect of density, supplementary irrigation and humic acid on quantity and quality of local chickpea )Cicer arietinum L. (of Neishabur.
 
Materials and methods
In order to study the effect of humic acid, density and supplemental irrigation on yield, yield components, protein percent and yield of local chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) of Neishabur, an experiment carried out in factorial based on Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications in field research of Islamic Azad university of Neishabur during 2012-2013. The factors was humic acid in two levels of application and non application of humic acid, plant density was in three levels of 20, 30 and 40 plants m-2 and supplemental irrigation in three levels of non irrigation, irrigation at flowering stage and irrigation at pod setting stage. In this study seeds were plated by hand. Each plot included five rows with four meters legth, row spacing 25 cm, plant distance on row based on density 20, 13.3 and 10 cm (20, 30 and 40 plants/m2, respectively). 10 plants were selected randomizedly from each plot and pods/plant, seeds/plant, 100-seed weight, plant yield and protein percent were measured. For determining of seed yield, two border rows and 0.5 m from two ends of middle rows were removed and remains were harvested and were put in oven for 48 hours in 70 °C and then were measured. For analysis variance of data software of SAS Ver.9.1.3 were used and treatment mean differences were separated by the least significant difference (LSD) test at the 0.05 probability level.
 
Results and discussion
The effect of humic acid and density on all traits except 100- seed weight and protein percent was significant. All traits were affected by supplemental irrigation. Interaction of acid humic × supplemental irrigation on pods/plant, seeds/plant, plant yield, seed yield and protein yield ha-1 and interaction of density × supplemental irrigation on seeds/plant and plant yield was significant. Consumption of humic acid increased all traits. Seed yield in cosumption and non cosumption of humic acid was 2234 and 1752 kg ha-1, respectively. Increasing of density reduced yield components but seed yield and protein yield ha-1 were increased. Seed and protein yield in density of 40 plants m-2 was 2264 and 521.4 kg ha-1 respevtively. Irrigation increased all traits except protein percent. Seed yield in treatments of irrigation in flowering and pod setting stages was 2417 and 2330 and protein yield was 561 and 531.9 kg ha-1, respectively. In this study, maximum seed and protein yield were obtained by consumption of humic acid and supplemental irrigation at flowering stage with 2697 and 638.2 kg ha-1 that have not differences with cosumption of humic acid and irrigation at pod setting stage with 2648 and 615.3 kg ha-1. Maximum seed and protein yield with 2264 and 521.4 kg ha-1 belonged to treatment of 40 plants m-2.
 
Conclusion
Humic acid and spacially density and supplemental irrigation affected chickpea seed and protein yield. Although by increasing of density yield components were decreased but, seed yield were increased. Irrigation at flowering stage had the highest effect on traits. Non irrigation increased protein percent but, protein yield in this treatment because of lower yield of chickpea was less than other treatments.

Keywords

 
Azarpour, E., Khosravi Danesh, R., Mohammadi, S., Bozorgi, H.R., Moraditochaee, M., 2011. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer under foliar spraying of humic acid on yield and yield components of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). World Applied Sciences Journal. 13(6), 1445-1449.
El-bassiony, A.M., Fawzy, Z.F., Abd El-Baky, M.M.H., Mahmoud, A.R., 2010. Response of snap bean plants to mineral fertilizers and humic acid application. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences. 6(2), 169-175.
Gad, S.H., Ahmed, A.M., Moustafa, Y., 2012. Effect of foliar application with two antioxidants and humic acid on growth, yield and yield components of peas (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Horticultural Sciences and Ornamental Plants. 4(3), 318-328.
Goldani, M., Rezvani Moghaddam, P., 2007. The effects of different irrigation regims and planting dates on phenology and growth indices of three chickpea (Cicer aritinum L.) cultivars in Mashhad. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. 14(1), 75-86. [In Persian with English Summary].
Habibzadeh, Y., Moosavi, Y., 2014. The effects of water deficit stress on protein yield of mung bean genotypes. Peak Journal of Agricultural Science. 2(3), 30-35.
Heidari, M., Miri, H.R., Minaei, A., 2014. Antioxidant enzymes activity and biochemical components in borage (Borago officinalis) response to water stress and humic acid treatment. Environmental Stress in Crop Sciences. 6(2), 159-170. [In Persian with English Summary].
Jalilian, J., Modarres Sanavy, S.A.M., Sabbaghpour, S.H., 2005. The effect of density and supplemental irrigation on yield, yield components and protein content of four chickpea (Cicer aritinum) cultivars under dry land condition. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. 12(5), 1-9.[In Persian with English Summary].
Jalota, S.K., Sood, A., Harman, W.L., 2006. Assessing the response of chickpea (Cicer aeritinum L.) yield to irrigation water on two soils in Punjab (India): A simulation analysis using the CROPMAN model. Agricultural Water Management. 79(3), 312-320.
Khan, A., Khan, M.Z., Hussain, F., Akhtar, M.E., Gurmani, A.R., Khan, S., 2012. Effect of humic acid on the growth, yield, nutrient composition, photosynthetic pigment and total sugar contents of peas (pisum sativum L.). Journal of Chemical Society of Pakistan. 35(1), 206-2011.
Majnoun Hosseini, N., 2008. Grain Legume Production. Tehran University Press. 283p. [In Persian].
Mohammadnejad, Y. Sayyedi, F., 2011. Interactive effects of supplemental irrigation and planting arrangement on yield and water use efficiency of chickpea (cv. Arman) in Gonbad. Electronic Journal of Crop Production. 3(4), 89-105. [In Persian with English Summary].
Nayyar, H., Sigh, S., Kaur, S., Kumar, S., and upadhyaya, H.D., 2006. Differential sensitivity of macrocarpa and microcarpa types of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to water stress: Association of contracting stress response with oxidative injury. Integrative Plant Biology. 48(11), 1318- 1329.
Raei, Y., Demaghsi, N., Seyed Sharifi, R., 2008. Effect of different levels of irrigation and plant density on grain yield and its components in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) deci type cv. Kaka. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 9(4), 371-381. [In Persian with English Summary].
Sakinejad, T., Hossaini, S.M., Hyvari, M., 2011. Calculate changes of bean germination process in the presence of various compounds of biological fertilizer humic acid mixed with micro and macro elements. Journal of American Science. 7(6), 10-14.
Selim, E.M., El-neklawy, A.S., El- Ashry, S.M., 2010. Beneficial effects of humic substances on soil fertility to fertigated potato grown on sandy soil. Libyan Agriculture Research Center Journal International. 1(4), 255-262.