A O

2641
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(9): 2641-2646, 2011
ISSN 1995-0756
This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation the Effect of Biological Fertilizer on Physiological Characteristic of Sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) Under Drought Stress
1
Maryam kheirkhah, 1Zeynab yarmahmoodi, 2Mohammad saeed tadaion, 1Barmak jafari haghighi
1
2
Department of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Arsenjan Branch,Arsenjan, Iran.
Department of plant nutrition, Agriculture and Nature Research Center, Zarghan, Iran.
Maryam kheirkhah, Zeynab yarmahmoodi, Mohammad saeed tadaion, Barmak jafari haghighi: Evaluation
the Effect of Biological Fertilizer on Physiological Characteristic of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)
Under Drought Stress.
ABSTRACT
This experiment was carried out for study the effects of chemical and biological fertilizers and interaction
between them on some physiological characteristic of sunflower in two different irrigation. The experiment was
conducted in a split plot factorial with completely randomized block design using four replications. Sub plots
consisted of combined application levels N-fertilizer with two level (0 and 300 kg.ha-1) Urea and two level of ha-1) in
four stage that was from 4th_5th leaf appearance until pre flowering stage. Main plots consisted of two period of
irrigation(8 and 12 days).Biological fertilizer was combined of Kadostim, Phosphotern and Aminolphorte The results
showed that highest CGR, NAR and RGR was in conditional application at integrated treatment 300 kg.ha-1 Urea
fertilizer and 4 L.ha-1 biological fertilizer (9.18 g.m-2.day-1 , 1.91 g.mLA-2 .day-1 and 0.14 g.g. dry matter-1.day-1)
respectively, And decrease 12 days period of irrigation had little effect on CGR, NAR and RGR but application of
chemical fertilizer after decrease irrigation CGR had much reduce trend to compared integrated treatment. For reach
to high yield in sunflower, biological fertilizer can not sufficient but integrated application of fertilizers (Biological
and Chemical fertilizers) became causes significant increase in yield.
Key words: Fertilization, Irrigation, CGR, NAR, RGR
Introduction
Stress is an external condition caused by different
harmful a biotic factors and has various types. One of
the most important types of stress is the drought stress
[2,6,12-23]. Water consumption in agriculture has
highly attracted attention of environmentalists and
government, and farmers are under high pressure to
consume water more efficiently and economically[4].
The process of plant growth is influenced by genetic
and environmental factors and the most important
environmental factor can be nutrition and irrigation
[3,24-27]. In addition to application of fertilizers to
soil, organic nutrients can be sprayed on leaves. Leaves
can absorb nutrients too. This method is more
advantageous than uptake of nutrients from soil [4].
Nutrition via leaves reduces the delay between
consumption and absorption of nutrients in plants and it
is important to growth speed in plants. Also in this
method, no problem can be found in absorption of
nutrients from soil [11] [7]. Organic agriculture is one
of the ways that can produce high quality crops [7].
Most of the studies, in this area have been shown that
consecutive uses of chemical fertilizer causes soil
erosion and lower crops quality [9,5]. Because of high
environmentally adaption and reducing the need of
fertilizer consumption bio-stimulators, not only
decrease the negative effects of chemical fertilizer but
also increase yield with regarding to sustainable
agriculture [10]. The objective of this research is to
study on the effects of application of environmental
stimuli to improve photosynthetic activities of plants
and counteract stress and improper environmental
conditions against plant growth such as water stress.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted in 2008 at
experimental farm of Arsanjan Islamic Azad University
(53ْ 16ُ N, 50ْ 29ُ E). The soil texture was sandy loam
and result soli analysis is shown in table 1.
Treatment consisted of two level drought stress:
one without stress (8days period of irrigation) and the
other drought stress (12 days period of irrigation) that
used after pollination and there were four fertilizer
treatments: 1- no fertilizer (control). 2- Organic
fertilizer (4 Lit.ha-1 from source of KadostimPhosphotern and Aminolphorte) which applied in
vegetative, flowering and anthesis stage. 3- Chemical
Corresponding Author
Maryam Kheirkhah, Department of Agronomy, Islamic Azad University Arsanjan, Iran.
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: +98-9177152657 2642
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(9): 2641-2646, 2011
fertilizer (300 Kg.ha-1 from source of Urea fertilizer)
which applied per sowing, 4th-5th leaf appearance and
pre flowering. 4- Utilization of both biological and
chemical fertilizers. The experiment was conducted in a
split plot with completely randomized block design four
replications. The test crop was sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L. var. Yourfelor). Each experimental plot was
16 m2 including five planting row with 3 m length and
with distancing 0.6 m and each plant was 20 cm a per.
Leaf area index and dry matter were measured at both
of vegetative and reproduction stages each 15 days for
calculating Crop Growth Rate (CGR), Net Assimilation
Rat (NAR) and Relative growth Rate (RGR).
Table1: Soil properties of experimental field
Deep of soil (cm)
Ec (ds. m-1)
0-30
0.58
30-60
0.76
PH
7.8
7.6
CGR = W2- W1/t2-t1
NAR = CGR /LAI
RGR = Ln W2- Ln W1/t2-t1
In above abbreviations:
LAI = Leaf area index
W = Dry matter
t = Day after planting
Data were subjected to Analysis Of Variance
(ANOVA) and the treatment means were compared
using Duncan multiple range test.
Organic matter (%)
1.00
0.75
Results and Discussions
Crop Growth Rate:
The result of this experiment showed that Crop
Growth Rate in integrated 300 Kg.ha-1 urea and 4 Li.ha1
biological fertilizer (9.18 g.m-2day-1) during the test
N (ppm)
320
230
P (ppm)
5.7
4.6
K (ppm)
150.0
135.5
was increased compared with other treatment (Fig. 1).
Application 300 Kg.ha-1 urea fertilizer alone produced
CGR (8.39 g.m-2day-1 ) (Fig. 2) and application 4 Li.ha1
biological fertilizer alone produced CGR (5.98 g.m2
day-1 ) (Fig. 3), but drought stress in flowering stage in
chemical fertilizer treatment caused more decrease
CGR compared with biological fertilizer (Fig. 2 and 3).
Fig. 1: Crop growth rate in four treatments in during period of growth
Fig. 2: Crop growth rate in chemical fertilizer in two difference irrigation
2643
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(9): 2641-2646, 2011
Fig. 3: Crop growth rate in biological fertilizer in two difference irrigation
was decreased in all fertilizer treatment, NAR pattern
changes have little difference and in integrated 300
Net Assimilation Rate:
Kg.ha-1 urea fertilizer and 4 Li.ha-1 biological fertilizer
The experiment indicated that the seasonal change
(1.91 g.mLA-2.day-1) had highest NAR in 8 and 12 days
pattern of Net Assimilation Rate was decreasing in all
period of irrigation (Fig. 5). Drought stress effect on
fertilizer treatment and when plants grow older, the net
decrease NAR in use of chemical fertilizer was more
assimilation rate had decreased (Fig. 4). Although NAR
than biological fertilizer (Fig. 6 and 7).
Fig. 4: Net assimilation rate in four treatments in during period of growth
Fig. 5: Net assimilation rate in utilization chemical and biological fertilizer in two difference irrigation
Fig. 6: Net assimilation rate in chemical fertilizer in two difference irrigation
2644
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(9): 2641-2646, 2011
Fig. 7: Net assimilation rate in biological fertilizer in two difference irrigation
Relative Growth Rate:
The result showed that, Relative Growth Rate was
decreased in duration of growth, because of falling
leaves and high competition for light and food (Fig. 8).
Application 300 Kg.ha-1 urea fertilizer alone (Fig. 9)
and application 4 Li.ha-1 biological fertilizers alone
have decreased RGR (Fig. 10). Drought stress effect
on Relative growth rate special in chemical fertilizer
treatment caused more decrease RGR compared with
biological fertilizer (Fig. 9 and 10).
Fig. 8: Relative growth rate in four treatments in during period of growth
Fig. 9: Relative growth rate in chemical fertilizer in two difference irrigation
2645
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(9): 2641-2646, 2011
Fig. 10: Relative growth rate in biological fertilizer in two difference irrigation
Disscusion:
The result of this experiment showed that,
integrated application of Biological and Chemical
fertilizers increase CGR, NAR and RGR. As agriculture
is under the effect of management factors during the
growth stages, the growth analysis is useful during life
of a plant for estimating of yield. Some researchers
reported that application integrated Chemical fertilizer
with biological fertilizer caused to be produced highest
yield compared with application Chemical and
biological treatment alone. [1, 11] This experiment
further showed that, drought stress caused decreases in
CGR, NAR and RGR but effect of drought stress in
integrated application of chemical fertilizer with
biological fertilizer was less than one of the fertilizer
treatments alone. [8] reported that drought stress is
harmful factor for decreasing crop. [5] showed that the
causes of a decrease in the Relative Growth Rate are
plant aging, an increase in building carbohydrates and a
decrease in metabolic activities of the plant.
Conclusion:
With respect to today’s agricultural problems and
indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers, it is
concluded that by less consumption of chemical
fertilizer and more use of inputs organic, we can
achieve sustainable agriculture with more productivity.
As agriculture is under the effect of a biotic and
management factors during the growth stages, the
growth analysis is useful during life of a plant and in
diagnosis of reasons of different actions of agricultural
products. A combination of chemical fertilizer with
biological fertilizer has given highest CGR, NAR and
RGR in this study.
References
1.
Omid, Alizadeh, Ardalan Alizadeh, 2011.
Consideration
Use
of
Mycorrhiza
and
Vermicompost to Optimizing of Chemical
Fertilizer Application in Corn Cultivation.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(6): 12791284
2.
Omid, Alizadeh, Karim Farsi Nejad, Seyed Javad
Sajjadian, 2011. Study of Different Tillage
Methods and Planting Patterns on Corn Yield.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7): 17641768
3. Omid, Alizadeh, Mahrad Esmael Niavarani, 2011.
Evaluation of the Yield and Yield Components
Stability Wheat under the Influence of Various
Irrigation Levels. Advances in Environmental
Biology, 5(7): 1627-1631
4. Alizadeh, Sh., O. Sharafzadeh, N. mehdizadeh,
2010. Evaluation of
mycorrhiza biological
fertilizers on some macro elements absorbtion
in water stress condition in sorghum.Advances
in environmental biology, 4(3): 28-432.
5. Blackman, G.F., J.N. Black and W. Kemp, 1973.
Physiological and ecological studies in the
analysis of plant environment. Annals of Botany,
19: 527-548.
6. Cornell, 2004. Engineering reiceplants with sugarproducing gene helps them to tolerance drought.
http://www.news. Cornell.
7. Higa, T., 1994. The complete Data of Em
Encyclopedia. 2nd Edn., Sogo-Unicom in Japanese,
Tokyo, pp: 385-388.
8. Khan, H., Link, T.J. Hocking and F.L. Stoddard,
2007. Evaluation of physiological traits for
improving drought tolerance in faba bean (Vicia
Faba L.). Plant soil, 292: 205-217.
9. Kumar, M.V.N. and S.S. Kumar, 2004. Studies on
character association and path efficient for grain
and oil content in maize. Ann. Agric., 72-78.
10. Li, W.J. and Y.Z. Ni, 1996. Researches on
application of microbial inoculants in crop
production. In: Researches and application of En
technology, Agriculture University Press, Beijing,
China, pp: 42-84.
11. Taiz, L. and E. Zeiger, 2002. Plant Physiology. 3rd
Edn., Sinauer Associates Publisher, ISBN,
0878938230, PP: 690.
12. Asgharipour, M. and M. Rafiei, 2010.
Intercropping of Isabgol (Plantago Ovata L.) And
Lentil as Influenced by Drought Stress. AmericanEurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 4(3):
341-348.
2646
Adv. Environ. Biol., 5(9): 2641-2646, 2011
13. Pour, F.A., K. Mohsenifar, E. Pazira, 2011. Affect
of Drought on Pollution of Lenj Station of
Zayandehrood River by Artificial Neural Network
(ANN). Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7):
1461-1464.
14. Sharafzadeh, S., M. Deimehr, A.E. Jahromi, 2011.
Effect of Irrigation Regimes on Growth and Yield
of Two Potato Cultivars. Advances in
Environmental Biology, 5(7): 1476-1479.
15. Bagheri, H., 2011. Evaluation of Some
Physiological Traits of Winter Canola Varieties in
DroughtStress
Conditions.
Advances
in
Environmental Biology, 5(7): 1527-1530.
16. Dadbakhsh, A., A. Yazdansepas
and M.
Ahmadizadeh, 2011. Study Drought Stress on
Yield of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Genotypes
by Drought Tolerance Indices. Advances in
Environmental Biology, 5(7): 1804-1810.
17. Ahmadizadeh, M., M. Valizadeh, H. Shahbazi,
M. Zaefizadeh
and M. Habibpor, 2011.
Morphological Diversity and Interrelationships
Traits in Durum Wheat Landraces under Normal
Irrigation and Drought Stress Conditions.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7): 19341940.
18. Nori, A., M. Ahmadizadeh, H. Shahbazi and S.
Aharizad, 2011. Evaluation of Physiological
Responses of Durum Wheat Landraces (Triticum
Durum) to Terminal Drought Stress. Advances in
Environmental Biology, 5(7): 1947-1954.
19. Bigonah, H. and H. Shahbazy, 2011. Evaluation
of chlorophyll content and fluorescence
Parameters as indicators of drought tolerance in
the International varieties of durum wheat.
Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(7): 19791983.
20. Ghanifathi T., M. Valizadeh, R. Shahryari, H.
Shahbazi, 2011. Effect of drought stress on
germination indices and seedling growth of 12
bread
wheat
genotypes.
Advances
in
Environmental Biology, 5(6): 1034-1039.
21. Dadbakhsh, A., A.Y. Sepas, 2011. Evaluation of
drought tolerance indices for screening bread
wheat genotypes in end-season drought stress
conditions. Advances in Environmental Biology,
5(6): 1040-1045.
22. Dadbakhsh, A., A.Y. Sepas, 2011. Evaluation of
drought tolerance of bread wheat genotypesafter
pollination stage by stress and sensitivity tolerance
indices. Advances in Environmental Biology, 5(6):
1046-1050.
23. Yarnia, M.B., Khorshidi Benam, E. Farajzadeh
Memari Tabrizi, N. Nobari and V. Ahmadzadeh,
2011. Effect of planting dates and density in
drought stress condition on yield and yield
components ofAmaranth cv. Koniz. Advances in
Environmental Biology, 5(6): 1139-1149.
24. Khan, G.A. and M.S. Amanullah, 2007. Response
of Dhalia (Dhalia pinnata) toDifferent Levels of
Nitrogen Alone and in Combinaiton with Constant
Doses of Phosphorus and Potassium, AmericanEurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 1(1):
25-31.
25. Ademiluyi, B.O. and S.O. Omotoso, 2007.
Comparative Evaluation of Tithonia diversifolia
and NPKFertilizer for soil improvement in maize
(Zea mays) production in Ado Ekiti, Southwestern
Nigeria, American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 1(1): 32-36.
26. Lei, L., W. Jiao and Y.C. Yan, 2008. Evaluating
Nitrogen Management of Farm Systems in the
Steep-mountainaous KARST Region, AmericanEurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2(2):
180-186.
27. Onduru, D.D., A. De Jager, F.N. Muchena, G.N.
Gachini and L. Gachimbi, 2008. Exploring
Potentials of Rhizobium Inoculation in Enhancing
Soil Fertility and Agro-economic Performance of
Cowpeas in Sub-saharan Africa: A Case Study in
Semi-arid Mbeere, Eastern Kenya, AmericanEurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2(3):
187-195.