Evaluation of Yield and Agronomic Traits of Forage Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) Cultivars and Advanced Lines under Salinity Stress in the Sistan Region

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

A Ghasemi ¹

M. R Narouierad ¹

M Mohamadghasemi ¹

H Siasar ²

¹ Horticultural Crops Research Department, Sistan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Zabol, Iran

² Department of Agriculture, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

10.22067/jcesc.2025.94396.1413

Abstract

Introduction
Biotic and abiotic stresses are among the most significant factors reducing productivity in arid and semi-arid regions, where water is the primary limiting factor for plant growth. Sorghum possesses several advantageous physiological characteristics including drought and salinity tolerance, higher water-use efficiency compared to other forage crops, relatively high yield, desirable forage quality, and suitability for storage as both dry fodder and silage which make it particularly valuable in these environments. Strategies to utilize saline water effectively include selecting salt-tolerant cultivars, applying saline water during growth stages of lower sensitivity, and blending saline and non-saline water to reduce overall salinity. Although sorghum exhibits relative tolerance to soil and irrigation-water salinity, leaf-area expansion, carbon assimilation, stem elongation, and dry-matter accumulation are significantly constrained under high salinity. 
Materials and Methods
This experiment was conducted over two growing seasons (2019–2020 and 2020–2021) at the Zahak Agricultural Research Station (Sistan, Iran), using a split-plot arrangement in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Main-plot treatments were three irrigation-water salinity levels: non-saline (2–3 dS m^-1, control), moderate (4–6 dS m^-1), and severe (6–8 dS m^-1). Sub-plot treatments comprised six promising forage sorghum genotypes (Pegah, Mansour, Speedfeed, KFS15, KFS16, and KFS17). Based on soil test recommendations, ammonium phosphate (250 kg ha^-1) and urea (100 kg ha^-1) were applied at planting; an additional 100 kg ha^-1 urea was top-dressed when plants reached 35–40 cm in height. Sowing occurred on 15 March each year. Each sub-plot consisted of six 5-meter-long rows with 50 cm spacing between rows and 6 cm spacing between plants. At the panicle emergence stage, after removing the two border rows and 0.5 m from both ends of each plot, samples were harvested from an area of approximately 8 m². Recorded traits included days to flowering, plant height, tiller number, stem diameter, leaf number, leaf area, fresh and dry forage yields.
Results and Discussion
The combined analysis of variance revealed that plant height, stem diameter, tiller number, leaf number, leaf area, protein content, fresh forage yield, and dry forage yield were significantly affected (p ≤ 0.01) by salinity, genotype, and their interaction. Under non-saline conditions (2–3 dS m^-1), ‘Mansour’ produced the highest fresh forage yield (146.94 t ha^-1), leaf area (261 cm²), and protein content (15.03%). The Speedfeed cultivar under normal irrigation ranked second with a protein content of 14.75%, following Mansour. The lowest protein content was observed in lines KFS17 and KFS16, with means of 11.70% and 11.85%, respectively, under high-salinity irrigation. Protein content declined in all genotypes with increasing salinity; ‘Mansour’ exhibited the greatest reduction (23.7%). Under severe salinity (6–8 dS m^-1), ‘Pegah’ maintained superior plant height, stem diameter, tiller and leaf numbers, and achieved higher fresh forage yield (72.01 t ha^-1) and dry forage yield (21.30 t ha^-1) yields than the other entries. Fresh forage yields decreased significantly across all genotypes as salinity rose (p ≤ 0.01); the lowest fresh yield (38.96 t ha^-1) was recorded in KFS15 under severe salinity. The highest dry forage yields under non-saline irrigation were obtained by ‘Mansour’ (38.71 t ha^-1) and KFS17 (38.40 t ha^-1), whereas the lowest dry forage yield (22.33 t ha^-1) occurred in KFS16 at 6–8 dS m^-1.
Conclusion
The study demonstrated significant genotypic differences in the response of forage sorghum to irrigation water salinity. Although all measured traits declined with increasing salinity, 'Mansour' performed best under non-saline conditions, whereas 'Pegah' exhibited greater tolerance under moderate and high salinity by maintaining higher biomass production and crude protein content. These findings suggest that selecting genotypes based on their salinity tolerance can optimize forage yield and quality in salt-affected environments. Given the increasing salinity of irrigation water in the Sistan region, the cultivation of 'Pegah' represents a practical and resilient strategy for sustaining forage production and supporting local livestock systems.

Keywords

Dry forage

Fresh forage

Leaf number

Protein content

Plant height

Subjects

• Environmental stresses

---

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

References

1. Ahmadi, K., Ebadzadeh, H. R., Hatami, F., Abdshah, H., & Kazemian, A. (2020). Agricultural Statistics Yearbook, Volume 1: Crop Products. Information Technology and Communication Center, Ministry of Agriculture Jihad, 32 p. (in Persian)
2. Alinia, M., & Kazemini, A. (2017). Effect of salinity stress on growth, yield, and some physiological traits of forage sorghum cultivars. Journal of Crop and Horticultural Products Production and Processing, 7(2), 19-31. (in Persian)
3. Ashraf, M., & Tufail, M. (1995). Variation in salinity tolerance in sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 174, 351-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.1995.tb01122.x
4. Ataei, R., Torabi, M., Ghasemi, A., & Shiri, M. R. (2024). Investigation and feasibility of pearl millet hybrid ultivars development in Iran. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 55(1), 63-73. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2023.358056.654999.
5. Azerinasrabad, A., Mousavinik, S. M., Galavi, M., Sirousmehr, A., & Beheshti, S. A. (2024). Path analysis and correlation analysis of grain yield and its components in grain sorghum genotypes (Sorghum bicolor) under drought stress conditions. Agricultural Sciences in Dry Regions, 6(4), 295-310. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/csrar.2024.292387.1200
6. Bharat, R. S., & Minhas, P. S. (2005). Strategies for managing saline/alkali waters for sustainable agricultural production in South Asia. Agricultural Water Management, 78, 136-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2005.04.019
7. Blaise, D., Singh, J. V., Bonde, A. N. Tekale, K. U., & Mayee, C. D. (2005). Effects of farmyard manure and fertil izers on yield, fiber quality and nutrient balance of rainfed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Bioresource
8. Technology, 96(3), 345–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2004.03.008
9. Bybordi, A. (2012). Study effect of salinity on some physiologic and morphologic properties of two grape cultivars. Life Science Journal, 9(4), 1092-1101. (in Persian)
10. Ghaedi, S., Afrasiab, P., Liaghat, A., & Khamri, A. (2015). Integrated use of saline and non-saline water in sorghum and sunflower cultivation in Sistan plain. Iranian Journal of Water and Soil Research, 2(46), 173-182. (in Persian with English abstract).
11. Hay, R. K., & Walker, A. (1998). An Introduction to the Physiology of Crop Yield. Longman Group UK Limited, UK.
12. Hazeghjafari, P., Ahrizad, S., Mohammadi, A., Nurmandmoayed, F., & Behrouz, P. (2014). Grouping alfalfa genotypes in terms of different traits using multivariate statistical methods. Agricultural Plant Breeding Journal, 6(14), 107-121. (in Persian)
13. Hedayati-Firoozabadi, A., Kazemeini, S. A., Pirasteh-Anosheh, H., Ghadiri, H., & Pessarakli, M. (2020). Forage yield and quality as affected by salt stress in different ratios of Sorghum bicolor-Bassia indica Journal of Plant Nutrition, 1-1. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2020.1783301
14. Kjeldahl, J. G. C. T. (1883). Neue methode zur bestimmung des stickstoffs in organischen. korpern. Fresenius, Zeitschrift für Analytische Chemie, 22, 366-382. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01338151
15. Khazaei, A., Torabi, M., Ghasemi, A., & Azarinasrabad, A. (2018). Final evaluation of promising dual-purpose forage-grain sorghum lines. Final Report, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Karaj, Iran. (in Persian)
16. Khodbandeh, N. (2019). Forage Crop Cultivation. Agricultural Science Publishing, Iran, 310 p. (in Persian)
17. Krishnamurthy, L., Serraj, R., Hash, C. T., Dakheel, A., & Reddy, B. (2007). Screening sorghum genotypes for salinity tolerant biomass production. Euphytica, 156, 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9343-9
18. Kumudini, S. (2002). Trials and tribulations: A review of the role of assimilate supply in soybean genetic yield improvement. Field Crops Research, 75(2-3), 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00027-8
19. Lacerda, C., Cambraia, J., Oliva, M., Ruiz, M., & Prisco, J. (2003). Solute accumulation and distribution during shoot and leaf development in two sorghum genotypes under salt stress. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 49, 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(02)00064-3
20. Lin, C., & Binns, M. R. (1991). Genetic properties of four types of stability parameter. Theoretical and Appllied Genetics, 82, 505-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00588606
21. Mansour, M., Salama, K., Ali, F., & Abou Hadid, A. (2005). Cell and plant responses to NaCl in Zea mays cultivars differing in salt tolerance. General and Applied Plant Physiology, 31, 29-41.
22. Masters, D., Tiong, M., Vercoe, P., & Norman, H. (2010). The nutritive value of river saltbush (Atriplex amnicola) when grown in different concentrations of sodium chloride irrigation solution. Small Ruminant Research, 91(1), 56-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2009.10.019
23. Miguel, J., Guimaraes, M., Welson, L., Simoes, R., OliveiraGherman, G., & de Araujo, L., (2019). Biometrics and grain yield of sorghum varieties irrigated with salt water. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, 23(4), 285-290. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v23n4p285-290
24. Mirmohamadimeybodi, S. A., & Ghareyazi, B. (2002). Physiological and Breeding Aspects of Salinity Stress in Plants. Isfahan University of Technology Press, 274 p. (in Persian)
25. Miyatoo, S., Glenn, P., & Olsen, M. W. (1996). Growth, water use and salt uptake of four halophytes irrigated with highly saline water. Journal of Arid Environments, 32(2), 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1006/jare.1996.0013
26. Morales, C., Cusido, R. M., Palazon, J., & Bonfill, M. (1993). Response of Digitalis purpurea plant to temporary salinity. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 16(2), 335-327.
27. Netondo, G. W., Onyango, J. C., & Beck, E. (2004). Sorghum and Salinity: II. Gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescece of sorghum under salt stress. Crop Science, 44, 806-811. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.8060
28. Nurouzi, M., Chavoshi, A., & Ghajarsepanlou, M. (2022). Effect of irrigation water salinity on relative yield and some morphological and physiological characteristics of sorghum. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture, 63(1), 55-74. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/jwra.2022.352078.823
29. Omar, S. (2014). Physiological parameters of salt tolerance during germination and seedling growth of Sorghum bicolor cultivars of the same subtropical origin. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 21(4), 300-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2014.05.005
30. Pirasteh-Anosheh, H., Ranjbar, G., Pakniyat, H., & Emam, Y., (2016). Physiological Mechanisms of Salt Stress Tolerance in Plants; An Overview. p. 141-160. In: M. M. Azooz & P. Ahmad (Eds). Plantenvironment Interaction: Responses and Approaches to Mitigate Stress. Wiley, London. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119081005.ch8
31. Piri, H., Ansari, H., & Parsa, M. (2017). Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative yield of forage sorghum under different salinity levels of irrigation water in a subsurface drip irrigation system. Journal of Water Research in Agriculture, 30(1), 467-482. (in Persian with English abstract).
32. Pourazizi, M., & Fallah, S. (2010). The effect of organic and chemical fertilizers on the qualitative properties of sorghum forage. Proceedings of the National Conference on New Achievements in Agronomy, September, Karaj, Iran. (in Persian)
33. Rana, M. (1988). Causes of varited differences in salt tolerance. Proc of the International Congores of Plant Physiolgy, p. 960-989. New Delhi, India.
34. Rashedmohassel, M. H., Hosseini, M., Abdi, M., & Molafilabi, A. (1997). Cereal Crops Agriculture. Mashhad Jihad Daneshgahi Publications, Mashhad, Iran. 408 p. (in Persian)
35. Sarvari, S. M., & Beheshti, S. A. (2011). Relationship between grain yield and plant characteristics in grain sorghum genotypes under drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 14(2), 183-201. (In Persian). https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.15625540.1391.14.2.7.0
36. Seif, F., Azizi, F., Paknejad, F., Kashani, A., & Shahabifar, M. (2019). Evaluation of drought stress and clinoptilolite effects on yield and quality of silage corn hybrids. Scientific Journal of Crop Physiology, 11(42), 127-146. (In Persian)
37. Shamsadinsaeedi, M., & Farahbakhsh, H. (2009). Effect of salinity stress on yield and some agronomic and physiological traits of two corn hybrids in Kerman region. Plant Production (Scientific Journal of Agriculture), 1(32), 13-24. (in Persian with English abstract)
38. Sharifan, H., & Kazemihasanvand, M. (2015). Evaluation of yield and yield components of sorghum under irrigation with Caspian Sea water. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 9(1), 163-169. (In Persian)
39. Sharifi, M., Ghorbanli, M., & Ebrahimzadeh, H. (2007). Improved growth of salinity-stressed soybean after inoculation with salt pre-treated mycorrhizal fungi. Journal of Plant Physiology, 164, 1144-1151. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2006.06.016
40. Soleimani, M., Kafi, M., Ziaei, M., & Shabahang, J. (2008). Effects of deficit irrigation on forage yield of two native mass of salt-tolerant Kochia under saline water irrigation. Journal of Water and Soil (Agricultural Sciences and Industries), 22, 148-156. (in Persian with English abstract)
41. Tabatabaei, S. A., Anaghli, A., Izadfar, M., Ghane, F., & Soltani, V. (2010). Evaluation of salt tolerance in forage sorghum inbred lines under laboratory and field conditions. Final Report, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of Yazd, Iran. (in Persian)
42. Tabatabaei, S. A., & Anagholi, A. (2012). Effects of salinity on some characteristics of forage sorghum genotypes at germination stage. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences, 4(14), 979-983. (in Persian)
43. Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., Moller, I. M., & Murphy, A. (2015). Plant Physiology and Development Sinauer Associates, 20 p.
44. Velikova, V., Yordanov, I., & Edreva, A. (2000). Oxidative stress and some antioxidant systems in acid rain-treated bean plants: protective role of exogenous polyamines. Plant Science, 151, 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(99)00197-1
45. Yarnia, M. (2007). Evaluation of some physiological indices of forage sorghum cultivars under salinity conditions. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Islamic Azad University of Tabriz, 1(1), 1-15. (in Persian)
46. Zerbini, E., & Thomas, D. (2003). Opportunities for improvement of nutritive value in sorghum and Pearl millet residues in south Asia through genetic enhancement. Field Crop Research, 84, 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(03)00137-0