Radiation Absorption and Use Efficiency of Common Mallow (Malva sylvestris L.) Affected by Different Sources of Organic, Biological and Chemical Fertilizers and Intercropping with Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum)

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• S. A. R Razavi
• M Jahan
• M Nasiri mahalati
• K Hajmohammadnia Ghalibaf

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

10.22067/gsc.v15i1.49378

Abstract

Introduction
Over one billion people, mostly in developing countries, use medicinal plants for the whole life or some part of it or at least prefer them to the synthetic drugs. According to a study of World Bank, trade in medicinal plants will have a share of over 5$ trillion in global trade in 2050. Growing population during last century and the demand for harvesting medicinal plants from natural areas, particularly those which commonly used, endangered these species with the risk of extinction. Common Mallow (Malva sylvestris L.) is a medicinal plant commonly used as a natural remedy and other industries e.g. cosmetic industry. On the other hand, negative impacts of synthetic agricultural inputs on human health, the need for producing healthy commodities, replacing chemical agricultural inputs with some environmental friendly ones, and paying attention to new concepts like sustainability, lead agroecologists to introduce ecologically alternatives to farmers, in order to be replaced with chemical fertilizers. Using Plant growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) and fungi symbiotic with many vascular plants, is one of these alternatives. Mechanistic crop growth analysis including radiation absorption and use efficiency was compiled in agricultural researches from 1950, farther than classical analysis. Thus, the goal of this experiment is to evaluate radiation absorption and use efficiency of Common Mallow under the effect of different sources of biological, chemical and organic fertilizers and intercropping with Fenugreek (Trigonellafoenum-graecum).

Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted as a split plot design based on RCBD with three replications at the research farm of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad during the growing season of 2013. The main plot factor had two levels: 1-application of cattle manure and 2-no application of cattle manure, and the sub plot factor had seven levels as: 1- Nitroxin®, 2-Sulphur solubilizing bacteria (SSB) 3-Phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB), 4- Nitroxin + SSB + PSB, 5- Chemical fertilizer, 6-Row intercropping with Fenugreek, and 7- Control. Inoculation of seeds with boifertilizers done in standard situation recommended by their producers and the CFU of all biofertilizers were more than 108. On 25 of March, 25 ton.ha-1 of cattle manure distributed by hand in needed plots. The sowing operation was done on March 30.The total area of a plot was 12 square meters and the distance between and on the rows were 50 and 20 cm, respectively. Leaf area index, dry matter and the radiation above, and transmitted through, the canopy measured each 14 days (with a Linear Septometer, SunScan, Delta T Co., UK). Then the total radiation absorption for each plot was calculated by the relevant equations. Finally, radiation use efficiency is estimated with measuring the slope of the regression line between cumulative absorbed radiation and dry matter of the plant.

Results and Discussion
The results showed that application of cattle manure increased LAI, particularly in the early stages of Common Mallow growth, and the highest level of LAI was on the treatment of “Nitroxin + SSB + PSB + Cattle manure” and “Chemical fertilizer + cattle manure” with 2.49 and 2.37, respectively. This is while, in the absence of cattle manure, chemical fertilizer had more effect on increasing LAI compared to the biofretilizers. Application of cattle manure also reduced the light extinction coefficient (K) of the plant, while “Nitroxin + SSB + PSB + Cattle manure” treatment had the least K value (K=0.47, R2=0.98). ANOVA results showed all experimental treatments had a significant effect (P≤ 0.001) on the cumulative absorbed radiation of Mallow during the growing season. The most accumulated absorbed radiation occurred under Nitroxin + SSB + PSB treatment (by mean of 986.6 MJ.m-2), while application and no-application of cattle manure had no significant effect on radiation absorption. The total calculated mean of RUE was 1.26 g.MJ-1. Nitroxin inoculation resulted in the least RUE (1.09 g.MJ-1) and Nitroxin + SSB + PSB inoculation plus cattle manure application had the highest RUE (1.5 g.MJ-1).

Conclusions
Generally, according to the goals of the experiment which were comparing some ecological inputs with chemical fertilizer from the point of mechanistic crop growth analysis factors such as radiation absorption and RUE, it seems that mixture of the three biological fertilizers of Nitroxin + SSB + PSB plus application of cattle manure can compete with chemical nitrogen fertilizer in such factors.

Keywords

• Azospirillum
• Azotobacter
• Cattle manure
• Light extinction coefficient
• Pseudomonas

20.1001.1.20081472.1396.15.1.12.6

---

References

1. Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A. R., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2010. The evaluation of radiation absorption and use efficiency of row intercropping of bean and basil. Journal of Agroecology 2 (1): 85-94 (in Persian with English abstract).

2. Ameri, A. A., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2008. Effects of nitrogen application and plant densities on flower yield, essential oils, and radiation use efficiency of Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Pajouhesh & Sazandegi 81: 133-144. (in Persian with English abstract).

3. Barikbin, B, Maarefat, A., Rahgoshai, R., Moravvej, H., Mohtasham, N., and Yousefi, M. 2010. Malva Sylvestris in the treatment of hand eczema. Iranian Journal of Dermatology 13: 131-134.

4. Bown, D. 1995. Encyclopedia of herbs and their uses. Dorling Kindersley, New York.

5. Caviglia, O. P. and Sadras, V. O. 2001. Effect of nitrogen supply on crop conductance, water and radiation-use efficiency of wheat. Fields Crop Research 69: 259-266.

6. Evans. L.T. 1978. Crop Physiology. Cambridge University Press.

7. Farooqi, A.A., and Sreeramu, B. 2001. Cultivation of medicinal and aromatic crops. Universities Press.

8. Francescangeli, N., Sangiacomo, M. A., and Marti, H. 2006. Effects of plant density in broccoli on yield and radiation use efficiency. Scientia Horticulturae 110: 135-143.

9. Ghasemi Pirbalouti, A., Yousefi, M., Nazari, H., Karimi, I., and Koohpayeh, A. 2009. Evaluation of Burn Healing Properties of Arnebia euchroma and Malva sylvestris. Electronic Journal of Biology 5 (3): 62-66.

10. Gliessman, S. R. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI.

11. Hughes, G., Keatinge, J. D. H., Cooper, P. J. M., and Dee, N. F. 1987. Solar radiation interception and utilization by chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) crops in northern Syria. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 108:419-424

12. IUCN. 1993. Guideline on the conservation of medicinal plants.

13. Jahan, M., Koocheki, A. R., Tahami, M. K., Amiri, M. B., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2012. The effects of simultaneous application of different organic and biological fertilizers on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of Cucurbita pepo L. Journal of Life Science 6: 1145-1149.

14. Jahan, M., Nassiri Mahallati, M., Amiri, M. B., and Ehyayi, H. R. 2013. Radiation absorption and use efficiency of sesame as affected by biofertilizers inoculation in a low input cropping system. Industrial Crops and Products 43: 606- 611.

15. Jahan, M., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2012. Soil Fertility and Biofertilizers: An Agroecological approach. Ferdowsi University Press.250 pp. ISBN: 978-964-385-277-0

16. Johnson, W. C., and William, O. W. 2002. Warfarin toxicity. Journal of Vascular Surgery 35: 413-421.

17. Karimian, M., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2009. Influence of nitrogen and plant density on light absorption and radiation use efficiency in two spring rapeseed cultivars. Iranian Field Crops Research 7 (1): 163-172.

18. Keating, B.A., and Carberry, P.S. 1993. Resource capture and use in intercropping: solar radiation. Field Crops Research 34: 273-301.

19. Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M., Mondani, F., Feizi, H., and Amirmoradi, S. 2008. Evaluation of radiation interception and use efficiency by maize and been intercropping canopy. Agroecology 1: 23-31. (in Persian with English abstract).

20. Koocheki, A. R., Khorramdel, S., Fallahpour, F., and Mellati, F. 2014. The evaluation of radiation absorption and use efficiency of row intercropping of wheat and soybean. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 11 (4): 533-542 (in Persian whith English abstract).

21. Koocheki, A. R., and Sarmadnia, G. H. 1999. Phisiology of crop plants. Jahad Daneshgahi of Mashhad publication, Mashhad, Iran. (in Persian).

22. Lugtenberg, B., and Kamilova, F. 2009. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology 63: 541-556.

23. Malik, A. A., Suriapani, S., and Ahmad, J. 2011. Chemical vs. organic cultivation of medicinal and aromatic plants: the choice is clear. International Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants 1 (1): 5-13.

24. Monteith, J. L. 1977. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 281: 277-294.

25. Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2000. Modelling of Crops Growth Processes. Jahad Daneshgahi, Mashhad, Iran. (in Persian).

26. Parsa, S., Koocheki, A. R., Nassiri Mahallati, M., and Ghaemi, A. R. 2007. Seasonal variations of radiation bsorption and use efficiency of sugar beet. Iranian Field Crops Research 5 (2): 229-238. (in Persian withought English abstract).

27. Qazi, M. A., Akram, M., Ahmad, N., Artiola, J., and Tuller, M. 2009. Economic and environmental implication of solid waste compost application to agricultural fields in Punjab, Pakistan. Waste management 29 (9): 2437-2445.

28. Rinaldi, M., and Vonella, A. V. 2006. The response of autumn and spring sown sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) toirrigation in southern Italy: water and radiation use efficiency. Field Crops Research 95:103-114.

29. Rosati, A., Metcalf, S. G., and Lampinen, B. D. 2004. A simple method to estimate photosynthetic radiation use efficiency of canopies. Annals of Botany 93: 567-574.

30. Seyyedi, S. M., and Rezvani Moghaddam, P. 2011. The Evaluation of yield, yield components and Nitrogen use efficiency with using mushroom compost, biofertilizer and urea in wheat. Journal of Agroecology 3 (3): 309-319. (in Persian with English abstract).

31. Sinclair, T. R., and Muchow, R. C. 1999, Radiation use efficiency. Advances in agronomy 65: 215-265.

32. Sleiman, N. H. 2006. The effect of Malva sylvestris on inflammation, gastric damage, lipemia, glycaemia and microbial growth. M.Sc. thesis, Molecular biology department, Lebanese American University.

33. Soltani, A., and Hoogenboom, G. 2007. Assessing crop management options with crop simulation models based on generated weather data. Field Crops Research 103: 198-207.

34. Tabaraki, R., Yosefi, Z., and Asadi Gharne, H. A. 2012. Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Properties of Medicinal PlantMalvasylvestris L. Journal of Research in Agricultural Science 8: 59-68.

35. Tsubo, M., and Walker, S. 2002. A model of radiation interception and use by a maize/bean intercrop canopy. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 110:203-215.

36. UNESCO. 1998. Promotion of ethnobotany and the sustainable use of plant resourcesin Africa. FIT/504-RAF-48 Terminal report, Paris.

37. WHO. 2002. WHO traditional medicine strategy 2002-2005.Geneva, Available at website http://www.who.int/medicines/library/trm/trm_strat_eng.

38. Willey, R.W. 1990. Resource use in intercropping systems. Agricultural Water Management 17: 215–231.

39. Yunusa, I.A.M., Siddique, K. H. M., Belford, R. K., and Karimi, M. M. 1993. Effect of canopy structure on efficiency of radiation interception and use in spring wheat cultivars during the preanthesis period in a Mediterranean- type environment. Field Crops Research 35:113-122

40. Zhang, F., and Li, L. 2003. Using competitive and facilitative interaction in intercropping systems enhances crops productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil 248: 305-312.