Evaluation of Physiological Growth Analysis of some Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Varieties under Different Moisture Levels in Spring and Summer Planting Dates at South Khorasan Region

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 , PhD Student of Agronomy, Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Birjand, Iran

2 Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran

3 Plant and Environmental Stresses Research Group, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran

4 Department of Water Engineering, University of Birjand, Birjand, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Deficit irrigation offers a solution for optimizing crop production under water stress conditions, albeit with an initial reduction in yield per unit area. Employing deficit irrigation aids in farm management in scenarios where land availability isn’t constrained, enabling the determination of optimal cultivation patterns while conserving water consumption. However, deficit irrigation may influence plant growth and development by inducing drought stress. Due to several capabilities, quinoa shows resistance to solar radiation, temperature, water availability, and atmospheric CO2 concentration, which makes it possible to cultivate it in different agricultural areas. Quinoa also has a great capacity for cultivation in dry and low-water soils. Although growth analysis sometimes provides valuable clues, it does not provide any physicochemical information related to the environmental reactions of plants; in other words, the main benefit of many quantities involved in growth analysis is to provide an accurate estimate of the ability and efficiency of the plant in the community at certain time intervals. In general, growth analysis evaluates the system based on the results of physiological manifestations. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the physiological growth analyses of three quinoa cultivars under different moisture levels in summer and spring planting dates in the South Khorasan region.
Materials and Methods
To evaluate the physiological traits of three quinoa cultivars under deficit irrigation conditions, four separate experiments were conducted using a factorial layout based on a randomized complete block design. These experiments included three replications and were carried out in two regions (Birjand and Sarbisheh) during two planting dates (March and July) in 2018-2019. The experimental factors consisted of five moisture levels (ranging from 25% to 125% of crop water requirement) and three quinoa cultivars (Titicaca, Giza1, and Redcarina). To compare the cultivars and assess the impact of humidity levels, several physiological indices—such as leaf area index (LAI), crop growth rate (CGR), relative growth rate (RGR), and net assimilation rate (NAR)—were studied. Regression curves were fitted to the data from all four experiments separately, and separate analyses of variance were also performed for each sampling time.
Results and Discussion
The trend of changes in the leaf area index (LAI) showed that the time needed to reach the maximum LAI was observed between 106 to 107 days after emergence in March and between 73 to 76 days after emergence in July in Birjand, respectively. In Sarbisheh, the maximum LAI was observed on day 104 after emergence in March and between 65 to 72 days after emergence in July. In March, in both studied areas, Redcarina had the highest LAI values (4.5 in Birjand and 6.7 in Sarbisheh), along with the maximum crop growth rate (CGR) of 17.93 g m-2 day-1 in Birjand and 20.63 g m-2 day-1 in Sarbisheh. Conversely, in July, Giza1 exhibited the highest LAI (6.4 in Birjand and 6 in Sarbisheh), along with the maximum CGR of 19.32 g m-2 day-1 in Birjand and 18.11 g m-2 day-1 in Sarbisheh. Additionally, the highest relative growth rate (RGR) and net assimilation rate (NAR) at the beginning of the growing season in March were observed for Redcarina, while in July, Giza1 demonstrated the highest RGR and NAR in both studied areas. Considering the effect of humidity levels, the highest levels of LAI, CGR, RGR, and NAR indices were observed at the 125% water requirement level. Specifically, the maximum LAI values in March (in Sarbisheh and Birjand) and August (in Sarbisheh and Birjand) were 8.2, 5.3, 6.5, and 7.2, respectively. The maximum CGR values were 28.78, 23.56, 22.96, and 26.18 g m-2 day-1, respectively. Furthermore, the highest RGR at the beginning of the growing season ranged from 0.189 to 0.214 g g-1 day-1, and the highest NAR at the beginning of the growing season ranged from 6.16 to 10.22 g m-2 day-1. Conversely, the lowest values of these indices were observed at the 25% water requirement level.
Conclusion
Overall, Redcarina, cultivated in March, and Giza1, cultivated in July, exhibited the most favorable growth analysis indices and grain yield compared to other cultivars. Additionally, deficit irrigation resulted in a decrease in all of these indices and grain yield. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

©2024 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

  1. Abtali, Y., Baghestani, M. A., & Abtali, M. (2009). Competitive effect of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) on yield and growth indices of canola (Berasica napus L.) cultivars. Weed Research Journal, 1(2), 63-72.
  2. Akbari, S., Kafi, M., & Rezvan Beidokhti, S. (2017). Effect of drought stress on growth and morphological characteristics of two garlic (Allium sativum ) ecotypes in different planting densities. Journal of Agroecology, 9(2), 559-574. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v9i2.62141
  3. AlKhamisi, S. A., Nadaf, S. K., Al-Jabri, N. M., Al-Hashmi, K. S., Al-Shirawi, A. I., Khan, R. R., Al-Sulaim, H. A., & Al-Azri, M. S. (2021). Productivity of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) Genotypes across Different Agro-Ecological Regions of Oman. The Open Agriculture Journal, 15, 98-109. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874331502115010098
  4. Amer, S., Hassan, M., Ehsanullah, Shakeel, A. A., Mohsin, T., & Aziz, R. (2014). Growth and development of Chenopodium quinoa genotypes at different sowing dates. Journal of Agricultural Research, 52(4), 535-546.
  5. Amiri Deh Ahmadi, S. R., Parsa, M., Nezami, A., & Ganjeali, A. (2011). The effects of drought stress at different phenological stages on growth indices of chickpea (Cicer arietinum ) in greenhouse conditions. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research, 1(2), 69-84. (in Persian with English abstract).
  6. Bagheri, M. (2018). Handbook of quinoa cultivation. Seed and Plant Improvement Institute 48 P. (In Persian).
  7. Bahreininejad, B., & Razmjoo, J. (2014). Effects of water stress on physiological growth indices and phonological traits in Thymus kotschyanus Boiss. Journal of Plant Process and Function, 3(7), 67-80. (In Persian). https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.23222727.1393.3.7.6.9
  8. Baygi, Z., Saifzade, S., Shirani Rad, A. H., Valadabad, S. A. R., & Jafarinejad, A. (2017). Effects of planting date on growth indices and yield and yield components spring wheat cultivars in Neyshabur. Applied Field Crops Research, 30(2), 1-18. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/aj.2018.109088.1113
  9. Bazile, D., Jacobsen, S. E., & Verniau, A. (2016 a). The global expansion of quinoa: trends and limits. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00622
  10. Bazile, D., Pulvento, C., Verniau, A., Al-Nusairi, M. S., Ba, D., Breidy, J., Hassan, L., Mohammed, M. I., Mambetov, O., Otambekova, M., Sepahvand, N. A., Shams, A., Souici, D., Miri, K., & Padulosi, S. (2016 b). Worldwide Evaluations of Quinoa: Preliminary results from post international year of quinoa FAO projects in nine countries. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00850
  11. Corraliza, M. G., Rplp, V., Lopez, M. L., & Moreno, G. (2019). Wheat and barley can increase grain yield in shade through acclimation of physiological and morphological traits in Mediterranean conditions. Scientific Reports, 9, 9547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46027-9
  12. Dadrasi, V. A., Aboutalebian, M. A., Ahmadvand, G., Mousavi, S. S., & Seyedi, M. (2012). Effect of on-farm seed priming and irrigation interval the on-growth indices of two corn cultivars (Zea mays L.). Cereal Knowledge, 5(7), 67-88. (in Persian with English abstract).
  13. De Oliveira Vergara, R., Martins, A. B. N., Pedo, T., Radke, A. K., Gadotti, G. I., Villela, F. A., da Motta Xavier, F., Eberhardt, P. E. R., Cavalcante, J. A., & Meneguzzo, M. R. R. (2019). Plant growth and physiological quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) seeds grown in Southern Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 13(5), 678-682. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.19.13.05.p1240.
  14. Esfandyari, J., & Fotokian, M. H. (2021). Relationships between some Morphological Traits with Grain and Plant Dry Weight in Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ) Genotypes. Plant Production Technology, 21(1), 135-146. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22084/PPT.2021.21704.1994
  15. Fazeli, F., Akbari, G. A., Akbari, G. A., Naderi Arefi, A., & Benakashani, F. (2021). Response of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes to planting date in terms of morphological traits, yield and yield components in Garmsar region. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 52(2), 41-49. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2020.303866.654725
  16. Fghire, R., Anaya, F., Ali Issa, O., & Wahbi, S. (2017). Physiological and growth response traits to water deficit as indicators of tolerance criteria between quinoa genotypes. Journal of Materials and Environmental Sciences, 8(6), 2084-2093.
  17. Fghire, R., Wahbi, S., Anaya, F., Ali Issa, O., Benlhabib, O., & Ragab, R. (2015). Response of quinoa to different water management strategies: field experiments and saltmed model application results. Irrigation and Drainage. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.1895.
  18. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2023). https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL. [Online: 22 August 2023].
  19. Ghiasabadi, M., Khajeh Hosseini, M., & Mohammadabadi, A. (2014). The Study of Transplanting Date on Growth Analyses and Forage Yield of Maize (Zea mays) under Mashhad Conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 12(1), 137-145. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/gsc.v12i1.36650
  20. Haghjoo, M., & Bahrani, A. (2015). Evaluating yield variations of corn (single cross 260) at different water regimes and nitrogen rates by using of growth indices. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology, 9(2), 259-274. (in Persian with English abstract).
  21. Hosseini, S. H., RahemiKarizaki, A., Biabani, A., Nakhzari moghaddam, A., & Taliey, F. (2020). Investigation of changes in physiological characteristics and yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) under different cultivation date. Crop Production, 13(2), 99-116. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22069/ejcp.2020.17953.2325
  22. Jacobsen, S. E. (2017). The scope for adaptation of quinoa in Northern Latitudes of Europe. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 203, 603-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12228
  23. Jacobsen, S. E., Liu, F., & Jensen, C. R. (2009). Does root-sourced ABA play a role for regulation of stomata under drought in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ). Horticultural Scientia, 122, 281-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.05.019
  24. Jamali, S., Shaifan, H., & Sajadi, F. (2019). The effect of different seawater and deficit irrigation regimes on leaf properties of quinoa. Water and Irrigation Management, 8(2), 177-191. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jwim.2018.249473.585
  25. Javadi, H., Rashed Mohassle, M. H., Zamani, Gh. R., Azari Nasrabad, A., & Mossavi, Gh. R. (2006). Effect of plant density on growth indices of four grain sorghum cultivars. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 4(2), 253-266. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/gsc.v4i2.1266
  26. Jorfi, A., Alavifazel, M., Gilani, A., & Ardakani, M. R. (2022). Leaf Chlorophyll Changes and Morphological Features of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) Cultivars by P-Zn Ratios in Greenhouse Condition. Journal of Crop Nutrition Science, 8(1), 1-16.
  27. Kakabouki, I. P., Roussis, I. E., Papastylianou, P., Kanatas, P., Hela, D., Katsenios, N., & Fuentes, F. (2019). Growth analysis of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) in response to fertilization and soil tillage. Not Bot Horti Agrobo, 47(4), 1025-1036. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha47411657
  28. Kansomjet, P., Thobunluepop, P., Lertmongkol, S., Sarobol, E., Kaewsuwan, P., Junhaeng, P., Pipattanawong, N., & Iván, M. T. (2017). Response of physiological characteristics, seed yield and seed quality of quinoa under difference of nitrogen fertilizer management. American Journal of Plant Physiology, 12, 20-27. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajpp.2017.20.27
  29. Karimi, M., & Azizi, M. (1997). Basic growth analysis. Jahad Daneshgahi of Mashhad Prees.111 P. (in Persian).
  30. Kibe, A. M., Singh, S., & Kalra, N. (2006). Water–nitrogen relationships for wheat growth and productivity in late sown conditions. Agricultural Water Management, 84, 221-228. https://doi.org/10.4314/jagst.v7i1.31716
  31. Koca, Y. O. (2021). Determination of the forage yield and growth parameters of maize (Zea mays ) with quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) intercropping at different plant mixtures. Turk journal Field Crops, 26(1), 44-53. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.877640
  32. Mohammadi, F., Maleki, A., & Fathi, A. (2021). Effects of Drought Stress and Humic Acid on Plant Growth, Yield Quality and Its Components of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Journal of Crop Nutrition Science, 7(3), 11-23.
  33. Molden, D., Murry-Rust, H., Sakthivandival, R., & Makin, I. (2001). A water productivity framework for understanding and action. Workshop on Water Productivity. Wadduwe, Sri Lanka, 12 -13 November.
  34. Nadali, F., Asghari, H. R., Abbasdokht, H., Dorostkar, V., & Bagheri, M. (2022). Physiological Responses of Quinoa Varieties (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) to Hydropriming and Drought Stress. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 12(2), 49-62. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.47176/jcpp.12.2.36912
  35. Nadeem, T. M. H., Imran, M., Kamil, F., & Husain, M. (2002). Evaluation of sunflower Helianthus annuus inbred lines for drought tolerance. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 25, 398-400.
  36. Navabpour, S., Latifi, N., Hosseini, S. H., & Kazemi, G. (2012). Evaluation of grain yield in relation to yield components and growth indices in wheat. Crop Production, 4(3), 157-173. (in Persian with English abstract). https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.2008739.1390.4.3.9.5
  37. Oneto, C. D., Otegui, M. E., Baroli, I., Beznec, A., Faccio, P., Bossio, E., Blumwald, E., & Lewi, D. (2016). Water deficit stress tolerance in maize conferred by expression of an isopentenyltransferase (IPT) gene driven by a stress- and maturation-induced promoter. Journal of Biotechnology, 220, 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.01.014
  38. Ozoni Davaji, A., Esfahani, M., Sami Zadeh, H., & Rabiei, M. (2008). Effect of planting pattern and plant density on growth indices and radiation use efficiency of apetalous flowers and petalled rapeseed (Brassica napus ) cultivars. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 9(4), 382-400. (in Persian with English abstract). https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.15625540.1386.9.4.7.9
  39. Ramesh, K. Suneetha Devi, K. B., Gopinath, K. A., & Uma Devi, M. (2017). Physiological Indices, Yield and Yield Attributes of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) as Influenced by Dates of Sowing and Varied Crop Geometry. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(7), 1023-1034. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.123
  40. Reguera, M., Conesa, C., Gil-Gómez, A., Haros, C., Pérez-Casas, M., Briones-Labarca, V., … & Bascuñán-Godoy, L. (2018). The impact of different agroecological conditions on the nutritional composition of quinoa seeds. Peer-reviewed Journal, 14(6), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4442
  41. Rowshani, R., Soleymani, A., Mahlooji, M., & Naderi, M. R. (2022). Evaluation of the effect of foliar application on some physiological indicators affecting the growth and yield of barley cultivars under drought stress conditions. Journal of Crop Science Research in Arid Regions, 3(2), 319-337. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22034/CSRAR.2022.297001.1111
  42. Ruiz, K. B., Biondi, S., Oses, R., Acuña-Rodríguez, I. S., Antognoni, F., Martinez-Mosqueira, E. A., Coulibaly, A., Canahua-Murillo, A., Pinto, M., Zurita-Silva, A., Bazile, D., Jacobsen, S. E., & Molina-Montenegro, M. A. (2014). Quinoa biodiversity and sustainability for food security under climate change. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34, 349-359.
  43. Sadeghizadeh, H., Khajoei-Nejad, G. R., & Ghanbari. J. (2021). Water use efficiency and quantitative and qualitative response of quinoa to different concentrations of salicylic acid application under deficit irrigation conditions. Irrigation and Water Engineering, 11(43), 345-360. (in Persian).
  44. Salek Mearaji, H., Tavakoli, A., & Sepahvand, N. A. (2020). Evaluating the effect of cytokinin foliar application on morphological traits and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ) under optimal irrigation and drought stress conditions. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology, 14(4), 479-498. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.30495/jcep.2021.679976
  45. Samadzadeh, A. R., Zamani, G. R., & Fallahi, H. R. (2020). Possibility of quinoa production under South-Khorasan climatic condition as affected by planting densities and sowing dates. Applied Field Crops Research, 33(1), 82-104. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/aj.2020.125793.1392
  46. Sanodiya, L. K., Umesha, C., Mesharm, M. R., & Kumar, R. (2022). Influence of crop geometry and nitrogen levels on growth indices of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). The Pharma Innovation Journal, 11(3), 1003-1008.
  47. Shahidi, A., Kashkuli, H. A. & Zamani, G. R. (2008). Interaction of deficit irrigation and salinity on yield and yield components of wheat cultivars and determining water salinity production function in the Birjand region. PHD Thesis. Shahid Chamran University of Ahwaz. 337 PP. (In Persian).
  48. Shaifan, H., Jamali, S., & Sajadi, F. (2018). Investigation the effect of different salinity levels on the morphological parameters of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under different iIrrigation regimes. Journal of Water and Soil Science (Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources), 22(2), 15-27. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.29252/jstnar.22.2.15
  49. Shirinnezhad, R., Torabi, M., & Mahmoudi, F. (2019). Evaluation of compatibility of Quinoa cultivars in different planting dates and their effects on morphological, physiological and biochemical parameters. 2nd international and 6th national conference on organic and conventional agriculture. University of Mohaghegh Ardabili. (in Persian with English abstract).
  50. Shitikova, A. V., Kukharenkova, O. V., & Khaliluev, M. R. (2022). The Crop Production Capacity of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa)- A New Field Crop for Russia in the Non-Chernozem Zone of Moscow’s Urban Environment. Agronomy, 12(12), 3040. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123040
  51. Soleymani, A. (2017). Effect of drought stress on some physiological growth indices of sunflower cultivars. Environmental Stresses in Crop Science, 10(4), 509-519. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22077/escs.2017.108.1028
  52. Sun, Y., Liu, F., Bendevis, M., Shabala, S., & Jacobsen, S. E. (2014). Sensitivity of two quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ) varieties to progressive drought stress. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 200(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12042
  53. Vahedi, M. R., Tohidi Nejad, E., & Pasandi Pour, A. (2021). Evaluation of yield and yield components of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) in as affected by different planting densities. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology, 15(4), 593-608. (in Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.30495/jcep.2022.689808
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 June 2023
  • Revise Date: 28 August 2023
  • Accept Date: 30 August 2023
  • First Publish Date: 30 August 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics