Effects of Methanol Spraying on Qualitative traits, Yield and Yield Components of Soybean (Glycine max L.) under Drought Stress Conditions

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• J Esazadeh Panjali Kharabasi
• M Galavi
• M Ramroudi

University of Zabol

10.22067/gsc.v15i3.43006

Abstract

Introduction
Soybean (Glycin max L.) is one of the most important oilseed crops in the world. It can provide oil and vegetable protein suitable for feeding humans as well as animals. The productivity Increasing of this crop in Iran has been the subject of continuous investigation over the past few years. It is well known that adequate water supply is considered as a very important factor to affect the accumulation of dry matter in the plant as well as vegetative growth of most crops. Irrigation is an important factor affecting soybean growth and yield and its related components. Exposing soybean plants to soil moisture stress at any phase of its life cycle may lead to a detrimental effect on growth, yield and its components. The methanol spraying can lead to increase in yield, expediting in maturity and reduction in drought stress impacts and water requirement of crops.
Material and Methods
The experiment was conducted as split plots based on randomized complete block design with three replications at the Research Farm, Faculty of Agriculture of Moghan, Iran, in 2011. Treatments included three levels of drought stress as follows irrigation after, 40 (control), 55 and 70 percentage of available soil moisture depletion as main plots, and four levels of methanol spraying including 0 (control), 7, 21 and 35 volumetric percentage as sub plots. The studied traits were included plant height, leaf area, number of pod and seed per plant, 1000 seed weight, biological and seed yield, stomatal conductance and proline contents. Statistical analysis was carried out using SAS version 9.1 software. Significant difference was set at p ≤ 0.05 by using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that the plant height, leaf area, number of pod and seed per plant, 1000 seed weight, biological and seed yield, stomatal conductance and proline contents as well as number of leaf per plant significantly affected by drought stress and methanol spraying. By increasing drought stress, proline content increased, while other traits were decreased and 70 percentage of available soil moisture depletion decreased the seed yield by 51.2%over than the control. With increasing of methanol spraying to 21 of volumetric percentage, all the investigate traits, except the proline content increased and increasing the volumetric percentage methanol more than it, was reduces them. The maximum amounts of quantity traits and stomatal conductance of soybean obtained at 21 volumetric percentage of methanol spraying, and the seed yield of this treatment was 25.6%higher than the control . These results are in agreement with those obtained by Purmousavi et al., (2009), Ruhul Amin et al., (2009), Shahmoradi et al., (2009) and Ibrahim and Kandil, (2007), who found that deficit irrigation, caused a significant decrease in yield and yield components of soybean. In general, irrigation decreasing may be lead to reducing photosynthesis activity and induce imbalanced relations between plant hormones and biological processes in the plant organs as a whole. These conditions in the treated soil are undoubtedly of great importance throughout the vegetative growth and dry matter accumulation in soybean plants. Drought stress reduces leaf size, stem extension and root proliferation; it disturbs plant water relations as well as dry matter production (Farooq et al., 2009).
Conclusions
In general, the results of experiment showed that the maximum amounts of quantitative traits, stomatal conductance and proline content of soybean, obtained by 21 volumetric percentage of methanol spraying and by this treatment, the seed yield was 25.6 % higher than control.

Keywords

• Leaf area
• Leaf proline
• Moisture depletion
• Seed yield
• stomatal conductance

20.1001.1.20081472.1396.15.3.3.1

---

References

1. Aminifar J., Biglouei, M. H., Mohsenabad, G., and Samiezadeh, H. 2012. Effect of deficit irrigation on quantitative and qualitative yield of seven soybean cultivars in rashtregion. Electronic Journal of Crop Production 5 (2): 93-109. (in Persian with English abstract).

2. Ball, R. A., Purcell, L. C., and Vories, D. 2000. Short-season soybean yield compensation in response to population and water regime. Crop Science 40: 1070-1078.

3. Bates, I. S., Waldren, P. R., and Teare, I. D. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant and Soil 39: 205-207.

4. Chabok, B. 1996. Evaluation of effective physiological indices on drought resistance in chickpea. MSc dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Unit. (in Persian with English abstract).

5. Clover, G., Smith, H., and Jaggard, K. 1998. The crop under stress. British Sugar Beet Review 66 (3): 17-19.

6. Daneshiyan, J. 2000. The study of drought stress ecophysiological effect on soybean. PhD, dissertation, Islamic Azad University, Research Center Tehran Unit. (in Persian with English abstract).

7. Downie, A., Miyazaki, S., Bohnert, H., John, P., Coleman, J., Parry, M., and Haslam, R. 2004. Expression profiling of the response of Arabidopsis thaliana to methanol stimulation. Photochemistry 65: 2305-2316.

8. During, H., 1992. Evidence for osmotic adjustment to drought in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.). Journal of Grapevine Research 23: 1-10.

9. Fall, R., and Benson, A. 1996. Leaf methanol, the simplest natural product from plants. Trends Plant Science 1: 296-301.

10. Gonzalez, A. M. 2005. Physiological responses of tagasaste to a progressive drought in its native environment on the Canary Islands. Environment Experiment Botany 53: 195-204.

11. Grieshop, C. M., and Fahey, G. C. Jr. 2001. Comparison of quality characteristics of soybeans from Brazil, China, and the United States. Agriculture Food Chemical 49: 2669-2673.

12. Hsiao, T. C. 2000. Leaf and root growth in relation to water status. HortScience 35: 1051-1058.

13. Humble, G. D., and Hsiao, T. C. 1970. Light- dependent influx and efflux of potassium of guard cell during stomatal opening and closing. Plant Physiology 46: 483-487.

14. Humble, G. D., and Raschke, K. 1971. Stomatal opening quantitatively related to potassium transport. Plant Physiology 48: 447- 453.

15. Ivanova, E. G., Dornina N. V., and Trotsenko, Y. A. 2001. Arabic methyl bacteria are capable of synthesizing axins. Microbiology 70: 392-397.

16. Latifi, N. 1991. The Soybean Crops (cultivation, physiology, cultivation). Jahade Daneshgahi Mashhad. 280 p. (in Persian).

17. Leport, L., Turner, N. C., French, R. J., Tennant, D., Thomson, B. D., and Siddique, K. H. M. 1998. Water relation, gas exchange, and growth of cool-season grain legumes in a Mediterranean-type environment. European Journal Agronomy 9: 295-303.

18. Li, Y., Gupta, J., and Siyumbano, A. K. 1995. Effect of methanol on soybean photosynthesis and chlorophyll. Journal Plant Nutrients 18: 1875-1880.

19. Liu, F., Andersen, M. N., and Jensen, C. R. 2004. Root signal controls pod growth in drought-stressed soybean during the critical abortion-sensitive phase of pod development. Field Crop Research 85: 159-166.

20. Mahlooji, M., Mousavi, S. F., and Karimi, M. 2000. The effects of water stress and planting date on yield and yield components of pinto bean (phaseolus vulgaris), Journal of Water and Soil Science 4 (1): 57-68. (in Persian with English abstract).

21. Makhdum, M. I., Malik, M. N. A., Din, S. U., Ahmad, F., and Chaudhry, F. I. 2002. Physiological response of cotton to methanol foliar application. Journal Research 13: 37-43.

22. Mirakhori, M., Paknejad, F., Moradi, F., Ardakani, M., Zahedi, H., and Nazeri, P. 2009. Effect of drought stress and methanol on yield and yield components of soybean max (L 17). American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 5 (4): 162-169.

23. Nadali, A., Paknejad, F., Moradi, F., and Vazan, S. 2009. Effects of methanol on yield and some quality characteristics of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cv. Raoul in drought and non-drought stress conditions. Seed and Plant Production Journal 26 (1): 95-108.

24. Nonomura, A. M., and Benson, A. 1992. The path of carbon in photosynthesis: improved crop yields with methanol. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89: 9794-9798.

25. Palmer, J. E., Dunphy, J., and Reese, P. 1995. Managing drought- stressed soybeans in the southeast. North Carolina cooperative extension service as publication number AG-519-12. http://www.ces.ncsu.Edu/drought/dro-24.Html.

26. Pourmosavi, S. M., Galavi, M., Daneshiyan, J., Ganbari, A., Basirani, N., and Jonobi, P. 2008. Effect of animal manure application on quantitative and qualitative yield of soybean in drought stress conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 40 (1): 133-145. (in Persian with English abstract).

27. Rajinder, S. D. 1987. Glutathione status and protein synthesis during drought and subsequent dehydration in Torularulis. Plant Physiology 83: 816-819.

28. Ramberget, H. A., Bradley, J. S. C., Olsen, J. S. C., Nishio, J. N., Markwell, J., and Osterman, J. C. 2002. The role of methanol in promoting plant growth: an update. Review Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology 1: 113-126.

29. Ramirez, I., Dorta, F., Espinoza, V., Jimenez, E., Mercado, A., and Pen Cortes, A. 2006. Effects of foliar and root applications of methanol on the growth of arabidopsis, tobacco and tomato plants. Journal Plant Growth Regulation 25: 30-44.

30. Sadeghipour, O. 2009. The Influence of water stress on biomass and harvest index in three mungbean (Vigna radiata L., Wilczek) varieties. Asian Journal Science 8 (3): 245-249.

31. Safarzade vishgahi, M. N., Noormohamadi, G., and Hagidi Haravan, A. 2005.Effect of methanol on peanut function and yield components. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 87-104. (in Persian with English abstract).

32. Shahmoradi, Sh. 2003. Effects of drought stress on qualitative and quantitative traits in soybean cultivars and advanced lines. MSc dissertation, Faculty of Agriculture Tehran University. (in Persian with English abstract).

33. Stewart, G. R. 1992. Physiology and biochemistry of drought resistance in plant. Aspinnal New York.

34. Syros, T. 2004. Photosynthetic response and peroxides in relation to water and nutrient deficiency in gerbera. Environment Experiment Botany 52: 23-31.

35. Wu, R., and Garg, A. 2003. Engineering rice plants with trehalose producing genes improves tolerance to drought, salt and low temperature. ISB News, February.

36. Zbiec, I. I., Karczmarczyk, S., and Koszanski, Z. 1999. Influence of methanol on some cultivated plants. Department of Plant Production and Irrigation, Agriculture University of Szczecin Poland 73: 217-220.

37. Zbiec, I., Karczmarczyk, S., and Podsiado, C. 2003. Response of some cultivated plants to methanol as compared to supplemental irrigation. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities 6 (1): 1-7.