| تعداد نشریات | 286 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 84 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,028 |
| تعداد مقالات | 33,882 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 45,253,351 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 60,279,400 |
مطالعه تأثیر محلول‌پاشی متانول و اسیدآمینه گلایسین بر عملکرد و برخی صفات فیزیولوژیک در ارقام مختلف چغندر علوفه‌ای | ||
| چغندرقند | ||
| مقاله 7، دوره 36، شماره 2، مهر 1399، صفحه 185-201 اصل مقاله (1.42 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: کامل علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/jsb.2021.352370.1257 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| پژمان حقیقی1؛ داوود حبیبی* 2؛ حمید مظفری3؛ بهزاد ثانی3؛ مهدی صادقی شعاع4 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد شهر قدس، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشیار دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، کرج، ایران | ||
| 3استادیار گروه زراعت، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد شهر قدس، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 4استادیار مؤسسه تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیه بذر چغندرقند، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، کرج، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| به‌منظور بررسی صفات مورفولوژیک، کیفیت و کمیت ارقام (ژنوتیپ‌های) مختلف چغندر علوفه‌ای تحت محلول‌پاشی متانول و اسیدآمینه گلایسین، پژوهش حاضر در سال 1397 در دو منطقه همدان و قم اجرا شد. آزمایش به‌صورت فاکتوریل اسپلیت پلات در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در سه تکرار انجام شد. فاکتورهای این آزمایش شامل مصرف متانول در سه سطح (شاهد، 15 و 30 درصد حجمی متانول)، مصرف گلایسین در دو سطح (شاهد و چهار گرم به ازای هر لیتر متانول مصرفی) و ارقام چغندر علوفه‌ای در شش سطح (SBSI050، SBSI051، SBSI052، Brunium، Jamon و Kyros) بود بر اساس نتایج، مناطق مورد ارزیابی تفاوت معنی‌داری در سطح یک درصد را نشان دادند. عملکرد ریشه در منطقه همدان نسبت به قم به‌طور میانگین 40/59 تن در هکتار بیشتر و تفاوت عملکرد کل 45/53 تن در هکتار بود. محلول‌پاشی متانول به‌طور میانگینسبب افزایش عملکرد ریشه به مقدار 16/56 تن در هکتار و عملکرد ماده خشک به میزان 2/85 تن در هکتار نسبت به تیمار شاهد شد. اما سطوح مختلف مصرف متانول تفاوت معنی‌داری با یکدیگر نداشتند. محلول‌پاشی گلایسین نیز تفاوت معنی‌داری را در صفات کمی ایجاد نمود، میانگین عملکرد کل را 17/47 تن در هکتار افزایش داد. در بررسی عملکرد کیفی شامل پروتئین خام و درصد قابلیت هضم ریشه، بین سطوح مختلف متانول و گلایسین تفاوت معنی‌داری وجود نداشت. نتایج نشان دادند که بین ژنوتیپ‌ها نیز تفاوت معنی‌دار در سطح یک درصد وجود داشت. بر اساس نتایج اثرات متقابل ژنوتیپ و متانول، ژنوتیپ kyros در منطقه همدان به انضمام سطح محلول‌پاشی 15 درصد حجمی با ثبت رکورد میانگین 120 تن در هکتار عملکرد ریشه، میانگین 20 تن در هکتار عملکرد ماده خشک ریشه و میانگین 142 تن در هکتار عملکرد کل به‌عنوان بهترین گزینه قابل توصیه می‌باشد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| چغندر علوفه‌ای؛ صفات کیفی؛ عملکرد کل؛ عملکرد ماده خشک؛ متانول؛ محلول‌پاشی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The effect of methanol and glycine amino acid foliar application on yield and some physiological traits of different fodder beet cultivars | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Pezhman Haghighi1؛ Davood Habibi2؛ Hamid Mozafari3؛ Behzad Sani3؛ Mehdi Sadeghi-shoae4 | ||
| 1PhD student of Department of Agronomy, Qods City Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch, Karaj, Iran | ||
| 3Assistant professor of Department of Agronomy, Qods City Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 4Assistant professor of Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| In order to evaluate the morphological, quantitative and qualitative traits of different fodder beet cultivars (genotypes) under foliar application of methanol and the glycine betaine amino acid, the present study was conducted in 2018 in Hamedan and Qom. The experiment was designed as a factorial split plot in a randomized complete block with three replications. The studied factors were methanol at three levels of foliar application (control, 15 and 30% by volume of methanol) as the first factor, glycine at two levels (control and 4 gL-1 of methanol consumed) the second factor, and six fodder beet cultivars (SBSI050, SBSI051, SBSI052, Brunium, Jamon, and Kyros) as the third factor. Results showed a significant difference (P<0.01) among locations. The root yield in Hamedan region was 40.59 tha-1 more than Qom region. Methanol foliar application increased root yield by an average of 16.56 t ha-1 and dry matter yield by 2.85 tha-1 compared with control treatment. Glycine foliar application also made a significant difference in quantitative traits thorough the average total yield by 17.47 tha-1. There was no significant difference between different levels of methanol and glycine in qualitative traits including crude protein and root digestibility. A significant difference (P<0.01) was observed among genotypes. Based on the results of interaction between genotype and methanol, kyros treatment in Hamedan with applying 15% methanol concentration recorded 120 tha-1 root yield, 20 tha-1 root dry matter yield, and 142 tha-1 total yield which is recommended as the optimum option. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Dry matter yield, Fodder beet, Foliar application, Methanol, Qualitative traits | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abdollahian-Noghabi M, Sadeghian SY. Change in the concentrations of glycinebetaine, glutamine and sugars in sugar beet subjected to soil moisture deficit. In: Proceedings of the 65th IIIRB Congress, February 2002, Brussels, Belgium. Pp. 375-382. Ashraf M, Foolad MR. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Environmental and experimental botany. 2007; 59 (2): 206-216. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot. 2005.12.006 Chen THH, Murata N. Glycinebetaine: an effective protectant against abiotic stress in plants. Trends in Plant Science. 2008; 13(9): 499-505. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants. 2008; 06.007 Clover G, Smith H, Jaggard K. The crop under stress. British sugar root review. 1998; 66 (3): 17-19. Cooke D, Scott R. The sugar beet crop: Science into Practice. Chapman and Hall, New York. 1993; 195p. Demmers-Derks H, Mitchel RAC, Mitchell VJ, Driscoll SP, Gibbard C, Lawlor DW. Sugar beet under climatic change: photosynthesis and production. Aspect Applied Biology. 1996; 45: 163-170. Devlin M, Bhowmik PC, Karczmarczyk SJ. Influence of methanol on plant germination and growth. Plant Growth Regul. Society of America. 1994; 22: 102-108. Dorokhov YL, Sheshukova EV, Komarova TV. Methanol in plant life. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018; 9: 1623. Downie A, Miyazaki S, Bohnert H, John P, Coleman J, Parry M, Haslam R. Expression profiling of the response of Arabidopsis thaliana to methanol stimulation. Phytochemistry. 2004; 65: 2305-2316. Fall R, Benson AA. Leaf methanol, the simplest natural product from plants. Trends Plant Science. 1996; 1: 296-301. Farshpour A, Sadeghi Shoae M, Habibi D. Quantitative and qualitative yield of fodder beet cultivars during spring and summer cultivation in Karaj region. Master Thesis in Agriculture- Agroecology. Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch. 2017; 109 pages. (in Persian, abstract in English) Faver KL, Gerik, TJ. Foliar-applied methanol effects on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L) gas exchange and growth. Field Crops Research. 1996; 47: 227-234. Felix JD, Roebuck JA, Mead RN, Willey JD, Avery GB, Kieber RJ. Methanol and ethanol concentrations in a Greenland ice core. Atmospheric Environment. 2019; 217: 116948. Ford M, Thorne G. The effect of CO2 concentration on the growth of sugar beet, barely, kale, maize. Annals of Botany. 1967; 31: 630-644. Galbally E, Kirstine W. The Production of methanol by flowering plants and the global cycle of methanol. J. Atmos. Chem. 2002; 43(3): 195-229. Ghafari Sh, Sadeghi Shoae M, Mirhadi MJ, Ghasemkhan Ghajar F. Evaluation of the effect of nano-micronutrients and growth-promoting bacteria on quantitative and qualitative yield of different forage beet cultivars. Master Thesis (M.sc) in Agricultural Engineering majoring in Horticultural Sciences and Agriculture. Islamic Azad University, Research Sciences Branch, Tehran. 2018; 140 pages. (in Persian, abstract in English) Gout E, Aubert S, Blingy R, Rebeille Nonomura AR. Metabolism of methanol in plant cells. Carbon-13 nuclear magnetic Physiology. 2000; 123: 287-296. Hemming DB, Hansen LD. Effect of methanol on plant respiration. Journal of plant physiology. 1995;146 (3): 193-198. Khani Chegeni A, Sadeghi Shoae M, Habibi D. Comparison of quantitative and qualitative yield response and water use efficiency of fodder beet cultivars under different irrigation conditions. Master Thesis in Agriculture- Agroecology. Islamic Azad University, Karaj Branch. 2017; 100 pages. (in Persian, abstract in English) Kunz M, Martin D, Puke H. Precision of beet analyses in Germany explained for polarization. Zuckerindustrie. 2002; 127: 13-21. Lee HS, Madhaiyan M, Kim CW, Choi SJ, Chung KY, Sa TM. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 2006; 42: 402-408. Mäkelä P, Kärkkäinen J, Somersalo S. Effect of glycinebetaine on chloroplast ultrastructure, chlorophyll and protein content, and RuBPCO activities in tomato grown under drought or salinity. Biologia Plantarum. 2000; 43(3): 471-475. Mäkelä P, Peltonen-Sainio P, Jokinen K, Pehu E, Setälä H, Hinkkanen R, Somersalo S. Uptake and translocation of foliar-applied glycinebetaine in crop plants. Plant Science. 1996; 121(2): 221-230. Makhdum MI, Malik MNA, Din SU, Ahmad F, Chaudhry FI. Physiology response of cotton to methanol foliar application. Journal of Agriculture Research. 2002; 13: 37-43. McGiffen M, Manthey JA. The role of methanol in promoting plant growth: a current evaluation, Hortscience. 1996; 31: 1092-1096. Nadali I, Paknejad F, Moradi F, Vazan S, Tookalo M, Jami Al-Ahmadi M, Pazoki A. Effect of foliar application of methanol on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2010; 4(6): 398-401. Nadali I, Paknejad F, Soghani M, Elahipanah F, Ghafari M. Effect of methanol on yield, yield component and growth indices in chick pea. Journal of Crop Ecophysiology. 2010; 2(3), 176-184. (in Persian, abstract in English) Nonomura AM, Benson AA. The path of carbon in photosynthesis: improved crop yield with methanol. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA.1992; 89: 9794-9798. Paknejad F, Bayat V, Ardakani MR, Vazan S. Effect of Methanol Foliar Application on Seed Yield and the Quality of Soybean (Glycine max L.) under Water Deficit Conditions. Annals of Biological Research. 2012; 3 (5):2108-2117. Paknejad F, Mirakhori M, Jami Al-Ahmadi M, Tookalo MR, Pazoki AR, Nazeri P. Physiological Response of Soybean (Glycine max) to Foliar Application of Methanol under Different Soil Moistures. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences. 2009; 4 (4): 311-318. Park EJ, Jeknic Z, Chen TH. Exogenous application of glycinebetaine increases chilling tolerance in tomato plants. Plant and Cell Physiology. 2006; 47 (6): 706-714. Preedy V. Betaine: chemistry, analysis, function and effects: Royal Society of Chemistry. 2015. Rajala A, Karkkainen J, Peltonen J, Peltonen-Sainio P. Foliar application of alcohols failed to enhance growth and yield of C3 crop lnd.Crop.prod. 1998; 7: 129-137. Ramberg HA, Bradley JC, Olson JSC, Nishio JN, Markwell J. Osterman JC. The role of methanol in promoting plant growth: An update. Review Plant Biochemistry Biotechnology. 2002; 1:113-126. Ramirez I, Dorta F, Espinoza V, Jimenez E, Mercado A, Pen Acortes H. Effects of foliar and root applications of methanol on the growth of Arabidopsis, tobacco and tomato plants. Journal of plant Growth Regulation. 2006; 25: 30-44. Sadeghi Shoae M, Aghaeezadeh M, Rahnamaeian M. Purification and preparation of new fodder beet masses. Final Report of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO). 2019; Registration No. 55974. 17 pages. (in Persian, abstract in English) Sadeghi Shoae M, Mirzaee MR, Mahdikhani M, Jalilian A, Nadali F, Pedram A, Nemati R, Rezaei J. Determination of field value of fodder beet cultivars. Final Report of Sugar Beet Seed Institute (SBSI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO). 2020; Registration No. 58377. 28 pages. (in Persian, abstract in English) Sadeghi Shoae M, Paknejad F, Kashani A, Vazan S, Nooralvandi T. Methanol and its period of foliar application on sugar beet in different available water. Tropentag, September 19-21, 2012; Gottingen. Sadeghi Shoae M, Paknejad F, Kashani A, Nooralvandi T, Tookalloo MR. Can foliar application with methanol improve the yield, yield components and physiological performance of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.), Annals of Biological Research. 2012; 3 (10):4780-4785. Safarzade vishkaei M. Effect of methanol on growth and yield of peanut. Phd thesis. Islamic Azad University Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran 2007. 270 Pages. (in Persian, abstract in English) Saneienejad A, Tohidi M, Khaniani BH, Sadeghi, M. Effect of Foliar Application of Methanol on Changes of Antioxidant Enzymes of Vigna unguiculata L. in Water-Deficit Stress. Agricultural Science Digest. 2019; 39(4): 296-300. Soghani M, Paknejad Elahipanah F, Ghafari M. Effect of methanol on yield and yield component in chickpea. Journal of Crop and Weed Ecophysiology. 2011; 15(17): 79-88. (in Persian, abstract in English) Staler SO, Thimann KV. The Influence of aliphatic alcohols on leaf senescence. Plant Physiology. 1980; 66: 395-399. Tilley J, Terry R. A two‐stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and forage science. 1963; 18(2): 104-111. Valizadeh-Kamran R, Vojodi Mehrabani L, Pessarakli M. Effects of foliar application of methanol on some physiological characteristics of Lavandula stoechas L. under NaCl salinity conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2019; 42(3): 261-268. Zbiec L, Karczmarczyk S, Podsiadlo C. Response of some cultivated plants to methanol as compared to supplemental irrigation. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities, Agronomy. 2003; 6 (1): 1-7. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 725 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 424 |
||