نقش تلقیح بذر گندم (Triticum aestivum L) با کودهای زیستی در کاهش خسارت ناشی از تنش خشکی

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

استادیار مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان تهران

چکیده

به‌منظور بررسی اثر تلقیح بذر گندم با کودهای زیستی در کاهش خسارت تنش خشکی انتهای فصل رشد، آزمایشی در سال زراعی 91-1390 در مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان تهران اجرا شد. چهار تیمار تلقیح بذر با کود زیستی (عدم تلقیح، تلقیح با قارچ میکوریزا Glomus intraradices، تلقیح با باکتری ازتوباکتر Azotobacterchroococcum و تلقیح با هر دو ریزجاندار) در قالب طرح بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی در 3 تکرار مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفتند و همزمان، آزمایش مشابه دیگری ( تیمارهای یکسان، نوع خاک یکسان و شرایط کاشت، داشت و برداشت مشابه) اما در محیط تنش (قطع آبیاری در زمان ورود 50 درصد بوته‌ها به فاز گلدهی) اجرا شد. نتایج نشان داد که تنش قطع آبیاری در زمان 50 درصد گلدهی سبب کاهش عملکرد دانه در سطح آماری 1 درصد شد. میانگین عملکرد دانه با 3/21 درصد کاهش از 7763 کیلوگرم در هکتار برای آبیاری مطلوب به 6108 کیلوگرم در هکتار رسید و به­طور عمده ناشی از کاهش تعداد دانه در خوشه، تعداد پنجه بارور، عملکرد ماده خشک و تا حد کمتری وزن هزار دانه بود. درصد پروتیین و فسفر دانه در شرایط تنش، افزایش نشان داد اما این افزایش تنها برای درصد پروتیین معنی‌دار بود. تعداد پنجه بارور، تعداد دانه در سنبله، وزن هزار دانه، عملکرد زیستی، عملکرد دانه، درصد و عملکرد پروتیین، درصد و عملکرد فسفر و محتوای نسبی آب برگ تحت تأثیر تلقیح بذر با کود زیستی قرار گرفتند. اثر مثبت تلقیح بذر بر عملکرد دانه، برای قارچ میکوریزا تا حدی بیشتر از ازتوباکتر بود اگرچه هر سه سطح تلقیح سبب افزایش میانگین عملکرد دانه در مقایسه با شاهد شد. میانگین عملکرد دانه در تیمار تنش و بدون انجام تلقیح معادل 5437 کیلوگرم در هکتار بود اما در همین شرایط، انجام تلقیح سبب افزایش آن به 6463، 6129 و 6403 کیلوگرم در هکتار به‌ترتیب برای میکوریزا، ازتوباکتر و تلقیح توأم گردید. درصد و عملکرد پروتیین و همچنین درصد و عملکرد فسفر دانه در اثر تلقیح بذر افزایش نشان داد. تنش خشکی در فاز زایشی اثری بر محتوای نسبی آب برگ نداشت. با این‌حال انجام تلقیح سبب افزایش درصد محتوای نسبی آب برگ‌ها و بهبود دوام سطح برگ گندم شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seed inoculation with bio-fertilizers on reduction of drought stress damage

نویسندگان [English]

  • Javad Hasanpour
  • Behnam Zand
چکیده [English]

In order to study the effects of seed wheat inoculation with VA mycorrhiza and azotobacter bio fertilizers on reduction of late season drought stress damage, an experiment was conducted in agricultural and natural resources research center of Tehran province on 2011-12. Four levels of seed inoculations (non-inoculation, inoculation with VA mycorrhiza fungus, inoculation with azotobacter and combined inoculation (fungus plus bacteria) in a randomized complete block design with three replications were evaluated. Another same experiment (same treatments, same soil type and same planting, cultivation and harvest condition), but in drought stress environment (non-irrigation at start of flowering stage) conducted. Drought stress at start of flowering stage caused a significant decrease by 21.3% on grain yield from 7763 to 6108 kg/ha that was mainly due to significant reduction of number of seed per spike, number of fertile tiller, biological yield and TKW. Seed protein percentage and seed phosphorus percentage increased at stress condition but this was significant only for protein percentage. Effect of seed inoculation with bio fertilizers was significant for all traits except harvest index. All three levels of inoculation increased wheat grain yield significantly, but the positive effect of mycorrhiza was more than the others. The difference between seed inoculation with each one of micro organisms and dual inoculation was not significant. The amount of grain yield for S2I1 treatment (drought stress condition and without inoculation) was 5437 kg/hac, but inoculation with mycorrhiza (S2I2), azotobacter (S2I3) and dual inoculation (S2I4), increased the grain yield to 6463, 6129 and 6403 kg/hac respectively. Protein yield and percentage and phosphorus yield and percentage increased significantly for all three inoculation treatments. Drought stress effect on RWC was not significant but seed inoculation had a significant effect on RWC.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Azotobacter
  • Drought stress
  • Mycorrhiza
  • Phosphorous
  • protein
  • Wheat
Aghaee Sarbarzeh, M., Rajabi, R., Mohammadi, R. and Haghparast, R. 2008. Evaluation and selection of bread wheat genotypes using physiologic characteristics and tolerance index to drought. Seed and Plant Production Journal, 23(3): 54-65. (Journal)

Aghaee Sarbarzeh, M., Rostaee, M., Mohammadi, R., Haghparast, R. and Rajabi, R. 2009. Determination of drought tolerant genotypes in bread wheat. Electronic Journal of Crop Production, 2(1): 1-23. (Journal)

Alizadeh, O., Alizadeh, A. and Aryana, L. 2010. Optimizing of nitrogen and phosphorus consumption in sustainable agriculture of corn using mycorrhiza and vermicompost. Agricultural new findings. 3(3): 303-316. (Journal)

Alizadeh, O., Majidi, E., Nadian, H., NourMohammadi, G. and Amerian, M.R. 2008. Investigation of mycorrhizal inoculation effects in different levels of irrigation and nitrogen on morphological and physiological characteristics of corn. Agricultural new findings. 1(4): 309-316. (Journal)

Bahrani, A., Pourreza, J. and Hagh Joo, M. 2010. Response of Winter Wheat to co-inoculation with Azotobacter and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) under different sources of nitrogen fertilizer. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 8 (1): 95-103. (Journal)

Blum, A. 2005. Drought resistance, water use efficiency, and yield potential are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 56: 1159-1168. (Journal)

Cooper, K.M. and Tinker, P.B. 2003. Translocation and transfer of nutrients in vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza. Uptake and translocation of phosphorus, zinc and sulphur. New Phytologist, 81: 43-52. (Journal)

Egamberdieva, D. 2010. Growth response of wheat cultivars to bacterial inoculation in calcareous soil. Plant, Soil and Environment, 56(12): 570–573. (Journal)

Gill, H.S., Singh, A., Sethi, S.K. and Behl, R.K. 2004. Phosphorus uptake and use efficiency in different varieties of bread wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.). Archive of Agronomy and Soil Science, 56: 563-572. (Journal)

Hafeez, F.Y., Sadar, M.E., Chaudry, A.U. and MaliK, K.A. 2004. Rhizobial inoculation improves seeding emergence, nutrient uptake and growth of cotton. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44: 617-622. (Journal)

Hirsch, A.M., Fang, Y., Asad, S. and Kapulnik, Y. 1997. The role of phytohormones in plant-microbe symbioses. Plant and Soil, 94: 171-184. (Journal)

Jarak, M., Protic, R., Jankovic, S. and Colo, J. 2006. Response of wheat to azotobacter-actinomycetes inoculation and nitrogen fertilizers. Romanian Agricultural Research, 23: 37-45. (Journal)

Khalvati, M.A., Mozafar, A. and Schmidhalter, U. 2005. Quantification of water uptake by arbuscular mycorrhizal hyphae and its significance for leaf growth, water relations, and gas exchange of barley subjected to drought stress. Plant Biology Stuttgart, 7: 706-712. (Journal)

Khezri Efravi, M., HosseinZadeh, A.H., Mohammadi, V. and Ahmadi, A. 2010. Evaluation of drought resistance in native cultivars of iranian durum wheat under water stress and natural irrigation conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 41(4): 741-753. (Journal)

Mrkovacki, N. and Milic, V. 2001. Use of Azotobacter chroococcum as potentially useful in agricultural application. Annals of Microbiology, 51: 145-158. (Journal)

Nadian, H.S., Smith, E., Alston, A.M. and Murray, R.S. 1996. The effect of soil compaction on growth and p uptake by Trifolium subterranum. Plant and Soil, 182: 39-49. (Journal)

Okon, Y. and Kapulnik, Y. 1986. Development and functions of Azospirillum inoculated roots. Plant and Soil, 90:3-16. (Journal)

Ramezanpour, M.R. and Dastfal, M. 2004. Evaluation of cultivars tolerance in Triticum aestivum L. and Triticum durum L. to drought stress. Proceedings of  the 8rd Iranian Congrees in Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Rasht, Iran. p,242.

Rebetzke, G.J. 2002. Selection for reduced carbon-isotope discrimination increases aerial biomass and grain yield of rainfed bread wheat. Crop Science, 42: 453-465.(Journal)

Rejali, F., Alizadeh, A., Malakouti, M.J. SalehRastin, N., Khavazi, K. and Asgharzadeh, A. 2006. Propagation of Glomus intraradices and the preparation of its inoculant to invitro culture method. Journal of Soil and Water Science, 20(2): 273-283. (Journal)

Ritchie, S.W. and Nguyen, H.T. 1990. Leaf water content and gas exchange parameters of two wheat genotypes differing in drought resistance. Crop Science, 30: 105-111. (Journal)

Sanders, L.R. and Koide, R.T. 1994. Nutrient acquisition and community structure in co-occuring mycotrophic and non-mycotrophic old-field annuals. Functional Ecology, 8: 77-84. (Journal)

Sarmadnia, G. and Koocheki, A. 1995. Importance of environmental stresses in agronomy. Mashhad Jahad Daneshgahi Publications. (Book)

Shamsi, K., Petrosyan, M., Noor-mohammadi, G. and Haghparast, R. 2010. Evaluation of grain yield and its components in three bread wheat cultivars under drought stress. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 9(1): 1117- 1121. (Journal)

Souza, E., Kruk, M. and Sunderman, D.W. 1994. Association of Gsugar-snap cookie quality with high molecular weight glutenin alles in soft white spring wheats. Cereal Chemistry, 71: 601-605. (Journal)

Trethowan, R.M. and Reynolds, M. 2007. Drought resistance: Genetic approaches for improving productivity under stress. In: Buck H. R. et al. (eds): wheat production in stressed environments, 289-299, Springer Pub., the Netherlands. (Book)

Vessey, J.K. 2003. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizer. Plant and Soil, 255: 271- 286. (Journal)

Yahalom, E., Kapulnik, Y. and Okon, Y. 2004. Response of Setaria italica to inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense as compared to Azotobacter chroococcum, Plant and Soil, 82: 77-85. (Journal)

Zahir, A.Z., Arshad, M. and Frankenberger, W.F. 2004. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: applications and perspectives in agriculture. Advances in Agronomy, 81:97-168. (Journal)