| Literature DB >> 35050104 |
Hamza Bouras1, Redouane Choukr-Allah1, Younes Amouaouch1, Ahmed Bouaziz1, Krishna Prasad Devkota2, Ayoub El Mouttaqi2, Bassou Bouazzama3, Abdelaziz Hirich2.
Abstract
Soil salinity is a major problem in arid and semi-arid regions, causing land degradation, desertification, and subsequently, food insecurity. Salt-affected soils and phosphorus (P) deficiency are the common problems in the sub-Sahara, including the Southern region of Morocco. Soil salinity limits plant growth by limiting water availability, causing a nutritional imbalance, and imparting osmotic stress in the plants. The objective of this study was to determine the positive effects of P on growth and productivity and understand the major leaf mineral nutrient content of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cv. "ICBA Q5" irrigated with saline water. A field experiment applying three salinity (Electrical Conductivity, EC) levels of irrigation water (ECw = 5, 12, and 17 dS·m-1) and three P fertilizer rates (0, 60, and 70 kg of P2O5 ha-1) were evaluated in a split-plot design with three replications. The experiment was conducted in Foum El Oued, South of Morocco on sandy loam soil during the period of March-July 2020. The results showed that irrigation with saline water significantly reduced the final dry biomass, seed yield, harvest index, and crop water productivity of quinoa; however, P application under saline conditions minimized the effect of salinity and improved the yield. The application of 60 and 70 kg of P2O5 ha-1 increased (p < 0.05) the seed yield by 29 and 51% at low salinity (5 dS·m-1), by 16 and 2% at medium salinity (12 dS·m-1), and by 13 and 8% at high salinity (17 dS·m-1), respectively. The leaf Na+ and K+ content and Na+/K+ ratio increased with irrigation water salinity. However, the leaf content of Mg, Ca, Zn, and Fe decreased under high salinity. It was also found that increasing P fertilization improved the essential nutrient content and nutrient uptake. Our finding suggests that P application minimizes the adverse effects of high soil salinity and can be adopted as a coping strategy under saline conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Chenopodium quinoa; biomass yield; phosphorus; salinity; seed yield
Year: 2022 PMID: 35050104 PMCID: PMC8779345 DOI: 10.3390/plants11020216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showing p-value of different leaf nutrient contents as affected by different irrigation water salinities and phosphorus rates. DF: degree of freedom, DM: dry matter, SY: seed yield, HI: harvest index, CWP: crop water productivity, IWP: irrigation/biomass water productivity, OC: organic carbon, N: Nitrogen, P: Phosphorus, K: Potassium, Mg: Magnesium, Ca: Calcium, Zn: Zinc, Fe: Iron, Na: Sodium. Values in the table are p-values, * denotes p < 0.05, ** denotes p < 0.01, *** denotes p < 0.001; ns = not significant.
| Factors | DF | DM | SY | HI | CWP | IWP | Leaf Nutrient Content | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OC | N | P | K | Mg | Ca | Zn | Fe | Na | |||||||
| Irrigation water salinity (S) | 2 | 0.018 * | 0.014 * | 0.00 *** | 0.005 ** | 0.013 * | 0.047 * | 0.023 * | 0.032 * | 0.021 | 0.044 * | 0.047 * | 0.54 | 0.26 | 0.010 ** |
| Phosphorus rate (P) | 2 | 0.027 * | 0.032 * | 0.047 * | 0.033 * | 0.02 * | 0.045 * | 0.43 | 0.021 * | 0.036 * | 0.029 * | 0.23 | 0.18 | 0.31 | 0.024 * |
| Interaction (S × P) | 4 | 0.90 ns | 0.14 ns | 0.018 * | 0.148 ns | 0.975 ns | 0.029 * | 0.37 | 0.039 * | 0.043 * | 0.170 ns | 0.049 * | 0.270 ns | 0.63 ns | 0.025 * |
Figure 1Seed yield, dry matter yield, and harvest index of quinoa as affected by irrigation water salinity and phosphorus rate. Any two values within a column are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) if they have no letter in common. The same letters indicate the statistically homogeneous groups. Error bars indicate the standard deviation.
Figure 2Variation in crop and irrigation water productivity under different phosphorus fertilizer rates and irrigation water salinities. Any two values within a column are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) if they have no letter in common. The same letters indicate the statistically homogeneous groups. Error bars indicate the standard deviation.
Macro- and micro-nutrient content in quinoa leaves as affected by irrigation water salinity and phosphorus fertilizer rate. Any two values within a column are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) if they have no letter in common. Small and same letters (a, ab, b) indicate the statistically homogeneous groups within phosphorus fertilization treatments, and capital and same letters (A, AB, B) indicate the statistically homogeneous groups within salinity treatments.
| Irrigation Water EC | P Rate | OC (%) | N (%) | P (%) | K (%) | Mg (%) | Ca (%) | Zn (ppm) | Fe (ppm) | Na (%) | K/Na | Ca/Na | Mg/Na |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 dS·m−1 | 0 | 40.4 ± 8.4 a | 1.4 ± 0.1 a | 0.14 ± 0.03 a | 5.3 ± 1 b | 2.3 ± 0.2 a | 3.1 ± 1.1 a | 22.6 ± 3 b | 343 ± 29 b | 3.3 ± 0.6 b | 1.6 ± 0.2 a | 1.1 ± 0.6 a | 0.7 ± 0.2 a |
| 60 | 40.0 ± 6.3 a | 1.2 ± 0.1 a | 0.12 ± 0.03 b | 6.4 ± 2 a | 2.2 ± 0.3 a | 2.6 ± 1 b | 26.1 ± 6 a | 324 ± 17 b | 3.5 ± 0.2 a | 1.8 ± 0.4 a | 0.8 ± 0.4 b | 0.6 ± 0.1 b | |
| 70 | 36.2 ± 2.3 a | 1.4 ± 0.1 a | 0.15 ± 0.02 a | 5.7 ± 1 ab | 2.2 ± 0.1 a | 2.8 ± 0.6 ab | 22.1 ± 3 b | 433 ± 16 a | 3.6 ± 0.3 a | 1.6 ± 0.6 a | 0.8 ± 0.1 b | 0.6 ± 0 b | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 12 dS·m−1 | 0 | 35.1 ± 1.8 a | 1.5 ± 0.1 a | 0.30 ± 0.13 b | 7.6 ± 1 b | 2 ± 0.1 b | 1.7 ± 0.1 b | 28.8 ± 7 ab | 280 ± 13 a | 4.6 ± 1 a | 1.7 ± 0.3 b | 0.4 ± 0.1 c | 0.5 ± 0.1 b |
| 60 | 34.3 ± 0.7 b | 1.7 ± 0.2 a | 0.34 ± 0.07 b | 8.6 ± 1 a | 2 ± 0.3 b | 1.9 ± 0.3 ab | 24.1 ± 5 b | 251 ± 16 a | 4.3 ± 0.3 ab | 2 ± 0.4 a | 0.4 ± 0 b | 0.5 ± 0 b | |
| 70 | 35.2 ± 1.7 a | 1.6 ± 0.1 a | 0.41 ± 0.24 a | 8.1 ± 0 ab | 2.4 ± 0.2 a | 2.1 ± 0.2 a | 33.3 ± 17 a | 212 ± 6 a | 4 ± 0.1 b | 2 ± 0.1 a | 0.5 ± 0.1 a | 0.6 ± 0.1 a | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 17 dS·m−1 | 0 | 34.8 ± 1.1 a | 1.6 ± 0.1 a | 0.25 ± 0.03 a | 8.2 ± 1 c | 1.9 ± 0.1 b | 1.6 ± 0.1 b | 15.3 ± 2 b | 248 ± 15 a | 4.5 ± 0.3 b | 1.8 ± 0.1 ab | 0.4 ± 0 b | 0.4 ± 0 ab |
| 60 | 34.3 ± 1.3 a | 1.6 ± 0 a | 0.26 ± 0.06 a | 9.3 ± 0 a | 2.1 ± 0.2 a | 1.7 ± 0.2 a | 27.6 ± 3 a | 244 ± 15 a | 4.5 ± 0.3 b | 2.1 ± 0.2 a | 0.4 ± 0 a | 0.5 ± 0 a | |
| 70 | 31.7 ± 1.7 b | 1.5 ± 0.1 a | 0.23 ± 0.04 b | 9.1 ± 0 b | 1.9 ± 0.2 b | 1.6 ± 0.2 b | 22.7 ± 8 ab | 214 ± 12 a | 5.5 ± 0.6 a | 1.7 ± 0.2 b | 0.3 ± 0 b | 0.3 ± 0 b | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3Correlation among seed and dry matter yield, harvest index, crop and irrigation water productivity, and different leaf nutrient contents. *, **, and *** indicate significant differences at p < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively. The color gradient scale indicates the Pearson coefficient of correlation.
Figure 4Correlation circle of variables on the first two principal components. Color gradient corresponds to the quality of representation of the variables using the cos2 of its coordinates.
Initial soil physical and chemical properties in the experimental site.
| Depth (cm) | Sand (%) | Silt (%) | Clay (%) | Soil pH | EC1:5 (dS·m−1) | Cl (g·kg−1) | Na2O (g·kg−1) | OM (%) | N (%) | P2O5 (mg·kg−1) | K2O (g·kg−1) | MgO (g·kg−1) | CaO (g·kg−1) | Zn (mg·kg−1) | Fe (mg·kg−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–20 | 61.8 | 18.6 | 18.6 | 8.47 | 1.91 | 2.12 | 2.00 | 0.47 | 0.03 | 44.12 | 0.33 | 0.92 | 9.73 | 0.80 | 1.23 |
| 20–40 | 71.3 | 12.9 | 23.8 | 8.47 | 1.80 | 1.43 | 1.51 | 0.40 | 0.03 | 36.29 | 0.31 | 0.85 | 9.46 | 0.80 | 1.23 |
Temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, and sunshine hours during the crop growth period in 2020 and 2016–2019 three years average (source: data recorded in L’Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Foum El Oued, Laayoune, Morocco).
| Climatic Parameters | During the Experimental Period | 3 Years Average | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| March | April | May | June | July | March | April | May | June | July | |
| Temperature (°C) | 18.3 | 19 | 20.1 | 21.6 | 23 | 23.8 | 24 | 25.4 | 26.4 | 28.7 |
| Rainfall (mm) | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Humidity (%) | 59 | 62 | 64 | 68 | 69 | Data not available | ||||
| Sunshine hours (hour. day−1) | 8.9 | 9 | 9.3 | 9.6 | 9.7 | Data not available | ||||
Chemical properties of irrigation water applied.
| Water Content | EC | pH | Cations (meq·L−1) | Anions (meq·L−1) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (dS·m−1) | K+ | Na+ | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | Cl− | SO42− | NO3− | CO32− | HCO3− | ||
| Freshwater | 4.04 | 7.45 | 0.883 | 24.35 | 11.25 | 6.48 | 28.12 | 11.21 | 3.46 | 0.0 | 3.52 |
| Groundwater | 11.98 | 7.35 | 3.44 | 114.07 | 28.4 | 26.42 | 124.55 | 52.15 | 1.01 | 0.0 | 3.88 |
Figure 5Schematic view of the irrigation water tanks laid out for using irrigation in the experimental plots.
Total irrigation water (mm) applied in each irrigation during the crop growing period from March to July.
| Periods (10 Day) | March | April | May | June | July |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–10 days | 20 | 18 | 27 | 27 | 9 |
| 11–20 days | -- (rain) | 18 | 27 | 18 | |
| 21–31 days | 18 | 27 | 27 | 9 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|