Growth And Physiological Responses Of Quinoa Plant In Saline-Sodic Soil With Humic Acid Under Drought Stress Conditions

IJEP 41(9): 1004-1012 : Vol. 41 Issue. 9 (September 2021)

Iman Saberi, Alireza Astaraei* and Hojat Emami

Ferdowsi university of Mashhad, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Soil Science, Mashhad, Iran


water deficient is one of most important issue in food security, especially arid and semiarid environment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the humic acid application in combination with irrigation levels on quinoa growth parameters, chlorophyll pigment and physiological traits under saline- sodic soil. A field experiment, consisting Three levels of humic acid (HA) treatments as control, HA1 and HA2 (0, 0.5 and 1 mg HA/kg soil, respectively) and three drought stress treatments (50%, 75% and 100%) water field capacity (FC) in a randomized complete block design (factorial) with three replications, was carried out in Khorasan Razavi provinance, Iran, during the dry season of 2019. The results showed that water stress decreased the chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, total chlorophyll and carotenoids, but proline and protein contents increased with intensity of water deficient. Application of HA improved chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll and carotenoids in plant under three moisture levels. Proline and protein contents also increased with HA application. Plant height and total dry matter of quinoa increased in treatments with HA1 and HA2 application compared to control in all water stress during the growing season. The current study showed that HA were effective in alleviating drought stress and improving growth parameters.


Chlorophyll pigment, Carotenoids, Water deficient, Oxidative stress


  1. Hinojosa, L., et al. 2018. Quinoa abiotic stress responses: A review. Plants. 7: 106.
  2. Collins, M., et al. 2013. Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility, in Climate change. pp 1029-1136.
  3. UN, 2005. World population prospectus: The 2004 revision. UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations Secretariat, New York.
  4. Dubois, O. 2011. The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture.
  5. Prager, A., et al. 2018. Yield and quality characteristics of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars grown under field conditions in southwestern Germany. Agronomy. 8:197.
  6. Gonzalez, J.A., et al. 2015. Quinoa: an Incan crop to face global changes in agriculture. In Quinoa: Improvement and sustainable production. Ed K Murphy, J Matanguihan. John Wiley and Sons. pp 1-18.
  7. Wu, G. 2016. Quinoa seed quality and sensory evaluation. PhD Thesis, Washington State University, School of Food Science.
  8. James, L.E.A. 2009. Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): composition, chemistry, nutritional and functional properties. Adv. food nutrition res., 58: 1-31.
  9. Aly, A.A., F.N. Al-Barakah and M.A. El-Mahrouky. 2018. Salinity stress promote drought tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Analysis. 49: 1331-1343.
  10. Hariadi, Y., et al. 2011. Ionic and osmotic relations in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants grown at various salinity levels. J. exp. botany. 62: 185-193.
  11. Koyro, H.W. and S.S. Eisa. 2008. Effect of salinity on composition, viability and germination of seeds of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. Plant Soil. 302: 79-90.
  12. Peterson, A.J. and K.M. Murphy. 2015. Quinoa cultivation for temperate North America: Considerations and areas for investigation. In Quinoa: Improvement and sustainable production. Ed K Murphy, J Matanguihan. Wiley Online Library. pp 173-192.
  13. Manivannan, P., et al. 2008. Osmoregulation and antioxidant metabolism in drought-stressed Helianthus annuusunder triadimefon drenching, Comptes. Rendus. Biologies. 331: 418-425.
  14. Farooq, M., et al. 2010. Drought stress: comparative time course action of the foliar applied glycine betaine, salicylic acid, nitrous oxide, brassino steroids and spermine in improving drought resistance of rice. J. Agronomy Crop Sci., 196: 336-345.
  15. Yang, A., et al. 2016. Growth and physiological responses of quinoa to drought and temperature stress. J. Agronomy Crop Sci., 202: 445-453.
  16. Masouleh, S.S.S., N.J. Aldine and Y.N. Sassine. 2019. The role of organic solutes in the osmotic adjustment of chilling-stressed plants (vegetable, ornamental and crop plants). Ornamental Horticulture. 25:434-442.
  17. Elewa, T.A., M.S. Sadak and A.M. Saad. 2017. Proline treatment improves physiological responses in quinoa plants under drought stress. Biosci. Res., 14:21-33.
  18. Idhan, A., M. Nadir and M. Kadir. 2018, May. Paddy chlorophyll concentrations in drought stress condition and endophytic fungi application. Earth Env. Sci., 156:012040.
  19. Gonzalez, J.A., et al. 2009. Physiological responses of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) to drought and waterlogging stresses: dry matter partitioning. Botanical Studies. 50: 35-42.
  20. Sadak, M.S., H.M. El-Bassiouny and M.G. Dawood. 2019. Role of trehalose on antioxidant defense system and some osmolytes of quinoa plants under water deficit. Bulletin National Res. Centre. 43: 1-11.
  21. Sofi, A., M. Ebrahimi and E. Shirmohammadi. 2018. Effect of humic acid on germination, growth and photosynthetic pigments of Medicago sativa L. under salt stress. ECOPERSIA. 6: 21-30.
  22. Neri, D., et al. 2002. Foliar application of humic acids on strawberry (cv Onda). Acta horticult., 297-302.
  23. Nan, J., et al. 2016. Effects of applying flue gas desulphurization gypsum and humic acid on soil physico-chemical properties and rapeseed yield of a saline-sodic cropland in the eastern coastal area of China. J. soils Sediments. 16: 38-50.
  24. Vanitha, K. and S. Mohandass. 2014. Effect of humic acid on plant growth characters and grain yield of drip fertigated aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.). The Bioscan. 9: 45-50.
  25. Alcívar, M., et al. 2018. Reclamation of saline–sodic soils with combined amendments: impact on quinoa performance and biological soil quality. Sustain., 10: 30- 83.
  26. Lichtenthaler, H.K. and C. Buschmann. 2001. Chlorophylls and carotenoids: Measurement and characterization by UV VIS spectroscopy. Current protocols food anal. chem., 1: F4- 3.
  27. Bates, L.S., R.P. Waldren and I.D. Teare. 1973. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil. 39: 205-207.
  28. Kumar, A., et al. 2017. Effects of elevated CO2concentration on water productivity and antioxidant enzyme activities of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under water deficit stress. Field Crops Res., 212: 61-72.
  29. Akula, R. and G.A. Ravishankar. 2011. Influence of abiotic stress signals on secondary metabolites in plants. Plant Signaling behaviour. 6:1720-1731.
  30. Arora, A., R.K. Sairam and G.C. Srivastava. 2002. Oxidative stress and antioxidative system in plants. Current Sci., 82: 1227-1238.
  31. Shivakrishna, P., K.A. Reddy and D.M. Rao. 2018. Effect of PEG-6000 imposed drought stress on RNA content, relative water content (RWC) and chlorophyll content in peanut leaves and roots. Saudi j. biol. sci., 25: 285-289.
  32. Efeoglu, B., Y.A. Ekmekci and N.U. Cicek. 2009. Physiological responses of three maize cultivars to drought stress and recovery. South African J. Botany. 75: 34-42.
  33. Edreva, A. 2005. The importance of non-photosynthetic pigments and cinnamic acid derivatives in photoprotection. Agric. ecosystems env., 106: 135-146.
  34. Manoharan, P.T., et al. 2010. Influence of AM fungi on the growth and physiological status of Erythrina variegata Linn. Grown under different water stress conditions. European J. Soil Biol., 46: 151-156.
  35. Ahmed, C.B., et al. 2009. Changes in gas exchange, proline accumulation and antioxidative enzyme activities in three olive cultivars under contrasting water availability regimes. Env. Exp. botany. 67: 345-352.
  36. Selim, E.M., et al. 2012. Interactive effects of humic acid and water stress on chlorophyll and mineral nutrient contents of potato plants. J. Appl. Sci. Res., 32: 531-537.
  37. Zhang, L., et al. 2013. Role of exogenous glycinebetaine and humic acid in mitigating drought stress-induced adverse effects in Malus robusta seedlings. Turkish J. Botany. 37: 920-929.
  38. Tarhan, M. and E. Karademir. 2018. Determination the effect of different applications of humic acid on nutrient uptake, chlorophyll content and NDVI values of cotton. Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi. 23: 284-292.
  39. Lotfi, R., P. Gharavi-Kouchebagh and H. Khoshvaghti. 2015. Biochemical and physiological responses of Brassica napus plants to humic acid under water stress. Russian J. Plant Physiol., 62: 480-486.
  40. Per, T.S., et al. 2017. Approaches in modulating proline metabolism in plants for salt and drought stress tolerance: Phytohormones, mineral nutrients and transgenics. Plant Physiol. Biochem., 115: 126-140.
  41. Ashraf, M.F. and M.R. Foolad. 2007. Roles of glycine betaine and proline in improving plant abiotic stress resistance. Env. exp. botany. 59: 206-216.
  42. Hafez, E., A.E. Omara and A. Ahmed. 2019. The coupling effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and salicylic acid on physiological modifications, yield traits and productivity of wheat under water deficient conditions. Agronomy. 9: 524.
  43. Shinozaki, K. and K. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki. 2000. Molecular responses to dehydration and low tempera-ture: differences and cross-talk between two stress signaling pathways. Current opinion Plant biol., 3: 217-223.
  44. Dang, N.X., et al. 2014. Functional characterization of selected LEA proteins from Arabidopsis thaliana in yeast and in vitro. Planta. 240: 325-336.
  45. Feki, K. and F Brini. 2016. Role of proteins in alleviating drought stress in plants. In Water stress and crop plants: A sustainable approach (Vol 2). pp165.
  46. Chen, Y. and T. Aviad. 1990. Effects of humic substances on plant growth. In Humic substances in soil and crop science. Ed P. MacCarthy, C.E. Clapp, R.L. Malcom, P.R. Bloom and Madison. pp 161-186.
  47. Gholami, H., S. Samavat and Z.O. Ardebili. 2013. The alleviating effects of humic substances on photosynthesis and yield of Plantago ovate in salinity conditions. Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic Sci., 4: 683-1686.
  48. Sun, Y., et al. 2014. Sensitivity of two quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) varieties to progressive drought stress. J. Agronomy Crop Sci., 200:12-23.
  49. Koch, G., et al. 2019. Leaf production and expansion: A generalized response to drought stresses from cells to whole leaf biomass—A case study in the tomato compound leaf. Plants. 8: 409.
  50. Bhattacharjee, S. and A.K. Saha. 2014. Plant water-stress response mechanisms. In Approaches to plant stress and their management. Ed R. Gaur and P. Sharma. Springer, New Delhi. pp 149-172.
  51. El-Bassiouny, H.S.M., et al. 2014. Physiological role of humic acid and nicotinamide on improving plant growth yield and mineral nutrient of wheat (Triticum durum) grown under newly reclaimed sandy soil. Agric. Sci., 5: 687-700.