Noor MAIWAN, Murat TUNÇTÜRK, Rüveyde TUNÇTÜRK

Effect of Humic Acid Applications on Physiological and Biochemical Properties of Soybean (Glycine max L.) Grown under Salt Stress Conditions

In the study, humic acid was applied to soybean (Glycine max L.), which has high economic value and importance, to determine the tolerance level of the plant against salt stress, and physical and chemical changes in the plant were observed. The study was carried out in the climate room of Van Yuzuncu Yil University Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops in 2019. In the research, İlksoy soybean variety was used. The experiment was carried out in 4 factorial orders according to the factorial experiment was designed based on Completely Randomized Design. In the research, four different Humic acid doses (0, 500, 1000 and 2000 ppm) and 3 different NaCl salt doses (0, 125 and 250 mM) were used. In the study, root length, stem length, root fresh weight, stem fresh weight, root dry weight, stem dry weight, leaf area, chlorophyll content, ion leakage in leaf tissues, lipid peroxidation level (MDA), relative water content and membrane resistance index in leaf tissues were determined. Properties such as index were also examined. As a result of the study, the longest root was 38 cm for the control plots that salt and humic acid didn’t apply to the plants. The highest root fresh weight was 2.08 g and the stem fresh weight was 1.87 g of the plots where 500 ppm humic acid dose applied. In addition, the plants with the highest chlorophyll ratio was 51.05 under 250 mM salt applied without humic acid application.

Keywords:

Glycine max L. Humic acid, Salt stress, Soybean,

PDF

___

Arora, R., Pitchay, D. S., & Bearce, B. C. (1998). Water‐stress‐induced heat tolerance in geranium leaf tissues: A possible linkage through stress proteins?. Physiologia Plantarum, 103(1), pp.24-34.
Basalma, D. (2014). Effects of humic acid on the emergence and seedling growth of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(Özel Sayı-2): 1402-1406.
Boogar, A. R, Shirmohammadi, E., & Geikloo, A. (2014). Effect of humic acid application on qualitative characteristic and micronutrient status in petunia hybrid L . BEPLS, 3(9): 15-19.
Chen, Y., & Aviad, T. (1990). Effects of humic substances on plant growth. Soil Science Society of America, :161-186.
Çulha, Ş., & Çakırlar, H. (2011). Tuzluluğun bitkiler üzerine etkileri ve tuz tolerans mekanizmaları. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(2), 11-34.
Dawood, M. G., Yasser, R. A., Mohamed, E, E., & Gehan, S. B. (2019). Enhancement quality and quantity of faba bean plants grown under sandy soil conditions by nicotinamide and/or humic acid application. Bulletin of the National Research Centre,43(28): 1-8.
El-Shafey, A. I., & Zen El-Dein, A. A. (2016). Response of maize ıntercropping with soybean to nitrogen fertilizer and humic acid application. J. Plant Production, Mansoura Univ,7(7): 733-741.
Erdal, İ., Bozkurt, M. A., & Çimrin, M. (2000). Humik asit ve fosfor uygulamalarının mısır bitkisini (Zea mays L.) Fe, Zn, Mn ve Cu içerigi üzerine etkisi. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 6 (3): 91-96.
FAO. (2019). Crop description and climate. FAO Stat. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/land-water/databases-and-software/crop-information /soybean/ en/.
Han, H. S., & Lee, K.D. (2005). Physiological responses of soybean - inoculation of Bradyrhizobium japonicum with PGPR in saline soil conditions. Res J Agri Biol Sci, 1(3): 216-221.
Hand, M. J., Taffouo, V. D., Nouck, A. E., Nyemene, K. P. J., Tonfack, L. B., Meguekam, T. L., & Youmbi, E. (2017). Effects of salt stress on plant growth, nutrient partitioning, chlorophyll content, leaf relative water content, accumulation of osmolytes and antioxidant compounds in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) cultivars. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca,45(2): 481-490. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha45210928.
Kalyoncu, Ö. (2013). Humik Asitin Tuz Stresi Altında Yetişen Maş Fasulyesi (Vigna Radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) Gelişimine ve İyon Alımına Etkisi. Marmara üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Biyoloji Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
Kıran, S., Furtana, G. B., Talhouni, M., & Ellialtıoğlu, Ş. Ş. (2019). Drought stress mitigation with humic acid in two cucumis melo l. genotypes differ in their drought tolerance. Bragantia,78(4): 490-97.
Kondetti, P., Jawali, N., Apte, S. K., & Shitole, M. G. (2012). Salt tolerance in Indian soybean (Glycine max L. (L.) Merill) varieties at germination and early seedling growth. Annals of Biological Research,3(3): 1489-1498.
Rahman, M., Ijaz, M., Qamar, S., Bukhari, S. A., & Malik, K. (2019). Abiotic stress signaling in rice crop. In Advances in Rice Research for Abiotic Stress Tolerance : 551-559.
Malik, K. A., & Azam, F. (1985). Effect of humic acids on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedling growth. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 25 (3); 245-252.
Porcel, R., Barea, J. M., & Ruiz-Lozano, J. M. (2003). Antioxidant activities in mycorrhizal soybean plants under drought stress and their possible relationship to the process of nodule senescence. New Phytol, 157: 135-143.
Sairam, R. K. (1994). Effect of moisture-stress on physiological actives of two contrasting wheat genotypes. İndian Journal of Experimental Biology, 32:594-597.
Sairam, R. K., & Saxena, D. C. (2000). Oxidative Stress and Antioxidants in Wheat Genotypes Possible Mechanism of Water Stress Tolerance. Plant Science43 245-251.
Sairam, R. K., & Srivastava, G. C. (2002). Changes in antioxidant activity in subcellular fractions of tolerant and susceptible wheat genotypes in response to long term salt stress. Plant Science, 162: 897-904.
Shukla, P. S., Agarwal, P. K., & Jha, B. (2012). Improved salinity tolerance of Arachis hypogaea (L.) by the interaction of halotolerant plantgrowth-promoting rhizobacteria. J Plant Growth Regul, 31(2):195-206.
SoilBiotics. (2019). Humic acids; research for results. http://www.soil-biotics.com/files/7373-soilbiotics-humicacid.pdf
Tunçtürk, M., Tunçtürk, R., Yildirim, B., & Çiftçi, V. (2011a). Effect of salinity stress on plant fresh weight and nutrient composition of some Canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(10): 1827-1832.
Tunçtürk, M., Tunçtürk, R., Yildirim, B., & Çiftçi, V. (2011b). Changes of micronutrients, dry weight and plant development in canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars under salt stress. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(19): 3726-3730.
Tunçturk, M., Tunçturk, R., & Yasar, F. (2008). Changes in micronutrients, dry weight and plant growth of soybean (Glycine max L. L. Merrill) cultivars under salt stress. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(11).
Turan, G. (2007). Su Yosunlarının Thalassoterapi’de Kullanımı (doktora tezi). Ege üniversitesi, fen bilimleri enstitüsü, pp. 141, İzmir.
Turan, M., & Aydın, A. (2005). Effect of different salt sources on growth, inorganic ions and proline accumulation in Corn (Zea mays L.). Europ. Hort. Sci,70(3): 149-155.
Turhan, H., Genç, L., Bostancı, Y. B., Sümer, A., Kavdır, Y., Türkmen, O. S., & Killi, D. (2006). Tuz Stresinin Ayçiçeği (Helianthus annuus L.) Üzerine Etkilerinin Yansıma Teknikleri Yardımıyla Belirlenmesi. Çanakkale onsekiz mart üniversitesi ziraat fakültesi tarla bitkileri bölümü.
Turkmen, O., Sensoy, S., Demir, S., & Erdinc, C. (2008). Effects of two different AMF species on growth and nutrient content of pepper seedlings grown under moderate salt stress. Afr. J. Biotechnol, 7(4): 392-396.
Yaşar, F. (2003). Tuz Stresi Altındaki Patlıcan Genotiplerinde Bazı Antioksidant Enzim Aktivitelerinin in vitro ve in vivo olarak İncelenmesi. Yüzüncü yıl üniversitesi fen bilimleri enstitüsü.
Yildirim, O., Aras, S., & Ergul, A. (2004). Response of antioxidant systems to shortterm NaCl stress in grapevine rootstock-1616C and Vitis vinifera L. cv. Razaki. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia Series Botanica, (46): 151-158.
Yolci, M. S., Tunçtürk, R., & Tunçtürk, M. (2021). Yerfıstığı (Arachis hypogea L.) Çeşitlerinin Bazı Büyüme ve Fizyolojik Parametreleri Üzerine Tuz Stresinin Etkisi.YYU J AGR SCI, 31 (1): 228-236.