Advertisement

Effect of humic preparation on winter wheat productivity and rhizosphere microbial community under herbicide-induced stress

  • Olga S. Bezuglova
  • Andrey V. GorovtsovEmail author
  • Elena A. Polienko
  • Vladimir E. Zinchenko
  • Artyom V. Grinko
  • Vladimir A. Lykhman
  • Marina N. Dubinina
  • Aleksander Demidov
Humic Substances and Nature-like Technologies
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present work was to study the effect of humic preparation on the yielding capacity of winter wheat, the dynamics of mineral nutrients in the rhizosphere, and the activity of rhizosphere microbial community, as well as the protective properties of humate treatment under the stress caused by the application of a sulfonylurea herbicide.

Materials and methods

The humic preparation BIO-Don is prepared from vermicompost by alkaline extraction. The effect of humic preparation was estimated in a field experiment. The contents of the mobile ammonium and nitrate, exchangeable potassium, phosphorus, and humus were determined. Sampling and nutrient determination were performed in the tillering, booting, and grain maturing stages. Production experiments on the study of the combined effect of the humic preparation and the sunfonylurea pesticide Granstar Pro were performed in 2015 and 2017. The dynamics of mobile phosphorus in soil was studied. The abundance of culturable bacteria in the rhizosphere and bacterial species with different ecological strategies was determined. The dominant bacterial species were identified by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry.

Results and discussion

The results of a small-plot experiment showed that at the tillering stage, the use of humic preparation has led to significantly higher supply of soil with mobile phosphorus. The winter wheat yield was 32.0 dt/ha in the control and 39.2 dt/ha with humic preparation or 22.5% gain in yield. The results of production experiment show that the application of sulfonylurea herbicide induced a chemical stress on winter wheat plants, but the use of humic preparation reduced this effect and increased the availability of phosphorus compounds. The treatment of plants with pesticides caused the general decrease in abundance of bacteria in the rhizosphere. The effect on quickly growing bacteria is more pronounced, while slowly growing bacteria and fungi are more resistant to this impact.

Conclusions

The application of humic preparation to winter wheat plantations allows to decrease the toxic effect of sulfonylurea herbicide, improve the supply of soil with mineral nutrients, and increase the crop yield. The favorable effects of humic preparation can be related to the active regulation of phosphorus mobilization by plants through the mechanism of root exudates due to the activation of root microbiota.

Keywords

Humic substances Herbicides Sulfonylurea Phosphorus mobility Rhizosphere 

Notes

Supplementary material

11368_2018_2240_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Akladious SA, Mohamed HI (2018) Ameliorative effects of calcium nitrate and humic acid on the growth, yield component and biochemical attribute of pepper (Capsicum annuum) plants grown under salt stress. Sci Hortic 236:244–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Fraihat AH, Al-Tabbal JA, Abu-Darwish MS, Alhrout HH, Hasan HS (2018) Response of onion (Allium cepa) crop to foliar application of humic acid under rain-fed conditions. Int J Agric Biol 20(5):1235–1241Google Scholar
  3. Al-Maliki S, AL-Mammory H, Scullion J (2018) Interactions between humic substances and organic amendments affecting soil biological properties and growth of Zea mays L. in the arid land region. Arid Land Res Man 1-16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2018.1495670
  4. Bezuglova OS, Polienko EA (2011) Application of humic preparations for potato and winter wheat. Problemy Agrokhimii i Ekologii 4:29–32 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. Bezuglova OS, Tver’yanovich IS (2004) Effect of iron humates on the floral productivity of rose “red velvet” and its resistance to phytopathogens on calcareous chernozems. Izv Vyssh Uchebn Zav Sev-Kavkaz Reg Estestv Nauki 4:96–99 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  6. Brown AL, Jackson WR, Cavagnaro TR (2014) A meta-analysis and review of plant-growth response to humic substances: practical implications for agriculture. Adv Agron 124:37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryutova NM, Bezuglova OS (2016) Humic preparations as growth regulators for ornamental (woody) plants. Subtrop Dekor Sadov 57:88–96 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. Canellas LP, Olivares FL (2014) Physiological responses to humic substances as plant growth promoter. Chem Biol Technol Agric 1(1):3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Canellas LP, Olivares FL, Aguiar NO, Jones DL, Nebbioso A, Mazzei P, Piccolo A (2015) Humic and fulvic acids as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci Hortic 196:15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciarkowska K, Sołek-Podwika K, Filipek-Mazur B, Tabak M (2017) Comparative effects of lignite-derived humic acids and FYM on soil properties and vegetable yield. Geoderma 303:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ćwieląg-Piasecka I, Medyńska-Juraszek A, Jerzykiewicz M, Dębicka M, Bekier J, Jamroz E, Kawałko D (2018) Humic acid and biochar as specific sorbents of pesticides. J Soils Sediments 18(8):2692–2702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danyaei A, Has-sanpour S, Baghaee MA, Dabbagh M, Babarabie M (2017) The effect of sulfur containing humic acid on yield and nutrient uptake in olive fruit. Open J Ecol 7:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Leij FAAM, Whipps JM, Lynch JM (1994) The use of colony development for the characterization of bacterial communities in soil and on roots. Microb Ecol 27(1):81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Đorđević S, Najdenovska O, Cvijanović G (2010) The influence of Casaron [ie Casoron] and Starane herbicides on micro flora in soil grown with vineyard. Soil and Plant 59(1):31–47Google Scholar
  15. Dospekhov BA (1985) Methods of field experiments Agropromizdat, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  16. El-Mohamedy RSR, Shafeek MR, Abd El-Samad EEDH, Salama DM, Rizk FA (2017) Field application of plant resistance inducers (PRIs) to control important root rot diseases and improvement growth and yield of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Austr J Crop Sci 11(5):496–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghanbarpour E, Rezaei M, Lawson S (2018) Reduction of cracking in pomegranate fruit after foliar application of humic acid, calcium-boron and kaolin during water stress. Erwerbs-obstbau 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-018-0386-6
  18. Gomes NCM, Heuer H, Schönfeld J, Costa R, Mendonca-Hagler L, Smalla K (2001) Bacterial diversity of the rhizosphere of maize (Zea mays) grown in tropical soil studied by temperature gradient gel electrophoresis. Plant Soil 232(1–2):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hosseini Farahi M, Aboutalebi A, Jowkar MM (2017) Effect of different media substrate and humic acid on growth and nutrient absorption of soilless cultured cut rose flowers. J Sci Technol Greenhouse Cult Isfahan Univ Technol 8(2):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ivanov VP (1973) Plant exudates and their significance in the life of phytocenoses. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar
  21. Kadhim RA, Hussein ASJ, Jumaa FF (2017) Effect of organic fertilizer extract (x–humate 85) and application method on growth and yield of apricot trees Labeeb-1 cv. Iraqi J Agric Sci 48(4):1108Google Scholar
  22. Khan A, Ahmed N, Shah SA (2018) Effect of humic acid on fruit yield attributes, yield and leaf nutrient accumulation of apple trees under calcareous soil. Indian J Sci Technol 11(15):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Khomyakov YuV (2009) Role of root exudates in the formation of biochemical properties of the rhizosphere zone. Dissertation, St Petersburg, p 144 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  24. Kotelev VV (1964) Role microorganisms in the decomposition of organic phosphates and the migration of phosphorus in the soil. Dissertation, Institute of Microbiology, USSR Academy of Sciences (in Russian)Google Scholar
  25. Kozdrój J, van Elsas JD (2000) Response of the bacterial community to root exudates in soil polluted with heavy metals assessed by molecular and cultural approaches. Soil Biol Biochem 32(10):1405–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lay JO Jr (2001) MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry of bacteria. Mass Spectrom Rev 20(4):172–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lipczynska-Kochany E (2018) Humic substances, their microbial interactions and effects on biological transformations of organic pollutants in water and soil: a review. Chemosphere 202:420–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lizarazo LM, Jordá JD, Juárez M, Sánchez-Andreu J (2005) Effect of humic amendments on inorganic N, dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase activities of a Mediterranean soil. Biol Fertil Soils 42(2):172–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maji D, Misra P, Singh S, Kalra A (2017) Humic acid rich vermicompost promotes plant growth by improving microbial community structure of soil as well as root nodulation and mycorrhizal colonization in the roots of Pisum sativum. Appl Soil Ecol 110:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Margesin R, Płaza GA, Kasenbacher S (2011) Characterization of bacterial communities at heavy-metal-contaminated sites. Chemosphere 82(11):1583–1588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melo ROD, Oliveira HPD, Silveira KC, Baldotto LEB, Baldotto MA (2018) Initial performance of maize in response to humic acids and plant growth-promoting bacteria. Revista Ceres 65(3):271–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nowick W (2014) Actual results of improvement of biological soil fertility indicators after application of phytohumic combination (PHCs) in the program tandem12/21 (2012-2021) Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference daRostim 2014 «Humic Substances and Other Biologically Active Compounds in Agriculture», Moscow, pp 255–264 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  33. Olaetxea M (2015) Effects of a sedimentary humic acid on plant growth: study of the general mechanisms of action upon root application in cucumber plants (Cucumis sativus L. cv Ashley). Doctoral Dissertation. Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, p 174Google Scholar
  34. Olaetxea M, De Hita D, Garcia CA, Fuentes M, Baigorri R, Mora V, Garnica M, Urrutia O, Erro J, Zamarreño AM, Berbara RL, Garcia-Mina JM (2018) Hypothetical framework integrating the main mechanisms involved in the promoting action of rhizospheric humic substances on plant root- and shoot- growth. Appl Soil Ecol 123:521–537Google Scholar
  35. Olivares FL, Busato JG, Paula AM, Lima LS, Aguiar NO, Canellas LP (2017) Plant growth promoting bacteria and humic substances: crop promotion and mechanisms of action. Chem Biol Technol Agric 4(1):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pansuriya PB, Varu DK, Viradia RR (2018) Response of biostimulants and biofertilizers on corm, cormels and spike yield of gladiolus (Gladiolus grandiflorus L) cv. American beauty under greenhouse conditions. Int J Chem Stud 6(2):2659–2663Google Scholar
  37. Polienko EA, Bezuglova OS, Gorovtsov AV, Lykhman VA, Shimko AE, Bondareva AM, Zakharova IA (2015) Effect of humic fertilizer BIO-Don on the grain quality of soft winter wheat DonEco. Izv Oregburg Gos Univ 53:171–173 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  38. Rasheed SM, Abdullah HM, Ali ST (2017) Response of two hybrids of tomato (Lycupersicun esculentum Mill.) to four concentration of humic acid fertilizers in plastic house conditions. J Tikrit Univ Agri Sci 17(1):1–12Google Scholar
  39. Sarwar M, Ahmed S, Arsalan M, Khan M (2017) Humic acid affects zinc availability and wheat yield in zinc deficient calcareous soil. J Appl Agric Biotechnol 2(1):19–25Google Scholar
  40. Seng P, Drancourt M, Gouriet F, La Scola B, Fournier PE, Rolain JM, Raoult D (2009) Ongoing revolution in bacteriology: routine identification of bacteria by matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Clin Infect Dis 49(4):543–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shokri S, Tadayon MR (2018) Effect of different nutrient solutions on yield and potato minituber production under aeroponic and hydroponic cultures. J Sci Technol Greenhouse Cult –Isfahan Univ Technol 8(4):79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sigler WV, Zeyer J (2004) Colony-forming analysis of bacterial community succession in deglaciated soils indicates pioneer stress-tolerant opportunists. Microb Ecol 48(3):316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taspinar MS, Aydin M, Sigmaz B, Yildirim N, Agar G (2017) Protective role of humic acids against Picloram-induced genomic instability and DNA methylation in Phaseolus vulgaris. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(29):22948–22953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ud Din I, Sarwar M, Khan QU, Khan MJ, ud Din F, ud Din F (2018) 22Onion (Allium cepa L.) yield and phosphorus use efficiency as affected by plant extracted humic acid application. Pure Appl Biol 7(2):590–594Google Scholar
  45. Vasić V, Jarak M, Đurić S, Orlović S, Pekeč S (2010) Microbial activity of rhizospheric soil in the poplar nurseries and plantations. Poplar 185:51–60Google Scholar
  46. Vasic V, Djuric S, Jafari-Hajnal T, Orlovic S, Vasic S, Pajnik LP, Galović V (2018) The microbiological response of forest soils after application of nicosulfuron, imazamox and cycloxydim. Int J Environ Sci Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-1862-0
  47. Wu Y, Li Y, Ma YD, Zhang L, Ren ZM, Xia YP (2017) Hormone and antioxidant responses of Lilium Oriental hybrids ‘Sorbonne’ bulblets to humic acid treatments in vitro. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 92(2):155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga S. Bezuglova
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrey V. Gorovtsov
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Elena A. Polienko
    • 2
  • Vladimir E. Zinchenko
    • 2
  • Artyom V. Grinko
    • 2
  • Vladimir A. Lykhman
    • 2
  • Marina N. Dubinina
    • 2
  • Aleksander Demidov
    • 1
  1. 1.Southern Federal UniversityRostov-on-DonRussia
  2. 2.Federal Rostov Agricultural Research CenterRassvetRussia

Personalised recommendations