Evaluating the effect of humic acid on the yield of three varieties of potato under field conditions
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of humic acid fertilizer on potato tubers in 2010, trials were conducted in the Province of Iran. The experiment was conducted on a split plot with randomized complete block design having three replications. Main plots consisted of four levels of humic acid (0, 1, 2, 3 times) solution in water irrigation and sub-factor consisted of three varieties of potato (Marfona, Satina, and Born). During planting the application of humic acid at the rate of nine liters per hectare per load at the beginning and start of creating tuber formation respectively were done. Analysis of variance showed that the smallest and largest tuber weight, number of tubers per plant and yield per plant were not significant. Effect of humic acid on the smallest mean tumor weight at 1% and the number of tubers and yield per plant showed significant difference at 5% level. The largest tuber weight was also not significantly different. Interaction of humic acid fertilizer in any of the measured parameters showed no significant difference in potatoes. Comparison by Duncan test showed that the application of humic acid in all the three stages of growth had shown great impact on tuber weight. The highest number of tubers per plant has been associated with the use of humic acid (27 l/ha). The number of tubers per hectare with the application of 18 litres of humic acid showed no significant difference. The amount of humic acid applied were 18 and 27 litres per hectare, and increased performance is in the range of 13 and 29% respectively.
References
Ahmed Ali Mosa. (2012). Effect of humic substances application on potato tubers yield quantity, quality, nutrients concentration under Egyptian soil conditions. Sustainable Potato Production: Global Case Studies, 471-492.
Aiken GR, McKnight DM, Wershaw RL and MacCarthy P. (1985). Humic substances in soil, sediment, and water: geochemistry, isolation, and characterization New York. USA: Wiley Inter Science, 427p.
Delfine S, Tognetti RE and Alvino A. (2005). Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth and yield of durm wheat. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 25(2): 183-191.
Fernandez VH. (1968). The action of humic acids of different sources on the development of plants and their effect on increasing concentration of the nutrient solution. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia, 32: 805-850.
Haiper SM, Kerven GL, Edward DG and Ostatek Boczyski. Z. (2000). Characterizyion on fulvic and humic acids form leaves of eucalyptus comaldulensis and form decomposed hey. Soil Biochemistry, 32: 1331-1336
Latifi N and Mohammad Dust H. (1998). Effect of time and amount of nitrogen fertilizer on grain yield of three cultivars of wheat in dry conditions. Journal Agriculture Sciences and Natural Resources, (1-2): 82-88. (In Persian with English Summary)
Liu C, Cooper RJ and Bowman DC. (1998). Humic acid application affects photosynthesis, root development, and nutrient content of creeping bentgrass. American Society for Horticultural Science, 33(6): 1023-1025.
Maccarthy P. (2001). The principles of humic substances. Soil Science, 166: 738–751.
Tan KH and Nopamornbodi V. (1979). Effect of Different levels of humic acid on nutrient content and growth of Corn (Zea mays L). Plant and Soil, 51(2): 283-287.
Wang SQ, Si YB and Chen HM. (1999). Review and prospects of soil environmental protection in China. Soils, 31(5): 255-260.
