ارزیابی وضعیت تغذیه‌ای کدو با روش‌های تلفیقی تشخیص و توصیه ((DRIS و انحراف از درصد بهینه DOP)) در منطقه خوی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ارومیه

2 دانشیار گروه علوم خاک، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه ارومیه، ارومیه

3 عضو هیئت علمی بخش تحقیقات خاک و آب، مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان آذربایجان شرقی، سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی، تبریز

چکیده

     سیستم تلفیقی تشخیص و توصیه (DRIS) و روش انحراف از درصد بهینه (DOP) از روش­های مهم برای تفسیر نتایج تجزیه شیمیایی برگ و تشخیص وضعیت تغذیه­ای گیاهان می­باشد. به منظور ارزیابی وضعیت تغذیه­ای کدو (Lagenaria Vulgaris) با استفاده از روش DRIS و DOP و تعیین نرم­های دریس برای این محصول، نمونه­های برگ از 122 مزرعه کدو در شهرستان خوی جمع­آوری و غلظت­های عناصر غذاییB ،Cu ،Zn ،Mn ،Fe ،Mg ،Ca ،K ،P  ،N تعیین شدند. مزارع با توجه به عملکرد به دو گروه با عملکرد بالا و پایین تقسیم گردیدند. نرم­ها و شاخص­های DRIS محاسبه شدند. میانگین غلظت عناصر غذایی در مزارع کدو با عملکرد بالا به عنوان ارقام مرجع برای محاسبه شاخص­های DOP استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد بین مزارع با عملکرد بالا و پایین از لحاظ غلظت عناصر غذایی و نسبت­های آنها تفاوت معنادار وجود دارد و دامنه کفایت غلظت عناصر غذایی در برگ کدو برای عناصر  N،P ،K ،Ca ،Mg به ترتیب: ۷/۲-۰/۴، ۳۲/۰-۴۶/۰، ۳/۳-۶/۴، ۳/۱-۹/۱، ۵۳/۰-۷۸/۰ درصد و برای عناصر Fe ،Mn ،Zn ،Cu ،B به ترتیب: ۱۵۵-۲۰۶، ۱۱۶-۱۵۴، ۵/۴۹-۷/۶۶، ۹/۱۰-۴/۱۵، ۴/۵۷-۸/۷۰ میلی­گرم بر کیلوگرم به­دست آمد. براساس شاخص­های DRIS و DOP  عناصر پتاسیم و روی منفی­ترین شاخص­ها را داشتند. شاخص­های تعادل تغذیه­ای DRIS و DOP در مزارع با عملکرد پایین بزرگتر از صفر به­دست آمد که نشان­دهنده عدم تعادل عناصر غذایی در این مزارع  می­باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation of Nutritional Status of Squash through Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS) and Deviation from Optimum Percentage (DOP) Methods in Khoy

نویسندگان [English]

  • M Sharifmand 1
  • E Sepehr 2
  • A Bybordi 3
1 M.Sc Student, Dept. of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
2 Associate Prof. of Soil Chemistry and Fertility, Dept. of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran
3 Member of the Scientific Staff at Soil and Water Research Department, East Azarbaijan Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Tabriz, Iran
چکیده [English]

      Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS) and deviation from optimum percentage (DOP) method are from important methods for interpretation of the results of chemical analysis and diagnosis of nutritional status of plants. In order to evaluate the nutritional status of squash (Lagenaria Vulgaris) through DRIS and DOP and to determine DRIS norms for this crop, 122 leaf samples were collected from squash fields in Khoy and N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and B were analyzed. The squash fields were divided into high and low yielding groups. The DRIS norms were calculated from high yielding fields’ data. The mean of nutrient concentration in high yielding fields were selected as norms for the calculation of DOP indices. Too, Results showed that there were significantly differences between high and low yielding fields in terms of nutrients concentration and their ratios. Sufficiency ranges of nutrients concentration in squash leaves were determined as 2/7-4/0, 0/32-0/46, 3/3-4/6, 1/3-1/9 and 0/53-0/78 for N, P, K, Ca and Mg and 155-206, 116-154, 49/5-66/7, 10/9-15/4 and 57/4-70/8 mg/kg for Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu and B respectively. Based on DRIS and DOP indices, potassium and zinc had the most negative indices among macro and micro nutrients, respectively. DRIS and DOP nutritional balance indices (NBI) in low yielding fields were greater than zero indicating nutritional imbalances in these fields.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • DOP
  • DRIS
  • Nutritional Status
  • Squash

مراجع

Angeles DE, Sumner ME and Barbour NW, 1990. Preliminary nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium DRIS norms for pineapple.         Hort. Sci. 25: 652-6. 
Beaufils ER, 1973. Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS). A general scheme for experimentation and                  calibration based on principles developed from research in plant nutrition. Soil Science, Bull No. 1, University of Natal,                Pietermararitzburg, South Africa, 132p.
Bertrand IR, Holloway E, Armstrong RD and Mclaughlin MJ, 2003. Chemical Characteristics of phosphorus in alkalin soils from        southern Australia. Aust. J. Soil Res.41:61-76.
Bhargava BS and Chadha KL, 1988. Developing leaf nutrient guide in fruit crops. Fertilizer News. 33: 21–29.
Bould C, 1966. Leaf analysis of deciduous trees. P 651-684, In: Childeres, N.F, (ed). Nutrition of fruit crops. Horticultura                    publications, Rutgers University New Jersey, U.S.A. Chaney R L, 1984. Diagnostic practices to identify iron deficiency in            higher plants. J. Plant Nutr. 7: 47-67.
Hartz TK, Miyao EM and Valencia JG, 1998. Evaluation of the nutritional status of processing tomato. Hort. Sci. Alexandria.             33: 830-832.
Hirzell J and Walter I, 2008. Availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium from poultry litter and conventional fertilizers           in a volcanic soil cultivated with silage corn. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 68: 264-273.
Hundal HS, Singh D and Brar JS, 2005. Diagnosis and recommendation integrated system for monitoring nutrient status of                  mango trees in Sub-mountainous area of Punjab, India. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 36: 2085-2099.
Jimenez SJ, Pinochet Y, Gogorcena JA and Betran MAM, 2007. Influence of different vigour cherry rootstocks on leaves and             shoots mineral composition. Scientia Horticulturae. 112: 73-79.
Lawrence JR, Ketterings QM and Cherney JH, 2008. Effect of itrogen application on yield and quality of silage corn after forage         legume-grass. Agronomy Journal 100:73-79.
Meldal-Johnsen A and Sumner ME, 1980. Foliar diagnostic norms for potatoes. J. P1ant Nutr. 2 (25): 569-576.
Mourao Filho FAA, 2004. DRIS: Concepts and applications on nutritional diagnosis in fruit crop. Scientia Agricola 61: 550-560.
Montanes L, Heras L, Abadia J and Sanz M, 1993. Plant analysis interpretation based on a new index: Deviation from Optimum         Percentage. J. Plant Nutr. 16:1289-1308.
Montañés L, Monge E, Val J and Sanz M, 1995. Interpretative possibilities of plant analysis by the DOP index. ISHS Acta                  Horticulturae, 383: 165-170.
Parent LE and Dafir M, 1992. A theoretical concept of compositional nutrient diagnosis. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 117:239–24.      
Salih N and Andderson F, 1999. Nutritional status of a Norway spruce stand in SW Sweden in response to compensatory                     fertilization. Plant Soil. 209: 85-100.
Schaller K and Lohnertz O, 1984. Accommodation of DRIS-system to grape nutrition. In: International Colloquium for the                  Optimization of Plant Nutrition, Montpellier, 4: 1255-1263.
Sharma J, Shikhamany SD, Singh RK and Raghupathi HB, 2005. Diagnosis of nutrient imbalance in Thompson seedless grape            grafted on Dog Ridge rootstock by DRIS Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 36: 2823-2838.
Snowball K and Robson AD, 1991. Nutriant deficiencies and toxicities in wheat: a guid for field identifications, Mexico, D.F:             CIMMYT, pp.76.
Tisdale SL, Nelson WL and Beaton JD, 1993. Soil fertility and fertilizer. Macmillan USA. 648p.
Ulrich A, 1952. Physiological bases for assessing the nutritional requirement of plants .Annu. Rev. Plant. Physio. 207-228.
Walworth JL and Sumner ME, 1987. The Diagnosis and Recommendation Integrated System (DRIS). Advances in Soil Science,          6:149-188.
دانش آب و خاک
دوره 29، شماره 3
مهر 1398
صفحه 137-149

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار