Content uploaded by Abbas K. Mijwel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abbas K. Mijwel on Jan 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Res. on Crops 19 (4) : 649-654 (2018)
Printed in India
13
Growth and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) as influenced
by nano-fertilizers and different planting dates
ABBAS KHDHAIR MIJWEIL1,* AND ALLAWI KADEM ABBOUD2
1Agriculture College
Al Qasim Green University, Iraq
*(e-mail: mijwelabbas@gmail.com)
(Received : October 27, 2018/Accepted : December 12, 2018)
ABSTRACT
It has become necessary to use various techniques in agriculture including
nanotechnology since it is gaining interest as one of the promising approaches to increase
crop production. It possesses all the characteristics needed to be used in agriculture such
as high solubility, good efficiency and can be used in small quantities. So, this directly
increases the efficiency of fertilizers and reduces the cost compared to conventional
fertilizers. An investigation was carried out in Babylon in the year 2017 using six fertilizer
combinations which were as follows : (traditional chemical fertilizer according to
recommended quantity is 600 kg/ha solo, add chemical fertilizer quarter recommended
dosage+fertilizer nano, chemical fertilizer half recommended dosage+Nano-fertilizer, add
three-quarter chemical fertilizer dosage of recommended quantity+nano-fertilizer, add full
chemical fertilizer recommended dosage+nano-fertilizer, add individual nano-fertilizers).
Three planting dates such as 1st September, 10th September and 20th September were
checked. The fertilizer combination surpassed the full recommended dosage+nano-fertilizer
in the paper area, percentage of dry matter of vegetative total, total number of tubers per
plant, total yield, starch percentage and the superiority of the treatment in the third planting
date in terms of total number of tubers per plant, total yield and dissolved solids. The ‘first
planting’ date missed in the rate of tuber weight exceeded the overlap between the
combination fertilizer i. e. entire recommended dosage+nano-fertilizer. The third planting
time excelled in paper space, total quotient and the overlap between the combination
fertilizer i. e. entire recommended dosage+nano-fertilizer, whereas in the second planting
date it occurred in the percentage of the dry matter of vegetative total and starch percentage.
Key words : Agriculture date, nano-fertilizers, nutrition, potato, yield
2Ministry of Agriculture, Iraq.
INTRODUCTION
Potatoes are sensitive to heat, cold and
drought due to which climate change is
expected to have a significant impact during
many instances, producing negative results in
many potato cultivating areas. Heat stress
poses a serious threat in potato production
(Mijwel et al., 2015). High temperatures lead to
aging of leaves and increased breathing rates
(Winkler, 1971). The decline in the productivity
of the dunum and the growing demand for
potatoes increased the crop cultivation and
productivity of the dunum by expanding as well
as regulating its nutritional status (Krauss and
Marschner, 1976). The optimal time for
agriculture is one of the most important
elements in crop management that affects crop
production and quality. In the history of
agriculture, the yield differed depending on the
climatic conditions suitable for tuber
cultivation. In Iraq, application of fertilizers in
saline soils might result in increase in the
fetility levels in the root zone (Al-Taey, 2018),
potato tubers are cultivated during spring lug
which is considered as the best time to grow
potatoes.
The date of planting is to be determined
for any crop based on the conditions prevailing
in the production area, which comes in the
forefront of light and heat as well as the
introduction of agricultural methods in
production in terms of using some techniques,
implementation of modern irrigation methods
and selection of varieties (hybrids or pure, early,
late) on the date of planting for any crop. So, it
was understood that the planting date for single
crop differed from one region to another as well
as it varied within the same country itself
(Ferrise et al., 2010). Innovative research is
needed to develop fertilizers so as to increase
the crop yields, enhance nutrient use efficiency
and to reduce environmental pollution (Al-
Sabary, 2011; Sanchez-Barrios et al., 2017).
The achievement of sustainable agriculture and
the application of innovative nanotechnology
in agriculture, including fertilizer development,
are the most promising approaches to
significantly increase the crop production and
feed the rapidly-growing global population (Khot
et al., 2012). Nanotechnology has been used in
many agricultural fields such as production,
processing, storing, packaging and transporting
agricultural products (Mousavi and Rezaei,
2011).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was carried out in a
farmer’s field at Babil province (44.39 E
longitude and 32.3 N latitude) during the
autumn season in the year 2017. Samples were
collected from the surface layer of the field soil
and at a depth of 0-30 cm to study some of the
physical and chemical qualities of the field soil
as shown in Table 1 before starting the planting
process. The Arizona type tubers were planted
on three different dates (1st September–T1, 10th
September–T2 and 20th September–T3) and were
added six fertilizer combinations (The chemical
fertilizer was added according to the
recommended amount of 600 kg/ha solo F1
with chemical fertilizer quarter-recommended
dosage+nano -fertilizer F2 of recommended half-
dose chemical fertilizer+nano-fertilizer F3 of
three-quarter chemical fertilizer dosage of
recommended quantity+nano-fertilizer F4, a
complete chemical fertilizer recommended
dosage+nano-fertilizer F5, individual nano-
fertilizer F6). Traditional fertilizers were also
added before planting in field land in the form
of NPK-neutral (15 : 15 : 15) and nano-fertilizers
(major elements+micro-elements) and the
plants were sprayed as per the manufacturer’s
recommendation at a rate of 2 g/l with three
‘first sprays’ being sprayed after 45 days of
emergence (good vegetative growth), whereas
the ‘second spray’ after 15 days of the first
phase (the emergence of tubers), while the ‘third
spray’ was after 15 days of the second phase
(the stage of large tubers). This sprinkling
activity was carried out for three dates. Based
on the date of planting, split-plot design and
the design of the complete random sectors
RCBD, the planting dates were placed in the
main boards (main plot). The fertilizer
combination (traditional fertilizer+nano-
fertilizer) in the secondary panels (Sub plot)
were also measured through the characteristics
of the paper area (cm2/leaf) with other
parameters such as percentage of dry matter
in total vegetation, total number of tubers
(tubers/leaf), weight rate of one tuber (g), total
quotient for tubers and the percentage of starch
and solids dissolved in TSS tubers.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The fertilizer combinations have been
morally and positively influenced by the
different parameters such as paper area/cm2,
1% of dry matter of vegetative tuber, total
number of tubers, weight rate of tuber (g), total
yield of t/ha and % of starch. These
combinations did not have a significant moral
effect in the characteristics of dissolved solids
in tubers TSS. From Table 1, the dates of
cultivation differed morally among it, in their
influence on qualities of the studied samples
which were morally superior and positive in
their qualities of total tubers/leaf, total sum of
t/ha, TSS dissolved solids and the planting
dates showed no effect in the characteristics
of paper area cm2/plant, % of dry material for
vegetative sum and % of starch.
From Table 2, it can be inferred that
the overlaps between the fertilizer combinations
and planting dates had a positive effect on all
qualities.
Table 3 lists the achievements of
Table 1. Physical and chemical qualities of experimental soil before planting
Clay Green Sand Potassium (%) Ready Nitrogen Organic Electrical Degree of
(%) (%) (%) ammonium phosphorus (%) matter conductivity reactivity
acetate sodium (%) (dS/m) of soil pH
method bicarbonate method
24 54 22 1.07 0.13 0.33 1.4 2.2 7.7
650 Mijweil and Abboud
fertilizer combinations (full recommeded
fertilizer+nano-fertilizer) in the third planting
date i. e. T3F5 with highest paper area of 9996
cm2/plant. It was morally superior to most of
the combinations of fertilizer. From the given
three dates, the combination fertilizer (full
recommendation fertilizer+nanofertilizer in the
second planting date T2F5) provided highest dry
matter vegetative content i. e. 14.80% and was
morally superior to most of the combinations
of fertilizers. From the given three days, the
combination fertilizer (full recommendation
fertilizer+nano-fertilizer for third planting T3F5)
yielded the highest rate for the number of total
tubers i. e. 6.667 plants/tuber and excelled
positively on all fertilizer combinations. In the
experimented three dates, the treatment
fertilizer (full recommendation fertilizer
individual given for first planting T1F1) yielded
the highest rate of tuber weight (191.3 g) and
was morally superior to all combinations of
fertilizers and three appointments. The fertilizer
combinations (full recommendation fertilizer+
nano-fertilizer) were recorded in the third
planting date T3F5 and it was understood that
the highest yield amounted to 45.55 t/ha and
was morally superior to most of the
combinations of fertilizer. From the given three
dates, the combination fertilizer (full
recommendation fertilizer+fertilizer nano-
particles) for the second planting date T2F5
achieved high amount of starch i. e. 14.589%
and was morally superior to most of the
fertilizer combinations. In the three given dates,
the treatment fertilizer (individual nano-
fertilizers) provided to third planting T3F6
produced highest rate of dissolved solids TSS
and amounted to 7.773 which was morally
Table 3. Interaction effects between fertilizer combinations and planting schedules on potato
Planting Fertilizer Leaf Dry matter of No. of Weight/tuber Total tuber Starch SS
date combination area vegetative part tubers (g) yield (%)
(%) (t/ha)
T1F16471cd 12.70bcd 4.167i 191.3a 30.61h 11.187I 7.217abc
F27254cd 12.16cd 4.767h 167.8bcde 30.50h 12.581defgh 7.220abc
F37863cd 12.45cd d 5.500 bc 174.5 33.00efg 12.869bcde 7.663ab
F48982abc 13.27abc 5.200ef 182.5ab 34.55efg 12.480defgh 7.220abc
F59810a 12.76bcd 5.967bc 152.8ef 39.11cd 13.836ab 7.550ab
F66850cd 13.18abc 4.667h 157.9cdef 32.77fgh 11.753fghi 7.110abc
T2F16715cd 10.21ef 4.700h 167.3bcde 31.94gh 11.557hi 6.997ac
F2 6728cd 12.24cd 5.067fg 165.7bcdef 34.01Efg 12.527defgh 7.220abc
F36794cd 12.66bcd 5.400de 164.5cdef 36.44de 12.673cdefg 7.220abc
F48402bcd 14.36ab 5.833c 154.9def 40.67bc 13.103bcd 6.997ac
F59490ab 14.80a 6.167b 149.6f ab 43.11 14.589a 6.773c
F67217cd 9.85f 4.667h 156.8def 34.44efg 11.637ghi 7.663ab
T3F16178d 12.31cd 4.600h 157.9cdef 32.66fgh 11.314i 7.550ab
F26995cd 12.08cd 5.167ef 172.4bcd 35.00efg 12.207defghi 7.553ab
F38462bcd 11.63cde 5.967bc 166.5bcdef 41.33bc 12.771bcdef 7.663ab
F46594cd 11.68cde 6.200b 169.2bcde 41.33bc 12.972bcde 7.330abc
F59996a 11.89cde 6.667a 161.4cdef 45.55a 130681abc 7.330abc
F66945cd 10.99def 4.800gh 159.7cdef 35.50ef 11.982efghi 7.773a
Figures are expressed as means. Figures followed by the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P≤0.05.
Planting dates : T1 : 1st September, T2 : 10th September and T3 : 20th September.
Six fertilizer combinations (The chemical fertilizer was added according to the recommended amount of 600 kg/ha solo F1
with chemical fertilizer Quarter-recommended dosage+nano-fertilizer F2 of recommended half-dose chemical fertilizer+
nano-fertilizer F3 of three-quarter chemical fertilizer dosage of recommended quantity+nano-fertilizer F4, a complete
chemical fertilizer recommended dosage+nano-fertilizer F5 and individual nano-fertilizer F6).
Table 2. Effect of fertilizer combinations and planting schedules in studied qualities
Treatment Paper Dry matter Total number Weight of Total yield Starch TSS
area of vegetative of tubers tuber of tubers (% )
parts (%) (g) (t/ha)
Fertilizer combinations * * * * * * NS
Planting schedules NS NS * * * NS *
Overlap between them * * * * * * *
*Significant. NS : Not Significant.
Effect of nano-fertilizers and planting dates on potato 651
superior compared to most fertilizer
combinations and for the three studied
appointments. The averages, with same
character or characters within a single column
and interference coefficients, did not vary
morally according to Dunkin’s polynomial test
below 0.05 probability level.
When small and large fertilizers are
added to soil, it gets absorbed by the roots.
But when sprayed on leaves, it gets directly
absorbed by the leaves which increased the
efficiency of the total vegetative value. When
root absorbs, it transports the mineral
fertilizers which is very important in the
nutrition of plants and acceleration. In their
contribution to growth and increased
production, mineral fertilizers have diversified
in their sources and types. These nutrients act
in a lot of vital and physiological processes or
activate a lot of enzymes that perform
photosynthesis, increase metabolism and
stimulate the division of cells (Al-Taey et al.,
2018a). The elongation and installation of
cellular membranes are necessary for the
construction of plant tissues, whereas the
microelements contain essential and
stimulating substances for elongation and cell
division which in turn increase the qualities of
vegetative growth. Nano-fertilizer is
characterized by unique features i. e. with high
surface area and minuscule quantity, this leads
to an increased absorption, impact on solubility
and transportation of nutrients. Its impacts
upon plant growth are increased height,
number of leaves, paper space and consequent
increase. Generally, the improvement of plant
growth denotes the increased photosynthesis
as a result of its involvement in the formation
of chlorophyll since it is important in
photosynthesis and increase the effectiveness
of the role played by nitrogen and phosphorus
within the plant to carry out photosynthesis
and thus increase vegetative growth (Derosa
et al., 2010; Sekhon, 2014; Tanou et al., 2017).
These results are in line with those of Al-Taey
et al. (2018b) which they fond in elevation of
growth parameters of lettuce with addition of
chemical and organic fertilizers to plant, the
another reason for the increased paper space
and dry matter might be due to the role played
by micro and large elements in vital processes,
within the plant system. This increases the
efficiency of photosynthesis and the metabolic
processes within the cells. To be specific, this
increases the role of potassium in activating
many enzymes responsible for these processes,
which was positively reflected in increased cell
division and expansion, and increased paper
space. The role played by zinc is also influenced
since it is important in the development of
tryptophan amino acid, a basic element for
acetic acid (IAA) production and is also critical
in cell division, increased paper space,
improved plant vegetative growth, increased
paper area and increased dry matter of the total
vegetative content (Addiscott, 1974). The
current study results are consistent with those
of Mahajan et al. (2011) who predicted that the
increased number of total tubers might be
attributed to the integration of the equilibrium
of additive fertilizer. This would’ve allowed the
plant to improve vegetative growth from
increased paper space, a factor directly
proportional to the number of tubers in the
plant. This is also consistent with the study
results of Janmohammadi et al. (2016).
The reason behind superiority of
fertilizer combinations is that the tuber weight
rate got increased due to accumulation of
processed carbohydrates. In general, the tuber
weight rate or it got reduced with fertilizer
combination i. e. ‘fertilizer with nano-fertilizers
with more than tubers’, which may be
attributed to the distribution of carbohydrates
manufactured in the vegetative total to larger
number of storage centers (Struik et al., 1989).
Increased total number of tubers can be
attributed to the reason that the fertilizer
combinations are readily available at both root
as well as directly applied upon leaf surface.
This would’ve increased the photosynthesis, in
turn the production of carbohydrates, which
obviously increased the total yield. This is
consistent with Janmohammadi et al. (2016).
Increased starch content might be due to the
activity of vegetative total as a result of adding
large and minor nutrients either to soil or rasha
on the leaves. These nutrients play an
important role in activating the enzymes
involved in the process of carbon representation
and increasing the manufacturing of the
carbohydrates. Once manufactured, the
carbohydrates get stored in tubers which
increase the proportion of starch, directly
proportional to the increased dry matter
(Agrawal and Rathore, 2014).
The prevailing environmental
conditions are crucial elements in determining
652 Mijweil and Abboud
the type and decoupling of growth in
agricultural crops. These conditions directly
affect all the physiological processes occurring
in plants such as water and nutrients
absorption, respiration, photosynthesis, impact
on soil microorganisms, differed temperature,
length of light period due to early or delayed
planting date which leads to heterogeneity in
vegetative growth activity, giving long time for
plants from onset to physiological maturity and
the highest growth rate. These entire processes
result in strong vegetative group that performs
vital events so that the plants can convert
complex nutrients into simple substances such
as carbohydrates, fats and proteins and store
it in endorsperm or the falaqa which are moved
to growth points of the fetus axis. For the fetus
to represent (Neuhoff et al., 1998; Spink et al.,
2000), one may attribute different characters
such as increased total tubers, exposure of
plants to appropriate environmental conditions
such as temperature, intensity of light and
moisture. These characters provide sufficient
time for plants to build a strong vegetative sum
so that the plants can be distinguished by the
strength of vegetative growth. This reflected in
the production of larger number of total tubers
which was consistent with Allen (1977) study
results.
The above-date weight of the tuber might
be due to increased paper area and dry matter
of the vegetative total in this characteristic. This
got reflected in low number of total tubers. As a
result of the increased accumulation of
carbohydrates, there was an increase in tuber
weight rate as well. The ‘third planting date’ may
be higher than the total yield due to its
superiority in the total number of tubers that
are directly proportional to the increase in total
yield. This is in line with Arabi et al. (2011) study
results. The ‘third date’ has an increased
percentage of dissolved solids which may be due
to the fact that weather conditions, during the
crop growth season, particularly air,
temperature, relative humidity and length of
illumination, have significant effects on
abundant vegetative total, which increases the
efficiency of the photosynthesis. The
accumulation and increased dry matter denote
the increased total dissolved solids in tubers and
the fact that they represent both sugars, organic
acids, salts and minerals (Neuhoff et al., 1998;
Ferrise et al., 2010) which is in alignment with
Ismatullayev et al. (2014) discussed.
CONCLUSION
•Among the combination fertilizers, the
entire recommendation i. e. fertilizer+
nano-fertilizer yielded the best results
in most of the vegetative qualities,
quantity and quality of the tubers
compared to other fertilizer
combinations.
•The ‘third date’ exceeded 20 September
in terms of total yield, per cent of
dissolved solids and there were no
differences found among the dates of
planting recorded in the other qualities
studied.
•Most of the binary interference
coefficients showed a moral increase in
all studied qualities.
REFERENCES
Addiscott, T. M. (1974). Potassium and the
distribution of calcium and magnesium in
potato plants. J. Food Sci. 25 : 1173-83.
Agrawal, S. and Rathore, P. (2014). Nanotechnology
pros and cons to agriculture : A review. Int.
J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 3 : 43-55.
Allen, BY E. J. (1977). Effects of date of planting on
growth and yield of contrasting potato
varieties in Pembrokeshire. J. agric. Set.,
Camb. 89 : 711-35.
Al-Sabary, M. R. S. (2011). Organic production of
lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Euphrates J.
Agric. Sci. 3 : 17-23.
Al-Taey, D. K.A. (2018). The role of GA and organic
matter to reduce the salinity effect on
growth and leaves contents of elements and
antioxidant in pepper. Plant Archive 18 :
479-88.
Al-Taey, D. K. A., Al-Azawi., S. S. M., Al-Shareefi,
M. J. H. and Al-Tawaha, A. R. (2018a).
Effect of saline water, NPK and organic
fertilizers on soil properties and growth,
antioxidant enzymes in leaves and yield of
lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. Parris Island).
Res. Crops 19 : 441-49.
Al-Taey, D. K. A., Mijweil, A. K. and Al-Azawy, S. S.
(2018b). Study efficiency of poultry litter
and kinetin in reduced effects of saline
water in Vicia faba. Res. J. Pharm. and
Tech. 11 : 294-300.
Arabi, H. R., Afshari, H., Daliri, M. S., Laei, G. and
Toudar, S. R. (2011). The effect of planting
date, depth and density on yield and yield
components of potato in Shahrood (Iran).
J. Res. Agril. Sci. 7 : 141-49.
Derosa, M., Monreal, C., Schnitzer, C., Walsh, M.
R. and Sultan, Y. (2010). Nanotechnology
Effect of nano-fertilizers and planting dates on potato 653
in ferilizers. Nat. Nanotechnol. 5 : 91-93.
Ferrise, R., Triossi, A., Stratonovitch, P., Bindi, M.
and Martre, P. (2010). Sowing date and
nitrogen fertilization effects on dry matter
and nitrogen dynamics for durum wheat :
An experimental and simulation
study. Field Crops Res. 117 : 245-57.
Ismatullayev, L. S., Braun, E. E., Suleymenova, E.
S., Sarsengaliev, R. S. and Kushenbekova,
A. K. (2014). Planting time’ is an important
factor in increasing the yield and the quality
of early potatoes in Western Kazakhstan.
Biol. and Med. 6 : 11-14.
Janmohammadi, M., Pornour, N. and Javanmard,
A. N. S. (2016). Effects of bio-organic,
conventional and nano-fertilizers on
growth, yield and quality of potato in cold
steppe. Botanica Lithuanica 22 : 133-44.
Khot, L. R., Sankaran, S., Maja, J. M., Ehsani, R.
and Schuster, E. W. (2012). Applications
of nanomaterials in agricultural production
and crop protection : A review. Crop Prot.
35 : 64-70.
Krauss, A. and Marschner, H. (1976). Influence of
nitrogen nutrition and application of growth
regulation on tuber initiation and
application in potato plants. Z.
Pflanznernahrung und Bodenkunde 139 :
143-55.
Mahajan, P., Dhoke, S. and Khanna, A. (2011).
Effect of Nano-ZnO particle suspension on
growth of mung (Vigna radiata) and gram
(Cicer arietinum) seedling using plant agar
method. J. Nanotech. 1 : 1-7.
Mijwel, A. K., Bresim, T. H. and Abd-AlRedha, A. N.
(2015). Effect of organic fertilizer and spray
with humic acid on some soil characteristics
and yield of potato (Solanum tubersoum L.).
Euphrates J. Agric. Sci. 7 : 36-50.
Mousavi, S. R. and Rezaei, M. (2011). Nano-
technology in agriculture and food
production. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 1 :
414-19.
Neuhoff, D. D., Schulz, G. and Kopke, U. (1998).
Qualitat,von speisekartoffeln : Einfluss von
sortenwahl und Dungumg VDLUFAt.
Darmstadt. 49 : 134-46.
Sanchez-Barrios, A., Sahib, M. R. and DeBolt, S.
(2017). “I’ve got the magic in me” : The
microbiome of conventional vs organic
production systems. In : Plant-Microbe
Interactions in Agro-Ecological Perspectives.
Springer, Singapore. pp. 85-95.
Sekhon, B. S. (2014). Nanotechnology in agri-food
production : An overview. Nano-technol. Sci.
and Appl. 7 : 31-53.
Spink, J. H., Semere, T., Sparkes, D. L., Whaley, J.
M., Foulkes, M. J., Clare, R. W. and Scott,
R. K. (2000). Effect of sowing date on the
optimum plant density of winter
wheat. Ann. Appl. Biol. 137 : 179-88.
Struik, P. C., Gramer, G. and Smith, N. P. (1989).
Effect of soil application of gibberellic acid
on the yield and quality of tubers of potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). Potato Res. 32 :
203-09.
Tanou, G., Ziogas, V. and Molassiotis, A. (2017).
Foliar nutrition, biostimulants and prime-
like dynamics in fruit tree physiology–New
insights on an old topic. Frontiers in Plant
Sci. 8 : 1-9.
Winkler, E. (1971). Kartoffelbau in Tirol. II.
Photosynthesis vermogen und respiration
yon verschiedenen kartoffelsorten. Potato
Res. 14 : 1-18.
654 Mijweil and Abboud
