The Effect of Chelated Iron and Humic Acid on Agronomic and physiological Traits of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Cultivars under Rainfed Conditions

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Aydin Tobeh ¹
• Salim Farzaneh ²
• Ahmad Tobeh ²
• Saber Seif amiri ³

¹ Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran.

² Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

³ Ardabil Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center. ardabil. iran

10.22067/agry.2025.90796.1219

Abstract

Introduction
Safflower, scientifically known as Carthamus tinctorius L., is an annual plant belonging to the Asteraceae family. Today, with the development of high-yield varieties that produce substantial quantities of high-quality oil, safflower is recognized as one of the world's important oilseed crops. Given its strong resistance to salinity and ability to grow under rain-fed conditions, it is considered a drought-tolerant plant—an attribute that significantly enhances its value. Additionally, humic acid, as an organic compound, poses minimal harm to the environment. Additionally, through its hormone-like activity, it has many positive effects on various traits, including performance characteristics. The presence of micronutrients, especially Fe, enhances the plant's resistance to various biotic and abiotic stresses.
 
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted at the Ardabil Agricultural Research Center to evaluate the effect of two types of fertilizers (iron fertilizer and humic acid) on the yield and phenological traits of two safflower cultivars. This experiment was conducted as a split-plot design based on a completely randomized block design with three replications. The main factor included two safflower varieties named "Chini" and "Goldasht," while the sub-factor consisted of nine fertilizer levels. These fertilizer levels included one control level, two levels of 95% humic acid (two milligrams per liter and four milligrams per liter), two levels of 12% EDTA chelated iron (one milligram per liter and two milligrams per liter), and four combined levels of iron and humic acid fertilizers.
 
Results and Discussion
The results revealed a significant difference in performance traits between the two varieties, Chini and Goldasht. Observations showed that the Goldasht variety produced a significantly higher seed yield of 1,462.5 kg per hectare, compared to 1,403.3 kg per hectare for the Chini variety. Additionally, the second level of iron + second level of humic acid treatment showed significantly the highest yield, resulting in a 49% increase in seed yield compared to the control. Overall, the combined use of these two fertilizers is recommended. The Goldasht variety requires a shorter time for flowering and maturity compared to the Chini variety and matures earlier while also having a higher yield, making it preferable in this regard. For the traits of plant height and antioxidant activity, there is no significant difference among the cultivars. However, among the fertilizer levels, the second level of humic acid resulted in a height of 68.3 cm, and for antioxidant activity, the combination of the second level of humic acid and the second level of iron exhibited the highest activity at 84.5%. Overall, among the cultivars, 'Goldasht' and among the fertilizer levels, the treatment combining the second levels of iron and humic acid had the highest biological yield, the highest harvest index, oilseed yield, and seed yield.  Humic acid, due to its nitrogen-like effects and its richness in organic materials, leads to increased seed filling and higher thousand-grain weight. On the other hand, the application of iron helps to cleanse reactive oxygen species and improves the plant's sink performance, providing more seeds for filling.
 
Conclusion
The studies indicated that the Goldasht variety matures earlier and yields more than the Chini variety. Due to its longer growth period, the Chini variety is more susceptible to late-season challenges such as heat stress, pests, and bird damage, which can negatively affect yield. Therefore, the cultivation of the Goldasht variety is preferable in this context. In terms of physiological traits, the application of iron and humic acid fertilizers was found to enhance the stability and resilience of both varieties. The interaction between humic acid and iron proved beneficial for safflower health, promoting greater nutrient uptake, improved growth parameters, increased seed yield, and enhanced stress tolerance.

Keywords

• Antioxidant activity
• Chinese cultivar
• Goldasht cultivar
• Grain yield
• Micronutrients
• Oil yield

---

©2023 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

1. Arazmjoo, E., Behdani, M.A., Mahmoodi, S., & Sadeghzadeh, B. (2019). Biofortification of new and old bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars through foliar application of zinc and iron different forms. Journal of Agroecology, 11(2), 453-466. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v11i2.67935
2. Babaei, K., Seyed Sharifi, R., Pirzad, A., & Khalilzadeh, R. (2017). Effects of bio fertilizer and nano Zn-Fe oxide on physiological traits, antioxidant enzymes activity and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under salinity stress. Journal of Plant Interactions, 12(1), 381-389. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2017.1371798
3. Bagheri, H., Moghadam, L., Danai, E., & Abdossi, V. (2022). The effect of foliar spraying of nanochelates of iron, potassium, calcium and manganese on the amount of elements and enzyme activity of peppermint plant (Mentha piperita). Iranian Plant and Biotechnology, 17(1), 11-23. (In Persian with English abstract).
4. Celus, M., Salvia-Trujillo, L., Kyomugasho, C., Maes, I., Van Loey, A.M., Grauwet, T., & Hendrickx, M.E. (2018). Structurally modified pectin for targeted lipid antioxidant capacity in linseed/sunflower oil-in-water emulsions. Food Chemistry, 241, 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.08.056
5. Daur, I., & Bakhashwain, A.A. (2013). Effect of humic acid on growth and quality of maize fodder production. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 45(S1), 21-25.
6. Davaran Hagh, E., Mirshekari, B., Ardakani, M.R., Farahvash, F., & Rejali, F. (2016). Evaluating maize yield and the quality of response to vermicompost, in Thiobacillus and foliar application of Fe and Zn. Journal of Agroecology, 8(3), 359-372. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v8i3.35545
7. El-Desouky, H.S., Islam, K.R., Bergefurd, B., Gao, G., Harker, T., Abd-El-Dayem, H., Fakhry, H., El-Zeiny, H., & Zewail, R.M. (2021). Nano iron fertilization significantly increases tomato yield by increasing plants’ vegetable growth and photosynthetic efficiency. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 44(11), 1649–1663. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2021.1871749
8. Emongor, V.E., & Emongor, R.A. (2023). Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). In Neglected and Underutilized Crops. pp. 683-731. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90537-4.00024-7
9. Esmaili, A., & Tadayon, M.R. (2019). Influence of drought stress and humic acid on growth, yield and sugar production of sugar beet. Journal of Agroecology, 11(1), 185-198. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v11i1.62811
10. Fanaei, H.R., Azmal, A., & Piri, I. (2017). Effect of biological and chemical fertilizers on oil, seed yield and some agronomic traits of safflower under different irrigation regimes. Journal of Agroecology, 8(4), 551-566. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v8i4.46602
11. FAO. (2023). FAOSTAT Crops Database: Safflower.
12. Fathi Amirkhiz, K., Amini Dehaghi, M., & Heshmati, S. (2015). Investigating the effect of iron chelate on chlorophyll content, quantum efficiency of photosystem II and some biochemical traits in safflower under low water conditions. Iranian Plant Sciences, 46(1), 137-145. (In Persian with English abstract).
13. García, A.C., Izquierdo, F.G., & Berbara, R.L.L. (2014). Effects of humic materials on plant metabolism and agricultural productivity. In Emerging Technologies and Management of Crop Stress Tolerance Academic Press. pp. 449-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800876-8.00018-7
14. Ghassemi Golezani, K., Ardalan, N., Raei, Y., & Dalil, B. (2022). Improving some physiological and yield parameters of safflower by foliar sprays of Fe and Zn under drought stress. Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding, 12(1), 15-27. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22034/jppb.2022.14657
15. Gui, J.Y., Rao, S., Huang, X., Liu, X., Cheng, S., & Xu, F. (2022). Interaction between selenium and essential micronutrient elements in plants: A systematic review. Science of The Total Environment, 853, 158673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158673
16. Hajghani, M., Ghalavand, A., & Modarres Sanavy, S.A.M. (2017). Evaluation of yield, yield components and growth indices of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) in conventional and organic farming systems. Journal of Agroecology, 9(1), 15-30. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v9i1.31520
17. Heshmati, S., Akbari, G., Soltani, E., Amini Dehaghi, M., Fathi Amirkhiz, K., & Maleki, K. (2021). Study the antioxidant enzymes activity and biochemical responses of safflower as affected by foliar application of melatonin under drought condition. Journal of Crops Improvement, 23(4), 906-883. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2021.315815.2490
18. Jahan, M., Amiri, M.B., Saleh Ababdi, M., Naseri, N., & Abbasi, S. (2022). Application of multivariate statistical techniques for determining of affecting factors in water use efficiency of maize (Zea mays) under conditions of simultaneous application of nitrogen and ecofriendly inputs. Journal of Agroecology, 14(3), 509-529. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/agry.2021.67224.0
19. Kamaraki, H., & Galavi, M. (2012). Evaluation of foliar Fe, Zn and B micronutrients application on quantitative and qualitative traits of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Journal of Agroecology, 4(3), 201-206. (In Persian with English abstract).
20. Karimi, E., Tadayyon, A., & Tadayyon, M.R. (2016). The effect of humic acid on some yield characteristics and leaf proline content of safflower under different irrigation regimes. Journal of Crops Improvement, 18(3), 609-623. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2016.56624
21. Koutroubas, S. D., Antoniadis, V., Fotiadis, S., & Damalas, C.A. (2019). Yield and adaptation of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) genotypes under rainfed and irrigated conditions. Industrial Crops and Products, 132, 378–385.
22. Majidi, A., Khalilzadeh, G., & Rejali, F. (2021). The effect of humic acid and glycine betaine on grain yield and some agricultural traits of wheat (Triticum aestivum) in dry conditions. Agricultural Knowledge and Sustainable Production, 31(4), 235-253. (In Persian with English abstract).
23. Mir, Z., Dahmardeh, M., Khammari, I., & Piri, J. (2017). Determine the optimal levels of bio-fertilizers and foliar application of iron on yield and quality indices of roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa). Journal of Agroecology, 9(4), 1194-1207. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v9i4.56478
24. Mousavifar, B.E., & Behdani, M.A. (2018). Effect of deficit irrigation and plant density on growth and seed yield and some morphological traits of autumn safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L). Journal of Agroecology, 10(1), 107-119. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v10i1.53497
25. Naghavi, M.R., Piri, I., Khalili, M., & Tavassoli, A. (2021). Comparison of some drought tolerance indices in Iranian and foreign safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) cultivars. Journal of Arid Biome, 10(2), 175-191. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.29252/aridbiom.2021.16254.1840
26. Pasban Eslam, B., Sadeghi Bakhtevari, A.R., Jabbari, H., & Bybordi, A. (2021). Physiological and agronomic response of promise safflower genotypes to late season water deficit stress. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 52(1), 123-130. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2020.293812.654667
27. Rakesh, M., Singh, R., & Singh, E. (2021). Influence of nitrogen and foliar spray of iron on yield and economics of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). The Pharma Innovation Journal, 10(10), 495-497.
28. Rose, M.T., Patti, A.F., Little, K.R., Brown, A.L., Jackson, W.R., & Cavagnaro, T.R. (2014). A meta-analysis and review of plant-growth response to humic substances: Practical implications for agriculture. Advances in Agronomy, 124, 37-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800138-7.00002-4
29. Rout, G.R., & Sahoo, S. (2015). Role of iron in plant growth and metabolism. Reviews in Agricultural Science, 3, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.7831/ras.3.1
30. Safaee, M., Rahimi, A., Torabi, B., & Khoram, A. (2017). Effect of vermi-compost fertilizer application and foliar spraying of compost tea and acid humic on growth indices of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). Journal of Agroecology, 9(3), 805-820. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v9i3.51879
31. Şahin, C.B., & IŞler, N., (2022). Effects of foliar fertilizer applications on leaf area, chlorophyll and nutritional content at different growth stages of soybean Soyanın Farklı Gelişim Dönemlerinde Uygulanan Yaprak Gübresinin Yaprak Alanı, Klorofil ve Besin İçeriklerine Etkisi. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 19(4), 712-723. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.963971
32. Saydi, Z., Fateh, E., & Ayneband, A. (2017). Effect of different sources of nitrogen and organic fertilizers on yield and yield components of ajowan (Trachyspermum ammi). Journal of Agroecology, 9(1), 115-128. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v9i1.49334
33. Soleimani, R., Noorgholipour, F., & Moshiri, F. (2017). The effect of foliar spraying of zinc, iron and manganese on the yield and nutrient content of safflower seed (Carthamus tinctorius). Journal of Agricultural Sciences of Iran, 19(1), 1-12. (In Persian with English abstract).
34. Veysi, H., Heidari, G., & Sohrabi, Y. (2016). The effect of mycorrhizal fungi and humic acid on yield and yield components of sunflower. Journal of Agroecology, 8(4), 567-582. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v8i4.47568
35. Yaldiz, G., Yildirim, A.B., Arici, Y.K., & Camlica, M. (2016). Rendimiento, características del rendimiento, composición fitoquímico, actividad antioxidante y antibacteriana del Abutilon indicum cultivado con diferentes formas de aplicación de fertilizantes. Cienciae Investigación Agraria, 43(3), 464-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-16202016000300012
36. Zandi, N., Khalesro, S., Badakhshan, H., & Heidari, G. (2021). Effect of humic acid foliar application on the yield and morphological traits of some safflower cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 31(4), 35-48. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22034/saps.2021.44512.2636
37. Zareie, S., Golkar, P., & Mohammadi-Nejad, G. (2011). Effect of nitrogen and iron fertilizers on seed yield and yield components of safflower genotypes. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(16), 3924-3929. https://doi.org/10.5879/AJAR11.683