Correo Electrónico
DNINFOA - SIA
Bibliotecas
Convocatorias
Identidad U.N.
Published
Effect of sowing density on the agronomic performance of Quinoa Nariño cultivar and the transmissivity of photosynthetically active radiation in the high tropics of Colombia
Efecto de la densidad de siembra sobre el desempeño agronómico de Quinua cultivar Nariño y la transmisividad de la radiación fotosintéticamente activa en el trópico alto de Colombia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15446/rfnam.v74n2.90040Keywords:
Dry matter, Crop yield, Chenopodium quinoa, Phenology. (en)Biomasa, Rendimiento, Chenopodium quinoa, Fenología. (es)
Quinoa is a promissory crop in the Andean region, on average, grain yield was 1.62 t ha-1 with nearly 2,000 t in the year 2017. This study examined the response of quinoa to the radiation transmission, growth, and development of the crop in different stages, under three planting densities in order to determine the differential responses and identify which aspects are determinants in the planting and development process and crop yield. For the present experiment, quinoa was sowed in three different densities: D1 65,500, D2 83,333, and D3 156,250 plants per ha. This study measured the percentage of canopy PAR transmission, distribution of matter on root, stem, leaf, and panicle, leaf development in leaf area and leaf area index, yield components, weight of 1,000 grains, and harvest index. The results showed that sowing density had no impact on PAR transmission, lower sowing densities obtained the best dry weight of panicle at the end of the production cycle, better yields, and best grain weight. To conclude, the sowing density affects different yield components, while all of them allow the plant to generate the best response within the production cycle.
La quinua es un cultivo promisorio en la región Andina, en promedio, el rendimiento de grano fue de 1,62 t ha-1, con cerca de 2.000 t en el año 2017. El presente estudio evaluó la respuesta de la quinua a la transmisión de la radiación, el crecimiento y desarrollo del cultivo en diferentes etapas bajo tres densidades de siembra, con el fin de buscar respuestas diferenciales e identificar cuáles aspectos son determinantes en el desarrollo de la planta, así como, para el rendimiento del cultivo. Para responder al objetivo, la quinua fue sembrada en tres densidades: D1 65.500, D2 83.333 y D3 156.250 plantas por ha. Este estudio midió el porcentaje de transmisión PAR del dosel, distribución de materia en raíz, tallo, hoja y panícula, el área foliar e índice de área foliar, componentes de rendimiento, peso de 1.000 granos e índice de cosecha. Se encontró que la densidad de siembra no tuvo efecto en la transmisión de PAR, bajas densidades de siembra presentaron el mejor peso seco de la panícula en el ciclo de producción final, mejores rendimientos y el mejor peso del grano. Se concluyó que, la densidad de siembra afecta los diferentes componentes del rendimiento y la suma de ellos permite que la planta obtenga la mejor respuesta en el ciclo de producción.
References
Apaza V, Caceres G, and Pinedo R. 2013.Catálogo de variedades comerciales de quinua en el Perú. Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego (Perú) Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación.
Asher A, Galili S Whitney T and Rubinovich L. 2020. The potential of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) cultivation in Israel as a dual-purpose crop for grain production and livestock feed. Scientia Horticulturae 272: 109534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109534
Bazile D, Pulvento C, Verniau A, Al-Nusairi M S, Ba D, Breidy J, Hassan L, Mohammed M and Padulosi S. 2016. Worldwide evaluations of quinoa: preliminary results from Post International Year of Quinoa FAO projects in nine countries. Frontiers in Plant Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00850
Becker VI, Goessling JW, Duarte B, Caçador I, Liu F, Rosenqvist E and Jacobsen SE. 2017. Combined effects of soil salinity and high temperature on photosynthesis and growth of quinoa plants (Chenopodium quinoa). Functional Plant Biology 44(7): 665–678. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP16370
Bosco LC, Bergamaschi H and Marodin GAB. 2020. Solar radiation effects on growth, anatomy, and physiology of apple trees in a temperate climate of Brazil. International Journal of Biometeorology 64: 1969–1980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-020-01987-w
Delgado AI, Palacios JH and Betancourt C. 2009. Evaluación de 16 genotipos de quinua dulce (Chenopodium quinoaWilld) en el municipio de Iles, Nariño (Colombia). Agronomía Colombiana 27(2): 159–167, https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/agrocol/article/view/11125
De Santis G, Ronga D, Caradonia F, Ambrosio T D, Troisi J, Rascio A, Fragasso M, Pecchioni N, and Rinaldi M. 2018. Evaluation of two groups of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) accessions with different seed colours for adaptation to the Mediterranean environment. Crop and Pasture Science 69(12): 1264–1275. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP18143
Eisa SS, El-Samad E HA, Hussin SA, Ali EA, Ebrahim M, González JA and Abdel-Ati AA. 2018. Quinoa in Egypt - Plant density effects on seed yield and nutritional quality in marginal regions. Middle East Journal of Applied Sciences 8(2): 515–522. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/237184478
Erazzú LE, JA González, SE Buedo and FE Prado. 2016. Effects of sowing density on Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa), Incidence on morphological aspects and grain yield in Var. CICA growing in Amaicha del Valle, Tucumán, Argentina. Lilloa 53(1): 12-22. https://inta.gob.ar/sites/default/files/script-tmp-inta
Fghire R, Anaya F, Ali OI, Benlhabib O, Ragab R and Wahbi S. 2015. Physiological and photosynthetic response of quinoa to drought stress. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 75(2): 174–183. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392015000200006
Garrido M, Silva P, Silva H, Muñoz R, Baginsky C and Acevedo E. 2013. Evaluación del rendimiento de nueve genotipos de quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) bajo diferentes disponibilidades hídricas en ambiente mediterráneo. Idesia (Arica) 31(2): 69–76. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34292013000200010
Gesinski K. 2008. Evaluation of the development and yielding potential of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. under the climatic conditions of Europe. Part Two: Yielding potential of Chenopodium quinoa under different conditions. Acta Agrobotanica 61(1). https://doi.org/10.5586/aa.2008.025
Gomez-Pando L. 2015. Quinoa Breeding. Quinoa: Improvement and Sustainable Production. https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/9781118628041.ch6
Hunt R. 1978. Plant growth analysis, studies in biology No. 17. Edward Arnold, London.96, p.
Hussain MI, Al- Dakheel AJ and Reigosa MJ. 2018. Genotypic differences in agro-physiological, biochemical and isotopic responses to salinity stress in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plants: Prospects for salinity tolerance and yield stability. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 129: 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PLAPHY.2018.06.023
Idinoba ME, Idinoba PA, and Gbadegesin AS. 2002. Radiation interception and its efficiency for dry matter production in three crop species in the transitional humid zone of Nigeria. Agronomie 22(3): 273–281. https://www.agronomy-journal.org/articles/agro/abs/2002/03/04/04.html
Jacobsen SE, Jorgensen I and Stolen O. 1994. Cultivation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) under temperate climatic conditions in Denmark. The Journal of Agricultural Science 122(1): 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600065783
Jacobsen SE, Mujica A and Jensen CR 2003. The resistance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to adverse abiotic factors. Food Reviews International 19(1–2): 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-120018872
Jia Q, Sun L, Mou H, Ali S, Liu D, Zhang Y, Zhang P, Ren X and Jia Z. 2018. Effects of planting patterns and sowing densities on grain-filling, radiation use efficiency and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in semi-arid regions. Agricultural Water Management 201: 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.11.025
Lambers H, Chapin S and Pons T. 2008. Chapter 4: Leaf energy budgets: Effects of radiation and temperature, In: Plant Physiological Ecology. Second edition. Springer Science&Business Media, New York. pp. 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-78341-3_4
Liu T, Song F, Liu S and Zhu X. 2012. Light interception and radiation use efficiency response to narrow-wide row planting patterns in maize. Australian Journal of Crop Science 6(3): 506–513.
Liu X, Rahman T, Yang F, Song C, Yong T, Liu J, … and Yang W. 2017. PAR interception and utilization in different maize and soybean intercropping patterns. PLOS ONE 12(1): e0169218. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169218
Monteith JL and Moss CJ. 1977. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 281(980): 277–294. https://doi.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1977.0140
Moradi AB, Carminati A, Vetterlein D, Vontobel P, Lehmann E, Weller U, … and Oswald SE. 2011. Three-dimensional visualization and quantification of water content in the rhizosphere. New Phytologist 192(3): 653–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03826.x
Pando G L, Yarango D, Ibañez M, Aguilar E and Deza P. 2017. Development of advanced mutant lines of native grains through radiation-induced mutagenesis in Peru. Horticulture International Journal 1(3): 15–19. https://doi.org/10.15406/hij.2017.01.00015
Razzaghi F, Ahmadi SH, Jacobsen SE, Jensen CR and Andersen MN. 2012. Effects of salinity and soil-drying on radiation use efficiency, water productivity and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 198(3): 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00496.x
Ruiz RA and Bertero HD. 2008. Light interception and radiation use efficiency in temperate quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) cultivars. European Journal of Agronomy 29(2–3): 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2008.05.003
Spehar CR and Rocha JE. 2009. Effect of sowing density on plant growth and development of quinoa , genotype 4.5, in the Brazilian Savannah Highlands. Bioscience Journal (Uberlândia) 25(4): 53–58. http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/6952
Tapia M. 2000. Agronomía de los cultivos andinos. Granos andinos: quinua (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). In: Cultivos andinos subexplotados y su aporte a la alimentación (Second). Santiago de Chile: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Tapia M, Alandia S and Cardozo A. 1979. Quinua y canihua. Cultivos Andinos. Serie Libros y Materiales Educativos, 49.
Tarek E, Sadak MS and Dawood MG. 2017. Improving drought tolerance of quinoa plant by foliar treatment of trehalose. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal Special issue 2017: 245–254. https://cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/4539
Veloza C, Romero G and Gómez JJ. 2016. Morphoagronomic response and protein quality of three accessions of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) in the northern sabana of Bogotá. Revista UDCA Actualidad and Divulgación Científica 19(2): 325–332. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0123-42262016000200009
Zurita-Silva A, Fuentes F, Zamora P, Jacobsen SE and Schwember AR. 2014. Breeding quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): Potential and perspectives. Molecular Breeding 34(1): 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-014-0023-5
How to Cite
APA
ACM
ACS
ABNT
Chicago
Harvard
IEEE
MLA
Turabian
Vancouver
Download Citation
CrossRef Cited-by
1. J. A. González, M. I. Mercado, L. Martinez-Calsina, L. E. Erazzú, S. E. Buedo, D. A. González, G. I. Ponessa. (2022). Plant density effects on quinoa yield, leaf anatomy, ultrastructure and gas exchange. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 160(5), p.349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859622000533.
2. Nawal Taaime, Sifeddine Rafik, Khalil El Mejahed, Abdallah Oukarroum, Redouane Choukr-Allah, Rachid Bouabid, Mohamed El Gharous. (2023). Worldwide development of agronomic management practices for quinoa cultivation: a systematic review. Frontiers in Agronomy, 5 https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2023.1215441.
Dimensions
PlumX
Article abstract page views
Downloads
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Ivan Cruz Díaz, Hans N Chaparro, Linda I Díaz, Gladys Alejandra Romero Guerrero
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The journal allows the author(s) to maintain the exploitation rights (copyright) of their articles without restrictions. The author(s) accept the distribution of their articles on the web and in paper support (25 copies per issue) under open access at local, regional, and international levels. The full paper will be included and disseminated through the Portal of Journals and Institutional Repository of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, and in all the specialized databases that the journal considers pertinent for its indexation, to provide visibility and positioning to the article. All articles must comply with Colombian and international legislation, related to copyright.
Author Commitments
The author(s) undertake to assign the rights of printing and reprinting of the material published to the journal Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín. Any quotation of the articles published in the journal should be made given the respective credits to the journal and its content. In case content duplication of the journal or its partial or total publication in another language, there must be written permission of the Director.
Content Responsibility
The Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and the journal are not necessarily responsible or in solidarity with the concepts issued in the published articles, whose responsibility will be entirely the author or the authors.
