International Journal of Botany

and Research (IJBR)

ISSN(P): 2277-4815; ISSN(E): 2319-4456
Vol. 4, Issue 6, Dec 2014, 7-16
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

GROWTH RESPONSEOF CORN (ZEA MAIZE L.) TOPROLINE AND GIBBERELLIC

ACID SPRAY UNDERDIFFERENT IRRIGATION LEVELS
MUSTAFA. R. AL-SHAHEEN1, AWANG SOH2 & GHASSAN. F. AL-SAMARAI3
1

Department of Field Crop, College of Agriculture, University of Anbar, Anbar, Iraq

2

School of Bioprocess Engineering, University Malaysia Perlis, Perlis, Malaysia

3

Department of Biology, College of Education, Universty of Samarra, Iraq

ABSTRACT
The current study focuses on the use of plant growth regulators, namely, proline and gibberellic acid, with the
goal of finding ways to cope with water scarcity and understanding the physiological adaptations of corn plants to drought
using such growth regulators. A field study was conducted from March 2014 to June 2014 to investigate the influence of
different concentrations of proline (200 and 100 ppm) and gibberellic acid (100 and 50 ppm) on the reduced effect of water
stress on vegetative growth and grain yield of sweet corn (Zea maize L.) under different irrigation levels (25%, 50%,
and 75%). Compared with that in the untreated plants,a considerable improvement was observed in the growth and yield of
the corn plants sprayed with different concentrations of proline and gibberellic acid. Specifically, a clear increase was
noted on the leaf chlorophyll content, leaf area, grain yield per plant, and length of ears of the corn plants sprayed with
proline (200ppm) and gibberellic acid (100ppm) under water stress irrigations. Corn plants positively responded to the
spraying of proline and gibberellic acid and showed high drought tolerance. The corn plants were most tolerant of drought
when sprayed with 100 ppm proline and 2000 ppm gibberellic acid.The use of proline and gibberellic acidis an innovative
and promising way to reduce the impact of drought on plant growth and crop production.

KEYWORDS: Water Stress, Proline, Gibberellicacid, Corn Growth, Irrigation Level

INTROUCTION
Drought caused by climate change has significantly affected the field of agriculture in recent years, and its effects
become increasingly pronounced under changing climate conditions. Previous reports indicatedthat rising temperatures can
threaten global food security (Taheripour, Hertel et al. 2013).These changes in the environment have highlighted the
importance of water resources in the preservation of life. A heavy consumer of such resources is the agriculture sector,
such as that in the Arab region (Suleiman, Soler et al. 2013). The identification of water sources,which isan important
component of field crop management, helps minimize the effect of drought resulting fromrising temperatures caused by
global warmingand the low humidity in the air brought on by the depletion of freshwater resources.Water resources must
be appropriately allocated to the agriculture sector and not so much to other industries whose water consumption is
unjustified(Mestas-Valero, Miras-Avalos et al. 2012).
Existing studies aim to rationalize water use in agriculture under dry conditions by increasing the resistance of
plants to drought, advancing water resource management, and improving the efficiency of consumer crops through an
assessment of water use in proportion to the nature of plant growth (Joris, Caires et al. 2013). In agricultural production,
a good management technique is to control the amount of water to be used for irrigation andto reduce water consumption
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

Mustafa. R. Al-Shaheen, Awang Soh & Ghassan. F. Al-Samarai

based on the water capacity of soiland on the amount of water needed by plants to achieve the highest productivity.Recent
agricultural applications, such as the use of organic matterand the development of irrigation systems, aim to overcome the
physiological symptoms that occur on plants growing in harsh environments (Zedan, Ali et al. 2010).
Experts predict that by 2020, agricultural production in Asia will be severely affected by climate change and
drought,which is characterized by low water levelsas a result of the lack of monsoon rains; these phenomena will in turn
have devastating effects on food security (Katerji and Rana 2014). Hence,proper water management and usageis a top
priority in arid and semi-arid regions, particularly those in Asia. Corn (Zea maize)is an important crop and food grain in
many areas of the world; ranks third, following wheat and rice, in terms of cultivation area and production; and is grown
widely in North and South America, Europe, Russia, and in most regions of Asia, such as China, India, Pakistan,
and Iraq(Hamilton, King et al. 1983). The scenario described above has prompted the search for effective alternatives that
would help manage water sources and thus reduce the effects of drought on the growth and yield of corn. The current study
focuses on the use of plant growth regulators, namely, proline and gibberellic acid, with the goal offinding ways tocope
with water scarcity and understandingthe physiological adaptations of corn plants to drought using such growth regulators.

METHODOLOOGY
Site of the Studys
This study was conducted at the Agro technology Research Station, University Malaysia PerlisPadang Besar,
Perlis, Malaysia from March 2014 to July 2014.
Preparation of Soil for Planting
The field was plowed and divided in preparation for planting. The pilot unitsmeasured 2 m 2 m each and spaced
1 m apart. Each pilot unit and its replicate were spaced 1.5 m apart. Recommended quantities of NPK fertilizer wereadded
to the soilbefore planting. Soil sampleswere collected from the field before planting the corn seeds in different areas at a
depth of 30 cm. The samples were then analyzed using standard methods to determine their physical and chemical
properties.The corn seeds(seedling length of 10 cm) were planted in small bots using media culture (Patmos) for a weekand
then planted onthe field. The seedlingswere planted in rows (spaced 50cm apart)and between plots (spaced 25 cm
apart).Each plot with an area of 4 m was composed of six planting rows.
Experimental Field
Asplit-plot design based on a randomized complete block design with three replications was employed in this
study. The factors included irrigation in the main plot at three levels (25%, 50%, and 75%) as well as optimum irrigation
(no-stress irrigation). The sub-plot was sprayed with proline and gibberellic acid at three concentrations. Irrigation
treatments were stopped for 15 daysand then restarted with delay. The irrigation was then carried out at constant intervals.
Characters of the Study
Total Leaf Chlorophyll Content
Total chlorophyll content was estimated in the physiologically active leaves of five plants that were randomly
selected from the central rows of each plot using a chlorophyll meter (mg g 1 fresh weight).Three readings were collected
per leaf and average determent..

Impact Factor (JCC): 1.6913

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

Growth Response of Corn (Zea Maize L.)Toproline and Gibberellic Acid

Spray under Different Irrigation Levels

Leaf Area
For the measurement of leaf area (cm2), five plants were randomly selected from the central rows of each plot
using a leaf area meter (CI-202).
Grain Yield Per Plant (gram/plant).
The final harvest was conducted at the physiological maturity of the plants and at the black layer stage as
determined by grain moisture of approximately 14%.Corn yield components (grain yield) were measured by hand
harvesting five plants from thecentral rows of each plot to determine the average grain yield per plant.
Length of Ears
Ten plants were randomly selected from the central rows of each plot, and their ear length (cm) was measured
using a measuring tape.
Statistical Analysis
The experimental data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The significant differences
between mean values were determined using Duncans multiple rangetest (P 0.05). The ANOVA statistical analysis was
performed using SPSS version 19-2012 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA).

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

Leaf Chlorophyll Content (100 mg g1 Fresh Weight)
According Figure 1 shows the effect of sprayed proline and gibberellic acid on the chlorophyll content of corn
leaves under different water stress levels.Variations was observed in the concentrations of chlorophyll in the corn leaves.
At all levels of irrigation, the chlorophyll content of the corn leaves sprayed withproline at concentrationsof 100and 50
ppm significantly differedfrom that of the corn leaves without treatment (control) (Figure 1). At irrigation levels of 75%,
50%, and 25%, leaf chlorophyll content reached 94.7, 83.5, and 78.6, respectively, under a spray treatment of 100 ppm
proline and 83.5, 71.5, and 77.0, respectively, under a spray treatment of 50 ppm proline.Low chlorophyll content was
observed inthe control. The levels of chlorophyll observed in the current study werehigher than those in the studies of
(Iqbal and Ashraf 2013)and(Liopa-Tsakalidi and Barouchas 2011) in whichchlorophyll content reached 63.17 and 60.32,
respectively, under gibberellicacid treatment (200 ppm). Significant differences were observed in the chlorophyll content
of the leavessprayed with 200 ppm gibberellic acid and those sprayed with 100 and 0 ppm (control), with the chlorophyll
levelsof the former reaching 76.5, 77.8, and 80.3 at water stress levels of 75%, 50%, and 25%,respectively. Similarly,the
resulting chlorophyll levels of 73.2, 73.8, and 74.5 in the gibberellic acid treatment at 100ppmstatistically exceeded those
in the control treatment under water stress levels of 75%, 50%, and 25%, respectively.
The chlorophyll content of the untreated plants evidently decreasedand was lower than that of the treated plants.
The results showed that the amount of chlorophyll in the leaves decreased at low amounts of irrigation water, resulting in
poor leaf growthand in a decline in the average division and elongation of the cells. Photosynthesis is reduced with an
increase in the water potential of plant leaves. This condition hinders stomataopening, which in turn inhibits the production
of plant pigments, including chlorophyll, and reduces carbohydrate production(Stan and Neescu 1997).The current results
agree with the finding (Boaretto, Carvalho et al. 2014)that protein catabolism resulting from drought leads to the release of
ammonia, which causesplant aging and death.This result demonstrates the importance of proline and gibberellic acid in
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

10

Mustafa. R. Al-Shaheen, Awang Soh & Ghassan. F. Al-Samarai

increasing leaf chlorophyllconcentration, althoughunder water scarcity, these two regulators promote the oxidization of
free radicals, which causes lipidoxidation inthe cellular membrane. (Abuzar, Sadozai et al. 2011)and (Kaya, Tuna et al.
2006)reported that spraying gibberellic acid greatly stimulates the accumulation of nutrients,such as chlorophyll, in plants
and their cellular components.Gibberellic acid stimulatesphotosynthesis, which in turn increases the production of
chlorophyll.

Figure 1: Effect of Spray Proline and Gibberellic Acid at Different Concentrations (ppm) on
Total of Chlorophyll in Fresh Leave Under Different Irrigation Levels

Leaf Area
Figure 2 presented the effectsof spraying different concentrations of proline and gibberellic acid onthe leafarea.
Asignificant differencewas observed between the treatment and control groups. Under irrigation levels of 75%, 50%,
and 25%, the leaf area of the corn plantsreached4761.30, 4580.54, and 3598.96at a proline concentration of 200 ppm and
4008.3, 3872.75, and 3305.67 at a proline concentration of 100 ppm.Moreover, the increase in leaf area was more
pronounced in the treated plants than in the control.
Meanwhile, the leaf area of the plants sprayed with gibberellic acid at 100ppm reached 4761.30, 4580.54, and
3598.96 under irrigation levels of 75%, 50%, and 25%, respectively. Under the same irrigation levels, the leaf area of the
plants treated with 100 ppm gibberellic acid (4925.63, 4836.52, and 3612.2) significantly differed from those
leftuntreated.The total leaf area determined in this study exceeded 4000, which is higher than the leaf area of 3382.45 for
the plants sprayed with gibberellic acid in the work of(Neisiani, Sanavy et al. 2009)) and (Ali, Ghizan et al. 2014).
Previous resultsmay be attributable to the influence of gibberellic acid and proline on the division, elongation, and
development of cells,which reflect positive vegetative growth.(Mafakheri, Siosemardeh et al. 2010)explained that spraying
prolineresults in a high proportion of leaf area.This finding may infer that proline promotes plant resistance to drought,
maximizes water availability, and thus positively affects the leaf area per plant.Meanwhile, the interaction between
gibberellic acidand waxingleads to the elongation and division of cells, with gibberellic acid promoting cell elongation.
Gibberellic acid alsoserves as a catalyst for increased cell division and leaf area(Bose, Yadav et al. 2013).

Impact Factor (JCC): 1.6913

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

11

Growth Response of Corn (Zea Maize L.)Toproline and Gibberellic Acid

Spray under Different Irrigation Levels

Figure 2: Effect of Spray Proline and Gibberellic Acid at Different Concentrations

(ppm) on Leave Area (cm2) Under Different Irrigation Levels

Grain Yield Per Plant(Gram/Plant)

Results from Figure 3 shows the effect of sprayed proline and gibberellic acid on grain yield per plantin the corn
plants under different water stress levels. Significant differences were observed in the grain yields per plant of the crops
treated with 100 and 200 ppm of proline and those left untreated. Significant differences were also noted in terms of
proline concentrations at different irrigation levels. For the plants sprayed with 200 ppm proline, the seed weights per plant
reached 123.7,120.1, and114.3gram/plant.For those sprayed with 100 ppm proline, the seed weights per plant
were118.4,114.8, and111.2gram/plant.Meanwhile, the untreated plants recorded a minimum seed weight per plant under all
irrigation levelsof 25%, 50%, and 75%.
Gibberellic acidtreatment at 100 ppm demonstrated a more positive impact on plant cells compared with the other
treatments. The seed weights per plantunder treatment with100 ppmgibberellic acid reached 140,137.8, and
123.2gram/plant.The plants werethen sprayed with 50ppm gibberellic acid,leading to seed weights per plant of
122.4,120.6, and 115gram/plant. The untreated plantsregistered low seed weight at all irrigation levels.The resulting grain
yields per plant under the proline and gibberellic acid treatments in the present study are higher than those found in
previous studies that recorded grain yields per plant of 120.6 and 119.34 gram/plant for the treatments with 30 and 50 ppm
gibberellic acid, respectively.
The effects of sprayingproline and gibberellic acid, as found in this study, may be attributable to soil moisture that
affects all biological processes in plants, including the process of configuring seeds; a lack of moisture and water in the
soilnegatively affects the process of nutrient accumulationin the seeds(Hossain, Rahman et al. 2010).
Proline was found to have a clear impact on seed weight per corn plant. A previous report (Amini and Ehsanpour
2005)statedthatproline has a role in nitrogen storage and nutrient conversion from the roots to the seeds.Gibberellic acid
was also reported to have a significant effect on the proportion of flowering and pollination in corn plants. This result
agrees with the finding (Bose, Yadav et al. 2013)thatgibberellic acid promotes cell division and helps in transporting
nutrients from the roots.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

12

Mustafa. R. Al-Shaheen, Awang Soh & Ghassan. F. Al-Samarai

Figure 3: Effect of Spray Proline and Gibberellicf Acid at Different Concentrations

(ppm) on Grain Yield Per Plantunder Different Irrigation Levels

Length of Ears (cm)

Figure 4 presents the effect of proline and gibberellic acid interference on length of ears under given irrigation
levels. The maximum lengths of ears of the plants sprayed with 200 ppm proline (17.25, 16.8, and 15.1 cm) were
significantly different from those that received other treatments. Similarly, the maximum lengths of ears of the plants
sprayed with 100 ppm proline (15.12, 14.8, and 12.6 cm) significantly differed from those of the untreated plants under all
irrigation levels (25%, 50%, and 75%).
Gibberellic acid also showed a clear effect on the length of ears. The highest lengths of ears (20.2, 19.5, and 17.4
cm) were achieved at a maximum gibberellic acid concentration of 100 ppm under irrigation levels of 25%, 50%, and 75%.
The spray treatment with 50 ppm gibberellic acid also increased the lengths of ears to 18.8, 17.3, and 16.8 cm. The control
group achieved the lowest length of ears.
The study of (Alexopoulos, Aivalakis et al. 2008) and (Hooykaas, Hall et al. 1999) highlighted the significant
impact of gibberellic acid (ppm) on the length of ears. However, the values obtained in these studies are lower than those
obtained in the current work (14.55 cm to 18.3 cm). The results of the current study support the findings of
(lvarez-Armenta, Saucedo-Veloz et al. 2010)and (Aaij, Beteta et al. 2013) who emphasized that sprayed proline increases
the proportion of pollination in plants and therefore leads to increased production. Additionally, (Ben Ahmed, Ben Rouina
et al. 2010) reported that proline increases the amount of nutritional elements for fruits and thus positively contributes to
the length of ears. (Kaya, Oku et al. 2006) explained that gibberellic acid has a distinguished influence on all plant
activities, especially in terms of the stimulation of the roots upon transfer of nutritional elements and during plant
production.

Impact Factor (JCC): 1.6913

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

13

Growth Response of Corn (Zea Maize L.)Toproline and Gibberellic Acid

Spray under Different Irrigation Levels

Figure 4: Effect of Spray Proline and Gibberellic Acid at Different Concentrations

(ppm) on Length of Ears (cm) Under Different Irrigation Levels

CONCLUSIONS
Corn plants positively responded to the spraying of proline and gibberellic acid and

showed high drought

tolerance. The corn plants were most tolerant of drought when sprayed with 100 ppm proline and 2000 ppm gibberellic
acid. The use of proline and gibberellic acid is an innovative and promising way to reduce the impact of drought on plant
growth and crop production.

REFERENCES
1.

Aaij, R, C. A. Beteta, B. Adeva, M. Adinolfi, C. Adrover, A. Affolder, Z. Ajaltouni, J. Albrecht, F. Alessio and
M. Alexander (2013). "Determination of the X (3872) meson quantum numbers." Physical review letters 110 (22):
222001.

2.

Abuzar, M, G. Sadozai, M. Baloch, A. Baloch, I. Shah, T. Javaid and N. Hussain (2011). "Effect of plant
population densities on yield of maize." J. Anim. Plant Sci21(4).

3.

Alexopoulos, A. A, G. Aivalakis, K. A. Akoumianakis and H. C. Passam (2008). "Effect of gibberellic acid on the
duration of dormancy of potato tubers produced by plants derived from true potato seed." Postharvest biology and
technology49(3): 424-430.

4.

Ali, A. B. P, B. S. Ghizan and B. A. R. Anuar (2014). "Germination at low osmotic potential as a selection criteria
for drought stress tolerance in sweet corn." African Journal of Biotechnology13(2): 294-300.

5.

lvarez-Armenta, R, C. Saucedo-Veloz, S. Chvez-Franco, V. Medina-Urrutia, M. T. Colinas-Len and R. BezSaudo (2010). "Aplicacin de cido giberlico en precosecha y cera en poscosecha a frutos de limn mexicano."
Revista mexicana de ciencias agrcolas1(1): 95-100.

6.

Amini, F. and A. A. Ehsanpour (2005). "Soluble proteins, proline, carbohydrates and Na+/K+ changes in two
tomato (Lycoersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars under in vitro salt stress." American Journal of Biochemistry and
Biotechnology1: 204-208.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

14

Mustafa. R. Al-Shaheen, Awang Soh & Ghassan. F. Al-Samarai

7.

Ben Ahmed, C, B. Ben Rouina, S. Sensoy, M. Boukhriss and F. Ben Abdullah (2010). "Exogenous proline effects
on photosynthetic performance and antioxidant defense system of young olive tree." Journal of agricultural and
food chemistry58(7): 4216-4222.

8.

Boaretto, L. F, G. Carvalho, L. Borgo, S. Creste, M. G. Landell, P. Mazzafera and R. A. Azevedo (2014). "Water
stress reveals differential antioxidant responses of tolerant and non-tolerant sugarcane genotypes."
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry74: 165-175.

9.

Bose, S. K, R. K. Yadav, S. Mishra, R. S. Sangwan, A. Singh, B. Mishra, A. Srivastava and N. S. Sangwan

(2013). "Effect of gibberellic acid and calliterpenone on plant growth attributes, trichomes, essential oil
biosynthesis and pathway gene expression in differential manner in< i> Mentha arvensis</i> L." Plant Physiology
and Biochemistry66: 150-158.

10. Hamilton, L. S, P. N. King and E.-W. Center (1983). Tropical forested watersheds: hydrologic and soils response
to major uses or conversions, Westview Press Boulder.
11. Hooykaas, P. J, M. A. Hall and K. R. Libbenga (1999). Biochemistry and molecular biology of plant hormones,
Elsevier.
12. Hossain, B, M. W. Rahman, M. Rahman, A. Anwar and A. Hossen (2010). "Effects of water stress on yield
attributes and yield of different mungbean genotypes." International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production5(1):
19-24.
13. Iqbal, M. and M. Ashraf (2013). "Gibberellic acid mediated induction of salt tolerance in wheat plants: Growth,
ionic partitioning, photosynthesis, yield and hormonal homeostasis." Environmental and Experimental Botany86:
76-85.
14. Joris, H. A. W, E. F. Caires, A. R. Bini, D. A. Scharr and A. Haliski (2013). "Effects of soil acidity and water
stress on corn and soybean performance under a no-till system." Plant and soil365(1-2): 409-424.
15. Katerji, N. and G. Rana (2014). "FAO-56 methodology for determining water requirement of irrigated crops:
critical examination of the concepts, alternative proposals and validation in Mediterranean region." Theoretical
and Applied Climatology116(3-4): 515-536.
16. Kaya, C, A. L. Tuna and A. A. Alfredo (2006). "Gibberellic acid improves water deficit tolerance in maize
plants." Acta physiologiae plantarum28(4): 331-337.
17. Kaya, M. D, G. Oku, M. Atak, Y. kl and . Kolsarc (2006). "Seed treatments to overcome salt and drought
stress during germination in sunflower (< i> Helianthus annuus</i> L.)." European Journal of Agronomy24(4):
291-295.
18. Liopa-Tsakalidi, A. and P. Barouchas (2011). "Salinity, chitin and GA3 effects on seed germination of chervil
('Anthriscus cerefolium')." Australian Journal of Crop Science5(8): 973.
19. Mafakheri, A, A. Siosemardeh, B. Bahramnejad, P. Struik and Y. Sohrabi (2010). "Effect of drought stress on
yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars."

Impact Factor (JCC): 1.6913

Index Copernicus Value (ICV): 3.0

15

Growth Response of Corn (Zea Maize L.)Toproline and Gibberellic Acid

Spray under Different Irrigation Levels

20. Mestas-Valero, R. M, J. M. Miras-Avalos and E. Vidal-Vzquez (2012). "Estimation of the daily water
consumption by maize under Atlantic climatic conditions (A Corua, NW Spain) using Frequency Domain
Reflectometrya case study." Natural Hazards and Earth System Science12(3): 709-714.
21. Neisiani, F. F, S. A. M. M. Sanavy, F. Ghanati and A. Dolatabadian (2009). "Effect of foliar application of
pyridoxine on antioxidant enzyme activity, proline accumulation and lipid peroxidation of maize (Zea mays L.)
under water deficit." Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca37(1): 116-121.
22. Stan, I. and V. Neescu (1997). "Maize response to water deficit." Romanian Agricultural Research7: 8.
23. Suleiman, A. A, C. M. T. Soler and G. Hoogenboom (2013). "Determining FAO-56 crop coefficients for peanut
under different water stress levels." Irrigation Science31(2): 169-178.
24. Taheripour, F, T. W. Hertel and J. Liu (2013). "The role of irrigation in determining the global land use impacts of
biofuels." Energy, Sustainability and Society3(1): 1-18.
25. Zedan, G, O. Ali and Z. Salih (2010). "Effect of organic fertilizer and intercropping for cowpea (Vigna sinensis)
and sweet corn (Zea mays var. regosa) in growth, yield and land Equivalent Ratio (LER)." Diyala Agricultural
Sciences Journal2(1): Ar138-Ar151.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org