Journal of Agronomy and Research
ISSN: 2639-3166
Current Issue
Volume No: 1 Issue No: 4
share this page

Research Article | Open Access
  • Available online freely | Peer Reviewed
  • Effect of Saline Irrigation on Agro-Physiological and Biochemical of Some Quinoa Cultivars Under Field Conditions

    Moatz A. Mohamed 1     M.H. Mubarak 1     Salah.A. Okasha 2      

    1Plant Prod. Dept., Fac. of Envi. Agricultural Sci., Arish Univ., North Sinai, Egypt.

    2Agronomy. Dept, Fac. of Agri., Suez Canal Univ., Ismailia, Egypt.

    Abstract

    In regions where irrigation water supplies are limited, drainage or water with salinity can be used to supplement them. Field experiments were carried out during the quinoa growing season of 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 at North Sinai in order to evaluate six quinoa genotypes (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under saline irrigation (5400 ppm) on growth, yield, its component, seeds chemical composition under field conditions. For plot 50% heading and maturity, the most earliness averages were 47.25 and 92.50 day, respectively for genotype Q-Q37-1, while the least earliness averages were 55.75 and 96.25 for genotypes KVLSRA 2 and KVLSRA 1, respectively. The highest averages was recorded for number of panicles/plant, plant fresh weight, plant yield weight, harvest index, 1000 seeds weight index and yield / fed-1 (ton) were 12.27, 82.32 gm, 17.83 gm, 28.89 %, 2.97 gm and 1.84 ton fed-1 ) for genotypes Q-Q37-1, Q-Q37-1, Q-Q37-1, Q-Q37-1, Q52 and Q-Q37-1, respectively. While, the lowest values were recorded for genotypes KVLSRA1, KVLSRA1, KVLSRA1, Regeolona, KVLSRA1 and KVLSRA1 with averages 8.72, 23.73gm, 5.52 gm, 22.76 %, 2.43 gm and 1.23 ton fed-1, respectively. For protein and carbohydrates total content, values ranged from 14.75 to 10.59 and from 58.13 to 54.64 % for genotypes Q52 and Regeolona, respectively. While in moisture content, values ranged from 11.66 to 10.83 for genotypes KVLSR1 and Q-Q37-1 , respectively. Also, fats content ranged from 10.44 to 7.14 % for genotypes Q52 and Regeolona, respectively. While values of saponin ranged from 0.56 to 0.37% for genotypes KVLSR1 and Regeolona, respectively.

    Received 07 Feb 2019; Accepted 27 Feb 2019; Published 07 Mar 2019;

    Academic Editor:Abubaker Haroun Mohamed Adam, Department of Crop Science (Agronomy), College of Agriculture, Bahri University- Alkadaru- Khartoum -Sudan.

    Checked for plagiarism: Yes

    Review by: Single-blind

    Copyright©  2019 Moatz A. Mohamed, et al.

    License
    Creative Commons License    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

    Competing interests

    The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

    Citation:

    Moatz A. Mohamed, M.H. Mubarak, Salah.A. Okasha (2019) Effect of Saline Irrigation on Agro-Physiological and Biochemical of Some Quinoa Cultivars Under Field Conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Research - 1(4):1-9.
    Download as RIS, BibTeX, Text (Include abstract )
    DOI10.14302/issn.2639-3166.jar-19-2237

    Introduction

    Salinity is considered as main major problem in agriculture, particularly because saline soils are found primarily in arid regions where draught, extreme temperatures, and nutrient deficiency go hand in hand, and where scarce precipitation and high evaporation hinder a leaching out of the salts that accumulate in the upper soil layers. It is estimated that between 340 and as much as 950 billion squares kilometers, equivalent to about 20% of the arid and semiarid soils of the world, or 6% of the world land area, are saline. There is an increase in salinization due to irrigation, which is estimated to affect 50% of irrigated land 1,2. There are only few crops can be grown under marginal and extreme saline, dry and cold areas; quinoa is one of them 3.

    Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is a member of the Goosefoot Family (Chenopodiaceae), which includes such plants as sugar beets, Swiss chard (beta sp.), spinach (Spinaciaoleraceae) and Lamb’s quarters (Chenpodium album). The later has been a nuisance weed to farmers in many regions of the United States.

    Quinoa derived from the Spanish spelling of the Quechua name kinwa or occasionally "Qin-wah", a species of goosefoot (Chenopodium). Quinoa is a dicotyledonous, annual plant usually ranges in height from 60-120 cm, depending on the eco-type. The root system is extensive; it consists of many branches from a central tap root which may extend 30 cm in a field environment. The woody central stem is either branched or unbranched depending on the variety and may be green, red or purple. Leaves normally arranged alternately, the upper leaves are lanceolate while the lower leaves are more rhomboidal. The upper and lower surfaces of the leaves are covered with small glands.

    The panicles arise either from the top of the plant or from axils on the stem. The panicles have a central axis from which a secondary axis emerges either with flowers (amaranthiform), or bearing a tertiary axis carrying the flowers (glomeruliform). The green, hypogenous flowers have a simple perianth and are generally bisexual and self-fertilizing. The seeds are achenes about 2-3 mm in diameter and are found in a large array of pigments. From white to red, purple, and black, which are probably associated with “eco-type” and vary from region to region.

    Quinoa originated in the Andean region of Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and Peru, where it was successfully domesticated 3,000 to 4,000 years ago for human consumption, though archeological evidence shows a non-domesticated association with pastoral herding some 5,200 to 7,000 years ago.

    Quinoa seeds are utilized to make flour for biscuits and cakes, added directly into soups, eaten as breakfast- type cereal, the fresh leaves and tender shoots of the plant are eaten raw in salads, or cooked and eaten as a vegetable. The young sprouts can also be added to salads or eaten plain 4.

    It is seen to be as an alternative to cereals in human diet and animal feeds, cultivation and processing are thus necessary to exploit the potential of this crop on a wider geographic basis than hitherto 5.

    Also, It has been selected by FAO as one of the crops destined to offer food security in this century. The genetic variability of quinoas huge, with cultivars being adapted to growth from sea level to 4000 masl, from 40 degrees S to 2 degrees N, and from cold, highland climates to tropical conditions. It was described as a likely candidate crop for NASA's Controlled Ecological Life port System 6.

    In Europe, quinoa was suggested to be as a break crop between cereal crops and after potato crops. When grown in areas to which it is best adapted, it should be able to compete with cereals in both human diets and animal rations 7. So far, the results regarding quinoa as a drought resistant crop of high nutritive quality, which can be grown on poor, infertile soils, seem promising 8.

    It was suggested to be an important new crop for Pakistan agriculture, providing highly nutritive and versatile food products for the population and a new raw material for the industry. In particular, it could be cultivated in many of the marginal environments afflicted by drought or salinity stress, which currently suffer from very low productivity 9.

    Environmental extreme conditions of Southern America , Pakistan and Egypt deserts tend to participate similar features (both of them face draught and salinity problems side by side) , so that, quinoa could be suggested as an attractive alternative crop for the arid and semiarid regions, where water deficiency and salinity have been recognized as major agricultural problems 10. The principal aims of this study, i) Describe some selected Quinoa genotypes ii) Evaluate seedling germination and growth of the selected genotypes under invitro salinity and drought stress, iii) Evaluate growth, yield and its components and seeds chemical compositions for the selected genotypes under In vivo dominant stress, iv) Select the best genotypes under invitro stress and In vivo stress conditions of North Sinai region.

    Materials and Methods

    This study was carried out at the experimental farm of Environmental Agricultural Sciences Faculty, El- Arish, North Sinai, during 2015/2016 and 2016 /2017 seasons. The name and origin of the studied quinoa un branched- genotypes (Chenopodium quinoa W.) are shown in Table 1.

    Table 1. Name/ Cross and origin of the six quinoa -un branched - genotypes used.
    No. Name/ Cross Origin
    1 KVLSRA 1 Denmark
    2 KVLSRA 2 Denmark
    3 KVLSRA 3 Denmark
    4 Q-52 Chile
    5 Q-Q 37 Chile
    6 REGEOLONA Chile

    In Vivo Dominant Stress

    Two seasons field experiments were carried out at Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences’ Farm, during two seasons (2015/16 and 2016/17), to evaluate plant growth, yield, yield components and chemical composition of six quinoa genotypes.

    Description of in Vivo Dominant Stress

    The meteorological data of average temperature, relative humidity and rainfall during seasons are shown in Table 2, mean physical and chemical properties of the soil and analyzed irrigation water are shown in (Table 3).

    Table 2. Temperatures and humidity distribution during 2015/2016-2016-2017 seasons
    Month 2015/2016 season 2016/2017 season
    Max. Temp. (C°) Min. Temp. (C°) Humidity (%) Max. Temp. (C°) Min. Tempe. (C°) Humidity (%)
    October 30.3 20.0 77.9 30.3 16.9 68.2
    November 26.6 14.7 76.7 26.7 13.2 58.2
    December 21.1 8.2 78.1 20.9 9.0 56.8
    January 18.6 7.1 78.8 18.8 5.8 62.9
    February 22.6 8.8 81.4 18.68 6.50 73.14
    March 24.4 11.3 73.6 23.2 9.5 67.0
    April 28.7 13.7 69.3 25.5 12.1 63.1
    May 30.4 16.4 59.3 29.5 15.5 61.6

    Source: Central laboratory for agricultural climate, Agric. Res. Center, Giza, Egypt
    Table 3. Means of Physical and chemical properties of the soil sites and the analysis of irrigation water at the two used experimental sites.
    Soil depth cm  Organic matter (%)  PH. Particle size distribution % Irrigation water
    Sand Silt Clay PH EC ppm
    0-15 2.70 9.1 83.00 12 5 7.5 7.1 5400
    15-30 2.90 9.3 83.00 12 5

    Experimental Design

    The field experiment was conducted at the 3rd week of December by using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replicates. Each plot area was 12 m2consisted of 4 rows with 5 m length, and the spacing was 0.6m between rows, and both sides of row were cultivated and sowing rate was 3 gm per 5m equal about 75 plant m-2 (4.2 kg fed-1, feddan = 4200 m2) and a sowing depth of 2 cm.

    Organic and Calcium super phosphate (15.5% of P2O5). Fertilizers were applied fully prior to planting at the rate of 150 kg fed-1. Urea (46.5% N) was added at the rate of 150 kg fed-1 and was divided into 6 weekly portions which the first portion was after 7 days from planting. Potassium Sulphate (50% K2o) was added at the rate of 150 kg fed-1 and was divided into 4 semi monthly portions which the first portion was after 14 days from planting 11, 12 and Irrigation was applied every 3 days for 2h day-1 by GR drippers 4 L hr-1.

    Collected Data

    Earliness Parameters

    Five random plants per plot were labeled and the following phonological data were recorded at intervals of 5 day 13. Heading and maturity date 50% were computed as number of days from sowing until 50% of heading and maturity, respectively.

    Growth Parameters:

    At harvest time a random sample of ten guarded plants were taken from each plot to measure the following characters.

    Plant Height (cm)

    was measured for individual plants from the soil surface to stem apex of individual, and the mean was computed.

    Root Length (cm)

    was measured for individual plants from the soil surface to root apex of individuals, and the mean was computed.

    Stem Diameter (cm)

    was measured for the last node of main stem to the base of main stem spike.

    Number of Leaves/ Plant

    was measured as number of mature leaves per plant.

    Yield, its Components and Harvest Index

    At harvest time a random sample of ten guarded plants were taken from each plot to measure the following characters:

    Number of Panicles / Plant

    Plant Fresh Weight (gm)

    was measured as the total fresh weight of plant after manual threshed.

    Plant Yield Weight (gm)

    were determined as average weight of all seeds of the ten plants.

    Harvest Index HI (%)

    was calculated as the percentage of plant yield weight per plant fresh weight 14.

    1000 Seed Weight (Seed Index) (gm)

    were computed by weighting hundred grains, then multiplying by ten.

    Yield (Ton Fed-1)

    were computed by weighting plot seeds yield, then multiplying by 350.

    Statistic Analysis

    The experiments were grown in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replicates and data were statistically analyzed according to steel et al 15. Mean separations were exposed to statistical analysis were done by using a Computer program Costat software (version 6.311).

    Results and Discussions

    Effect of the Salinity Irrigation on the six Genotypes Earliness

    Data in Table 4 indicated that there were significant differences between the six studied genotypes at earliness at both seasons for plot 50% heading and maturity. The most earliness cultivars for 50% heading and 50 % maturity were recorded by Q-Q37-1 and Regeolona with average 47.25 , 92.50 and 47.50, 92.25 day and 36.33 , 79.33 and 37.33 , 79.66 day in both seasons, respectively, while the latest earliness averages were recorded by KVLSRA 1 and KVLSRA 2 genotypes, respectively.

    Table 4. means of earliness of the six quinoa genotypes under salinity irrigation in 2015/16-2016/17 seasons
    Genotypes Plot 50% heading (days) Plot 50% maturity (days)
      2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17
    KVLSRA 1 55.80 ±2.17b 45.66 ±2.60d 96.25±1.41ab 92.66 ±1.76d
    KVLSRA 2 55.50 ±2.28b 44.00 ±3.0c 94.50 ±0.50a 86.00 ±0.57b
    KVLSRA 3 48.00 ±0.40a 39.33 ±0.57b 92.75±0.85a 81.66 ±0.66b
    Q-52 50.75 ±0.25a 39.33 ±0.33b 92.75±0.47a 80.33 ±0.88b
    Q-Q 37-1 47.25 ±0.25a 36.33 ±0.33a 92.25±0.83a 79.33 ±0.33a
    Regeolona 47.50 ±0.25a 37.33 ±0.33b 92.50 ±0.28a 79.66 ±0.66b

    Effect of Salinity Irrigation on Growth

    Concerning to season 2015/16 the data in Table 5 indicated that significant differences between studied genotypes in growth parameters. The highest recorded averages for plant height, root length, stem diameter and leaves number were 86.45, 15.17, 1.63cm and 93.27, respectively for genotype Q-Q37-1, While the lowest values were recorded by KVLSRA 1 genotype with 62.72, 12.88, 0.95 and 65.92, respectively. For season 2016/17, the results indicated significant differences between studied genotypes in growth parameters. The highest recorded averages for plant height, root length, stem diameter and leaves number were 70.86, 9.93, 1.39 and 88.13, respectively for genotype Q-Q37-1. While the lowest recorded averages were 48.83, 7.22, 0.91 and 48.08, respectively for genotype KVLSRA 1.

    Table 5. means of growth of the six quinoa genotypes under salinity irrigation in 2015/16-2016/17 seasons
    Genotypes Plant height (cm) Root length (cm) Stem diameter (cm) No. of Leaves plant-1
    Season 2015/2016
    KVLSRA 1 62.72±1.24de 12.88±0.24b 0.95±0.10c 65.92±6.35c
    KVLSRA 2 68.42±1.49d 12.95±0.29b 1.02±0.11bc 72.17±.10bc
    KVLSRA 3 77.30±1.85b 15.1±0.50a 1.37±0.12ab 88.70±6.43b
    Q-52 83.32±0.54a 14.99±0.30a 1.57±0.07a 83.00±11.34bc
    Q-Q 37-1 86.45±2.94a 15.17±0.38a 1.63±0.11a 93.27±3.31a
    Regeolona 81.52±4.31a 13.51±0.67ab 1.33±0.10ab 87.60±1.53bc
    Season 2016/2017
    KVLSRA 1 48.83 c ±1.54 7.22 c±0.17 0.91 c ±0.13 48.08 c±0.08
    KVLSRA 2 53.16 c ±2.08 8.51 b±0.21 0.99 b 0.13 42.03 c±4.35
    KVLSRA 3 64.53 b 0.32 8.66 b±0.47 1.30 ab 0.08 60.02bc ±1.39
    Q-52 68.73 a ±1.92 9.04 ab ±0.11 1.38 a 0.07 80.71bc ±6.89
    Q-Q 37-1 70.86 a ±2.62 9.93 a±0.23 1.39 a 0.08 88.13 a±3.00
    Regeolona 66.16 ab 1.62 8.17bc ±0.59 1.36 a 0.12 77.63 b±5.14

    Effect of Salinity Irrigation on the Six Genotypes’ Yield, Yield Components and Harvest Index:-

    Data in Table 6 indicated significant differences between studied genotypes for yield, its component and harvest indexes. The cultivars Q-Q 37-1 and Regeolona recorded the high values for no. of panicles plant-1, plant fresh weight, yield weight plant-1, harvest index, 1000- seed weight and yield fed-1 (ton) in both seasons. While the cultivars KVLSRA1, KVLSRA2 showed lower mean values the majority of traits.

    Table 6. means of yield and its component of the six quinoa genotypes under salinity irrigation in 2015/16-2016/17 seasons.
    Genotypes No. of Panicles/plant Plant fresh Weight (gm) Yield Weight/plant (gm)
    2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17
    KVLSRA 1 8.72 b±0.31 7.59 c ±0.16 56.95 c±4.68 46.94 d±0.05 6.39 c±0.24 6.35 c±0.15
    KVLSRA 2 8.53 b±0.13 8.54 bc±0.15 57.43 c±1.49 50.95 c±1.32 10.58 c ±0.16 7.79 b±0.12
    KVLSRA 3 11.72 ab± 0.31 9.93 b±0.39 68.71 bc±2.14 60.57 b±1.62 13.93 b±0.18 8.98 b±0.13
    Q-52 11.9 ab±0.96 9.89 b±0.77 75.12 b±4.18 62.66 b±3.46 14.29 b±0.14 9.19 a±0.45
    Q-Q 37-1 12.27 a±0.24 12.1 a±0.16 82.32 a±0.81 72.26 a±1.83 17.83 a±0.28 9.79 a±0.10
    Regeolona 12.1 a±0.53 11.9 a±0.06 81.6 a ±2.76 70.48 a±0.95 15.13 ab±0.16 11.35 a±0.02
    Genotypes Harvest Index (HI) % 1000 -seeds weight Index (gm) Yield (ton fed-1)
    2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17 2015/16 2016/17
    KVLSRA 1 23.26 b±0.040 18.14c±1.06 2.43 ab±.04 2.33 b±0.04 1.23 b±0.44 0.77 b±0.32
    KVLSRA 2 22.76 c±0.17 16.99±2.93 2.76 a±0.08 1.72 bc±0.10 1.65 ab±0.77 0.76 b±0.13
    KVLSRA 3 27.73 a±0.11 21.55b±2.10 2.77 a±.09 2.75 a±0.12 1.74 a±0.43 1.04 a±0.09
    Q-52 24.56 b±0.013 20.39b±1.23 2.97 a±0.13 2.68 a±0.18 1.70 a±0.73 1.02 a±0.01
    Q-Q 37-1 28.89 a±0.10 18.29c±0.31 3.03 a±0.17 2.79 a±0.23 1.84 a±0.38 1.06 a±0.09
    Regeolona 26.86 ab±0.15 24.16a±4.2 2.93 a±0.15 2.88 a±0.17 1.75 a±0.03 1.05 a±0.13

    Effect of Salinity Irrigation on Seeds Chemical Composition on First Season

    Data in Table 7 indicated that chemical component (%) varied significantly between the six studied genotypes. For protein and carbohydrates total content, values ranged from 14.75 to 10.59 and from 58.13 to 54.64 % for genotypes Q52 and Regeolona, respectively. While in moisture content, values ranged from 11.66 to 10.83 for genotypes KVLSR1 and Q-Q37-1, respectively. Also, fats content ranged from 10.44 to 7.14 % for genotypes Q52 and Regeolona, respectively. While values of saponin ranged from 0.56 to 0.37% for genotypes KVLSR1 and Regeolona, respectively.

    Table 7. means of chemical composition of the six quinoa genotypes under salinity irrigation in the first season (2015/16).
    Genotypes Protein (%) Carbo- hydrates (%) Moisture (%) Fat (%) Saponin (%)
    KVLSRA 1 11.77 c ± 0.10 56.75 b ± 0.34 11.66 a ± 0.19 7.91 a ± 1.22 0.56 a ± 0.33
    KVLSRA 2 11.61 c ±0 .06 58.00 a ± 0.05 11.16bcd± 0.09 10.01 a ± 1.62 0.43bc± 0.19
    KVLSRA 3 12.35 b ± 0.11 57.66 ab ± 0.30 11.49 ab ± 0.09 8.89 a ± 1.37 0.39 c ± 0.14
    Q-52 14.75 a ±0 .05 58.31 a ± 0.10 10.99 cd ± 0.19 10.44 a ± 1.18 0.43bc± 0.17
    Q-Q 37-1 14.44a ± 0.05 58.17 a ± 0.02 10.83 d ± 0.98 9.18 a ± 0.32 0.50 ab ± 0.15
    REGEOLONA 10.59 d ± 0.19 54.64 c ± 0.19 11.33abc± 0.01 7.14 a ± 0.53 0.37 c ± 0.28

    Discussions

    Salt tolerance is a complex trait and attributed to a raise of interrelated with morphological, biochemical and physiological mechanisms. In this situation, the selection and screening of quinoa genotypes for salt tolerant is an important step to persue their adaptation under marginal and poor nutrient sandy soils. Quinoa genotypes were slightly increased after 20% seawater salinity 16. Selection of a particular policy depends upon of soil type, water quality, the agro-climatic conditions and crops to be irrigated. Many researchers reported that quinoa cultivars have good tolerance to high salinity levels 17, 18, 19. Salinity irrigation caused significant variation between cultivars for all studied traits. Similar results were reported by other colleagues 20, 21, 22, 23.

    Salt-induced growth reduction is presumably due to low photosynthetic supply as a consequence of impaired photosynthetic capacity. Also, they confirmed that all growth traits of quinoa plant affected by the high levels of salinity where, this achieves depend on the kind and quantity of salt. Our results showed that salinity irrigation reduced morphological yield and its component traits for all cultivars at 2016/17 season than 2015/2016. This finding was confirmed that the salt concentrations in irrigated water and soil were much higher in second season than the first season. Our findings also, are in agreement with 24 that a decreased in no of leaves plant-1 was found when salt levels increased in irrigated water. Salt concentrations in irrigated water affected on seed germination and early seedling growth of quinoa, where saline stress reduced growth abilities of quninoa cultivars in contrast with growing in pure water conditions 25. 26, 27,28, also found the same result in significant reductions in grain yield, no- of seeds and 1000-seed weight of quinoa in the presence of salinity. Previous study confirmed that, quinoa plant showed good resistance to water and salt stress through osmotic adjustments and stomatal responses that played an important role in the preservation of a leaf turgor favorable to plant growth and preserved crop yield 29.

    Conclusion

    From the data presented in this study, it could be concluded that the genotype Q-Q37-1 was earliness genotypes for 50% heading and maturity, the genotypes Q-Q37-1, Q-Q37-1, Q-Q37-1, Q-Q37-1, Q52 and Q-Q37-1 gave the high averages for number of panicles/plant, plant fresh weight, plant yield weight, harvest index, 1000 seeds weight index and yield in (ton fed-1 )the genotype Q52 and Regeolona were the best genotypes for protein and carbohydrates total content. Future experiments are in progress to pinpoint the factors related to improvement of quinoa genotypes for yield and chemical composition under salinity and drought stress conditions.

    References

    1.S E Jacobsen, Quispe H, Mujica A. (2000) Quinoa: an alternating crop for saline soils in the Andes , CIP Program Report,(1999-2000). , Peru
    2.Geissler N, Hussin S, H W Koyro. (2010) Elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration enhances salinity tolerance in Aster tripolium L. , Planta 231, 583-594.
    3.S E Jacobsen, Mujica A. (2001) Quinoa response to a biotic stress factors, Universidad Nacional Agraria La. , Molina, Lima, Peru
    4.Schlick G, D L Bubenheim. (1996) Quinoa: candidate crop for NASA's controlled ecological life port systems. Progress in new crops: Proceedings of the Third National Symposium indianapolis, indiana, 22-25 October 1996,American Society for Horticultural Science,Alexandria,USA 632-640.
    5.N W Galway, Leakey C L A, K R Price, G R Fenwick. (1990) . Chemical composition and nutritional characteristics of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoaWilld.), Food Sciences and Nutrition, 42 F: 245-261.
    6.Schlick G, D L Bubenheim. (1996) Quinoa: candidate crop for NASA's controlled ecological life port systems. Progress in new crops: Proceedings of the Third National Symposium indianapolis, indiana, October 1996,American Society for Horticultural Science , Alexandria, USA 22(25), 632-640.
    7.N W Galwey. (1992) The potential of quinoa as a multi-purpose crop for agricultural diversification. , Industrial Crops and Products 1, 101-106.
    8.S E Jacobsen, Stolen O. (1993) Quinoa - morphology, phenology and prospects for its production as a new crop in Europe. , European Journal of Agronomy 2, 19-29.
    9.S E Jacobsen, P A Hollington, Hussain Z. (2002) Quinoa , a potential new crop for Pakistan. (Tasks for vegetation science 37), Prospects for saline agriculture, 247-249 , Kluwer Academics. , Dordrecht, Netherlands
    10.F E Prado, Boero C, Gallardo M, J A Gonzalez. (2000) Effect of NaCl on germination, growth, and soluble sugar content inChenopodiumquinoaWilld. , Seeds, Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica 41, 27-34.
    11.Gesinski.K.(2006).Evaluation of growth and flowering ofChenopodium quinoaWilld, under Polish conditions ,Acta Agrobotanica, 59: 487- 496, Polskie Towarzystwo Botaniczyne (Polish Botanical Society). , Warszawa, Poland
    12.W V Geel. (1997) Quinoa in foodstuffs offers prospects. , PAV Bulletin Akkerbouw 17-20.
    13.Wong L S L, R J Baker. (1986) Selection for time to maturity in durum wheat. , Crop . Sci 26, 1171-1175.
    14.Geerts S, Raes D, Garcia M, Vacher J, Mamani R et al. (2008) Introducing deficit irrigation to stabilize yields of quinoa. , Amsterdam, Netherlands, European Journal of Agronomy 28, 427-436.
    15.Steel R G D, J H Torrie, D A. (1997) Principles and procedures of statistics, a biometrical approach, 3rd edition,McGraw-Hill Co, Inc. , New York NY
    16.Eisa S, Hussin S, Geissler N, H W Koyro. (2012) Effect of NaCl salinity on water relations, photosynthesis and chemical compositionof quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as a potentialcash crop halophyte. , Aust. J. Crop Sci 6, 357-368.
    17.Eisa S, Hussin S, Geissler N, H W Koyro. (2012) Effect of NaCl salinity on water relations, photosynthesis and chemical compositionof quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as a potentialcash crop halophyte. , Aust. J. Crop Sci 6, 357-368.
    18.Seal C, E C, Papenbrock. (2017) Seed priming improves germination in saline conditions for Chenopodium quinoa and Amaranthus caudatus. J Agro Crop Sci.2018, DOI: 10.1111/jac.12242, 204: 40 – 48 .
    19.E A Jbawi, Danoura R, Yaacoub A. (2018) . Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Manure Fertilizer on Improving Growth and Yield of Quinoa in Syria. Open Acc J Agri Res: OAJAR-100007 .
    20.Munns R, R A James. (2003) Screening methods for salinity tolerance: a case study with tetraploid wheat. , Plant Soil 253, 201-218.
    21.Eisa S, Hussin S, Geissler N, H W Koyro. (2012) Effect of NaCl salinity on water relations, photosynthesis and chemical compositionof quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) as a potentialcash crop halophyte. , Aust. J. Crop Sci 6, 357-368.
    22.Moreno C, C E Seal, Papenbrock J. (2017) Seed priming improves germination in saline conditions for Chenopodium quinoa and Amaranthus caudatus. J Agro Crop Sci. DOI: 10.1111/jac.12242, 204: 40 – 48
    23.E A Jbawi, Danoura R, Yaacoub A. (2018) . Effect of Deficit Irrigation and Manure Fertilizer on Improving Growth and Yield of Quinoa in Syria. Open Acc J Agri Res: OAJAR-100007 .
    24.M A Abdullah, M E, A E Badran, M A Abdulrahman. (2015) Effect of Irrigation Water Salinity on the Growth of Quinoa Plant Seedlings. , Journal of Agricultural Science; 7(8), 205-214.
    25.M R Panuccio, S E Jacobsen, S, Muscolo A. (2014) Effect of saline water on seed germination and early seedling growth of the halophyte quinoa. J Plant Sci. DOI: 10.1093/abobpla/plu047. http://www.aob plants.oxfordjournals.org.
    26.H W Koyro, S. (2007) Effect of salinity on composition, viability and germination of seeds of Chenopodium quinoa Willd. , Plant Soil 302, 79-90.
    27.Razzaghi F, S H Ahmadi, S E Jacobsen, C R Jensen, M N Andersen. (2012) Effects of salinity and soil-drying on radiation use efficiency, water productivity and yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa. , Willd.) J Agron Crop Sci 198, 173-184.
    28.Peterson A, Murphy K. (2015) Tolerance of lowland quinoa varieties to sodium chloride and sodium sulfate salinity. Crop Sci, DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2014.04.0271 55, 331-338.
    29.Cocozza C, Pulvento C, Lavini A, Riccardi M, d’Andria R et al. (2013) Effects of increasing salinity stress and decreasing water availability on ecophysiological traits of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) grown in a Mediterranean-type agroecosystem. , J Agro Crop, Scihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jac.12012 199, 229-240.