Effect of Drought on Growth and Yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) at Flowering Stage

Date Received: 16-04-2025

Date Accepted: 30-05-2025

Date Published: 30-05-2025

##submissions.doi##: https://doi.org/10.31817/tckhnnvn.2025.23.5.

Views

17

Downloads

4

How to Cite:

Nhan, L., Lộc, N., & Long, N. (2025). Effect of Drought on Growth and Yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) at Flowering Stage. Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 23(5), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.31817/tckhnnvn.2025.23.5.

Effect of Drought on Growth and Yield of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) at Flowering Stage

Luu Hue Nhan 1, 2 , Nguyễn Văn Lộc , Nguyen Viet Long (*) 1

  • Tác giả liên hệ: [email protected]
  • 1 Khoa Nông học, Học viện Nông nghiệp Việt Nam
  • 2 Khoa Quân nhu, Học viện Hậu cần

    • Keywords

    Drought tolerance, quinoa, flowering stage, drought tolerant index

    Abstract


    This study evaluated the effects of drought stress during the flowering stage on the growth and yield of 10 quinoa genotypes originating from different sources. A two-factor experiment, including genotypes (10 quinoa genotypes) and drought treatments (artificial drought for 2 weeks during the flowering stage), was arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with five replications. The results showed that drought stress during the flowering stage significantly reduced main stem height, number of leaves per main stem, number of primary branches, leaf area, accumulated dry matter, 1000-seed weight, and individual plant yield in most genotypes. However, the degree of impact varied among them. Genotypes G18, G23, and Atlas maintained relatively stable growth and yield under drought conditions, indicating strong adaptability. Genotypes Cahuil, Q4, Lucaboldo, and Isluga exhibited good recovery capacity as evident by enhanced leaf development and dry matter accumulation after the drought period. Conversely, Q1 and Titicaca were the most severely affected, showing pronounced declines across all observed traits. Genotypes G18, G23, and Atlas are proposed as potential materials for breeding programs and for expanding quinoa production under drought-prone conditions.

    References

    Ahmad H.M., Wang X., Fiaz S., Azeem F. & Shaheen T. (2022). Morphological and physiological response of Helianthus annuus L. to drought stress and correlation of wax contents for drought tolerance traits. Arabian Journal of Science and Engineering. 47: 6747-6761.

    Ain Q.T., Siddique K., Bawazeer S., Ali I., Mazhar M., Rasool R., Mubeen B., Ullah F., Unar A. & Jafar T.H. (2023). Adaptive mechanisms in Quinoa for coping in stressful environments: An update. Peer J. 11: e14832.

    Alandia G., Rodríguez J.P., Palmgren M., Condori B. & López-Marqués R.L. (2021). Advances of biotechnology in quinoa production: A global perspective. In A. Varma (Ed.): Biology and Biotechnology of Quinoa: Super Grain for Food Security. Springer Nature. pp. 79-111.

    Babar M., Khalid M.N., Haq M.W.U., Hanif M., Ali Z., Awais M., Rasheed Z., Ali M.F., Iftikhar I. & Saleem S. (2023). A comprehensive review on drought stress response in Cotton at physiological, biochemical and molecular level. Pure and Applied Biology. 12: 610-622.

    Bertero H.D., Vega A.J.D.L., Correa G., Jacobsen S.E. & Mujica A. (2013). Effect of drought stress on quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Field Crops Research. 89: 299-318.

    Bosque Sanchez H., Lemeur R., Van Damme P. & Jacobsen S.-E. (2003). Ecophysiological analysis of drought and salinity stress of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Reviews International. 19(1-2): 111-119.

    Dinh T.H., Kaewpradit W., Jogloy S., Vorasoot N. & Patanothai A. (2013). Biological nitrogen fixation of peanut genotypes with different levels of drought tolerance under mid-season drought. SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetic. 45: 491-503.

    Eckstein D., Künzel V. & Schäfer L. (2018). Climate Risk Index: Who Suffers Most from Extreme Weather Events? Germanwatch.

    Glessler M.L., Müller F., Oberhuber W. & Loserth M. (2020). Drought-induced changes in morphology and photosynthesis in contrasting quinoa genotypes. Agricultural Water Management. 234: 106102.

    Gonzalez J.A., Konishi Y., Bruno M., Valoy M. & Prado F.E. (2015). Quinoa: An Incan crop to face global changes in agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science. 6: 1-10.

    Hinojosa L., González J.A., Barrios-Masias F.H., Fuentes F. & Murphy K.M. (2018). Quinoa abiotic stress responses: A review. Plants. 7: 106.

    Iqbal N., Hussain S., Ahmed Z., Yang C.Q. & Wang X. (2018). Differential response of quinoa genotypes to drought and foliage-applied H2O2 in relation to oxidative damage, osmotic adjustment and antioxidant capacity. Industrial Crops and Products. 126: 139-151.

    Jacobsen S.E., Mujica A. & Jensen C.R. (2003). The worldwide potential for quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Food Reviews International. 19(1-2): 167-177.

    Jacobsen S.-E., Liu F. & Jensen C.R. (2009). Effect of drought stress on quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). Field Crops Research. 110(1): 107-113.

    Jensen C.R., Jacobsen S.E., Andersen M.N., Núñez N., Andersen S.D., Rasmussen L. & Mogensen V.O. (2000). Leaf gas exchange and water relations of field quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) during soil drying. European Journal of Agronomy. 13(1): 11-25.

    Kohan D., Razzaghi F. & Jensen C.R. (2023). Drought stress impacts on growth, physiology and yield of quinoa genotypes: A comparative study. Agricultural Water Management. 279: 108158.

    Manaa A., Goussi R., Derbali W., Cantamessa S., Essemine J. & Barbato R. (2021). Photosynthetic performance of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) after exposure to a gradual drought stress followed by a recovery period. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Bioenergetics. 1862(5): 148383.

    Mirsafi S.M., Sepaskhah A.R. & Ahmadi S.H. (2024). Physiological traits, crop growth, and grain quality of quinoa in response to deficit irrigation and planting methods. BMC Plant Biology. 24: 809.

    Munsif F., Shah T., Arif M., Jehangir M., Afridi M.Z., Ahmad I., Jan B.L. & Alansi S. (2022). Combined effect of salicylic acid and potassium mitigates drought stress through the modulation of physio-biochemical attributes and key antioxidants in Wheat. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences.29: 103294.

    Nguyễn Văn Minh & Nguyễn Văn Lộc (2021). Khảo nghiệm một số giống diêm mạch (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) nhập nội trong điều kiện mùa khô đất nâu đỏ bazan tỉnh Đắk Lắk. Tạp chí Khoa học - Đại học Tây Nguyên. 49: 40-47

    Phan Thị Phương Nhi, Trần Thị Hân, Dương Thị Hương Quế & Nguyễn Thị Phương Thảo (2017). Nghiên cứu thời gian gieo trồng thích hợp cho cây quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) tại huyện Cam Lộ, tỉnh Quảng Trị. Tạp chí điện tử Khoa học và Công nghệ Nông nghiệp. 1(1): 93-102. doi.org/10.46826/huaf-jasat.v1n1y2017.19

    Shiade S.R.G., Fathi A., Taghavi Ghasemkheili F., Amiri E. & Pessarakli M. (2022). Plants' responses under drought stress conditions: Effects of strategic management approaches - A review. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 46: 2198-2230.

    Trịnh Ngọc Đức (2001). Nghiên cứu và phát triển giống hạt vàng (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) tại miền Bắc Việt Nam. Luận án Tiến sĩ Nông nghiệp, Trường Đại học Nông nghiệp I - Hà Nội.