Seed Nutritional Quality of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as Influenced by Rice Husk Form and Humic Acid Rate under Rainfed Conditions in Northern Iraq
Aso Hashm HUSAMALDDIN1 ,
Azad Salih Abdullah KRUSK 1 ,
Bahar Jalal MAHMOOD 2 ,
Tamer ERYİĞİT3
1 University of Raparin, College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, Department of Horticulture, Sulaymaniyah, Iraq
2 Salahaddin University, College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, Department of Field Crops, Erbil, Iraq
3 Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Gevas Vocational School, Department of Plant and Animal Production, Van, Türkiye
Abstract
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivation in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq faces severe constraints due to low-organic-matter calcareous soils and highly erratic rainfall. This study offers novel empirical insights by directly comparing the joint impacts of raw versus carbonized rice husk and humic acid under rainfed calcareous soil conditions. To address these limitations, a field experiment was conducted during the 2022–2023 rainfed season in Ranya, Sulaymaniyah, evaluating the effects of rice husk treatments and humic acid application on the growth, yield, and nutritional profile of chickpea (cv. Piramerd). The study followed a 3x5 factorial arrangement in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications, testing three rice husk forms-none (B0), carbonized (B1), and raw (B2), each at 6.67 t ha-1 -across five humic acid doses (0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 kg ha-1). Analysis of variance showed that neither the individual factors nor their interaction significantly altered vegetative growth parameters (plant height, branch and nodule counts, leaf area) or overall seed and straw yields. The only yield component sensitive to the treatments was the seed index (p=0.022), which responded solely to the humic acid main effect; the highest 100-seed weight was recorded in the control group (43.43 g), whereas the 20 kg ha-1 dose yielded the lowest (37.69 g). Conversely, the nutritional profile of the harvest was highly responsive to the treatments, with all six proximate composition parameters (moisture, ash, crude fiber, crude protein, total carbohydrates, and crude oil) exhibiting significant interaction effects (p≤0.007). Notably, the combination of raw rice husk and the highest humic acid rate (B2H4) optimized both crude protein (23.25%) and total carbohydrates (61.14%), compared to the 19.85% protein and 55.86% carbohydrate baselines observed in the control (B0H0). Principal component analysis (PCA) captured 57.9% of the total variance across two main axes, separating a yield–biomass dimension (PC1, 38.8%) from a moisture–growth axis (PC2, 19.1%). Ultimately, these results demonstrate that while soil amendment with rice husk and humic acid does not drive biomass accumulation under rainfed stress, it plays a critical role in modulating the metabolic and nutritional quality of chickpea seeds-a nuance that offers valuable insights for quality-focused breeding and fertility management in semi-arid pulse production.
HUSAMALDDIN, A. H., KRUSK , A. S. A., MAHMOOD , B. J., & ERYİĞİT, T. (2026). Seed Nutritional Quality of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as Influenced by Rice Husk Form and Humic Acid Rate under Rainfed Conditions in Northern Iraq. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 11(3), 626–642. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21642304
📄Adebajo, S.O., Akintokun, P.O., Ojo, A.E., Ajamu, I.A., 2020. Effects of rice husk biochar on the growth characteristics, rhizospheric microflora and yield of tomato plants. Journal of Agricultural Science and Environment, 19(1): 60–72.
📄Amalina, F., Abd Razak, A.S., Zularisam, A.W., Aziz, M.A.A., Krishnan, S., Nasrullah, M., 2023. Comprehensive assessment of biochar integration in agricultural soil conditioning. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 132: 103508.
📄Anitha, N., Sheeba, S., Prabhaharan, J., Vallal Kannan, S., Amutha, R., Sivasankari, B., 2025. Humic acid: A natural enhancer of soil quality and crop productivity. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 56(19): 2831-2843.
📄Anonymous, 2023a. Food and Agriculture Organization. Crops and livestock products: Chickpeas production quantity. https://www.fao.org/faostat/ (Accessed: 10. 02.2026).
📄Anonymous, 2023b. Agriculture indicators. Ministry of Planning - Kurdistan Regional Government, (https://krso.gov.krd/en/indic ator/agriculture) (Accessed: 10.02.2026).
📄Anonymous, 2023c. Meteorological data of Raparin District, 2022–2023 season. Raparin General Agriculture Directorate, Ranya, Kurdistan Region 2012–2024 Meteorological Statistics – Official PDF (Accessed: 10.02.2026).
📄AOAC, 2005. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International (18th ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
📄Amani, A., Ansari, M.A., Nabizada, A.Q., 2025. The effect of different spacing on chickpea growth and development in Takhar climatic conditions. Balkh International Journal of Natural Science. 1(1): 103-112.
📄Biederman, L.A., Harpole, W.S., 2013. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy, 5: 202–214.
📄Erman, M., Çığ, F., Sönmez, F., Ceritoğlu, M., 2024. Sheep manure and sewage sludge boost biofortification of barley and restricts heavy metal accumulation in plant tissues. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 47(9): 1494-1512.
📄Garcia-Caparros, P., Ciriello, M., Rouphael, Y., Giordano, M., 2025. The role of organic extracts and inorganic compounds as alleviators of drought stress in plants. Horticulturae, 11(1): 91.
📄Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., Zech, W., 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal - a review. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35: 219–230.
📄Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F.G.A., van der Velde, M., Bastos, A.C., 2011. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 144: 175–187.
📄Kagan, K., Goraj, W., Kuźniar, A., Kruczyńska, A., Sochaczewska, A., Słomczewski, A., Wolińska, A., 2024. Exploring the synergy between humic acid substances, dehydrogenase activity and soil fertility. Agronomy, 14(5): 1031.
📄Kahraman, A., 2017. Effect of humic acid applications on the yield components in chickpea. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpaşa University, 34(1): 218–222.
📄Karim, S.T., 1999. Models to predict water retention of Iraqi soils. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 47(1): 16–19.
📄Kusumavathi, K., Sarkar, S., Ali, M.A., Bera, S., Krishna, V.V.S.J., Maity, S., Devi, N.M., Bandopadhyay, P., 2025. Effect of diverse crop establishment techniques and weed management approaches in rice–chickpea cropping systems on soil attributes. BMC Plant Biology, 25(1): 372.
📄Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology. Earthscan, London.
📄Li, G., Shan, Y., Bai, Y., Nie, W., Sun, Y., Su, L., Zhang, J., Liu, H., Ding, Y., Wang, X., Lu, H., Ye, J., Gao, L., 2025. Humic acid, biochar-based microbial agent and vermicompost improve cotton growth, photosynthesis, yield and fiber quality in saline–alkali soil. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 105(13): 7019-7032.
📄Liu, Y., Gao, L., Wang, C., Fu, Z., Chen, R., Jiang, W., Yin, C., Mao, Z., Wang, Y., 2024. Biochar combined with humic acid improves the soil environment and regulates microbial communities in apple replant soil. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 283: 116958.
📄Merga, B., Haji, J., 2019. Economic importance of chickpea: Production, value and world trade. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 5(1): 1615718.
📄Naseri Nejad, H., Naeemi, M., Nakhzari Moghaddam, A., Zarei, M., 2025. Investigating the effect of biochar and humic acid application on nutrient content and grain yield of chickpea. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research, 56(3): 807-823.
📄Olaetxea, M., Mora, V., Bacaicoa, E., Baigorri, R., Garnica, M., Fuentes, M., Casanova, E., Zamarreño, A. M., Iriarte, J. C., Etayo, D., Ederra, I., Gonzalo, R., Garcia-Mina, J. M. 2015. ABA-regulation of root hydraulic conductivity and aquaporin gene-expression is crucial to the plant shoot rise caused by rhizosphere humic acids. Plant Physiology, 169(4): 2582–2596.
📄Redden, R., Berger, J., 2007. History and origin of chickpea. In: Chickpea breeding and management, CAB International, pp. 1–13.
📄Saadati, J., Baghi, M., 2014. Evaluation of the effect of various amounts of humic acid on yield, yield components and protein of chickpea cultivars. International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research, 2(7): 2306–2313.
📄Seyed Sharifi, R., Seyed Sharifi, R., 2025. Effects of supplementary irrigation and some stress modifiers on grain filling components, nodulation and grain yield of chickpea under rainfed conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 23(1): 91–108.
📄Singh, C., Tiwari, S., Gupta, V.K., Singh, J.S., 2018. The effect of rice husk biochar on soil nutrient status, microbial biomass and paddy productivity of nutrient-poor agricultural soils. Catena, 171: 485–493.
📄Sun, Y., Zhang, J., 2024. Advances in the application of humic acid in agriculture: Impacts on soil fertility, crop growth, and carbon emissions. International Journal of Public Health and Medical Research, 2(3): 27–30.