Received for publication: 3 March, 2021. Accepted for publication: 17 August, 2021. Doi: 10.15446/agron.colomb.v39n2.94096 1 Departamento de Fitotecnia, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Lima (Peru). * Corresponding author: hcantaro@lamolina.edu.pe Agronomía Colombiana 39(2), 187-195, 2021 ABSTRACT RESUMEN The effect of a recent plant growth regulator, triacontanol (TRIA), on plant growth and yield of Pisum sativum L. was investigated. The experiment was carried out under field condi- tions at the Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria (INIA), La Molina, Lima, Peru, using a completely randomized block design with eight treatments and three replicates. Treatments consisted in the foliar application of TRIA alone and in all possible combinations with three plant growth regulators based on auxins (AUX), gibberellins (GA), and cytokinins (CK), on pea plants cv. Rondo. The highest green pod yields were obtained with the application of TRIA+AUX+GA+CK, and TRIA+AUX+CK. The TRIA+AUX increased the values of the yield variables while TRIA+GA increased the values of the morphological variables. TRIA+CK showed a stimulating ef- fect on morphological variables and number of grains per pod, while TRIA+AUX+CK acted synergistically on yield variables since their combined effect overweighed the effect of each growth regulator separately. Treatments with TRIA exceeded the control treatment in yield variables, indicating its great potential to be used in sustainable agriculture to guarantee food security in the future. Se investigó el efecto de un regulador del crecimiento vegetal re- lativamente nuevo, el triacontanol (TRIA), sobre el crecimiento de las plantas y el rendimiento de Pisum sativum L. El experi- mento se llevó a cabo en condiciones de campo en el Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria (INIA), Lima, Perú, utilizando un diseño de bloques completamente al azar con ocho trata- mientos y tres repeticiones. Los tratamientos consistieron en la aplicación foliar de TRIA solo y en todas las combinaciones posibles con tres reguladores del crecimiento vegetal a base de auxinas (AUX), giberelinas (GA) y citoquininas (CK), en plantas de arveja cv. Rondo. Los mayores rendimientos de vaina verde se obtuvieron con la aplicación de TRIA+AUX+GA+CK y TRIA+AUX+CK. TRIA+AUX incrementó los valores de las variables de rendimiento mientras que TRIA+GA incrementó los valores de las variables morfológicas. TRIA+CK mostró un efecto estimulante sobre las variables morfológicas y el número de granos por vaina, mientras que TRIA+AUX+CK actuó sinérgicamente en las variables de rendimiento, ya que su efecto combinado sobrepesó el efecto de cada regulador de crecimiento por separado. Los tratamientos con TRIA supera- ron al tratamiento control en las variables de rendimiento, lo que indica su gran potencial de uso en la agricultura sostenible para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria en el futuro. Key words: auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, plant physiology, legumes. Palabras clave: auxinas, citoquininas, giberelinas, fisiología vegetal, leguminosas. Interaction of triacontanol with other plant growth regulators on morphology and yield of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) Interacción del triacontanol con otros reguladores de crecimiento vegetal en la morfología y el rendimiento de arveja (Pisum sativum L.) Héctor Cantaro-Segura1* and Amelia Huaringa-Joaquín1 Introduction The field pea (Pisum sativum L.) belongs to the Fabaceae family and is one of the oldest domesticated species for human and livestock consumption. It is widely cultivated around the world (Wu et al., 2019) and predominant in world trade, representing about 35-40% of the total trade in legumes. It is also among the most consumed vegetables worldwide (Ratnayake et al., 2001). The pea is an impor- tant nutritional crop (Liu et al., 2015) since its grains have high contents of protein (18-30%), vitamins and minerals. Additionally, its shoots and leaves can be used for fresh consumption as leafy vegetables (Santos et al., 2014), with a good demand in the national and international markets. Field pea is a profitable agricultural product. However, this profitability is diminished in many regions by various fac- tors such as environmental problems, incorrect agronomic management, and increase in production costs due to the rise in the application of fertilizers and pesticides (Eris- man, 2011). Agronomic management is especially critical because long-duration varieties with low yields are still sown in production areas and are susceptible to different diseases and pests (Wu et al., 2019). For this crop, correct physiological and nutritional management is imperative, https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v39n2.94096 188 Agron. Colomb. 39(2) 2021 with biostimulants and plant hormones playing an impor- tant role (Bertolin et al., 2010; Cato et al., 2013; Martínez González et al., 2017). Plant growth regulators are small molecules that can trig- ger different physiological processes related to the growth, development, and defense of plants (Pozo et al., 2015). They are also known as phytohormones, but this term is not used frequently in agriculture (Davies, 2010). Plant hor- mones, growth regulators, and inhibitors have been used in practice to increase yield, improve quality, or alleviate the adverse effects induced by biotic or abiotic stresses (Csukasi et al., 2009). Different classes of hormones have already been characterized, including abscisic acid, auxins, brassinosteroids, cytokinins, ethylene, gibberellins, jasmo- nates, strigolactones, etc. (Depuydt & Hardtke, 2011). All of them have been linked in one way or another to growth regulation (Santner et al., 2009; Wolters & Jürgens, 2009). Cytokinins, auxins, gibberellins, and brassinosteroids are considered essential for growth of mutant phenotypes in which hormone biosynthesis or perception is disrupted; cytokinins regulate cell proliferation, while gibberellins promote cell elongation and auxins are involved in both processes. Furthermore, brassinosteroids are essential for cell elongation, but may also play a role in cell division (Na- kaya et al., 2002; Hardtke et al., 2007). All these hormones can regulate a high number of processes in a unique and independent way. However, cooperation and interrelation- ship between signaling metabolic pathways appears to exist, as it follows from the superimposed inf luence on various cellular processes (Hardtke et al., 2007). New hormones and plant growth regulators are still being discovered, and their interrelationships, mechanisms of action, and relationships at the metabolic level are being exhaustively studied (Gomez-Roldan et al., 2008; Kuppusa- my et al., 2009). Among these substances is triacontanol (TRIA), a growth regulator recently used in commercial applications despite the fact that it was discovered a few de- cades ago in natural waxes. It can exert stimulating effects, even at considerably low foliar concentrations (Khandaker et al., 2013). TRIA is not considered a plant hormone since it is a secondary substance in plant growth (Naeem et al., 2012). However, various studies show that its effects on growth and yield in plants are not shown by other plant hormones or growth regulators. The positive role of TRIA in photosynthesis, nitrogen fixation, enzymatic activities, free amino acids, reducing sugars, and soluble proteins in plants has been documented (Borowski et al., 2000; Naeem et al., 2009; 2010; 2011; Aftab et al., 2010; Khandaker et al., 2013). The application of TRIA also increases the dry weight, chlorophyll content, protein and net photosynthetic efficiency in rice (Oryza sativa L.) (Chen et al., 2002). In cot- ton, it promotes vegetative growth and increases the level of monogalactosyldiacylglycerol (MGDG), a galactolipid that appears to be involved in the synthesis of photosystem I proteins (Naeem et al., 2012). The application of TRIA alone or in combination with potassium increases plant height, fresh and dry weight of the plant and leaf area in tomato (Khan et al., 2009). In this exploratory study, we evaluated the effect of the interaction of plant growth regulators with triacontanol on the field pea Pisum sativum L. cv. Rondo to determine the roles of growth regulators applied alone and in com- bination and their impact on yield components and plant growth and development. Materials and methods The experiment was carried out in the experimental fields of the Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria (INIA), La Molina, Lima, Peru (12°04’48” S, 76°56’44” W at 243 m a.s.l.) between September and December 2015. To determine the effect of the application of triacontanol (TRIA) and the growth regulators on peas, pea seeds cv. Rondo were used. Rondo is a commercial cultivar with a determinate growth habit, semi-late, with straight pod and rough grain suitable for fresh consumption, and with medium maturation appreciated by farmers for its yield and pod size. Climate characteristics of the field site are described in Table 1. Four pea seeds were sown per hole under drip irrigation at a distance between plants of 0.75 x 0.2 m, with 24 experimental plots of 9 m2 and a total area of 320 m2 (experimental plots + edge spaces). Average soil characteristics of the field site were: sand, 53%; silt, 28%; clay, 19%; organic matter, 1.12%; P, 17.4 mg kg-1; K, 291 mg kg-1; pH, 7.7, and electrical conductivity, 1.62 dS m-1. The soil analysis was carried out according to the guidelines established by Burt (2014). Subsequently, manual thinning was done, leaving three plants per stroke and a final plant- ing density of 200,000 plants ha-1. At 43 d after sowing (V4 growth stage), the treatments described in Table 2 were foliar applied. All treatments, except the control, alone or in combination with other plant growth regulators (auxins (AUX), gibberellins (GA) or cytokinins (CK)) contained TRIA, and a foliar-applied potassium fertilizer (K). Other commercial foliar fertil- izers from FARMEX S.A. (Peru), such as FX Amino and Powergizer, were also applied to all treatments at the same concentration to replace nitrogen deficiencies. 189Cantaro-Segura and Huaringa-Joaquín: Interaction of triacontanol with other plant growth regulators on morphology and yield of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) To evaluate the effect of the treatments on growth and yield, the plant height, number of branches per plant, plant fresh weight, pod length, pod width, number of pods per plant, number of grains per pod and green pod yield (t ha-1) were determined at harvest. A completely randomized block design was used, with eight treatments and three replicates, for a total of 24 experimen- tal units. The results were subjected to a normality test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) by the F test, and the means were compared with the least significant Fisher’s test (LSD) at 5% probability of error, using the statistical software R. Pearson’s correlation test at P≤0.05 was applied to assess the significance of correlation coefficients. TABLE 2. Description of the treatments and doses of the plant growth regulators used in the experiment. Name Description TRIA+AUX 0.5 mg L-1 triacontanol + 10 mg L-1 NAA TRIA+GA 0.5 mg L-1 triacontanol + 10 mg L-1 GA3 TRIA+CK 0.5 mg L-1 triacontanol + 1 mg L-1 KIN TRIA+AUX+CK 0.5 mg L-1 triacontanol + 0.5 mg L-1 NAA + 1 mg L-1 KIN TRIA+AUX+GA+CK 0.5 mg L-1 triacontanol + 0.5 mg L-1 NAA + 1 mg L-1 GA3 + 1 mg L -1 KIN TRIA+K 0.5 mg L-1 triacontanol + 3000 mg L-1 K2O TRIA 0.5 mg L-1 triacontanol CONTROL Treatment without any application of triacontanol or growth regulators NAA - 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid; GA3 - gibberellic acid; KIN - kinetin; K2O - potassium oxide. Results and discussion Growth parameters The plant growth regulators applied in this study caused changes in plant height. The application of TRIA + GA obtained the highest plant height (143.5 cm), and the con- trol obtained the lowest value (79.8 cm), which was 15.6% lower than the average obtained in the experiment (Tab. 3). The height of the pea plant is a characteristic determined by its genetics (Weeden, 2007), and the interaction with growth-promoting phytohormones such as GA (Wang et al., 2017). The control of this experiment showed a height greater than that reported by Anchivilca Rojas (2018) (68 cm), Santos et al. (2018) (60 cm), and Rodríguez Quispe (2015) (52 cm). According to Checa Coral et al. (2020), this could be due to environmental conditions and an ef- ficient supply of resources since the resulting phenotype is the interaction of the genotype and the environment. The positive interaction of TRIA and GA agrees with that proposed by Shukla et al. (1992), who mention that triacontanol potentiates the effect of GA. The opposite is observed with AUX, since TRIA decreases its inf luence as a “destruction” effect is produced. The intensity of this effect is specific in each cultivar (Henry & Gordon, 1980); auxins at low concentrations inhibit stem growth in favor of root growth and development (Davies, 2010; Taiz et al., 2014). No effects were observed with foliar application of potassium because the soil was rich in this element (291 mg L-1) and the application of potassium would keep the plants under conditions of “luxury consumption” (Marschner, 2011). Regarding the number of branches per plant, there were no statistical differences in the analysis of variance for the treatments. Most of the treatments obtained similar values to those of the control, except for TRIA+GA, with a value 21.8% less than the average, and TRIA+AUX+GA+CK, with a value 23.5% greater than the control and 26.3% greater than the average (Tab. 3). The trend is repeated for pod length and plant fresh weight regarding the high- est and lowest values in the treatments. However, for pod width, the control showed the lowest value of 1.66 cm, TRIA+AUX showed an intermediate value of 1.76 cm, and TRIA+AUX+GA+CK obtained the highest value with 1.83 cm. The number of branches plant (NBP) and the pod width are also genetically determined characteristics, but the former is more susceptible to variations due to environmental con- ditions and/or agronomic practices than the latter (presence of the n gene, Wehner & Gritton, (1981)). Pod width did not exhibit significant or percentage statistical variation from all variables, showing a less marked incremental effect of the negative interaction of TRIA with AUX and CK applied jointly (Fig. 1). On the other hand, for NBP, the treatments TABLE 1. Average climate data during the crop cycle. Month Maximum temperature (°C) Minimum temperature (°C) Relative humidity (%) Mean precipitation (mm/month) September 21.52 15.34 80.21 0.12 October 22.77 16.16 79.75 0.06 November 22.9 16.64 79.33 0.09 December 25.08 17.97 77.92 0.06 190 Agron. Colomb. 39(2) 2021 with CK increased the branching of the shoots (Müller & Leyser, 2011) and the number of branches in the plants (Taiz et al., 2014). Pearson’s correlation coefficients showed interesting data regarding the relationships between variables. Within the vegetative parameters, plant height was negatively corre- lated with pod length (-0.271) and the number of branches per plant was positively correlated with pod length (0.442*) and yield (0.731**). The variable pod length was positively correlated with plant fresh weight (0.626**), number of grains per pod (0.823**), and green pod yield (0.654**). A positive correlation was also observed between these last three variables. However, these variables were not positively correlated with pod width (Tab. 4). In contrast with the values obtained in the variable plant height, the average pod length in this experiment (9.9 cm) was lower than that obtained by Anchivilca Rojas (2018) (10 cm), Rondinel Ruíz (2014) (10.2 cm), and Rodríguez Quispe (2015) (11.4 cm). Triacontanol application resulted in an increase of 11.3% in yield over the control (Fig. 2). A positive interaction was also observed with treatments containing CK and, to a lesser extent, with foliar potassium. A slight negative interaction was observed with AUX and a higher negative interaction was registered with gibberellins. The effect of CK is significant since they promote greater pod setting in legumes (Carlson et al., 1987) and increase the width, length, and weight of pods (Mosjidis et al., 1993). Potassium also has a slight incremental effect on fruiting and a higher pod setting in legumes (Marschner, 2011). However, this is not ref lected by a luxury consumption of K. The trend of the effect of the hormonal interaction is repeated on pod length, as well as on plant fresh weight, except that a negative interaction with foliar potassium was also recorded. Although gibberellins favor the vegetative growth of the plant when applied in excess (Taiz et al., 2014), this growth is very fast, forming tall but weak stems with lower dry matter content and fresh weight of the plant. The mixture of the three hormones considerably increases the plant fresh weight due to a better regulation of physi- ological processes and the internal hormonal balance in the plants (Figs. 1-3). Yield parameters The lowest values of all yield variables (number of pods per plant, number of grains per pod, and green pod yield) were obtained with TRIA+GA. The highest values were recorded with TRIA+AUX+GA+CK, in which all the hor- mones were used, except in the number of pods per plant, where the best treatment was TRIA+AUX+CK (Tab. 3). The number of pods per plant showed a different behav- ior between treatments, although it was highly positively correlated with the number of grains per pod (0.485*) and yield (0.883**) as shown in Table 3. An increase of 308.7% over the lowest value of this variable and 12.52% over the control was recorded. Statistically significant differences between the treatments were observed, since a very strong detrimental effect of GA was seen in this variable. Figures 1A and 1B show the positive interaction of TRIA with the mixture of AUX, CK and GA, but a negative interaction with AUX and CK applied separately. Regarding the number of grains per pod, significant sta- tistical differences were observed between the treatments. The TRIA+AUX+GA+CK showed an increase of 48.8% over the control and 14.3% over the TRIA applied alone, which, in turn, represents a 22.6% increase over the control. TABLE 3. Effect of plant growth regulators on growth and yield of pea plants. Treatment PH (cm) NBP PL (cm) PW (cm) NPP NGP PFW (g) Yield (t ha-1) TRIA+AUX 86.5b ± 8.3 2.7ab ± 0.4 9.67ab ± 0.7 1.77ab ± 0.03 9.5abc ± 1.0 6.1c ± 0.7 130.2bc ± 21.5 7.43c ± 0.8 TRIA+GA 143.5a ± 4.6 2.2b ± 0.3 8.26b ± 0.4 1.83ab ± 0.09 3.7c ± 0.9 4.6d ± 0.01 93.5c ± 11.5 2.15d ± 0.3 TRIA+CK 95.8b ± 6.4 2.8ab ± 0.2 10.67a ± 0.1 1.74ab ± 0.03 12.2ab ± 3.4 7.9ab ± 0.3 143.3abc ± 15.6 8.47bc ± 0.9 TRIA+AUX+CK 85.0b ± 6.1 2.8ab ± 0.2 10.29a ± 0.4 1.68ab ± 0.02 15.0a ± 1.5 7.7ab ± 0.2 154.5ab ± 7.2 10.53ab ± 0.9 TRIA+ AUX+GA+CK 91.5b ± 4.5 3.5a ± 0.5 10.71a ± 0.7 1.83a ± 0.06 14.7ab ± 3.2 8.7a ± 0.2 198a ± 34.9 12.15a ± 1.4 TRIA+K 85.7b ± 3.3 2.7ab ± 0.2 10.46a ± 0.4 1.81ab ± 0.03 9.0bc ± 1.3 7.7ab ± 0.6 120.8bc ± 15.4 7.30c ± 1.0 TRIA 88.7b ± 3.3 2.7ab ± 0.2 10.21a ± 0.3 1.73ab ± 0.05 12.8ab ± 0.9 7.2bc ± 0.4 135.8bc ± 9.3 8.88bc ± 0.4 CONTROL 79.8b ± 7.2 2.8ab ± 0.2 9.33ab ± 0.5 1.66b ± 0.04 13.3ab ± 1.5 5.9cd ± 0.3 122.2bc ± 14.6 7.98bc ± 1.0 F-Test ** ns ns ns * ** ns ** Mean 94.56 2.77 9.95 1.75 11.27 6.98 137.29 8.11 TRIA - triacontanol, AUX - auxins, GA - gibberellins, CK - cytokinins, K - foliar-applied potassium, PH - plant height, NBP - number of branches per plant, PL - pod length, PW - pod width, NPP - number of pods per plant, NGP - number of grains per pod, PFW - plant fresh weight. ns - not significant at P>0.05; *: P≤0.05; **: P≤0.01. 191Cantaro-Segura and Huaringa-Joaquín: Interaction of triacontanol with other plant growth regulators on morphology and yield of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) A B -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% PH NBP PL PW PFW NPP NGP Yield TRIA+AUX TRIA+GA TRIA+CK TRIA+AUX+CK TRIA+ AUX+GA+CK TRIA+K TRIA -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% PH NBP PL PW PFW NPP NGP Yield AUX GA CK AUX+CK AUX+GA+CK K FIGURE 1. Differential effects of the application of A) triacontanol (TRIA) compared to the control and B) the plant growth regulators (AUX - Auxins, GA - Gibberellins, and CK - Cytokinins) alone or mixed compared to triacontanol. PH - plant height; NBP - number of branches per plant; PL - pod length; PW - pod width; NPP - number of pods per plant; NGP - number of grains per pod; PFW - plant fresh weight. -6.9% -73.1% 6.1% 31.9% 52.2% -8.6% 11.3% TR IA + AU X TR IA + G A TR IA + C K TR IA + AU X+ C K TR IA + A U X+ G A+ C K TR IA + K TR IA 18.6 % 36.20 % -16.3 % -75.8 % -4.7 % -17.8 % AU X G A C K AU X+ C K AU X+ G A+ C K K FIGURE 2. Differential effect of the treatments on the yield (t ha-1) com- pared to the control. TRIA - triacontanol, AUX - auxins, GA - gibberellins, CK - cytokinins, K - foliar-applied potassium. FIGURE 3. Differential effects of growth regulators on the yield (t ha-1) compared to triacontanol. AUX - auxins, GA - gibberellins, CK - cytoki- nins, K - foliar-applied potassium. TRIA+AUX, TRIA+GA and the control did not exceed the average value obtained in the experiment of seven grains per pod (Tab. 3). Within the yield components, the number of pods per plant with the application of TRIA decreased by 3.8% compared to the control (Fig. 1A). No positive interac- tions were observed with the mixture of AUX and CK or with the mixture of the three hormones. However, a nega- tive interaction was recorded with AUX and CK applied separately since the AUX-CK relationship is imbalanced in physiological processes. A large decrease was observed with GA since they favor vegetative growth (Davies, 2010), and foliar potassium application obtained values below the control (32.5% less). The number of pods per plant is one of the most important yield components in legumes. GA decreased this yield variable because it promotes growth to the detriment of fruiting and formation of plant f lowers (Davies, 2010). CK promote pod formation and show synergism with auxins (Cato et al., 2013). The positive impact of CK has been ob- served in plants, such as Artemisia grown in vitro (Rasool et al., 2013), showing a greater effect with the mixture of the three growth regulators (Cato et al., 2013). Foliar-applied potassium has a positive effect on the control and an interaction with TRIA, similar to that occurring with CK. Regarding the variable green pod yield, the values obtained ranged between 2.15 and 12.15 t ha-1 with highly significant statistical differences between treat- ments (P<0.01). TRIA+AUX+CK and TRIA+AUX+GA+CK 192 Agron. Colomb. 39(2) 2021 exceeded 10 t ha-1, and TRIA+GA showed a decrease of 73.1% relative to the control. TRIA+AUX and TRIA+K did not exceed the control. The application of TRIA alone showed an increase of 11.3% relative to the control (Fig. 2). Pearson’s correlation coefficients of the yield variables showed that the number of pods per plant was positively correlated with number of grains per pod (0.485*), number of branches per plant (0.655**), plant fresh weight (0.670**), and yield (0.883**), and negatively correlated with plant height (-0.573**). The number of grains per pod was also positively correlated with the other variables (P<0.05). The same was observed for the variable green pod yield, except for pod width, which is not correlated with any variable (Tab. 4). Green pod yield is the agronomic trait that helps to de- termine the profitability of the crop. It also determines if the crop is a good alternative for the farmer, who looks for high yields with increasing emphasis on quality (Espinosa & Ligarreto, 2005; Checa Coral et al., 2017). The high yield values obtained are due to the fact that the values of number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, and number of grains per pod were also higher. These last two variables are important components of the yield and determine the productivity of plants. The lowest values were obtained in the interaction of TRIA with AUX and GA applied separately. This shows the negative effect of GA on crop yield in general since they decrease pod formation favoring vegetative growth and increasing plant height, an unfavorable issue leading to lodging (Davies, 2010; Hed- den, 2016; Wang et al., 2017). It also shows the negative effect of AUX applied alone, since they alter the AUX-CK relationship that is key to the growth and development of plant species (Schaller et al., 2015). TRIA is a natural growth regulator widely studied in vari- ous species, with notable effects on the growth and devel- opment of rice (Jadhav et al., 2017), Capsicum annuum L. (Sahu et al., 2017), willow (Digruber et al., 2018), sweet po- tato (Rajak et al., 2018), strawberry (Baba et al., 2017), and guava (Singh et al., 2017). Pearson’s correlation coefficients show a highly positive correlation between yield and the number of pods per plant (0.883**), number of branches per plant (0.731**), number of grains per plant (0.723**), plant fresh weight (0.845**), and pod length (0.654**) (Tab. 4). The differential effect for TRIA in this experiment was greater, especially in the yield components, with an increase in plant height of 11%, a decrease in number of branches per plant and number of pods per plant of 5.9 and 3.8%, respectively, and increases of 9.5% in pod length, 4.2% in pod width, 11.19% in plant fresh weight and 22.6% in number of grains per pod. Conclusions The results of this study showed that TRIA by itself has no remarkable effect on the growth and yield of Pisum sativum; only when TRIA is combined with other plant growth regulators such as AUX, GA and CK are noteworthy effects seen. AUX, GA and CK increased morphological variables with the exception of the number of branches per plant, and pod length in the case of GA. Within the yield components, AUX and CK increased the number of grains per pod and GA decreased all these variables, show- ing a negative interaction with TRIA. AUX and CK acted synergistically in almost all the variables evaluated, except for the number of branches for which similar values were obtained. In all these variables, the synergistic action of AUX and CK exceeds the effect of each growth regulator separately. The joint application of foliar-applied potassium fertilizer with TRIA showed an unfavorable effect on the yield and plant fresh weight. The highest green pod yields were obtained with the application of TRIA plus AUX, GA and CK (12.15 t ha-1), followed by the application of TRIA plus AUX and CK (10.53 t ha-1). The trihormonal applica- tion with TRIA obtained the best results in the variables TABLE 4. Pearson’s correlation coefficients of the variables tested. PH NBP NPP PL PW PFW NGP NBP -0.271 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- NPP -0.573** 0.655** ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- PL -0.443* 0.442* 0.396 ---- ---- ---- ---- PW 0.225 0.243 -0.232 0.131 ---- ---- ---- PFW -0.255 0.891** 0.670** 0.626** 0.267 ---- ---- NGP -0.447* 0.456* 0.485* 0.823** 0.058 0.587** ---- Yield -0.613** 0.731** 0.883** 0.654** -0.009 0.845** 0.723** PH - plant height; NBP - number of branches per plant; NPP - number of pods per plant; PL - pod length; PW - pod width; PFW - plant fresh weight, and NGP - number of grains per pod. 193Cantaro-Segura and Huaringa-Joaquín: Interaction of triacontanol with other plant growth regulators on morphology and yield of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) because the hormonal relationship is maintained and is not altered by the imbalance of the others. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the help of the Grain Legumes and Oilseed Research Center (Peru) for financing the research, Engineer Norma Bustamante and the company FARMEX S.A. for providing the biostimulants used in the experiment, and the National Institute of Agrarian Inno- vation (INIA-PERU) for facilitating the experiment site. Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that there is no conf lict of interest regarding the publication of this article. Author’s contributions AHJ obtained the financial support and the experiment site for the project. AHJ and HCS designed the methodol- ogy. HCS conducted the research process, performed the experiment, and analyzed the data. HCS wrote the draft and AHJ carried out the revision of the manuscript. Literature cited Aftab, T., Khan, M. M. A., Idrees, M., Naeem, M., Singh, M., & Ram, M. (2010). Stimulation of crop productivity, photosynthesis and artemisinin production in Artemisia annua L. by triacontanol and gibberellic acid application. Journal of Plant Interactions, 5(4), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429141003647137 Anchivilca Rojas, G. H. (2018). Abonamiento orgánico y fertilización NPK en arveja verde (Pisum sativum L.) cv. Rondo, bajo riego por goteo en Tupicocha, Huarochirí [Undergraduate honors thesis, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina]. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina. http:// repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/handle/UNALM/3559 Baba, T. R., Ali, A., Kumar, A., & Husain, M. (2017). Effect of exog- enous application of salicylic acid and triacontanol on growth characters and yield of strawberry. The Pharma Innovation Journal, 6(11), 274–279. Bertolin, D. C., Sá, M. E., Arf, O., Furlani Junior, E., Colombo, A. S., & Carvalho, F. L. B. M. (2010). Aumento da produtividade de soja com a aplicação de bioestimulantes. Bragantia, 69(2), 339–347. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0006-87052010000200011 Borowski, E., Blamowski, Z. K., & Michałek, W. (2000). Effects of To- matex/Triacontanol/ on chlorophyll f luorescence and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) yields. Acta Physiologiae Plan- tarum, 22, 271–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-000-0030-5 Burt, R. (Ed.). (2014). Soil survey field and laboratory methods manual. Soil survey investigations report no. 51, Version 2. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Carlson, D. R., Dyer, D. J., Cotterman, C. D., & Durley, R. C. (1987). The physiological basis for cytokinin induced increases in pod set in IX93-100 soybeans. Plant Physiology, 84(2), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.84.2.233 Cato, S. C., Macedo, W. R., Peres, L. E. P., & Castro, P. R. C. (2013). Sinergism among auxins, gibberellins and cy tokinins in tomato cv. Micro-Tom. Horticultura Brasileira, 31, 549–553. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-05362013000400007 Checa Coral, Ó. E., Bastidas Acosta, J. E., & Narváez Taimal, O. C. (2017). Evaluación agronómica y económica de arveja arbustiva (Pisum sativum L.) en diferentes épocas de siembra y sistemas de tutorado. Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Cientí- fica, 20(2), 279–288. Checa Coral, O. E., Getial Pantoja, J. A., & Rodríguez Rodríguez, D. M. (2020). Evaluación de ocho líneas de arveja arbustiva (Pisum sativum L.) en seis ambientes de la zona cerealista de Nariño. Revista U.D.C.A Actualidad & Divulgación Científica, 23(1), Article e1211. https://doi.org/10.31910/rudca.v23.n1.2020.1211 Chen, X., Yuan, H., Chen, R., Zhu, L., Du, B., Weng, Q., & He, G. (2002). Isolation and characterization of triacontanol-regulat- ed genes in rice (Oryza sativa L.): possible role of triacontanol as a plant growth stimulator. Plant Cell Physiology, 43(8), 869–876. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcf100 Csukasi, F., Merchante, C., & Valpuesta, V. (2009). Modification of plant hormone levels and signaling as a tool in plant biotech- nology. Biotechnology Journal, 4(9), 1293–1304. https://doi. org/10.1002/biot.200800286 Davies, P. J. (2010). The plant hormones: their nature, occurrence, and functions. In P. J. Davies (Ed.), Plant hormones: biosyn- thesis, signal transduction, action! (pp. 1–15). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2686-7_1 Depuydt, S., & Hardtke, C. S. (2011). Hormone signalling crosstalk in plant growth regulation. Current Biology, 21(9), R365–R373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.013 Digruber, T., Sass, L., Cseri, A., Paul, K., Nagy, A. V., Remenyik, J., Molnár, I., Vass, I., Toldi, O., Gyuricza, C., & Dudits, D. (2018). Stimulation of energy willow biomass with triacontanol and seaweed extract. Industrial Crops and Products, 120, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.04.047 Erisman, J. W. (2011). The new global nitrogen cycle. In J. C. Polacco, & C. D. Todd (Eds.), Ecological aspects of nitrogen metabolism in plants (1st ed., pp. 3–15). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi. org/10.1002/9780470959404.ch1 Espinosa, N., & Ligarreto, G. A. (2005). Evaluación de la habilidad combinatoria y heterosis de siete progenitores de arveja Pisum sativum L. Agronomía Colombiana, 23(2), 197–206. Gomez-Roldan, V., Fermas, S., Brewer, P. B., Puech-Pagès, V., Dun, E. A., Pillot, J. P., Letisse, F., Matusova, R., Danoun, S., Portais, J. C., Bouwmeester, H., Bécard, G., Beveridge, C. A., Rameau, C., & Rochange, S. F. (2008). Strigolactone inhibition of shoot branching. Nature, 455, 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature07271 Hardtke, C. S., Dorcey, E., Osmont, K. S., & Sibout, R. (2007). Phyto- hormone collaboration: zooming in on auxin-brassinosteroid interactions. Trends in Cell Biology, 17(10), 485–492. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2007.08.003 Hedden, P. (2016). Gibberellins. In B. Thomas, B. G. Murray, & D. J. Murphy (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied plant sciences https://doi.org/10.1080/17429141003647137 http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/handle/UNALM/3559 http://repositorio.lamolina.edu.pe/handle/UNALM/3559 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0006-87052010000200011 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-000-0030-5 https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.84.2.233 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-05362013000400007 https://doi.org/10.31910/rudca.v23.n1.2020.1211 https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcf100 https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.200800286 https://doi.org/10.1002/biot.200800286 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2686-7_1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2686-7_1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.04.047 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470959404.ch1 https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470959404.ch1 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07271 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07271 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2007.08.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2007.08.003 194 Agron. Colomb. 39(2) 2021 (Vol. 1, pp. 411–420). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-394807-6.00219-7 Henry, E. W., & Gordon, C. J. (1980). The effect of triacontanol on peroxidase, IAA, and plant growth in Pisum sativum var. ‘Alaska’ and ‘Little marvel’. Journal of Experimental Botany, 31(5), 1297–1303. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/31.5.1297 Jadhav, S. M., Burondkar, M. M., Patil, M. Y., & Sawant, G. B. (2017). Effect of plant growth regulators on physiological behavior of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under kharif Konkan condition. Interna- tional Journal of Chemical Studies, 5(6), 1365–1367. Khan, M. M. A., Bhardwaj, G., Naeem, M., Moinuddin, Moham- mad, F., Singh, M., Nasir, S., & Idrees, M. (2009). Response of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) to application of potassium and triacontanol. Acta Horticulturae, 823, 199–208. https://doi. org/10.17660/actahortic.2009.823.29 Khandaker, M. M., Faruq, G., Rahman, M. M., Sofian-Azirun, M., & Boyce, A. N. (2013). The inf luence of 1-triacontanol on the growth, f lowering, and quality of potted Bougainvillea plants (Bougainvillea glabra var. “Elizabeth Angus”) under natural conditions. The Scientific World Journal, 2013, Article 308651. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/308651 Kuppusamy, K. T., Walcher, C. L., & Nemhauser, J. L. (2009). Cross-regulatory mechanisms in hormone signaling. Plant Molecular Biology, 69, Article 375. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11103-008-9389-2 Liu, C., Wang, S., Copeland, L., & Wang, S. (2015). Physicochemical properties and in vitro digestibility of starches from field peas grown in China. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 64(2), 829–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.06.060 Marschner, P. (Ed.). (2011). Mineral nutrition of higher plants (3rd ed.). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-63043-9 Martínez González, L., Maqueira López, L., Nápoles García, M. C., & Núñez Vázquez, M. (2017). Efecto de bioestimulantes en el rendimiento de dos cultivares de frijol (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) biofertilizados. Cultivos Tropicales, 38(2), 113–118. Mosjidis, C. O., Peterson, C. M., Truelove, B., & Dute, R. R. (1993). Stimulation of pod and ovule growth of soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. by 6-benzylaminopurine. Annals of Botany, 71(3), 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1993.1024 Müller, D., & Leyser, O. (2011). Auxin, cytokinin and the control of shoot branching. Annals of Botany, 107(7), 1203–1212. https:// doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr069 Naeem, M., Idrees, M., Aftab, T., Khan, M. M. A., & Moinuddin. (2010). Changes in photosynthesis, enzyme activities and production of anthraquinone and sennoside content of coffee senna (Senna occidentalis L.) by triacontanol. International Journal of Plant Developmental Biology, 4(1), 53–59. Naeem, M., Khan, M. M. A., & Moinuddin. (2012). Triacontanol: a potent plant growth regulator in agriculture. Journal of Plant Interactions, 7(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145. 2011.619281 Naeem, M., Khan, M. M. A., Moinuddin, Idrees, M., & Aftab, T. (2011). Triacontanol-mediated regulation of growth and other physiological attributes, active constituents and yield of Men- tha arvensis L. Plant Growth Regulation, 65, 195–206. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10725-011-9588-8 Naeem, M., Khan, M. M. A., Moinuddin, & Siddiqui, M. H. (2009). Triacontanol stimulates nitrogen-fixation, enzyme activities, photosynthesis, crop productivity and quality of hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus L.). Scientia Horticulturae, 121(4), 389–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.02.030 Nakaya, M., Tsukaya, H., Murakami, N., & Kato, M. (2002). Brassi- nosteroids control the proliferation of leaf cells of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant & Cell Physiology, 43(2), 239–244. https://doi. org/10.1093/pcp/pcf024 Pozo, M. J., López-Ráez, J. A., Azcón-Aguilar, C., & García-Garrido, J. M. (2015). Phytohormones as integrators of environmental signals in the regulation of mycorrhizal symbioses. New Phy- tologist, 205(4), 1431–1436. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13252 Rajak, R., Sengupta, S., Tiwary, A. K., Verma, S., Minz, A., Bibhuti, T. O. P., & Rani, V. (2018). Effect of bio regulators on yield parameters of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(1), 2425–2427. Rasool, R., Ganai, B. A., Kamili, A. N., Akbar, S., & Masood, A. (2013). Synergistic effect of auxins and cytokinins on propa- gation of Artemisia amygdalina (Asteraceae), a critically en- dangered plant of Kashmir. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 45(2), 629–634. Ratnayake, W. S., Hoover, R., Shahidi, F., Perera, C., & Jane, J. (2001). Composition, molecular structure, and physicochemical properties of starches from four field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars. Food Chemistry, 74(2), 189–202. Rodríguez Quispe, G. (2015). Evaluación de 12 cultivares de arveja (Pisum sativum L.) de tipo industrial para cosecha en verde en condiciones de Tarma [Undergraduate thesis, Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú]. Repositorio Institucional Digital Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú. http:// repositorio.uncp.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/20.500.12894/977/ RODR%C3%8DGUEZ%20QUISPE%20GUSTAVO.pdf Rondinel Ruíz, R. (2014). Rendimiento en vaina verde de tres var- iedades de arveja (Pisum sativum L.) en tres modalidades de siembra bajo el sistema de agricultura de conservación. Canaán a 2750 msnm - Ayacucho [Undergraduate honors tesis, Univer- sidad Nacional de San Cristóbal de Huamanga]. Repositorio Institucional Universidad Nacional de San Cristóbal de Hua- manga. http://repositorio.unsch.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/ UNSCH/901/Tesis Ag1139_Ron.pdf Sahu, G., Aslam, T., Das, S. P., Maity, T. K., & Gupta, N. K. (2017). A study on pre-f lowering foliar spray of plant growth regulator on growth and yield parameters in sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) under protected condition. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(7), 3998–4007. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.414 Santner, A., Calderon-Villalobos, L. I. A., & Estelle, M. (2009). Plant hormones are versatile chemical regulators of plant growth. Nature Chemical Biology, 5, 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nchembio.165 Santos, J., Herrero, M., Mendiola, J. A., Oliva-Teles, M. T., Ibáñez, E., Delerue-Matos, C., & Oliveira, M. B. P. P. (2014). Assessment of nutritional and metabolic profiles of pea shoots: the new ready-to-eat baby-leaf vegetable. Food Research International, 58, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.062 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394807-6.00219-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394807-6.00219-7 https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/31.5.1297 https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2009.823.29 https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2009.823.29 https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/308651 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-008-9389-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-008-9389-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.06.060 https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1993.1024 https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr069 https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcr069 https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2011.619281 https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2011.619281 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-011-9588-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-011-9588-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.02.030 https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcf024 https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcf024 https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13252 http://repositorio.uncp.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/20.500.12894/977/RODR%C3%8DGUEZ%20QUISPE%20GUSTAVO.pdf http://repositorio.uncp.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/20.500.12894/977/RODR%C3%8DGUEZ%20QUISPE%20GUSTAVO.pdf http://repositorio.uncp.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/20.500.12894/977/RODR%C3%8DGUEZ%20QUISPE%20GUSTAVO.pdf http://repositorio.unsch.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/UNSCH/901/Tesis Ag1139_Ron.pdf http://repositorio.unsch.edu.pe/bitstream/handle/UNSCH/901/Tesis Ag1139_Ron.pdf https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.414 https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.165 https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.062 195Cantaro-Segura and Huaringa-Joaquín: Interaction of triacontanol with other plant growth regulators on morphology and yield of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) Santos, O. F., Cunha, F. F., Taira, T. L., Souza, E. J., & Leal, A. J. F. (2018). Increase in pea productivity associated with irrigation management. Horticultura Brasileira, 36(2), 178–183. https:// doi.org/10.1590/s0102-053620180205 Schaller, G. E., Bishopp, A., & Kieber, J. J. (2015). The Yin-Yang of hormones: cytokinin and auxin interactions in plant devel- opment. The Plant Cell, 27(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1105/ tpc.114.133595 Shuk la, A., Abad Farooqi, A. H., Shuk la, Y. N., & Sharma, S. (1992). Effect of triacontanol and chlormequat on growth, plant hormones and artemisinin yield in Artemisia annua L. Plant Growth Regulation, 11, 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00024071 Singh, K., Sharma, M., & Singh, S. K. (2017). Effect of plant growth regulators on fruit yield and quality of guava (Psidium guajava) cv. Allahabad Safeda. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiol- ogy, 11(2), 1149–1154. https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.11.2.61 Taiz, L., Zeiger, E., Møller, I. M., & Murphy, A. (Eds.). (2014). Plant physiology and development (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. Wang, Y., Zhao, J., Lu, W., & Deng, D. (2017). Gibberellin in plant height control: old player, new story. Plant Cell Reports, 36, 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-017-2104-5 Weeden, N. F. (2007). Genetic changes accompanying the domes- tication of Pisum sativum: is there a common genetic basis to the ‘domestication syndrome’ for legumes? Annals of Botany, 100(5), 1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm122 Wehner, T., & Gritton, E. T. (1981). Effect of the n gene on pea pod characteristics. Journal of the American Society for Horticul- tural Science, 106(2), 181–183. Wolters, H., & Jürgens, G. (2009). Survival of the f lexible: hormonal growth control and adaptation in plant development. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10, 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2558 Wu, L., Chang, K. F., Hwang, S. F., Conner, R., Fredua-Agyeman, R., Feindel, D., & Strelkov, S. E. (2019). Evaluation of host resis- tance and fungicide application as tools for the management of root rot of field pea caused by Aphanomyces euteiches. The Crop Journal, 7(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2018.07.005 https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-053620180205 https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-053620180205 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.114.133595 https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.114.133595 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00024071 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00024071 https://doi.org/10.22207/JPAM.11.2.61 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-017-2104-5 https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm122 https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2558 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2018.07.005