Effect of soil water on plant height and root depth and ... - irjabs.com


Effect of soil water on plant height and root depth and ... - irjabs.com

International Research Journal ong>ofong> Applied and Basic Sciences. Vol., 3 (4), 848-853, 2012Available online at http://www. irjabs.comISSN 2251-838X ©2012ong>Effectong> ong>ofong> ong>soilong> ong>waterong> on plant height and root depth and some agronomic traits incommon bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) under biological phosphorous fertilizer andirrigation managementAli Abdzad GohariDepartments ong>ofong> Agriculture, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, IranEmail: aag_aligohari@yahoo.comABSTRACT: After irrigation, ong>waterong> penetration the ong>soilong> is one ong>ofong> key characteristicschanging with time. It may prevent surrounding area ong>ofong> root to achieve adequate ong>waterong> .Tostudy the changes ong>ofong> ong>waterong> penetration in the ong>soilong> on plant height and root depth andinfluence ong>ofong> ong>waterong> condition on common bean plant under irrigation management andphosphorylated biologic fertilizer, factorial test was performed in complete randomizedblock design with 3 repetitions in Astaneh Ashrafiyeh city in the 2011 growing season. Inpresent study, without irrigation conditions and irrigation management with 6, 12 and 18days interval were selected as first treatment and amounts ong>ofong> phosphorylated fertilizedincluding 0, 1, 2 and 3 g/l per plot was selected as second treatment .Results indicated thatplant height and root depth under irrigation was significant in probability level ong>ofong> 1% andbiologic fertilizer amount also affected only o plant height. Irrigation management wassignificant on ong>waterong> rate relative to wet weight in 1% probability level and on ong>waterong> raterelation leaf ong>waterong> was significant in p>0.05.while various amounts ong>ofong> phosphorylatedbiologic fertilizer didn’t affect on ong>waterong> condition in bean plant. Relative leaf ong>waterong> amountin different treatments ranged between 49.4 and 76.6 % ong>soilong> penetration rate also decreasedduring development period compared to early season. Average final penetration rate ong>ofong> ong>soilong>reached to constant rate ong>ofong> 13 mm.Keywords: Infiltration, irrigation, biological fertilizer, Common bean.INTRODUCTIONBean is one ong>ofong> most important members ong>ofong> cereals and with 12 to 32% protein, it represents about half ong>ofong>land under plantation if cereals in Iran (Kazemi poshtmasari et al, 2007). Bean is an annual plant with onemajor root and numerous secondary roots .There are irregular brown colored nitrogen fixing tubers on itssmall roots. Lack ong>ofong> adequate ong>waterong> and its inconsistent distribution during developing season leads to thecondition where ong>waterong> requirements ong>ofong> crops is not met adequately and plants are exposed to ong>waterong> stress(Passioura, 2006). Draught is major environmental stress and most important limiting factor in cropproduction worldwide (Bacem et al, 2007).Cell growth is most sensitive process influenced by ong>waterong>stress. As cell growth decreased ,organ size will be limited .It is why first marked effect ong>ofong> ong>waterong> stress onplants could be determined from smaller sizes ong>ofong> leaf or low heights in plants or decreased wet or dryweight. Plants resistant to ong>waterong> stress, by maintaining cell swelling continue cell metabolism under ong>waterong>stress (Schonfeld, 2005).Thus leaf relative ong>waterong> may be useful tool for function or its components toselect plant under draught stress conditions. Since it indicates ong>waterong> maintenance and survival rates in theplant in stress condition .Biologic fertilizer utilization in agriculture has a long history. However, usingthese fertilizers has decreased in few recent decades. Today, biologic fertilizers are considered as onalternative for chemical fertilizers with the aim ong>ofong> increased fertilization ong>ofong> ong>soilong> and crop production insustainable agriculture (Wu et al; 2005). Penetration is among important parameters to design irrigationsystems based on which irrigation management and planning are performed. Since it determinesirrigation continuity to store given amount ong>ofong> ong>waterong> within ong>soilong> (Abdzad Gohari, 2011).Using biologicfertilizers in agriculture has a long history. Today, using biologic fertilizers in agriculture is suggestedagain taken excess usage if chemical fertilizers (Astaraei and Kouchaki, 1996). Thus, scientific utilization

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (4), 848-853, 2012ong>ofong> such resources must be increased so that the potential ong>ofong> ong>soilong> organisms and organic materials beingused while considering ong>soilong> quality and following hygiene and environmental safety (Moallem andEshghizadeh, 2007). In Guilan province, 3793.5 ha ong>ofong> land is planted by been. Amount ong>ofong> crop yield hasbeen estimated as 6276.8 tones. The changes in ong>waterong> penetration in ong>soilong> on plant height and root depthand influence ong>ofong> ong>waterong> condition in common bean plant under irrigation management and phosphorylatedbiologic fertilizer.MATERIALS AND METHODSa experiment was done in Astaneh Ashrafiyeh located in 37 16' latitude and 46 56' longitude in the northong>ofong> Iran at an average altitude ong>ofong> 3 meter (above the sea level). Climatic data ong>ofong> the studied period wereobtained from Astaneh Ashrafiyeh meteorological station (Table1). From the climatology perspective,this town is considered a temperate and humid region and has a loam ong>soilong> with 7.4 pH value (Table2). Theexperiment was done as a split-plot in a completely random blocks plan with three replications. Eachexperimental unit was 4×2.5 m in area and had 4 rows ong>ofong> plantation. Irrigation management was includingwithout irrigation and irrigation cycle with 6, 12 and 18 days intervals and phosphorylated biologicfertilizer rate was including 0, 1, 2 and 3 g/l per plot. Agricultural land was initially ploughed in earlymay then, on 9 may. Seed plantation (native Dehsari variety) was started manually in rows with 3-4 cmdepth. Surface irrigation was as irrigation method in this project. So that, distance between2 hills is 80 cmand distance between plants in the hills is 35 cm. contour was used to Measure amount ong>ofong> ong>waterong> deliveredto each experimental unit. Water used during plants growth period was supplied through irrigation ong>waterong>and raining rate. So that in 6,12 and 18 days irrigation , the number ong>ofong> irrigation times were 8,5 and 3times , respectively and amount ong>ofong> using ong>waterong> were obtained as 298,255 and 201 mm , respectively .Todefine ong>waterong> percentage relative to dry weight , firstly leaf fresh weights were measured .Then leave wasplaced in oven with 70c for 24 hours to dry. Next, using following equation, percentage ong>ofong> ong>waterong> relativeto wet and dry weight was obtained (Alizadeh, 2011).Percent ong>ofong> ong>waterong> Ratio The wet weight =Percent ong>ofong> ong>waterong> Ratio The dry weight =Weight ong>ofong> leaves in the field- Leaf dry weightWeight ong>ofong> leaves in the fieldWeight ong>ofong> leaves in the field- Leaf dry weightLeaf dry weight×100×100To define leave relative ong>waterong> rate, leave was picked before sunset and was transferred to the lab.Immediately leave weight was measured .Then, sample within beaker was placed in distilled ong>waterong> toabsorb ong>waterong> and reach to full swelling. In next stage, this leave sample was placed in pocket and thenplaced in oven with 70 °c for 24 hours to dry. After this period leave dry weight was measured byweighting leave sample. with having weight ong>ofong> leave in the farm, leave dry weight and leave swellingweight , leave relative ong>waterong> rate was evaluated by using following equation (Kramer, 1995).RWC (%) = FW − DW 100TW DW − ×FW = fresh weight (gram), TW = turgid weight (gram), and DW = dry weight (gram).Table 1. Information on meteorological dataMonthMax Temp Min Temp Rain fall Wind Speed Max Humidity Min Humidity( C) ( C) (mm) (m/s)(%)(%)May 21.7 12.3 45.5 1.0 90 56.7Jun 27.3 17.3 39.5 1.2 92 58.9Jul 31.9 20 0 0.9 85.9 49Table2. Characteristics ong>ofong> ong>soilong> in the study areaParticle size distribution (%)Soildepths(Cm)Sand Silt ClayTotalnitrogenOrganiccarbonSoilTexturePotassiumabsorbent(ppm)Phosphorabsorbent(ppm)ElectricalConductivity(ds/m)0-30 38 53 9 0.074 0.68 Loamy Silt 641 7.78 0.278849

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (4), 848-853, 2012In this study, double cylinder method was used to measured penetration in the farm. Kostiakov equationmethod was followed to measure penetration equation which was developed as: D=kt a , where D iscollective penetration per mm, t is penetration time per minute and is equation coefficients .Two pointmethod was used to calculate equation coefficients. Where 2 points among series ong>ofong> points obtained wereselected and equation is solved for these points (Mostafazadeh and Mousavi, 2006). In rate agriculturalseason, characteristics including plant height and root depth were measured.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONInfiltration and ong>waterong> contentResults ong>ofong> this study indicated that after 120 minutes ong>ofong> measurements, penetration intensity rate reachedto constant, penetration intensity rate reached to constant figure ong>ofong> 13 mm/day. Mean collectivepenetration rate D (cm) and mean penetration intensity (mm/h) are given as a function ong>ofong> time t (minute)in Fig. 1. Rasoulzadeh and Sepaskhah (2003) stated that changes ong>ofong> penetration intensity will complicatefurrow irrigation management. Because characteristics ong>ofong> ong>waterong> penetration to the ong>soilong> may change ratesong>ofong> ong>waterong> flow rate. Thus it is difficult to develop a precise equation for penetration.Cumulative Influence (mm)Infiltration Rate (Cm/hr)Cumulative Influence (mm)70605040302010y = -0.0062x 2 + 1.6851x - 3.6657R 2 = 0.9952y = 0.0046x 2 - 1.0184x + 61.256R 2 = 0.994814012010080604020Infiltration Rate (Cm/hr)000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140(Cm/ha)Fig.1: mean infiltration rate (cm/hr) and mean cumulative infiltration (cm)Percent ong>ofong> ong>waterong> Ratio The wet weightDifferent amounts ong>ofong> irrigation management and fertilizer biological interaction ong>ofong> biological andmeaningless on all parameters (Table 3). Irrigation management was in the 1% level but significant effect onthe percentage ong>ofong> ong>waterong> in the wet weight (Table 3). The maximum amount ong>ofong> irrigation ong>waterong> for 6 dayswith more weight than the 71.5% and 56% in treatments without irrigation, with the least amount wonamong treatments (Fig. 2). Measurement ong>ofong> ong>waterong> to the fresh weight ong>ofong> leaf weight relative to the timevariable is not an optimum way, but this method to compare the percentage ong>ofong> ong>waterong> in different organs orparts ong>ofong> a plant or plant species is useful (Alizadeh, 2010).Table 3: Variance Analysis for ong>Effectong> ong>ofong> biological phosphorous fertilizer and irrigation management on ong>ofong>agronomic traits common beanMean squaresSource ong>ofong>Percent ong>waterong>df Plant Root Plant Height RWCvariationratio to dry weightBlokes 2 90.250 ns 34.563 ns 930.626 ns 2311.482 * 169.563 *Irrigation(I) 3 79.056 ** 1008.972 ** 1935.215 * 13601.41 * 574.062 **Fertilizer(F) 3 6.833 ns 326.972 ** 83.192 ns 6383.166 ns 23.395 nsI × F 9 31.667 ns 13.269 ns 84.127 ns 3628.144 ns 16.129 nsError 24 16.028 32.363 141.392 2752.103 10.653C.V (%) 22.88 15.02 20.54 23.34 5.20ns: no significant, *significant at P

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (4), 848-853, 2012Percent ong>ofong> ong>waterong> Ratio The dry weightDifferent rates ong>ofong> biologic fertilizer and mutual effect ong>ofong> irrigation management and biologic fertilizer onall parameters was had significant effect on percentage ong>waterong> relative to wet weight with p>0.0 (Table3).6 days irrigation had greatest amount ong>ofong> ong>waterong> relative to dry weight with 227.2 and without irrigationtreatment had lowest amount with 197 (Fig.3).While percentage ong>ofong> ong>waterong> relative to dry weight for leafand young organs whose dry weight will be added during photosynthesis , was not a good technique .Butchanges ong>ofong> leave dry weight during 1 hour or even during 24 hours may not be large enough to affect onthe results , it is useful for short-term studies and surveying shortage ong>ofong> ong>waterong> in tissues during a during aday and comparing it to the night. Leave relative ong>waterong> in irrigation management was significant withp>0.05 (Table 3) 6 days irrigation management and without irrigation condition with 76.6 and 49.4respectively had greatest and lowest leave relative ong>waterong>. Leave relative content is, in fact, very usefultool to select in draught stress (schanfeld et al, 1988). Blum (1999) in a study introduced leave relativeong>waterong> as best Method for measuring ong>waterong> condition in plant.Leaf relative ong>waterong> content (RWC)In this study, the decrease ong>ofong> irrigation interval had a significant effect on the leaf relative ong>waterong> content(RWC) (p

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (4), 848-853, 201210076.6 a6051.3 aRWC (%)8060402049.5 b50.6 b 54.9 bPlant Height (Cm)50403030.4 b34.6 b35.3 bPlant Height (Cm)0NoIrrigation6 dayInterval12 dayInterval18 dayIntervalFig. 4: RWC in irrigation management6050403031c43.7 a38.8 b 38 b20NoIrrigation6 dayInterval12 dayInterval18 dayIntervalFig.5: Height ong>ofong> plant in irrigation managementPlant Root (Cm)201816141213.8 b18.1 a18.7 a19.5 a200 1 2 3(g/l per plot)Fig.6: Height ong>ofong> plant in different levels ong>ofong> fertilizer biological10NoIrrigation6 dayInterval12 dayInterval18 dayIntervalFig.7: Height ong>ofong> roots in irrigation managementCONCLUSIONIn present study, without irrigation conditions and irrigation management with 6, 12 and 18 days intervalswere selected as first treatment and amounts ong>ofong> phosphorylated fertilized including 0, 1, 2 and 3 g/l perplot was selected as second treatment .Results indicated that plant height and root depth under irrigationwas significant in probability level ong>ofong> 1% and biologic fertilizer amount also affected only plant height.Irrigation management was significant on ong>waterong> rate relative to wet weight in 1% probability level and onong>waterong> rate relation leaf ong>waterong> was significant in p>0.05.while various amounts ong>ofong> phosphorylated biologicfertilizer didn’t affect on ong>waterong> condition in bean plant. Relative leaf ong>waterong> amount in different treatmentsranged between 49.4 and 76.6% ong>soilong> penetration rate also decreased during development period comparedto early season. Average final penetration rate ong>ofong> ong>soilong> reached to constant rate ong>ofong> 13 mm.RESOURCESAbdzad Gohari A (2011) ong>Effectong>s ong>ofong> Water Infiltration to Soil in Increasing Yield and Water UseEfficiency in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L). American-Eurasian J. Agric & Environ, Sci., 10(5):797-801.Alizadeh A (2010) Soil and plant ong>waterong> relations. Publications Ferdowsi University ong>ofong> Mashhad. 516 Pp.Astaraei A, Kouchaki A (1996) Sustainable use ong>ofong> biological fertilizers in agriculture.Publications Mashhad University Jihad.Bacem M, Aouani M E, Mohamadi R (2007) Nodulation and growth ong>ofong> common bean (Phaseolusvulgaris) under ong>waterong> deficiency. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39: 1744-1750.Blum A (1999) Towards standard assay ong>ofong> drought resistance in crop plants. In: J. M. Ribaut and D.Poland. Molecular approaches for the genetic improvement ong>ofong> cereals for stable production inong>waterong>- limited environments. A strategic planning workshop, 21-25 June. CIMMYT, El Batan,Mexico.Hoogland J C, Feddes R A, Belmans C (1981) Root ong>waterong> uptake model depending on ong>soilong> ong>waterong> pressurehead and maximum extraction rate. Acta Hort, 119:123±36.Kazemi poshtmasari H, Pirdashti H, Bahmaniyar M A (2007) Comparative effects ong>ofong> inorganic phosphatefertilizers, and biological characteristics ong>ofong> two varieties ong>ofong> faba bean. J. Agric. Sci. Natur.Resour., ur., Vol. 14.852

Intl. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. Vol., 3 (4), 848-853, 2012Kramer P J (1995) Water relation ong>ofong> plants and Soils. Academic Press. 495 pp.Moallem A, Eshghizadeh R (2007) The use ong>ofong> biological fertilizers: benefits and limitations. Proceedingsong>ofong> the National Conference ong>ofong> Iranian ecology. Gorgan. P. 47.Mostafazadeh B, Mousavi S F (2006) Surface Irrigation: Theory and Practice (Translated to Persian),third edition, 582 P.Passioura J (2006) Increasing crop productivity when ong>waterong> is scarce-from breeding to field management.Agric. ong>waterong> manag. 80: 176-196.Rasoulzadeh A, Sepaskhah AR (2003) Scaled infiltration equations for furrow irrigation. BiosystemEngineering, 86(3):375-383.Schonfeld M A, Johnson RC, Carver BF, Mornhinweg DW (1988) Water relations in winter wheat asdrought resistance indicators. Crop Sci. 28: 526-531.Stoyanov Z Z (2005) ong>Effectong>s ong>ofong> ong>waterong> stress on leaf ong>waterong> relations ong>ofong> young beans. Central Eur. Agric.6(1): 5-14.Wu S C, Cao Z H, Li ZG, Cheung K C, Wong M H (2005) ong>Effectong>s ong>ofong> biong>ofong>ertilizers containing N-fixer, Pand K solubilizer and AM fungi on maize growth: a greenhouse trail. Geoderma. 125:155-166.Yuan B Z, Nishiyama S, Kang Y (2003) ong>Effectong>s ong>ofong> different irrigation regimes on the growth and yield ong>ofong>drip- irrigated potato. Agric. Water Manage. 63: 153-167.853

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines