Role of potash fertilization in reduction of water stress in mungbean (Vigna radiate L.)‎, water use efficiency and yield

Joint Authors

Taha, Walid Abd al-Sattar
Nasr Allah, Adil
Ati, Ala Salih

Source

مجلة جامعة دهوك

Publisher

University of Duhok

Publication Date

2016-06-30

Country of Publication

Iraq

No. of Pages

8

Main Subjects

Agriculture

English Abstract

A field study was conducted during autumn seasons of 2012 and 2013 at Al Jazera city/ Al-Anbar province to determine the actual consumptive use by mungbean crop (Vigna radiata L.) under water stress conditions and potassium fertilizer, as well as the assessment of field water use efficiency and yield.

Four treatments of irrigation were used I1 represent among irrigation which were done after 50% of available water depletion (control); I2, I3 and I4 represent the depletion of (25, 50 and 75) % of available water of control treatment, respectively.

Rather than using four levels of potassium (K0= 0.0, K1=40, K2=80 and K3=120) kg K ha-1 using K2SO4 fertilizers (41.5 %K).

A split plot in randomized complete block design was used with three replications.

The local mungbean seeds were planted, depth and date of irrigation were determined according to consumed soil moisture.

The results show that: the actual water consumptive use (ETa) was varied with irrigation treatment.

ETa reached (382.06 and 338.75) mm season-1 for I1 treatment and decreased in I4 treatment to (220.02 and 183.53) mm season-1, in first and second season respectively.The ETa values were (315.14 and 272.64) mm for first and second seasons, respectively in K0 treatment, and decreased to (310.23, 304.03 and 298.49) mm.season-1 for K1, K2 and K3, respectively in first season and (268.69, 262.66 and 252.72) mm.season-1 for K1, K2 and K3 , respectively in second season.

The crop water use efficiency (water productivity) were (2.83, 2.69), ( 3.02, 3.01),(1.99, 2.04), (1.63, 1.47) kg.ha-1.mm-1 for I1, I2, I3 and I4 treatments, respectively.

Crop water use efficiency were (1.81, 1.73), (2.24, 2.17), (2.54, 2.51), (2.87, 2.79) kg.ha-1 mm-1 for K0, K1, K2 and K3 treatments in the first and second seasons, respectively.The field water use efficiencies were (2.74, 2.63), (2.94, 2.94), (1.94, 2.01), (1.58, 1.43) kg.ha-1.mm-1 for I1, I2, I3 and I4 treatments in the first and second seasons, respectively, while it was (1.76, 1.71), (2.18, 2.13), (2.47, 2.46), (2.78, 2.72) kg.ha-1 mm-1 for K0, K1, K2 and K3 treatments in two seasons, respectively

Data Type

Conference Papers

Record ID

BIM-797927

• APA
• MLA
• AMA