Research paper
Leaching Fraction of Irrigation Water and Tillage Treatment for Growing Forage Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) on Sondus Agricultural Project Soils
Salah Abdel Rahman Salih1, Mohamed Abdel Mahmoud Elsheikh1 and Abdel Moneim Elamin Mohamed2
1 Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Fish Science, University of Neelain, Sudan 2 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum
Corresponding author: عنوان البريد الإلكتروني هذا محمي من روبوتات السبام. يجب عليك تفعيل الجافاسكربت لرؤيته.
ABSTRACT
Salah Abdel Rahman Salih et al. / Nile Journal for Agricultural Sciences Vol.
3, NO. 1 (2018) 50 - 59
اثر هامش غسيل التربة من ماء الري وطريقة الحرث على اداء علف الذرة (ابو سبعين) في تربة مشروع سندس
صالح عبد الرحمن صالح1، محمد عبد المحمود الشيخ1، عبد المنعم االمين محمد2
1 كلية التقانة الزراعية وعلوم االسماك، جامعة النيلين
2 كلية الزراعة، جامعة الخرطوم
اجريت هذه الدراسة خالل صيفي 2013 و 2014 في مزرعة كلية التقانة الزراعية وعلوم االسماك، جامعة النيلين بجبل اولياء جنوب الخرطوم لمعرفة المقدار المناسب من ماء الري واحسن طرق الحرث ألداء جيد لعلف ابوسبعين المزروع بأراضي متأثرة بالملوحة. استخدمت مقادير من مياه الري بزيادة 10 و20 % من حاجة المحصول كهامش لغسل الملوحة مع ثالثة انواع من الحرث هي المحراث القرصي والخلخال والهرو مع رابع دون حرث كشاهد. شملت القراءات طول النبات وعدد االوراق في النبات وقطر الساق ونسبة االوراق الي السيقان والوزن الطري والجاف وكفاءة استخدام ماء الري. صنفت االراضي بالموقع علي انها غير ملحية الي ملحية خفيفة وغير صودية الي صودية خفيفة، كلسية خفيفة وخفيفة القلوية. اوضحت النتائج ان اضافة %20 من الماء كهامش لغسل الملوحة اعطت نتائج اعلي من اضافة زيادة بمقدار %10 كما وأن الحراثة بالمحراث القرصي اعطت نتائج اعلي من
المعامالت االخري لكل المتغيرات المقاسة خالل الموسمين.
Leaching Fraction of Irrigation Water and Tillage Treatment for Growing Forage Sorghum
Introduction
Salt-affected soils occur in all continents and under almost all climatic conditions. Their distribution, however, is relatively more extensive in the arid and semi-arid regions compared to the humid regions (Kaushik and Sethi, 2005). Saline soils have salts level high enough that either crop yield begins to suffer or cropping is impractical. Excessive salts injure plants by disrupting the uptake of water into roots and interfering with the uptake of competitive nutrients (David, 2007). When plants grow under saline conditions, they are subjected to three types of stress, water stress caused by the osmotic pressure, mineral toxicity stress caused by the salt and disturbances in the balance of mineral nutrition (Ahmed and Ahmed, 2007).
The total area of salt-affected soils in Sudan is 4.8 million ha. The majority of the area is located in the low rainfall regions in the higher terraces along the Nile River, south Khartoum, north Gezira and the White Nile scheme, north of Kosti due to climate conditions (desert, semi-desert and semi-arid), natural causes of weathering of salt bearing rocks, poor soil and water management in irrigated areas including insufficient drainage system (FAO, 2000). The potential of utilizing these salty soils in Sudan for agricultural production is very large due to their proximity to large consumption centers and the availability of good quality irrigation water from the tow Niles in addition to the presence of some basic infrastructures.
Forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) has recently witnessed increasing importance in the semi-arid tropics and drier parts of the world where livestock constitutes a major component of the production system. Compared to other cereals, specially maize, sorghum is more drought tolerant, less input demanding and can thrive better under harsh conditions (Mohamed, 2007). In Sudan, where the second largest animal wealth in Africa exists, forage sorghum constitutes the bulk of the animal feed in the country (Mohammed and Talib, 2008). The sharp increase in demand for animal products and the great potential of Sudan as a forage exporting country has led to dramatic increase in the area allocated to fodder crops particularly around urban centers, e.g. Khartoum State (MAAW, 2007). The relatively good stands of Abu Sabein in these soils suggest this fodder crop is highly salt – tolerant (Elkarouri and Mansi, 1980).
Salah Abdel Rahman Salih et al. / Nile Journal for Agricultural Sciences Vol. 3, NO. 1 (2018) 50 - 59
Material and methods
This study was conducted at the Demonstration Farm of the Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Fish Science, University of Neelain, inside Sondos Agricultural Project South of Khartoum during the summer seasons of 2013 and 2014. The soil of the site was found to be non-saline to slightly saline, non sodic to slightly sodic, slightly calcareous soil with pH ranged from 7.5 to 8.0, SAR, from 1.7 to 10.0, ECe, from 0.6 to 3.0 ds/m, CaCO3, from 1.6 to 3.8. Average bulk density value obtained was 1.28 g/cm3, average field capacity value obtained was 22.8% on dry weight basis, soil texture of the all depths is sandy clay loam. The experimental area was planted with Abu Sabein. The treatments were compared in complete randomized block design replicated three times. Crop water requirement was predicted using the modified Penman equation. Plant height and number of leaves/plant were measured at the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th week after sowing, while fresh and dry yield, stem diameter and leaves: stem ratio were measured at harvest. Crop water use efficiency was calculated from the ratio of crop yield to the amount of water used.
Results and discussions
Tables 1.a, 1.b, 2.a and 2.b illustrate plant height from the fourth week until the tenth week during 2013 and 2014 seasons. There were no significant differences between the irrigation water quantities on plant height from the fourth till the eighth week during 2013 season, but a significant difference (P≤0.05) was found for the ninth and tenth week. Whereas, during 2014 season, a highly significant difference (P≤0.01) was found for all the weeks with the superiority of CWR + 20% LF than CWR
+ 10% LF in both seasons. Pardossi et al. (1998) stated that water stress is one of the first and most evident effects in the crop production in saline soil.
As for tillage treatments, no significant difference for the fourth, fifth, eighth and ninth week but significant difference (P≤0.05) for the rest weeks was found during 2013 season. Whereas, for 2014 season a highly significant difference (P≤0.01) were found for all the weeks, with superiority of chisel plow followed by disc plow, then disc harrow and lastly zero tillage for both seasons. Effect of tillage on plant height may be due to the conservation of soil physical properties that influence water transfer, aeration, thermal regime, and root growth as cited by Cosper (1983).
Tables 3.a, 3.b, 4.a and 4.b show the effect of irrigation quantities and tillage treatments on number of leaves/plant of Abu Sabein from the fourth week until the tenth week during 2013 and
Leaching Fraction of Irrigation Water and Tillage Treatment for Growing Forage Sorghum
2014 seasons. No significant effect was found due to water quantities and tillage treatments at all weeks during the two seasons.
Tables 5.a and 5.b show the effect of irrigation quantities and tillage treatments on fresh weight, dry weight, stem diameter and leaves/stem ratio of Abu Sabein during 2013 and 2014 seasons. Analysis of variance for the effect of irrigation water quantities and tillage treatments on fresh weight and stem diameter showed a significant difference (P≤0.05) with superiority of CWR
+ 20% LF than CWR + 10% LF and chisel plow than the other three tillage treatments during the two seasons, but there was no significant effect in dry matter and leaves/stem ratio due to water quantities and tillage treatments. Improvements in crop yields as a result of deep plowing were related to enhanced water intake rates and depth of penetration and nearly doubled the effective available water holding capacity (Rasmussen et al., 1972).
Tables 6.a and 6.b show water use efficiency during 2013 and 2014 seasons. As for the effect of water quantities there was no significant different during 2013 season, but a highly significant difference (P≤0.01) was found during 2014 season in which CWR+10% LF gave higher values than CWR+ 20% LF. This may be due to the little amount of water used in CWR+10% LF. Light, frequent irrigation resulted in significantly higher water use efficiency (WUE) as mentioned by Saeed and ElNadi (1998). For tillage treatments, there was a significant difference (P≤0.05) during 2013 season in which chisel plow gave higher values than the other three tillage treatments. While during 2014 the four tillage treatments differ significantly (P≤0.05) from each other in which chisel plow gave higher values followed by disc plow, disc harrow and lastly zero tillage. Tillage affects water use efficiency by altering the hydrological properties of soil and affecting water utilization by crops and results in increasing yield as mentioned by Arora and Gajri (1996). Interaction between irrigation water quantities and tillage treatments gave no significant difference during the two seasons.
Salah Abdel Rahman Salih et al. / Nile Journal for Agricultural Sciences Vol. 3, NO. 1 (2018) 50 - 59
Table 1: Effect of irrigation water quantity on plant height of Abu Sabein
- Season 2013
|
Water amount Plant height
Season 2014
Water amount 4th week 5th week 6th week 7th week 8th week 9th week 10th week CWR +10% L.F 16.25b 38.47b 59.28b 84.14b 107.53b 131.5b 155.28b CWR +20% L.F 18.28a 41.08a 63.61a 88.19a 110.39a 136.55a 161.75a
S.E ± 0.34 0.58 0.78 0.59 0.77 0.84 0.92
Means in the same column with similar letters are not significantly different at P 0.05
Table 2: Effect of tillage treatments on plant height of Abu Sabein a- Season 2013
|
Tillage treatments Plant height
4 week 5 week 6 week 7 week 8 week 9 week 10 week
|
Zero tillage |
17.31a |
30.67a |
42.5c |
72.33c |
98.72a |
133.00a |
141.72b |
|
Disc plow |
17.64a |
36.28a |
54.72ab |
87.06ab |
112.33a |
141.56a |
162.94a |
|
Chisel plow |
20.67a |
39.06a |
58.17a |
96.22a |
113.17a |
139.22a |
169.67a |
|
Disc harrow |
19.39a |
31.83a |
45.78bc |
81.50bc |
105.22a |
131.06a |
139.39b |
|
S.E± |
1.42 |
2.24 |
3.71 |
4.83 |
7.29 |
6.99 |
5.93 |
b- Season 2014
|
Tillage treatments |
4th week |
5th week |
6th week |
7th week |
8th week |
9th week |
10th week |
|
Zero tillage |
13.50c |
34.39c |
51.00d |
76.72d |
97.17d |
118.44d |
140.50d |
|
Disc plow |
16.33b |
40.39b |
64.67b |
90.44b |
116.44b |
142.78b |
169.22b |
|
Chisel plow |
24.61a |
48.61a |
73.28a |
97.39a |
121.11a |
148.56a |
178.56a |
|
Disc harrow |
14.61c |
35.72c |
56.83c |
80.11c |
101.11c |
126.33c |
145.78c |
|
S.E± |
0.48 |
0.82 |
1.1 |
0.83 |
1.09 |
1.18 |
1.3 |
Means in the same column with similar letters are not significantly different at P 0.05
Table 3: Effect of irrigation water quantity on number of leaves/plant of Abu Sabein
- Season 2013
|
Water amount Number of leaves/plant
- Season 2014
|
Water amount |
4th week |
5th week |
6th week |
7th week |
8th week |
9th week |
10th week |
|
CWR +10% L.F |
6.44a |
6.89a |
7.36a |
7.58a |
8.06a |
8.42a |
9.14a |
|
CWR +20% L.F |
7.03a |
7.06a |
7.47a |
7.61a |
8.06a |
8.56a |
8.78a |
|
S.E ± |
0.22 |
0.24 |
0.17 |
0.19 |
0.17 |
0.21 |
0.18 |
Means in the same column with similar letters are not significantly different at P 0.05
Leaching Fraction of Irrigation Water and Tillage Treatment for Growing Forage Sorghum
Table 4: Effect of tillage treatments on number of leaves of Abu Sabein
- Season 2013
Tillage treatments Number of leaves/plant
4th week 5th week 6th week 7th week 8th week 9th week 10th week
|
Zero tillage |
6.50a |
6.83a |
7.28a |
6.33a |
8.89a |
8.72a |
9.39a |
|
Disc plow |
6.33a |
7.22a |
7.33a |
7.44a |
9.44a |
9.61a |
9.56a |
|
Chisel plow |
7.17a |
6.89a |
7.44a |
7.17a |
7.89a |
8.22a |
8.89a |
|
Disc harrow |
6.67a |
6.61a |
7.00a |
6.83a |
9.22a |
8.67a |
9.00a |
|
S.E± |
0.22 |
0.23 |
0.25 |
0.3 |
0.46 |
0.51 |
0.29 |
- Season 2014
Tillage treatments Number of leaves/plant
4th week 5th week 6th week 7th week 8th week 9th week 10th week
|
Zero tillage |
6.00a |
6.00a |
6.61a |
6.83a |
7.44a |
7.44a |
8.61a |
|
Disc plow |
6.78a |
7.06a |
6.61a |
8.00a |
8.44a |
8.78a |
9.44a |
|
Chisel plow |
7.72a |
8.11a |
6.61a |
8.00a |
9.11a |
9.67a |
9.67a |
|
Disc harrow |
6.44a |
6.72a |
6.61a |
8.00a |
7.22a |
8.06a |
8.11a |
|
S.E± |
0.31 |
0.34 |
0.25 |
0.27 |
0.24 |
0.3 |
0.26 |
Means in the same column with similar letters are not significantly different at P 0.05
Table 5: Effect of irrigation water quantity and tillage treatments on fresh weight, dry weight, stem diameter and leaves/stem ratio of Abu Sabein for 2013 and 2014 seasons
- Water amount
|
|
2013 |
2014 |
||||||
|
Water amount |
Fresh weight ton/ha |
Dry weight ton/ha |
Stem diameter mm |
Leaves/ stem ratio |
Fresh weight ton/ha |
Dry weight ton/ha |
Stem diameter mm |
Leaves/ stem ratio |
|
CWR+10% LF |
25.11a |
6.48a |
7.14b |
0.77a |
26.07b |
6.83a |
7.11a |
0.82a |
|
CWR+20% LF |
24.68a |
6.05a |
8.41a |
0.69a |
26.5a |
6.89a |
7.75a |
0.67a |
|
S.E ± |
1.48 |
0.38 |
0.33 |
0.04 |
0.11 |
0.08 |
0.56 |
0.06 |
- Tillage treatments
|
Tillage treatments |
Fresh weight ton/ha |
Dry weight ton/ha |
Stem diameter mm |
Leaves/ stem ratio |
Fresh weight ton/ha |
Dry weight ton/ha |
Stem diameter mm |
Leaves/ stem ratio |
|
Zero tillage |
20.04b |
5.57a |
6.31b |
0.70a |
22.88d |
5.66d |
5.73b |
0.73a |
|
Disc plow |
22.70b |
5.87a |
7.61b |
0.68a |
26.24b |
6.89b |
7.62ab |
0.70a |
|
Chisel plow |
30.98a |
7.61a |
10.87a |
0.81a |
31.61a |
8.35a |
9.75a |
0.75a |
|
Disc harrow |
23.85b |
6.03a |
6.31b |
0.75a |
24.40c |
6.55c |
6.62b |
0.82a |
|
S.E± |
2.1 |
0.54 |
0.46 |
0.05 |
0.16 |
0.11 |
0.79 |
0.08 |
Means in the same column with similar letters are not significantly different at P 0.05
Salah Abdel Rahman Salih et al. / Nile Journal for Agricultural Sciences Vol. 3, NO. 1 (2018) 50 - 59
Table 6: Effect of irrigation water quantities, tillage treatments and their interaction on water use efficiency of Abu Sabein for 2013 and 2014 seasons
- Irrigation water amount
|
Water amount Water use efficiency (WUE)
- Tillage treatments
|
Tillage treatment Water use efficiency (WUE)
CWR=crop water requirement, L.F = leaching fraction.
Means in the same column with similar letters are not significantly different at P 0.05.
References
Ahmed, F. E. and Ahmed, E. E. (2007). Crop Production Under Stress Environment. Published by: UNESCO Chair of Desertification, University of Khartoum.
Arora, V. K. and Gajri, P. R. (1996). Performance of simplified water balance models under maize in a semiarid subtropical environment. Agricultural Water Management 31:51- 64.
Cosper, H. R. (1983). Soil suitability for conservation tillage. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 38: 152-155.
David, J.W. and Pilar, B.M. (2007). The effects of olive mill waste compost and poultry manure on the availability and plant uptake of nutrients in a highly saline soil. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com.
Elkarouri, M. O. H. and Mansi, M. G. (1980). Performance of sorghum and maize as forages in irrigated saline soils of the Sudan. Exp. Agric. 16, 431 - 436.
FAO (2000). FAO/AGL. (Online) Available htt://www.fao.orglag/agl/spush/topic? htm., November, 2000.
Kaushik, A. and Sethi, V. (2005). Salinity effects on nitrifying and free diastrophic bacterial populations in the Rhizosphere of Rice. Bulletin of the National Institute of Ecology, 15: 139-144, 2005 Gupta et al. (Editors): Ecology and Environmental Management: Issues and Research Needs New Delhi and Japura.
Leaching Fraction of Irrigation Water and Tillage Treatment for Growing Forage Sorghum
MAAW (2007). Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Wealth, Khartoum State Annual Report.
Agricultural Census. Khartoum, Sudan.
Mohamed, M. I. (2007). A note on development of male sterile forage sorghum genetic stock in A3 cytoplasm. Sudan J. Agric. Res. 4. 89- 92.
Mohammed, M.I. and Talib, N.H. (2008). Heterosis and combining ability for quality traits in forage sorghum. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2(1): 99-104
Pardossi, A.; Malorgio, F.; Oriolo, D.; Gucci, R.; Serra, G. and Tognoni, F. (1998). Water relations and osmotic adjustments in Apium graveolens during longterm NaCl stress and subsequent relief. Physiol. Plant. 102, 369 – 376.
Rasmussen, W. W.; Moore, D. P. and Alban, L. A. (1972). Improvement of a solonetzic (slick spot) soil by deep plowing, sub soiling and amendments. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 36:137-142.
Saeed, I. A. M. and El- Nadi, A. H. (1998). Forage sorghum yield and water use efficiency under variable irrigation. Irrig. Sci, 18: 67- 71.
Salah Abdel Rahman Salih et al. / Nile Journal for Agricultural Sciences Vol. 3, NO. 1 (2018) 50 - 59
