Document Type : Original Article
Abstract
Highlights
CONCLUSION
This study investigated the evaluation of soil amendments on productivity and quality of Egyptian clover. This could be attributed to the role of soil amendments and growth stimulators in increasing the grown plants under saline soil conditions .Recommendation possible using humic acid to increasing Egyptian clover yields and quality as well as economic return, where this transaction achieved the highest economic return reached (15551.15) and profitability (1.36).
Keywords
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 1-22 |
Azza Kh. M. Salem1. and S. M. H. Eissa2
1- Forage Crops Res. Dep., Field Crops Res. Inst., A.R.C., Giza, Egypt
2 - Economic and Environment Evaluation Res. Dep., Central Laboratory for Design and Statistical Analysis Res. A.R.C., Giza, Egypt
Key Words: Egyptian clover productivity, soil salinity, Gypsum, humic acid, compost and economic evaluation
ABSTRACT
Two field experiments were conducted at the Experimental Farm Station of El-Serw, Damietta Governorate, A. R. C. Egypt during 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons. The aim was to study the effect of soil amendments different rates i.e. (compost, gypsum and humic acid) different rates (2, 4 and 6 ton fed-1) for compost and gypsum, while the rate of humic acid was (20, 40 and 60 kg fed-1) on Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexanderinum L.,) productivity and itseconomic evaluation. The experiments were laid out in a complete randomized block design with three replicates. The results could be summarized as follows:-
-Soil amendments improved some agronomic characters i.e. plant height, dry leaves/stem ratio , no. of heads m-2and 1000-seed and humic acid at a rate of 60 kg humic acid fed-1+ recommended NPK recorded the highest values for these characters in combined.
-Crude protein, digestible crude protein percentages were increased by adding soil amendments for soil salinity and at the same time crude fiber % was behaved opposie.
- Mean values of Egyptian clover yields fed-1(fresh, dry, seed and straw) were increased by adding soil amendments and humic acid at a rate of 60 kg fed-1 + recommended NPK recorded the highest values for these traits.
- Compost, gypsum and humic acid increased macro and micro elements % of Egyptian clover plants compared with untreated treatments and humic acid at a rate of 60 kg fed-1 + recommended NPK recorded the highest values for macro and micro elements.
-The best treatment T10 (60 kg humic acid fed-1+ recommended NPK) which realize the highest value for B/C (1.36).
INTRODUCTION
Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L) is the main winter forage legume crop. In Egypt it occupies about one fourth of the cultivated area with average of 1.63 million feddan (B.A.S. 2016). Berseem is a major seed export crop (more than 12000 tons) (El-Nahrawy, 2005). It is known as “king of fodders” because of it’s the highest green fodder producing capacity among fodders. Egyptian clover has no anti-nutritional and toxic effects. It is mostly used as green forage, but in off season it is also used in the form of hay and pallets (Nigam et al., 2010).
|
2 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
Soil salinization is a major factor contributing to the loss of productivity of cultivated soils. Although difficult to estimate accurately, the area of salinized soils is increasing and this phenomenon is especially intense in irrigated soils. It was estimated that about 20% (45 million ha) of irrigated land, producing one-third of the world’s food, is salt-affected (Shrivastava and Kumar, 2015).
The compost can be a very good organic amendment in saline agriculture as well as for reclamation of salt–affected soils (Zaka, et al., 2003). Mohamed and Matloub (2007) reported that the highest reduction in the EC value was in the soil surface of soil treated with compost. Compost also improves nutrient supply to plants and thus may reduce the input of mineral fertilizer (Sarwar et al., 2008). Rashad et al. (2011) reported that compost application to soil led to positive effect as it improved the soil properties ameliorated the plant growth and enhanced nutrient's uptake. Lingorski (2012) found that the application of organic fertilizer increased the obtained green and dry mass by 20.43% more than the untreated standard crop. Thalooth et al. (2015) found that chemical composition and nutritional evaluation for dry forage yield was conducted and the (bio + O + N) was the best treatment in fresh and dry yields for Egyptian clover - ryegrass mixture as well as chemical components and nutritive evaluation i.e. (crude protein, crude fiber and digestible crude protein percentages. Bakhoum et al. (2016) found that treatment of bio+ organic + mineral fertilization was the best treatment in fresh and dry Egyptian clover yields as well as chemical components and evolution i.e. crude protein, crude fiber, digestible crude protein percentages. Sayed and Shaban (2016) found that the increase of compost rate (5, 10 and 15 ton fed-1) gave increases of all growth traits and yield compared with the control.Abd El-Naby et al. (2018) found that the herbage yield of berseem clover cultivar (Serw-1) substantially increased with the application of soil amendments. The greatest yield increase was obtained with the compost application. The composite, compost and gypsum soil amendments were the most effective treatments resulting in the greatest herbage yield and quality values.
Gypsum plays a significant role in the reclamation of saline-sodic soils by providing a Ca2+ cation to replace the exchangeable Na+ from the colloid's cation exchange positions and leaching it out from the root zone into groundwater (Sharma and Minhas, 2005). Gypsum is a moderately soluble source of plants essential nutrients, calcium and sulphur (Dick et al., 2008). Calcium (Ca) plays an essential role in processes that preserve the structural and functional integrity of plant membranes, stabilize cell wall structure, regulate ion transport and selectivity, and control ion exchange behavior as well as enzyme activities (Esringu, et al., 2011).
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 3 |
Humic acid (HA) is known to contain carboxyl, alcoholic hydroxyl, ketone, quinoide and phenolic hydroxyl (Canellas et al., 2015). Furthermore, HA is a fraction of humic substances composed of a long chain molecule, which is high in molecular weight and soluble in an alkaline solutions. It is consisting from the organic components of soil, humus, peat and coal. It is a byproduct of microorganisms that break down dead organic matter (Sebastiano et al., 2005). Humic acid as an alternative source of organic amendment is compact, easy to ship, readily available, and its producers claim that 1 kg of HA provides as much fertilization benefit as one ton of manure (Humintech, 2012). Nardi et al. (2002) proposed that humic acid could directly influence plant growth components such as cell permeability, respiration, photosynthesis, and cell elongation. Humic acid can enhance plant growth by promoting the bioavailability of nutrients via reform of the soil environment at the roots (Chen et al., 2004). Humic acid was the main source of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) (Panuccio et al. 2001). Haghighi et al. (2014) showed that humic acid had advantageous effects on nutrient uptake, particularly in availability and transport of micronutrients. Humic acid provides numerous benefits to soil properties and crop production. In this concern.. Abbas, et al. (2015) found that the highest values of plant height, fresh and dry forage yields from the combination of soaking seeds plus foliar application with humic acid solution. N, P and K uptake were enhanced by this treatment. Ismail and Hassanen (2019) found that berseem clover treated with humic acid increased the plant height, fresh, dry and seed yields, weight of 1000- seeds, crude protein, digestible crude protein of forage yield as compared with control. Humic acid is a commercial product contains many elements which improve the soil fertility and increase availability of nutrients and consequently increase plant growth and yield. It is particularly used to ameliorate or reduce the negative effect of salt stress. Sangeetha et al. (2006) stated that humic acids in the soil have multiple effects that can greatly benefit plant growth. Moreover, Abbas, et al. (2013) showed that application of the tested soil conditioners increased total NPK content of mono -cut Egyptian clover plants compared with the control.
|
4 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
This investigation is aim to possibility using some soil amendments i.e compost, gypsium and humic acid to improve yields of Egyptian clover and its economic returnunder El- Serw conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two field experiments were conducted at the Experimental farm of El-Serw Agri. Res. St., A. R.C, Domieeta Governorate, Egypt during 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons to study the effect of different rates of soil amendments i.e. (compost and gypsum) at rates (2, 4 and 6 ton fed-1) and humic acid at rates (20, 40 and 60 kg fed-1) on Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrirnum L.,) variety Serw -1 forage and seed yields productivity, quality, and its economic. A completely randomized blocks design with three replicates was used in the field experiments. Each plot area was 3 X 4 m = 12 m2.The soil samples were taken at random before planting at depth of 0-30 cm from soil surface to determine the important physical and chemical soil properties. The soil analyses of the experimental site was done according to Klute (1986) and Cottenie et al. (1982) and are shown in Table 1.
Table (1). Particle size distribution % and some soil chemical soil characteristics of the experimental site (average of 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons).
|
Particle size distribution (%) |
Texture |
O.M (%) |
CaCO3 (%) |
|||||||||||
|
Coarse sand |
Fine sand |
Silt |
Clay |
|||||||||||
|
5.69 |
10.85 |
35.84 |
47.62 |
Clay |
0.64 |
6.40 |
||||||||
|
pH (1:2.5) |
EC (dSm-1) |
Cations (meq/l) |
Anions (meq/l) |
|||||||||||
|
Ca++ |
Mg++ |
Na+ |
K+ |
HCO3- |
Cl- |
SO4-- |
||||||||
|
8.04 |
5.42 |
14.86 |
23.94 |
54.65 |
0.75 |
8.75 |
45.88 |
39.57 |
||||||
|
Macronutrients (mg/kg) |
Micronutrients (mg/kg) |
|||||||||||||
|
N |
P |
K |
Fe |
Mn |
Zn |
|||||||||
|
36.73 |
3.55 |
150 |
4.98 |
2.75 |
0.54 |
|||||||||
The treatments were application of gypsum and compost before 20 days from planting, while the humic acid was applicationduring the sowing. Some chemical properties of applied both compost and humic acid are presented in Table (2 and 3).
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 5 |
T1 (recommended NPK), T2 (2 ton compost fed-1+T1), T3 (4ton compost fed-1+T1), T4 (6ton compost fed-1+T1), T5 (2 ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T6 (4ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T7 (6ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T8 (20 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1), T9 (40 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 ),T10 (60 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 ).
The compost and analysis was done according to the standard methods as described by Brunner and Wasmer (1978).
Table (2) Chemical analysis of compost.
|
Moisture content % |
EC dSm-1 |
pH |
C |
C/N |
O.M |
N |
P |
K |
Fe |
Mn |
Zn |
Cu |
|
(%) |
(mgkg-1) |
|||||||||||
|
22-27 |
3.55 |
7.46 |
27 |
9.1 |
33 |
2.87 |
0.87 |
3.37 |
229 |
112 |
130 |
44 |
Table (3). Chemicals properties of the humic acid substance.
|
PH |
EC (dSm-1) |
O.M (%) |
Macronutrients (%) |
Micronutrients (mgkg-1) |
|||||
|
N |
P |
K |
Fe |
Mn |
Zn |
Cu |
|||
|
7.78 |
1.85 |
72.00 |
2.20 |
3.21 |
10.30 |
422 |
274 |
215 |
25.43 |
The preceding crop was rice for the two seasons. Recommended agricultural practices were done, i.e., recommended fertilizer rates, Superphosphate at rate 150kg fed-1 (15.5% P2O5) was applied during soil tillage and potassium 24kg fed-1 K2O in the form of potassium sulphate (48% K2O) before sowing. Furthermore, Nitrogen fertilizer at rate 15kg N fed-1 in the form of ammonium nitrate (33.5%N) was applied before the second irrigation. The experiments were sown on October 20th and 18th in the 2016/ 2017 and 2017/2018, respectively. Egyptian clover cv. "Serw-1" seeds were hand broadcasted in the presence of thin layer of irrigation water, and seeding rate was 30 kg fed-1and seeds were inoculated with appropriate Rhizobia (Okadin) before planting.
Three cuts were taken before leaving the crop for seed production from each season. The first cut was taken after 60 days from sowing date to insure the enough carbohydrates in the roots, the second after 50 days from the first one and third cut was taken after 40 days from the second cut. Berseem plants were leaved without cutting from 20th April to seed production and harvest was done on jun 20 and 14 for the two successive seasons 2016/2017 and 2017/2018, respectively.
The following characters were measured:
Yield and its components: Ten guarded plants were randomly chosen from each plot before cutting,
1-Plant height (cm): Measured in cm from ground surface to the top of the plant.
2- Dry leaves: stem-1 ratio: By dividing the dry weight of leaves on dry weight of stem =leaves dry wt./ stem dry wt.
3- Fresh forage yield (ton fed-1): Plots were hand clipped and weighed in kg plot-1, then adjusted into ton fed-1 . Total fresh yield was calculated by sum of cuts yield.
|
6 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
From the harvested material of biological yield, a sample of five heads was taken,
5- Number of heads m-2.
6.1000-seed weight (g).
7. Seed and straw yields fed-1. Every plot was harvested individually and calculated to the seed yield (kg fed-1) and straw yield (ton fed-1).
Chemical composition:
Plant samples which collected from each plot were weighed and oven dried at 700C for 48h upto the constant weight, ground and prepared and following the conventional methods recommended by the Association of the Official Agricultural
Chemists (A.O.A.C., 2002) to determine
1-Crude protein percentage (CP %): N content in forage was determined by the Microkelahl method and crude protein percentage (CP %). The (CP) content was calculated from the N content (CP = N × 6.25), (Bozkurt and Kaya, 2010).
2-Digestible crude protein (DCP %) was calculated to DCP=(CPX0.9115)- 3.62) according to Mcdonald et al., 1994.
3-Crude fiber percentage (CF%): was determined by the method of A.O.A.C., 2002.
4- P spectrophotometically using stannous chloride reagent, K by the Flame photometer, Zn, Mn and Fe were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometeric according to Chapman and Pratt (1961).
Economic evaluation:-
According to Heady and Dillon (1961) economic evaluation calculated for yield (ton fed-1), total variable cost, Gross Income (GI), Gross Margin (GM) and Benefit/Cost ratio (B/C) where:
Gross Income (GI) = price of unit L.E X Yield (t fed-1)
Gross Margin (GM) = Gross Income – Total cost
Benefit/Cost ratio (B/C) =Gross Margin (GM) /Total cost
Statistical Analysis:
Data were statistically analyzed according to Snedecor and Cochran (1990) and treatment means were compared by least significant difference test (LSD) at 0.05 level of significance. Bartlett’s test was done to test the homogeneity of error variance. The test was not significant for all assessed traits, so, the two season’s data were combined.
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 7 |
Effect of different soil amendments rates on:
1-Some agronomic characters of Egyptian clover.
Data presented in Table (4) indicated that adding different rates of soil amendments i.e. compost, gypsum and humic acids significantly affected on plant height, dry leave/stem ratio, number of heads and 1000-seed weight in the first and second seasons as well as in combined. Results showed that Egyptian clover plant height was significantly increased by soil amendments rates as shown in Table (4). Increasing soil amendments rates from 2 to 4 up to 6 ton fed-1 for compost
or gypsum and 20 to 40 up to 60 kg fed-1 in humic acid gradually increased plant height. It is quite evident that humic acid significantly increased plant height followed by compost followed by gypsum as a soil amendments for soil salinity. The highest plant height was obtained was achieved at 60 kg humic acid fed-1 + recommended NPK (68.68cm) and the lowest value was showed at control treatment (57.38) as mean values in combined. This result may be due to the role of humic as being a source of nutrients in increasing soil fertility, which consequently increased the growth of Egyptian clover and reduce the negative effect of salt stress. The obtained results were agreement with those attained by Sangeetha et al. (2006 ) and Ismail and Hassanen (2019).
Results in Tale (4) indicated that dry leave/stem %, was significantly increased by increasing soil amendment rates. It is quite evident that these characters were markedly and linearly increased with the increase in soil amendments rates from 2 to 4 up 6 ton compost or gypsum fed-1 and 20 to 40 up 60 kg humic acid fed-1. This might be related to improvement in physical conditions of the soil provided energy for micro organism activity and increase the availability and uptake of N, P and K which were positively reflected on the growth (Romero et al., 2000 and Vendrame et al., 2005). Similar results were obtained by Mazhar et al. (2011) and Jena and Kabi (2012). Number of heads m-2 and 1000-seed weight behaved the same trend of plant height in the first and second seasons as well as in combined. Data in Table (4) showed that number of heads m-2 was increased by 38.50% and 19.50% for1000-seed weight compared with control treatment in combined with 60 kg of humic acid fed-1+ recommended NPK. Similar results were obtained by Gharib et al. (2008), El-Hefny (2010) and Abbas et al. (2015).
Table (4): plant height, dry leave /stem ratio, No. of heads m-2 and 1000 seed weight by different rates of soil amendments in both seasons and combined.
|
Treatments
|
Plant height (cm) |
Dry leave /stem ratio (%) |
No. of heads m-2
|
1000- seed weight |
|||||||||||
|
1st cut |
2nd cut |
3rd cut |
Mean cuts |
1st cut |
2nd cut |
3rd cut |
Mean cuts |
||||||||
|
Season 2016/2017 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Different rates of soil amendments |
|||||||||||||||
|
T1 |
49.20 |
54.20 |
66.70 |
56.70 |
35.1 |
33.1 |
32.3 |
33.5 |
537.24 |
3.16 |
|||||
|
T2 |
51.30 |
58.10 |
70.60 |
60.00 |
38.2 |
36.4 |
34.2 |
36.3 |
653.16 |
3.42 |
|||||
|
T3 |
54.20 |
60.30 |
73.00 |
62.73 |
40.6 |
39.3 |
37.4 |
39.1 |
687.31 |
3.56 |
|||||
|
T4 |
56.20 |
64.40 |
75.200 |
65.27 |
43.5 |
42.9 |
40.1 |
42.2 |
698.30 |
3.68 |
|||||
|
T5 |
50.90 |
57.30 |
68.83 |
59.01 |
36.4 |
35.2 |
33.1 |
.34.9 |
648.42 |
3.32 |
|||||
|
T6 |
53.40 |
59.40 |
72.10 |
61.63 |
39.3 |
38.1 |
35.2 |
37.5 |
661.51 |
3.45 |
|||||
|
T7 |
55.10 |
60.50 |
74.30 |
63.30 |
42.1 |
41.4 |
38.3 |
40.6 |
684.48 |
3.50 |
|||||
|
T8 |
53.00 |
59.33 |
71.30 |
61.21 |
40.3 |
40.1 |
36.3 |
38.9 |
677.98 |
3.48 |
|||||
|
T9 |
55.60 |
62.20 |
74.20 |
64.00 |
42.3 |
42.0 |
39.4 |
41.2 |
708.60 |
3.58 |
|||||
|
T10 |
59.20 |
67.10 |
77.50 |
67.93 |
45.6 |
44.7 |
42.6 |
44.3 |
721.61 |
3.78 |
|||||
|
L.S.D 0.05 |
1.90 |
1.81 |
1.92 |
1.58 |
1.40 |
1.30 |
1.20 |
1.11 |
7.39 |
0.04 |
|||||
|
Season 2017/2018 |
|||||||||||||||
|
T1 |
50.40 |
55.40 |
67.20 |
58.07 |
38.2 |
35.1 |
33.2 |
35.5 |
543.21 |
3.20 |
|||||
|
T2 |
53.20 |
60.30 |
73.40 |
62.30 |
42.1 |
40.0 |
38.1 |
40.7 |
667.14 |
3.49 |
|||||
|
T3 |
55.70 |
62.30 |
76.10 |
64.70 |
43.3 |
42.2 |
40.2 |
41.9 |
686.31 |
3.60 |
|||||
|
T4 |
58.10 |
65.10 |
78.20 |
67.13 |
45.4 |
44.1 |
41.3 |
43.6 |
733.41 |
3.71 |
|||||
|
T5 |
51.60 |
58.20 |
70.20 |
60.00 |
41.3 |
39.1 |
37.2 |
39.2 |
660.33 |
3.34 |
|||||
|
T6 |
54.80 |
60.50 |
74.53 |
63.28 |
42.2 |
41.1 |
39.3 |
40.9 |
673.31 |
3.47 |
|||||
|
T7 |
56.60 |
63.80 |
76.87 |
65.66 |
43.0 |
42.1 |
41.2 |
42.1 |
695.36 |
3.59 |
|||||
|
T8 |
54.50 |
61.30 |
73.60 |
63.13 |
42.8 |
40.9 |
39.5 |
41.1 |
685.26 |
3.52 |
|||||
|
T9 |
56.80 |
63.10 |
76.40 |
65.43 |
43.6 |
42.2 |
41.2 |
42.3 |
709.81 |
3.63 |
|||||
|
T10 |
60.30 |
68.80 |
79.20 |
69.37 |
46.3 |
45.1 |
43.4 |
44.9 |
774.86 |
3.82 |
|||||
|
L.S.D 0.05 |
2.23 |
1.62 |
2.02 |
2.07 |
1.10 |
1.83 |
1.02 |
1.03 |
9.46 |
0.07 |
|||||
|
Combined over seasons |
|||||||||||||||
|
T1 |
49.80 |
54.80 |
66.95 |
57.38 |
36.7 |
34.1 |
32.8 |
34.5 |
540.23 |
3.18 |
|||||
|
T2 |
52.25 |
59.20 |
72.00 |
61.05 |
40.2 |
38.2 |
36.2 |
38.2 |
660.15 |
3.46 |
|||||
|
T3 |
54.95 |
61.30 |
74.90 |
63.72 |
42.0 |
40.8 |
38.8 |
40.5 |
686.81 |
3.58 |
|||||
|
T4 |
57.15 |
64.75 |
76.70 |
66.20 |
44.5 |
43.5 |
40.7 |
42.9 |
715.86 |
3.70 |
|||||
|
T5 |
51.25 |
57.75 |
69.52 |
59.51 |
38.9 |
37.2 |
35.2 |
37.1 |
654.38 |
3.33 |
|||||
|
T6 |
54.10 |
59.95 |
73.32 |
62.46 |
40.8 |
39.6 |
37.3 |
39.2 |
667.41 |
3.46 |
|||||
|
T7 |
55.85 |
62.15 |
75.58 |
64.48 |
42.6 |
41.8 |
39.8 |
41.4 |
689.92 |
3.55 |
|||||
|
T8 |
53.75 |
60.32 |
72.45 |
62.17 |
41.6 |
40.5 |
37.9 |
40.0 |
681.62 |
3.50 |
|||||
|
T9 |
56.20 |
62.65 |
75.30 |
64.72 |
43.0 |
42.1 |
40.3 |
41.8 |
709.21 |
3.61 |
|||||
|
T10 |
59.75 |
67.95 |
78.35 |
68.68 |
46.0 |
44.9 |
43.0 |
44.6 |
748.24 |
3.80 |
|||||
|
L.S.D 0.05 |
2.01 |
1.81 |
1.66 |
2.17 |
1.72 |
1.31 |
1.50 |
1.40 |
11.26 |
0.08 |
|||||
T1(recommended NPK), T2(2ton compost fed-1+T1), T3(4ton compost fed-1+T1), T4(6ton compost fed-1+T1), T5 (2ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T6 (4ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T7 (6ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T8 (20 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1), T9 (40 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 ), T10 (60 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 )
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 9 |
Results showed a significant effect of soil amendments rates on percentages of (CP), (DCP) and CF of Egyptian clover plants in both seasons and combined Table (5). It is clear that when soil amendments rates i.e compost and gypsum from 2 to 4 to 6 ton fed-1 and 20,40 to 60 kg humic acid fed-1 a marked increase in crude and digestible protein percentages whereas, a marked decrease in crude fiber percentage either in both seasons or in combined. The percentages of crude and digestible protein were increased consistently with the increase of soil amendments rates in 1st, 2nd and 3rd cuts whereas at light soil amendments rates the increases in these contents were quite compared with control treatments. The highest percentages of crude and digestible protein as averages were recorded with added 60 kg humic acid fed-1 + recommended NPK and being 19.11 and 13.80% for crude and degistable protein percentages, respectively. Whereas, the lowest values were 15.54 and 10.55% for control treatment as mean value in combined. These results may be due to the effect of humic acid application on N, P and K concentration were increased by increasing humic rate (Mazhar et al. (2011). Also, humic had positive increase of the NPKTuran et al. (2011) Such increase of CP yield under different sources of fertilizers may be attributed to the increase in the concentration of available nitrogen in root medium as a result of mineral N fertilizer. Similar findings were recorded by Read et al. (2011) and Dordas et al. (2012).
With respect crude fiber percentage behaved the opposite trend of crude and digestible protein percentages as shown in Table (5). It is clear that increasing soil amendments rates significantly reduced crude fiber percentage than control treatments. The lowest crude fiber % as a mean cuts that of 60 kg humic acid fed-1 + recommended NPK where a reduction of 13.73% was recorded compared with control treatment in combined. These results were similar with those obtained by El-Hefny (2010) and Bakhoum et al. (2016).
3- Yields of Egyptian clover:-
In both seasons and combined, soil amendments significantly increased fresh and dry yields fed-1 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd cuts as well as total cuts compared with control treatments (Table 6). The increase in fresh and dry yields was more evident when soil amendments rates increased up to 6 ton fed-1 compost or gypsum or 60 kg humic acid fed- 1. The highest fresh and dry yields fed-1 were obtained with the soil amendmentstreatments including 60 kg humic acid fed-1+ recommended NPK, fresh and dry yields of these treatments were increased by yields of these treatments were increased by 54.72 and 47.26% as a total cuts in combined compared with control treatments, respectively. These results of fresh and dry yields were related to plant height which increases as a result of adding soil amendments rates to improve soil salinity. This observed effect of humic acid treatment on Egyptian clover fresh and dry yields fed-1 might be attributed to the ability of organic fertilizers to provide plants with different nutrients, and cause an improvement of soil water holding capacity, These results are in agreement with those obtained by Salama (2015) who found that the application of the humic acid resulted in significantly increasing the fresh and dry yields fed-1 compared to the control treatment. This might be attributed to the correction of N deficiency and, thus, improved soil properties upon humic acid application. Abbas and Awad (2018) who indicated that the application of humat potassium rate increase was positive and significant increases in both fresh and dry forage yields fed-1.
Table (5): Crud Protein (%), digestible crud Protein (%) and crude Fiber of Egyptian cloveras affected by different rates of soil amendments
|
Treatments
|
Crud Protein (%) |
DCP (%) |
Crud Fiber (%) |
|||||||||
|
1st cut |
2nd cut |
3rd cut |
Mean cuts |
1st cut |
2nd cut |
3rd cut |
Mean cuts |
1st cut |
2nd cut |
3rd cut |
Mean cuts |
|
|
Season 2016/2017 |
||||||||||||
|
Different rates of soil amendments |
||||||||||||
|
T1 |
15.04 |
16.28 |
15.32 |
15.55 |
10.09 |
11.22 |
10.34 |
10.55 |
22.63 |
20.30 |
24.01 |
22.31 |
|
T2 |
15.60 |
16.98 |
16.25 |
16.28 |
10.60 |
11.86 |
11.19 |
11.22 |
22.01 |
19.61 |
23.36 |
21.66 |
|
T3 |
16.23 |
17.87 |
17.21 |
17.10 |
11.17 |
12.67 |
12.07 |
11.97 |
21.61 |
18.92 |
22.00 |
20.84 |
|
T4 |
17.51 |
18.64 |
18.15 |
18.10 |
12.34 |
13.37 |
12.92 |
12.88 |
20.80 |
18.02 |
21.11 |
19.98 |
|
T5 |
15.06 |
15.77 |
15.19 |
15.34 |
10.11 |
10.75 |
10.23 |
10.36 |
22.81 |
19.91 |
23.76 |
22.16 |
|
T6 |
16.13 |
16.88 |
16.41 |
16.47 |
11.08 |
11.77 |
11.34 |
11.40 |
22.31 |
19.34 |
23.08 |
21.58 |
|
T7 |
16.86 |
17.62 |
17.11 |
17.20 |
11.75 |
12.44 |
11.98 |
12.05 |
21.80 |
18.61 |
22.00 |
20.80 |
|
T8 |
16.18 |
17.02 |
16.92 |
16.71 |
11.13 |
11.89 |
11.80 |
11.61 |
21.34 |
19.31 |
23.13 |
21.26 |
|
T9 |
16.91 |
17.92 |
17.71 |
17.51 |
11.79 |
12.71 |
12.52 |
12.34 |
20.61 |
18.74 |
21.48 |
20.28 |
|
T10 |
18.17 |
19.66 |
19.21 |
19.01 |
12.94 |
14.30 |
13.89 |
13.71 |
20.01 |
17.31 |
20.80 |
19.37 |
|
L.S.D at 0.05 |
0.54 |
0.60 |
0.64 |
0.41 |
0.48 |
0.61 |
0.59 |
0.61 |
0.38 |
0.54 |
0.61 |
0.53 |
|
Season 2017/2018 |
||||||||||||
|
T1 |
15.10 |
16.30 |
15.21 |
15.54 |
10.14 |
11.24 |
10.24 |
10.54 |
22.45 |
20.11 |
23.83 |
22.13 |
|
T2 |
15.85 |
17.11 |
16.21 |
16.39 |
10.83 |
11.98 |
11.16 |
11.32 |
21.82 |
19.44 |
23.01 |
21.42 |
|
T3 |
16.31 |
17.91 |
17.14 |
17.12 |
11.25 |
12.70 |
12.00 |
11.98 |
20.86 |
18.44 |
21.88 |
20.39 |
|
T4 |
17.68 |
18.70 |
18.02 |
18.13 |
12.50 |
13.43 |
12.81 |
12.91 |
20.01 |
17.31 |
20.83 |
19.38 |
|
T5 |
15.63 |
16.07 |
15.92 |
15.87 |
10.63 |
11.03 |
10.89 |
10.85 |
22.61 |
19.61 |
23.59 |
21.94 |
|
T6 |
16.20 |
16.94 |
16.56 |
16.57 |
11.15 |
11.82 |
11.47 |
11.48 |
22.01 |
19.01 |
22.96 |
21.33 |
|
T7 |
16.91 |
17.80 |
17.35 |
17.35 |
11.79 |
12.60 |
12.19 |
12.20 |
21.62 |
18.62 |
21.78 |
20.67 |
|
T8 |
16.36 |
17.34 |
16.88 |
16.86 |
11.29 |
12.19 |
11.77 |
11.75 |
21.04 |
19.04 |
22.93 |
21.00 |
|
T9 |
17.26 |
18.20 |
17.67 |
17.71 |
12.11 |
12.97 |
12.49 |
12.52 |
20.24 |
17.01 |
21.17 |
19.47 |
|
T10 |
18.40 |
19.87 |
19.34 |
19.20 |
13.15 |
14.49 |
14.01 |
13.88 |
19.77 |
16.49 |
20.61 |
18.96 |
|
L.S.D at 0.05 |
0.43 |
0.73 |
0.54 |
0.56 |
0.38 |
0.43 |
0.42 |
0.37 |
0.33 |
0.35 |
0.42 |
0.34 |
|
Combined over seasons |
||||||||||||
|
T1 |
15.07 |
16.29 |
15.27 |
15.54 |
10.12 |
11.23 |
10.29 |
10.55 |
22.54 |
20.21 |
23.92 |
22.22 |
|
T2 |
15.73 |
17.05 |
16.23 |
16.33 |
10.71 |
11.92 |
11.17 |
11.27 |
21.92 |
19.53 |
23.19 |
21.54 |
|
T3 |
16.27 |
17.89 |
17.18 |
17.11 |
11.21 |
12.69 |
12.04 |
11.98 |
21.24 |
18.68 |
21.94 |
20.62 |
|
T4 |
17.60 |
18.67 |
18.09 |
18.12 |
12.42 |
13.40 |
12.86 |
12.89 |
20.41 |
17.67 |
20.97 |
19.68 |
|
T5 |
15.35 |
15.92 |
15.56 |
15.61 |
10.37 |
10.89 |
10.56 |
10.61 |
22.71 |
19.76 |
23.68 |
22.05 |
|
T6 |
16.17 |
16.91 |
16.49 |
16.52 |
11.11 |
11.79 |
11.41 |
11.44 |
22.16 |
19.18 |
23.02 |
21.45 |
|
T7 |
16.89 |
17.71 |
17.23 |
17.28 |
11.77 |
12.52 |
12.09 |
12.13 |
21.71 |
18.62 |
21.89 |
20.74 |
|
T8 |
16.27 |
17.18 |
16.90 |
16.78 |
11.21 |
12.04 |
11.78 |
11.68 |
21.19 |
19.18 |
23.03 |
21.13 |
|
T9 |
17.09 |
18.06 |
17.69 |
17.61 |
11.95 |
12.84 |
12.50 |
12.43 |
20.43 |
17.88 |
21.33 |
19.88 |
|
T10 |
18.29 |
19.77 |
19.28 |
19.11 |
13.05 |
14.40 |
13.95 |
13.80 |
19.89 |
16.90 |
20.71 |
19.17 |
|
L.S.D at 0.05 |
0.38 |
0.34 |
0.31 |
0.36 |
0.34 |
0.32 |
0.38 |
0.33 |
0.49 |
0.43 |
0.53 |
0.45 |
T1(recommended NPK), T2(2ton compost fed-1+T1), T3(4ton compost fed-1+T1), T4(6ton compost fed-1+T1), T5 (2ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T6 (4ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T7 (6ton Gypsum fed-1+T1), T8 (20kg Humic acid fed-1+T1), T9(40 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 ), T10 (60 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 )
Table (6): Egyptian clover yields fed-1 (fresh, dry, seed and straw) as affected by different rates of soil amendments in both seasons and combined.
|
Treatments
|
Fresh yield (tonfed-1) |
Dry yield (tonfed-1) |
Seed yield/fed (kg fed-1) |
Straw yield (tonfed-1) |
||||||
|
1st cut |
2nd cut |
3rd cut |
Total cuts |
1st cut |
2nd cut |
3rd cut |
Total cuts |
|||
|
Season 2016/2017 |
||||||||||
|
Different rates of soil amendments |
||||||||||
|
T1 |
6.16 |
7.29 |
7.11 |
20.56 |
0.90 |
1.20 |
1.64 |
3.73 |
168.01 |
0.81 |
|
T2 |
7.64 |
8.57 |
8.56 |
24.77 |
1.11 |
1.44 |
1.93 |
4.48 |
205.11 |
0.95 |
|
T3 |
8.14 |
9.31 |
9.18 |
26.63 |
1.16 |
1.51 |
2.10 |
4.77 |
216.07 |
1.00 |
|
T4 |
8.42 |
10.43 |
10.01 |
28.86 |
1.21 |
1.68 |
2.31 |
5.20 |
265.11 |
1.19 |
|
T5 |
7.35 |
8.44 |
8.41 |
24.20 |
1.09 |
1.41 |
1.93 |
4.43 |
187.11 |
0.88 |
|
T6 |
7.94 |
9.02 |
8.89 |
25.85 |
1.15 |
1.47 |
2.03 |
4.65 |
210.04 |
0.97 |
|
T7 |
8.18 |
9.52 |
9.40 |
27.10 |
1.22 |
1.55 |
2.14 |
4.91 |
245.14 |
1.10 |
|
T8 |
7.84 |
9.47 |
9.36 |
26.67 |
1.11 |
1.51 |
2.11 |
4.73 |
233.08 |
1.03 |
|
T9 |
8.35 |
9.89 |
9.65 |
27.89 |
1.18 |
1.59 |
2.17 |
4.94 |
241.14 |
1.12 |
|
T10 |
9.18 |
11.41 |
11.21 |
31.80 |
1.28 |
1.78 |
2.47 |
5.52 |
278.05 |
1.24 |
|
L.S.D at 0.05 |
0.27 |
0.38 |
0.28 |
1.07 |
0.04 |
0.05 |
0.02 |
0.20 |
7.37 |
0.04 |
|
Season 2017/2018 |
||||||||||
|
T1 |
6.26 |
7.35 |
7.16 |
20.73 |
0.96 |
1.25 |
1.72 |
3.93 |
160.07 |
0.77 |
|
T2 |
7.73 |
8.83 |
8.63 |
25.19 |
1.16 |
1.49 |
2.08 |
4.73 |
212.01 |
0.98 |
|
T3 |
8.35 |
9.44 |
9.21 |
27.00 |
1.21 |
1.58 |
2.22 |
5.01 |
225.04 |
1.03 |
|
T4 |
8.65 |
10.65 |
10.21 |
29.51 |
1.27 |
1.66 |
2.34 |
5.26 |
247.35 |
1.13 |
|
T5 |
7.55 |
8.72 |
8.63 |
24.90 |
1.13 |
1.47 |
2.09 |
4.69 |
198.07 |
0.96 |
|
T6 |
8.04 |
9.27 |
9.01 |
26.32 |
1.21 |
1.56 |
2.19 |
4.95 |
205.14 |
1.00 |
|
T7 |
8.47 |
9.76 |
9.58 |
27.81 |
1.27 |
1.64 |
2.34 |
5.25 |
238.03 |
1.08 |
|
T8 |
8.11 |
9.23 |
9.45 |
27.10 |
1.18 |
1.49 |
2.18 |
4.85 |
228.10 |
1.04 |
|
T9 |
8.55 |
9.91 |
9.76 |
28.22 |
1.22 |
1.58 |
2.44 |
5.24 |
239.01 |
1.09 |
|
T10 |
9.25 |
11.54 |
11.35 |
32.14 |
1.50 |
1.86 |
2.61 |
5.76 |
280.21 |
1.25 |
|
L.S.D at 0.05 |
0.37 |
0.41 |
0.29 |
1.03 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
0.06 |
0.23 |
6.54 |
0.04 |
|
Combined over seasons |
||||||||||
|
T1 |
6.21 |
7.32 |
7.14 |
20.67 |
0.93 |
1.22 |
1.68 |
3.83 |
164.04 |
0.79 |
|
T2 |
7.89 |
8.70 |
8.60 |
25.19 |
1.13 |
1.47 |
2.01 |
4.61 |
208.56 |
0.97 |
|
T3 |
8.25 |
9.38 |
9.20 |
26.83 |
1.19 |
1.54 |
2.16 |
4.89 |
220.56 |
1.02 |
|
T4 |
8.54 |
10.54 |
10.11 |
29.19 |
1.24 |
1.63 |
2.38 |
5.23 |
256.23 |
1.16 |
|
T5 |
7.45 |
8.58 |
8.52 |
24.55 |
1.11 |
1.44 |
2.01 |
4.56 |
192.59 |
0.92 |
|
T6 |
7.99 |
9.15 |
8.95 |
26.09 |
1.18 |
1.51 |
2.11 |
4.80 |
207.59 |
0.99 |
|
T7 |
8.33 |
9.64 |
9.49 |
27.46 |
1.25 |
1.60 |
2.24 |
5.08 |
241.59 |
1.09 |
|
T8 |
7.98 |
9.35 |
9.41 |
26.74 |
1.15 |
1.50 |
2.15 |
4.79 |
230.59 |
1.04 |
|
T9 |
8.45 |
9.90 |
9.71 |
28.06 |
1.20 |
1.62 |
2.26 |
5.09 |
240.08 |
1.11 |
|
T10 |
9.22 |
11.48 |
11.28 |
31.98 |
1.29 |
1.82 |
2.54 |
5.64 |
279.13 |
1.25 |
|
L.S.D at 0.05 |
0.28 |
0.43 |
0.27 |
1.21 |
0.04 |
0.06 |
0.09 |
0.22 |
7.98 |
0.04 |
T1(recommended NPK); T2(2ton compost fed-1+T1);T3(4ton compost fed-1+T1);T4(6ton compost fed-1+T1); T5 (2ton Gypsum fed-1+T1);T6 (4ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T7 (6ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T8 (20kg Humic acid fed-1+T1); T9(40 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 ); T10 (60 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 )
|
12 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
Data in Table (6) revealed that seed and straw yields fed-1 were significantly affected by soil amendments rates in both seasons and combined.
Concerning, seed yield fed-1 and straw yield fed-1, data revealed that the highest in combined, amendments rates significantly increased Egyptian clover seed yield was more evident when Egyptian clover was applied at 60kg fed-1 of humic acid+ recommended NPK. Egyptian clover seed yield fed-1 of this treatment was 70.16% of the control treatment, followed by compost at a rate of 6 ton fed-1 + recommended NPK (56.20%), followed by gypsum at a rate of 6 ton fed-1 + recommended NPK (47.28%). The increasing in Egyptian clover seed yield is mainly due to increase a rate of amendments (humic acid, compost and gypsum) which improved soil properties and nutritional status even under soil salinity (Raafat and Tharwat, 2011).
Concerning straw yield fed-1, data revealed that applying amendments by different rates significantly increased straw yield fed-1 as shown in Table (6) either in both seasons or in combined. Data revealed that Egyptian clover straw yield was related to fresh and dry yield. The highest straw yield fed-1 was obtained under applying 60 kg of humic acid + recommended NPK followed by 6 ton compost+ recommended NPK followed by 6 ton gypsum+ recommended NPK. Straw yield out yielded the control treatment by 58.23, 46.84 and 37.97% respectively, in combined. Similar results were obtained with Gamal et al. (2002) Edris et al. (2003) and Bakhoum et al. (2016).
Macro and micronutrients concentration in clover plants.
Data in Table (7) show that the effect different rates of soil amendments application on macronutrients concentrations in Egyptian clover in both seasons as well as combined. The increases of soil amendments rates led to increasing of N, P and K concentration in Egyptian clover plants. The highest mean values of N, P and K concentration in Egyptian clover plants for soil treated with humic acid followed by compost and gypsum respectively. The effect of different rates of soil amendments on N, P and K concentration in Egyptian clover plants were significant increases with the increasing soil amendments rates. The relative increases of mean three cuts were 23.60, 16.40 and 10.80 % for humic acid, compost and gypsum, respectively in combined of N, 28.95, 23.68 and 18.42 % of P and 15.55, 13.43 and 9.89 % of K for humic acid, compost and gypsum, respectively concentrations in Egyptian clover plants as affected at high rate+ recommended NPK compared control.
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 13 |
From these results could be the highest mean values of N, P and K concentration in Egyptian clover plants were soil treated with humic acid amendment+ recommended NPK compared with control. From results it cloud be the relative increases of mean macronutrients concentration in cuts Egyptian clover arranged order: Humic acid > compost > gypsum for N, P and K. These results are in agreement with those obtained by El-Galad et al. (2013) who indicated that the N, P and K concentration in faba bean plants were significantly affected compost application in both seasons. This might be related to improvement in physical conditions of the soil and the provided energy for microorganism activity and increase the availability and content of N, P and K. Turan et al. (2011) reported that humic acid had positive increase of the N, P and K. Mazhar et al. (2011) suggested that the effect of compost application on N, P and K concentrations were increased by increasing compost rate. Jena and Kabi (2012) found that the application of gypsum to soil salinity led to decreased soil pH and increases the availability of nutrients in the soil and esential plant nutrients content.
With respect micro nutrients the different rates of soil amendments were significant increasing of Fe, Mn and Zn concentration in Egyptian clover plants (Table 7) in combined. The relative increases of the highest values were 21.19, 15.85 and 19.17% for Fe, Mn and Zn concentration in clover plants respectively were obtained with 60 kg humic acid fed -1 + recommended NPK compared control. On the other hand, the relative increases were 19.06, 14.29 % and 13.52% for Fe, Mn and Zn concentration in clover plants, respectively, were obtained with 6 ton compost+ recommended NPK compared control. As well as, the relative increases of highest values Fe, Mn and Zn concentrations in clover plants were 15.07 for Fe, 12.65 for Mn and 9.25% Zn, respectively were obtained with 6 ton gypsium + recommended NPK compared control. These results are in agreements with Helmy et al. (2013) they ravealed that the application of humic acid to saline soil led to increases of Fe, Mn and Zn uptake in barley plants. The application of humic acid different rates significantly increased Fe, Mn and Zn contents of shoot of pepper seedling, Mesut et al. (2010). Turan et al. (2011) indicated that humic acid had positive impacts on dry weight and the Fe, Mn and Zn uptake of maize plants. Valtcho et al. (2006) found that the gypsum application led to increases of Fe, Mn and Zn uptake in clover plants.
|
14 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
Table (7): Macronutrients (%) and micronutrients (mg/kg) of Egyptian clover as affected by different rates of soil amendments over cuts.
|
Characters
Treatments |
Macronutrients (%) |
Micronutrients (mg/kg) |
||||
|
N |
P |
K |
Fe |
Mn |
Zn |
|
|
Season 2016/2017 |
||||||
|
Different rates of soil amendments |
||||||
|
T1 |
2.52 |
0.36 |
2.77 |
64.32 |
35.87 |
19.75 |
|
T2 |
2.66 |
0.41 |
2.87 |
68.52 |
39.80 |
21.45 |
|
T3 |
2.79 |
0.44 |
2.93 |
74.77 |
40.95 |
22.98 |
|
T4 |
2.93 |
0.46 |
3.05 |
76.43 |
42.69 |
23.51 |
|
T5 |
2.62 |
0.35 |
2.80 |
67.62 |
38.75 |
20.37 |
|
T6 |
2.66 |
0.41 |
2.86 |
71.89 |
40.22 |
21.40 |
|
T7 |
2.75 |
0.44 |
2.94 |
74.62 |
41.69 |
22.18 |
|
T8 |
2.72 |
0.42 |
2.88 |
70.65 |
40.61 |
21.63 |
|
T9 |
2.86 |
0.45 |
2.96 |
75.84 |
41.23 |
22.61 |
|
T10 |
3.13 |
0.48 |
3.14 |
77.95 |
43.59 |
25.10 |
|
L.S.D 0.05 |
0. 08 |
0.02 |
0.04 |
0.86 |
0.59 |
0.42 |
|
Season 2017/2018 |
||||||
|
T1 |
2.48 |
0.39 |
2.88 |
66.52 |
39.85 |
22.41 |
|
T2 |
2.62 |
0.42 |
3.10 |
71.85 |
41.88 |
23.68 |
|
T3 |
2.72 |
0.45 |
3.26 |
76.49 |
42.69 |
24.16 |
|
T4 |
2.89 |
0.47 |
3.36 |
79.34 |
43.85 |
24.34 |
|
T5 |
2.59 |
0.39 |
2.95 |
70.54 |
39.95 |
22.61 |
|
T6 |
2.63 |
0.43 |
3.14 |
72.69 |
42.31 |
23.41 |
|
T7 |
2.79 |
0.46 |
3.27 |
75.94 |
43.62 |
23.88 |
|
T8 |
2.75 |
0.40 |
3.12 |
73.29 |
42.16 |
23. 95 |
|
T9 |
2.82 |
0.44 |
3.31 |
76.56 |
43.19 |
24.41 |
|
T10 |
3.05 |
0.50 |
3.39 |
80.61 |
44.12 |
25.14 |
|
L.S.D 0.05 |
0.06 |
0.02 |
0.05 |
0.74 |
0.78 |
0.32 |
|
Combined over seasons |
||||||
|
T1 |
2.50 |
0.38 |
2.83 |
65.42 |
37.86 |
21.08 |
|
T2 |
2.64 |
0.42 |
2.99 |
70.19 |
40.84 |
22.57 |
|
T3 |
2.76 |
0.45 |
3.12 |
75.63 |
41.82 |
23.70 |
|
T4 |
2.91 |
0.47 |
3.21 |
77.89 |
43.27 |
23.93 |
|
T5 |
2.61 |
0.37 |
2.88 |
69.08 |
39.35 |
21.49 |
|
T6 |
2.65 |
0.42 |
3.00 |
72.29 |
41.27 |
22.41 |
|
T7 |
2.77 |
0.45 |
3.11 |
75.28 |
42.66 |
23.03 |
|
T8 |
2.74 |
0.41 |
3.00 |
71.97 |
41.39 |
22.79 |
|
T9 |
2.84 |
0.46 |
3.11 |
76.20 |
42.21 |
23.38 |
|
T10 |
3.09 |
0.49 |
3.27 |
79.28 |
43.86 |
25.12 |
|
L.S.D 0.05 |
0.08 |
0.04 |
0.06 |
0.82 |
0.48 |
0.21 |
T1(recommended NPK); T2(2ton compost fed-1+T1);T3(4ton compost fed-1+T1);T4(6ton compost fed-1+T1); T5 (2ton Gypsum fed-1+T1);T6 (4ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T7 (6ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T8 (2 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1); T9(4kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 );T10 (6 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 )
Economic evluation:
Data presented in Table (8&9) revealed that applying soil amendments significantly effected on gross income (G1), gross margin (GM) and benefit/ cost ratio (B/C) in combined seasons, whereas total cost (TC) was not significantly affected in combined seasons. Data revealed that increasing humic acid from 20,40, 60 kg fed-1 as well as combost or gypsium from 2, 4, 6 ton fed-1 these traits gradually increased compared with control treatments in combined seasons. The heighest values (26951.15, 15551.15and 1.36L.E fed-1) for GI,GM and B/C, respectively in the combined season were obtained with humic acid at a rate of 60kg fed-1+ recommended NPK. Compost at a rate of 6 ton fed-1 + recommended NPKoccupied the second ranked followed by gypsium at a rate of 6 ton fed-1+ recommended NPK in both seasons. on the other hand , control treatment T1 (recommended NPK ) showed the lowest values (16792.80, 5632.80 and 0.50) for GI, GM and B/C respectively in the combined season for these traits, respectively. These results were related to increase in Egyptian clover yields (fresh,straw and seed) because of applying soil amendments i.e. compost, gypsium or humic acid and humic acid was a superiority than compost or gypsium as amendment in salt soil.
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 15 |
Table (8): The cost of production inputs
|
Treatments Cost of production inputs |
T1 |
T2 |
T3 |
T4 |
T5 |
T6 |
T7 |
T8 |
T9 |
T10 |
|
Land preparation : |
||||||||||
|
Tillage |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
|
Panting |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
300 |
|
Seeds |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
700 |
|
Irrigation |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
|
Land rent |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
7000 |
|
Mineral fertilization: |
||||||||||
|
Superphosphate (15.5%P2O5) |
240 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
240 |
|
Ammonium nitrate(33.5%N) |
220 |
220 |
220 |
220 |
220 |
220 |
220 |
220 |
220 |
220 |
|
potassium sulfate (48% K2O) |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
500 |
|
compost fed- |
------ |
600 |
1200 |
1800 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
Gypsum fed-1 |
----- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
260 |
520 |
780 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
|
Humic acid fed-1 |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
--- |
80 |
160 |
240 |
|
Hoeing |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
400 |
|
Harvesting |
800 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
800 |
|
Total variable cost |
11160 |
11760 |
12960 |
14760 |
11420 |
11940 |
12720 |
11240 |
11320 |
11400 |
|
Price ton-1 (total fresh yield) |
420 |
420 |
420 |
420 |
420 |
420 |
420 |
420 |
420 |
420 |
|
Price ton-1 (Straw yield ) |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
3000 |
|
Price kg-1 (seed yield) |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
35 |
T1(recommended NPK); T2(2ton compost fed-1+T1);T3(4ton compost fed-1+T1);T4(6ton compost fed-1+T1); T5 (2ton Gypsum fed-1+T1);T6 (4ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T7 (6ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T8 (20 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1); T9(40kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 );T10 (60 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 )
|
16 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
Table (9): Combined over seasons means of economic parameter
|
Trea. |
Total fresh yield (ton fed-1) |
Straw yield (tonfed-1) |
Seed yield (kg fed-1) |
GI |
T C |
GM |
B/C |
|
T1 |
20.67 |
0.79 |
164.04 |
16792.80 |
11160 |
5632.80 |
0.50 |
|
T2 |
25.19 |
0.97 |
208.56 |
20789.40 |
11760 |
9029.40 |
0.77 |
|
T3 |
26.83 |
1.02 |
220.56 |
22048.20 |
12960 |
9088.20 |
0.70 |
|
T4 |
29.19 |
1.16 |
256.23 |
24707.85 |
14760 |
9947.85 |
0.67 |
|
T5 |
24.55 |
0.92 |
192.59 |
19811.65 |
11420 |
8391.65 |
0.73 |
|
T6 |
26.09 |
0.99 |
207.59 |
21193.45 |
11940 |
9253.45 |
0.77 |
|
T7 |
27.46 |
1.09 |
241.59 |
23258.85 |
12720 |
10538.85 |
0.83 |
|
T8 |
26.74 |
1.04 |
230.59 |
22421.45 |
11240 |
11181.45 |
0.99 |
|
T9 |
28.06 |
1.11 |
240.08 |
23518.00 |
11320 |
12198.00 |
1.08 |
|
T10 |
31.98 |
1.25 |
279.13 |
26951.15 |
11400 |
15551.15 |
1.36 |
|
L.S.D 0.05 |
2.149 |
0.064 |
9.308 |
1171 |
NS |
1171 |
0.011 |
T1(recommended NPK); T2(2ton compost fed-1+T1);T3(4ton compost fed-1+T1);T4(6ton compost fed-1+T1); T5 (2ton Gypsum fed-1+T1);T6 (4ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T7 (6ton Gypsum fed-1+T1); T8 (20 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1); T9(40kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 );T10 (60 kg Humic acid fed-1+T1 )
CONCLUSION
This study investigated the evaluation of soil amendments on productivity and quality of Egyptian clover. This could be attributed to the role of soil amendments and growth stimulators in increasing the grown plants under saline soil conditions .Recommendation possible using humic acid to increasing Egyptian clover yields and quality as well as economic return, where this transaction achieved the highest economic return reached (15551.15) and profitability (1.36).
REFERENCES
Abbas, Z. M. and A. M. Awad (2018). Effect of foliar applications on productivity and quality of mono- cut Egyptian clover under saline soil. Egypt. J. Agron., 40 (2): 155- 163.
Abbas, Z. M.; A. Zein Elabdeenand, Hanaa ; R. I. Sayed, Mervat (2015). Effect of some conditioners on yield and macronutrients uptake by cowpea and pearl millet. Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 30 (3):156-174.
Abbas, Z. M.; F. A. F. Khalil and Wafaa M.T. Eletr (2013). Influence of water regimes and soil conditioners on yield, yield components and water utilization efficiency of eg yptian clover (variety fahl)J. Plant Production, Mansoura Univ., 4 (11): 1675 - 1690
Abd El-Naby, Z. M. ; W. A. Hafez and H. A. Hashem (2018). Remediation of salt – affected soil by natural and chemical amendments to improve berseem clover yield and nutritive quality. African J. of range and forage Sci., 36: 49-60.
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 17 |
A.O.A.C (2002). Official methods of analysis: Revision 1 (17th ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc., Arlington, Virginia, USA. 152-169.
Bakhoum, G.H.; M.O. Kabesh; M.F. El-Kramany; M.F. Alice; T. Thalooth and M.M. Tawfik (2016). Utilization of Bio-fertilizers in field crop production 17- Effect of organic manuring, mineral and bio fertilizers on forage yield and nutritive value of Egyptian clover (berseem) grown in new reclaimed sandy soil. i International Journal of ChemTech Research , 9 :34-41.
B.A.S. (2016). Bulletin of the Agricultural Statistics (2014/2015), 55-57.
Bozkurt, Y and I. Kaya (2010). A research based evaluation of the natural grasslands within the aspect of sustainable livestock production systems in highlands of the eastern Turkey. J. Kafkas Univ. Vet. Fac., 16(6):1045-1049.
Brunner, P. H. and H. R. Wasmer (1978). Methods of analysis of sewage sludge solid wastes and compost. W.H.O. International Reference Center for Wastes Disposal (H-8600), Dulendr of Switzerland.
Canellas, L.P.; S.F. Silva; D.Olk and F. L. Olivares ( 2015). Foliar application of Herbaspirillum seropedicae and humic acid increase maize yields. J. Food. Agric.Environ. 13, 146–153.
Chapman , H.D. and Pratt (1961). Methods of analysis for soil. Plant and water Division of Agric. Sci. Univ of California, USA.
Chen, Y.; M. De Nobili and T. Aviad (2004). Stimulatory effects of humic substances onplant growth. In: Magdoff, F., Weil, R.R. (Eds.), Soil Organic Matter inSustainable Agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Cottenie, A.; M. Verloo ; L. Kikens; G. Velghe and R. Camerlynck (1982). Analytical Problems and Method in Chemical Plant and Soil Analysis. Handbook Ed. A. Cottenie, Gent, Belgium.
Dick, W. A.; D. Kost, and L. Chen (2008). Availability of sulfur to crops from soil and other sources. In: J. Jez (Ed.). Sulfur: A Missing Link between Soils, Crops, and Nutrition. Agronomy Monograph., 59–82.
Dordas, C. A.;D.N. Vlachostergios and A.S. Ithourgidis (2012). Growth Dynamics and Agronomic-Economic Benefits of Pea-Oat and Pea-Barley Intercrops. Crop and Pasture Science, 63: 45-52.
|
18 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
Edris, A.E; S. Ahmed and H.M. Fadel (2003). Effect of organic agriculture
practices on the volatile aroma components of some essential oil plants growing in Egypt sweet marjoram (Origanum marjorana L.) essential oil Flavour Fragr. J., 4: 345-51.
El-Galad, M.A.; D.A Sayed and R. M. El-Shal (2013). Effect of humic acid and compost applied alone or in combination with sulphure on soil fertility and faba bean productivity under saline soil conditions. J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng. , Mansoura Univ. , 4 (10): 1139- 1157.
El-Hefny, E.M. (2010). Effect of saline irrigation water and humic scid application on growth and productivity of two cultivars of cowpea (Vigna unguiculataL. Walp). Aust. Jour. Basic and APPl. Sci., 4: 6154-6168.
El-Nahrawy, M.A.Z. (2005). The vital role of Egyptian clover in agriculture. The 11th Conference of Agronomy, Agron. Dept. Fac. Agric. Asut. Univ., Egypt. 55-62.
Esringu, A.; Kant, C. Yildirim; E. H Karlidag and M. Turan (2011). Ameliorative effect of foliar nutrient supply on growth, inorganic ions, membrane permeability, and leaf relative water content of physalis plants under salinity stress. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 42: 408–423.
Gamal, M.A S; A. I. Safwat; and S. A. Salah (2002). Egyptian clover varieties to the interaction of mineral and bio phosphatic fertilization. Fayoum
Gharib, F. A.; L.A. Moussa and O.N. Massoud (2008). Effect of compost and bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and essential oil of sweet marjoram (Majorana hortensis) plant. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 10(4): 381-382.
Haghighi, M.; A. Nikbakht; Y.P. Xia; and Pessarakli (2014). Influence of humic acid in diluted nutrient solution on growth, nutrient efficiency, and postharvest attributes of Gerbera. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 45: 177-188.
Heady, E.O. and J. L. Dillon (1961) Agricultural production functions. Log card number : 60-11128, Iwoa State University Press.
Helmy , A. M.; M.K. Abdel Fattah and Kh. A. Shaban (2013). Nitrogen efficiency in barely under saline –Sodic conditions as affected by urea, compost and bio-fertilizer (Rhizobium radiobacter sp). J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., MansouraUniv., 4 (11): 1169 – 1189.
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 19 |
Humintech. (2012).http://humintech.com/001/agriculture/ information/ general.html
Ihsanullah D. and T. Özgür (2013). Effects of gypsum and brassinolide on soil properties, and berseem (trifolium alexandrinum l.) growth, yield andchemical composition grown on saline soil.Legume Res., 36 (4) : 306 – 311.
Ismaill, F.Sh. and S. A. A. Hassanen (2019). Improvement of Egyptian Clover yield and quality by using bio and organic fertilizers in newly cultivated saline soil.J.Soil Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., 10 (3): 147 – 155.
Jena, D. and S. Kabi (2012) Effect of gromor sulphur, bentonite sulphur pastilles on yield and nutrient uptake by hybrid rice – potato - green gram cropping system in an inceptisol. International Research J. of Agric. Sci. and Soil Sci., 2: 179 – 187.
Klute, A. (1986). Methods of Soil Analysis (second ed.) American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Soil Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. USA, 635-686.
Lingorski, V. (2012) Influence of Foliar Top Dressing with Organic Fertilizer on Some Bioproductive Forage Parameters of Annual Summer Cereal-Leguminous Mixed Crop. Banat’s Journal of Biotechnology, 3, 32-36.
Magdy, M. M.; M. A.M. El-Nahrawy and A.S. Samy (2014). The role of Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L) in agricultural development in desert lands, North Sinai – Governorate , Egypt. . Chapter VIII. FAO. 28- 32.
Mazhar , A. A. M. ; N. G. Abdel Aziz ; Sh. I. Shedeed and S. M. Zaghloul (2011). Effect of Nile compost application on growth and chemical constituents of Jatropha curcas grown under different salinity levels of diluted sea water. Austr. J. Basic. And Applied Sci. 5 (9): 967- 974.
Mcdonald, J. E. ; D.P. Fuller ; T.K. Fuller and J.E. Cardoza (1994). The influence of food abundance on success of Massachusetts black bear hunters. Northeast Wildlife. 51:55–60.
Mesut, K. C.; T. Ondr; T. Metin and T. Burcu (2010). Phosphorus and humic acid application alleviate salinity stress of pepper seedling. African J. of Biotoechnology. 9 (36): 5845- 5851.
|
20 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
Mohamed , O. M. A. and M. A. Matloub (2007). Effect of soil amendments on some physical and chemical properties of some soils of Egypt under saline irrigation water. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings. 8: 1571 – 1578.
Nardi, S.; D. Pizzeghello; A. Muscolo; and A.Vianello (2002). Physiological effects of humic substances on higher plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 1527–1536.
Nigam, P.N.; R.I. Srivastava; N.C. Verma (2010). Effect of different cutting and growth retardant (cycocel) on higher forage yield and seed yield in berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) Int. J Plant Sci., 5(2):660-663.
Raafat, N.Z. and E.E.R.Tharwat (2011). Improving wheat grain yield and its quality under salinity conditions at a newly reclaimed soil using different organic sources as soil or foliar applications. J. Appl. Sci. Res., 7(1): 42-55.
Rashad, F. M.; H. H. Kesba; W.D. Saleh and M. A. Moselhy (2011). Impact of rice straw compost on microbial population, plant growth, nutrient uptake and root-knot nematode under greenhouse conditions. African J. Agric. Res., 6:1188-1203.
Read, J.J.; G. E. Brink; S. Mclaughlin and K.R. Stani (2011). Nitrogen and Winter Cover Crop Effects on Spring and Summer Nutrient Uptake. Grass and Forage Science, 66: 381-390.
Rouhi, H.R.; M.A. Aboutalebian; S.A. Moosavi; F.A. Karimi; F. Karimi, M. Saman and M. Samadi (2012). Change in several antioxidant enzymes activity of berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) by priming. Int. J. Agric. Sci., 3: 237-243.
Sangeetha, N.; S. Palani and U. Ramar (2006). Effect of lignite humic acid and fertilizers on the yield of onion and nutrient availability. 18th Word Cong. Soil Sci., Philadelphia, Pencilvania, USA.
Salama, H. S.A. (2015). Interactive effect of forage mixing rates and organic fertilizers on the yield and nutritive value of Berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinumL.) and Annual Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorumLam.).Agricultural Sciences, 6, 415-425.
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 21 |
Sarwar, G.; H. S. chmeisky; N. Hussain; S. Muhammad; M. Ibrahim and E. hsanfdar (2008). Improvement of soil physical and chemical properties with compost application in Rice-Wheat cropping system. Pak. J. Bot., 40 (1). 275-282.
Sayed, M.R. I. and Kh. A. Shaban (2016). Response of fahl clover to compost rates under irrigation intervals in newly reclaimed saline soils. Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor . 54 (4), 827-840.
Sebastiano, D ;T. Roberto ; D. Ersilio and AArturo A. lvino (2005). Effect of foliar application of N and humic acids on growth and yield of durum wheat. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 25 (2):183 – 191.
Sharma, B. R. and P. S. Minhas (2005). Strategies for managing saline/alkali waters for sustainable agricultural production in South Asia. Agric. Water Manag., 78, 136-151.
Shrivastava, P.; R. Andrew kumar (2015). Soil salinith Aserious environmental issue and plant growth promoting bacteria as one of the tools for its alleviation. Sandi.j.Biol.Sci. 22,123-131.
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran (1990). Statical Methods. 8th Edition, Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames.
Thalooth, A.T; G.A.-L. Sary; H.M. El-Nagar; M.F. El-Kramany; M.O. Kabesh and G.S.H. Bakhoum (2015). Yield and quality response of Ryegrass, Egyptian Clover and their mixtures to different sources of fertilizers. Agri-cultural Sciences, 6: 137-145.
Turan, M.A.;B.B. Asik ; A. V. Katkat and H. Celik (2011).The effects of soil-applied humic substances to the dry weight and mineral nutrient uptake of maize plants under soil-salinity conditions.NotulaeBotanicaeHortiAgrobotaniciCluj-Napoca39(1):171-177.
Valtcho, D.Z.; A. Tess; D. C. Claude; M. Johan and G. Mark (2006). Compost , manure and gypsum application to timothy/red colver forage. J. of Enviro. Quality –Wast Management. 35 (6): 2410- 2418.
|
22 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 |
Zaka, M. A.; F. Mujeeb ; G. Sarwar ; N.M. Hassan and G. Hassan (2003). Agromelioration of Saline Sodic Soils. On Line J. Biol. Sci., 3(3): 329-334.
تاثیر ًبعض محسنات التربه على انتاجیه البرسیم المصرى
وتقیمه اقتصادیا تحت ظروف السرو
عزه خلیل محمد سالم(1) وسـعید محمد حسین علی عیسى(2)
1-قسم بحوث محاصیل العلف- معهد بحوث المحاصیل الحقلیة- مرکز البحوث الزراعیة - بالجیزة
2-قسـم بحـوث التقییم الإقتصادی والبیئی - المعمل المرکزی لبحوث التصمیم والتحلیل الإحصائی - مرکز البحوث الزراعیة - بالجیزة
أجریت تجربتان حقلیتان فى محطة البحوث الزراعیه بالسرو-مرکز البحوث الزراعیه- محاقظه دمیاط –مصر خلال موسمى -2018/2017, 2017/2016 على التوالى لدراسة تاثیر بعض معدلات محسنات التربه (کمبوست–جبس الزراعى–حمض الهیومیک) على انتاجیه البرسیم المصرى وتقیمه اقتصادیا و قد أضیفت للفدان معدلات 6,4,2 طن/ فدان لکل من الکمبوست و الجبس الزراعى, 60,40,20 کیلو جرام من حمض الهیومیک و استخدم تصمیم القطاعات الکاملة العشوائیة فى ثلاثة مکررات.
وأظهرت النتائج ما یلى :-
- زادت محسنات التربه بعض الصفات المحصولیه للبرسیم مثل طول النبات ونسبه الورق للسیقان وعدد الکبسولات /م2 ووزن 1000 بذره, و سجل المعامله 60 کجم/ فدان حمض هیومیک+NPK الموصى به أعلى القیم لهذه الصفات.
- زادت النسب المئویه لکل من البروتین الخام و المهضوم نتیجه لإضافه محسنات التربه فى الأراضى الملحیه وفى نفس الوقت قلت النسبه المئویه للألیاف.
- زادت حاصلات البرسیم المصرى (الأخضر- الجاف- محصول البذره- محصول القش) بإضافه محسنات التریه و سجل المعدل 60کجم/ فدان من حمض الهیومیک+NPK الموصى به أعلى القیم لهذه الحاصلات کمتوسط عام للموسمین.
- أدى إضافه الکمبوست والجبس الزراعى وحمض الهیومک الى زیاده النسبه المئویه للعناصر الکبرى والعناصر الصغرى فى نباتات البرسیم المصرى مقارنةً بالکنترول وسجل معدل 60 کجم/ فدان من حمض الهیومیک+NPK الموصى به أعلى القیم لهذه العناصر للسنتین.
- کما سجلت النتائج ان افضل معاملة (60 کجم/ فدان من حمض الهیومیک+NPK الموصى به) التى حققت اعلى نسیه منافع الى التکالیف والتى بلغت 1.36
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 17
|
|
18 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020
|
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 19
|
|
20 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020
|
|
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020 21
|
|
22 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 35 (3) 2020
|
)
View on SCiNiTO