Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 183, Issue 1, pp 149–160 | Cite as

Rainfed vetch-barley mixed cropping in the Syrian semi-arid conditions

II. Water use efficiency and root distribution
  • A. Arslan
  • F. Kurdali
Article

Abstract

Water consumption and root distribution of vetch (Avena sativa L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in a monoculture and a mixed culture were studied at Jillin station in South-west Syria in a semi-arid region under rainfed conditions. The experiment was conducted in two consecutive years during the 1991/92 and 1992/93 seasons, using a factorial complete block design. There were altogether four blocks, one of which was harvested at the physiological maturity while the remaining three blocks were subjected to three successive harvests per season. The soil had a silty clay texture with EC e ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 dS m-1. The moisture content at 15 cm intervals was determined using an “in situ” calibrated neutron scattering probe. The dry weight of the roots was determined three times at 15 cm depth intervals during each of the successive harvests. The dry weights of the roots were in harmony with the harvested above ground dry matter under the different treatments. The WUE of all treatments in the second season were higher than those of the first. Their values ranged from 1.62 to 2.37 times of the first. This is due to the high water content at the beginning of the second season (47.82 cm in 165 cm soil depth) compared to the first (37.32 cm in 165 cm soil depth). Good rainfall distribution during the second growing season might be another factor.

Key words

barley mixed cropping roots distribution soil moisture vetch water use efficiency 

Abbreviations

VP

mono culture stand of vetch

Bp

mono culture stand of barley

VBm

mixed stand of vetch and barley

Vm

vetch in the mixed stand

Bm

barley in the mixed stand

H1, H2 and H3

first, second and third harvest, respectively

H0

plant harvested once at physiological maturity

S1 and S2

first and second season

WUE

water use efficiency

ET

evapotraspiration

Ksat

saturated hydraulic conductivity

K

unsaturated hydraulic conductivity

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Khafaf S, Wierenga P and Philip M 1987 Root efficiency and distribution of barley plant in irrigated and non irrigated field plots. J. Agric. Water Resour. Res. 6, 1–14.Google Scholar
  2. Arslan A 1982 The optimum use of soil moisture under crop rotations in semiarid conditions. Res. J. Aleppo Univ. 4, 227–236.Google Scholar
  3. Boller B C and Nosberger J 1987 Symbiotically fixed nitrogen from field-grown white and red clover mixed with ryegrass at low levels of15N-fertilization. Plant and Soil 104, 219–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De R and Singh S 1981 Management practices for intercropping systems.In Proceedings International Workshop on Intercropping. pp 17–21. ICRISAT, Hydrabad, India.Google Scholar
  5. Drew M C and Saker L R 1978 Effects of direct drilling and ploughing on root distribution in spring barley, and on the concentrations of extractable phosphate and potassium in the upper horizons of a clay soil. J. Sci. Food Agric. 29, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drew M C and Saker L R 1980 Assessment of a rapid method, using soil cores, for estimating the amount and distribution of crop roots in the field. Plant and Soil 55, 297–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El Fakhry A K and Sultan A M 1979 Studies on crops rotations and tillage practices on wheat production under rainfed conditions in Northern Iraq.In Proceedings of the FAO Regional Seminar on Rainfed Agriculture in the near east and north Africa held in Amman, Jordan. 5–10 May 1979. pp 59–65. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  8. Fageria N K 1992 Multiple cropping systems and crop yield.In Maximizing crop yield. Ed. N K Fageria. pp 81–104. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar
  9. Francis C A 1989 Biological efficiencies in multiple cropping systems. Adv. Agron. 42, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardarson G, Danso S K A and Zapata F 1988 Dinitrogen fixation measurements in alfalfa-ryegrass swards using nitrogen-15 and influence of the reference crop. Crop Sci. 28, 101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hubick K T, Farquhar G D and Shorter R 1986 Correlation between water-use efficiency and carbon isotope discrimination in diverse peanut (Arachis) germplasm. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13, 803–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hulugalle N R and Lal R 1986 Soil-water balance of intercropped maize and Cowpea grown in a tropical hydromorphic soil in western Nigeria. Agron. J. 77, 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Izaurralde R C, McGill W B and Juma N G 1992 Nitrogen fixation efficiency, interspecies N transfer, and root growth in barley-field pea intercrop on Black Chernozemic soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 13, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirda C 1990 Use of neutron water and gamma density gauges in soil water studies.In Use of nuclear techniques in studies of soil-plant relationships p 223. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  15. Kurdali F, Sharabi N E and Arslan A 1996 Rainfed vetch-barley mixed cropping in the Syrian semi-arid conditions. I. Nitrogen nutrition using15N isotopic dilution. Plant and Soil 183, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liozides P 1979 Crop rotations under rainfed conditions in Mediterranean climate in relation to soil moisture and fertilizer requirements.In Proceeding of the FAO Regional Seminar on Rainfed Agriculture in the near east and north Africa held in Amman, Jordan. pp 23–38. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  17. Madsen H B 1985 Distribution of spring barley roots in Danish soils of different texture and under different climatic conditions. Plant and Soil 88, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mev Singh K S, Leela Bahi S and Morsara M R 1977 Rooting pattern and nutrient in some barley varieties under irrigated and nonirrigated conditions.In Symposium of the use of Isotopes and Radiations in Agriculture, Biology and Animal Aceinces. pp 147–148. Chandigarh, India.Google Scholar
  19. Nelson D W and Sommners L E 1982 Total carbon, organic carbon and organic mater.In Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Second ed. Eds. A L Page, R H Miller and D R Keeney. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Publisher. Madison, WI, USA. 1159 p.Google Scholar
  20. Patra D D, Shadev M S and Subbiah B V 198615N studies of the transfer of legum-fixed nitrogen to assisted cereals in intercropping systems. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2, 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shnitzer M 1982 Carbonate and gypsum.In Methods of Soil Analysis, part 2. Second ed. Eds. A L Page, R H Miller and D R Keeney. pp 581–594. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Soil Survay Staff 1990 Keys to Toxonomy, fourth ed. SMSS Technical Monograph no. 6 Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. 422 p.Google Scholar
  23. United States Salinity Laboratory Staff 1954 Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Agric. Handb. 60, USDA, Washington DC., USA.Google Scholar
  24. Van Genuchten M Th 1980 A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic properties of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44, 892–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Youngs E G 1991 Hydraulic conductivity of saturated soils.In Soil Analysis Physical Methods. Eds. K A Smith and C E Mullins. pp 161–207. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Arslan
    • 1
  • F. Kurdali
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiation AgricultureAtomic Energy CommissionDamascusSyria

Personalised recommendations