Effect of sowing depth and mulching types on soil water storage at different growth stages of chickpea under rainfed farming

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

• moslem fetri
• Mohammad Eghbal Ghobadi
• Mokhtar Ghobadi
• Gholamreza Mohammadi

Razi University, Kermanshah

10.22067/ijpr.v7i1.42442

Abstract

Introduction
In dry areas, water is the limiting factor in improving agricultural production. Saving the annual precipitation in the soil is very effective in dryland farming. The amount of rainfall that infiltrates the soil depends on the amount of soil permeability and runoff. The surface remains will be able to better permeable prevent runoff and raindrops and reduce erosion. In addition, evaporation can be reduced about 40 to 70 percent and this water is available for plants. Moreover, mulch keeps sufficient moisture to increase the microbial activity, rise mobility and better food for plant growth. Therefore, various tools and techniques should be used in rain-fed conditions to reduce risk of water losing and create sustainable performance. In this work, some types of mulch and their impact on soil moisture and yield of chickpea are evaluated in dryland conditions.

Materials & Methods
This experiment was carried out on chickpea (var. ILC481) as a split plot in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications at the research farm of Campus of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran during 2011-2012. The main plot treatments were moisture retention, including control without mulch, corn, straw mulch (1 kg/m2) wheat straw mulch (1 kg/m2), farmyard manure mulch (3 kg/m2), soil, mulch (using the sweep to cut pipes capillary) and supplemental irrigation at podding stage (to compare with the ideal condition). The sub plots were sowing depth 4, 8 and 12 cm. The annual rainfall was 305.5 mm during the studied year and soil texture was clay. Each plot consists of 6 planting lines with length of 3 meters. Sowing date was done on 16 October 2011. Plant density was 40 plants per square meter with 25 cm between row spacing and 10 cm in the rows. In this work, measured traits were included soil moisture at different growth stages (vegetative stage, flowering, pod and grain filling) at depths of 0-30 and 30-60 cm, grain yield and biomass. In order to estimate soil moisture content, sampling was conducted by auger. Data were analyzed using the SAS and MSTATC softwares and the means were compared using the Duncan test at the 5% level.

Results & Discussion
Results showed that there are significant differences at podding stage (depth 0-30 cm) between different types of mulch and between sowing depth (30-60 cm), different mulching types and also the interaction between mulch and sowing depth. Soil moisture (depth of 30-60 cm) was significant for all treatments (mulching and sowing depths) and for different growth stages, including vegetative growth, flowering, podding and maturity stages. The mulches which could preserve the highest percent of soil moisture were farmyard manure mulch, wheat straw mulch, soil mulch and corn straw mulch, respectively. The lowest soil moisture content (average depths of 0-30 and 30-60 cm) was obtained under no mulch condition and at reproductive phase, flowering, podding and grain filling (8.0, 10.6, 14.1 and 17.4 percent, respectively) and the maximum soil moisture content for farmyard manure mulch were 12.2, 15.1, 17.3 and 19.3 percent, respectively. Sowing depth of 12 cm decreased the more moisture from depth 30-60 cm. Grain yield increased under wheat straw mulch (30%), manure mulch (18%), corn straw mulch (16%), and soil mulch (12%) compared to the control (non-mulching), respectively. Grain yield reduced under wheat straw mulch (31%), manure mulch (37%), corn straw mulch (38%) and soil mulch (40%) compared to supplemental irrigation, respectively.

Conclusion
The results revealed that under mulch treatments the soil moisture trends were slower compared to treatments without mulch. Farmyard manure mulch indicated the highest ability to retain moisture and after that wheat straw and corn stubble mulch demonstrated the highest ability to retain the moisture. Thus, it seems that in areas that there is the possibility of supplementary irrigation, use of these treatments will provide more moisture for plants. Furthermore, a deeper planting seed (12 cm) causes moisture depletion from greater depths. According to the results, it seems that the use of deeper sowing depth and mulching can be an appropriate technique for dryland condition.

Keywords

• Chickpea
• Moisture retention
• Mulching
• Sowing depth

---

References

1. Aggarwal, P., Bhardmaj, S.P., and Khullar, A.K. 1992. Appropriate tillage systems for rainfed wheat in Doon valley. Annals of Agricultural Research 13: 116-173.

2. Bahrani, M.J., Raufat, M.H., and Ghaderi, H. 2006. Influence of wheat residue management on irrigated corn grain production in a reduced tillage system. Soil and Tillage Research 94: 305-309.

3. Bilalis, D., Sidiras, N., Economou, A., and Vakali, C. 2003. Effect of different levels of wheat straw soil surface coverage on weed flora in Vicia faba crops. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 189: 233-241.

4. Bruce, A.L., Brouder, S.M., and Hill, J.E. 2006. Winter straw and water management: effects on soil nitrogen dynamics in California rice systems. Reproduced from Agronomy Journal 98: 1050-1059

5. Dahiya, R., Ingwersen, J., and Streck, T. 2007. The effect of mulching and tillage on the water and temperature regimes of a loess soil: experimental findings and modeling. Soil and Tillage Research 96(1-2): 52-63.

6. Fristchi, F.B., Roberts, B.A., Rains D.W., Travis, R.L., and Hutmacher, R.B. 2005. Nitrogen recovery from 15N-labeled incorporated cotton residues and recovery of residual fertilizer N by Acala and Pima cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69: 718-728.

7. Fristchi, F.B., Roberts, B.A., Rains D.W., Travis, R.L., and Hutmacher, R.B. 2005. Recovery of residual fertilizer-N and cotton residue-N by Acala and Pima cotton. Soil Science Society of America Journal 69: 718-728.

8. Greb, B.W. 1966. Effect of surface-applied barley straw on soil water losses by solar distillation. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 30: 786-788.

9. Jalota, S.K. 1993. Evaporation through soil mulch in relation to characteristics and evaporability. Australian Journal of Soil Research 31: 131-136.

10. Malhi, S.S., Lemke, R., Wang, Z.H., and Chhabra, S. 2006. Tillage, nitrogen and crop residue effects on crop yield, nutrient uptake, soil quality, and greenhouse gas emission. Soil Tillage Research 90: 171-183.

11. Maskina, M.S., Power, J.F., Dorani, J.W., and Wilhelm, W.W. 1993. Residual effects of no-tillage residues on corn yield and nitrogen uptake. Soil Science Society of America Journal 57: 1555-1560.

12. Monzon, J.P., Sadras, V.O., and Andrade, F.H. 2006. Fallow soil evaporation and water storage as affected by stubble in sub-humid (Argentina) and semi-arid (Australia) environments. Filed Crops Research 98(2-3): 83-90.

13. Opara, O., Salau, O., and Swennen, R. 1992. Response of plantain to mulch on a tropical ultisol: Part II. Effect of different mulching materials on soil hydrological properties. International Agrophysics 6: 3-4.

14. Pawar, H.K. 1990. Use of plastic as mulch in scheduling of irrigation to ginger in semiarid climate. Proceeding of the 11th International Congress on the Use of Plastics in Agriculture, New Delhi India, P: 1090-1099.

15. Potter, K., Torbert, H., and Morrison, T. 1995. Tillage and residue effect on infiltration and sediment losses on verti soils. Transactions of the ASAE 38(5): 1413-1419.

16. Price, J.L., Rochefort, F., and Quin, C. 1998. Energy and moisture considerations on cutover peatlands: surface microtopography, mulch cover and Sphagnum regeneration. Ecological Engineering 10: 293-312.

17. Rahman, A.M., Chikushi, J., Saifizzaman, M., and Lauren, J.G. 2005. Rice straw mulching and nitrogen of no-till wheat following rice in Bangladesh. Field Crops Research 91: 71-81.

18. Schillinger, W.F., and Young, D.L. 2004. Cropping systems research in the world’s driest rainfed wheat region. Agronomy Journal 96: 1182-1187.

19. Schonbeck, W.M., and Evanylo, G.K. 1998. Effects of mulches on soil properties and tomato production I. Soil temperature, soil moisture and marketable yield. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 13: 55-81.

20. Seneviratne, S.I., Luthi, D., Litschi, M., and Schar, C. 2006. Land- atmosphere coupling and climate change in Europe. Nature 443: 205-209.

21. Sloan, R.J., Patterson, R.P., and Carter, T.E. 1990. Field drought tolerance of soybean plant introduction. Crop Science 30: 118-123.

22. Unger, P.W. 1994. Residue management for winter barley and grain sorghum, production with limited irrigation. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58: 537-542.

23. Wilhelm, W.W., Johnson, J.M.F., Hatfield, J.L., and Linden D.R. 2004. Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal. Agronomy Journal 96: 1-17.

24. Zhang, C., and Sun, P. 2007. Effects of straw mulching on soil temperature, evaporation and yield of winter wheat: field experiments on the North China Plain. Annals of Applied Biology 150(3): 261-268.