الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 144 |  |  |
| | | from | 144 | | |
Abstract
Two field experiments were conducted at the Agricultural Research and Experimental Station, Faculty of Agriculture at Moshtohor, during the 1984/85 and 1985/86 seasons. The aim of the experiments was to study the effect of sowing methods, weed control, irrigation frequency and fertilization on yield, yield components, chemical content of lentil ( Lens esculenta,Moench) and associated weeds of lentil.¬¬¬
The soil of the experiments was clay textured having a ph 7.85, organic matter content 2.54% and available P of 40 ppm.
This study included two experiments in each season.
A. The first Experiment
Two field experiments were conducted, each included 18 treatments which were the combinations of two sowing methods and nine weed control treatments. The treatments were arranged in a split-plot design with four replications.¬
The two sowing methods were randomized in the main plots and weed control treatments were assigned randomly in the sub-plots.
.._------
- 107 -
Results could be summarized as follows
1. Effect of Sowing Methods:
1.1 Herati method is an effective method in depressing
weed density. Herati method decreased the total dry weiqht
of weeds by 21 and 14 ; 32 and 32 ; 15 and 16 and 12 and 14%
compared w~th afir method after 45,75,105 and 160 days from
sowing in the first and second seasons, respectively.
1.2. The effect of sowing methods on plant height of lentil
showed seasonal variation. The plant height in herati met-
hod was significantly higher than that of afir in the first
season only. On the other hand, there was no relevance
between the sowing methods and number of branches/plant in
both seasons.
1.3 Number of pods/plant as well as weight of seeds/plant
were significantly affected with sowing methods in the first
season only. Herati method significantly increased the
previous characters than the afir method.
1.4 Sowing methods did not show any significant
effect
on number of seeds/pod, number of seeds/plant, percentage
of abortive seeds and weight of 1000-seed in the two seasons.
1.5 Yields of seed and protein were significantly influenced
by different sowing methods in the first season only.
Herati method gave higher seed yield/fad. compared with
- 108 -
afir method. On the contrary, sowing methods had no siqn-
ificant effect on straw as well as biological yield in
the both seasons.
1.6 sowing methods showed significant effect on the harvest
index in the first season only. In that season , afir
method significantly decreased harvest llrlex compared with
herati method.
1.7. In the both seasons, sowing methods did not exert any
~arked effect on seeds protein content. whereas, herati
method significantly increased P-content of ’lentil seeds
compared with afir method in the first season only.
2. Effect of weed control :
2.1. All mixtures of sencor with other herbicides followed
by hand weedinq twice treatment were superior in controll-
ing the broad-leaved as well as grass weeds than other
treatments. On the other hand, the single herbicide namely
topogard, prometryne, igran and sencor gave lowest contr-
ollingeffect on the same weeds.
2.2. weed control treatments showed significant effect on t
plant height and number of branches of lentil. The mixture
of sencor with topogard or prometryne or igran as well as
hand weeding treatments showed favourable effect on plant
height and number of branches/plant in the both seasons.
-------_ .. _. - -----_ ... ~
- 109 -
2.3Yield components characters of lentil plants, L, e., number of pods/plant, number of seeds/plant, weight of 1000-seed as well as weight of seeds/plant significantly influenced with weed control treatments. The mixture of sencor with topogard gave the highest values followed by sencor + prometryne, sencor + igran and hand weeding treatments.
On the other hand, percentage of abortive seeds significantly decreased with application of chemical herbicides as well as hand weeding treatment in the both seasons. 2.4.Chemical herbicides and hand weeding trea~ts had no significant effect on the number of seeds/pod in the two successive seasons.¬
2.5. All weed control treatments significantly increased the seed yield/fad. and protein yield/fad. in the both seasons. Thus, the highest seed yield was obtained by mixture of sencor with topogard or prometryne, which increased it by 260 and 245% in the first season and 240 and 235% of the unweeded treatment in the second season.¬
2.6. Treatments of weeds control showed significant effect on the yields of straw and biological in the two successive seasons. The best treatment in that respect was sencor which increased the yield of straw/fad. by 111 and 101% over the unweeded treatments. whereas, the best treatments which gave higher biological yield were igran and topogard in the first and second seasons, respectively.¬
---------
- 110 -
2.7. There were significant differences between all weed control treatments and the unweeded treatment on harvest
index in the two seasons. The mixture of sencor and topoqard caused a significant increase in this trait compared with the other treatments of weed control.¬
2.8. Protein percentage in lentil seeds was not significantly influenced by weed control treatments in the two successive seasons. On the other hand, some of weed control treatments significantly increased the percentage of P.¬
The highest percentage was recorded with the mixture of sencor with topogard in the both seasons.
3. Effect of the interaction:
The interaction effect was not significant on all previous characters. Such result indicated that each experimental factor acted separately in affecting the weeds, growth, yield and chemical composition of lentil seeds.¬¬
B. The Second Experiment
Two experiments were conducted, each included 24 treatments which were the combination of four irrigation treatments and six fertilization treatments. The experiments were designed according to split-plot design with four replications. The irrigation treatments were arranged¬¬
------ ------------
- 111 -
at random in the main polts, while the fertilization treat-
ments were assigned at random in sub-plots.
Results sould be summarized as follows
1. Effect of Irrigations Number
----------------------~-----
1.1. In both seasons, number of irrigations showed signif-
icant effect on fresh as well as dry weight of weeds/m2
at different stages of growth, namely, 45,75,105 and 160 days from sowing. The weight of weeds/m 2 si’gnif icantly
increased as the number of irrigations increased up to
three irrigations.
1.2. Increasing irrigation frequency up to three irrigations
during the two growing seasons significantly increased plant
height and number of branches/plant of lentil. On the
other hand, increasing irrigation number up to four times
decreased these. characters in both seasons.
1.3. Yield components characters of lentil crop, i.e.,
number of pods/plant, number of seeds/pod, number of seeds/
plant and 1000-seed weiqht were significantly influenced
by the number of irrigations in the two successive seasons.
The plants recieved three irrigations gave the highest number of pods/plant, number of seeds/pod and number of
seeds/plant. On the contrary, increasing number of irrig-
ations up to four irrigations significantly decreased the
- 112 -
previous characters.
1.4. Percentage of abortive seeds was inversely correlated with the number of irrigations. In other words,” percentage of abortive seeds significantly decreased as the number of irrigations increased up to four irrigations in the two seasons.¬
1.5. Weight of seeds per plant was significantly affected
by irrigation frequency. In 1984/85 season, weight of seeds/plant significantly increased with increasing number of irrigations up to three irrigations. whereas, increasing number of irrigations until two irrigations significantly increased seeds weight/plant in 1985/86 season.
1.6. Increasing irrigations number up to three times significantly increased the seed yield of lentil/fad. in the two successive seasons. On the other hand, the plants recieved four irrigations significantly decreased the seed yield/fad. The relative seed yield of lentil which received 2,3 and 4 irrigations was higher than that of one irrigation by 14,34 and 21% in the first season, and 14,38 and 17%¬¬
in the second season.
1.7. Irrigation frequency had significant effect on yields of straw as well as biological yield/fad. in the two successive seasons. Increasing irrigation number up to three times significantly increased straw and biological yield compared with one and two irrigations.¬
- 113 -
1.8. Harvest index was significantly affected by number of
irrigations. It tended to significant increase with increasing irrigations number up to two times in the two succe-¬
ssive seasons.
1.9. The number of irrigations had no significant effect
on protein % of lentil seeds. On the contrary, the protein yield/fad. significantly increased by increasing irriqation up to three irrigations in the both seasons.
1.10. Phosphorus content of seeds was not siqnificantly affected with the number of irrigations in the 1984/85 and 1985/86 seasons.
2. Effect of Fertilizer:
2.1. Fertilization of lentil plants with nitrogen and phosphorus significan~ly increased weed denisity, expressed¬
as fresh and dry weiqht in lentil plots. On the other hand, the unfertilization treatment contained the lowest fresh and dry weight of weeds/rna.
2.2. In the both seasons, plant height and the number of branches/plant were significantly affected with fertilization. Increasing levels of Nand P up to 15 Kg N + 48 Kg P205/fad. Produced higher values of plant height and number of branches/plant.¬
2.3.Application of 1SKg N+24Kg P2os/fad. significantly increased the number of pods/plant as well as the number of¬
- 114 -
seeds/pod in the two successive seasons. whereas, increasing levels of up to 1SKg N+48Kg P2os/fad. in the first season and till 1SKg N+24Kg P20S/fad. in the second season significantly increased the number of seeds/plant.¬
2.4. The effect of fertilization on the percentage of abortive seeds of lentil showed seasonal variations. Percentage of abortive seeds was significantly increased by increasing level of fertilizers up to 1S Kg N + 48 Kg p2oS/fad. in the first season only.¬
2.5. The effect of nitrogen and phosphorus application on 1000-seed weight and the weight of seeds/plant showed similar trend. The weight of 1000-seed and weight of seeds/ plant significantly increased with increasing levels of fertilization up to 15 Kg N + 24 Kg P2oS/fad. in the first season, and till 1S Kg N + 48 Kg P2oS/£ad. in the second season.¬
2.6. Yield of seeds/fad. was significantly increased by increasing fertilizer’s level up to 1S Kg N + 48 Kg P205/ fad. in the two seasons. The relative yields were 100, 129,111,138,121 and 146%in the first season, and 100,129, 111,136,121 and 145% in the second season for fertilizer treatments NoPo, N1,Po, Nop’, N,P” NoP2 and N,P2, respectively.¬
2.7. straw yield/fad. was not significantly affected by increasing nitrogen and phosphorus levels. On the other
- 11 S -
hand, increasing level of fertilizer up to 15 Kg N + 48 Kg p2os/fad. significantly increased the bioloqical yield/fad. in the both seasons.
2.8. Harvest index significantly increased as the levels increased up to 15 Kg N + 48 Kg P205/fad. in the first season, and up to 15 Kg N + 24 Kg p2oS/fad. in the second
season.
2.9.The effect fertilization trea~ts on protein content of
lentil seeds showed seasonal variation. Percentaqe of protein significantly increased as the fertilizer increased till 15 Kg N + 48 Kg p2os/fad. in the first season only. While, application of 1S Kg N + 48 Kg P20S Kg/fad. siqnificantly increased protein yield/fad. by 53 and 45% over the control treatment in the first and second seasons,respectivelv. 2.10. Application of fertilizer had significant effect on P-content of lentil seeds. The maximum P-content was obt-¬
ained by the application of 15 Kg N + 48 Kg P20S in the both seasons.
3. Effect of the interaction :
The effect of the interaction between number of irri-
qat ions and NP fertilizers was not significant on all studied characters.
~ -- - ----~_._-------
It g..i..ue..6 me. a qneai: p.l..e.cMWU!. to e.x.P/7.£/J.6 my g/l.ai...dude. to P//.ot• D//.. g.A. SG.II.{J, P//.ot. DIt. fI.S. Scdem and A-Moci.ai..e. P//.ot. D//.. N.R.A. U-Dupah, at the Deprutinum.i.. ot Agltonomy, lacu1J..y ot Agn..icuP.1u//.€ at floddoholl., Zagozig lJn..WeJ’l.Aity, to/t:. th.ei.A valua£.1.e advice, .6upvwi.6.i.on, eord.inuou» he..lp and conM.II.l.lc.:Live CA.-i..-Dic..i..6m iJvl.Oughoui... :f.JJ£ cOUlt.6e ot ih.i..6 .6iudy, and tOll. the. qu.idance: and ecounqemerd: d.wUn.g the. .6tage ot w.o.i-:Lin.g ih.i..6 manu..6cAi.pt.