Comparison of Leaf Water Potentials of Second Crop Silage Corn and Sorghum Plants Under Different Irrigation Levels

Authors

  • Mualla KETEN Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Biyosistem Mühendisliği Bölümü
  • Hasan DEĞİRMENCİ Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi, Biyosistem Mühendisliği Bölümü

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46291/ISPECJASvol4iss4pp863-872

Keywords:

Pressure chamber, deficit irrigation, soil water holding capacity, Colonia, Es- Foehn

Abstract

This study was realized in the research area of the East Mediterranean Transitional Zone Agricultural Research of Instituteduring the 2018 and 2019 generation season.The experiment was carried out to determine the leaf water potential value of silage corn and sorghum plants grown as second crops and compare them with each other.In the experiment, 5 different irrigation tratment (100%, 80%, 60%, 40% and 20%) were applied to the plants. The treatment arranged in a randomized complete block factorial design with three replications.According to the results of the study, the leaf water potential values in both plants increased from 100% irrigation to 20% irrigation.When the values before and after irrigation are evaluated together for two years, the corn plant varied between -13.27 and -21.76 bar in 100% irrigated treatment, -14.07 and -20.15 bar in 80% irrigated treatment, -13.53 and -19.67 bar in 60% irrigated treatment, 12.76 and 21.7 bar in 40% irrigated treatment, -13.30 and -21.14 bar 20% irrigated treatment.Leaf water potential increased negatively with the increase of water deficit.The values after irrigation were lower than the values before irrigation. Lower values were obtained from the silage sorghum plant compared to the corn plant.

References

Anonim, 2015. Toprak numunesini analize hazırlama. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı, Laboratuvar Hizmetleri, Ankara.

Ball, J. 2001. Soil and Water Relationships. Noble Research Institue. September 1.

Baştuğ, R., Kanber, R. 1989. Sulama programının geliştirilmesinde bitkilerin içsel su durumlarını belirleyen yöntemlerden yararlanma olanakları. Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1): 17-30

Campbell, P. 1985. Soil Physics with Basic. Elsevier Press., Amsterdam.

Erdal, S., M. Pamukcu, H. Ekiz, M. Soysal, O. Savur, A. Toros, 2009. The determination of yield and quality traits of some candidate silage maize hybrids. Univ. of Akdeniz, J. Agric. Sci. 22(1): 75-81.

Grzesiak, M.T., Rzepka, A., Hura, T., Hura, K. Skoczowski, A. 2007. Changes in response to drought stress of triticale and maize genotypes differing in drought tolerance, photosynthetica, 45:280–287.

Güven, F.G. 2013. Kuraklığa hassas ve dayanıklı mısır çeşitlerinde alfa lipoik asit ön muamelesinin kuraklık toleransı üzerine etkisi. Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.

Hisio TC. 1993. Plant atmosphere ınteractions, evapotranspration and ırrigation scheduling course I.C.M.A.S. Bari, Italy, 148s.

Hu, Y. N., He, K. N., Gong, Y. X. Lu, X. J. 2007. Study on the water potential of Nitraria tangutorum Bobr. in Kubuqi Desert of Inner Mongolia. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 14: 100-104.

Karaman, M.R., Brohi, A.R., Müftüoğlu, N.M., Öztaş, T., Zengin, M. 2012. Sürdürülebilir toprak verimliliği kitabı. Güncellenmiş 3. Baskı. S:42-43.

Kirda, C., Kanber, R., Tulucu, K., 1999. Yield response of cotton, maize, soybean, sugar beet, sunflower, and wheat to deficit irrigation. In: Kirda , C., Moutonnet, P., Hera, C., Nielsen, D.R., (Eds.), Crop Yield Response to Deficit Irrigations. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp.21-38.

Köksal, E.S., Üstün, H., İlbeyi, A. 2010. Bodur yeşil fasulyenin sulama zamanı göstergesi olarak yaprak su potansiyeli ve bitki su stres indeksi sınır değerleri. U. Ü. Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi24(1): 25-36.

Kuşaksız, T. 2010. Adaptability of some new maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars for silage productıon as main crop in mediterranean environment.

Nardalı, Z. 2020. Farklı sulama düzeylerinde birinci ürün tatlı sorgum bitkisinin yaprak su potansiyeli değişimlerinin incelenmesi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.

Öten, M., Kiremitçi, S., Çınar, O. 2016. Bazı yem bitkileri ve karışımlarıyla hazırlanan silajların silaj kalitelerinin farklı yöntemlerle belirlenmesi. Anadolu, J. of AARI 26 (2):33–43.

Padurariu, C., Harovitz, T., Paltineau, R. ve Negomi, V., 1969. On the Relationship between soil moisture and osmotic potential in maize and sugar beet plants, physiol. Plantarum, 22: 850-860.

Passioura JB 2007. The drought environment: physical, biological and agricultural perspectives. Journal of Experimental Botany 58: 113–117.

Richards RA, Rebetzke GJ, Watt M, Condon A, Spielmeyer W, Dolferus R 2010. Breeding for improved water productivity in temperate cereals: phenotyping, quantitative trait loci, markers and the selection environment. Functional Plant Biology 37: 85–97.

Sher, A., Barbanti, L., Ansar, M., Malik, M.A., 2013. Growth response and plant water status in forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] cultivars subjected to decreasing levels of soil moisture. AJCS 7(6):801-808.

Surwenshi A, Chimmad VP, Kumar V, Jalageri BR, Ganathi M, Nakul HT, 2010. Genotypic differences in photosynthesis rate, transpiration rate, stomatal resistance and yield and yield components in rabi sorghum. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 1:275-6.

Wanjura DF, Upchurch DR 2002. Water Status Response of Corn and Cotton to Altered Irrigation. Irrig. Sci., 21: 45-55.

Xu, H.W., Song, .B., Zhu, X.C. 2010. Changes of husk leaf water potential of maize and relationship with environmental factors in black soil region of North-East China. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.8 (2): 936-939.

Yazdıç, M., Değirmenci, H. 2018. Pamukta farklı sulama seviyelerinin yaprak su potansiyeli ve klorofil değerine etkisi. KSÜ Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 21(4):511-519.

Published

2020-12-04

How to Cite

Mualla KETEN, & Hasan DEĞİRMENCİ. (2020). Comparison of Leaf Water Potentials of Second Crop Silage Corn and Sorghum Plants Under Different Irrigation Levels. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4(4), 865-874. https://doi.org/10.46291/ISPECJASvol4iss4pp863-872

Issue

Section

Articles