The response of mung bean crop (VC-1973A genotype) to planting date, plant density and irrigation in Gorgan condition

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Article 8, Volume 8, Issue 1, June 2017, Pages 180-191   

Document Type: Original Articles

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v8i1.33490

Authors

Javad Fadaei^{* 1}; Abolfazl Faraji²; Mohammad reza Dadashi³; Asieh siahmarguee⁴

¹Islamic Azad University Gorgan Branch

²Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center, Golestan

³Islamic Azad University, Gorgan Branch

⁴Agricultural and Natural Resources Gorgan University

Abstract

Introduction
The food legumes are given high priority in world agriculture because they constitute 2.3 or more of protein in the diet of the inhabitants of the tropics and they are the potential source to fill the protein-gap. Mung bean belongs to plant family Fabaceae, and is the most important pulse crops of the world. It has great value as a food, fodder and green manure. Potential yield of Mung bean can be achieved through optimum use of inputs and agronomic practices. Plant density and suitable sowing time are the most important factors affecting the yield. Plant density is considered as one of the important determinative factors of yield of this plant. The purpose of proper density is more efficient use of the plant from different environmental potential such as water, nutrients, light, etc. to achieve higher yield. Too early sowing may not successfully germinate, while yield from too late sown crop may be low due to unfavorable condition for growth and development of Mung bean. The aim of this study was to determine the optimum sowing date and plant density to achieve maximum performance of the Mung bean in both irrigated and rainfed conditions.

Material & Methods
In order to evaluate the effects of planting date, plant density and irrigation on yield and yield components of Mung bean (VC-1973A genotype) an experiment was performed in Research Station of Islamic Azad University, Gorgan Branch at 2012. In this study, a factorial experiment in a randomized complete block design with three replications was used. Three planting dates (6 July, 21 July and 6 August) and two densities (12.5 and 25 plant per square meter) were the treatments. The experiments were conducted in two separate conditions of irrigation (at the beginning to flower and pod stages) and rainfed. Dry weight of the seeds in physiological maturity was determined. Also in full maturity, after removing the effect marginal, yield and yield components were calculated. Analysis of variance was carried out using the SAS software. Comparison of means also was performed using LSD test at 5% level and corresponding graphs were plotted with Excel software.

Results & Discussion
The results of analysis variance showed that both in irrigation and rainfed conditions, there was a significant difference between planting dates in terms of number of pods per plant, seeds per pod, seed weight, biological yield and harvest index. But there was no statistically significant difference for these factors between densities (12.5 and 25 plant/m2). The highest and lowest number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and seed weight observed in 6 July and 6 August planting dates, respectively. In irrigation condition, planting dates of 6 July and 6 August had the highest (6400 kg per hectare) and lowest (3614 kg per hectare) biological yield. Also, in rainfed condition, maximum and minimum of biological yield were obtained for planting date of 6 July (4276 kg) and 6 August (2673 kg per hectare), respectively. Planting date July 6th had the highest harvest index under both irrigated (45.3%) and rainfed (38.2%) conditions. Planting date July 6th also had the highest seed yield under both irrigated (2900 kg/ha) and rainfed (1636 kg/ha) conditions. Irrigation in beginning of flowering and pod stages increased seed yield and aboveground dry mater, significantly. Late planting date decreased vegetative stage, caused reducing in pod number per plant and seed number per pod, resulted in reduction of seed yield. The results showed that Mung bean crop has a high production potential under climate condition of the Gorgan.

Conclusion
The results of analysis variance showed that under both irrigation and rainfed conditions, there was significantly differences between planting dates in terms of number of pods per plant, seeds per pod, seed weight, biological yield and harvest index. But there was no statistically significant difference for these factors between densities (12.5 and 25 plant/m2). In both irrigated and rainfed conditions, date of planting 6 July, was the best planting date. The grain yield under irrigated and rainfed conditions were 2900 and1636 kg per hectare, respectively. Irrigation at early flowering and early pod stages, led to an increase in grain yield and dry matter compared to the rainfed conditions. The results showed that this plant has a high production potential in weather conditions of Gorgan. Thus, cultivation of Mung bean in Gorgan is recommended. Moreover, planting date July 6th and density of 25 plants /m2 can be a good choice for Mung bean cultivation in this region.

Keywords

Drought stress; Dry material; Gorgan; grain yield; Mung bean

References

1. Ahmadi, A. 2008. Effect of sowing date and planting rows on yield, quality and other characteristics of Mung bean area Rey.college of Agriculture. Islamic Azad University, Varamin Branch. (In Persian).

2. Akinola, J.D. 1988. Effects of sowing date on forage and seed production varieties of cowpea. Experimental Agriculture 14: 197-203.

3. Anderson, L.R., and Vasilas, B.L. 1985. Effects of planting date on two soybean cultivars: seasonal dry matter accumulation and seed yield. Crop Science 25: 999-1004.

4. Aradatmand Asli, D., and Baer, N. 2007. Agricultural sustainability and growth performance of Mung bean in different planting densities. Abstract Proceedings of the National Conference Grains, Iran. P:4. (In Persian with English Summary).

5. Afsharmanesh, GH. 1998. Comparison of the Degree of Product CompatibilityVetch Cultivars in Jiroft. The Final Report of the Research Project Agricultural. Research and Education Organization Seed and Plant Improvement Institute. (In Persian).

6. Barlis, E.C. 2005. Response of Mung bean planted at varying population density and levels of NPK. CLSU. Scientific Journal (Philippines) p:128-138.

7. Daneshmand Khosravi, K., and Sabaghpour, H. 1992. Effect of planting density and sowing date crop Mung bean (cultivar 16-61-1) yield in the Gonbad. Seed and Plant Improvement Institute Preparation.

8. Dhingra, K.K., and Sekhon, H.S. 1988. Agronomic management for high productivity of Mung bean in different seasons, Punjab, India Pp: 376-385.

9. Ghanjali, A., and Malakzadeh, S. 2003. Effect of planting date and row spacing on yield and yield components of Mung bean. In: Proc. Abstract of the 8th Iranian Crop Protection and Breeding Congress. Iran, Gilan University. p: 38. (In Persian with English Summary).

10. Ghafarikhaligh, H., and Molaii, A. 2005. Compare Performance and Compatibility Setting Bean Cultivar. Final Report of the Research Project Ministry of Agriculture. Agricultural Research and Education Organization. (In Persian).

11. Ghavami, F. 1997. Explore the Diversity of Morphological Traits, Phonological and Mung Bean Seed Protein Electrophoresis Pattern. Isfahan University. (In Persian).

12. George, D.L., and Barrens, M. 2000. Row spacing effects on two cultivars of Mung bean (Vigana radiate (L.) Wilczek) at gatten. School of Land and Food Gatton College, university of Queensland, p: 25-32

13. Hattami, A., and Lakzadeh, A. 1993. Effects of Sowing Date and Plant Density on Yield and Mung Bean in Ahvaz. Report of the Ministry of Agricultur. Agricultural Research and Education Organization. (In Persian).

14. Hassanzadeh, A. 1991. Effects of Sowing Date and Planting Density Effects on Protein Content, Yield and Yield Components of Mungbean in Isfahan Region Isfahan University. (In Persian).

15. Ismaeli, A. 2003. Compare Performance and Compatibility Setting Bean Cultivars. The Final Report of the Research Project. Ministry of Agriculture. Agricultural Research and Education Organization Seed and Plant Improvement Institute. (In Persian).

16. Khademhamzeh, H., Karimi, M., Rezaei, A., and Ahmadi, M. 2004. Effects of sowing date and plant density on yield and its components and their vertical di distribution in crop soybean. Journal of Agricultural Sciences Iran 35: 357-367. (In Persian).

17. Kane, A.Z., Shah, P.S., Khalil, K., and Ahmad, B. 2004. Yield of soybean cultivars as affected by planting date under Peshawar-vally conditions. The Neclieus 42: 93-95.

18. Koochaki, A., and Bonayan-Aval, M. 1994. Agricultural Crops (Third Edition). Mashhad University of Jihad publications. (In Persian).

19. Lawn, R.J. 2000. Response of four legumes to water stress in south easter Queensland. I. Physiological response mechanisms. Australian Journal of Agriculture 33: 481-496.

20. Littlejohns, G., Heule, L., Brinsmead, R., Holland, J., and Thompson, P. 1998. A Mung bean cultivar×population and row spacing study. Proceedings of the 8th Australian Agronomy Conference.

21. Mirzaei, A., and Modhej, A. 2005. Effects of plan spacing on grain yield and yield components of Vigna radiata L. (cv. Gohar) in Ilam condition. Abstract of the 1st Iranian Congress. Research Plant Science. Mashhad University College, Institute of Plant Science. 1: 78-80. (In Persian with English Summary).

22. Muchow, R.C., and Edwards, D.A.C. 1982. An analysis of the growth of Mung bean at a range of plant densities in tropical Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 33(1): 53-61.

23. Nanda R., and Saini, A.D. 1989. Solar radiation interception, green area and dry matter production in green gram [Vigna radiate (L.) Wilczk]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 59: 305-311.

24. Pandey, R.K., Saxena, M.C., and Singh, V.B. 1978. Growth analysis of black gram genotypes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 48: 466-473.

25. Purcell, L.C., Rosalind, A., Reaper, B.D.G., and Vories, E.D. 2002. Radiation use efficiency and biomass production in soybean at different plant population, densities. Crop Science 42: 172-177.

26. Rezaei, A., and Hassanzadeh, A. 2005. Effects of sowing date and plant density on yield and its components and their vertical distribution in there Mung bean cultivars. Irananian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 26: 19-26. (In Persian).

27. Sabaghpour, S.H. 2002. The appropriate plant density and date of sowing for Hashem improved chickpea variety. In: Proc. Abstract of the 7th Iranian Crop Protection and Breeding Congress, Sep, 2002, Karaj, Iran. Agricultural. Research and Education Organization Seed and Plant Improvement Institute. p. 206. (In Persian with iEnglish Summary).

28. Sadeghipour, A. 2001. Science, Crop Production. First Part: Legumes (translation). Publications Pizishkiyan, Tehran. (In Persian).

29. Sarparast, GH. 2004. Compatibility and Performance Comparison Mung bean Cultivars as Second Crop after Cereals. The Final Report of the Ministry of Agriculture. Agricultural Research and Education, Organization Seed and Plant Improvement Institute. (In Persian).

30. Shahsavari, M. 2006. Evaluation of Phenotypic Contribution of Yield Growth Parameters on the Formation and Characterization of Al-Brigade Ideas in Common Bean Faculty of Agriculture. College of Agriculture, Isfahan University. (In Persian).

31. Shahmoradi, SH. 2003. Effects of Drought Stress on Quantitative and Qualitative Traits of Soybean Varieties and Advanced Lines. College of Agriculture, Tehran University. (In Persian).

32. Singh, J., Mathur, N., Bohra, S., Bohra, A., and Vyas, A. 2006. Comparative performance of Mung bean (Vigna radiate L.) varieties under rainfed condition in Indian Thar Desert. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science 1: 48-50.

33. Ktomar, S.S., and Tiwari, A.C. 1991. Effect of plant density on genotypes of green gram (Vigna radiate) and Black gram (Vigna Mungo). Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 61: 126-127.