EFFECT OF IRRIGATION TREATMENTS AND SOME
SOIL AMENDMENTS ON SOIL PROPERTIES AND
PRODUCTION OF WHEAT- PEANUT ROTATION IN
SANDY SOIL
Enshrah I.M. El-Maaz ; Hoda M.R.M. Ahmed ;
E. M. Aly and Wafaa M.T. El-Etr
Soils, Water and Environ. Res. Instit. Agric. Res. Center (ARC).
Key Words: compost, farmyard manure, polyacrylamide, water use efficiency, wheat,
peanut, soil properties.
ABSTRACT
The use of organic and synthetic soil amendments such as compost,
farmyard manure and polyacrylamide can be considered as a specific
management to improve the soil physical and chemicals properties of
sandy soil along with decreased irrigation water consumptive use and
water use efficiency. So, a field experiment was carried out at the Farm
of El-Ismailia Agricultural Research Station, El-Ismailia Governorate
Egypt in winter season 2014/2015 cultivated with wheat (Triticum
aestivum L., cv Giza 168 ) under three water deficit at (100%, 75% and
50% of crop evapotranspiration, ETc) and soil amendments (none,
compost, farm yard manure and polyacrylamide). Also, the effect of
allowable soil moisture depletion (ASMD) at 25%, 50% and 75% of total
soil available water was studied on peanut crop (Arachis hypogaea L.
Giza 6) under the same previous soil amendments. Wheat and peanut
water consumptive use, water use efficiency and both yields components
along with physical and chemicals properties of studied sandy soil were
also evaluated.
Results indicated that, the highest actual irrigation treatment was
recorded at rate of 100% (ETc) treatment, for wheat crop, while the
highest one was recorded under 25% (ASMD) for peanut crop as
compared to other irrigation treatment. Also, the obtained results show a
noticeable reduction in soil pH and salinity as a result of treating the soil
with different soil amendments compared to control. The effect was more
obvious in case of applying FYM and irrigation treatments 100% ETc for
wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut crops as compared to other treatments
and control. Also, OM and CEC values were increased in case of used
FYM soil amendment as compared with other treatments and control for
both studied crops under different irrigation treatments. However, the
highest diameters of dry aggregates were positive affected by FYM and
irrigation treatments 100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut
crops as compared with other treatments and/or control. In addition, the
values of soil bulk density of soil profiles treated by all treatments were
relatively low compared to those of control, whereas the maximum
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 36-61
decrease exists in soil treated by FYM and irrigation treatments 100%
ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut crops as compared with other
treatments and control. The same trend was true in case of the soil total
porosity values. It is clear that application of all treatments decreased soil
hydraulic conductivity (cm h-1) values when compared to the control.
Moreover, the best treatment in decreasing soil hydraulic conductivity
(cm h-1) value of FYM and irrigation treatments 100% ETc for wheat
and 25% ASMD for peanut crops as compared with other treatments and
control. Whereas the highest values of field capacity and available water
existed in case of the same treatments.
Finally, applying FYM and irrigation treatments 100% ETc for
wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut crops as compared with other
treatments and control increased significantly the yield and yield
components of both wheat and peanut. The beneficial effects of the
applied treatments on wheat and peanut yields could be arranged in the
following order: FYM>compost > polyacrylamide>control under
different irrigation treatments.
INTRODUCTION
It is of utmost importance to identify the crop production that can
be achieved from the basic water unit relative to the cultivated area unit
currently and in the future. This is needed because the world population
increases especially in developing countries which consequently
necessitate increasing food production. However, these increasing trends
are not accompanied by similar increase in the fresh available water for
everybody. So, the aim of this study is to show the effect of irrigation
water deficit and irrigation water stress on wheat and peanut crops
production in rotation, respectively.
Rizk and Sherif (2014), Taha et al. (2017) and Morsy et al.
(2018) indicated that exposing durum wheat to deficit levels from 60% to
100% caused a decrease in all measured parameters in Toshka
conditions, Egypt. Ouda et al. (2010) stated that the deficit irrigation till
70% of full irrigation produced 5% losses of wheat yield. Zaman et al.
(2017) found that water deficit from 60% to 80% of field capacity
decreased grain yield and water use efficiency of wheat by 15.66% and
38%, respectively. Jongrungklang et al. (2008) added that decreased
the irrigation amount at levels of field capacity (100%, 25%, 40% and
60%) caused drop of peanut water use efficiency. El-Boraie et al. (2009)
showed that irrigation quantity (983.73mm) produced the highest peanut
pods in shalatien sandy soil along with Abd El-Halim et al. (2016)
observed that peanut production was 1.32 kg/m3 at irrigation depth 730
mm under sprinkler irrigation. Tojo Soler et al. (2013) and Aly et al.
(2016) reported that medium water stress level gave the highest peanut
water use efficiency.
37 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Moreover, sandy soil has poor physical and chemical properties
including water holding capacity, loose structure, high bulk density and
water conductivity, low cation exchange capacity and organic matter.
These soils were the main reclaim land in Egypt. Hence, this
investigation was carried out on sandy soil, which needs to improve its
properties by adding amendments, which was the second goal of this
study. Gopinath et al. (2008) found that the organic amendments in
sequence, farm yard manure was better than vermicomposting in terms to
wheat growth and yield and improved soil properties. Ghosh et al.
(2006) and Zayton et al. (2014) showed that straw mulching decreased
peanut water consumptive use. Bulluck et al. (2001), El-Hady et al.
(2012) and Allam (2017) observed that organic compost and hydrogel
conditioners have a good effect on the sandy soil moisture characteristic
and crops yield. Singh et al. (2019) stated that water deficit and soil
amendment were considered saving water techniques to overcome the
water shortage that can be used in agriculture and this was similarly
noted by Shenglan et al. (2020).
From the earlier detailed information, the aim of this experiment is
to evaluated the consequence of irrigation treatments (100%, 75% and
50%) of wheat crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and 25%, 50 % and 75%
from available soil moisture depletion (ASMD) irrigation regime for
peanut crop in sandy soil treated with some organic and synthetic soil
amendments. Water consumptive use, water use efficiency, yields
production along with soil physical and chemical properties was taken in
consideration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The existing investigation was carried out at the farm of Ismailia
Agricultural Research Station in Ismailia Governorate, Egypt, during the
winter season (2014/2015) cultivated with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.,
cv Giza 168) and peanut crop (Arachis hypogaea L. Giza 6) in summer
season (2015). The research farm is located at 30 35, 41.9" N latitude and
32 16 45.8" E longitude. Some soil physical and chemical properties
have been performed according to Klute (1986) and Pansu and
Gautheyrou (2006). These results were presented in Table (1 -2).
The main objective of this study was to determine the effect of
irrigation deficit levels on wheat crop and available soil moisture
depletion to peanut crop with applied soil amendments (none, compost,
farm yard manure and poly acrylamide) on water consumptive use, yield
of both crops, water use efficiency and some other soil properties.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 38
Table( 1). Physical analysis and moisture constants of the investigated soil.
Soil
depth
cm
Particle size distribution
Texture
Bulk
density g
cm-3
Retained moisture
at field capacity, v
/v
Retained moisture at
permanent wilting
point ,v/v
Available
moisture
mm/soil
depth
Coarse sand
%
Fine
sand
%
Silt
%
Clay
% %
mm/15
cm
%
mm/15
cm
0-15 67.50 26.86 3.77 1.87 Sandy 1.60 12.80 19.20 3.00 4.50 14.70
15-30 70.66 24.01 3.94 1.39 Sandy 1.62 12.20 18.30 2.80 4.20 14.10
30-45 73.55 21.12 3.87 1.46 Sandy 1.65 7.92 11.88 2.60 3.90 7.98
45-60 85.47 10.87 2.65 1.01 Sandy 1.66 6.80 10.20 2.60 3.90 6.30
Total 43.08
Table (2). Chemical analysis of the investigated soil.
Parameters Values Parameters Values
pH(1.2.5 soil water susp. 8.12 OM % 0.23
EC dS m-1 0.50 CaCO3 % 0.53
Soluble anions in soil paste extract (meq L-1) Soluble cations in soil paste extract (meq L-1)
CO3
-2 - Ca+2 1.20
HCO-
3 1.50 Mg+2 0.50
Cl- 2.01 Na+ 2.80
SO--
4 1.20 K+ 0.21
Macronutrients in soil
Total N % 0.06 Total P % 0.04
Available N (meg Kg-1) 21.6 Available P meg kg-1 2.85
39 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Climatic condition:
The meteorological data ,air temperature (Co), relative humidity
(%), actual and possible sunshine (hour), solar and extraterrestrial
radiation (MJm-2 day-1) and wind speed (m/sec) had been daily recorded
(Table 3) at Ismailia Station , Egypt and their general monthly mean
values were calculated.
Irrigation system:
The experiment was irrigated by a solid set triangle sprinkler
system. The laterals were spaced 12 m apart. The sprinklers were spaced
10 meters lateral. Each two laterals and sprinklers have a control valve to
adjust the quantity of applied water. The rate of water application was
45.5 m3 fed.-1/hr (sprinkler discharge 1.3 m3/ hr at 2.5 bars). The quantity
of applied water was exactly controlled with excellent uniform
distribution of water. The number of sprinklers per fed. were 35. The
application rate (A) is calculated as follows:-
Qs
A= K ──────
LS
Where: A= Application rate [mm/hr], Qs = Discharge of sprinkler
[L/min],
L= The distance between lateral [m], S= The distance between sprinklers
on lateral [m], K= Fraction equal 60
Table (3). The meteorological general monthly mean values data of
Ismailia Station in the year (2014/2015).
Month
Parameters
Tmax.
oC
Tmin.
oC
Tmean
oC
RHmax.
%
RHmin.
%
RHmean
%
W.S
m/sec
N
hour
N
hour
Rs
MJm-2
day-1
Ra
MJm-2
day-1
Jan. 19.8 8.0 13.9 79.5 21.50 50.50 2.57 7.6 10.23 12.86 20.7
Feb. 20.8 8.5 14.65 78.9 18.50 48.55 2.91 8.3 10.97 16.02 25.5
Mar. 23.7 10.5 17.1 73.0 22.50 47.75 3.24 9.1 11.8 19.83 31.2
Apr. 28.4 13.4 20.9 71.50 19.50 45.50 3.08 10.2 12.73 23.88 36.7
May 32.5 17.3 24.9 70.5 21.00 45.75 3.03 11.5 13.53 26.99 40
Jun. 35.1 20.5 27.8 71.80 23.60 47.70 2.93 13.1 13.97 29.67 41.27
Jul. 36.4 22.5 29.45 75.50 26.20 50.85 2.93 12.6 13.83 28.66 40.63
Aug. 36.5 23.2 29.85 76.80 27.50 52.15 2.47 12.2 13.13 27.13 37.97
Sep. 33.2 21.2 27.2 76.50 30.00 53.25 2.47 10.8 12.12 22.39 32.2
Oct. 30.9 18.1 24.5 77.50 21.70 49.60 2.17 10.2 11.27 19.16 27.27
Nov. 26.3 13.6 19.95 78.90 22.50 50.70 2.37 8.8 10.43 14.66 21.83
Dec. 21.8 9.8 15.8 79.50 23.30 51.40 2.31 7.3 10.03 11.89 19.37
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 40
The layout of first experiment:
The experiment was carried out in split plot design with three
replicates. Wheat seeds (Triticum aestivum L., cv Giza 168) were sown
in rows 300 cm long and 15 cm apart on December 3, (2014). The field
was divided into main plot; 72 m2. The dimension of each plot was 3.0 m
in length and 2 m in width. Each plot includes 13 rows. The main plots
consisted of three irrigation treatments, viz. 100, 75, 50% of wheat crop
evapotranspiration, ETc, respectively. The sub main plots include also
three soil amendments (compost at rate of 5 ton fed-1, FYM at rate of 10
m3 fed-1 and polyacrylamide 0.2%) along with control treatment. All soil
amendments were analyzed and results were presented in Table (4 -
5).These soil amendments were applied on the soil before cultivation.
Normal cultural practices were used including: adding 30kg P2O5 fed.-1 in
form of calcium superphosphate (15% P2O5) before sowing and 48 Kg
K2O fed.-1 in form of potassium sulfate. Nitrogen fertilizer was added as
ammonium nitrate (33%) at rate of 300kg fed-1 divided at six equal
doses; after sowing in 20 day and after that added every 15 days. The
irrigation treatments (100, 75 and 50% of ETc) were applied at end of
initial stage. The harvest date of wheat was 30/4/2015.
Table (4):- Chemical composition of the soil conditioners used in the
experiment
Parameters Compost FYM Parameters Compost FYM
pH(1:10) 8.00 8.70 C/N ratio 25.1:1 19.8:1
EC dSm-1 4.10 4.30 Total- N % 0.59 0.24
OC % 14.8 11.7 Total- P % 0.44 0.20
OM % 25.5 20.1 Total- K % 0.67 0.15
Table (5):- Some characteristics of anionic polyacrylamide used in
the experiment
Item Index
Molecular formula (C3H5NO) n
Appearance White granular powder
Purity > 92
Moisture % < 9
pH value(1% water solution) 7.5 – 9
Molecular weight(million) 16 – 18
Charge density High
Approx. bulk density 0.80
Dissolving time(min.) < 60
Ionic character Anionic
Chemical formula for polyacrylamide
O OOO
|| || ||
C- NH2 C- NH2 C - NH
||||
-CH2 –CH- CH2- CH – CH2-CH –CH2-CH-
41 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Wheat evapotranspiration (ETC) calculated by multiplying the
Potential evapotranspiration (ETo) and adjusted wheat crop coefficient
(Kc) according to the Penman Monteith daily (PMd) equation (Allen et
al., 1998).
ETc= Kc x ETO
Where:
Kc : Crop coefficient.
ETc : The measured (estimate) evapotranspiration of a considered period
(mm/day)
ETo : reference evapotranspiration (mm/day) referring to the same
period, calculated as average value of formulae.
The duration of wheat crop growth stages were 20, 50, 60 and 23
days for the initial, development, mid-season and late-season,
respectively. The adjusted wheat was 0.7 and 0.985 for the initial stage
and developmental stages, respectively. While the adjusted wheat crop
coefficient Kc calculated by the next equation were 1.27 and 0.52 for
mid-season and late-season a corroding Allen et al. (1998), respectively.
Kc mid = Kc mid (Tab) + [0.04(u2 – 2) – 0.004(RHmin -45)] ( h/3)0.3
Kc end = Kc end (Tab) + [0.04(u2 – 2) – 0.004(RHmin -45)] (h/3)0.3
Where: h= plant height, m
The water irrigation management was required at 50% of the soil waterholding
capacity, and also considering the root depth.
The layout of second experiment:
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L., cv Giza 6) was planted on
1/6/2015. The seeds were placed in holes 25 cm apart on rows 300 cm
long and 60 cm between the rows. The experiment was carried out in
split plot design with three replicates. The main plot was assigned to
irrigation treatments while the sub plot was assigned to soil amendments.
The irrigation treatments (25%, 50% and 75% of available soil moisture
depletion, ASMD) were applied at the end of initial stage. As well as, the
same previous mentioned soil amendments with first experiment were
applied as sub main plots. Normal cultural practices were used including:
adding superphosphate (15 % P2 O5) at rate of 200 kg fed-1 and potassium
sulfate (48 % K2O) was applied at rate of 100 Kg fed.-1 divided to equal
doses; first one before cultivation and second dose was added to soil after
35 day of sowing date. Nitrogen fertilizer as ammonium nitrate (33%) at
rate of 100kg fed-1 .The harvest date of peanut was 8/10/2015.
The irrigation intervals were planned considering the ETc and
duration for every peanut irrigation treatments. The duration of growth
stages for peanut crop are 25, 45, 35 and 25 days for the initial,
development, mid-season and late-season, respectively. The adjusted
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 42
peanut coefficients were 0.45, 0.75, 1.15 and 0.60 for the initial,
developmental mid-season and late-season stages, respectively.
The following characters were included in the study:
1- Water relations:
1.1. Calculation of water consumptive use (Cu) or actual
evapotranspiration (ETa):
Water consumptive use (Cu) was determined according to the
equation given by Israelsen and Hansen (1962) as follow:
Where:
WCU = Water consumptive use [mm],
D = depth of soil layer (15mm each) [mm],
Bd = Soil bulk density [g /cm3],
e1= Soil moisture content before irrigation, [w/w],
e2 = soil moisture content after irrigation, [w/w].
n = number of soil layer.
Water use efficiency:
Water use efficiency (WUE) in kg/m3 was calculated for the
deferent treatments, using the following formulae of Zhao et al., 2014):
Y
W.U.E = -------------
ET
Where: Y is yields (dry weight, kg fed-1) of a crop
ET is crop water consumption
2- Yield
a. Wheat: straw yield and grain yield kg fed.-1
b. Peanut: straw, pods and seeds yield kg fed.-1
3- Soil samples:
Before planting, soil samples from the surface layer (0-30) have
been taken from the experiment site, air-dried, sieved through a 2 mm
sieve and analyzed for some physical and chemical properties. After
harvest, undisturbed and disturbed soil samples have been collected from
the surface layers (0-30) from all plots for two seasons, air- dried and
analyzed for soil pH, organic matter and cation exchange capacity
according to the methods described by Page et al. (1982). Particle size
distribution was carried out by the pipette method described by Gee and
Bauder (1986). The total soluble salts (EC) were determined using
electrical conductivity meter at 25°C in soil paste extract as dSm-1
(Jackson, 1973). Soil bulk density, total soil porosity and dry aggregates
were determined according to Richards (1954). Hydraulic conductivity
X Bd X D
n 4
i 1 100
( θ - θ )
WCU
2 1
43 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
was determined using the undisturbed soil samples according to the
method of Richards (1954). Soil moisture equilibrium values were
determined according to the methods described by Richards and
Weaver (1944) and Richards (1947). Wilting point was determined
according to Stakman and Vanderhast (1962), while field capacity was
determined as described by Richards (1954).
4. Statistical analysis:
All the data collected for the yield and water use efficiency were
subjected to the statistical analysis according to Snedecor and Cochran
(1980) and the mean values were compared by LSD.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water relations of two crops:
Wheat actual evaopotranspiration (ETa) affected by different water
treatments and soil amendments.
Results in (Table 6) demonstrate that mean values of wheat ETa
were 592.75 mm, 440.43 mm and 339.86 mm at irrigation treatments;
100%, 75 and 50% of ETc , respectively. Whereas, the percent 38.45,
36.48 and 36.88 % of wheat water consumptive use occurred at March
for the mentioned irrigation treatments, respectively. This behavior is due
to the plant growth stage and weather conditions. Similar results were
identified by Rizk and Sherif (2014), Taha et al. (2017) and Morsy et
al. (2018). Oweis et al. (2000) added that the seasonal water
consumptive use and grain yield varied from 304 mm to 485mm and 170
g m-2 to500 g m-2 for wheat in Syria northeast, respectively.
On the other hand, the effect of be relevant different soil
amendment; none, compost, farm yard manure (FYM) and
polyacrylamide on total mean actual wheat (ETa) results were explained
in (Table 6). Mean values of total ETa were 489.45, 449.27, 425.71 and
470.04 mm, respectively. The saving water was 8.94%, 14.94% and
4.13% with utilizing compost, FYM and polyacrylamide, respectively.
These results were in agreement with those obtained by Ghosh et al.
(2006) and Zayton et al. (2014).
Peanut evaopotranspiration (ETa) affected by different water
treatments and soil amendments.
Results in (Table 7) revealed that peanut Eta was 764.13mm at
25% ASMD. Besides, it was 649.195 mm and 480.61mm at 50 and 75%
ASMD, respectively. The highest monthly peanut water consumptive use
was achieved at August under different irrigation treatments. The values
in percent were 40.99, 35.64 and 29.53 at 25 %, 50% and 75% ASMD,
respectively. These results were in agreement with those obtained by El-
Boraie et al. (2009) and Abd El-Halim et al. (2016).
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 44
Table (6 ). Wheat daily, monthly and total actual evapotranspiration (ETc) as affected by water deficit and
soil amendments.
Months Dec.* Jan Feb Mar. Apr.**
Irrig. Total
Treat.
Soil amendments
Daily
mm
monthly
mm
Daily
mm
monthly
mm
Daily
mm
monthly
mm
Daily
mm
monthly
mm
Daily
mm
monthly
mm mm m3fed-1
100% ETc
None 2.69 75.36 3.49 108.36 4.57 128.08 7.93 245.88 2.55 76.44 634.12 2663.3
Compost 2.5 70.16 3.34 103.43 4.29 120.11 7.12 220.62 2.29 68.68 583 2448.6
FYM 2.48 69.38 3.00 93.03 3.91 109.41 6.86 212.79 2.17 65.05 549.66 2308.6
polyacrylamide 2.58 72.12 3.37 104.38 4.35 121.81 7.5 232.5 2.45 73.4 604.21 2537.7
Mean 2.56 71.755 3.3 102.3 4.28 119.85 7.35 227.94 63.2 98307 592.75 2489.54
75% ETc
None 2.53 70.92 2.69 83.46 3.54 99.18 5.44 168.75 1.68 50.36 472.67 1985.2
Compost 2.26 63.25 2.44 75.59 3.15 88.29 5.15 159.78 1.53 45.74 432.65 1817.1
FYM 2.11 58.94 2.27 70.36 3.04 85.14 4.7 146.77 1.44 43.2 404.41 1698.5
polyacrylamide 2.33 65.15 2.61 80.88 3.22 90.11 5.4 167.46 1.61 48.39 451.99 1898.4
Mean 2.3 64.565 2.5 77.57 3.24 90.68 5.18 160.69 63.2 22376 440.43 1849.81
50% ETc
None 2.15 60.14 2.21 68.48 2.61 73.11 4.19 130 0.99 29.83 361.56 1518.6
Compost 1.97 55.14 1.95 60.43 2.3 64.42 4 124 0.94 28.17 332.16 1395.1
FYM 1.97 55.14 1.94 60.02 2.13 59.58 3.89 120.72 0.92 27.61 323.07 1356.9
Polyacrylamide 2.05 57.5 2.04 63.18 2.38 66.63 4.08 126.64 0.96 28.69 342.64 1439.1
Mean 2.03 56.98 2.03 63.03 2.35 65.935 4.04 125.34 837. 603.9. 339.86 1427.40
Mean
overall of
soil
amendments
None 2.46 68.81 2.8 86.77 3.57 100.12 5.86 181.54 1.74 52.21 489.45 2055.7
Compost 2.24 62.85 2.57 79.82 3.25 90.94 5.42 168.13 1.58 47.53 449.27 1886.9
FYM 2.18 61.15 2.4 74.47 3.02 84.71 5.16 160.09 1.51 45.29 425.71 1788.0
Polyacrylamide 2.32 64.92 2.79 86.58 3.316 92.85 5.66 175.53 1.67 50.16 470.04 1974.2
*Sowing date was 3/12/2014 ** Harvest date was 30/4/2015
45 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Table (7). Peanut daily, monthly and total actual evapotranspiration (ETa) affected different soil moisture
depletion and soil amendments.
Months June* July August September October**
Irrig. Total
treat.
Soil amendments
daily
mm
monthly
mm
daily
mm
monthly
mm
daily
mm
monthly
mm
daily
mm
monthly
mm
daily
mm
monthly
mm mm m3fed-1
25%
ASMD
None 4.16 124.7 7.12 220.8 10.92 338.71 4.11 123.41 1.96 15.66 823.28 3457.8
Compost 4.00 120.16 6.20 192.12 9.73 301.7 3.75 112.38 1.62 13 739.36 3105.3
FYM 3.90 116.99 6.03 187.11 9.71 301.03 3.60 107.96 1.5 12 725.09 3045.4
polyacrylamide 4.05 121.56 6.53 202.32 10.1 313.19 3.92 117.72 1.75 14 768.79 3228.9
Mean 4.02 120.85 6.47 200.59 10.12 313.66 3.84 115.37 1.71 13.66 764.13 3209.3
50%
ASMD
None 3.93 117.9 6.31 195.51 8.17 253.25 3.31 99.37 2.77 22.13 688.16 2890.3
Compost 3.89 116.72 5.86 181.8 6.93 215.02 3.13 93.98 2.13 17.02 624.54 2623.1
FYM 3.84 115.3 5.6 176.16 6.94 215.09 3.08 92.61 2.19 17.52 616.68 2590.1
polyacrylamide 30 117.02 6.15 190.7 7.81 242.25 3.29 98.61 2.35 18.82 667.4 2803.1
Mean 3.89 116.73 6.00 186.04 7.46 231.40 3.20 96.14 2.36 18.87 649.195 2726.6
75%
ASMD
None 3.67 110.16 4.12 127.67 4.0 148.82 3.14 94.19 2.94 23.51 504.35 2118.3
Compost 3.62 108.49 3.83 118.65 4.51 139.88 2.95 88.63 2.54 20.39 476.04 1999.4
FYM 327 98.27 3.70 114.83 4.33 134.11 2.88 86.55 2.5 20 453.76 1905.8
polyacrylamide 3.47 104.16 4.02 124.73 4.67 144.92 3.10 93.09 2.67 21.4 488.3 2050.9
Mean 3.51 105.27 3.92 121.47 4.58 141.93 3.02 90.615 2.66 21.32 480.61 2018.5
Mean overall
of soil
amendments
None 3.92 117.59 5.85 181.32 7.96 246.93 3.52 105.66 2.55 20.43 671.93 2822.1
Compost 3.84 115.12 5.30 164.19 7.06 218.87 3.28 98.33 2.10 16.80 613.31 2575.9
FYM 3.67 110.19 5.14 159.37 6.99 216.74 3.19 95.71 2.06 16.506 598.51 2513.7
polyacrylamide 3.81 114.24 5.57 172.58 7.53 233.45 3.43 103.14 2.26 18.0 641.50 2694.3
*Sowing date was 1/12/2014 **Harvest date was 8/10/2015
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 46
Moreover, results in (Table 7) show the effect of soil amendments
on peanut ETa. The values of peanut ETa ordered from the highest to lowest
were as follows: none (671.93mm), polyacrylamide (641.5mm), compost
(613.31mm) and farm yard manure (598.51mm). Hence, the applied
amendments saved water by 4.74 % for poly acrylamide, 9.56% for compost
and 12.27% for farm yard manure. These results were analogous with
Bulluck et al. (2001), El-Hady et al. (2012) and Allam (2017).
Crop yields and water use efficiency affected by irrigation treatments
and soil amendments
1- Wheat crop:
Results presented in (Table 8) showed that straw and grains yields
and water use efficiency of wheat crop decreased significantly when
irrigation depth was decreased from 100% to 75% and also from 100% to
50% of ETc, respectively. The reduction in straw, grains and WUE were
26.81%, 30.80% and 7.77% when irrigation depth dropped from 100% to
75%. Whereas, the reduction achieved was 58.67%, 65.07 and 39.43%
when irrigation dropped from 100% to 50%, respectively. These results
were in agreement with those reported by Ouda et al. (2010) and Zaman et
al. (2017).
Table (8):- Effect irrigation treatments and some soil amendments on
wheat crop production in sandy soil
Irrigation
treatments
Type of
amendments
Yield and water use efficiency of wheat
Straw yield
kg fed-1
Grain yield
kg fed-1
WUE
Kg grain/m3
100%
ETc
non 3100 2123 0.797
compost 3450 2387 0.975
FYM 3567 2543 1.122
Poly acrylamide 3200 2373 0.935
Mean for irrigation (I1) ..67 2356 0.9575
75%
ETc
non 2283 1525 0.754
compost 2483 1683 0.926
FYM 2603 1697 0.999
Poly acrylamide 2377 1618 0.852
Mean for irrigation (I2) 2437 1631 0.883
50%
ETc
non 1250 703 0.463
compost 1417 897 0.641
FYM 1487 907 0.668
Poly acrylamide 1350 787 0.547
Mean for irrigation (I3) 1376 823 0.580
Mean for soil conditioners
Non 2211 1451 0.671
Compost 2450 1656 0.847
Farmyard manure 2552 1716 0.930
Poly acrylamide 2309 1593 0.778
L.S.D. at 0.5% for
irrigation (A) 32.28 17.03 0.011
Soil amendments (B) 35.65 14.05 0.009
A*B 61.74 24.33 0.017
47 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Also, results in (Table 8) show that soil amendments; compost, farm
yard manure had a significantly increased wheat yield (straw and grains)
along with water use efficiency as compared to no applied amendments.
These increments in straw yield, grains yield and water use efficiency for
wheat crop was 10.8%, 14.13 and 26.21% when compost was applied.
Similarly, increments of 15.43%, 18.27% and 38.49% and 4.4%, 9.81 and
15.89% were observed with the addition of farm yard manure and synthesis,
respectively. Similar results were found by Gopinath et al. (2008), Leu et
al. (2010) and Singh et al. (2019).
2- Peanut crop:
Peanut straw (kg fed-1), pods (kg fed-1), seeds (kg fed-1) yield and
WUE (Kg seed/m3) were significantly influenced by water stress and the
various soil amendments. The obtained values are presented in Table 9. The
decreasing ASMD significantly increased peanut straw, pods and seeds
production. Whereas, the peanut WUE was produced at medium ASMD.
Similar results were found by Tojo Soler et al. (2013), Aly et al. (2016)
and Abd El-Halim et al. (2016).
Table (9):- Effect irrigation treatments and some soil amendments on
peanut crop production in sandy soil
Irrigation
treatments
Type of
amendments
Yield and water use efficiency of peanut
Straw yield
kg fed-1
pods yield
kg fed-1
seed yield
kg fed-1
WUE
Kg seed/m3
25% ASMD
Non 1700 1433 1103 0.323
Compost 1927 1643 1260 0.406
FYM 2203 1787 1373 0.451
Poly acrylamide 1897 1648 1217 0.377
Mean for irrigation (I1) 1932 1628 66.0 0.389
50% ASMD
Non 1450 1370 1003 0.347
Compost 1597 1532 1193 0.455
FYM 1810 1632 1277 0.493
Poly acrylamide 1597 1533 1137 0.406
Mean for irrigation (I2) 1613 1517 1153 8326.
75% ASMD
Non 690 542 580 0.274
Compost 850 683 654 0.327
FYM 932 772 693 0.371
Poly acrylamide 785 602 567 0.276
Mean for irrigation (I3) 814 650 623 312
Mean for soil conditioners
none 1280 1115 896 0.315
Compost 1458 1286 1036 0.396
Farmyard manure 1648 1397 1114 0.438
Poly acrylamide 1426 1261 973 0.353
L.S.D. at 0.5% for
irrigation (A) 33.22 41.67 30.21 0.011
Soil amendments (B) 30.56 21.41 12.92 0.009
A*B 52.93 37.08 22.38 0.017
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 48
The obtained data for the effect of soil amendments namely; none,
compost, farm yard manure and poly acrylamide to peanut straw, pods,
seeds and WUE are presented in Table 9. The results revealed that the best
soil amendment to peanut production is farm yard manure followed by
compost and synthesis, respectively. These results are in agreement with
those obtained by Allam (2017) and Shenglan et al. (2020).
Soil properties of the studied soil under wheat- peanut crops.
1. Soil chemical properties
Results in Table (10) revealed that soil chemical properties were
substantially improved by all treatments. These soil chemical properties
included:
1.1. Soil electrical conductivity:
Electrical conductivity was a soil parameter that indicates indirectly
the total concentration of soluble salts and is a direct measurement of
salinity. Soil salinity after harvested wheat and peanut crops as affected
by different treatments was given in Table (10). Results showed that
slightly increased in EC values as affected by applied irrigation
treatments. Applied irrigation treatment 50% ETc for wheat crop and
75% ASMD for peanut crop were relatively high EC values as compared
to other irrigation treatments for both crops in two successive seasons. In
addition, it is clear that application of all treatments significantly
decreased soil EC (dSm-1) values when compared to control. Shaban et
al. (2012) indicated that the decrease of EC soil as treated with applied
organic amendments were due to the activity of microorganisms in
reducing salinity and simultaneously improving characterization of soil
structure; increasing drainable porosity and aggregate stability, and
consequently enhanced leaching process through irrigation fractions. The
treatment of applied FYM to both studied crops and irrigation treatments
100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut has the highest effect in
lowering EC values compared with other treatments and control. These
results are in agreement with those of Aiad (2010) and Hassan and
Abdel Wahab (2013).
1.2. Soil pH:
Soil pH is an important consideration for farmers and graders for
several reasons, including the fact that many plants and soil life forms
prefer either alkaline or acidic conditions, that some diseases tend to
thrive when the soil is alkaline or acidic, and that pH can affect the
availability of nutrients in the soil (Smith et al., 1994). Results of pH
values in Table (10) reveal that no significant different between irrigation
49 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
treatments used in this experiment for both seasons. Also, it is obvious
from Table (10) that the soil pH decreased slightly due to the application
of all treatments compared to untreated soil (control) after wheat or
peanut harvested. Such decrease in pH could be attributed to the
production of CO2 and organic acids by soil microorganisms acting and
other chemical transformation of the added organic matter. The effect
was more pronounced in the soil treated with FYM and irrigation
treatments (100% ETc for wheat plant and 25% ASMD for peanut plant)
as compared with other treatments and control. These results are in
agreement with Davar et al. (2002) and Rizk (2016) they reported that
the soil pH values decreased in soil treated with FYM. Finally, the
reducing of soil pH as affected by organic amendments application was
due to the increase of microbial activity, organic acid production and
increase of soil organic matter content compared with control.
1.3. Soil organic matter and cation exchange capacity:
Organic matter is regarded as the ultimate source of nutrients and
microbial activity in the soil. It is the deciding factor in soil structure,
water holding capacity, infiltration rate, aeration and porosity of the soil.
Data presented in Table (10) showed that slightly increased in OM
content under irrigation treatments (100% Etc for wheat and 25% ASMD
for peanut) as compared to other irrigation treatments. Moreover, data
indicated that the OM content in soil increased significantly under
different treatments and/or control. The highest increase in OM content
values was noticed in the treatment of applied FYM and irrigation
treatments (100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut) as
compared with other treatments and control. These results are in
agreement with those of El-Eter et al. (2019) who found that the
application of compost resulted in increasing of the soil organic matter
level.
The cation exchange capacity of the soil as affected by all
treatments took the same trend of organic matter. This may be attributed
to the soil organic matter which encourages granulation, increases cation
exchange capacity (CEC) and is responsible up to 90 % adsorbing power
of the soils (Brady and Weil, 2005). Data in Table (10) show that the
CEC increased significantly as affected by different treatments compared
to control. The highest value of CEC was found in the FYM irrigation
treatments (100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut) as
compared with other treatments and control. Haynes and Naidu (1998)
stated that the organic manure caused a 30% increase in CEC compared
with the control treatment.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 50
Table (10): Chemical properties of the studied soil after wheat- peanut crops harvested
Wheat crop
Soil
amendments.
Irrigation treatments
100% ETC 75% ETC 50% ETC
CaC
O3
%
CEC
Cmole/
kg
O.M
%
pH
1:2.5
EC
dS
m-1
CaC
O3
%
CEC
Cmole/
kg
O.M
%
pH
1:2.5
EC
dS
m-1
CaC
O3
%
CEC
Cmole/
kg
O.M
%
pH
1:2.5
EC
dS
m-1
Non 0.72 7.77 0.19 8.13 1.38 0.76 7.79 0.17 8.11 1.39 0.85 7.80 0.16 8.00 1.41
Compost 0.50 7.61 0.27 9.80 1.26 0.54 7.63 0.26 9.55 1.27 0.56 7.64 0.23 9.46 1.32
FYM 0.45 7.56 0.32 11.23 1.22 0.46 7.61 0.29 11.10 1.24 0.48 7.62 0.28 11.04 1.26
PAM 0.53 7.60 0.23 9.65 1.29 0.57 7.63 0.23 9.29 1.30 0.60 7.70 0.21 9.16 1.33
Peanut crop
Soil
amendments
.
Irrigation treatments
25% ASMD 50% ASMD 75% ASMD
CaC
O3
%
CEC
Cmole/
kg
O.M
%
pH
1:2.
5
EC
dS m-
1
CaC
O3
%
CEC
Cmole/
kg
O.M
%
pH
1:2.
5
EC
dS m-
1
CaC
O3
%
CEC
Cmole/
kg
O.M
%
pH
1:2.5
EC
dS m-1
Non 0.79 7.70 0.20 9.34 1.36 0.83 7.71 0.19 8.13 1.37 0.84 7.73 0.17 8.07 1.40
Compost 0.51 7.56 0.28 8.37 1.25 0.54 7.60 0.28 9.69 1.25 0.56 7.62 0.25 9.54 1.31
FYM 0.41 7.54 0.34 10.30 1.21 0.42 7.59 0.31 11.32 1.22 0.47 7.60 0.30 11.21 1.25
PAM 0.56 7.56 0.25 9.86 1.28 0.59 7.62 0.25 9.39 1.28 0.59 7.68 0.21 9.23 1.31
51 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
2. Soil physical properties:
The changes in the studied physical properties of sandy soil as
related to the application of all treatments during winter and summer
seasons were presented in Table (11 and 12). In general, the studied soil
characteristics responded markedly to all the studied treatments, either
irrigation or soil amendments, in case of both wheat and peanut crops.
Data also indicated that the treatments showed a positive effect for
improving the soil characteristics, where, the values of bulk density and
hydraulic conductivity decreased, on the other hand, the total porosity
and retained moisture at field capacity, wilting point and available water
increased as a result of the soil amendment application.
2.1. Dry –sieved aggregates:
The dry sieving aggregates values were shown in Table (11). Data
reveal that, the dry stable aggregates (D.S.A %) which having diameters
from 1 to 0.5 mm were found to be the largest size presented in the different
studied treatments. Moreover, the percentages of other sizes of dry stable
aggregates decrease as their diameters decrease, whereas, the lowest values
exist in case of the aggregates having diameters less than 0.063 mm.
Thereby, the application of FYM and irrigation treatments (100% Etc for
wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut) resulted in the highest increase of
diameters 1- 0.5 and 0.5-0.25 mm, compared to control and other treatments.
Brian (2015) reported that the relative importance of soil organic matter in
maintaining aggregate stability varies with texture. In sandy soils soil
organic matter is the most important factor (Oades, 1993).
2.2. Soil bulk density and total porosity:
The results obtained in Table (12) showed clearly that the applied
organic soil amendments play a dual positive role, i.e., reducing soil bulk
density vs increasing total soil porosity. Thus, the promotive effect of
organic amendments on the soil porosity in the studied sandy soil may be
due to the values of soil bulk density which behaved the opposite trend with
those obtained from total porosity. In general, this increase may be related to
the increase of storage pores in the studied sandy soil and physical
improvement of soil, which can be regarded as an index of an improved soil
structure (Amjad et al., 2010). Data also showed that the highest value of
total soil porosity was found in the soil treated with FYM and irrigation
treatments (100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut) compared to
control and other treatments. In all treatments, soil bulk density decreased
when compared to control, because of binding the primary particles in the
aggregates, physically and chemically, and thus in turn increases the stability
of the aggregates and limits their breakdown during the wetting process, as a
result of applying organic soil conditioners. Generally, organic soil
conditioners improve soil physical properties, including improving soil
porosity and decreasing soil bulk density.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 52
Table (11):- Distribution fractions (%) of dry- sieved aggregates after wheat- peanut crops harvested.
Wheat crop
Soil
amendment
Irrigation treatments
100% ETc 75 % ETc 50% ETc
Dry Aggregates Diameter (mm) Dry Aggregates Diameter (mm) Dry Aggregates Diameter (mm)
0.125- <0.063
0.063
0.25-
0.125
0.5-
0.25
0.125- 0.063
0.25-
0.125
0.5-
0.25
0.125- 0.063
0.25-
0.125
0.5-
0.25
10-2 2-1 1-0.5
Non 0.93 1.56 1.75 25.60 55.64 10.78 3.58 0.82 4.25 45.0 30.80 12.88 4.97 1.28 0.92 2.31 40.76 41.88 8.30 4.29 1.54
Compost 0.73 1.63 37.79 42.07 13.94 3.33 0.51 0.46 1.32 45.20 41.64 5.82 3.65 1.91 1.00 2.60 45.08 30.17 16.94 3.40 0.80
FYM 0.48 1.36 49.44 31.84 12.03 4.14 0.51 0.46 0.94 43.54 31.67 15.02 6.33 2.05 1.68 0.98 34.01 45.72 13.14 4.16 0.65
PAM 1.01 1.25 36.88 38.98 16.11 3.89 1.87 0.92 2.56 43.20 35.25 12.87 3.33 2.25 0.86 2.36 38.87 35.99 14.72 5.47 1.74
Peanut crop
Soil
amendment
Irrigation treatments
25% ASMD 50% ASMD 75% ASMD
Dry Aggregates Diameter (mm) Dry Aggregates Diameter (mm) Dry Aggregates Diameter (mm)
0.125- <0.063
0.063
0.25-
0.125
0.5-
0.25
0.125- 0.063
0.25-
0.125
0.5-
0.25
0.125- 0.063
0.25-
0.125
0.5-
0.25
10-2 2-1 1-0.5
Non 0.42 1.45 26.05 56.75 9.66 3.81 1.85 0.46 4.43 41.29 33.85 12.94 5.21 1.81 0.58 1.77 40.19 45.14 8.21 5.71 2.17
Compost 0.34 1.78 33.35 44.56 13.17 4.09 2.71 0.42 1.43 43.02 43.96 5.41 4.09 1.68 0.61 2.27 41.77 34.10 16.01 3.78 1.47
FYM 0.61 1.16 37.22 43.21 11.34 4.42 2.04 0.47 1.03 38.42 38.87 13.53 5.53 2.15 0.39 0.86 32.60 47.05 12.71 4.28 2.11
PAM 0.31 1.20 36.16 43.12 12.99 4.06 2.15 0.46 2.52 40.09 37.78 12.54 3.85 2.76 0.65 2.52 36.42 38.81 14.08 5.40 2.12
53 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Table ( 12 ):- Soil moisture constants (%), total porosity (%), Hydraulic conductivity and Bulk density
after wheat-peanut plants harvested
Wheat crop
Soil
amendment
Irrigation treatments
100% ETc 75 % ETc 50% ETc
Soil moisture
BD constants %
(g/cm3)
T.P.
%
Hydrulic
conductivity
(cm h-1)
Soil moisture
BD constants %
(g/cm3)
T.P.
%
Hydraulic
conductivity
(cm h-1)
Soil moisture
BD constants %
(g/cm3)
T.P.
%
Hydrulic
conductivity
(cm h-1) F.C. W.P A.W. F.C. W.P A.W. F.C W.P. A.W.
Non 11.96 34.84 1.73 12.13 7.71 4.41 12.81 32.95 1.78 12.08 8.04 4.04 13.01 31.95 1.80 12.00 8.10 3.90
Compost 9.88 40.50 1.58 15.88 5.04 10.82 9.95 40.0 1.59 15.43 5.09 10.34 9.79 38.62 1.63 15.01 5.39 9.63
FYM 8.33 48.81 1.36 18.73 4.53 14.19 8.47 48.05 1.38 18.02 4.37 13.65 8.52 46.67 1.41 17.65 4.62 13.03
PAM 9.90 37.61 1.65 13.87 5.61 8.33 10.00 36.48 1.68 13.59 5.77 7.82 10.01 35.98 1.70 13.59 5.02 8.57
Peanut crop
Soil
Amendment.
Irrigation treatments
25% ASMD 50% ASMD 75% ASMD
Soil moisture
constants %
BD
(g/cm3)
T.P.
%
Hydrulic
conductivity
(cm h-1)
Soil moisture
constants %
BD
(g/cm3)
T.P.
%
Hydraulic
conductivity
(cm h-1)
Soil moisture
constants %
BD
(g/cm3)
T.P.
%
Hydrulic
conductivity
(cm h-1)
F.C. W.P. A.W. F.C. W.P. A.W. F.C. W.P. A.W.
Non 11.92 37.48 1.66 12.25 7.12 5.13 12.76 34.09 1.75 12.12 8.01 4.11 12.30 33.20 1.77 11.65 7.93 3.72
Compost 9.81 41.90 1.54 16.73 4.91 11.82 9.89 40.38 1.58 15.46 4.92 10.54 9.94 39.50 1.60 16.27 5.3 10.97
FYM 8.22 49.68 1.33 18.81 4.45 14.36 8.28 48.68 1.36 18.33 3.8 14.53 8.34 46.92 1.41 17.92 3.73 14.19
PAM 9.79 39.25 1.61 14.09 5.43 8.66 9.86 38.24 1.64 13.54 5.45 8.09 10.01 36.73 1.68 12.81 3.55 8.07
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 54
2.3. Hydraulic conductivity and soil moisture constants:
Values of soil hydraulic conductivity after harvested wheat and
peanut crops as affected by different treatments are given in Table (12). It
is clear that the application of all treatments decreased soil HC (cm h-1)
values when compared to the control. The improvement or the
pronounced decrease in hydraulic conductivity of the studied sandy soil
may be attributed to the creation of micro pores, and the dominance of
meso and micro pores compared with other pore sizes. These results are
in agreement with those of El-Fayoumy and Ramadan (2002). The best
treatment in decreasing soil HC (cm h-1) values was FYM compared to
control and other treatments.
Concerning the magnitudes of the changes in available water range,
field capacity and wilting point at different applied treatments, data
presented in Table (12), in general, showed that the content (%) of
available water in soil increased .The soils treated with FYM relatively
high values of available water as compared to control and other
treatments. This is due to the fact that organic substances attain a
pronounced high content of active organic compounds that enhancing the
water molecules to be chelated (Moustafa et al., 2005). The highly
magnitude of these results is saving a lot of irrigation water which can be
used to reclaim, cultivate new areas and to enhance water use efficiency
of most crops. These results are in harmony with the findings of Usman
et al. (2005) and Hassan and Abdel Wahab (2013).
In general, FYM effect of the applied treatments on the studied
different soil physical properties under the application of FYM and
irrigation treatments (100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut)
could be arranged in the following order: FYM> compost>
polyacrylamide>control .
CONCLUSION
From the abovementioned results, it could be concluded that
applied irrigation treatments (100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for
peanut) and used organic and synthetic soil amendments such as
compost, farmyard manure and polyacrylamide can improve the soil
physical and chemicals properties of sandy soil along with decreased
irrigation water consumptive use and increased water use efficiency.
Moreover, wheat and peanut yields increased significantly under the
irrigation treatment (100% ETc for wheat and 25% ASMD for peanut) in
presence of FYM soil amendment as compared to other treatments or
control treatment.
55 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authoresses wish to express their sincere gratitude and
appreciation to the Development of Soil Conditioners Project, Dept. of
Physics and Chemistry of Soil, Soils, Water and Environ. Res. Inst.,
Agric. Res. Center (ARC), Giza, Egypt, for introducing all facilities
needed to accomplish this study.
REFERENCES
Abd El-Halim, A. K.; A.M Awad and M. E Moursy (2016) . Response of
peanut to some kinds of organic fertilizers under drip and sprinkler
irrigation systems. Alex. Sci. Exch. J., 4:703-713.
Allam, A. Kh (2017). Effects of soil conditioner on water content of
sandy soil and peanut production under different irrigation rates.
Misr J. Ag. Eng., 34 (3): 1271 – 1296.
Allen, R.G. ; L.S. Pereira ; D. Raes and M. Smith (1998). Crop
evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water
requirements. FAO. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Rome:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Aly, E.M. ; Wafaa M.T. El-Etr and G.H. Youssef (2016). Peanut
(Arachis hypogaea L.) response to different levels of irrigation
stress and sythsitic soil amendements. Egypt. J. Soil Sci.,56
(2):351- 371.
Amjad, A.S.A; Y.M.A. Khanif; H.A. Aminuddin; O.A. Radziah and
H.A. Osumanu (2010). Impact of potassium humate on selected
chemical properties of an Acidic soil. 19th World Congress of
Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World 1-6 August
2010, Brisbane, Australia.
Brady, N. C. and R. R. Weil (2005).The Nature and Properties of Soils.
13thEdition. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. PP.
279-313.
Brian, M. (2015).Key soil functional properties affected by soil organic
matter – evidence from published literature .Earth and Environ.
Sci., 25:125-138.
Bulluck,L.R. ; M. Brosius ; G.K. Evanylo and J.B. Ristaino (2001).
Organic and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil
microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and
conventional farms. Appl. Soil Ecol.,19 :147–160.
Davar nejad, G.; G. Haghniya; H. Shahbazi and R. Mohammdiyan
(2002). Effect of compost and manure in the production of sugar
Jghndr. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 16: 75-83.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 56
El- Boraie, F.M. ; H.K. Abo-El-Ela and A.M. Gaber (2009). Water
requirements of peanut grown in sandy soil under drip irrigation
and biofertilization. Aust. J. Basic and Appl.Sci., 3: 55-65.
El-Eter, Wafaa M. ; Hoda M.R.M.Ahmed ; Enshrah I.M. El Maaz
and W.M. El-Farghal (2019).The relative effects of different
soil conditioners and levels of irrigation on soil properties and
plant growth under condions of sandy soil. Egtpt J. of Appl.
Sci., 34(1):46-71.
El-Fayoumy, M.E. and H.M. Ramadan (2002). Effect of bio-organic
manure on sandy soils amelioration and peanut productivity
under sprinkler irrigation system. Egypt. J. Soil Sci., 42(3): 838.
El-Hady, O.A. ; S.M. Shaaban and Sh.A. Wanas (2012). Effect of
hydrogels and organic composts on soil hydrophysical
properties and on production of tomato. Proc. XXVIIIth IHC –
IS on Organic Horticulture: Productivity and Sustainability Eds.:
I. Mourão and U. Aksoy Acta Hort., 933, ISHS.
Gee, G.W. and J. W. Bauder (1986). Particle size analysis in Methods
of Soil Analysis (Klute, Ed. Part1. Agron.9. 15:383- 409. Am.
Soc. Agron. Madison. Wisconsin, U.S.A).
Ghosh, P.K. ; K.K. Devi Dayal ; M. Bandyopadhyyay and A.
Mohanty (2006). Evaluation of straw and polythene mulch for
enhancing productivity of irrigated summer groundnut. Field
Crop Res., 99:76-86.
Gopinath, K. A. ;S. Saha ; B. L. Mina ; H. Pande ; S. Kundu and H.
S. Gupta (2008). Influence of organic amendments on growth,
yield and quality of wheat and on soil properties during
transition to organic production. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst.,
82:51–60.
Hassan, A. Z. A. and M.M. Abdel Wahab (2013). The combined effect
of bentonite and natural zeolite on sandy soil properties and
productivity of some crops. Topclass J. of Agric. Res., 1: 22 – 28.
Haynes, R. J. and R. Naidu (1998). Influence of lime, fertilizer and
manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil
physical conditions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 51:
123-137.
Israelsen, O.W. and V.E. Hansen (1962). Irrigation Principles and
Practices. The 3rd ed. John, Wiley and Sons Inc., New York.
Jackson, M. L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentic Hall of Indian
Private Limited, New Delhi, India.
57 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Jongrungklang, N. ; B. Toomson ; N. Vorasoot ; S.Jogloy ; T.
Kesmala and A. Patanothi (2008).Identification of peaunt
genotypeswith high use efficiency under drought stress
conditions from peaunt germplasm of diverse origins. Asian J.
Plant Sci., 7:628-638.
Klute, A. (1986). Water retention: laboratory methods. In: Klute A,
editor. Methods of soil analysis: Physical and mineralogical
methods. 2nd ed. Madison: Amer. Soc. of Agron., Soil Soc.
Amer.; Pt. 1. p. 635-62.
Leu, J. ; S. Traore ; Y. Wang and C.E. Kan(2010). The effect of
organic matter amendment on soil water holding capacity
change for irrigation water saving: Case study in Sahelian
environment of Africa. Sci.Res. Essays, 5: 3564-3571.
Morsy, A.S.M. ; A. Awadalla and M.M. Sherif (2018). Effect of
irrigation, foliar spray with nano-fertilizer (lithovit) and nlevelson
productivity and quality of durum wheat under toshka
conditions. Assiut J. Agric. Sci., 3 : 1-26.
Moustafa, M.A. Abo-Zied; N.R. Habashy and A.A.W. Anas (2005).
Utilization of some organic polymers and humic acids for
improving a sandy soil productivity of peanut and their residual
effects on the nex crop of faba bean. Fayoum J. Agric. Res. And
Dev., 9(2): 42-55.
Oades, J.M. (1993). The role of soil biology in the formation,
stabilization and degradation of soil structure. Geoderma. 56:
377-400.
Ouda, S.A. ; R. Abou Elenin and M. A. Shreif (2010). Simulation of
the effect of irrigation water saving on wheat yield at middle
egypt. Fourteenth International Water Technology Conference,
IWTC 14 2010, Cairo, Egypt, 407-419.
Oweis, T. ; H. Zhang and M. Pala (2000). Water use efficiency of
rainfed and irrigated bread wheat in a mediterranean
environment. Agron. J., 92:231–238.
Pansu, M. and J. Gautheyrou(2006). Handbook of Soil Analysis.
Mineralogical, Organic And Inorganic Methods.
Page, A.L; R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeny (1982). Methods of soil
analysis. Part 2- chemical and microbiological properties second
Edition Ajner. Soc. of Agron. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 5371.
Richards, A. L. and I. R. Weaver (1944). Moisture retention by some
irrigated soils as related to soil moisture tension. J. Agric. Res.,
29:215-235.
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 58
Richards, A. L. (1947). Pressure membrane apparatus construction and
Use. Agric. Enger., 28: 451-454.
Richards, A.L. (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali
Soils U.S. Dept. Agric. Hand Book. No 60, U.S.Covt. Print.
Office, Washington, D.C.
Rizk, A.H. and M.M. Sherif (2014). Effect of soil moisture depletion on
the yield of wheat under sprinkler irrigation at Toshka area,
Egypt. Middle East J. Agric.Res., 3: 981-987.
Shaban, Kh. A.; M. G. Abd-El-kader and Z. M. Khalil (2012). Effect
of soil amendments on soil fertility and sesame crop
productivity under newly reclaimed soil conditions. J. of Appl.
Sci. Res., 8 (3): 1568 - 1575.
Shenglan,Y. ; T. Liu andY. Niu (2020). Effects of organic fertilizer on
water use, photosynthetic characteristics, and fruit quality of
pear jujube in northern Shaanxi. Open Chem., 18: 537–545.
Singh, M. ; R. K. Saini and S. Singh (2019).Potential of integrating
biochar and deficit irrigation strategies for sustaining vegetable
production in water-limited regions: A Review Hort. Sci.,
54:1872–1878.
Smith, C.J.; M.B. Peoples; G. Keerthisinghe and T.R. Jomes (1994).
"Effect of surface applications of lime, gypsum and Phosphor–
gypsum on the alleviating of surface and sub-surface acidity in
soil under pasture. Australian Journal of Soil Research. 32 this,
(5): 995. ISSN 004- 9573.
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran (1980). Statistical Methods. (7th
ed.) Iowa State Univ. Iowa, U.S.A.
Stakman, W. P. and G. G. Vanderhast (1962). The use of the pressure
membrane apparatus to determine soil moisture constants at P.F
3.0 to 4.2 inclusive. Inst. for Land and Water Manag Res., Note
No. 139.
Taha, A. A. ; M. A. Ibrahim ; A. M. Mosa and M. N. EL-Komy
(2017). Water productivity of wheat crop as affected by
different sowing dates and deficit irrigation treatments. J.Soil
Sci. and Agric. Eng., Mansoura Univ., 8: 521 – 529.
Tojo Soler, C.M. ; A. Suleiman ; J. Anothai ; I. Flitcroft and G.
Hoogenboom (2013). Scheduling irrigation with a dynamic
crop growth model and determining the relation between
simulated drought stress and yield for peanut. Irrig. Sci.,
31:889–901
59 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
Usman, A.; Y. Kuzyakov and K. Stahr (2005). Effect of clay minerals
on immobilization of heavy metals and microbial activity in a
sewage sludge contaminated soil. Journal of Soils and
Sediments, 5: 245-252.
Zaman, R. ; A.R. Akanda ; S.K. Biswas and M.R. Islam (2017).
Effect of deficit irrigation on raised bed wheat cultivation.
Cercetări Agronomice în Moldova,4 (172): 17-28.
Zayton, A.M. ; A.E. Guirguis and Kh. A. Allam (2014). Effect of
sprinkler irrigation management and straw mulch on yield, water
consumption and crop coefficient of peanut in sandy soil. Egypt.
J. Agric. Res., 92:657-673.
تأثير معاملات الرى و بعض محسنات التربة على خواص الارض و انتاجية
محصولى القمح و الفول السودانى فى الارض الرملية
انش ا رح اب ا رهيم محمد المعاز ، هدي محمد رجائي محمود أحمد ، السيد محمد علي ،
وفاء محمد العتر
معهد بحوث الأ ا رضى والمياة والبيئة - مرکز البحوث الز ا رعية - الجيزة - مصر
تم اج ا رء تجربو حقميو في مزرعة محطة البحوث الز ا رعية بالأسماعيمية ،مصر خلال
موسمى ) 4102 و 4102 (. تم ز ا رعو القمح صنف )جيزة 061 ( في موسم الشتاء 4102 تحت
و الفول السوداني صنف )ETC) 71 % من البخر نتح ، %57 ، % مستويات رى 011
،% )جيزه 6( تم ز ا رعتو فى موسم الصيف 4102 ايضا تحت ثلاث معاملات لمرى 57
من اجمالى الماء الميسر الکلى )ASMD( %57 استنفاذ مستوى رطوبة التربة ،%71
للتربة.
و کانت المعاملات کما يلي :-
-0 کنترول
-4 کمبوست
FYM -3
-2 بولي اکريلاميد
وکانت النتائج کما يلى:
و أفضل معاممة رى لمفول السودانى )ETC(% 0( کانت أفضل معاممة رى لمقمح عند 011
مقارنة" بالمعاملات الاخرى و الکنترول. )ASMD(% کانت عند 42
Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021 60
التربة والمموحة مقارنة مع pH 4( کان لکل المعاملات دور فى حدوث انخفاض في قيم
) ETC(% و معاملات الرى 011 FYM الکنترول وکانت أفضل المعاملات تأثي ا ر" ىى
لمفول السودانى مقارنتا" بالمعاملات الاخرى و الکنترول ) ASMD(% لمقمح و 42
3( ا زد محتوى التربة من المادة العضوية و کذلک ازدادت قيم السعة التبادلية الکاتيونية
بأستخدام کل المعاملات بالمقارنة مع الکنترول.
2( حدوث تحسن طفيف في الکثافة الظاىرية وازدادت المسامية الکمية و کذلک ازدادت قيم
ثوابت الرطوبة عند کل من السعة الحقمية و الماء الميسر ولکن انخفضت قيم التوصيل
) ETC(% و معاملات الرى 011 FYM الييدروليکى وکانت أفضل المعاملات تأثي ا ر" هى
للفول السودانى مقا رنة" بالمعاملات الاخرى و الکنترول. ) ASMD( % للقمح و 57
2( أظيرت النتائج أيضا زيادة فى محصول القمح والفول السوداني فى جميع المعاملات مقارنة
) ETC( % و معاملات الرى 011 FYM بالکنترول وکانت أفضل المعاملات تأثي ا ر" هى
للفول السودانى . )ASMD( % للقمح و 57
للقمح و ) ETC(% و معاملات الرى 011 FYM .* وبصفة عامة توصى الدارسة باستخدام
للفول السودانى لأن ىذه المعاملات تعمل عمى تحسين خواص الارض )ASMD(%57
الکيميائية و الطبيعية وبالتالي زيادة محصولى القمح و الفول السوداني في الأ ا رضى الرممية.
61 Egypt. J. of Appl. Sci., 36 (3) 2021
View on SCiNiTO
