4.5 Article

Effects of hydrogel amendment on water storage of sandy loam and loam soils and seedling growth of barley, wheat and chickpea

期刊

PLANT SOIL AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 50, 期 10, 页码 463-469

出版社

CZECH ACADEMY AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.17221/4059-PSE

关键词

soil hydrogel amendment; soil moisture properties; seed germination; seedling growth; water absorption

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydrogel amendments may improve seedling growth and establishment by increasing water retention capacity of soils and regulating the plants available water supplies, particularly under arid environments. The effects of different levels of a locally prepared hydrogel were studied on the moisture properties of sandy loam and loam soils (fine-loamy, mixed, hyperthermic Typic Haplargids, USDA, Luvic Yermosol, FAO) and on growth response of three plant species, viz. barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and chick-pea (Cicer arietinum L.). Water absorption by gel was rapid and highest in distilled water and was inhibited by an increase in water salinity. The addition of 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3% hydrogel increased the moist-Lire retention (Or) at field capacity linearly (r = 0.988) anti thus the amount of plant available water significantly in both sandy loam arid loam soils compared to the untreated soils. Seed germination of wheat and barley was riot affected but seedling growth of both species was improved by the gel amendment. In loam soil, seed germination of chickpea was higher with 0.2% gel and seedling growth increased with increase in gel level compared with control conditions. The hydrogel amendment caused a delay by 4-5 days in wilting of seedlings grown in both soils compared with control conditions. The hydrogel amendment was effective in improving soil moisture availability arid thus increased plant establishment. However, the varied responses of plant species in sandy loam arid loam soils warrant further studies on the behaviour of different soil types with gel amendments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据