Ati, A., Hassan, K., Naser, K. (2018). Effect of Intercropped and Micro Nutrient Fertilizers For Cucurbita pepo L. And Cucumis sativus L. On Water Productivity and Yield Under Drip Irrigation System. , 5(5), 30-37.
Alaa Salih Ati; Kadhim Dealy Hassan; Kadhim Naser. "Effect of Intercropped and Micro Nutrient Fertilizers For Cucurbita pepo L. And Cucumis sativus L. On Water Productivity and Yield Under Drip Irrigation System". , 5, 5, 2018, 30-37.
Ati, A., Hassan, K., Naser, K. (2018). 'Effect of Intercropped and Micro Nutrient Fertilizers For Cucurbita pepo L. And Cucumis sativus L. On Water Productivity and Yield Under Drip Irrigation System', , 5(5), pp. 30-37.
Ati, A., Hassan, K., Naser, K. Effect of Intercropped and Micro Nutrient Fertilizers For Cucurbita pepo L. And Cucumis sativus L. On Water Productivity and Yield Under Drip Irrigation System. , 2018; 5(5): 30-37.

Effect of Intercropped and Micro Nutrient Fertilizers For Cucurbita pepo L. And Cucumis sativus L. On Water Productivity and Yield Under Drip Irrigation System

Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences
Article 3, Volume 5, Issue 5, 2018, Pages 30-37    PDF (615.13 K)
Authors
Alaa Salih Ati* 1; Kadhim Dealy Hassan2; Kadhim Naser3
1Department of Desertification -College of Agriculture/ Baghdad University.
2Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Baghdad University
3Department of Soil Science -College of Agriculture/ Baghdad University
Abstract
   Field experiment was carried out during spring season of 2017 in the field of Agricultural Collage- University of Baghdad/ Al - Jadriya., Iraq in silt loam calcareous soil to study the effect of micronutrients and water amount applied to intercropped Cucurbita pepo and Cucumis sativus on yield and water use efficiency. Cucurbita pepo (Pumpkin) (synthetic cv. US, Agriseed, Fadwa) andCucumis sativus(cucumber) (synthetic cv. Kazear) were planted monocropping and a strip intercropped. The experiment was a Split Plot Design arranged in RCBD with three replications. micronutrients treatment represents the main plot and intercropping system treatment as sub plot. Micronutrients treatments included application of 3 rates 0, 150 and 250 g 1000 m-2. Monocropping for Pumpkin and cucumber were planted one line in treatments unit, while Intercropping for Pumpkin and cucumber were planted two line for any one in treatment units. All plots were irrigated with river water (ECi =1.45 dS m-1), and irrigation was imposed at 35% depletion of available water using drip irrigation system.
  Results indicated that number of irrigations were 40,41 and 39 for monocropping of Cucurbita pepo, Cucumis sativus and intercropping irrigation systems consuming 410 and 425 and 440 mm for the three treatments, respectively. All growth and yield arameters were no significantly at or/and at monocropping compared to intercropping. The interactions effect between the amount of micronutrient and water on fruits yield indicated that the best two treatments were 250 g 1000 m-2 with mono or /and intercropping (the best overall treatment and no significant with 150g1000m-2 ), and Values of IWUE for intercropping are almost more than monocropping.
Keywords
intercropping; Micronutrients Fertilizer; Cucurbita pepo and Cucumis sativus); Water Productivity
References
  1. Allen,R.G.;Perira,L.S.;Raes, D.  and Smith, M. (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 56, Rome.
  2. Anderson, C.L; Bishop, A.A.; Hotes, F.; Keller, J.; Miller, J.A.;  Pinney, J. and Smerdon, E. (1978) Describing irrigation efficiency and uniformity. Journal Irrigation Drainage .104:35-41.
  3. Black, C. A.(1965) Methods of Soil Analysis. Physical & mineralogical properties. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
  4. Canadian UNICEF Committee. (2006) Global Child Survival and Health. Academic Press, pp. 67.
  5. Page, A.L.; Miller, R.H.  and Keeney,  D.R. (1982) Soil Analysis. Part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. ASA, SSSA .Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
  6. Rusinamhodzi, L., Murwira, H.K.  and Nyamangara, J. (2006) Cotton-cowpea intercropping and its N2 fixation capacity improves yield of a subsequent maize crop under Zimbabwean rain-fed conditions. Plant Soil, 287:327–336.
  7. SAS. (2010) Users guide, Statistics SAS, Inst. Gary, N.C., U.S.A
  8. Schneider, A.D.; Evett, S.R.; Howell, T.A., Wanjura, D.F.  and Upchurch, D.R.. (2000) Automatic drip irrigation of corn and soybean. Proceedings of the 4th decennial national irrigation, Pp. 401-408.
  9. Vitamins and minerals. (2016) US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Library. Retrieved 18 April.
  10. Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O. (2003) The water budget of rain fed maize and bean intercrop. Physics and Chemical Earth. 28:919–926.
  11. Yang, F.,  Xiaochun W., Dunping L., Fengzhi L., Rencai G., Weiguo L., Taiwen Y., Xiaoling W., Junbo D., Jiang L., and Wenyu Y. (2015) Yield Response to Different Planting Geometries in Maize–Soybean Relay Strip Intercropping Systems. Agronomy  Journal, 107:296–304.
Statistics
Article View: 34
PDF Download: 33


Journal Management System. Powered by iJournalPro.com