Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:27:48.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forage yield and chemical composition of pearl-millet (Pennisetum typhoides) as influenced by exchangeable sodium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

K. N. Singh ,
D. K. Sharma  and
R. K. Chillar
K. N. Singh
Affiliation:
Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal 132001, India
D. K. Sharma
Affiliation:
Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal 132001, India
R. K. Chillar
Affiliation:
Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal 132001, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect of exchangeable sodium percentages (ESP) of 86, 61, 43, 33 and 28 on forage yield and chemical composition of four cultivars of pearl-millet (LC-2, LC-5, LC-6 and LC-7) was studied under field conditions during 1981 and 1982. Dry and green forage yields were significantly higher at 28 ESP over other ESP values. Increasing ESP decreased the yield and concentration of Ca, K and P but increased that of Na in the plants. Cultivar LC-5 was found to give the best performance under sodic soil followed by LC-7, LC-6 and LC-2. At an early stage of crop growth (45 days), cv. LC-2 had significantly lower concentrations of Ca, K and P and a higher Na concentration compared with other cultivars.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 3 , December 1988 , pp. 465 - 467
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrol, I. P. & Bhumbla, D. R. (1979). Crop responses to differential gypsum application in highly sodic soil and tolerance of several crops to exchangeable sodium under field conditions. Soil Science 127, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, L. & Pearson, G. A. (1956). Influence of exchangeable sodium on yield and chemical composition of plants I. Green beans, garden beets, clover and alfalfa. Soil Science 82, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. L. (1967). Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.Google Scholar
Joshi, Y. C., Quadar, A. & Rana, R. S. (1979). Differential sodium and potassium accumulation related to sodicity tolerance in wheat. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 22, 226–230.Google Scholar
Pearson, G. A. & Bernstein, L. (1958). Influence of exchangeable sodium on yield and chemical composition of plants II. Wheat, barley, oat, rice, tall fescue and tall wheat grass. Soil Science 86, 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, S. K. (1986). Mechanism of tolerance in rice varieties differing in sodicity tolerance. Plant and Soil 93, 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, K. N., Sharma, D. K. & Chillar, R. K. (1988). Growth, yield and chemical composition of different oilseed crops as influenced by sodicity. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. B., Chhabra, R. & Abrol, I. P. (1980). Effect of soil sodicity on the yield and chemical composition of cowpea grown for fodder. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 50, 852–856.Google Scholar
Singh, S. B. & Abrol, I. P. (1985). Effect of soil sodicity on growth, yield and chemical composition of groundnut. Plant and Soil 84, 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar