Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 5 – uploaded by Abigail Addo-Danso

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Other yield parameters (number of pods, pod weight, number of seeds) were not affected by There was significant interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition on organic carbon (P=0.01) and organic matter (P=0.01) at the end of the study (Fig. 6 A&B). Control x D2; FRAC x D1; FRG x D2; (FRG+HRAC) x D2 and (FRG+FRAC) x D1 affected up to 7% more organic matter than initial soil organic matter before treatment imposition. However, the application of the fertility treatments alone did not affect (P>0.05) soil organic matter but in general soil organic carbon and matter followed the order D1>D2>D3 for drought imposition.

Figure 6 Other yield parameters (number of pods, pod weight, number of seeds) were not affected by There was significant interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition on organic carbon (P=0.01) and organic matter (P=0.01) at the end of the study (Fig. 6 A&B). Control x D2; FRAC x D1; FRG x D2; (FRG+HRAC) x D2 and (FRG+FRAC) x D1 affected up to 7% more organic matter than initial soil organic matter before treatment imposition. However, the application of the fertility treatments alone did not affect (P>0.05) soil organic matter but in general soil organic carbon and matter followed the order D1>D2>D3 for drought imposition.

Related Figures (9)

placement at 3 cm depth and a distance of 5 cm away from the plant, and well covered with soil. FC till physiological maturity; and D3 - 80% FC rom sowing till flowering; water stress from lowering till 16% FC and re-wetting to 80% FC ill physiological maturity. (The only exception to he moisture regimes happened a day before drought imposition, when all the buckets were saturated with water (methodology adopted from 10]). The levels of the fertility treatments were control, full rate glycine mix NPK legume fertilizer (FRG), full rate compost (FRAC), full rate glycine mix + half rate compost (FRG + HRAC) and full rate glycine mix + full rate compost (FRG + FRAC). The compost used in this study was made from a collection of municipal solid waste. There were 15 treatments in total. The treatments were replicated thrice to make a total of 45 buckets.
placement at 3 cm depth and a distance of 5 cm away from the plant, and well covered with soil. FC till physiological maturity; and D3 - 80% FC rom sowing till flowering; water stress from lowering till 16% FC and re-wetting to 80% FC ill physiological maturity. (The only exception to he moisture regimes happened a day before drought imposition, when all the buckets were saturated with water (methodology adopted from 10]). The levels of the fertility treatments were control, full rate glycine mix NPK legume fertilizer (FRG), full rate compost (FRAC), full rate glycine mix + half rate compost (FRG + HRAC) and full rate glycine mix + full rate compost (FRG + FRAC). The compost used in this study was made from a collection of municipal solid waste. There were 15 treatments in total. The treatments were replicated thrice to make a total of 45 buckets.
Fig. 1. Volumetric soil moisture (cm*/cm*) affected by fertility treatments at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) and at 7 and 10 WAP (after drought imposition). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means Soil moisture was not affected (P>0.05) by drought imposition or its interaction with fertilizer treatments on any of the sampling days. However, the fertility treatments significantly affected soil moisture at 3 WAP (P<0.001), 7 WAP (P<0.001) and 10 WAP (P=0.007). On all the sampling days, FRG, FRG + HRAF and FRG + FRAC affected the highest soil moisture on average (6.9 - 9 cm*/cm*) and between 20 - 38% more than compost alone and the control (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Volumetric soil moisture (cm*/cm*) affected by fertility treatments at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) and at 7 and 10 WAP (after drought imposition). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means Soil moisture was not affected (P>0.05) by drought imposition or its interaction with fertilizer treatments on any of the sampling days. However, the fertility treatments significantly affected soil moisture at 3 WAP (P<0.001), 7 WAP (P<0.001) and 10 WAP (P=0.007). On all the sampling days, FRG, FRG + HRAF and FRG + FRAC affected the highest soil moisture on average (6.9 - 9 cm*/cm*) and between 20 - 38% more than compost alone and the control (Fig. 1).
Fertility treatments affected (P<0.001) leaf number at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) (Fig. 2A). Plants applied with FRG alone had the most number of leaves (12.7) about 10 - 35% more than other amendments. There was 10- 24% reduction in leaf number with the addition of half and full rates of the compost to FRG. Interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition affected (P = 0.01) leaf number at 7WAP (after drought imposition) (Fig. 2B). Plants applied with FRG x D2 at flowering had the most number of leaves (40) while plants applied with FRAC x D3 at flowering had the least number of leaves (10). The latter was similar to the number of leaves affected by control x D1; control x D3; FRAC x D1; FRAC x leaf area was affected (P<0.001) by fertility reatments at 3 WAP (Fig. 2). FRG affected the highest leaf area between 19-68% higher than he other amendments. The addition of half or a ull rate of the compost to FRG reduced leaf area by 19 — 438%. At 7 WAP (after drought imposition), FRG+FRAC affected (P<0.001) the argest leaf area which was similar to that affected by FRG. The application of FRG+HRAC, FRAC and control affected the smallest leaf area Fig. 3). Leaf area at 10 WAP was not affected P>0.05) by fertility treatments, drought stress regimes or their interactions.
Fertility treatments affected (P<0.001) leaf number at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) (Fig. 2A). Plants applied with FRG alone had the most number of leaves (12.7) about 10 - 35% more than other amendments. There was 10- 24% reduction in leaf number with the addition of half and full rates of the compost to FRG. Interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition affected (P = 0.01) leaf number at 7WAP (after drought imposition) (Fig. 2B). Plants applied with FRG x D2 at flowering had the most number of leaves (40) while plants applied with FRAC x D3 at flowering had the least number of leaves (10). The latter was similar to the number of leaves affected by control x D1; control x D3; FRAC x D1; FRAC x leaf area was affected (P<0.001) by fertility reatments at 3 WAP (Fig. 2). FRG affected the highest leaf area between 19-68% higher than he other amendments. The addition of half or a ull rate of the compost to FRG reduced leaf area by 19 — 438%. At 7 WAP (after drought imposition), FRG+FRAC affected (P<0.001) the argest leaf area which was similar to that affected by FRG. The application of FRG+HRAC, FRAC and control affected the smallest leaf area Fig. 3). Leaf area at 10 WAP was not affected P>0.05) by fertility treatments, drought stress regimes or their interactions.
Fig. 3. Leaf area (cm’) affected by fertility treatments at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) and 7 WAP (after drought imposition). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means
Fig. 3. Leaf area (cm’) affected by fertility treatments at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) and 7 WAP (after drought imposition). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means
Fig. 4. SPAD leaf chlorophyll concentration affected by fertility treatments at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) (A); leaf chlorophyll concentration affected by drought stress regimes at 7 WAP (after drought imposition) (B). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means SPAD chlorophyll content was _ affected (P<0.001) (Fig. 4A). chlorophyl by fertility treatments at 3 WAP FRG affected the highest leaf concentration (47 SPAD units) which was between 14 — 37% more than other amendme 14% with compost. FRAC and the control affected the leas leaf conce was not affected (P>0.05) by the interaction o fertility treatments and drought stress regimes a 7 WALI. (P=0.02) leaf chlorophyll concentration at 7 WAP (Fig. 4B). chlorophyl more than D3. Leaf chlorophyll concentration a nts. Leaf chlorophyll was reduced by he addition of half and full rates of the ntration. Leaf chlorophyll concentration However, drought regimes affected D1 and D2 affected the highest lea | concentration (~35), about 17% Grain weight was affected by _ fertility treatments only (P=0.05) but not drought or its interaction with fertility treatments (Fig. 5A). FRG affected the highest grain weight (96 kg/ha). The addition of half and full rates of compost to FRG reduced grain weight by 84 and 56%, respectively. Weights affected by _ fertility treatments other than FRG were statistically similar.
Fig. 4. SPAD leaf chlorophyll concentration affected by fertility treatments at 3 WAP (before drought imposition) (A); leaf chlorophyll concentration affected by drought stress regimes at 7 WAP (after drought imposition) (B). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means SPAD chlorophyll content was _ affected (P<0.001) (Fig. 4A). chlorophyl by fertility treatments at 3 WAP FRG affected the highest leaf concentration (47 SPAD units) which was between 14 — 37% more than other amendme 14% with compost. FRAC and the control affected the leas leaf conce was not affected (P>0.05) by the interaction o fertility treatments and drought stress regimes a 7 WALI. (P=0.02) leaf chlorophyll concentration at 7 WAP (Fig. 4B). chlorophyl more than D3. Leaf chlorophyll concentration a nts. Leaf chlorophyll was reduced by he addition of half and full rates of the ntration. Leaf chlorophyll concentration However, drought regimes affected D1 and D2 affected the highest lea | concentration (~35), about 17% Grain weight was affected by _ fertility treatments only (P=0.05) but not drought or its interaction with fertility treatments (Fig. 5A). FRG affected the highest grain weight (96 kg/ha). The addition of half and full rates of compost to FRG reduced grain weight by 84 and 56%, respectively. Weights affected by _ fertility treatments other than FRG were statistically similar.
Fig. 6. Organic carbon (%) affected by interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition at harvest (A); organic matter (%) affected by interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition at harvest (B). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment interaction means. Short dash lines mark the initial organic carbon and organic matter percentages before treatment imposition
Fig. 6. Organic carbon (%) affected by interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition at harvest (A); organic matter (%) affected by interaction between fertility treatments and drought imposition at harvest (B). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment interaction means. Short dash lines mark the initial organic carbon and organic matter percentages before treatment imposition
However, K uptake was significantly reduced by more than 20% when plants were water stressed till 16% FC at flowering. Drought imposition to 40% FC at flowering affected 2.7% common bean biomass K uptake, similar to plants that had no moisture stress.
However, K uptake was significantly reduced by more than 20% when plants were water stressed till 16% FC at flowering. Drought imposition to 40% FC at flowering affected 2.7% common bean biomass K uptake, similar to plants that had no moisture stress.
Fig. 8. Potassium uptake (%) in plant biomass as affected by soil fertility treatments (A). Potassium uptake in plant biomass as affected by drought imposition (B). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means
Fig. 8. Potassium uptake (%) in plant biomass as affected by soil fertility treatments (A). Potassium uptake in plant biomass as affected by drought imposition (B). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means
Fig. 9. Water Use Efficiency (kg/ha/mm) of common beans affected by fertility treatments (A). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means. Relationship between water use efficiency (WUE) and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) (B)
Fig. 9. Water Use Efficiency (kg/ha/mm) of common beans affected by fertility treatments (A). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. Different lower case letters on top of the bars mean significant differences between the treatment means. Relationship between water use efficiency (WUE) and nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) (B)
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved