Next Article in Journal
Nitrogen Uptake from Different Sources by Soybean Grown at Different Sowing Densities
Next Article in Special Issue
Vegetative and Reproductive Response to Fruit Load in Two Jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis) Cultivars
Previous Article in Journal
Breeding and Genetics of Forages for Semi-Arid and Arid Rangelands
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do We Need New Crops for Arid Regions? A Review of Fruit Species Domestication in Israel
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy11040717
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sowing Date and Genotype Influence on Yield and Quality of Dual-Purpose Barley in a Salt-Affected Arid Region

by
Ehab S. A. Moustafa
1,
El-Sayed E. A. El-Sobky
2,
Hossam I. A. Farag
1,
Mohamed A. T. Yasin
2,
Ahmed Attia
2,
Mohamed O. A. Rady
3,
Mohamed F. Awad
4 and
Elsayed Mansour
2,*
1
Desert Research Center, Genetic Resources Department, Cairo 11753, Egypt
2
Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt
3
Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Fayoum 63514, Egypt
4
Department of Biology, College of Science, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(4), 717; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11040717
Submission received: 11 March 2021 / Revised: 1 April 2021 / Accepted: 3 April 2021 / Published: 9 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Crops for Arid Regions)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dual-purpose barley is an alternative approach to producing high-quality forage yield plus an acceptable grain yield in marginal environments of arid regions that are characterized by lack of forage. Field experiment was performed in two consecutive growing seasons at an arid region affected by salinity in irrigation water and soil at Western Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. The study aimed to optimize sowing date and screen salt-tolerant barley genotypes that perform better in terms of forage yield and quality as well as grain and biomass yield production in salt-affected environment. Sowing dates, genotypes, and their interaction significantly impacted most of the studied variables such as forage yield, crude protein yield, and grain and biomass yields. The early sowing in late October yielded higher than intermediate sowing in mid-November and late sowing in early December. Some of the tested genotypes performed better than others as indicated by about 50% higher forage yield, 6% crude protein content, 39% grain and 21% biological yields (total aboveground dry matter), suggesting higher adaptation capacity. Interestingly, grain and biological yields did not differ significantly between dual-purpose approach and grain-only pattern. In conclusion, dual-purpose barley was found favorable for producing grain and forage production in similar environments under early sowing date.

1. Introduction

Large agricultural areas in the Mediterranean region are affected by salinity [1]. Indeed, salinity is one of the most important abiotic stresses that destructively affect crop production, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions [2,3]. The arid environments are characterized by water shortage, frequent drought, dry seasons, high climatic variation and different forms of land degradation [4,5,6]. The recent climate change is characterized by decreasing precipitation and increasing temperature, resulting in greater aridity. These conditions increase soil salinity due to salt accumulation in surface layers as a result of higher soil evaporation rates [7].
Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) is one of the main winter cereals in the Mediterranean region and it has the advantage of growing in marginal environments that are unsuitable for other cereal crops. It ranks fourth in terms of cereal acreage and total production after wheat, maize and rice [8]. Its major uses are livestock or poultry feeding and raw product for malt and starch production as well as for human consumption due to its substantial health benefits and content of dietary fiber [9,10].
Cultivation of cereals for both forage and grain yields during the same growing season is defined as s dual-purpose management system. Plants are grown for grain production but clipped at vegetative stage, then left to redevelop and produce grains [11]. Wheat, barley, triticale, and oat are commonly cultivated for dual-purpose in the Mediterranean basin [12,13,14]. However, barley is advantaged by its tolerance to salinity and therefore producing higher biomass under salinity stress compared with other cereal crops [15,16,17,18]. In addition, it is characterized by rapid re-growing after grazing while maintaining similar yield levels to that of un-grazed ones [19].
Mediterranean regions, especially arid and semi-arid environments, are characterized by low rainfall which makes year-round maintenance fodder production challenging and expensive [12,20,21,22]. The issue is further intensified in salt-affected areas as most forage crops are sensitive to salinity stress. One of the feasible solutions is the cultivation of dual-purpose barley which can be grazed or harvested at tillering stage for forage production and then re-grow for grain production [23,24].
The success of dual-purpose barley in marginal environments is subject to proper agronomic management practices along with the use of improved genotypes. Adaptation to climate change by adjusting sowing date and using improved genotypes can mitigate the negative effects of climate change on barley production [16,21,22]. Sowing date is considered as one of the major agricultural practices that control barley production, particularly when planted as a dual-purpose crop. Several reports emphasized the importance of optimizing sowing date for dual-purpose barley in order to successfully produce high forage and grain yields [25,26,27]. Another crucial factor is growing site-specific genotypes that are more adapted to the surrounding environment in the context of genotype by management by environment interaction [28,29,30,31]. This was highlighted in previous research that documented different responses of barely genotypes to management practices with respect to their dual-purpose ability in diverse climate conditions [32,33,34,35]. Consequently, it is vital to investigate sowing dates of different cultivars under a dual-purpose system to identify optimal management for producing high forage and grain yields. For that reason, the current study was performed to assess the effect of sowing date on forage yield, forage quality, grain yield, and related traits of various barley genotypes with different genetic background grown in salt-affected sandy soil in the Mediterranean environment.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Agricultural Practices

Field experiment was performed at Ras–Sudr experimental station, Desert Research Center, Western Sinai Peninsula, Egypt (29°35′59″ N, 32°42′05″ E) during 2018–2019 and 2019–2020 growing seasons. The location is described as semiarid with very low precipitation (annual precipitation about 50 mm), unavailable freshwater, while ground-water is largely affected by salinity. The average monthly temperature and monthly cumulative precipitation during the two growing seasons as well as long-term average of 38 years are shown in Table 1. Soil samples were collected to determine soil chemical properties (four samples per replication) before sowing from 0–30 cm soil depth in both growing seasons (Table 2). The soil is sandy loam throughout the profile (86.95% sand, 8.75% silt and 4.30% clay) with a slightly alkaline pH of 8.15. Electrical conductivity of soil was estimated using EC1:1 method by adding 100 mL distilled water to 100 g oven-dried soil and the mixture was shaken for 30 min [36,37]. After preparing the extract, the EC was determined using conductivity meter. Average electrical conductivity of soil water extract (1:1) of 7.74 ds m−1 and irrigation water is also affected by salinity (8.35 ds m−1).
Phosphorus fertilizer was added during seedbed preparation at rate of 31 kg P ha−1 as super-phosphate (15.5% P2O5), potassium fertilizer was applied at rate of 60 kg K ha−1 as potassium sulphate (48% K2O) in one dose with the first dose of nitrogen fertilizer. Nitrogen fertilizer was performed with rate of 140 kg N ha−1 as ammonium sulphate (20.5% N). Dual-purpose production system received additionally 50 kg N ha−1. Weed control was applied as recommended for barley cultivation in the region [38], using post-emergence herbicides Granstar 75% DF [Tribenuron methyl (Sulfonyl urea) @ 750 g kg−1] for broadleaf weed and Axial XL (Pinoxaden and Cloquintocet-mexyl) for grass weed control. There was no relevant pest or disease pressure in the two growing seasons. According to the standard practice for this region furrow irrigation was used every week and it was cutoff two weeks before harvest (about 400 mm in total for growing season).

2.2. Plant Material and Experimental Design

Five commercial six-row barley genotypes (Hordeum vulgare L.) were used in this study: G-123, G-126, G-131, G-132, and G-2000 (Table S1). The experimental design was split-split plot in three replicates. The main plots were allocated for sowing date and three dates were tested. Sowing dates were 25 October, 14 November, and 4 December. The sub-plots were assigned for production systems which were: (i) only-grain (without-cutting) and (ii) dual-purpose with one forage removal at 45 days after sowing (DAS). Sub-sub plots were assigned for the evaluated five barley genotypes. Each experimental unit was 1.2 m wide (six 0.2-m spaced rows) and 3 m long. The seeds were planted at a density of 400 seeds m−2.

2.3. Measured Traits

Plants in dual-purpose pattern were cut once after 45 DAS at 5 cm above soil surface level and fresh forage was weighed. Samples were weighted after oven drying at 72 °C for 48 h to estimate herbage dry yield. No forage removal was performed in only-grain system. Total nitrogen (N) was measured using micro-Kjeldahl method. Crude protein content was estimated by multiplying N percentage by 5.88 [39]. At maturity, plant height was measured as the distance in centimeters from the ground to the top of spike. The number of spikes was counted in 0.5 m2. The number of grains spike−1 was measured from ten randomly collected spikes at each plot. 1000-grain weight was recorded as weight of 1000 grains samples. Both grain yield and biological yield (total aboveground dry matter) were estimated by harvesting four central rows from each plot and then converted per hectare. The grain yield was adjusted to 12.5% moisture content.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

R statistical software version 3.6. was used for analyzing the data of this study. Differences among sowing date, production system, evaluated genotypes, and their interactions were separated by the least significant difference (LSD) at p ≤ 0.05. Principal component analysis was implemented on the averages of the evaluated traits to study their interrelationship.

3. Results

3.1. Forage and Crude Protein Yields

Analysis of variance displayed highly significant effects of sowing date, genotype performance and their interaction on fresh forage, dry matter and crude protein yields (Table 3). Growing season effect was similar during both years of study. Early sowing on 25 October had the highest forage yield (fresh and dry) and protein content followed by intermediate (14 November) and late sowing (4 December) dates, respectively. Among the tested genotypes; G-123, G-126, and G-2000 possessed the highest forage yield and quality compared to G-131 and G-132. The interaction between sowing dates and evaluated genotypes was highly significant and the averages were presented in Figure 1. The maximum fresh forage yield was produced by G-2000 under early sowing date (16,977 kg ha−1) while the lowest fresh forage yield was recorded by G-131 under late sowing date (7452 kg ha−1), (Figure 1A). Similarly, highest dry matter and crude protein yields were obtained by G-2000 followed by G-123 and G-126 under early sowing date whereas the lowest dry matter and crude protein yields were obtained by G-131 and G-132 under late sowing date (Figure 1B,C).

3.2. Grain Yield and Its Components

Grain yield and its components were significantly affected by sowing date, production system, genotypic performance and their interactions (Table 3). Number of spikes m−2 as one of the major yield components significantly differed in response to sowing date. The uppermost number of spikes was obtained by early sowing date on 25 October. Otherwise, the fewest number of spikes was recorded by late sowing on 4 December. Likewise, production system had significant effect on number of spikes. Obviously, dual-purpose produced higher number of spikes (238.9) than only-grain pattern (227.5) by 5%. The evaluated genotypes exhibited significant differences; G-2000 possessed the copious number of spikes (263.4) followed by G-123 (254.9) while G-131 and G-132 showed the fewest number of spikes (203.1 and 208.4). There was significant three-way interaction effects on grain yield and its component (Table 3). The significant interaction effects resulted from the varied differences between production systems within sowing dates for different genotypes (Figure 2A). The highest number of spikes was assigned for G-2000 followed by G-123 and G-126 under early and intermediate sowing dates in dual-purpose system. Whereas the lowest number of spikes was presented by G-131 and G-132 under late sowing date in dual-purpose pattern.
Number of grains spike−1 is an important yield component and has a direct effect on barley grain yield, early or intermediate sowing dates produced significantly higher number of grains spike−1 (44.7 and 44.0) than late sowing date (41.8) (Table 3).
On the other hand, production system did not influence this variable. However, the genotypes showed significant differences in the number of grains spike−1. The genotype G-126 had highest number of grains spike−1 (45.3) followed by G-2000 (44.3), while G-132 presented the lowest number of grains spike−1 (41.3). The interaction results demonstrated that the highest number of grains per spike (47.5) was obtained by G-126 under early sowing date in grain-only pattern (Figure 2B). Similarly, 1000-grain weight was significantly influenced by sowing date (Table 3). The heaviest grains were produced by early sowing (42.3 g) compared to late sowing (40 g). Significant differences were also observed among genotypes in grain index (1000-grain weight). G-123 produced the heaviest grains followed by G-126, while G-131 gave the lightest grain index. The three way interaction results indicated that the heaviest grain index was obtained by G-123 under early sowing date in grain-only pattern (46.9 g), whereas the lightest grains was recorded by G-132 under late sowing date in dual-purpose system (37.6) (Figure 2C).
Grain yield was the result of combined effect for the above-mentioned three yield components. Noticeably, sowing date had significant effect on final barley grain yield (Table 3). Early sowing (25 October) exhibited the highest grain yield followed by intermediate and late sowing date. Production system had no significant difference in grain yield, therefore is strongly recommended for both grain and forage production in the study region and similar environments. The evaluated genotypes displayed greatly significant differences in grain yield; G-123 and G-2000 recorded the highest yield followed by G-126 (Table 3). The three-way interaction displayed that G-2000 and G-123 exhibited maximum grain yield under early sowing conditions in both production systems. Otherwise, the lowest grain yield was displayed by G-131 and G-132 under late sowing in dual-purpose pattern, (Figure 2D).

3.3. Plant Height and Biological Yield

Plant height was significantly impacted by sowing date (Table 3). It was significantly depressed and plant had short vegetative growth under late sowing compared to early ones. Plant height decreased from 78.56 cm at early sowing to 67.05 cm at late sowing. In respect of production system, it had no significant effect on plant height. The evaluated genotypes displayed highly significant variation in plant height showing that G-2000 followed by G-126 and G-123 exhibited tallest plants. The three-way interaction displayed that G-2000 exhibited tallest plants under early sowing in both production systems followed by G-123 and G-126. The shortest plants were observed in G-131 and G-132 under late sowing in dual-purpose pattern (Figure 3A). Similarly, biological yield significantly differed in response to sowing date (Table 3). The maximum biological yield (8348 kg ha−1) was achieved by early sowing compared to late sowing (7037 kg ha−1) (Table 3). The production system had no significant effect on biological yield. Otherwise, the genotypes displayed significant differences; G-123 and G-2000 recorded the highest biological yield compared to G-131 and G-132. In addition, it is evident from Figure 3B that the highest biological yield was obtained by G-2000 and G-123 under early sowing date in dual-purpose system, while the lowest biological yield was recorded by G-131 and G-132 under late sowing date in dual-purpose pattern (Figure 3B).

3.4. Interrelationship among Evaluated Traits

The interrelationships between evaluated agronomic traits were estimated by principal components under different production systems. The first two principal components presented about 86.75 and 84.92% of variability under only-grain and dual-purpose patterns, respectively. Subsequently, the first two principal components were used to construct the biplot (Figure 4). The traits represented by parallel vectors or vectors close to each other revealed strong positive association. Under only-grain pattern, the evaluated traits could be divided into three groups (Figure 4A). The first group included only 1000-grain weight. The second group comprised of number of spikes per square meter, grain yield, and biological yield. The third group contained number of grains per spike and plant height. Furthermore, under dual-purpose pattern the evaluated traits could be divided into two groups (Figure 4B). The first group comprised of number of spikes per square meter, fresh forage yield, grain yield, and biological yield. The second group contained 1000-grain weight, number of grains per spike, crude protein yield, dry matter yield and plant height. In respect of the genotypes; the PCA separated the evaluated genotypes based on the investigated traits under different sowing dates. The genotypes; G-2000, G123, and G126 displayed the highest positive scores on PC1 under early sowing and were located on the far right of the biplot. On the other hand, G-131 and G-132 exhibited the highest negative scores and were placed on the far left of the biplot.

4. Discussion

Results of the present research showed the potential of dual-purpose barley to provide high quality forage and grain yields in salt-affected regions. This was evidenced by the non-significantly different grain and biological yields between dual-purpose and grain only management systems (Table 3). Yield attribute variables did not show advantages of grain only management systems, which resulted in a similar yield with dual-purpose barley. These results confirm that dual-purpose management system is highly recommended for fresh production of forage yield and at the same time similar yield level of grain only systems in marginal environments affected by salinity stress. Barley has a short growth cycle that allows to set seed redeveloping and escaping heat and drought stress. In addition, cutting may have stimulated greater tiller numbers which has resulted in greater number of spikes per square meter in dual-purpose barley compared with grain-only system (Table 3). These mechanisms might explain the successful application of dual-purpose barley in the present study, particularly under early sowing in October for all genotypes (Figure 2). Meanwhile, late sowing in December showed significant yield reduction by dual-purpose than grain only system. This might be due to not receiving the growing degree day (GDD) requirements at early growth stages which reinforced plants to hasten maturity. In addition, dual-purpose system required fifteen more days to reach physiological maturity than grain only irrespective of sowing date. In this context, Juskiw et al. [40] documented the association between GDD requirements of growth stages and grain yield in different barley genotypes.
The results favor the dual-purpose system over the grain-only system due to the invaluable forge yield by the dual-purpose system and, meanwhile, similar grain yield to the grain-only system. Variable findings are reported by previous researches on the impact of forage removal on grain yield of barley. Some have reported no yield reduction or even yield increase by forage removal compared with grain-only system [24,41]. This was attributed to lower incidence of lodging, rapid recovery of leaf area, and moderation of foliar disease. Harrison et al. [24] reported positive impact of forage removal under water deficit conditions to conservation of soil moisture and greater remobilization of stem reserves to grains. On the other hand, significant yield reduction by forage removal was observed which was attributed to the removal of the crop growing points and to a smaller photosynthetic surface after forage removal [42,43,44]. Nonetheless, despite less grain yield, the economic return of dual-purpose barley was considerably greater in a low forage production environment [44].
The findings of present research suggest early sowing in October for successful application of dual-purpose system. Late sowing shortens development phases, which accordingly reduces photosynthetic efficiency and source-sink relationship. In addition, late sowing might expose plants to heat stress in hot environments during the vulnerable growth stage of grain filling and therefore adversely affect yield-related traits and biological yield as reported in the present results. The negative impacts of late sowing were more pronounced in dual-purpose system and negatively affected forage and crude protein yields. These results agree with previous research findings where significantly higher plant height, yield attributes, and grain yield were reported under early sowing in the end of October than later sowing [45,46,47,48]. Negative impacts of late sowing on barley growth and grain yield and its components also were reported by Royo et al. [49]; Singh et al. [50]; Fayed et al. [25]; Farooq et al. [26], and Tahir et al. [27], agreeing with present results. Likewise, forage and crude protein yields tended to be gradually decreased due to delaying of sowing date from 25 October to 14 November or 4 December. Early sowing in late October exhibited maximum forage yield and crude protein content compared with late sowing date in early December. Such a result confirms that climatic conditions were less suitable for growth duration especially temperature degree under late sowing date. These results are in accordance with those reported by Singh et al. [50] and Choudhary and Chaplot [51] showing that early sowing in the end of October or beginning of November resulted in higher protein content and nitrogen accumulation in green fodder, grain and straw over late sowing. Besides, Salama [14] reported that cutting barley at early growth stages (45 and 55 DAS) caused significant increase in forage yield and crude protein content compared to late cutting at 65 DAS.
Barley genotypes respond differently in terms of grain yield, yield attributes, forage yield, and forage protein content, especially under environmental stress [16,30,31,48]. The obtained results revealed highly significant differences among evaluated barley genotypes under salinity stress. The genotypes; G-123, G-126, and G-2000 produced highest forage yield, crude protein, grain yield and its components as well as biological yield. Such differences were due to genetic variation in used genotypes and their interaction with environmental conditions [18,29]. These results are in accordance with those reported by Royo et al. [49]; Kaur et al. [52]; Sharma [32]; Hundal et al. [33]; Choudhary and Chaplot [51]; Hajighasemi et al. [44]; and Kandic et al. [35]. They demonstrated significant differences among dual-purpose barley genotypes in respect of forage yield, protein content, and grain yield.

5. Conclusions

According to the present findings, implementation of dual-purpose barley is a vital alternative approach to produce high quality forage yield plus acceptable grain yield especially under marginal environments in arid regions. Early sowing on 25 October caused significant increase in forage yield, crude protein, and grain and biological yields of barley compared to intermediate (14 November) and late sowing (4 December). Which outlines avenue for investigating further early sowing dates in future research on dual-purpose barley. Barley genotypes responded differently in terms of grain yield and its components, biological yield, forage yield and forage protein content. G-123, G-126, and G-2000 exhibited uppermost grain yield, yield components, forage yield, and crude protein and biological yield especially under early sowing conditions in dual-purpose approach. Further exploration of barley genotypes can identify other genotypes better adapted to this production system.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/agronomy11040717/s1, Table S1. Pedigree, origin and released year of evaluated barley genotypes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R.; A.A. and E.M.; methodology, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R. and E.M.; Software, A.A.; M.F.A. and E.M.; validation, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R. and E.M.; formal analysis E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R. and E.M.; investigation, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R. and E.M.; resources, E.S.A.M.; H.I.A.F.; A.A. and M.F.A.; data curation, M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R.; A.A.; M.F.A. and E.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; and E.M.; writing—review and editing, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R.; A.A.; M.F.A. and E.M.; visualization, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R.; A.A.; M.F.A. and E.M.; supervision, E.S.A.M. and E.M.; project administration, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R.; A.A.; M.F.A. and E.M.; funding acquisition, E.S.A.M.; E.-S.E.A.E.-S.; H.I.A.F.; M.A.T.Y.; M.O.A.R.; A.A.; M.F.A. and E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Desert Research Center and Zagazig University for the technical and financial support of this research. The authors extend their appreciation to the Taif University for funding this work through Taif University Researchers Supporting Project number (TURSP-2020/111), Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aragüés, R.; Urdanoz, V.; Çetin, M.; Kirda, C.; Daghari, H.; Ltifi, W.; Lahlou, M.; Douaik, A. Soil salinity related to physical soil characteristics and irrigation management in four Mediterranean irrigation districts. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 959–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Isayenkov, S.V.; Maathuis, F.J. Plant salinity stress: Many unanswered questions remain. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Awaad, H.A.; Mansour, E.; Akrami, M.; Fath, H.E.; Javadi, A.A.; Negm, A. Availability and feasibility of water desalination as a non-conventional resource for agricultural irrigation in the mena region: A review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reaney, S.M.; Bracken, L.J.; Kirkby, M.J. The importance of surface controls on overland flow connectivity in semi-arid environments: Results from a numerical experimental approach. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 28, 2116–2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Chesson, P.; Gebauer, R.L.; Schwinning, S.; Huntly, N.; Wiegand, K.; Ernest, M.S.; Sher, A.; Novoplansky, A.; Weltzin, J.F. Resource pulses, species interactions, and diversity maintenance in arid and semi-arid environments. Oecologia 2004, 141, 236–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Attia, A.; El-Hendawy, S.; Al-Suhaibani, N.; Tahir, M.U.; Mubushar, M.; dos Santos Vianna, M.; Ullah, H.; Mansour, E.; Datta, A. Sensitivity of the DSSAT model in simulating maize yield and soil carbon dynamics in arid Mediterranean climate: Effect of soil, genotype and crop management. Field Crops Res. 2021, 260, 107981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, J.; Mueller, V. Coastal climate change, soil salinity and human migration in Bangladesh. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 981–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAOSTAT. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Statistical Database. 2021. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 13 February 2021).
  9. Oscarsson, M.; Andersson, R.; Salomonsson, A.C.; Åman, P. Chemical composition of barley samples focusing on dietary fibre components. J. Cereal Sci. 1996, 24, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Newman, C.; Newman, R. A Brief History of Barley Foods. Cereal Foods World 2006, 51, 4–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bell, L.W.; Harrison, M.T.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Dual-purpose cropping—Capitalising on potential grain crop grazing to enhance mixed-farming profitability. Crop Pasture Sci. 2015, 66, i–iv. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Francia, E.; Pecchioni, N.; Destri Nicosia, O.L.; Paoletta, G.; Taibi, L.; Franco, V.; Odoardi, M.; Stanca, A.M.; Delogu, G. Dual-purpose barley and oat in a Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Res. 2006, 99, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Decker, J.E.; Epplin, F.M.; Morley, D.L.; Peeper, T.F. Economics of five wheat production systems with no-till and conventional tillage. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 364–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Salama, H.S.A. Dual purpose barley production in the mediterranean climate: Effect of seeding rate and age at forage cutting. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2019, 13, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, Z.; Cuin, T.A.; Zhou, M.; Twomey, A.; Naidu, B.P.; Shabala, S. Compatible solute accumulation and stress-mitigating effects in barley genotypes contrasting in their salt tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 4245–4255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Fu, L.; Shen, Q.; Kuang, L.; Yu, J.; Wu, D.; Zhang, G. Metabolite profiling and gene expression of Na/K transporter analyses reveal mechanisms of the difference in salt tolerance between barley and rice. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 130, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jamshidi, A.; Javanmard, H.R. Evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes for salinity tolerance under field conditions using the stress indices. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2018, 9, 2093–2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Moustafa, E.S.; Ali, M.; Kamara, M.M.; Awad, M.F.; Hassanin, A.A.; Mansour, E. Field screening of wheat advanced lines for salinity tolerance. Agronomy 2021, 11, 281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. El-Shatnawi, M.K.; Al-Qurran, L.; Ereifej, K.; Saoub, H. Management optimization of dual-purpose barley (Hordeum spontaneum C. Koch) for forage and seed yield. J. Range Manag. 2011, 57, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Delogu, G.; Faccini, N.; Faccioli, P.; Reggiani, F.; Lendini, M.; Berardo, N.; Odoardi, M. Dry matter yield and quality evaluation at two phenological stages of forage triticale grown in the Po Valley and Sardinia, Italy. Field Crops Res. 2002, 74, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Desoky, E.-S.M.; Mansour, E.; Ali, M.; Yasin, M.A.; Abdul-Hamid, M.I.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F. Exogenously used 24-epibrassinolide promotes drought tolerance in maize hybrids by improving plant and water productivity in an arid environment. Plants 2021, 10, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Desoky, E.-S.M.; Mansour, E.; Yasin, M.A.; El Sobky, E.-S.E.; Rady, M.M. Improvement of drought tolerance in five different cultivars of Vicia faba with foliar application of ascorbic acid or silicon. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 18, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yadav, R.; Kumar, A.; Lal, D. Effect of cutting management and nitrogen levels on biomass production and proximate quality of barley (Hordeum vulgare) in saline soil. Indian J. Agron. 2003, 48, 199–202. [Google Scholar]
  24. Harrison, M.T.; Evans, J.R.; Dove, H.; Moore, A.D. Dual-purpose cereals: Can the relative influences of management and environment on crop recovery and grain yield be dissected? Crop Pasture Sci. 2012, 62, 930–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fayed, T.B.; El-Sarag, E.I.; Hassanein, M.K.; Magdy, A. Evaluation and prediction of some wheat cultivars productivity in relation to different sowing dates under North Sinai region conditions. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2015, 60, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Farooq, U.; Khan, E.A.; Khakwani, A.; Ahmed, S.; Ahmed, N.; Zaman, G. Impact of sowing time and seeding density on grain yield of wheat variety Gomal-08. Asian J. Agric. Biol. 2016, 4, 38–44. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tahir, S.; Ahmad, A.; Khaliq, T.; Cheema, M.J.M. Evaluating the impact of seed rate and sowing dates on wheat productivity in semi-arid environment. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2019, 22, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mansour, E.; Moustafa, E.S.A.; Desoky, E.-S.M.; Ali, M.M.A.; Yasin, M.A.T.; Attia, A.; Alsuhaibani, N.; Tahir, M.U.; El-Hendawy, S. Multidimensional evaluation for detecting salt tolerance of bread wheat genotypes under actual saline field growing conditions. Plants 2020, 9, 1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mansour, E.; Moustafa, E.S.A.; El-Naggar, N.Z.A.; Abdelsalam, A.; Igartua, E. Grain yield stability of high-yielding barley genotypes under Egyptian conditions for enhancing resilience to climate change. Crop Pasture Sci. 2018, 69, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abaza, G.M.S.M.; Awaad, H.A.; Attia, Z.M.; Abdel-lateif, K.S.; Gomaa, M.A.; Abaza, S.M.S.M.; Mansour, E. Inducing potential mutants in bread wheat using different doses of certain physical and chemical mutagens. Plant Breed. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 252–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gharib, M.; Qabil, N.; Salem, A.; Ali, M.; Awaad, H.; Mansour, E. Characterization of wheat landraces and commercial cultivars based on morpho-phenological and agronomic traits. Cereal Res. Commun. 2021, 49, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sharma, N. Evaluation of dual purpose barley varieties under irrigated situation. Range Manag. Agrofor. 2009, 30, 57–58. [Google Scholar]
  33. Hundal, J.; Kumar, B.; Wadhwa, M.; Bakshi, M.; Ram, H. Nutritional evaluation of dual purpose barley as fodder. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 84, 298–301. [Google Scholar]
  34. Singh, B.; Dhaka, A.; Kumar, M. Performance of dual purpose barley varieties under different nitrogen application schedules. Forage Res. 2016, 41, 246–248. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kandic, V.; Dodig, D.; Secanski, M.; Prodanovic, S.; Brankovic, G.; Titan, P. Grain yield, agronomic traits, and protein content of two- and six-row barley genotypes under terminal drought conditions. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 79, 648–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jackson, M. Soil Chemical Analysis; Prentice Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1958; Volume 498, pp. 183–204. [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhang, H.; Schroder, J.; Pittman, J.; Wang, J.; Payton, M. Soil salinity using saturated paste and 1: 1 soil to water extracts. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 1146–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. ARWC. Approved Recommendations for Weed Control. Agricultural Pesticides Committee, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Egypt. Available online: http://www.apc.gov.eg/en/default.aspx (accessed on 10 November 2019).
  39. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 16th ed.; Choice Reviews Online: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; p. 35. [Google Scholar]
  40. Juskiw, P.E.; Jame, Y.W.; Kryzanowski, L. Phenological development of spring barley in a short-season growing area. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Virgona, J.; Gummer, F.; Angus, J. Effects of grazing on wheat growth, yield, development, water use, and nitrogen use. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2006, 57, 1307–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Epplin, F.; Hossain, I.; Krenzer Jr, E. Winter wheat fall–winter forage yield and grain yield response to planting date in a dual-purpose system. Agric. Syst. 2000, 63, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Khalil, S.K.; Khan, F.; Rehman, A.; Muhammad, F.; Amanullah, K.A.; Khan, S.W.; Akhtar, S.; Zubair, M.; Khalil, I.; Shah, M.K. Dual purpose wheat for forage and grain yield in response to cutting, seed rate and nitrogen. Pak. J. Bot. 2011, 43, 937–947. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hajighasemi, S.; Keshavarz-Afshar, R.; Chaichi, M.R. Nitrogen fertilizer and seeding rate influence on grain and forage yield of dual-purpose Barley. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 1486–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Hameed, E.; Shah, W.A.; Shad, A.; Bakht, J.; Muhammad, T. Effect of different planting dates, seed rate and nitrogen levels on wheat. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2003, 2, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Baloch, M.S.; Nadim, M.A.; Zubair, M.; Awan, I.U.; Khan, E.A.; Ali, S. Evaluation of wheat under normal and late sowing conditions. Pak. J. Bot. 2012, 44, 1727–1732. [Google Scholar]
  47. Singh, A.K.; Singh, B.; Thakral, S. Effect of sowing time, seed rates and row spacing on yield of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in Haryana. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2019, 7, 509–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mani, J.K.; Singh, R.; Singh, D.; Shekher, C. Effect of sowing dates on physiological parameters of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) crop. J. Agrometeorol. 2009, 11, 81–84. [Google Scholar]
  49. Royo, C.; López, A.; Serra, J.; Tribó, F. Effect of sowing date and cutting stage on yield and quality of irrigated barley and triticale used for forage and grain. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 1997, 179, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Singh, J.; Mahal, S.; Singh, A. Productivity and quality of malt Barley (Hordeum vulgare) as affected by sowing date, rate and stage of nitrogen application. Indian J. Agron. 2013, 58, 72–80. [Google Scholar]
  51. Choudhary, M.; Chaplot, P. Effect of sowing dates and fertility levels on nutrient uptake and quality of dual purpose barley varieties. Forage Res. 2015, 41, 188–190. [Google Scholar]
  52. Kaur, G.; Aulakh, C.; Gill, J. Evaluation of dual purpose barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) as influenced by varieties, row spacing and time of cutting. Indian J. Ecol. 2009, 36, 143–145. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 11 00717 g001 550
Figure 1. Influence of sowing date on fresh forage yield (A), dry matter yield (B), and crude protein yield (C) of five barley genotypes under salinity conditions averaged over the two growing seasons.
Figure 1. Influence of sowing date on fresh forage yield (A), dry matter yield (B), and crude protein yield (C) of five barley genotypes under salinity conditions averaged over the two growing seasons.
Agronomy 11 00717 g001
Agronomy 11 00717 g002 550
Figure 2. Influence of sowing date and forage cutting on number of spikes per square meter (A), number of grains per spike (B), 1000-grain weight (C), and grain yield (D) in five barley genotypes under salinity conditions averaged over the two growing seasons.
Figure 2. Influence of sowing date and forage cutting on number of spikes per square meter (A), number of grains per spike (B), 1000-grain weight (C), and grain yield (D) in five barley genotypes under salinity conditions averaged over the two growing seasons.
Agronomy 11 00717 g002
Agronomy 11 00717 g003 550
Figure 3. Influence of sowing date and forage cutting on plant height (A) and biological yield (B) in five barley genotypes under salinity conditions averaged over the two growing seasons.
Figure 3. Influence of sowing date and forage cutting on plant height (A) and biological yield (B) in five barley genotypes under salinity conditions averaged over the two growing seasons.
Agronomy 11 00717 g003
Agronomy 11 00717 g004 550
Figure 4. Biplot of principal components analysis demonstrating the relationship among the evaluated traits of five barley genotypes in only-grain (A) and dual-purpose (B) patterns under different sowing dates over averaged over the two growing seasons. PH is plant height (cm), NS/SM is number of spikes per square meter, NG/S is number of grains per spike, 1000-GW is 1000-grain weight (g), GY is grain yield (kg ha−1), BY is biological yield (kg ha−1), FFY is fresh forage yield (kg ha−1), DMY is dry matter yield (kg ha−1), and CPY is crude protein yield (kg ha−1).
Figure 4. Biplot of principal components analysis demonstrating the relationship among the evaluated traits of five barley genotypes in only-grain (A) and dual-purpose (B) patterns under different sowing dates over averaged over the two growing seasons. PH is plant height (cm), NS/SM is number of spikes per square meter, NG/S is number of grains per spike, 1000-GW is 1000-grain weight (g), GY is grain yield (kg ha−1), BY is biological yield (kg ha−1), FFY is fresh forage yield (kg ha−1), DMY is dry matter yield (kg ha−1), and CPY is crude protein yield (kg ha−1).
Agronomy 11 00717 g004
Table
Table 1. Monthly average minimum temperature (Tmin, °C), maximum temperature (Tmax, °C), growing degree days (GDD, °C) and precipitation (Prec., mm) in the two growing seasons and 38 years monthly averages (1983–2020).
Table 1. Monthly average minimum temperature (Tmin, °C), maximum temperature (Tmax, °C), growing degree days (GDD, °C) and precipitation (Prec., mm) in the two growing seasons and 38 years monthly averages (1983–2020).
MonthTminTmaxGDD *Prec
2018–2019
November14.725.05826.4
December9.618.53268.5
January7.117.44681.7
February8.218.94998.7
March9.721.85597.2
April12.525.46642.1
2019–2020
November15.126.14184.2
December9.919.14398.4
January7.016.83472.8
February8.218.63999.3
March10.222.44766.9
April13.126.15943.7
38 years average
November13.423.9 7.4
December9.419.0 8.1
January7.617.4 7.7
February8.018.9 6.7
March9.922.4 7.2
April13.127.0 3.7
* Average monthly growing degree days was calculated based on a 0 °C baseline.
Table
Table 2. Chemical properties of soil and irrigated water at the experimental site.
Table 2. Chemical properties of soil and irrigated water at the experimental site.
CharacteristicsSoilWater
Soil particles distribution
Sand (%)86.95
Silt (%)8.75
Clay (%)4.30
Soil organic carbon content (%)0.18
Textural classSandy loam
Calcium carbonate (CaCO3,g kg−1)57.99
pH *8.157.96
Electrical conductivity (dS m−1) **7.748.35
Soluble cations and anions (mmolc L−1) **
Calcium (Ca2+)21.5422.92
Magnesium (Mg2+)17.3120.38
Sodium (Na+)25.9833.11
Potassium (K+)12.176.59
Carbonate (CO3=)0.00.0
Bicarbonate (HCO3−)29.4522.87
Chloride (Cl–)20.1234.54
Sulphate (SO4=)27.4325.59
Available nutrient (mg kg−1 soil)
Nitrogen (N)26.2
Phosphorus (P)5.2
Potassium (K)51.5
* Soil-water suspension 1: 2.5 ** Soil water extract 1: 1 mmolc L−1 is millimoles of charge per liter.
Table
Table 3. Impact of sowing date and production system on forage yield, forage quality, grain yield, and yield contributing traits of five barley genotypes under salinity conditions over two growing seasons (2018–2019 and 2019–2020).
Table 3. Impact of sowing date and production system on forage yield, forage quality, grain yield, and yield contributing traits of five barley genotypes under salinity conditions over two growing seasons (2018–2019 and 2019–2020).
Studied FactorsFFYDMYCPYNS/m2NG/S1000-GWGYPHBY
Sowing date (S)
Early (25 October)15456 A803.3 A66.13 A247.3 A44.70 A42.33 A4215 A78.56 A8348 A
Intermediate (14 November)13183 B736.5 B60.63 B241.9 A44.00 A41.39 AB4016 B74.94 B8070 B
Late (4 December)10930 C663.5 C54.62 C210.5 B41.82 B40.02 B3364 C67.05 C7037 C
Production system (P)
Only-grain0.0 0.0 0.00 227.5 B43.65 A41.31 A3879 A74.20 A7852 A
Dual-purpose13189 734.5 60.46 238.9 A43.37 A41.19 A3851 A72.83 A7785 A
Genotype (G)
G-12315839 a752.7 a61.96 a254.9 a43.46 b44.92 a4442 a73.48 ab8425 a
G-126 13102 b748.2 a61.59 a236.3 b45.33 a43.25 a4148 b74.71 a8099 b
G-13110378 d708.2 b58.30 b203.1 c43.20 b38.92 b3187 c72.33 b6902 d
G-13211044 c715.3 b58.89 b208.4 c41.27 c39.70 b3128 c72.21 b7314 c
G-2000 15585 a747.8 a61.56 a263.4 a44.28 ab39.45 b4420 a74.86 a8351 a
ANOVAdfp-value
Sowing date (S) 2<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0030.0010.024<0.001<0.001<0.001
Production system (P)1<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0710.055<0.0010.074<0.001
Genotype (G)40.0010.0010.001<0.0010.0120.0010.0010.0110.001
Season10.1420.0490.0520.1040.1740.0510.0210.0520.819
S × P2<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.013
S × G8<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.013<0.001
P × G4<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.0490.018<0.001<0.001<0.001
S × P × G8<0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.027<0.001<0.001<0.0010.107
FFY is fresh forage yield (kg ha−1), DMY is dry matter yield (kg ha−1), CPY is crude protein yield (kg ha−1), NS/m2 is number of spikes per square meter, NG/S is number of grains per spike, 1000-GW is 1000-grain weight (g), PH is plant height (cm), GY is grain yield (kg ha−1) and BY is biological yield (kg ha−1). Means followed by different letters under the same factor differ significantly by LSD (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moustafa, E.S.A.; El-Sobky, E.-S.E.A.; Farag, H.I.A.; Yasin, M.A.T.; Attia, A.; Rady, M.O.A.; Awad, M.F.; Mansour, E. Sowing Date and Genotype Influence on Yield and Quality of Dual-Purpose Barley in a Salt-Affected Arid Region. Agronomy 2021, 11, 717. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11040717

AMA Style

Moustafa ESA, El-Sobky E-SEA, Farag HIA, Yasin MAT, Attia A, Rady MOA, Awad MF, Mansour E. Sowing Date and Genotype Influence on Yield and Quality of Dual-Purpose Barley in a Salt-Affected Arid Region. Agronomy. 2021; 11(4):717. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11040717

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moustafa, Ehab S. A., El-Sayed E. A. El-Sobky, Hossam I. A. Farag, Mohamed A. T. Yasin, Ahmed Attia, Mohamed O. A. Rady, Mohamed F. Awad, and Elsayed Mansour. 2021. "Sowing Date and Genotype Influence on Yield and Quality of Dual-Purpose Barley in a Salt-Affected Arid Region" Agronomy 11, no. 4: 717. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy11040717

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop