Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Effect of planting distance and nitrogen fertilizer on the yield and physiological traits of Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.3304
Submitted
21 January 2024
Published
17-10-2024
Versions

Abstract

To investigate the influence of planting distance and nitrogen fertilizer levels on yield and yield components of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, a study was conducted in 2021 at the educational and research farm of the Daikundi Higher Education Institute. Employing a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) Split-Plot arrangement with 2 replications, the research examined 4 planting distances (10, 15, 20 and 25 cm) as the primary factor and 3 nitrogen fertilizer levels (0, 50 and 100 kg N/ha) as the secondary factor. The analysis revealed that the highest seed yield for common beans, averaging 1220 kg/ha, was obtained with a planting distance of 25 cm and a nitrogen application rate of 100 kg N/ha. Conversely, the lowest yield, averaging 773 kg/ha, was recorded at the narrowest planting distance of 10 cm without nitrogen fertilization. Agronomic and physiological traits, such as increased total dry matter and leaf relative water content, were observed to positively correlate with grain yield in pinto beans. In contrast, reduced planting row spacing adversely affected seed yield, harvest index, phonological stages and other common bean characteristics, particularly at seeding stage. However, the application of 100 kg N/ha significantly improved certain measured traits. Based on these findings, the study recommends a combined agronomic practice of applying 100 kg N/ha and maintaining a planting row distance of 25 cm for optimal management of common bean crops in the Nili center of Daikundi province.

References

  1. MK H, MS I, GMC S. Effect of nitrogen and molybdenum on the growth and yield of bush bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Journal of Agroforestry and Environment. 2008;2(2):p. 95-98.
  2. Golchin A, Mousavi S, GhasemiGolezani , Saba J. Relationship between plant density and grain yield of three pinto bean cultivars at different sowing dates. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2008;p. 101-17.
  3. Salehi F. Study of plant density in promising red bean lines. The 1st Iranaian Pulses Symposium. 2005.
  4. Madani H, Shirzadi M, Darini F. Effect of plant density on yield and yield components of vigna and tepary local beans germplasm in Jiroft, Iran. New Finding in Agriculture. 2008;p. 93-104.
  5. Martnez J, Silva H, Ledent J, Pinto M. Effect of drought stress on the osmotic adjustment, cell wall elasticity and cell volume of six cultivars of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). European Journal of Agronomy. 2007;p. 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.08.003
  6. Powelson A, Udy R, Peachy Manath D. Row spacing effect on while mold and snap bean yield. Horticulture Weed Control. 1999; p. 220-27.
  7. Ziska L, Hall A, Hoover R. Irrigation management methods for reducing water use of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) and lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) while maintaining seed yield at maximum levels. Irrigation Science. 1985;p. 223-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00262468
  8. Andrade F, Calvio P, Cirilo A, Barbieri P. Yield responses to narrow rows depend on increased radiation interception. Agronomy Journal. 2002;p. 975-80. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.9750
  9. Faraji H, Gholizadeh S, Ouliaei, Azimi G. Effect of plant density on grain yield of three spotted bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars in Yasouj condition. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research.. 2010.
  10. Torabi J, Hasanzadeh A, Fayaz moghadam A. Effect of plant 264 population on some morph physiological characteristics of two Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars. Pajouhesh and Sazandegi. 2004;p. 63-71.
  11. Kahrarian B, Fatemi R. The effect of row and planting spacing on yeild in the white bean cv. Danshkadeh.. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 2005.
  12. Salehian H, Rafiey M, Fathi G, Siadat S. Effect of plant density on growth and seed yield of colza varieties under Andimeshk conditions. Iranian Crop Sciences Congress. Karaj–Iran. 2002.
  13. Bahavar N, Ebadi A, Tobeh A, amaati-e-Somarin S. Effects of nitrogen 272 application on growth of irrigated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under drought stress in 273 hydroponics condition.. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2009;p. 448-55. https://doi.org/10.3923/rjes.2009.448.455
  14. Zorica J. Investigation of mechanism of leaf growth inhibition in maize. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2001;p. 1-16.
  15. Ayaz S, McKenzie B, Hill G, McNeil D. Nitrogen distribution in four grain legumes. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 2004;p. 309-17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859604004356
  16. Sadras V, Vega C, Andrade F, Uhart S. Reproductive allometry in soybean, maize and sunflower.. Annals of Botany. 1996;85:p. 461-68. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1999.1084
  17. Narula N, Kumar V, Behl R, Deubel A. Effect of P-solubilizing Azotobacter chroococcum on N, P, K uptake in P-responsive wheat genotypes grown under greenhouse conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2000;p. 393-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/1522-2624(200008)163:4%3C393::AID-JPLN393%3E3.3.CO;2-N
  18. Rendig V, Broadbent F. Proteins and amino acids in grain of maize grown with various levels of applied N. Agronomy Journal. 1979;p. 509-12. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1979.00021962007100030032x
  19. Rao K, Moorthy B, Dash A, Lodh S. Effect of time of transplanting on grain yield and quality traits of Basmati-type scented rice (Oryza sativa) varieties in coastal Orissa. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1996;p. 333-37.
  20. Brothers M, Kelley J. Interrelationship of plant architecture and yield components in the pinto bean ideotype. Crop Science. 1993; p. 1234-38. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300060024x
  21. Malik V, Swanton C, Michaels T. Interaction of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars, row spacing and seeding density with annual weeds. Weed Science. 1993;p. 62-68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500057593
  22. Bayat A, Sepehri A, Ahmadvand G, Dorri H. Effect of water deficit stress on yield and yield components of pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences. 2010;p. 42-54.
  23. Hay R, Porter J. The physiology of crop yield. Blackwell Publishing. 2006.
  24. Anibal R, Ginzalez P, Hernandez A, Favelukes G. Comparison of drought tolerance in nitrogen fixing and inorganic nitrogen-grown common Beans. Plant Science. 2000;p. 31-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(99)00246-0
  25. Saedi A, Osmani M, Shams S. Principles of pulses crops. The 1st Afghanaian. 2018.
  26. Türkan I, Bor M, Özdemir F, Koca H. Differential responses of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants in the leaves of drought-tolerant P. acutifolius Gray and drought-sensitive P. vulgaris L. subjected to polyethylene glycol mediated water stress. Plant Science. 2005;p. 223-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2004.07.032
  27. Jiang Y, Huang B. Osmotic adjustment and root growth associated with drought preconditioning-enhanced heat tolerance in Kentucky bluegrass. Crop Science. 2001; p. 1168-73. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.4141168x
  28. McKenzie R, Middleton A, Seward K, Gaudiel R, Wildschut C, Bremer E. Fertilizer responses of dry bean in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2001; p. 343-50. https://doi.org/10.4141/P00-106

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.