Physiological Studies On Cuminum Plant And Its Important Diseases:
Abd Allah Sleh Mohamed El-khayat |
Author | |||||
|
Ph.D
|
Type | |||||
|
Benha University
|
University | |||||
|
|
Faculty | |||||
|
1992
|
Publish Year | |||||
|
Plants Diseases.
|
Subject Headings | |||||
|
These expor1meota were ca.rried out Ji.. u:’lng two uuc c e aa>lve seasons Dr 1988/1969. and 1909/1990 att;he Expo:r11ll0fltalfarm ot tOI.l }’acult,y of Agrioultu.re’ at Mouhl:ohor ~aga.zigUniversity.The experimental dealgen WUB in compret~ rundom1zedblock system with thr~e replicates. Thl~ work 1nclud~utwo main parts. The first includes t h re e experimt:~1t.s i.e._ The third experiment wa& to atudy the effect of soil modificationtreatments on the prementionuct churacterD.Part II : Pnth~~enical studies and fun~1cidal treatments:Pathologlcal ~tud1es.Effect o~ Bone rungicldea un growth. Plowerina Bnd chemicalcompc£1t1on of cumin pltUlta.Th~ moat 1U”.portUJ’lt .rCfHl1ts for the:J0- 1nvn:Jtigution~were ~a tallow ;-Part I ;-1- Fart~llz.in~ t- _ All. ro11arX treatments 1ncr~tl.::l.:d height or plantin tJt;h seasons whereas with )’ort:J-X treatman.taplar.t height increased only in thd necond oeason._ All fertilizer tret1.tmenta Lnc re aaed the nwober ofbrancnea/plant in both seuson~ except low WlU mcdiu.:nlevel of ;,orty X in the ftr.st SttaiJOU.Thd tr~Bh and dry we1gnt of h.~~b incrauscd signlric untly with all fert 111za.t ion t reatIlU::n t 3 compar~a with unfertilized plunt~._ ’fh.: UDfertil1zed plants produ~L”d t ne lowcot vul ueof root length compared wi til l1.11 f e rt il iZdd one u1n both BCtlHona._ TAd we~ weight of roota increased with all fertili2ationtreatwButa in both s~a90n~ corupared withc0/1trol treatment._ All fertilization tre~tmenta increased the meand1wreter of wnbela and a.lao tha mean nuabe r’ of umb~l~/plant in both seasons.Thu 3eed yield/plant increa.sed by all fertilizationtreatments 10 both sea30n~.’!h2 largest weight of 100· secas waroproduced fromth..: rnediUJIl . and high ro.t’;~J () t 4 3prayings /Sc-d.son) of Ji’0llar X and Fort,Y X.•r~:3pi:ctivclY .• in_ The fertL11zation treatments increa~cd oil p~rcentRgesJand tho :li(;he:st value obtaillcd wi th t ne hil:h }l’oliarXappl icut ton (It a pray Inga) ••• ’.rile fertilj,~ur , upplicut1cna of lrorty X nwl ~’o1111rXlncre as,-;d hit r02’ther trehtmenta.Tht: 1rr1gu ;oc plants wi th high o r med;..,Wt fllIiount of Yfuterdec re aeed C’H; emount of c uminaldehyde/ lu.n t c ompar-ed withcant rol ple.nt.. While irriga.tion pl~:.l1”t;j with low amountof water gavI: the same control val ue fer’ th iiJ charuc t c r ,,”b) Surface lrrL!atlon,- All surface irrigation tr~atments incr~aseJ the ~uanplant he ;1..ylt over contl”’ol plant 3 fo:- bothpl&.!l t s irrj gat.::d at 40-days interval vusn mor-e tallerthan both control or thoseirrig£lted z.t 30 and J5days interala.- The irrigation intervale affected c12urly thenumber of branches carried by p.Lan t , ~J.lhQ highest value:obtained N+th the medium interval ()5-Ut~ys).- ’.i’he t”reat (.nd dl”’y wc1cj1t of herb Lncr-c u.ae d with ullirr1e;ati(.n intervals than control plw..itlJ (without irrigation)d.lso the me an dr.Y weight of a t em s Lnc r-a asndan the irrig~tion i~terYal increased.- ’l’he ae aa 0:’.” root length, mean frcah and dry we1ehts ofroo ts inc r..::aa~d with all 11’.rigut ion t r-e atment a than con--trol pla.at~J (without irrigation).tor these characters wcr~ obtained with plante irrig~t~da~ the 4J-Jaya iAtery~l over all other treutment~.- Th$ n~b~r or umbela/plant increaHOu with all irri8ut1on1ntervilla than control plAnt. ’l’h= longur irrigationperio~ (40 da3a) resulted in the h1~,~t val~~ rol1ow~dby medLum period (J5-daya) and ahort one () O-day..:J) t he nco ntrol plWlt s ,_ The mean cliumeter of’ umbels and meWl n’.Hnb~r of ulflb~lu/plant inc re aae d with irrigated plWltu thW1 the un-irrigat~d ones. The 40 days interval wa~ th~ most eff~ctivein these cf!],ractere over all other t!·I’::ltt;l1ent~•_ i’he yie ilt of cwnin seeds/plant inc rt:tl.:3tHl wfth irrigatedpLarre s than the un-irrigated on~~.·· Alao t nel~ngest ~nterval wae the most sup~r[Dr in thi~ concernt han 0 thar treatments._ The lar,~Nit weight cf 100 seeds produced from pl ant sirr1gatnd at 40•.days interval follc·j,0d bydays tllld contral plants._ The oil percentage incraased with h] 1 irrigllt Lon per-iads UDce. the longer period (40-dQY~) produced thehighest ’,ercontage in bo’;h.aeutJonu,- rrhc Nitl’o,.!:en. phosphorus and po t aue Lum c onc en t r-at LonaLnc a-eaae c wi th all irrigation 1nterv[,da under a t udyin this V!c,rk.. Also the concentrLtion of these alementat er.de d to increase as the irr:’~ut ion Lnt erv aLincr~afled •_ Total cnrbohydrat~ content alao incr~uaud with irrigationtreatments than control p.Lant a, and t n> trend ofthe lnora~~e waa with the lnoread13Y Dr th~ int~ryul._ J.t’he short a,uC, medtum interval. betwean :~rri~u’t ion plunt udecreased ’Chi’; ::UnCiWlt of cwn1nclldehyde/p::ant. while longintarval 1!.::.l·O:~8ed the amou.n~ Dr cumintJ. dt:’hyae/ plant comparedwith. cent ro 1 plan t •Soil modificut1onThe high t ;”,1’plall t dec re aeec with all BO 1.1 modtr i c at iontreatmentg 1n both seaSOllS compared with control plantexcept (Lime and Sand t Lime ’t SLllrurJ t r-o ntmerrt a inthe ~H:cor1’:Jaa90n.Tne fresh w&ight of herb increased with 8.11 soil moditicat f on treatments in the firdt ae ason, whi1l.1 mos t of thet~aatments decr~ased it in the socond 3eU90n except 81.41-fur treatm~·nt.The s011 lnc,d1f1cat1on treatments incrt~u.:.h}d the dry weightor heY’b except with (Sancl and Lime + ::’:u.lfur) treutli~ont3ill the ii l’ :,t Scie:Jon. while 1t 1nCreU3(·.j it only with(Sand and ~;u,lfLl:r) treatments in the sec end seuson.•...The only ~oil modification treatments as (Lime, Sulfur,Sand ..•.Sul.’:ur and Sand + Lime ..•.Sultl.l.r). incr~U:Jed theroot length than control ple.nt in the first aeti,son whileall aoil ~••ol.l1f1catioll treatments dec r-eas ed root l~ngth insecond SBU_Jn.A.ll 9011 m’~difica.t1on treatments deCrCl!sed the fr&shweight ot loot in the second season, b..L’t ()nly (SUlldSand T” Lim’ Wld Lime .•. Sulfu.r) treutml:’ .•t u dc:creu~cdthe freab. lI.’a1ght of root 1n the first seaacn couipur-edwi th cont::’ol plant. Also all soil !Hodificllt1on tr0utmentsdac:-·eo.sed the dry weight ot roc t in tne scccndseuson but .1th 0 llPoa1t e ’ ~tt.”c t 1r. t45 i irst 3er.•Don 0.11’ao11 lUod1ti(,atiQ~tre.:itmeAts increased tk.: dry wtllght ofroot”c~mparHd with control plant.’L’he aoil moc.if1cation treatmanta incretl.tkd t ne numbe r’ ofumbela/plant in the a ec cr.d• ae ascn eXCt·pt (;;,s.n.d) tr~fitment.But oI.ly (Lime and Sulfur) treatn:..:-nt 3 inc reo.::H:dthe nuabe r’ of..unbels/pla.nt than co nt ro ; p Lant in the fir::ltseason.SI.~LU” ..) trea.tment 1ncrea.a~:dl”h~ d iWlietl.!r of(StL..nd. :$t...nd. !’ Lime) treatment IJ deCl~i::Lli.O~”·d the fiv~rageweight of seed s/ plant in the firs t ue a son , but n,ll ao11modificat Lon treatment s decreaaeu the weight of s~ed/plant in tt t’~ l;~cond seaaon except (”~Lllfu:c) treatment cumparedwit:: cnJ,.tro~ plu.nts.l’ The a.verag~ weight’ ot 100 aeed s Lne r-e a ..rec with .8oi.1. 111udi-!icat ion t r e at menta except (Sand) treu :m2.nt in the fir::ltaeaaon and (Sand + Lime, Lime + Sulfu.r f;I..l1d Sund T Lime +Sulfur) treaimenta in the second seU~0n.All s011 mod11’1c ation treatments dec r-eaaud 011 pe r-cent o.gein both tJeUfJ01’fJ except (Sulfur) treutihtwt in t no nt::condDeadon and (5.L.1tur •. ·, Sand .•..Lima UJ’HI.::la~ld T Sulfur) inthe tlrut ~e~ton._ Only (S~d •. 1.lIU~) treatnwnt decreased tHU ni trogen concent~.at1on c”c~pared with other treatment~.The pho apnc rus c one ent!~.l:1t,ten increauad with all :::JO 11mcdi!1cat1cn ,reatmento under this experiment comparedwi th control ’plant.The (Sand + Lime + Sulfur) treatmen t 1,I~c’rel.l£J.:d po t aas-. ium concentration than control plant. but other treatmentadecreas~d p~tassium concentration thun controlple.n.t.All soil modification treatments increuo~d total carbohydrateconce~ltra.tlon than control trea.tl;tent.Only (Sulfur. Sand of” Lime. Sand + Sulfur and Sand +L1me +Sulfur) treat’nent~ increased the amount of cwninaldehydecompared with control treatment ..Part 2In the? pa.thogenic t t::3 t.1:j ~ each of :F’uaar~~.!.! ~’Xy ~ 1?~ andfusarium ~!l!. attained the l~w valu:?;:, for Uta pe rc e ntag~ot hctL1thy oarvival plWltn compar-ee with other fl.U1gufJ.in botil saaac ns •With ~qaariu.fil oxysporUIn. all r ungd c rd e a c onc e nt r-at Lcnaincreased th~ pe:r~enta.ge ot healthy DU1”,1vtll plWlt:J com-~ with cpntrol plant: except low lQV~rJ. or Benlato-~OIin the secon~ season.With FLlSH.:ri urn iio1a.n1 all f’LUl.g101daa cone~nt.J,~~H1one 1.ncreasedthe poz-cen t age ot he:althy a ur-v z.va L plants compar-ed with c cr.t r-oL plant except high l~v.:l (;:f lk:,n.lutc-50in t~e f1rat s~ason.Under field cand it iens all tW’lgiCldo~ t r,~u.tlil.;:nt f) inc r(:usedtha perce~ltti.ge of healthy 3uryivf~1 pLant s OOUlp1:l.rt:d• witA cont ro 1 treatment.1 i rrht and mean n”’” b»r of branchefJ CtLrr- _ Mean P c1n~ ne-&- ~. -~ -lad by J.lAIlt WdX”U improved by iolsing diff~rt~nt tung1c1dt:t.l au bu ~unc e s thun I.1ntreut e d pJtln t!J •_ Tn~ meun fr~ nn and- dry we 1ght.fj 0 f” ~l’ rb •e.L u”0 Lncr-c uaa~l by l.uing:Wlt;i(: i:1~~ au bs t nnc ea t: flpt:c’ iullyRovral, ”3a,vist1n, Benlate and HOUlU.i-_ The mean lengh of roots, and ru.::M fresh ,WlU dri wai;3htof roots inert-ased as a result of using l’uagicide3 substWlceain bO’tt. sea.sons at the exparime!l’::~s._ The num ber ,,~l’ Ull:OE:ls/pl~.1Jlt Inc r-eaae d y’,t j;i{~ to ua Lng funinthis reapect was that of Baviat1n.,. ,_ ’lhe mean d 1Lunet~r 01” umbels iu.proved by lur.glc Ld ea subst anc e s ue ed than controlplanto, especially with HOlJiui-_ All fungicid~a treatments produced seed yield/pluntl1oreover l.lntraatedplants. Homa1-~O treated plantsproduced the highest seed yield/plant ov~r all other ~ub~-t anc e a ,a.,::e d a t h an un , re IIt ~r.l plall t J3, the mea t cf f ~: c t iv(: :J Ub:Jt an cein this conce~n w~s Bavistin.to l.4:ling fLU,,.;.C Ld e a au uat enc e a ,t$ges were 0 btained w1th Homa-i.-80 treated plr10t in the, firtlt season ,lnd j)th.r t r-eat ed with Relllatc tu the sec ondSijD.Son._ Mineral.s cot: t ent of N. P and K in plc.nt he r-b WU8 tnc re aaedas a re;Hl.lt of utii!!g fung1c1das aubs t unc ee t hun con--trol plr.l1t._ All fung1c1oflfJSubstances incroased tot41 carbohydrCl.tr: cClntentover cont :-01 plant s except with mli.~~ol~X t r-e a’t ed plants.from th~ obtaining reaults of the~~ inv~3tig~tionsit co uld r-ec o”,.”endedt 0 r , ••in1n3 tho n19ho” t Y te III ot cuminseed. with hic;h .ontent ot oil o.nd cumin:.1Jl1ye |
Abstract | |||||
|
| .
Attachments |
