Maximizing Water Use Efficiency by Roselle at South – East... El- Boraie, F.M. and A.M. Gaber

Journal of Applied Scienes Research, 5(1): 21-32, 2009
© 2009, INSInet Publication
Maximizing Water Use Efficiency by Roselle at South – East of Egypt
El- Boraie, F.M. and A.M. Gaber
Desert Research Center (DRC), Cairo, Egypt.
Abstract: A substantial experiment was conducted throughout two consecutive growing seasons of
2005/2006 and 2006/2007 at the experimental station of Shalatien, South – East of Egypt to study the
optimizing irrigation schedule for maximizing water use efficiency by Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa). This
work was the accomplished by designing 75 experimental units with the factorial experiment, split plot
design. The main plots were water quantities and the sub-main plots were plant densities. Crop coefficient,
water use efficiency and water economy under drip irrigation system were calculated and irrigation
schedules were estimated. The obtained results indicated that the maximum leaves, stems and total fresh
and dry weight were obtained by increasing the irrigation water dose to 100 % of ETm (Q 3) and/ or by
decreasing plant densities. The highest values of fresh and dry sepals and seeds were associated with Q 2D 1
(80% ETm + low plant density) treatment with insignificant difference of Q 3D 1 treatment. ETa at all
growth stages increased as irrigation water depth increased and /or plant density decreased. Also, data
showed that flowering stage period consumed highest water. W ater use efficiency (W UE), water economy
(W Ec) of both Hibiscus sabdariffa sepals and seeds affected by irrigation water amounts and plant
densities. Maximum W UE values were obtained when applying 80% of ETm (Q 2) and /or sowing 28000
plants/fed. (D 1 ). Concerning the interaction effect, data indicated that the highest values were obtained
when applying Q 2 D 1 treatment for the two consecutive growing seasons, while the lowest values were
associated with Q 5 D 3 treatment. The recommended Kc values are 0.35, 0.68, 1.06 and 0.53 for initial,
vegetative, flowering and ripening stages, respectively. Kc values increased as irrigation water depth
increased and/or plant density decreased. The highest Kc values were obtained for the flowering growth
stage (0.66 to 1.50), while the lowest values were recorded at the initial stage (0.18 to 0.46). Values of
polysaccharides tended to increase with increasing irrigation water quantities and plant densities. W hile
soluble sugar increased by decreasing irrigation water quantities and increasing plant densities for the two
successive seasons.
Key words: Irrigation schedule, Kc, water use efficiency, Hibiscus sabdariffa, irrigation water quantities,
plant densities, water economy, crop coefficient.
acidulous refreshing hot or cold bavarages and
infusions which are a popular admired drink in many
hot climatic countries. It is known that the plant
vegetative characteristics have a direct relation with
agricultural practices such as plant densities, which
mostly affected the vegetative growth and then the
yield. The competition for light, water and minerals is
reflected on metabolic processes in plant. In this
respect,[1 4 ] . reported that plant height was increased by
decreasing planting distances. Also, they found that the
highest yield was obtained from planting on one side
ridge and 50 cm spacing between plants. In addition,
they showed that the percentage of anthocyanins
content and total organic acid in dried sepals decreased
significantly as the highest of plant densities.[2 1 ] found
that the widest spacing produced the greatest number
of fruits per plant. However, the narrower spacings
INTRODUCTION
In the course of land reclamation and
improvement, Medicinal and Aromatic plants were
recognized as being useful in desert regions with its
climatic conditions which is favorable for the growth
of these plants and the extension in these regions is
promising. All reviews showed clearly that benefits
were associated with structural improvements, Roselle
(Hibiscus sabdariffa L.); Karkadeih, is an annual or
perennial bushy sub shrub, about 5-8 feet height, with
branched, erect, smooth and often purplish stem,
belonging to Family Malvaceae. This plant is
indigenous to tropic Africa[1 5 ] . It can be planted fairly
in wide range of countries in tropical and subtropical
regions. The main product of this crop is the dried
fleshy epicalyx and calyx, which are used in preparing
Corresponding Author: El- Boraie, F.M., Desert Research Center (DRC), Cairo, Egypt.
21
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
gave greater fruit and fresh calyces weights and higher
yields of dry calyces. The best results were obtained
with the 50cm. spacing. The average calyces yield was
214.8 – 218.9 kg/fed for Masri and 187.1 – 190.4
kg/fed for Sudani. In addition, they mentioned that the
high densities gave higher anthocyanins per unit area.
But didn't significantly affect the calyx content of
anthocyanins.[2 ] showed that the total carbohydrates
content in herb of Pimpinella anisum increased by
increasing the planting distances from 20 to 80 cm.
In the present study, the combined effect of
irrigation water depths (ETm) and plant densities on
water consumptive use (ETa), crop coefficient (Kc),
water use efficiency and Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa)
yield were investigated.
plants/fed. The experimental plots were bounded by 1
m wide bare soil to avoid horizontal water infiltration.
Immediately before irrigation and after by 3 hours, the
soil moisture content were gravimetrically determined
on dry basis for three depths 0-20, 20-40 and 40-60
cm.
Seeds were sown on the 15 th March in the two
successive seasons. Nitrogen and potassium were
applied through three equal doses using 75 kg /fed. of
both N and K 2 O as ammonium and potassium sulphate.
The first applied dose was done after 15 days of
planting, while the 2 n d and the 3 rd ones were added
after 45 and 90 days from cultivation. W hile
phosphorus as superphosphate (62 kg P 2 O 5 /fed) was
added 15 days before cultivation. Also, 10 ton/fed. of
sheep dung as an organic manure was thoroughly
mixed with 0-20 cm soil surface layer two weeks
before planting.. The analysis of the used organic
manure is shown in Table (4).
The plants were harvested on 10 th of October. The
actual consumptive use for each stage and for total
season were calculated. The water use efficiency was
calculated[1 2] . and also, water economy was estimated
according to [2 3 ] . Crop coefficient calculated according
to[24 ] . The plants from all treatments were taken to
determine plant height (cm), fresh and dry weights of
leaves and stems per plant (g), number of calyx per
plant, fresh and dry weights of calyx and sepals
(g/plant), total yield of dry sepals (kg/fed.), seed yield
per plant and per feddan, determination of total
carbohydrates percentage according to [ 1 7 ] . and
determination of total anthocyanins, according to [8 ]. for
Roselle.
M ATERIALS AND M ETHODS
A field experiment was conducted throughout two
consecutive growing seasons of 2005/2006 and
2006/2007 at the experimental station of Shalatien,
South-East of Egypt, Red Sea Governorate. The station
is located at 22 o to 24 o N latitude, 35 o 30 \ to 36 o 30 \ E
longitude. The physical and chemical of soil properties
were analyzed according to [1 8 ]. Table (1a & b),
chemical characteristics of applied irrigation water were
determined according to [1 3 ,1 9] as shown in Table (2).
Roselle seeds were obtained from Department of the
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Agricultural Research
Center, Giza, Egypt. Split plot design with four
replicates was used to study the combined effect of
applying irrigation water quantities and plant densities
on yield, actual evapotranspiration (ETa), crop
coefficient (Kc) and efficiency of water use by Roselle
plants.
Five irrigation water amounts (ETm) were obtained
from the product of the potential evapotranspiration
(ETo) by crop coefficient for every stage of Roselle
then multiplying by 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.4 (i.e.,
60%, 80%, 100%, 120%, and 140%). The ETo were
calculated from Penman-Monteith equation [5 ]. The
anticipated crop coefficient was 0.35, 0.78, 1.2 and 0.6
for establishment, vegetative, flowering and ripening
stages, respectively. Every two days, the irrigation
water amounts were applied by drip irrigation system
(50 cm between laterals and 30 cm between drippers)
through 4 l/h emitters, caused 25 cm diameter of
wetted zone, thus the fraction of the surface wetted,
fw, may be only 0.33 [5 ] stated that for a trickle
irrigation system, the fraction of the surface wetted, fw,
may be only 0.33). The depths of irrigation doses for
plant growth stages are shown in Table (3). Also, three
plant densities, 1, 2 and 3 seedlings were let to grow
under each emitter, i.e. 28000, 56000 and 84000
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Concerning the plant height as affected by different
plant density and irrigation water quantities treatments,
data presented in Table (5) showed that the values
increased with increasing irrigation water amount and/
or decreasing the plant density. The plant height
increased significantly by applying 120 % of ETm
irrigation water dose, reached 157.5 and 163.6 cm in
the 1st & 2nd seasons, respectively. W hile these values
increased significantly by applying the lightest densities
(D 1 ), and reached 159.1 and 166.5 cm in the 1 st & 2 n d
seasons, respectively. Concerning the interaction effect
of irrigation water quantities and plant density, data
showed that the tallest plants reached 175.1 and 175.7
cm by applying Q 2 D 1 treatment in the first and second
seasons, respectively. This may be attributed to the
competition between plants for obtaining more light.
These results were agreed with those reported by [1 4 ,6 ] .
on Roselle plants and [2 ] . on anise plants.
22
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 1a: Som e physical properties of the studied soil in Shalatien location.
D epth,
Particle size distribution %
T.C
Pd
M oisture
cm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------(g/cm 3 )
content%
Coarse Sand
M id.Sand
Fine Sand
Silt
Clay
0-20
3
31
61
3
2
Sandy
1.66
4.85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20-40
6
22
66
4
2
Sandy
1.69
4.53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40-60
5
25
61
6
3
Sandy
1.68
4.42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------60-80
5
29
57
6
3
Sandy
1.67
4.66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------80-100
5
30
56
6
3
Sandy
1.66
3.81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------100-120
5
31
55
6
3
Sandy
1.65
3.81
Table 1.b: Som e chem ical properties of the studied soil in Shalatien location.
D epth
EC
pH
CaCO 3
Cations m e/l
Anions m e/l
cm
dS/m
%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------N a+
K+
Ca + +
M g+ +
CO 3 =
H CO 3 ClSO 4 -0-20
0.77
7.7
2.3
0.62
0.49
3.66
2.91
0.42
3.92
3.33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20-40
0.66
7.6
1.10
0.63
0.40
2.82
2.75
0.42
3.09
3.09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------40-60
0.49
7.5
0.85
0.55
0.39
1.99
1.96
0.36
2.8
1.90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------60-80
0.50
7.5
0.60
0.51
0.42
2.81
1.26
0.38
2.65
1.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------80-100
0.36
7.3
0.58
0.48
0.38
1.92
0.80
0.26
1.75
1.61
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------100-120
0.34
7.3
0.55
0.32
0.38
1.19
1.51
0.39
1.52
1.49
Table 2: Irrigation water chem ical analysis.
ECdSm -1
PH
Cations m e/l
-----------------------------------------------Ca + +
M g+ +
N a+
K+
1.2
7.6
0.49
0.30
0.30
0.11
Anions m e/l
--------------------------------------------------CO 3 =
H CO 3 ClSO 4
0.12
0.68
0.38
SAR
=
0.78
Table 3: N et applied irrigation water treatm ents (m m & m 3 /fed.) at different growth stage periods (days).
Irrigation water
Growth stages
Total applied
quantities
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------water (195 days)
Initial (30 days)
Vegetative((50 days)
Flowering (60 days)
Y ield form . (55 days)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
3
3
mm
m / fed.
mm
m / fed.
mm
m / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
Q 1 (60% )
40.79
56.54
183.79
254.73
396.47
549.52
211.47
293.10
832.53
1153.89
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 (80% )
54.39
75.39
245.05
339.64
528.63
732.69
281.96
390.80
1110.04
1538.52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 (100% )
67.99
94.24
306.31
424.55
660.79
915.86
352.45
488.50
1387.55
1923.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 4 (120% )
81.59
113.09
367.57
509.46
792.95
1099.03
422.94
586.20
1665.06
2307.78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 (140% )
95.19
131.94
428.83
594.37
925.11
1282.20
493.43
683.90
1942.57
2692.41
Table 4: The properties of the applied organic m anure.
O rganic m anure
O rganic carbon %
Sheep dung
23.71
Total nitrogen %
2.06
Data showed that 100 % ETm irrigation water
amount (Q 3 ) gave the highest number of branches/
plant, which reached 8.1 & 9.7 at the two seasons
respectively. Also, these values increased significantly
by increasing the plant density and reached its
maximum value (9.0 & 11.5 at the studied two
seasons, respectively) by applying the heaviest plant
density. Concerning the interaction effect of irrigation
water quantities and plant density, data showed that the
highest number of branches per plant in the two
seasons was associated with applying Q 2D 3 treatment
O rganic m atter %
40.76
C/N ratio
11.51
which reached 9.5 and 12.7, while the lowest one was
associated with the Q 1 D 1 treatment. Such values
reached 5.0 and 5.9 branches per plant for the two
seasons, respectively. These results were in harmony
with those reported by[7 ] . on celery and [2 ] . on anise
plants.
Also, data showed a positive significant correlation
between the number of branches/plant and the plant
height (0.84 ** & 0.72 ** at the two seasons,
respectively).
23
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 5: Effect of irrigation water quantities and plant densities on plant height and num ber of branches per plant of Roselle.
Irrigationwaterquantities
D
Plant height (cm )
-----------------------------------------1st season
2n d season
N um ber of branches/plant
------------------------------------------1st season
2nd season
Q 1 60%
D1
140.2
145.6
5.0
5.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
135.0
140.8
6.5
7.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
130.2
135.6
7.3
10.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
D1
175.1
175.7
6.3
7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
152.3
160.0
8.0
9.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
150.0
144.1
9.5
12.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 100%
D1
163.8
178.3
6.7
7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
152.3
154.7
8.3
9.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
146.8
149.0
9.2
12.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 4 120%
D1
166.2
170.2
7.0
7.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
155.4
161.3
8.5
9.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
150.8
159.2
9.3
11.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
D1
150.2
162.5
6.1
6.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
140.3
151.6
7.2
8.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
138.1
143.2
9.5
10.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LSD 5 %
Q
0.50
1.49
0.86
0.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D
0.68
0.51
0.61
0.67
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q X D
1.52
1.13
1.37
1.50
Results in Table (6) indicated that the number of
fruits per plant, fresh and dry weights of fruits per
plant increased significantly by increasing the irrigation
water dose to 100 % of ETm and by decreasing plant
densities. Respecting to the interaction effect of
irrigation water quantities and plant density, data
showed that highest values of number of fruits per
plant fresh and dry weights of fruits per plant were
recorded by D 1 Q 3 treatment. Such increases reached
80.9 & 186.1, 105.4 & 130.2 and 162.2 & 131.1 %
relative to D 3 Q 1 treatment at the two seasons,
respectively. These results were in agreement with
those by[4 ,2 1 ] . on Roselle plants, and also in harmony
with those obtained by[2 ] . on anise plants, who found
that the lowest fruit yield per plant was obtained when
plants more dense.
Also, data showed a positive significant correlation
between the plant height and both number of fruits per
plant, fresh and dry weights of fruits per plant, also
between number of fruits per plant and both fresh and
dry weights of fruits per plant, while it is noticed that
the same parameters decreased as the number of
branches / plant increased (negative significant
correlation).
Data in Table (7) showed that the maximum
leaves, stems and total fresh and dry weight were
obtained by increasing the irrigation water dose to 100
% of ETm and/ or by decreasing plant densities. Also,
all weights were recorded highly significant increases
by applying Q 2 D 1 treatment with unsignificant at
applying Q 3 D 1 treatment. For example, the highest
values of total dry weight were recorded as 6.0 and 7.1
(ton/fed.) in the two studied seasons, respectively. Such
increases reached 180 and 173 % relative to the lowest
values which associated with Q 1 D 3 treatment. Similar
results were obtained by[2 ] . on anise and [16 ] . on senna
plants, who reported that decreasing densities resulted
in the continuous increase in fresh and dry weights of
plant.
24
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 6: Effect of irrigation water quantities and plant densities on num ber, fresh and dry weight of fruits per plant.
Irrigation water D
Num ber of fruits
Fresh weight
D ry weight of
quantities
per plant
of fruits (g/plant)
fruits (g/plant)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1st season
2 n d season
1 st season
2 n d season
1 st season
2 n d season
Q 1 60%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
77.3
126.5
377.6
385.2
90.6
110.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
75.3
66.4
290.2
295.8
65.2
75.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
53.4
50.4
203.5
216.9
52.1
67.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
90.6
140.6
409.8
480.5
130.9
150.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
90.1
91.3
322.4
330.3
90.2
130.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
65.7
71.1
233.7
265.0
73.0
104.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 100%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
96.6
144.2
418
499.2
136.6
155.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
92.1
93.3
329.5
339.0
93.2
131.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
63.4
66.8
232.8
250.2
71.9
99.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 4 120%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
90.6
120.8
402.5
410.6
99.7
110.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
90.1
95.5
305.2
315.1
70.8
80.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
61.8
71.9
230.2
240.3
60.1
65.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
80.7
100.7
380.2
395.6
81.6
93.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
80.3
92.8
270.3
300.9
60.2
70.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
55.2
66.9
193.6
221.2
48.2
52.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LSD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q
0.22
0.33
0.47
0.94
0.16
0.42
5%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D
0.21
0.12
0.28
0.46
0.40
0.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q XD
0.48
0.26
0.63
1.02
0.90
0.57
Data in Table (8) showed that the highest values
of fresh and dry sepals and seeds were associated with
Q 2 D 1 treatment with insignificant difference of Q 3D 1
treatment, while the lowest values were associated with
Q 5 D 3 treatment. Such increases reached 42.8, 58.8 %
and 98.2, 100.8 % for fresh and dry weights, also
reached 69.1 and 164.6 % for seeds weight in the two
studied seasons, respectively. These results agreed with
those reported by[2 2,9 ,1 4 ] . on Roselle plants and [2 ] . on
anise plants. These increases as a result of decreasing
the plant densities might be due to the competition
between plants for obtaining more light and nutrients.
Concerning the effect of irrigation water amounts
and plant densities on Roselle actual evapotranspiration
(ETa), data presented in Tables (9 & 10) showed that
ETa at all growth stages increased as irrigation water
depth increased and /or plant density decreased. The
maximum ETa values were obtained under applying the
largest irrigation water dose (Q 5) and lowest plant
density (D 1 ) treatment, while the minimum values were
associated with applying the lowest irrigation water
amount (Q 1 ) and the highest plant density (D 3)
treatment at seasonal and all growth stages for the two
seasons. Also, data showed that flowering stage period
consumed highest water. These results are in harmony
with that obtained by [1 1 ,1 0 ].
25
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 7: Effect of irrigation water quantities and plant densities on fresh and dry leaves, stem s and total weight (ton/fed.)
Irrigation W ater
Plant
Fresh weight
D ry weight
quantities
density ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Leaves
Stem s
Total weight
Leaves
Stem s
Total weight
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1s
2nd
1 st
1 st
2nd
1 st
1 st
2nd
1 st
2n d
1 st
2n d
season season
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
season season
Q 1 60%
D1
6.4
6.9
16.8
18.4
23.2
25.3
0.6
0.7
4.6
5.6
5.2
6.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
3.5
3.6
11.1
11.2
14.6
14.7
0.4
0.4
3.2
3.0
3.6
3.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
2.5
2.6
7.4
7.4
10.0
10.0
0.3
0.4
2.3
2.2
2.7
2.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
D1
7.0
7.1
17.5
21.6
24.5
28.7
1.0
1.1
5.0
6.0
6.0
7.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
3.7
3.7
11.5
11.9
15.2
15.6
0.6
0.6
3.4
3.4
4.0
4.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
2.6
2.8
8.4
9.0
11.0
11.7
0.5
0.6
2.5
2.7
3.0
3.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 100%
D1
7.1
7.2
17.6
21.9
24.7
29.1
1.1
1.2
5.2
6.3
6.3
7.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
3.7
3.7
11.9
12.0
15.6
15.7
0.7
0.7
3.4
3.5
4.1
4.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
2.6
2.7
8.1
8.9
10.7
11.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
2.6
2.9
3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 4 120%
D1
7.0
7.2
17.5
21.4
24.6
28.6
1.0
1.1
5.0
6.2
6.0
7.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
3.7
3.7
11.7
11.8
15.4
15.5
0.6
0.7
3.4
3.9
4.0
4.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
2.6
2.6
8.3
8.4
10.9
11.1
0.5
0.5
2.5
2.6
2.9
3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
D1
6.8
7.0
17.0
21.1
23.9
28.0
0.8
1.0
4.8
5.8
5.7
6.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
3.5
3.6
11.5
11.6
15.0
15.2
0.5
0.6
3.3
3.5
3.8
4.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
2.5
2.6
8.1
8.3
10.7
10.9
0.4
0.5
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LSD 5 %
Q
0.20
0.16
0.16
0.50
1.30
0.38
0.20
0.34
0.34
0.16
0.42
0.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D
0.26
0.22
0.18
0.22
0.91
0.28
0.16
0.28
0.24
0.18
0.34
0.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q XD
0.58
0.50
0.42
0.50
2.03
0.64
0.34
0.62
0.56
0.42
0.76
1.00
Table 8: Effect of irrigation water quantities and plant densities on fresh & dry sepals yield and seeds of Roselle (kg/fed.).
IrrigationW ater
Plant
Sepals yield
Seeds yield
quantities
density
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Fresh weight
D ry weight
------------------------------------------------------------------------1st season
2 n d season
1 st season
2 n d season
1 st season
2 n d season
Q 1 60%
D1
2164.0
2652.0
368.0
380.0
370.0
404.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
2043.5
2042.5
242.5
266.5
406.0
432.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
1751.0
1801.0
223.0
235.0
272.7
286.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
D1
2220.0
2900.0
440.0
502.0
462.0
762.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
2127.5
2201.0
384.0
410.5
443.0
482.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
1804.0
2105.0
334.0
401.0
310.0
457.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 100%
D1
2234.0
2920.0
444.0
510.0
468.0
780.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
2131.0
2211.5
385.0
416.5
451.0
490.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
1801.0
2100.0
330.0
386.0
305.3
435.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 8:C ontinue
Q 4 120%
D1
2204.0
2800.0
400.0
480.0
464.0
804.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
2105.0
2126.5
360.0
366.0
450.0
500.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
1776.0
2001.0
303.0
302.0
310.0
466.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
D1
2008.0
2762.0
346.0
370.0
400.0
460.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
1807.0
2045.0
229.0
234.0
400.0
426.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
1555.0
1826.0
222.0
250.0
273.3
288.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------LSD 5 %
Q
11.66
13.44
16.06
17.12
4.95
4.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D
12.45
10.29
10.94
11.60
3.93
3.99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q XD
13.25
23.02
24.45
25.95
2.08
2.22
Values of crop coefficient (Kc) of Hibiscus
sabdariffa for different growth stages under all studied
treatments were calculated according [2 4 ] . and presented
in Table (12). T he results showed that the
recommended Kc values under Q 3 (100 % ETm) + D1
(low plant density) treatment are 0.35, 0.68, 1.06 and
0.53 for initial, vegetative, flowering and ripening
stages, respectively.
It is clearly found that Kc values increased as
irrigation water depth increased and/or plant density
decreased. The highest Kc values were obtained for the
flowering growth stage (0.66 to 1.50), while the lowest
values were recorded at the initial stage (0.18 to 0.46).
Data in Table (13) stated that the mean values of
poly saccharides (mg/g) tended to increase with
increasing irrigation water quantities and plant densities
as well. W hile soluble sugar (mg/g) increased by
decreasing irrigation water quantities and increasing
plant densities for the two successive seasons.
Data presented in Table (11) showed the water use
efficiency (W UE) and water economy (W Ec) of both
Hibiscus sabdariffa sepals and seeds affected by
irrigation water amounts and plant densities. Maximum
W UE values were obtained when applying 80% of
ETm (Q 2 ) and /or sowing 28000 plants/fed. (D 1).
Concerning the interaction effect, data indicated that
the highest values were obtained when applying Q 2 D 1
treatment for the two consecutive growing seasons,
while the lowest values were associated with Q 5D 3
treatment. For example, water use efficiency by seeds
at 2n d season increased by 144 % at applying Q 2D 1
treatment relative to its value at applying Q 1D 1 and by
400 % relative to its value at applying Q 5D 3 . Such
increases for water economy reached 143 and 455 %
for the previous mentions coparesons, respectively.
The present results are in harmony with that
obtained by[1 1 ,2 0 ] . on peas, beans and fodder beet,[3 ,1 ] . on
sugar beet and [1 0 ] .
Table 9: Actual evapotranspiration (ETa), (m m & m 3 /fed.) at different growth stages and total season (fw = 0.33) by Roselle at the 1 st season.
Irrigation wate Plant
Growth stages
Total Eta (195 days)
rquantities
density
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Initial
Vegetative
Flowering
Ripening
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
Q 1 60%
D1
36.67
50.82
180.6
250.31
388.54
538.52
200.01
277.21
805.82
1116.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
35.01
48.52
178.52
247.43
379.22
525.60
192.89
267.35
785.64
1088.90
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
33.10
45.88
166.3
230.53
362.11
501.88
184.23
255.34
745.77
1033.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
D1
50.53
70.03
229.2
317.71
518.06
718.03
242.49
336.09
1040.30
1441.86
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
49.76
68.96
220.64
305.81
507.12
702.87
230.01
318.79
1007.53
1396.44
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
47.59
65.95
213.1
295.40
485.98
673.57
223.77
310.15
970.47
1345.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 100%
D1
64.64
89.58
262.8
364.24
574.89
796.80
303.11
420.11
1205.43
1670.73
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
63.55
88.08
253.8
351.87
503.25
697.50
285.55
395.77
1106.23
1533.23
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
60.76
84.21
245.8
340.70
489.68
678.70
268.47
372.10
1064.72
1475.70
27
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 9: C ontinue
Q 4 120%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
77.04
106.77
283.8
393.43
689.87
956.16
363.73
504.13
1414.49
1960.49
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
74.87
103.76
271.96
376.94
678.88
940.93
347.25
481.29
1372.96
1902.92
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
72.23
100.11
263.80
365.62
659.23
913.69
333.75
462.58
1329.01
1842.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
84.59
117.24
304.35
421.83
814.74
1129.23
424.35
588.15
1628.03
2256.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
82.11
113.80
282.00
390.85
800.22
1109.10
405.59
562.15
1569.92
2175.91
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
79.66
110.40
273.05
378.45
792.01
1097.73
387.65
537.28
1532.37
2123.86
Table 10: Actual evapotranspiration )ETa(, )m m & m3 /fed.( at different growth stage and total season )fw = 0.33( by Roselle the 2 n d season.
Irrigation wate Plant
Growth stages
Total Eta (195 days)
rquantities
density
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Initial
Vegetative
Flowering
Ripening
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
mm
m 3 / fed.
Q 1 60%
D1
38.86
53.87
182.41
252.81
394.37
546.59
205.01
284.14
820.65
1137.42
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
37.15
51.49
180.31
249.90
384.91
533.48
197.71
274.03
800.08
1108.90
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
36.06
49.98
167.99
232.84
367.54
509.41
188.84
261.73
760.43
1053.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
D1
53.56
74.24
231.52
320.89
525.83
728.80
248.55
344.49
1059.46
1468.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
52.33
72.53
222.85
308.87
514.73
713.41
235.76
326.76
1025.67
1421.58
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
50.44
69.91
215.27
298.36
493.27
683.67
229.36
317.90
988.34
1369.84
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 100%
D1
67.98
94.22
265.43
367.88
583.51
808.75
310.68
430.61
1227.60
1701.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
67.36
93.37
256.42
355.39
510.80
707.97
292.69
405.67
1127.27
1562.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
65.41
90.66
248.27
344.10
497.03
688.88
275.18
381.40
1085.89
1505.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 4 120%
D1
81.66
113.18
286.70
397.37
700.22
970.50
372.82
516.73
1441.40
1997.77
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
80.36
111.38
274.68
380.71
689.06
955.04
355.93
493.32
1400.04
1940.45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
77.56
107.50
266.44
369.28
669.12
927.40
342.09
474.14
1355.21
1878.32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
D1
89.67
124.28
307.40
426.05
826.96
1146.17
434.96
602.85
1658.98
2299.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
88.11
122.12
284.82
394.76
812.22
1125.74
415.73
576.20
1600.88
2218.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
85.23
118.13
275.78
382.23
803.89
1114.19
397.34
550.71
1562.24
2165.27
Table 11: W ater use efficiency, W ater econom y as affected by irrigation water quantities and plant densities of Roselle.
Irrigation W ater
Plant
W U E (kg/m 3 )
W ater Econom y (kg/m 3 )
quantities
density
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sepals
Seeds
Sepals
Seeds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------st
nd
st
nd
st
nd
1 season
2 season
1 season
2 season
1 season
2 season
1 st season 2n d season
Q 1 60%
D1
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.36
0.32
0.33
0.32
0.35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.22
0.24
0.37
0.39
0.21
0.23
0.35
0.37
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.22
0.22
0.26
0.27
0.19
0.20
0.24
0.25
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
D1
0.31
0.34
0.32
0.52
0.29
0.33
0.30
0.50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.27
0.29
0.32
0.34
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.25
0.29
0.23
0.33
0.22
0.26
0.20
0.30
28
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 11: C ontinue
Q 3 100%
D1
0.27
0.30
0.28
0.46
0.23
0.27
0.24
0.41
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.25
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.20
0.22
0.23
0.25
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.22
0.26
0.21
0.29
0.17
0.20
0.16
0.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 4 120%
D1
0.20
0.24
0.24
0.40
0.17
0.21
0.20
0.35
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.19
0.19
0.24
0.26
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.25
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
D1
0.15
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.11
0.11
0.18
0.19
0.09
0.09
0.15
0.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.10
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.11
Table 12: Growth stages and seasonal crop coefficient (Kc) of Roselle at the two seasons.
Irrigation W ater Plant
Crop coefficient (Kc)
quantities
density
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Growth stages
Seasonal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Initial
Vegetative
Flowering
Ripening
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
Q 1 60%
D1
0.19
0.20
0.46
0.46
0.71
0.72
0.34
0.35
0.47
0.48
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.18
0.19
0.45
0.46
0.69
0.70
0.33
0.34
0.46
0.46
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.17
0.19
0.42
0.43
0.66
0.67
0.31
0.32
0.43
0.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 2 80%
D1
0.26
0.28
0.58
0.59
0.94
0.95
0.41
0.42
0.60
0.61
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.26
0.27
0.56
0.57
0.92
0.93
0.39
0.40
0.58
0.59
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.24
0.26
0.54
0.55
0.88
0.90
0.38
0.39
0.56
0.57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 3 100%
D1
0.33
0.35
0.67
0.68
1.04
1.06
0.52
0.53
0.70
0.71
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.33
0.35
0.65
0.65
0.91
0.93
0.49
0.50
0.64
0.65
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.31
0.34
0.63
0.63
0.89
0.90
0.46
0.47
0.62
0.63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 4 120%
D1
0.40
0.42
0.72
0.73
1.25
1.27
0.62
0.63
0.82
0.84
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.39
0.41
0.69
0.70
1.23
1.25
0.59
0.61
0.80
0.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.37
0.40
0.67
0.68
1.20
1.22
0.57
0.58
0.77
0.79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q 5 140%
D1
0.44
0.46
0.78
0.78
1.48
1.50
0.72
0.74
0.94
0.96
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
0.42
0.45
0.72
0.73
1.45
1.47
0.69
0.71
0.91
0.93
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
0.41
0.44
0.70
0.70
1.44
1.46
0.66
0.68
0.89
0.91
The highest values of polysaccharides were
associated with Q 5 D 3 treatment, i.e. 630 and 642 mg/g,
while the lowest values were associated with Q 1 D 1 , i.e.,
292.50 and 295.50 mg/g at the two seasons,
respectively. The differences reached 115.6 and 117.3
%, for the two successive seasons, respectively. On the
other hand, soluble sugar gave the highest value when
treated by Q 1 D 3 treatment, i.e., 98.40 and 98.60 mg/g,
while the lowest value was associated with Q 5D 1
treatment, i.e., 41.70 and 42.80 mg/g for the two
successive seasons, respectively. Such increase reached
135.97 and 130.37%.
The previous results may be due to the fact that
the low density of the grown plants allowed more
absorption of elements from the soil to plants also
minimized the competition of plants for light and
29
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
while the lowest percentages were associated with Q 1D 3
treatment (19.55 and 19.81 %). Such differences were
nearly 75 and 24%. Also, data indicated that total
acidity (%) increased by decreasing plant density and
the lowest percentage was recorded at Q 3D 1 treatment
(11.05 and 11.10 % at the two seasons, respectively).
The highest anthocyanins (mg/plant) were formed
in sepals of low density Roselle plants at both seasons.
So, the highest values were recorded at Q 5D 1 treatment
(99.12 and 109.90 mg/plant, at two seasons,
respectively), while the lowest values were obtained
under Q 1 D 3 (85.18 and 96.12 mg/g at two seasons
respectively).
water, thus increased the photosynthesis process which
in turn stimulated the biosynthesis of sugars.
Similar results coincided with those obtained by
[4 ,2 1 ,1 4 ]
. on Roselle plants.
Results presented in Table (14) showed the effect
of irrigation water quantities and plant densities on
chemical properties of the sepals of Roselle plants.
Data detected that total soluble solids percentages in
dried sepals were increased with decreasing plant
density and increasing the applied water depth. The
highest percentages of total soluble solids were 34.21
and 34.52 % for the two successive seasons,
respectively when low plant density irrigated with Q 4,
Table 13: arbohydrates content (m g/g) in Roselle sepals as affected by plant densities and irrigation water quantities.
Irrigation water quantities
Poly Saccharides content
Soluble Sugar content
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Plant densities
M ean
Plant densities
M ean
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------D1
D2
D3
D1
D2
D3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 st Season
Q1
293
332
490
372
63
80
98
80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q2
333
371
545
417
60
75
94
77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q3
373
410
600
461
58
71
90
73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q4
375
445
615
478
50
61
81
64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q5
378
480
630
496
42
51
72
55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M ean
350
408
576
445
55
68
87
70
2 n d Season
Q1
296
341
496
377
63
82
99
81
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q2
341
380
552
424
62
77
94
78
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q3
381
431
616
476
60
72
91
74
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q4
386
456
638
493
53
62
82
66
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Q5
388
493
642
507
43
52
73
56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M ean
358
420
589
455
56
69
88
71
Table 14: Effect of irrigation water quantities and Plant densities on chem ical properties of the sepals of Roselle plants.
Irrigation W ater quantities Plant densities Total Soluble Solids %
Total Acidity %
Anthocyanins m g/plant
Phlafonines m g/plant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
1 st
2nd
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
season
Q1
D1
22.61
22.67
11.10
11.12
95.18
106.00
6.57
6.62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
21.04
21.34
12.10
12.12
86.04
106.0
6.57
6.62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
19.55
19.81
13.10
13.12
85.18
96.12
6.57
6.62
Q2
D1
22.71
22.79
11.19
11.20
96.27
108.10
7.24
7.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
21.14
21.45
12.19
12.20
90.04
98.22
7.24
7.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
20.65
20.91
13.19
13.20
86.08
94.11
7.24
7.25
30
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
Table 14: C ontinue
Q3
Q4
Q5
D1
33.81
34.62
11.05
11.10
97.58
109.05
5.60
5.66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
32.25
32.65
12.05
12.10
91.12
99.01
5.60
5.66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
31.74
31.78
13.05
13.10
88.19
95.40
5.60
5.66
D1
34.21
34.52
11.07
11.12
98.52
109.85
5.69
5.74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
33.45
33.85
12.07
12.12
92.15
99.55
5.69
5.74
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
32.24
32.97
13.07
13.12
89.20
96.18
5.69
5.74
D1
34.20
34.51
11.07
11.12
99.12
109.90
5.74
5.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D2
33.48
33.85
12.07
12.12
93.24
100.00
5.74
5.78
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D3
32.81
33.07
13.07
13.12
90.18
97.18
5.74
5.78
W ith respect to phlafonines, data revealed that
applying irrigation water by Q 2 (80% ETm) produced
the highest phlafonines content (7.24 and 7.25
mg/plant, at two seasons, respectively). Also, data
showed insignificant effect of water amount on
phlafonines content.
10. El-Boraie, F.M., 2006. Response of some canola
cultivars to modern irrigation systems under
Shalatien conditions. Meteorological Research
Bulletin, 21: 41-57.
11. Gaber, A.M. and M.H. El-Dosouky, 1993. W ater
requirements, water economy and yield of beans
and drip irrigation. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 20(4):
1373-1383.
12. Giriappa, S., 1983. W ater use efficiency in
agriculture. Agricultural Development and Rural
Transformation Unit. Institute for Social and
Economic Change Bangalore. Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co.
13. Jackson, M .L., 1967. Soil chemical analysis,
Prentice Hall of India. New Delhi, India.
14. Khater, M.R. and S.K Ahmed, 1992. Effect of
sowing dates and planting distances on vegetative
growth, yield and active substances on Roselle
plant. Agric. Res. Cent. Hort. Inst. Medicinal and
Aromatic plant Section, Dokki.
15. Kirby, R.H., 1963. Vegetable Fibers, By Prof.
Nicholes Pullunin, pp: 129-131. Inter– Science
Publish Inc. New York.
16. M ansour, C.P., V.S. Kubsad and D.S. Gowda,
1995. Nutrient uptake in mesta (Hibiscus
s a b d a r iffa , L .) u n d e r v a r yin g f e r t i l i z e r
combinations. Univ. of Agric. Sci.. Dharwad,
Karnataka, Indian. Madras Agricultural J., 82(6-8):
480-482.
17. Michl – Dubois, K.A., K. Gilles, J.K. Hamilton,
P.A. Rebars and F. Smith, 1956. Colorimetric
Method for Determination of Sugars and Related
Substances. Anal., Chem., 28 -370.
18. Piper, C.S., 1950. Soil and plant analysis. 1st Ed.,
Inter Publishers, New York, USA., pp: 47-49.
19. Richards, L.A., 1954. Diagnosis and Improvement
of saline and Alkali Soils U.S. salinity lab. Salt,
W ashington, D.C., U.S.A., Agric. Handbook
No.60.
20. Seidhom, S.H., 1995. A study on the water
consumptive use of some crops grown under desert
conditions. M.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Agric., Zagazig
Univ., Egypt.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Abd El– Rahman, M.I., 2005. Soil and plant water
potential as related to water use efficiency in some
newly reclaimed lands. Ph.D. thesis Fac. Agric. Al
– Azhar Univ., Egypt.
Abd El Salam, E.Z., 1994. Effect of chemical
fertilization and planting distances on growth and
chemical composition of Pimpinella anisum palm.
M. Sc. Thesis. Fac. Agric. Cairo Univ.
Abdel – Rahman, G.A., 2001. W ater requirements
of sugar beet under Ras Sudr condition. Desert
Inst. Bull., Egypt, 51(2): 377-393.
Abo – Dahab, A.M., R.S. El- Dabh, M.M. El
Bagoury and S.H. El Kashlan, 1984. Effect of
plant density on growth, yield and constituents of
Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa, L.). Proc. the First
Arab Conf. of Medicinal Plants Cairo. Nov.
Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes and M. Smith,
1998. Crop evapotranspiration, guidelines for
computing crop water requirements. Irrig. & Drain.
Paper, No. 56, FAO, Rom, Italy.
Babatunde, F.E. and A.L.E. Mofoke, 2006.
Performance of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L) as
Influenced by Irrigation Schedules. Pakistan J. of
nutrition, 5(4): 363-367.
Balyan, S.S., D.K. Chowdhary and B.L. Kaul,
1990. Response of celery to different row spacing.
Indian Perfumer, 34(2): 168-170.
Du, C.T. and F.J. Francis, 1973. Anthocyanins of
R o se lle . D ep t. F o o d S c i. T echn. U niv.
Massachusetts, Amherst. Mass. J. Food Sci., 38
(5): 810–812.
El- Barkoki, M., B.M. M ansour, M. W aly and M.
Khater, 1979. Preliminary studies on guar plants.
Proc. 1st Agric. Conference of Muslim Scientists,
97-114.
31
J. Appl. Sci. Res., 5(1): 21-32, 2009
21. Shalaby, A.S. and A.M. Razin, 1989. Effect of
plant spacing on the productivity of Roselle
(Hibiscus sabdariffa, L.) grown in newly reclaimed
land. National Research Center. Dokki, Cairo,
Egypt, J. Agro. and Crop Sci., 162: 4: 256-260.
22. Sobhan, M.A. and M. Husain, 1978. Effect of
different plant densities on seed yield of (Hibiscus
sabdariffa, L.). Altissima, Bangladesh Jute Res.
Inst. Dacca Bangladesh J. Jute and Fiber Res., 3
(1-2).
23. Talha, M., M.A. Aziz and E.M . Toni, 1980. The
combined effect of irrigation intervals and cycocel
treatment on Pelargonitum graveolens. II- Evapotranspiration and water economy. Egypt. J. Soil
Sci., 20(2): 121-125.
24. Yaron, B., E. Danfors and Y. Vadia, 1973. Arid
zone irrigation. Spriger- Verlag Berlin Heileberg,
New York.
32