الفهرس 
Material and methodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 133 |  |  |
| | | from | 133 | | |
Abstract
’. ,
- 93 ••
I-MAIZE
I.... G ROW T H .}4 E 4 SUR E JI f,j H ~ s
!be f’ollowinsdata were reoorded at 40, 55; 70, 85-
nnc1 100 403 trom 80’W’11)8tUuil:-
1- Plant he1811t in cm.
2- Numberof Leaves per plant.
3- 4!a leaf’ area in cm2• per plant.
4- stem diameter at 2SS internode in om.
II- Y I.A L U. 0 0 14 ~ 9 N.B N~ §
Ai harvesting time. the followiDgdata were :t’8Oorc1a4J
1- Plant height.in om.
2- stem diameter a.t 2Bl1nteruode in om.
}-Ear position in em.
4- Plant weight wi thov.t ear in p.
5- Ear weight with bu8k in am-
6- Bar weight wi thoui’ lmsk in •••.
7- llumber of rows/eo».
8- Number of gro.1rJa’**.
9- Grains weight *,~ in •••
10- lQO-gra1n -1&lJ.t.
11- Ear diameter in •••
12- Sblll1D& ”.
III- l...LI.JI.I
1- Gre.iD 71814 in ~ per ,tad*’” ••. ~ - 15.”
moisture CODt~;:’
~’:: .: :: -:
2- st~aw 11814 in kUogram per t’a4daa.
”
- 94 -
2- 13 0 Yt B BAM
1- G R.O ’IW T H AlE,\ S Y A E MEN T §
The following data. were reoorded at 40, 55. 70, 85
a1’Jd 100 dOJ’ from sowing t1me,-
1- Plant height in om.
2- Number of leaves ~r plnnt.
J- Lent area. in cm2• .
4- Number of pods per plant.
II- Y I..”,I.L:Q Q O.J!.P Q lj l.JL.L.l
1Ibs data at harvesting tim& were BS 10110_:-
1.•Plant height in om.
2- Number of leaves per plant.
J- Stem diameter in om.
4- Plaut weight in gIU.- without pods.
5- Numberof pods per plant.
6- Pods weight gm. per plnnt.
7- Seed weight gm. per plant.
8- 100 seed weight inp.
9- Net wet %.
. ’..:~:.<~ ~. ”.
1- Seed lie 1d in k;Ll••••• per ta4dan.
2- Straw 11e1d in kllWC- per 1’ed”
- 95 -
. ’.
I 3-&...1!EJlIQ6H ANALYSIS
1- The carbohy4X”c.teperoentage in .gra.ins of maize •
.~ ” ..’, -’
2- The oarobTd1”ntelield in. Kg./faddan in moize.
3- The protem p·ercentage in 8ee48 of soybean.
4-·The protein l1eld in Kg./fo.ddrin in sOlbean.
5- boil pereentoge ~n seeds of SOl beon.
6- ~ 011 ,.1e14 in K&./:Oor;1donin soybean.
liet inoo~ Eg,yptlatl PQUnd~per taddon for pure aie.Dd
of maize and s01bean and iuterl>1llJ:tt1.ng 8Y’stems DlIlize with
sOTbean.
- 96-
The tollowing are,· ’the most importa.nt result.t
I-..JLl..L.LL
~GROWTg KE4BUREM~!fJ
1- Plant heist:
The ditferellOes ~on the o;ferages at 40, 70, 85
ani 100 dn,y were 81gnit1~t in ene senson out o~ two. 1’he
treatment i gave the highest 8Terage at the plant he1Sht
as oompared with the other treatments. The pltm:t height
inoreased b¥ deoreasing the plant densit1 beenuse the plODS••
reoeived enough water, nutrient and light.
,
..~_~.! i .
2- Number of ;l.eQve! Rei’)l:tgn’\t
The differenoes between the Q.wr08ea were not 81gDl.f1-
oant in both seasons. fhe number of lea.v84J per p181lt4ao~
ed by 1Deress1ng the plBtlt deu1i¥4
J- Lent p.reQ’
The dif~ereme8 between the e.veraaes at 40. 70. 85
and 100 day were signifioant in the seasOD out o’L two. !be
treo.tmen~ E gaYe the h1shest average ot the leat Br86 811
compared with the otilel’ t;ren:taeDt8. !he led area. 1Do~
ed b¥ decrea81Dg the .nni 4ell81t,. .OiI .•.•’~~ .•..
....:;;;...,;,.~
4- stem g.t••.•••
ThedittereDD•• ·••twe_ thll 8wraae8 ~ .tea 4:I_”.r
at 40, 55 aDd85 dq” _:l.sp1:rie&. in one OIlt of --.
wbere811at 70 8111 1• ...., 1IU8 e•.at:1cteat ia ,”!l •• ~. ’
.}
--1.
’~
p:
I II L 12,0 0uW 0 tB lLt,,§
1- ~lePi;be1&htl
The differenees between ’tbS averages were ~l8rdtibo.i1t
. ~ . .
itt oiie lIIe8l0:l1 ()\1t 01 twtu· fhe l’e.w.t.· *t\V9 the aame ,retia
at different growth periods.
a-tea ~ierl
The differenoes .between the Q,ver!l6es we1’e sigmt·1oo.D~
in bot;h season.. fbe. result. gave the same trepd at 4UIQ%’QIR
growth periods.,
)- Ear 2981t&on
The d1ff’erenoes between the Qveraaes were 81gJd.tie~·
in both seasons. The pure sto.:DdgaYe tbe highest nYeragea
as oompa.red’ with the iilterplaxrtlaa treatment. The 8C’.rpoe~
t10n inorea.se4b.Y-iD.Gre~ the plQJlt 4eJ181 1;,•.
4- PlQllt -~W.eliEf
The di’tferenoe8 between t.tiwregee were- _s.a-uiaaat
. - -
in’ one season ~t or t... Tti8 plat ~t .••.t.~t 80r
1nerea.8ed b1’ decreastDe t~ plant- de_11:7.’
, ”,:.;:”
i-’~
”
--:11
- 98 ..•
6- Ear weisat without hU!k.
The differenoes between the averages were aigni:tl.oant
in both aeeacns , The ear weight without husk inoreased by
deoreaa1ngthe planidens1 ttY and the treatment C gave the
highest a.verages in both seasons.
9- Gre.W J!!:LU.l per IMI
The differences between the anrage_ weN a1p1fl.oaS
in one season out ot t_. !fbe sra1D8 _ight per ear :t.DD~__
ad by deoreasing the plat denai”,_ BIt trentmed 0 .lOw
the highest Qver•• 1D~1tothaeB8~ 811o~ 1I1th tbe
other treatments •.
10- 100 mdp .--.
The d1tfereDOe8 ,,*.ell the aft~e. weft a1pt’iOBllt
in one season out of..... !rb8 100 ~ -1&1d t..••••. bI’
deoreas1l2ctbe pleDt •••• 1t’. -.;;..:--
- 99 -
11- BE SUgme$ers
The differences between the averages were significant
in both S8aBOJ1B. the ear diameter inoreased by decreaslna
the plant density_ The ’treatments C and E gave the highetrt
o.verages in 1980 and 1981 seasons. respectively, whereas
the treo.tmernF ga.ve the lowest averages in both sea.sons.
12- §he.UJM. II
The ditfereno-es’ between the a.verages were significant
in both sea.sons. The pure etand gave the highest a.verages
as compared with the· interplenting trea.tments. The shell1D&
percento.ge1noreased by 1mre8.S1ng the grain weight per ear,
100 grain weight and the ~reJ.n11eld per fnddnn.
III •.•Ie • E L 12
1- Grain zl!!i.’
!he dift~re.DCell .’tween the averages were s1p11’j.oBAt
in both sea.sons. The pure stand Snve the h1&!lBat __8r088.
as oompared with the iaterplnnt1D& tre9:l;me... !he 8I’fd.J1
71eld Kg./PaddsD iDo...,ed by iDoJ’e~iJt8thepla.n1; 4eDaitl
ot maize aDd de·ore~t. plBJlt 4e.1t7 of .07be8l1 1Dt. same area.
2-~.·t-
!he differe •• II.*_en the a-.rege8 _1”8 tdp:t.:f1~ *. -=~
in both 8eOJl0D8. _) ••• ~aad.••• tJae b1••••• t aftZ’OC ••
aa ooape.red wi’tl1 ... u.a& •••..•••• ill ~ ---.
!he atzoaw ,1e14 K&••.: .: :l.llDn•••• ’” 11»••••• tile pl.”
c1en811, at” Dlf.l.1.zeill. same area.
1
\IIII
\
- 100-
2~ § OX.JB AI
~GROWTH MEASUREMENTS
1- Plant he!sh’tl
!he differences between the c.veroges at 40,55, 70.
85 and 100 d83 were not signifioant in both seasons. The
treatment D geTe the highest average in 1980 season. where-
BS the treo.tment P gave the highest average in 1981 season
except at 40 dE\Y.
2- Nml~r of keves per P*Mt:
The dif’fereJ:ICes between the a.verages a.t 55 d03’ were
signifioant in one season out of two, whereas Q:t 70, 85 aDd
100 day were s1gn1f’ieant ~n both sensons. The pure stand of
sOlbean save the highest averages a.t 55, 7-0, 85 and 100 dol’
in both seasoDS as cownred with tbe uterplQAt!D8 trea.tment
t whereas the tree_nt E gave 1il» highe_-- 8PQrae’P’-o.t
40 da.Y•
.3- Leat e&U
Thedi:ttereDC •• }ltetween tilt 8ft1”88U at d11fereat peNperiods
were 8i~ :in botb, ••• au. ,fhe leaf e.re~ in
0.2• decreased b7 •• aa1D& th8 p1aJlt 4-.1t,..
, ’i
4- lumber of Rq41 ~.
Tbe dlft.~U.”””” t.B~. at 55 •• 70 a.
were a1gD11’1oailt iIt,> .eB801l_t e1 two. w!WN_ at 85
” ”.,.
BD4 100 4a1 _re a 08111; 1Jl •• tl& _880_. !III pan
.tam pTe the at ~ ~ •••••••
~”~~”’’’~~~~!i$L~$#ki\##P.’’’’’’’~
II1i
Ii!
- 101-
in both seasons exoept at 55 day as compared with the
inierplant1ng treatments.
2- y ~ E It .~
1- ngpt heightz : .
C Q 1(c! 0 li E Ii T S
The differences between the averages were n.ot s 19n.if1-
cnnt in both seasons. The plant height 1ncrensed by increasing
the plant tensity.
2- lfWBber of. ;Leave. per Rloats
The differences between the averages were sign:lf1oant
in one Beason out of two. The results gave the same trend
at growth periods.
The differences be-’-..een the n’R1’O&es we~ s1gn1r1o~
in both sansone. The pure stand 111 bOth 8~£l80n. g8Ye_ the
highest averages of the .tam diameter o.s ClOJQ.Pared w1:I;11~ba
1nterplant1na -treatment ••
~
The dif’ferenoee -,-aD the •••••••• ,.e~ .i..,tteaat
. - ,~;,
in both seasons. The ,.. stBDlls .•.••. the h1B~ 8ft2’GP.
as e ompnred with theU!!J.’plantiDg .~rea~Dt8._ _ ..Pleat
weight without po~ ~d __ ••••••• ”be~”
densi’tl_
D.·tbe •••••• __ ~
I
i
Ii1
Ii1j
j
I
I
I
. I
Il
I
1
~~”’””,’’,’.’”’’”’’’”””’’’’’’’’’~’l’!’!’I\’’~’~’
\
1I,
- 102-
in both seasons. The resul ta gave the some trend o.tdifferent
growth periods.
The differenCes between the averages were significant
in both seasons. The pure stand of soybean in both s ensona
gave the highest averages as compared with the interpla.nt:f.J:lg
treatments. The pods weight per plant increased by deoreasing
the plant dens1tr_
7- Seed Ekht 2$£PlW’
The differenoes between the averages were signifioant
in both seasons. The pure stand gave the highest averages
aa oompor€d with the interpla.uting treatments·in both seasOllS.
The seed weight per plnnt increased by deoreasing the ple.n:~
density of soybean.
8- 100 seed weight:
The differences’ between the averages were aigDif’iee.Jlt
in one season out of t&. The pure s’tt’LIli in both seDBODS
gave the highest e.verflJles 0.8 compn.redwith the other treatments.
In the in.te~1Dg tre_sAts tbe 100 seed weiSh’
increased by deOre8B~·tbe p~’deDa1~~
9 - Net we” Ie :
The diff’ere~~tween ~ awzra.saa wue atpUioaDt ’
in one season out·of:_,.. fiIe~Q””Il”. -B’ aDd. I ’ca” *’he
”i._-.
highest averages ill”” BIll 1’””’ODII, :te•••• 1•• 1)’ 88
oompared -With tbe 114. ~reat_”’•
. ~~-.-.
- 103 -
I11- Y 1J!l L .11
1- Seed lilel~:
The difference. between the averages were 81gn1tloant
in both seasons. !be pure stand gave the highest averages
in both seasons 68 oompared with the other treatments 1n
both seasons. The 8Qed,ie1d lC8./t0.4dan increased by inorea.
sing the plant denalt1 f)f 8olbenn.
2-~l
1’he differences between the avernaes were 81gnUioo.ni
in both seaSODS, < The straw 11e14 save the aame trem in the
se.4 1ield.
1- OqrbopAmte ”Di’l1iM!’
The ditf’erenoee ”tween the o.vernaee ware .1&1”(108D.”
in both seasons. file oQbl*ldrate perceJltqe 1Dozetl8e4b.r
deoreas1ng the plant 48•• 1t,- In both 8eaa01J8 the Vee•••.•
D gave the h1sheet 8,,-,&8.wIle1’8a8 the tren””. A-saw <
the lowest averages ali ’-pore4 ~1ih tbe ot;he~ b’ea.•••• t••
TJ:IediffereI1Ce. _ween the D.ftZ’OS.. o~ onrboltl’lrnte
l1a1d per fo.ddc.n were ””’’l1ioont 1n lMtth ”MOM. the pull
st8Dd 01ma.1ze ASft.JI(”lhe.~ 8’1U’OP OIl0••••••• tll
the 1nterP1B11t1D& t~Il_.
<.
”’=’,-.
’.
- 104 -
J- Protein peroentgge:
!rhe differenees between the averages ot prote in peroeD-o
taga were s1gll1tioant 1n both sea.sons. The crude protein
peroento.ge in seeds o~ soybean increased by incrensin& the
plant dens! t,. It was olear that in the treatment .• gaw
the highest average fl.S oompared with the other treatments.
’J!he differences between the a.verage s of prote in y1.eld
per fo.ddnn weresi&nUi~ant in both seMons. The pure
stflDi gave the highest a,vera.ges as oompared witll the other
treatment s in both seasons.
5- pil peroenmal
The differeno8s between tbe a”raaeS of 011 peroentaae
were s:Lgn1f1oant in one sea.scm ou.t ot two. !be oU percentage
1n seeds of 80J’beDD. inoreased ’bJ’ 4ec:renalDc the plBDt
density_
The cU.tfereD.•• ~1Ie”ween tlla tJ.wn.p- _%’8 81p1t1oaJ1t
in both seo.sons. !be,pu.re etODd of .OfbeaD In” ”lie IIi”’’’
a”f’ernses os co~.th tbe 1Dtel’t1nat1D& Usa__ ”. in
both _OSODS. The .-tl,ul.d. K&-#&JIiJ.’” ’baaUe4.._ 1DDZeuiDa
tile p1QJlt 4.-1_. .~~
•.• lOS ••
4- J.J..J; ii’ ,II~1Sf 0 MI
l!..uaoo.4~iM P<NtJd/A’Rei fAAdg.n:
The J1fterj~eli b~tweQnth. aiG:tages 01 net 1.*
were sign1t1eo.n”t 1n botb ,eol.. !be Det 1noome inCreoaed
~. ,.~: ; I’ ~
’by inoreasing tie plont··den.,it, tor two 0 rops. fhe treatment
It ga.ve the ’hi~e8t o:terages in the net income, where-
, , he the purb stomt ot 8(jjhan save the lowssto.verages in
both seo.sons.