DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Growth and Yield Differences in Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) in Reclaimed Land Based on the Physical Types of Organic Materials

간척지에서 유기물 투입 형태에 따른 케나프의 생육반응

  • Kang, Chan Ho (Jeonllabukdo Agricultural Research & Extension Services Iksan) ;
  • Lee, In Sok (Jeonllabukdo Agricultural Research & Extension Services Iksan) ;
  • Go, Do Young (Jeonllabukdo Agricultural Research & Extension Services Iksan) ;
  • Kim, Hyo Jin (Jeonllabukdo Agricultural Research & Extension Services Iksan) ;
  • Na, Young Eun (Jeonllabukdo Agricultural Research & Extension Services Iksan)
  • Received : 2017.10.16
  • Accepted : 2017.12.17
  • Published : 2018.03.31

Abstract

To improve the soil of reclaimed land, we added organic materials at a level of 3,000 kg/10 a. As a result, the electrical conductivity (EC) value of reclaimed soil decreased by 58%, the organic material content increased from 6.7 to 16.0 g/kg, the porosity increased from 1.57 to 1.31%, the soil hardness decreased from 20.2 to 17.9 mm and the plow layer was deepened from 19.8 to 26.8 cm. After these physiochemical improvements to the reclaimed soil, the growth phase of crops was improved compared to that of non-treatment crops. The height of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) cultivated in the reclaimed land containing organic materials was increased by 18.8%. Especially, the improvement effects of pellet type manure compost and rice straw on kenaf were more preferable than those of other organic materials. When the kenaf was cultivated in the reclaimed land containing organic materials, the yield increased. The average yield of the treatment crops was 9,218 kg/10 a, 2.1 times higher than that of non-treatment crops. The most effective treatments to increase the yields were pellet type manure compost (10,848 kg/10 a, 148% increase), rice straw (120% increase) and chopped kenaf (95% increase). To increase the physicochemical enhancements to the reclaimed land soil and most improve yields, the most effective type of organic materials was the pellet. The organic material types that maintained a better growth phase and most increased the yield were the liquid and pellet types. When we used pellet type organic material, the plant height of kenaf was increased by 41% in comparison with that of the non-treatment crops and yield was increased by more than 122%. Additionally liquid type organic material improved the yield (by 127%).

간척지 토양 환경을 개선하기 위하여 절단케나프, 팽연왕겨, 볏짚, 펠릿퇴비 등 유기물원을 10a당 3,000 kg씩 투입하였다. 투입 결과 간척지 토양 염농도(EC)는 1.2 dS/m에서 0.5 dS/m로 58%로 감소하였으며 토양 유기물 함량은 6.7 g/kg에서 16.0 g/kg으로 1.4배 증가하였다. 토양 공극은 유기물 투입 평균 47.9%로 비투입에 비해 10.2%p 증가하였다. 토양 경도는 20.2 mm에서 17.9 mm로 11.4% 감소하였으며 작토심은 19.8 cm에서 26.8 cm로 35% 깊어졌다. 간척지 토양 이화학성 개선 효과에 의하여 작물 생육이 향상 되었는데 간척지에 유기물을 투입하고 재배한 케나프의 초장이 비투입 처리에 비해 18.8% 더 성장하였으며 펠릿퇴비와 볏짚 처리에서의 성장 효과가 뚜렷하였다. 생육 향상에 의해 수량도 증가하였는데 간척지에서 유기물을 투입하고 케나프를 재배한 결과 평균 수량이 9,218 kg/10a로 무투입 4,368 kg/10a의 2.1배 까지 증가하였다. 수량 증가를 위해 가장 적절한 유기물원은 펠릿퇴비이었는데 10a당 수량이 10,848 kg/10a로 무투입 대비 148% 높았으며, 볏짚($120%{\uparrow}$), 절단케나프($95%{\uparrow}$) 순으로 수량 증가 효과가 있었다. 간척지 토양 이화학성 개선 효과를 강화시키기 위하여 펠릿형, 분말형, 액비형태로 퇴비 투입 형태를 달리하여 처리한 결과 토양 이화학성 개선에 가장 효과적인 형태는 펠릿형 이었다. 퇴비 투입 형태중 케나프 생육 및 수량 향상에 적합한 퇴비 형태는 액비형과 펠릿형 이었는데 펠릿형 처리시 케나프 초장은 41% 커지고 수량은 122% 증가하였으며 액비형은 38%의 생육 촉진과 무투입 대비 127% 수량 증가효과를 나타내었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bhardwaj, H. L., M. Rangappa, and C. L. Webber, III. 1995. Potential of kenaf as a forage. Proc. Int. Kenaf Assoc. Vonf. Irving, TX. 7 : 95-103.
  2. Chaney, K. and R. S. Swift. 1986. Studies on aggregates stability. Re-formation of soil aggregates. J. Soil Sci. 37 : 329-335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1986.tb00035.x
  3. Cheng, W. J., H. J. Park, S. H. Eom, B. W. Kim, K. I. Sung, and D. H. Cho. 2007. Physiological characteristics of Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). J. Korean Grassl. Sci. 27(2) : 79-84. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2007.27.2.079
  4. Cho, N. K., C. K. Song, Y. I. Cho, and J. B. Ko. 2001. Effect of seeding date on forage yield and chemical composition of kenaf in Jeju. Krean J. Crop Sci. 46(6) : 439-442.
  5. Cho, N. K., C. K. Song, Y. I. Cho, and J. B. Ko. 2001. Effect of nitrogen rate on agronomic characteristics, forage yield and chemical composition of Kenaf on Jeju island. J. Korean Grassl. Sci. 21 : 59-66.
  6. Dao, T. H., W. Lonkerd, S. Rao, R. Meyer, and L. Pellack. 1989. Kenaf in a semi-arid environment and forage quality in Oklahoma. Argon, Abstr. p. 130.
  7. Hollowell, J. E., B. S. Baldwin, and D. L. Lang. 1996. Evaluation of kenafs a potential forage for the southern Unite States. Proc. 8th Ann. Inter. Kenaf Vonf. 34-38.
  8. Hwang, K. J., M. C. Kim, S. Y. Kang, J. G. Yu, S. T. Song, N. G. Park, and J. H. Kim. 2002, Study on adaption, dry matter yield and nutrient value of Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) on Jeju province. J. Korean Grassl. Sci. 22(4) : 287-296. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2002.22.4.287
  9. Killinger, G. B. 1969, Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) a multi-use crop. Argon. J. 61 : 734-736.
  10. Lim, J. I., D. H. Kim, J. J. Lee, D. K. Kim, H. J. Lee, W. K. Min, D. J. Park, M. R. Huh, H. H. Chang, P. J. Kim, and S. Kim. 2011. Studies on the evaluation ogf kenaf as a bulking agent in livestock composting. J. Agri. & Life Sci. 45(2) : 21-28.
  11. Phillips, W. A., S. Rao, and T. Dao. 1989. Nutritive value of immature whole plant kenaf and mature kenaf tops for growing rumminsnts. Proc. Assoc. Advancement of industrial Crops. Peoria, IL. p. 17-22.
  12. Son, J. G. 1994. Soil Salt Prediction Modeling for the Estimation of Irrigation Water Requirements for Dry Field Crops in Reclaimed Tidelands. Journal of the Korean Society of Agricultural Engineers 36(2) : 96-110.
  13. Suriyajantratong, W., R. E. Tucker, R. E. Sigafus, and G. E. Mitchell, Jr. 1973. Kenaf and rice straw for sheep. J. Anim. Sci. 37 : 1251-1254. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1973.3751251x
  14. Swingle, R. S., A. R. Urias, J. C. Doyle, and R. L. Voigt. 1978. Chemical composition of kenaf forage and its digestibility by lambs and in vitro. J. Anim. Sci. 46 : 1346-1350. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.4651346x
  15. Tisdal, J. M. and J. M. Oades. 1982. Organic matter and water- stable aggregate in soil. J. Soil. Sci. 33 : 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.1982.tb01755.x
  16. Waters, A. G. and J. M. Oades. 1991. Organic matter and water-stable aggregates. p. 163-175. In W. S. Wilson(ed.). Advanced in soil organic matter research. The impact on agriculture and the environment. Roy. Soc. Chem. Cambrige. UK.
  17. Webber, C. L. III and Bledsoe. 1993. Kenaf : Production, harvesting, processing and products. p. 416-421. New crops. Wiley, New York.
  18. Wing, J. M. 1967. Ensilability, acceptability and digestibility of kenaf. Feedstuffs 39 : 26.