Korean Journal of Environmental Biology (환경생물)

Korean Society of Environmental Biology (한국환경생물학회)
권호 표지

Mulching Materials as Yield Booster for Sustainable Mungbean Production

  • Kim Hee-Jung (Department of Biological Science, Sang Ji University) ;
  • Lee Ho-Yong (Department of Biological Science, Sang Ji University)
  • Published : 2005.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The effect of different mulching materials on mungbean production was studied. The general objective was to assess the ecological effects of mulching materials in sustainable mungbean production. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the effects of different mulching materials on the chemical, physical and biological soil properties, on weed control and yield, and to identify mulching materials that are environmentally friendly in mungbean production. The experiment was conducted at the Fruit and Vegetables Seeds Center, Science City of $Mu/tilde{n}oz$, Nueva Ecija, Philippines from May to July 2004. The initial soil chemical properties were: pH of 6.4, 2.0 percent organic matter content, 0.10 percent total nitrogen, 22 ppm phosphorus, and 370 ppm available potassium. The soil microbial loads were $8\times10^4\;CFU\;g^{-1}$ for bacteria and $14\times10^4\;CFU\;g^{-1}$ for fungi. Mushroom spent mulch increased soil organic matter with an average of 3.13 percent, nitrogen with an average of 0.16 percent and the highest number of bacterial count with $3.4\times10^8\;CFU\;g^{-1}$. Use of mulch, except rice straw mulch, generally increased mungbean yield. The best mulching material for high yield production of mungbean was black polyethylene plastic film, although environmentally unfriendly.

Keywords

References

  1. AVRDC. 2003. AVRDC Progress Report 2002. Taipei: AVRDC
  2. Cohen R, L Persky and Y Hadar. 2002. $Mn^{2+}$ alters peroxidase profiles and lignin degradation by the white-rot fungus Pleurotus ostreatus under different nutritional and growth conditions. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 103: 15-29
  3. Firth P, H Thitipoca, S Suthipradit, R Westselaar and D.F Beech. 1973. Nitrogen balance studies in the central plains of Thailand. Soil, Biol. Biochem. 5:41-46. cited by Mubarik A, AM Ilyas, MS Hazoor and A Bashir. 1997. The Mungbean Green Revolution in Pakistan. Asian Vegetable Research and development Center (AVRDC). p. 62
  4. Hansen MA and J May. 1997. Beware of Sour Mulch. http://www.ecit.vt.edu/department//envirohort/factsheets2/landsmaint/jul94pr5.html(Accessed August 13, 2004)
  5. Holmer RJ. 2000. The periurban vegetable project of Xavier University collage of agriculture. Paper presented at the 12th NOMCARRD Regional Symposium, Philippines, August 10-11
  6. Johns GF. 1979. The organic way to mulching. Rodale press, INC. pp. 189
  7. Kim H. 2004. Mulching materials as yield booster for sustainable mungbean production. Graduate thesis. CLSU, Philippines. pp. 16-18
  8. Mactal AG. 1998. Soil Productivity Index of the CLSU Reservation Area. CLSU, Science City of Muoz, Nueva Ecija. Philippines. pp. 116
  9. Ochasan MC. 1980. Effect of different mulching materials on the growth and yield of Chinese cabbage. Mountain state Agriculture Collage, La Trinidad, Benguet. Philippines. p.19
  10. Oplinger ES, LL Hardman, AR Kaminski, SM Combs and JD Doll. 1997. Mungbean. Alternative field Crop Manual. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/mungbean.html (Accessed August 13, 2004)
  11. Ramakrishna A, DL Tran, HM Tam and SP Wani, 2002. Sustaining success and learning from the experience: A case study of Thanh Ha Watershed, Vietnam. Paper presented to the International symposium on Sustaining Food Security and Managing Natural Resources in Southeast Asia Challenges for the 21st Century, January 8-11, 2002 Chiang Mai, Thailand
  12. Sanchez C. 2004. Modern aspects of mushroom culture technology. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 64:756-762 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-004-1569-7
  13. Seoul National University. 2000. Development of multi-functional mulch papers and evaluation of their performance. p.10
  14. Skelly DK. 2002. Experimental venue and estimation of interaction strength. Ecology 83:2097-2101
  15. Stewart DPC, KC Cameron, IS Cornforth and BE Main. 1997. Release of sulphate, potassium, calcium and magnesium from spent mushroom compost under laboratory conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soil. 26:146-151 https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050358
  16. Stewart DPC, KC Cameron, IS Cornforth and BE Main. 2000. Release of sulphate sulphur, potassium, calcium and magnesium from spent mushroom compost under field conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soil. 31:128-133 https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050635
  17. Surin L. 2003. Effect of soaking time and alpha naphthalene acetic acid concentration on the performance of confectionery peanut propagated though stem cutting. Central Luzon States University, Philippines. pp. 91
  18. Tobias CM. 1996. Effect of various mulching materials on seed production of Chinese cabbage cv, Cirazon. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet, Philippines. p. 29
  19. University of illinois extension. 2003. University of Illinois Extension Solutions Series. http://www.solutions.uiuc.edu/(Accessed August 13, 2004)
  20. Williams DJ. 1997. Organic Mulch. http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/-vista/html_pubs/mulch/MULCH.html (Accessed August 13, 2004)
  21. Xu YC, QR Shen, ML Li, K Dittert and B Sattelmacher. 2004. Effect of soil water status and mulching on $N_2O$ and $CH_4$ emission from lowland rice field in China. Biol. Fertil. Soil. 39:215-217 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-003-0692-4
  22. Zangh N LI, X Chang and W Katinka. 2003. The impact of mungbean research in hina. The World Vegetable Center (AVRDC). p. 26