Effect of Salinity on Growth and Yield of Barley

Abstract

The present study was conducted during season of 2017-2018 at Agricultural Research Farm, School of Agriculture, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jagatpura, Jaipur, India. To assess individual performance in saline water conditions, ten barley cultivars were produced in the field: RD 2715, RD 2035, RD 2592, RD 2849, RD 2860, RD 2552, RD 2668, RD 2097, BH 946, RD 2052. According to the findings, out of the ten cultivars, RD 2552 considerably recorded the highest plant population, growth characteristics, and ultimately increased grain(45.21 q ha-1) as well as straw yield of barley.

Full text

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: E-mail: meenakshiattri418@gmail.com;
International Journal of Plant & Soil Science
34(22): 1006-1011, 2022; Article no.IJPSS.90257
ISSN: 2320-7035
Effect of Salinity on Growth and Yield of Barley
Nida Abdulrashid Patel a, Meenakshi Attri b*, Swati Mehta b, D. N. Shelar a
and Hritik Srivastava b
a School of Agriculture, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302017, India.
b Division of Agronomy, FOA, SKUAST Jammu, Main Campus, Chatha - 180009, India.
Authors’ contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/IJPSS/2022/v34i2231461
Open Peer Review History:
This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers, peer
review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/90257
Received 12 June 2022
Accepted 16 August 2022
Published 25 August 2022
ABSTRACT
The present study was conducted during season of 2017-2018 at Agricultural Research Farm,
School of Agriculture, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jagatpura, Jaipur, India. To assess individual
performance in saline water conditions, ten barley cultivars were produced in the field: RD 2715,
RD 2035, RD 2592, RD 2849, RD 2860, RD 2552, RD 2668, RD 2097, BH 946, RD 2052.
According to the findings, out of the ten cultivars, RD 2552 considerably recorded the highest plant
population, growth characteristics, and ultimately increased grain(45.21 q ha-1) as well as straw
yield of barley.
Keywords: Cultivars; RD; BH; saline water; growth; yield.
1. INTRODUCTION
“Barley (Hordeum vulgare L) member of grasses
family, it is a self pollinated, diploid species with
14 chromosome number. Each 100 g of barley
grain comprises 10.6 g protein, 2.1 g fat, 64.0 g
carbohydrate, 50.0 mg calcium, 6.0 mg iron, 31
mg vitamin B1, 0.10 mg vitamin B2 and 50 μg
folate” (Vaughan et al. 2006). Barley that is high
in protein is ideal for animal feed. Malting barley
typically contains less protein. After maize, rice,
and wheat, barley is the fourth-largest cereal
crop, producing 132 million tonnes yearly. “In
India, barley was cultivated on 0.66 m ha-1 area
during 2015-16 with 1.62 million tonnes of
production at an average productivity status of
24.7q ha-1 [1] Rajasthan, it is have the first
position with area 0.223 million ha-1 and
Original Research Article

Patel et al.; IJPSS, 34(22): 1006-1011, 2022; Article no.IJPSS.90257
1007
production of 0.620 million tonnes with
productivity of 2,774 kg ha-1. This production is
far below that of most of the states like Haryana
(0.137million tonnes), Punjab (0.047 million ton)
and Jammu and Kashmir (0.008 million ton).
Barley production can be improved by increasing
either the area under cultivation or the yield per
unit area” [2].
Barley can withstand saline water and sodic soil.
Salinity is the concentration of dissolved salts in
water or soil and is expressed in terms of
concentration (mg L-1) or electrical conductivity
(dS m-1). According to Grewal (2010) “salinity is
one of the major a biotic environmental stresses
affecting agricultural productivity”. “Salinity
affects many morphological, physiological and
biochemical processes, including seed
germination, plant growth, water and nutrient
uptake” (Musyimi et al. 2007). The screening
parameters that are frequently used to choose
the salt tolerance genotype include seed
germination and seedling growth in a saline
environment. It is possible to increase these
crops' irrigation-based productivity [3-13].
However, high-quality water for agricultural
purposes is quickly turning into a luxury in a
semi-arid nation like India. Water quality in
irrigational areas is frequently poor during the
drier months of the year when these crops are
cultivated, and high Electrical Conductivities
(ECs) due to salinity may become an issue
[14].
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The field study was carried out at Agriculture
Research farm, School of Agriculture, Suresh
Gyan Vihar University, Jagatpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. Jaipur is situated in the eastern
boundary of Thar Desert a semi arid land of
Rajasthan at 26.90 North latitude and 75.70 East
longitude at an altitude of 1417 meter from mean
sea level. Its subtropical climate features cold,
dry winters and hot, dry summers. Jaipur is
located in the "Semi Arid Eastern Plains" agro
climatic zone and the traditionally characterized
as the wheat, pulse & oil seeds crop zone of
Rajasthan. The average maximum temperature
during the month of May-June varies between
35.70C to 42.10C, while the average minimum
temperature varies between 8.20C to 10.60C
during December-January, which is the coldest
month of the year. The region has 500 to 700
mm of rain on average a year, with the majority
falling between July and August and 80 to 100
mm in September [15-24].
The average humidity of the tract is about 65 per
cent. The soil at the location is sandy loam,
Organic carbon % (0.15), Available Nitrogen (kg
ha-1) 250.6, Available P2O5 (kg ha-1) 25, Available
K2O (kg ha-1) 162, Electrical Conductivity (dS m-1
at 250C) 0.24, Soil pH 8.2.
The experiment was designed using
Randomized Block Design, with 10 treatments
reproduced three times. The treatments included
30 FIRB (furrow irrigated raised bed) techniques.
Number of spike meter -1 row length, length of
spike (cm),number of grain spike-1 , test weight,
grain yield (q ha-1), straw yield (q ha-1), harvest
index (%) were recorded at harvest. To
determine which of the 10 combinations under
consideration was the most profitable, the
economics of barley—gross return, net return,
and B: C ratio—were also assessed [25-30].
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Plant Population
Data pertaining to the plant population at 20 DAS
and at harvest was influenced by saline water
and cultivar are presented in Table 1. Revealed
that saline water did not showed significant effect
on plant population at 20 DAS. Whereas,
significantly maximum plant population (52.91)
was observed under the cultivar RD 2552 at
harvest, respectively. Significantly minimum plant
population (38.49) was recorded under cultivar
RD 2052 which was at par with RD 2097 cultivar.
The highest plant population at harvesting stage
significantly showed in the cultivar RD 2552
whereas significantly lowest plant population at
harvest recorded under the cultivar RD 2097.
3.2 Plant Height (cm)
Observation on plant height as affected by
different treatments were recorded at 30, 60 DAS
and at harvest. Table 2. Among all the
treatments significantly maximum plant height
28.4, 82.9 and 100.37 cm observed under the
cultivar RD 2552 at 30, 60 DAS and harvest. It
remained at pat with RD 2052 at 30 DAS and at
harvest.
3.3 Days to 50 Per Cent Heading
The perusal of data in Table 3 Days to 50
percent heading was 4 and 5 days earlier in the
cultivar RD 2592 and BH 946 as compared to
other cultivars. At the same time days to 50 per
cent heading was 19 days late in cultivar RD

Patel et al.; IJPSS, 34(22): 1006-1011, 2022; Article no.IJPSS.90257
1008
2552, followed by other cultivars. Days to 50 per
cent heading was 4 and 5 days early in cultivar
RD 2592 and BH 946 compared to other
cultivars. At the same time days to 50 per cent
heading was 19 days late in cultivar RD 2552,
respectively.
3.4 Days to 50 Per Cent Maturity
The perusal of data in Table 3 Days to 50 per
cent maturity was 2 and 4 days earlier in the
cultivar RD 2592 and BH 946 as compared to
other cultivars. At the same time days to 50 per
cent maturity was 18 days late in cultivar RD
2552, respectively. Days to 50 per cent maturity
was 2 and 3 days early in cultivar RD 2592 and
BH 946 as compared to other cultivars. At the
same time days to 50 per cent maturity was 18
days late in cultivar RD 2552, respectively.
3.5 Grain and Straw Yield
Grain yield was significantly influenced by
different cultivars Table 4. Cultivar RD 2552 was
recorded significantly higher grain yield followed
by RD 2592 and BH 946 whereas lowest grain
yield was observed under cultivar RD 2097
compared to other cultivars. Yield is not an
independent character but a product of a number
of constellation of yield contributing characters
such as tillers per plant, spike length, grain per
spike, test weight which form the ‘sink’ and the
harvest index which are considered directly
related to yield. The higher yield of barley cultivar
RD 2552 under salinity may be attributed to its
higher number of tillers, long spike length, more
number of grains per spike, higher test weight
and harvest index. Same is the case with other
cultivars RD 2592 and BH 946. These findings
Table 1. Effect of Salinity on Response of barley cultivars on plant population m-2 at 20 DAS
and at harvest
Table 2. Effect of salinity on response of barley cultivars on plant height at 30, 60 DAS and at
harvest
Plant height (cm)
Cultivars
At 30 DAS
At 60 DAS
At Harvest
RD2715
21.9
72.3
90.61
RD2035
24.2
77.8
94.62
RD2592
22.7
74.7
94.59
RD2849
23.1
75.6
93.57
RD2860
18.6
64.9
84.86
RD2552
28.4
82.9
100.37
RD2668
20.34
70.5
90.18
RD2097
19.6
68.2
87.26
BH946
26.5
79.4
96.48
RD2052
27.4
80.6
98.43
S.Em .±
1.43
0.90
1.59
C.D. at 5 %
4.25
2.68
4.73
Plant population (m-2)
Cultivars
At 20 DAS
At Harvest
RD2715
43.81
43.14
RD2035
47.88
45.06
RD2592
55.56
49.04
RD2849
53.02
45.01
RD2860
51.28
43.21
RD2552
46.85
52.91
RD2668
37.65
42.50
RD2097
22.94
38.95
BH946
67.33
48.14
RD2052
45.56
38.49
S.Em±
6.96
1.12
CD at 5%
NS
3.34

Patel et al.; IJPSS, 34(22): 1006-1011, 2022; Article no.IJPSS.90257
1009
Table 3. Effect of Salinity on Response of barley cultivars on days to 50 per cent heading
Cultivars
Days to 50 per cent heading
Days 50 per cent maturity
RD2715
65.22
98.01
RD2035
76.31
108.32
RD2592
79.33
111.15
RD2849
70.21
102.23
RD2860
72.34
104.05
RD2552
82.33
113.25
RD2668
74.23
106.17
RD2097
63.21
95.03
BH946
78.66
109.11
RD2052
74.66
100.13
S.Em.±
2.59
3.22
C.D. at 5 %
7.70
9.59
Table 4. Effect of salinity on yield of barley crop
are in conformity with the results reported by
Sardhana et al. [31], Jat and Singh (2003),
Chakravarty and Kushwah [32] and Rawat
[33].
Among the all cultivars maximum straw yield
(67.71 q ha-1) was recorded in cultivar RD 2552,
being significantly higher than all other cultivars.
However, lowest straw yield was obtained in RD
2097 (31.51 q ha-1), respectively. All the barley
cultivars under study showed significant variation
and thus exerted variable effect on straw yield.
This was mainly due to the fact that grain and
biological yields increased almost in different
pattern during the period of season. Similar
results were founded by Chandra and Das [34]
and Cui et al. [35]. Our results are in conformity
with Alam [36] and Kabir (2009).
4. CONCLUSIONS
Among the barley cultivars RD-2552, RD-2592
and BH-946 were quite encouraging under
salinity condition with respect to growth, yield
and economics. RD-2552, RD-2592 and BH-946
cultivars exhibited highest yield among the rest of
promising barley cultivars tested under salinity
condition. It was showed that cultivar RD 2552
gave the highest net return and benefit cost ratio
which was found statistically superior over RD
2592.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. FAO; 2017.
Available:http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#da
ta/QC.
2. Malcolmson N, Nowkirkm R, Carson G.
Expanding opportunities for barley food
and geed through product innovation. Feed
and food quality; 18th National Am Barley
Res Workshop 4th Can Barley Symposium.
2005;2-4.
Cultivars
Grain yield (q ha-1)
Straw yield (q ha-1)
RD 2715
26.21
45.91
RD 2035
39.41
52.61
RD 2592
42.41
58.71
RD 2849
36.66
41.81
RD2860
37.26
45.21
RD 2552
45.21
67.71
RD 2668
38.81
51.81
RD 2097
18.26
31.51
BH 946
41.73
64.21
RD 2052
28.61
40.81
S.Em.±
0.59
0.68
C.D. at 5%
1.79
2.02

Patel et al.; IJPSS, 34(22): 1006-1011, 2022; Article no.IJPSS.90257
1010
3. Alicja P, Damian M. Grain yield and yield
components of spring barley genotypes as
the indicators of their tolerance to temporal
drought stress. Indian J Agron.
2015;21(3):19-27.
4. Anonymous, 2012. Department of
Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers
Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers Welfare, Government of India,
Bhawan K. New Delhi -100-001.
5. B.L. and Dhakar, L.L. Yield attributes and
yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
varieties under sowing dates, seed rates. J
Agric Crop Sci. 2002;23(2):84-7.
6. Bakht J, Qamer Z, Shafi M, Akber H,
Rahman M, Ahmad N et al. Response of
different wheat varieties to various row
spacing. Sarhad J Agric. 2007;23(4):
839-46.
7. Basalah MO. Action of salinity on seed
germination and seedling growth of
(Solanuum melongena L.). J Agric Res
Kafer Sheikh Universitsy. 2010;36(4):
64-73.
8. Fisher RA, Sayre K, Monasterio I. The
effect of raised bed planting and irrigated
wheat yield influenced by variety and row
spacing. Int J Sci Rep. 2005;1(3):
121-41.
9. Grieve MM, Giuzio L, Caro A, Flagella Z.
Relationships between nitrogen utilization
and grain technological quality in durum
wheat nitrogen translocation and nitrogen
use efficiency for protein. Indian J Agron.
1992;103(6):1487-94.
10. Habibullah. Assessing crop, weed and
weather relationship of chickpea
varieties under different sowing dates.
M.Sc (Agri) [thesis]. Jabalpur: Jawahar Lal
Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, 2016;
37.
11. Ijaz AK, Jehan B, Shah AW, Khan N, Ihsan
U. Effect of seed rate on the yield and yield
components of wheat under irrigated
conditions of Peshawar. Asian J Plant Sci.
2002;12(3):513-5.
12. Kinfemichael SG, Fisseha IM. Effects of
salinity on days to heading (DTH), days
from heading to maturity (DHTM) and days
to maturity (DTM) of tef [Eragrostis tef
(Zucc.) Trotter] accessions and varieties in
Ethiopia. Asian J Agric Sci. 2011;3(4):
250-6.
13. Kumar T, Smmauria R, Pareek B.
Response of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
to phosphorus and zinc application under
irrigated conditions of hyper arid plains of
Rajasthan. Indian J Agron. 2011;81:662-5.
14. Apse MP, Blumwald E. Engineering salt
tolerance in plants. Curr Opin Biotechnol.
2002;13(2):146-50.
15. Mali H. Performance of barley (Hordium
vulgare L.) varieties under varying
precision nutrient management practices.
Ph.D (Agri) [thesis]. Udaipur: MPUAT;
2016.
16. Mishra DK, Khan RA, Vaghel MS. Stability
of wheat varieties under various dates of
sowing. Annals Agric Res. 2000;21(4):
564-6.
17. Mokhtar B, Ali S, Youssef T. Introduction
and evaluation of salt- tolerant barley
genotypes. Annals Biol Res. 2014;5(6):
64-9.
18. Nezami A, IzadKhah M. The effect of
cultivation density on the yield of six-row
and two-row barley cultivars. International
Journal of Agriculture. 1st national
conference on modern topics in
agriculture. 2011;8(4):26-35.
19. Owens S. Salt of the earth Genetic
engineering may help to reclaim
agricultural land Lost due to salinization.
Eur Int J Biol. 2001;4(2):877-9.
20. Pankaj SC, Sharma PK, Sharma VK.
Performance of barley (Hordeum vulgare
L.) varieties in relation to date of sowing
and nitrogen level. Agric Res J.
2015;52(1):89-91.
21. Ram H, Singh B, Sharma A. Effect of
time of sowing on the field performance
of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in
Punjab. 2010;47(3 & 4):132-35.
22. Ram H, Singh B, Singh S. Performance of
barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) as influenced
by different varieties, row spacing
and seeding rate. Haryana Journal
of Agronomy. 2012;28(1):71-3.
23. Raouf AM, Kandil A, Gheith EM, Mahros
N. Barley grain yield and its components
as affected by seeding and harvesting
dates. Ann Agric Sci Moshtohor.
1983;19(4):57-67.
24. Raptan PK, Hamid A, Kahliq QA, Solaiman
AR, Ahmad TV, Karim MA. Salinity
tolerance of black gram and mungbean in
dry matter accumulation in different plant
parts. Korean J Crop Sci. 2001;46(5):
380-6.
25. Sardana V, Zhang GP. Effect of time of
nitrogen application on the growth and
yield of two barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

Patel et al.; IJPSS, 34(22): 1006-1011, 2022; Article no.IJPSS.90257
1011
cultivars. Cereal Research Com-
munications. 2005;33(4):785-91.
26. Singh D, Singh DR, Nepalia V, Kumari A.
Agro-economic performance of dual
purpose barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
varieties under varying seed rate and
fertility levels. Annals Agric Res.
2013;34(3):325-229.
27. Singh M, Niwas R, Bishnoi OP, Sharma K.
Phenology of wheat cultivars in relation to
thermal indices under different
management practices. Indian J Agron.
2003;33(6):23-8.
28. Wahome PK, Jesch HH, Grittner I.
Mechanisms of salt stress tolerance in two
rose rootstocks Rosa chine sis ’Major’ and
R. rubiginosa. J Hortic. 2001;87(6):207-16.
29. Willenborg CJ, Gulden RH, Johnson EN,
Shirtliffe SJ. Germination characteristics of
polymer-coated canola (Brassica napus L.)
seeds subjected to moisture stress at
different temperatures. Int J Agron.
2004;96(3):786-91.
30. Yeo RB, Flower NP. Response of dwarf
durum and aestivum wheat varieties to
nitrogen. Indian J Agron. 1984;29(3):
341-35.
31. Sardana V, Sharma SK, Randhawa AS.
Performance of wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) varieties under different sowing dates
and nitrogen levels in the sub-montane
region of Punjab. Indian J Agron.
2002;47(3):372-7.
32. Chakrawarty VK, Kushwaha KP.
Performance of barley (Hordeum vulgare)
varieties under sowing dates and nitrogen
levels in Bundelkhand. Indian J Agron.
2007;12(2):163-64.
33. Rawat DS. Performance of dual purpose
barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties
under varying seed rates and fertility
management M.Sc (Agri) [thesis]. Udaipur:
Department of Agronomy, MPUAT;
2011.
34. Chandra K, Das AK. Correlation and
inter correlation of Physiological
parameters in rice under rainfed
transplanted condition. Indian J Agron.
2000;19(2): z251-4.
35. Cui J, Kusutani A, Toyota M, Asanuma K.
Studies on the varietal differences of
harvest index and morphological
characteristics of rice. Jpn J Crop Sci.
2000;69(3):359-64.
36. Alam MZ, kabir SA. Evaluation of yield and
yield components of barley varieties to
nitrogen. Int J Agric Crop Sci. 2009;8(1):
52-4.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2022 Patel et al.; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://www.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/90257