Effect of salicylic acid and effective microorganism on growth and yield of mung bean in autumn winter 2020

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF AGRONOMY UNDERGRADUATE THESIS TITLE: EFFECT OF SALICYLIC ACID AND EFFECTIVE MICROORGANISM ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF MUNG BEAN IN AUTUMN – WINTER 2020 Supervisor : PhD PHAM TUAN ANH Department : PLANT PHYSIOLOGY Student : NGUYEN THI MY LINH Class : K61 – KHCTT Student code : 611703 Ha Noi – 2021 DECLARATION I declare that the thesis is the result of my own research The data and results mentioned in this thesis are honest and not used in any published thesis, dissertations, and scientific research projects previously I hereby commit that the information cited in the thesis ensuring cited as prescribed I bear full responsibility for these reassurances Hanoi, February 2021 Student Nguyen Thi My Linh i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis was made with the support and assistance of a number of people whom I would like to personally thank First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor PhD Pham Tuan Anh, who supervised me through my thesis, providing useful advices for the improvement of this work Very special thanks go out to all the teachers in the Faculty of Agronomy, especially the teachers in the Department of Plant Physiology create facilitate conditions and have many valuable ideas to help me in the course of graduation thesis The last but not least, I would like to express the gratitude to my family and my colleagues for the support they provided me through my study This would not have been possible without their support and helping Hanoi, February 2021 Student Nguyen Thi My Linh ii CONTENT DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii CONTENT iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF FIGURES viii SUMMARY viii PART I GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives and requirements 1.2.1 Objectives 1.2.2 Requirements PART II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Overview of mung bean 2.1.1 Orign 2.1.2 Charateristic 2.1.3 The roles 2.2 Ecological requirements of mung bean 2.3 Situation of mung bean research in the world and Vietnam 2.3.1 Situation of mung bean research in the world 2.3.2 Situation of mung bean research in Vietnam 11 2.4 Research about Effective Microorganisms (EM) and Salicylic acid (SA) 13 2.4.1 Research about Effective Microorganisms (EM) 13 2.4.2 Research about Salicylic acid (SA) 17 PART III MATERIALS AND METHODS 21 3.1 Materials 21 iii 3.2 Experiment site and research time 21 3.3 Research Contents 22 3.4 Methods 22 3.4.1 Experimental design 22 3.4.2 Cultural practices 22 3.4.3 Data collection 23 3.5 Managing collected data 26 PART IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27 4.1 Effect of EM and SA on the stem height 27 4.2 The effect of EM and SA on the number of leaves 30 4.3 Effect of EM and SA on number of 1st grade branches 32 4.4 Effect of EM and Acid SA on Leaf area and Leaf area index (LAI) 35 4.4.1 Effect of EM and Acid SA on Leaf area 35 4.4.2 Effect of EM and Acid SA on Leaf area index (LAI) 36 4.5 Effect of EM and SA to SPAD 37 4.6 Effect of EM and SA on nodule formation 39 4.7 Effect of EM and SA on cumulative dry matter 42 4.8 Effect of EM and SA on photosynthetic performance 43 4.9 Effect of EM and SA on the yield and yield components 45 4.9.1 Effect of EM and SA on the yield components 45 4.9.2 Effect of EM and Acid SA on the yield 47 PART V CONCLUTIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS 51 5.1 Conclusions 51 5.2 Recomendations 52 REFERENCES 53 ANALYZING DATA IRISTART 57 APPENDIX 74 iv v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Acronyms English meaning CV% Coefficient of variation DAS Day after sowing EM Effective Microorganisms Et al And others FH Final height IRRISTAT Agricultural statistical software LAI Leaf area index LSD Least significant different No Number SA Salicylic acid T Treatment W Weight vi LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1: Area, production and yield of mung beans 2014-2018 10 Table 2.2 Mung bean production situation in some countries in the world in 2017-2018 10 Table 2.3 Area and yield of mung bean in Vietnam 12 Table 4.1 The effect of EM and SA on the stem height 28 Table 4.2 Effect of EM and SA on the number of leaves 31 Table 4.3 Effect of EM and SA on number of 1st grade branches 33 Table 4.4 Effect of EM and SA on Leaf area index (LAI) 36 Table Effect of EM and SA on SPAD index 38 Table 4.6 Effect of EM and SA to nodule formation 40 Table 4.7 Effect of EM and SA on cumulative dry matter 42 Table 4.8 Effect of EM and SA on photosynthetic performance 44 Table 4.9.1 Effect of EM and SA on the yield components 45 Table 4.9.2 Effect of EM and SA on the yield 47 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Growing dynamic of main stem height of mung bean 29 Figure 4.2 Growing dynamic of leaf number of mung bean 32 Figure 4.3 Growing dynamic of number of 1st grade branches 34 Figure 4.4 Effect of EM and SA on the yield 49 viii SUMMARY Objectives Research on the effects of Salicylic Acid and effective microorganisms on the growth, development and yield of mung bean in the autumn-winter 2020 From there, contribute to building an intensive farming process to increase mung bean yield in Vietnam Research Methods Effect of Salicylic and effective microorganisms on growth, development and yield of mung bean in autumn-winter 2020 were arranged in complete randomized blocks (RCBD- Randomized Coplete Bock Design) with formulas, each with replicates, each of the above formulas was sown plot, the total number of experimental plots is 18 plots, the area of each plot is 6m2 RCBD - Randomized Coplete Bock Design with one factor is comparison between the unprocessed Salicylic Acid formula and the effective microorganism with the Salicylic treatment formula and the effective microorganism Results and conclusions Through the process of implementing and researching the topic: "Effects of Salicylic Acid and efefective microorganisms on growth and yield of DVXN7 mung bean in autumn-winter 2020’’, i draw some conclusions as follows: Treatment of EM and SA affected the growth indicators of DXVN7 mung bean In which, T6 formula (using EM2 and 0.75mM SA) had the highest height, the highest number of leaves, the total nodules and the highest nodule weight at immature fruits period T4 formula (using EM2) gave the highest st grade branches T5 formula (using EM1 and 0.75mM SA) had the total nodules and the highest nodule weight at flowering period ix NL NOS 6 SE(N= 5%LSD LAI1 1.48296 1.60101 1.67396 6) 10DF DW1 3.82056 3.84056 3.78444 LAI2 2.02989 1.98452 1.92291 0.590332E-01 0.114444 0.186016 0.360617 NL NOS 6 DW2 6.73144 7.69444 7.64167 0.516584E-01 0.275888 0.162778 0.869334 HSQH 5.26527 5.37296 5.34624 SE(N= 6) 0.186749 5%LSD 10DF 0.588453 -MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ -CT$ NOS 3 3 3 SE(N= 5%LSD LAI1 1.45342 1.65305 1.46675 1.46023 1.75306 1.72935 3) 10DF DW1 3.52778 3.82444 3.71556 3.52000 4.13778 4.16556 LAI2 1.51172 2.03683 2.04523 2.08503 2.14224 2.05359 0.834855E-01 0.161848 0.263066 0.509989 CT$ NOS 3 3 3 DW2 6.06889 7.74667 6.87979 6.67975 8.32222 8.43778 0.730561E-01 0.390165 0.230202 1.22942 HSQH 4.31873 5.32195 5.85412 5.44207 5.38193 5.65015 SE(N= 3) 0.264103 5%LSD 10DF 0.832199 -ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE HSQH 20/ 2/21 11:26 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |NL (N= SD/MEAN | |CT$ | 18) | | NO BASED ON BASED ON % | | | 65 OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS 0.19132 0.34430 0.24294 1.1344 0.61241 0.14460 0.28033 0.12654 0.67579 0.45744 | | | LAI1 DW1 LAI2 DW2 HSQH 18 18 18 18 18 1.5860 3.8152 1.9791 7.3558 5.3282 9.1 7.3 6.4 9.2 8.6 0.1170 0.9402 0.3775 0.0569 0.9140 0.0722 0.0600 0.0013 0.0082 0.0287 Leaf area BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE DTLA1 FILE DTLA 28/ 2/21 20: :PAGE VARIATE V003 DTLA1 LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 909958 454979 2.67 0.117 CT$ 2.46292 492585 2.89 0.072 * RESIDUAL 10 1.70690 170690 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 5.07978 298811 -BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE DTLA2 FILE DTLA 28/ 2/21 20: :PAGE VARIATE V004 DTLA2 LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 5.18609 2.59304 1.99 0.186 CT$ 9.85886 1.97177 1.52 0.268 * RESIDUAL 10 13.0018 1.30018 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 28.0468 1.64981 -TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE DTLA 28/ 2/21 20: :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT NL 66 -NL NOS 6 DTLA1 4.23703 4.57432 4.78273 DTLA2 4.45364 5.67006 5.49402 SE(N= 6) 0.168666 0.465507 5%LSD 10DF 0.531473 1.46683 -MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ -CT$ NOS 3 3 3 DTLA1 4.15264 4.72299 4.19071 4.17208 5.00875 4.94099 DTLA2 4.31919 5.81951 4.55442 4.55423 6.12067 5.86741 SE(N= 3) 0.238530 0.658326 5%LSD 10DF 0.751617 2.07441 -ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE DTLA 28/ 2/21 20: :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |NL (N= SD/MEAN | |CT$ | 18) | | NO BASED ON BASED ON OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS 0.54664 1.2844 0.41315 1.1403 % | | | | | | DTLA1 DTLA2 18 18 4.5314 5.2059 9.1 0.1170 21.9 0.1857 0.0722 0.2683 SPAD index BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE LATHAT FILE SPAD 25/ 2/21 15:25 :PAGE VARIATE V003 LATHAT LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN 67 =========================================================================== == NL 13.5836 6.79178 6.64 0.015 CT$ 30.2443 6.04886 5.92 0.009 * RESIDUAL 10 10.2233 1.02233 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 54.0512 3.17948 -BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE RAHOA FILE SPAD 25/ 2/21 15:25 :PAGE VARIATE V004 RAHOA LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 3.82698 1.91349 1.43 0.285 CT$ 20.8602 4.17203 3.12 0.060 * RESIDUAL 10 13.3933 1.33933 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 38.0804 2.24003 -BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE QUANON FILE SPAD 25/ 2/21 15:25 :PAGE VARIATE V005 QUANON LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 1.83604 918020 1.00 0.405 CT$ 23.4242 4.68484 5.08 0.014 * RESIDUAL 10 9.21595 921595 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 34.4762 2.02801 -TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE SPAD 25/ 2/21 15:25 68 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT NL -NL NOS 6 LATHAT 41.1508 43.0767 41.3300 RAHOA 42.3800 43.5033 43.0433 QUANON 44.4500 43.8200 44.5367 SE(N= 6) 0.412782 0.472463 0.391917 5%LSD 10DF 1.30069 1.48875 1.23495 -MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ -CT$ NOS 3 3 3 LATHAT 39.1600 42.8933 42.0400 41.7417 42.1600 43.1200 RAHOA 41.4333 42.9133 43.1333 43.7733 41.9400 44.6600 QUANON 42.3200 44.1267 44.1733 43.8333 45.1600 46.0000 SE(N= 3) 0.583761 0.668164 0.554255 5%LSD 10DF 1.83945 2.10541 1.74648 -ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE SPAD 25/ 2/21 15:25 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |NL (N= SD/MEAN | |CT$ | 18) | | NO BASED ON BASED ON OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS 1.7831 1.4967 1.4241 1.0111 1.1573 0.96000 % | | | | | | LATHAT RAHOA QUANON 18 18 18 41.853 42.976 44.269 2.4 0.0146 2.7 0.2847 2.2 0.4052 0.0088 0.0595 0.0144 Yield components ( No of fruits, no seeds/fruit, weight of 1000 seeds) BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE SOQUA FILE TPNS 20/ 2/21 11:27 :PAGE VARIATE V003 SOQUA 69 LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 133333E-01 666666E-02 0.12 0.891 CT$ 25.4183 5.08367 88.67 0.000 * RESIDUAL 10 573337 573337E-01 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 26.0050 1.52971 -BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE SH/Q FILE TPNS 20/ 2/21 11:27 :PAGE VARIATE V004 SH/Q LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 433333E-01 216667E-01 0.09 0.910 CT$ 4.00500 801000 3.49 0.044 * RESIDUAL 10 2.29667 229667 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 6.34500 373235 -BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE KL100H FILE TPNS 20/ 2/21 11:27 :PAGE VARIATE V005 KL100H LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 3.57488 1.78744 3.25 0.081 CT$ 16.3786 3.27573 5.96 0.009 * RESIDUAL 10 5.49893 549893 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 25.4524 1.49720 70 -TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE TPNS 20/ 2/21 11:27 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT NL -NL NOS 6 SOQUA 14.1500 14.1833 14.1167 SH/Q 10.9167 11.0333 11.0000 KL100H 51.8633 51.9183 52.8350 SE(N= 6) 0.977528E-01 0.195647 0.302735 5%LSD 10DF 0.308023 0.616491 0.953930 -MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ -CT$ NOS 3 3 3 SOQUA 11.8667 13.8333 14.3333 14.1667 15.0000 15.7000 SH/Q 9.93333 11.1667 11.1667 11.2667 11.1333 11.2333 KL100H 50.6600 51.2500 52.4633 52.7300 52.6533 53.4767 SE(N= 3) 0.138243 0.276687 0.428133 5%LSD 10DF 0.435610 0.871850 1.34906 -ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE TPNS 20/ 2/21 11:27 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |NL (N= SD/MEAN | |CT$ | 18) | | NO BASED ON BASED ON OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS 1.2368 0.61093 1.2236 0.23944 0.47924 0.74155 % | | | | | | SOQUA SH/Q KL100H 18 18 18 14.150 10.983 52.206 1.7 0.8910 4.4 0.9103 1.4 0.0809 0.0000 0.0440 0.0086 Yield (Individual productivity, acture productivity) BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE NSCT FILE NSUAT2 25/ 2/21 15:22 :PAGE 71 VARIATE V003 NSCT LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 366778E-01 183389E-01 0.44 0.658 CT$ 3.20024 640049 15.48 0.000 * RESIDUAL 10 413456 413456E-01 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 3.65038 214728 -BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE NSLT FILE NSUAT2 25/ 2/21 15:22 :PAGE VARIATE V004 NSLT LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 330100 165050 0.44 0.658 CT$ 28.8022 5.76044 15.48 0.000 * RESIDUAL 10 3.72110 372110 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 32.8534 1.93255 -BALANCED ANOVA FOR VARIATE NSTT FILE NSUAT2 25/ 2/21 15:22 :PAGE VARIATE V005 NSTT LN ER SOURCE OF VARIATION DF SUMS OF MEAN SQUARES SQUARES F RATIO PROB LN =========================================================================== == NL 109871 549357E-01 0.31 0.741 CT$ 13.5185 2.70369 15.40 0.000 * RESIDUAL 10 1.75512 175512 72 -* TOTAL (CORRECTED) 17 15.3834 904909 -TABLE OF MEANS FOR FACTORIAL EFFECTS FILE NSUAT2 25/ 2/21 15:22 :PAGE MEANS FOR EFFECT NL -NL NOS 6 NSCT 3.87833 3.95167 3.98667 NSLT 11.6350 11.8550 11.9600 NSTT 7.28561 7.37942 7.47697 SE(N= 6) 0.830116E-01 0.249035 0.171032 5%LSD 10DF 0.261573 0.784718 0.538929 -MEANS FOR EFFECT CT$ -CT$ NOS 3 3 3 NSCT 3.19000 3.71333 3.89667 4.07667 4.22333 4.53333 NSLT 9.57000 11.1400 11.6900 12.2300 12.6700 13.6000 NSTT 6.15483 6.63522 7.07833 7.57839 8.13344 8.70378 SE(N= 3) 0.117396 0.352188 0.241876 5%LSD 10DF 0.369919 1.10976 0.762161 -ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE SUMMARY TABLE FILE NSUAT2 25/ 2/21 15:22 :PAGE F-PROBABLIITY VALUES FOR EACH EFFECT IN THE MODEL SECTION - VARIATE GRAND MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION C OF V |NL (N= SD/MEAN | |CT$ | 18) | | NO BASED ON BASED ON OBS TOTAL SS RESID SS 0.46339 1.3902 0.95127 0.20334 0.61001 0.41894 % | | | | | | NSCT NSLT NSTT 18 18 18 3.9389 11.817 7.3807 5.2 0.6579 5.2 0.6579 5.7 0.7412 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 73 APPENDIX Picture Picture and picture 2: soil preparation Picture Picture and picture 4: sowing seeds Picture Picture 74 Picture Picture Picture and picture 6: Germination (after days of sowing seeds) Picture Picture 75 Picture Picture 7, picture 8, picture 9: After 12 days of sowing seeds Picture 10 Picture 11 Picture 10 and picture 11: real leaves period 76 Picture 12 Picture 13 Picture 14 Picture 12, picture 13 and picture 14: month after sowing 77 Picture 15 Picture 16 Picture 15 and picture 16: Flowering period 78 Picture 17 Picture 18 Picture 19 Picture 17, 18 and picture 19: Immature fruits period 79