ABSTRACT Performance of kenaf variety V36 cultivation on sandy Beach Ridges Interspersed with Swales (BRIS); Rudua series

soil was investigated. A field study was carried out in Kg. Saujana, Setiu with longitude 05 61393' N and latitude 102 73928' E. Kenaf variety V36 was planted on 2m2 plot with 5 replications and five NPK fertilizer rate (0, 200, 400, 600 and 800 kgha-1). Design used was Randomized Complete Blocked (RCBD). Parameters of plant heights, leaf number and leaf width were measured on weekly interval. Aboveground plant and root biomass were determined after harvest, and an analysis on nutrient content was carried out. No significant differences (p 0.05) were detected for all treatments, but highly significant differences (p 0.05) were found between week parameter. It can be concluded that BRIS soil of the respected area is not suitable for kenaf production. Keywords: kenaf, yield components, BRIS, fertilizer

INTRODUCTION Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) is a member of the Malvaceae family endemic to Africa (Andres et al., 2010). It is a newly introduced crop in Malaysia. Under East-Coast Economic Region (ECER) program, kenaf has been appointed as a substitute crop for tobacco. However, studies on performance of kenaf yield production in Malaysia are very scarce. It was estimated that area of Beach Ridges Interspersed with Swales (BRIS) soils is about 195,800 ha (Aminah et al.

2006). Sadly, only 20% of these soils are developed for agricultural purposes. This matter derived from the ill nature of these soils themselves. In general, BRIS soils consist of more than 90% sand, with very little percentage of silt and clay. These soils are classified as structureless, thus possesses extensive leaching process. Low organic matter content, low water holding and nutrient retention capacity, high surface temperature and low Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) values are renowned properties of these marginal sandy marine soils (Khan et al., 2007). Intensive managements are crucial in order to optimize the utilization of these areas for agricultural purposes. Current management of BRIS soils is application of various types of organic matter such as chicken manure, cow dung and Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME). There are several commercialized varieties of kenaf namely V5, V24, V 42, V27 and V28 (Aminah et al., 2006). The one recommended by MARDI and National Tobacco and Kenaf Board (LTKN) is V36, with yield of 3.5 tones/ha/season planted on loamy clayey soil. However, data on the performance of V36 on BRIS (Rudua series) soil is limited, and study should be carried out to investigate the suitability of this soil to produce this variety as a commercial crop. Thus, this study was conducted with the goal to determine the applicability of BRIS (Rudua series) soil for commercial kenaf (V36) production.

MATERIALS AND METHODS A field study was conducted in Kg. Saujana, Setiu Terengganu with coordinate (05 61393' N, 102 73928' E). The area has a mean rainfall of 109 mm (from May until July 2010), mean temperature of 32C and humidity of 68% (Terengganu Meteorological Department, 2010). Mean number of rainy day during planting period: May until July was 7 days per month. The BRIS soil was classified as Rudua series soil, with texture consist of 96.3% sand, 0.9% silt and

2.8% clay. Kenaf seeds were sowed by hand on a 2m2 plot with planting distance of 15 cm between plants and 28cm between rows. There were five rates of NPK fertilizer (0, 200, 400, 600 and 800 kg/ha). Five replications were established which brought the total up to 25 plots. Planting density was approximately 180,000 plants/ha. Fertilization was split into two times, which were on 15th and 30th day of planting. Irrigation was done twice a day using sprinkler with water sourced from a pond nearby. Yield components measured during planting were plant heights, leaves number and leaves width. Data collection of these parameters was done on weekly interval. Postharvest yield components include plant fresh and dry biomass and root fresh and dry biomass. Plant samples were also analyzed for nutrient (N, P, K, Ca, and Mg) content using wet ashing method. All methods of analysis were based on procedures authorized in book of Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis by Martin R. Carter (1993). All data were analyzed for difference in treatment means using Analyses of Variance (ANOVA). Significant treatments effects were detected using Tukey test.

RESULTS Plant heights Kenaf heights are important in yield production of kenaf, as it will determine the weight of one kenaf plant. Figure 1 show the correlation on kenaf heights which collected on weekly bases.

The weekly plant heights for T2 is described as y=11.81x-9.591(r2 = 0.988**). There was a highly significant difference between T2 and other treatments (p0.05). Figure 1: Weekly plant heights
70 60 50 cm 40 30 20 10 0 0 2 4 week 6 8 T1 r = 0.996 T2 r = 0.987 T3 r = 0.988 T4 r = 0.996 T5 r = 0.998

Leaf number The number of kenaf leaves was generally low, with maximum of only 27 leaves within 6th week of planting. There was a highly significant difference (p 0.05) detected for T2.

Figure 2: Weekly leaf number

30 25 20 number 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 week 6 8 T1 r = 0.987 T2 r = 0.914 T3 r = 0.888 T4 r = 0.848 T5 r = 0.938

Leaf width A trend is observed in leaf width variable. However, no significant difference found between treatments and weeks. The increment on leaf width value is proportional by week. Figure 3: Weekly leaf width
8 7 6 5 cm 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 week 4 5 6 T1 r = 0.944 T2 r = 0.898 T3 r = 0.945 T4 r = 0.896 T5 r = 0.928

Plant aboveground fresh and dry biomass Biomass of kenaf is proportional to the plants heights and diameter. No significant difference detected (p 0.05) in either fresh or dry biomass of harvested kenaf. Fresh samples were oven dried at temperature of 80C for four days. Base on the graph (Figure 4) below, generally moisture content of all treatments are less than half of the fresh biomass. Figure 4: Aboveground plant biomass

Root fresh and dry biomass Figure 5 shows data on fresh and dry biomass of kenaf root. No significant difference (p 0.05) detected between treatments for both variables. Moisture content in root ranges from 84.38% to 87.93%.

Figure 5: Root biomass

Nutrient content in aboveground plant Data on Table 1 represents nutrient (N, P, K, Ca and Mg) content in aboveground kenaf planted on BRIS (Rudua series) soil. There was no significant difference (p 0.05) found for all elements between every treatment. Table 1: Nutrient content in aboveground kenaf variety V36
Nutrient Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Detail (kgha ) 0 200 400 600 800
-1

(gplant ) Ca 0.20 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.23 Mg 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.22

-1

N 1.23 1.36 1.22 1.10 1.08

P 0.51 0.42 0.51 0.49 0.47

K 1.90 1.47 1.79 1.36 1.35

Nutrient use efficiency Plant nutrient uptake is crucial in determining the efficiency of plant in consuming available nutrients in soils. Plant uptake of N, P, K, Ca and Mg are presented below (Table 2). No significant difference (p 0.05) found between treatments for all elements.

Table 2: Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) of N, P, K, Ca and Mg by plant

Nutrient Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 Detail (kgha ) 0 200 400 600 800
-1

(kgha ) Ca 0.00000 0.00055 0.00010 0.00007 0.00008 Mg 0.00000 0.00045 0.00013 0.00007 0.00008

-1

N 0.00300 0.00285 0.00058 0.00037 0.00038

P 0.00100 0.00090 0.00023 0.00015 0.00016

K 0.00000 0.00310 0.00085 0.00045 0.00048

DISCUSSION There were no significant differences detected (p 0.05) in all parameters involved in this study. The poor growth of kenaf (V36) was related to several environmental factors regarding the study area. This study was carried out during dry season which resulted in inadequate water supply, high soil surface temperature, high rate of evapotranspiration and insufficient available fertilizer concentration. This finding supports results obtained by Hazandy et al., (2009) which stated that there was no significant difference detected on plant heights planted during dry season. Fertilizer concentration in soil was inadequate as resulted from insufficient water supply required for optimum growth. A study suggests that this crop is capable of a certain drought acclimization, showing high water use efficiency (Manzanares et al., 1993) under water stress. However, the water lacking occurrence in this study area was too severe that it negatively affected the growth of this crop. It is suggested that 500-625 mm of rainfall over a period of 5-6 months is essential for a successful kenaf production (Mambelli and Grandi, 1995). Research established by Manzanares et al., (1997) stated that sowing time plays an important role in the yield as well. Seed sowing during dry season leads to yield declination up to 44%. Plant population and also contributed to the poor growth of kenaf. Study by Manzares et al., (1996) suggested that maximum kenaf yield can be obtained with population of 42 plants /m2. This is supported by another study which stated that decreasing row spacing can increase dry matter yield

significantly (Baldwin and Graham, 2006). In opposition, one study suggested that lower branching and smaller basal stem diameters were observed in the higher densities (Danalatos and Archontoulis, 2010). Application of fertilizer had no significant effects (p0.05) on kenaf growth and nutrient content, supporting the results by Hazandy et al., (2010) which suggested that application of fertilizer gave no significant effect on kenaf planted during dry season. This is opposite to the finding suggesting that both growth and yield of kenaf increase when fertilization increased (Kipriotis et al., 2007).

CONCLUSION There were no significant differences observed in all parameters measured in this study. Cultivation of kenaf (V36) is not suitable for production on BRIS soil (Rudua series) of the respected area. Irrigation is mainly the contributor to the poor growth and yield of this crop. Insufficient organic matter content in sandy marine soil lead to severe nutrient losses, as it was not available for plant uptake due to time. Inadequate water supply resulted in wastage of fertilizer applied into the soil, as it affected the fertilizer concentration negatively. Massive amount of organic matter is crucial to ensure the survival of crops planted on this area. In addition, sowing must be done during wet season in order to increase the crop production as due to water supply.

REFERENCES Aminah A., C.C. Wong and I. Hasim,( 2006). Production Potential of Kenaf for Forage and Fibre on BRIS under Smallholder Production Systems.The Fourth Technical Review Meeting on Research and Development of Kenaf Production for Animal Feed and Fibre. pg15-29 Brian S. Baldwin and J. Wesley Graham (2006). Population density and row spacing effects on dry matter yield and bark content of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). Industrial Crops and Products 23 (2006) 244-248 E.F. de Andres, J.L.Tenorio and I. Walter (2010). Biomass production and nutrient

concentration of kenaf grown on sewage sludge-amended soil. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 2010 8(2), 472-480. ISSN: 1695-971-X Hazandy Abdul Hamid, Mohd Hazimy Yusoff, Nor Aini Ab. Shukor, Baharom Zainal, and Mohamed Hanafi Musa (2009). Effects of Different Fertilizer Application Level on Growth and Physiology of Hibiscus cannabinus L. (Kenaf) Planted on BRIS Soil. Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol. 1, No. 1 June 2009 Khan M.A, Kim K.W, Wang M, Lim B.K, Lee W.H, and Lee J.Y. (2007). Nutrient-impregnated charcoal: an environmentally friendly slow-release fertilizer. Environmentalist.DOI

10.1007/s10669-007-9133-5 Evripidis Kipriotis, Efthimia Alexopoulou, Yolanda Papatheohari, Georgi Moskov and Stergios Georgiadis (2007). Cultivation of kenaf in north-east Greece Part 11 Effect of variety and nitrogen on growth and dry yield. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment Vol. 5 (1): 135139, 2007 M. Manzanares, J. L. Tenorio and L. Ayerbe (1997). Sowing time, Cultivar, Plant Population and Application of N Fertilizer on Kenaf in Spains Central Plateu. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol 12, No. 4 pp. 263-271.1997

M. Manzanares, J.L. Tenorio, P. Manzanares and L. Ayerbe. (1993). Yield and Development of Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) Crop in Relation to Water Supply and Intercepted Radiation. Biomass and Bioenergy Vol. 5, No. 5, pp 337-345, 1993 Martin R. Carter. (1993). Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Lewis Publishers N.G. Danalatos and S.V. Archontoulis. (2010). Growth and biomass productivity of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) under different agricultural inputs and management practices in central Greece. Industrial Crops and Products 32 (2010) 231-240 Stefania Mambelli and Silvia Grandi. (1995). Yield and quality of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) stem as affected by harvest date and irrigation. Industrial Crops and Products 4 (1995) 97104 Terengganu Meteorological Department, 2010. Ministry of Sciences, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI). http://www.met.gov.my/index.php.