Download - integrated nutrient management on productivity and soil fertility in rice based cropping

Integrated Nutrient Management on

Productivity and Soil Fertility in Rice-based

Cropping System

Presented ByBiplab choudhariM.Sc. (Agril.) final year.AAU Jorhat-13

DEPARTMENT OF SOIL SCIENCE AAU JORHAT -13

Introduction Maintenance of soil health is an essential prerequisite for sustaining

crop productivity.

Intensive agriculture with high nutrient turn over in soil –plantsystem coupled with low and imbalanced fertilizer use results indeterioration of soil fertility and crop production.

In order to overcome this problem, alternative strategies areneeded so that soil degradation as well as soil fertility level can bemanaged for sustainable productivity.

It is widely recognized that neither use of organic manures alonenor chemical fertilizers can achieve the sustainability of crop yieldat desired level under the modern intensive farming

The integrated plant nutrient-supply system is emerging as the most

logical concept for managing long-term soil fertility and

productivity.

Integrated use of organic manures and chemical fertilizers has been

found promising in arresting the decline in productivity through the

correction of marginal deficiencies of some secondary and

micronutrient elements and their beneficial inf1uence on the

physical and biological properties of the soil.

Integrated nutrient-management system can bring about an

equilibrium between degenerative and restorative activities in the

soil environment

Hence adoption of integrated plant nutrient management strategies

for enhancing soil quality, input use efficiency and crop productivity is

extremely important for food and nutritional security in Indian

agriculture.

Integrated Nutrient Management is a practice where all sources

of nutrients namely organic ,inorganic (chemical fertilizer),

biofertilizer can be combined and applied to soils so that crop

growth is enhanced and we can get good yield with quality

product .

In INM it integrates/combines the objectives of production with

ecology and environment, that is, optimum crop nutrition,

optimum functioning of the soil health, and minimum nutrient

losses or other adverse effect on the environment.

Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) has to be considered

an integral part of any sustainable agricultural system.

WHAT IS INM

The basic concept of INM system is the maintenance of plantnutrients supply to achieve a given level of crop production byoptimizing the benefits from all possible sources of plant nutrients inan integrated manner, appropriate to each cropping system andfarming situation (Mahajan and Sharma, 2005; Subba Rao, A. andSammi Reddy, A. 2005).

One major task of INM system will be to at least stop theongoing loss of surface or top soil nutrients (Mahajan and Sharma,2005)

Concept of INM

Concept and principles of INM

COMPONENTS OF I.N.M.

Organic source:

By products of farming and allied

industries F.Y.M. droppings ,crop waste ,

residues , sewage ,sludge industrial waste .

Biological source:Microbial inoculants substitute 15-40 kg N/hac.

Biofertilizers

Rhizobium

Azotobacter

Azospirillum

OBJECTIVES OF INM

To maintain or enhance soil productivity through balanced use of

mineral fertilizers with organic and biological sources of plant

nutrient.

Encouragement of the judicious use of chemical fertilizers,

Green leaf manures and biofertilizers for higher productivity.

Environmentally safe and eco friendly sustainable agriculture

To improve physical, chemical and biological conditions of

soil.

WHY TO ADOPT INTEGRATED NUTRIENT

MANAGEMENT

Multiple nutrient deficiencies

Inorganic sources insufficient for nutritional needs of high yielding

varieties

Optimal use of available nutrient sources( crop residues cow dung,

green manuring crops etc)

Promote sustainable agriculture Imbalance in the ratio of NPK

consumption.

Deterioration of soil health.

Pollution hazards of chemical fertilizers.

Deterioration in biological activity.

Promising treatments

Grain yield (t/ha)

1984-87 1990-93 1996-99 2000-03

Rice

Control 2.00 1.54 1.20 1.25

R100W100 3.94 4.37 3.96 3.43

R50+50FYMW100 2.99 4.47 4.27 3.53

R50+50WCS W100 3.41 4.19 3.47 3.04

R50+50GM W100 3.23 4.34 3.89 3.25

Wheat

Control 1.30 0.74 0.64 0.71

R100 W100 3.42 3.25 3.53 3.64

R50+50FYM W100 3.41 3.45 3.88 3.71

R50+50WCS W100 3.04 2.99 3.26 3.21

R50+50GM W100 3.16 3.03 3.47 3.50

Table 1 . Effect of integrated nutrient management on grain yield (kg/ha) of rice and wheat

grown in a sequence (average data of 3 consecutive years)

100 % NPK=120 kg N, 60 kg P2O5 and 40 kg K2O/ha Yadav et al., 2009

Treatments pH (1:2.5) EC (1:2.5)(dS/m)

ESP BD (Mg/m3)

Org. C

(Mg/kg)

CEC

(c.mol

(p+)/kg

Control 8.4 0.36 17 1.51 2.9 15.9

R75 W75 8.2 0.33 21 1.46 4.2 16.5

R100 W100 8.0 0.32 18 1.43 4.6 17.4

R50+50FYMW100 7.7 0.25 12 1.35 5.7 18.9

R50+50WCS W100 7.8 0.28 16 1.36 5.4 18.3

R50+50GM W100 7.6 0.22 9 1.33 5.8 19.5

Initial status in 1984 8.8 0.50 27 1.38 3.7 17.1

Table 2. Effect of integrated nutrient management on micronutrients (after 18 cycles) and

soil-physical properties (after 20 cycles) of rice -wheat system

Yadav et al 2009

Treatments Grain yield of Rice (t /ha)

Seed yield of Niger

(t /ha)

Control 2.52 0.13

100% RDF 3.04 0.22

Biofertilizer based INM package 3.13 0.31

50% RDF+ 50% N FYM 3.56 0.35

75% RDF + 25% N FYM 3.83 0.38

50% N (inorganic) + 50% N FYM + PK (inorganic and adjusted)

3.79 0.33

75% N (inorganic) + 25% N FYM + PK (inorganic and adjusted)

2.81 0.26

S.Ed (±) 0.242 0.030

CD (P=0.05) 0.528 0.067

CV (%) 9.16 13.21

Table 3. Yield of Rice and Niger as affected by integrated nutrient management

Singh et al 2009

Treatments Rice

N P K

Niger

N P K

Control 151.9 21.5 50.0 131.7 18.3 42.7

100% RDF 163.8 23.6 52.0 140.8 20.8 51.1

Biofertilizer based INM package 170.2 24.8 55.9 150.9 21.5 54.7

50% RDF+ 50% N FYM 188.9 29.5 53.5 169.4 27.8 51.3

75% RDF + 25% N FYM 190.9 28.5 55.0 171.8 27.9 52.8

50% N (inorganic) + 50%N FYM

+ PK (inorganic adjusted)

166.5 26.2 52.5 165.2 24.0 51.0

(less present in FYM) 163.8 24.8 52.3 145.8 22.2 46.4

CD (P=0.05) 14.4 3.1 2.4 13.8 2.6 3.6

Table 4. Effect of integrated nutrient management on available primary nutrients(NPK kg /ha)

of soil in rice-niger sequence .

Singh et al 2009

Treatments 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Mean

Control 1901 2338 3137 2442 2455

50% NPK 4003 3476 5198 4130 4202

50% NPK 4364 3761 5350 4415 4473

75% NPK 4832 3832 5979 5058 4925

100% NPK 5643 5851 6505 5504 5876

50% NPK + 50% N(FYM) 6060 6263 6353 4722 5850

75% NPK + 25% N (FYM) 5609 6166 6578 5409 5941

50% NPK + 50% N (Paddy Straw) 6543 5791 6644 4620 5900

75% NPK + 25% N (Paddy Straw) 5671 6171 7017 5329 6047

50% NPK + 50% N (Glyricidia) 5921 5838 6557 4985 5825

75% NPK + 25% N (Glyricidia) 5680 5941 6966 5738 6081

Farmers Practice(85:50:30kg NPK/ha & FYM 2 t/ha) 4569 4381 5811 5234 4999

S Em± 240 206 268.30 101.36 -

CD@5% 691 593 773.0 305.44 -

Table 5 : Yield of kharif Rice (Kg/ha) as influenced by integrated nutrient management in Rice-Maize

cropping sequence (2003-2008).

Satish et al 2011

Treatments 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Mean

Control 782 988.30 2387 1263.5 1355

50% NPK 2040 2065.79 3186 3556.8 2712

100% NPK 3559 2722.22 4049 4329.3 3665

75% NPK 3353 2463.45 3893 4189.0 3475

100% NPK 3798 3260.23 4740 4362.3 4040

100% NPK 4000 3748.54 4915 4943.0 4402

75% NPK 3581 2878.65 4014 4040.5 3629

100% NPK 3819 3630.12 4360 4535.0 4086

75% NPK 3641 3012.43 3837 4710.8 3800

100% NPK 3793 3187.87 4334 4223.8 3885

75% NPK 3581 2783.63 3706 4038.0 3527

Farmers Practice (75:37.5:38.75 kg NPK/ha )

3490 2467.84 3278 3775.3 3253

S Em± 123 173.57 321.37 321.86 -

CD @5% 353 499.78 918.52 926.7 -

Table 6: Yield of Smmer Maize (Kg/h) as influenced by integrated nutrient management in rice-maize cropping sequence (2003-2008)

Satish et al 2011

TREATMENT pH EC(ds/m) OC% P (kg/ha) K (kg/ha)

T1 5.28 0.16 0.62 10.97 125.80

T2 5.56 0.22 0.65 18.06 163.05

T3 5.42 0.21 0.65 18.85 183.80

T4 5.43 0.22 0.62 17.84 187.26

T5 5.57 0.24 0.67 21.92 185.67

T6 5.81 0.22 0.72 22.01 188.81

T7 5.62 0.16 0.70 20.55 184.41

T8 5.38 0.17 0.72 20.60 181.30

T9 5.61 0.15 0.73 21.96 187.79

T10 5.49 0.22 0.72 21.62 184.15

T11 5.72 0.19 0.70 21.40 182.64

T12 5.95 0.22 0.64 18.90 141.75

Initial 6.64 0.13 0.68 12.40 211.4

S Em± 0.015 0.012 0.014 0.13 0.84

CD @5% 0.042 0.04 0.04 0.30 2.43

Satish et al 2011

Table 7 : Soil properties and available nutrients as influenced by different cropping systems at the end of summer maize crop, 2007-08

Treatments Rice grain yield kg/ha Pea Pod yield kg/ha

T1:10 kg N+2 t FYM/ha 991 393

T2:100%RDF OF NPK 2092 1185

T3:50%RDF+5 t FYM/ha 1590 1073

T4:50%RDF +5 t FYM /ha+250 kg lime/ha

1924 1510

T5:50%RDF+5 t FYM+250 Kg lime+20 kg S /ha+1 kg B /ha

2117 1678

T6:50%RDF+5 t FYM+250 Kg lime+20 kg S /ha

2120 1810

CD(P=0.05) 332 240

Table 8-Effect of INM treatments on the productivity of rice –pea system

Singh et al 2011

Treatments Rice(nutrient uptake

kg/ha)

N P K S

Pea(nutrient uptake

kg/ha)

N P K S

T1:10 kg N+2 t FYM/ha 15.7 3.52 27.2 2.36 16.3 1.70 11.1 1.67

T2:100%RDF OF NPK 38.8 9.97 60.5 5.54 49.7 7.51 32.7 5.05

T3:50%RDF+5 t FYM/ha 26.0 6.15 44.1 5.02 44.4 7.04 28.3 4.61

T4:50%RDF +5 t FYM

/ha+250 kg lime/ha

33.4 8.56 54.9 7.06 62.4 11.42 38.3 6.49

T5:50%RDF+5 t FYM+250

Kg lime+20 kg S /ha+1 kg

B /ha

37.6 9.87 59.2 8.94 70.9 13.37 42.1 8.01

T6:50%RDF+5 t FYM+250

Kg lime+20 kg S /ha

37.1 9.82 59.1 8.94 79.0 14.70 44.3 8.51

CD(P=0.05) 5.5 1.78 8.5 1.44 9.2 2.44 5.6 1.04

Table 9–Effect of INM treatment on nutrients uptake by rice –pea sequence.

Singh et al 2011

Treatments Rice

Grain yield (t /ha)

Wheat

Grain yield (t /ha)

N0P0K0 2.50 1.42

N120P0K0 4.33 3.28

N120P26k0 5.15 4.55

N120P26K42 5.31 4.73

N60P13K21 4.20 3.44

N60P13K21 +GM 5.76 4.06

N120P26K42 + GM 6.26 5.20

N60P13K21 + FYM 5.38 3.92

N120P26K42 + FYM 6.14 5.13

N180P39K63 5.96 4.72

CD (P=0.05) 0.52 0.49

Table 10. Effect of different fertilizer treatments on rice and wheat yield (mean of 1994 to

2005)

Yaduvanshi et al 2013

Fig.Effect of integrated nutrient management on trend of wheat yield in a gypsum-amended sodic soil over a period of 12 years from 1994-95 to 2005-06


Fig. . Effect of integrated nutrient management on trend of wheat yield in a gypsum-amended sodic soil over a period of 12 years from 1994-95 to 2005-06

Treatments pH Organic C (g /kg)

Bulk density

(Mg/m-3)

Available nutrient kg/ha

N P K

N0P0K0 8.50 2.10 1.43 92 7.6 162

N120P0K0 8.41 2.10 1.42 141 6.1 155

N120P26K0 8.41 2.30 1.42 169 14.3 157

N120P26K42 8.40 2.30 1.42 168 15.0 273

N60P13K21 8.45 2.40 1.42 135 10.8 228

N60P13K21 +GM 8.12 3.70 1.38 178 18.7 290

N120P26K42 + GM 8.15 4.10 1.38 204 20.6 311

N60P13K21 +FYM 8.20 4.20 1.38 175 19.5 297

N120P26K42 +

FYM

8.20 4.20 1.38 201 21.8 304

N180P39K63 8.41 2.60 1.42 206 25.3 320

CD (P=0.05) 0.09 0.06 0.005 9.7 0.78 12.3

Table 11. Soil pH, organic carbon, bulk density and available N, P and K status after 12 years (1994 to 2006)

of continuous rice-wheat cropping system as influenced by different treatments of integrated nutrient

management


Nutrient management Treatments Bulb yield of Onion (t /ha)

Rice

GrainYield (t/ ha)

Pod Yield Of Cow

Pea t/ha

100% RD of NPK through inorganic 19.95 3.90 6.06

75% RD of NPK + 25% N through Biomax 24.06 4.35 7.36

75% RD of NPK + 25% N through Biomas 22.91 4.30 6.93

75% RD of NPK + 25% N through Enmite 23.25 4.40 7.13

75% RD of NPK + 25% N through Neematex 25.12 4.55 7.54

75% RD of NPK + 25% N through FYM 24.47 4.45 7.46

75% RD of NPK + incorporation of crop residues of

each crop in sequence

21.21 4.00 6.60

75% RD of NPK + in-situ incorporation with sesbania

to rice

22.17 4.25 7.09

CD (P<0.05) 1.01 0.140 0.44

Table 12. Effect of nutrient management on yield (t /ha) in rice-onion-cowpea sequence (pooled

data of 2 years)

Mondal et al 2014

Treatment Yield of

Rice

t/ha

Yield of

Wheat

t/ha

T1- Control 4.46 1.22

T2- 100% NPK to both rice and wheat 6.31 3.01

T3- 50% N through FYM plus 50% NPK through chemical fertilizers to

rice and 100% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat7.26 3.64

T4- 25% N through FYM plus 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers to rice

and 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat7.31 2.22

T5- 50% N through wheat straw plus 50% NPK through chemical fertilizers

to rice6.28 2.14

T6- 25% N through wheat straw plus 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers

to rice and 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat6.21 2.34

T7- 50% N through green manure plus 50% NPK through chemical

fertilizers to rice and 100% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat7.37 2.77

T8- 25% N through green manure plus 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers

to rice and 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat6.44 2.61

CD (P=0.05) 0.82 0.73

Table 13. Effect of continuous application of organics and chemical fertilizers on grain yield of rice -wheat

pooled for two years (2010-11 and 2011-12)

Sharma et al 2014

Treatment pH OC

g/kg

CEC

[cmol

(p+)/kg]

Nutrient uptake kg/ha

N P K S

T1- Control 5.5 5.76 10.59 182 17.9 120 10.8

T2- 100% NPK to both rice and wheat 5.2 7.34 13.73 248 66.9 163 20.7

T3- 50% N through FYM plus 50% NPK through

chemical fertilizers to rice and 100% NPK through

chemical fertilizers to wheat

5.7 8.66 14.67 281 75.2 167 22.7

T4- 25% N through FYM plus 75% NPK through chemical

fertilizers to rice and 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers

to wheat

5.6 8.23 13.98 271 70.2 159 20.4

T5- 50% N through wheat straw plus 50% NPK through

chemical fertilizers to rice5.6 8.45 13.15 251 65.7 160 20.2

T6- 25% N through wheat straw plus 75% NPK through

chemical fertilizers to rice and 75% NPK through chemical

fertilizers to wheat

5.5 7.65 13.04 246 63.8 156 18.8

T7- 50% N through green manure plus 50% NPK through



5.6 8.36 13.71 266 62.9 158 19.3

T8- 25% N through green manure plus 75% NPK through



5.5 7.13 12.33 239 70.8 154 18.4

CD (P=0.05) 0.05 0.22 0.43 10.7 5.18 7.6 1.88

Initial 5.5 6.0 11.5 675 21.9 221 ND

Table 14. Effect of continuous application of organics and chemical fertilizers on physicochemical properties of soil after 20 cropping cycles

Sharma et al 2014

Treatment Microbial

biomass

carbon

(µg g-1

soil)

Microbial

respiration[

µg CO2 g-1

soil h-1

Dehydroge-

nase

activity(µg

TPF g-1 h-

1)

Urease

activity

(µg g-1

min-1

T1- Control 173.5 7.1 2.94 2.47

T2- 100% NPK to both rice and wheat 225.7 13.7 7.14 5.23

T3- 50% N through FYM plus 50% NPK through chemical fertilizers

to rice and 100% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat

273.2 16.8 12.04 8.64

T4- 25% N through FYM plus 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers

to rice and 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat

262.4 15.4 9.89 7.59

T5- 50% N through wheat straw plus 50% NPK through chemical

fertilizers to rice

257.9 16.2 8.46 7.16

T6- 25% N through wheat straw plus 75% NPK through chemical

fertilizers to rice and 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat

248.1 14.8 7.72 6.83


fertilizers to rice and 100% NPK through chemical fertilizers to

wheat

261.5 14.0 9.01 7.32


fertilizers to rice and 75% NPK through chemical fertilizers to wheat

250.6 13.4 8.80 7.28

CD (P=0.05) 6.5 0.71 0.51 0.34

Table 15. Effect of different treatments on microbiological properties of soil after wheat harvest (2010-11)

Sharma et al 2014

Treatment Rice (winter) Rice (autumn)

T1 No fertilizer, no organic manure (control) No fertilizer, no organic manure (control)

T2 50% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers 50% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers




T6 50% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers + 50% N through FYM (compost)

100% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers

T7 75% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers + 25% N through FYM (compost)


T8 50% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers + 50% N through crop stubble


T9 75% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers + 25% N through crop stubbles


T10 50% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers + 50% N through Azolla


T11 75% recommended NPK dose through fertilizers + 25% N through Azolla


T12 Conventional farmer’s practice–25% N/ha of recommended dose as urea top-dressing

Conventional farmer’s practice –1 tonne FYM/ha + 25% N as DAP

Table 16. Treatment combinations used to study the long-term effect of integrated nutrient

management (INM) in case of rice–rice sequence of Assam.

Baishya et al 2015

Treatments 1987–92 1992–97 1997–2002 2002–07 2007–13

T1 4.21 4.08 3.60 3.30 2.91

T2 4.75 4.78 4.72 4.31 4.24

T3 4.78 4.80 4.74 4.70 4.72

T4 4.82 4.80 5.19 5.14 5.24

T5 4.63 5.57 6.48 6.67 7.00

T6 4.65 5.36 5.38 5.80 6.46

T7 4.85 5.44 5.93 6.61 6.70

T8 4.99 5.59 5.61 6.69 7.14

T9 5.17 5.58 7.11 7.24 7.30

T10 5.09 5.19 5.13 5.31 6.25

T 11 4.86 5.30 5.31 5.61 6.17

T12 4.34 4.03 4.20 3.86 3.66

Table 17. Yield of rice-rice sequence as affected by long-term INM treatments [Data

given (in t/ha) are mean value of minimum 5 years]

Baishya et al 2015

Fig. . Yield of rice-rice system as affected by long-term integrated nutrient management treatments (data given are mean values for 27 years at the A.A.U, Jorhat

Baishya et al 2015

Treatments pH OC

(g/kg

After Rice (available

nutrients kg/ha)

N P K

pH OC

(g /kg

After Niger

(available nutrients

kg/ha)

N P K

T1: Control 5.0 4.5 246 7.8 40.8 4.8 4.6 229 6.6 38.2

T2:RDF 5.2 5.2 297 9.5 48.5 4.9 5.6 252 8.8 43.9

T3:Biofertilizer-based INM

package

5.1 6.0 288 10.9 57.0 5.0 6.4 285 10.8 50.5

T4:50%RDF(Inorganic)+50

%N (FYM)

5.2 6.7 359 13.2 57.9 5.1 7.7 325 12.6 51.7

T5:75%RDF(inorganic)+25

%N(FYM)

5.1 6.2 316 11.5 50.4 4.9 7.0 288 12.6 47.5

T6:50%N(inorganic+50%N

(FYM)+PK

5.2 6.3 338 12.0 51.2 5.0 7.5 298 11.4 47.1

T7:75%N (inorganic)+25%N

(FYM)+PK

5.1 5.9 317 9.2 49.3 4.8 6.0 240 8.1 46.4

S.Ed± 0.1 0.4 14 2.0 3.4 0.1 0.3 13 1.5 3.5

CD(P=0.05) NS 0.9 31 4.3 7.3 NS 0.6 29 3.2 6.6

Table 18-Effect of integrated nutrient management on microbial biomass carbon and soil

properties after rice –niger sequence

Gogoi et al 2010

Treatments RICE

SMBC SMBC %Of(mg /kg) soil organic C

NIGER

SMBC SMBC % (mg /kg) Soil organic

C

T1: Control 47.3 1.1 27.0 0.6

T2:RDF 75.8 1.5 67.5 1.2

T3:Biofertilizer-based INM package 136.2 2.3 112.5 1.8

T4:50% RDF(Inorganic)+50%N (FYM) 100.5 1.5 82.6 1.1

T5:75%RDF(inorganic)+25%N(FYM) 85.8 1.4 75.0 1.1

T6:50%N(inorganic+50%N (FYM)+PK 90.2 1.4 77.0 1.0

T7:75%N (inorganic)+25%N (FYM)+PK 65.0 1.1 57.8 1.0

S.Ed± 7.2 0.2 7.4 0.1

CD(P=0.05) 15.6 0.4 16.0 0.3

Table 19-Effect of integrated nutrient management on microbial biomass carbon of rice –

niger sequence

Gogoi et al 2010

Treatments Crop yield t/ha

Rice Toria

N P K OC( g/Kg)

pH(1:2)

Absolute control 2.85 0.62 182 19.2 134 8.43 4.81

Recommended doses of NPK 3.45 0.90 222 24.6 155 9.53 4.68

50% NP + RDK* + biofertilizers 3.52 0.78 221 22.8 147 9.68 4.80

50% NP + RDK + biofertilizers + compost @ 1 t ha1

3.43 0.89 208 25.6 150 10.27 4.93

25% NP + RDK + biofertilizers + compost @ 2 t ha1

3.67 0.96 217 26.2 149 10.48 4.98

50% NP + RDK + enriched compost @ 1 t ha-1

3.87 0.99 220 24.4 147 9.95 4.97

25% NP + RDK + enriched compost @ 2 t /ha

3.67 1.04 218 28.6 148 10.96 4.96

Biofertilizers + compost @ 1 t /ha 2.98 0.81 196 19.2 134 9.48 4.90

CD (P=0.05) 0.32 0.08 NS 5.33 NS 1.06 NS

Table 20. Grain yield (pooled means of 2 years) of rice and toria and selected soil chemical parameters as

influenced by nutrient management practices

Nath et al 2012

Treatments Fluoresceindi-acetate hydrolase (µg fluorescein g-1

soil h-1)

Phospho-monoesterase

(µg p- nitrophenol g-1

soil h-1)

Dehydrogenase (µg TPF g-1

soil h-1)

Microbial biomass carbon

(µg g-1soil )

Absolute control 7.81 229.4 136.6 90.3

Recommended doses of NPK 9.39 319.7 198.0 124.0

50% NP + RDK* + biofertilizers 9.71 337.8 197.2 139.8

50% NP + RDK + biofertilizers + compost @ 1 t /ha

9.54 337.2 209.0 157.1

25% NP + RDK + biofertilizers + compost @ 2 t /ha

10.36 370.1 257.3 222.8


10.39 364.8 287.6 215.3


10.75 393.5 247.0 194.2

Biofertilizers + compost @ 1 t/ha

9.61 293.4 171.4 132.3

CD (P=0.05) 0.89 48.8 57.3 15.0

Table 21. Soil enzymes activities and microbial biomass carbon under INM in rice-toria sequence

Nath et al 2012

Treatment pH EC

(dS/m)

Organic

carbon (%)

Bulk

density

(Mg/m3)

Available

N (kg/ha

Available

P (kg/ha)

Available

K (kg/ha)

Initial 7.4 0.51 0.70 1.35 264 12.6 282

Nutrient Management

100% organic 7.2 0.49 0.78 1.36 288 13.0 297

100% inorganic 7.2 0.51 0.71 1.40 271 12.4 271

Integrated (50%

each of organic

and inorganic)

7.2 0.50 0.74 1.37 278

12.7

291

Cropping System

Green Manure Rice-

Durum Wheat 7.3 0.50 0.75 1.38 281

12.7

283

Rice-Potato-Okra 7.1 0.49 0.73 1.37 274 12.5 288

Rice-Berseem

(fodder and seed) 7.2 0.49 0.74 1.38 279 12.5 287

Rice-Vegetable

Pea-Sorghum

(fodder)

7.3 0.51 0.75 1.38 283 13.0 287

Table. 22 Effect of different nutrient management associated with various cropping systems on

changes in physic-chemical properties of soil till the completion of 4th crop cycle during 2007-

08

Dubey et al 2014

Fig. Available N, P and K status of soil as affected by different organic, inorganic

and integrated nutrient management

Dubey et al 2014

Treatment Fungi

(104/g)Bacteria

(106/g)

Azotobacter

(106/g)PSB

(106/gActinomycities

(106/g)

Initial 33.7 35.7 17.5 9.7 5.9

Nutrient Management

100% organic-M1 49.3 60.0 31.7 20.5 14.5

100% inorganicM2 38.8 36.1 20.7 12.4 7.9

Integrated (50% each oforganic and inorganic)-M3

41.7 44.2 25.4 15.5 11.6

Cropping System

Green Manure- Wheat-CS1 43.6 46.8 27.6 16.3 12.0

Rice-Potato-Okra -CS2 42.5 46.0 25.6 15.9 10.8

Rice- Berseem (fodderand seed)-CS3

43.7 47.6 27.8 16.4 11.4

Rice-Vegetable Pea Sorghum (fodder)-CS4

43.4 46.7 26.0 16.0 11.1

Table.23 Effect of different nutrient management associated with various cropping systems

on changes in biological properties of soil till the completion of 4th crop cycle during

2007-08

Dubey et al 2014

limitations in INM

Financial credit is available only for mineral fertilizer.

No organized credit system to promote organic

fertilizer.

Farmers who have domesticated animals, do not have facilities to

collect, store and market their animal waste.

Low awareness about using bio-fertilizers.

Non-availability of water.

Integrated nutrient management play an important role in sustaining

soil health and crop productivity.

Integrated use of fertilizers along with organics enhanced the

productivity of rice-based cropping system

Combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers during

kharif season and 75 to 100 per cent NPK through inorganic fertilizer

during summer season has significantly improved the fertility status

and crop when compared to all other treatments.

Conclusion

The decline in soil fertility and crop productivity in treatments

with only inorganic fertilizers due to imbalance and inadequate

nutrient supply.

INM favorably affects the physical,chemical and biological

environment of the soil

It can be summarized that the good quality organic inputs with

lower doses of chemical fertilizers have a potential to augment soil

enzymes activities and improve the microbial biomass carbon and

organic carbon.

From the foregoing discussion it can be concluded that integrated

nutrient management seem to be viable option rather than chemical

fertilizer alone for maintenance of soil productivity and fertility,

Download - integrated nutrient management on productivity and soil fertility in rice based cropping

Top Related