effect of integrated nutrient application in chickpea mustard intercropping system in the semi-arid...

This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]On: 20 December 2014, At: 20:24Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil Science and PlantAnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Effect of Integrated Nutrient Application inChickpea+Mustard Intercropping System inthe Semi‐arid Tropics of North IndiaR. L. Arya a , Jay G. Varshney a & Lalit Kumar aa Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, IndiaPublished online: 30 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: R. L. Arya , Jay G. Varshney & Lalit Kumar (2007) Effect of Integrated NutrientApplication in Chickpea+Mustard Intercropping System in the Semi‐arid Tropics of North India,Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 38:1-2, 229-240

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103620601094189

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103620601094189

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Effect of Integrated Nutrient Applicationin Chickpea 1 Mustard Intercropping

System in the Semi-arid Tropicsof North India

R. L. Arya, Jay G. Varshney, and Lalit Kumar

Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract: Chickpeaþmustard is a prominent intercropping system in Indian sub

continent. The majority of the farmers adopt this system under resource constraint

conditions. The integrated applications of fertilizers with organic compost and biofer-

tilizers are considered essential for the sustainability of a system. Looking to lack of

information on this aspect, a study was undertaken on ‘Typic Ustochrept’ soils

found commonly in the North Plain Zone of India. Results revealed that integrated

nutrient application (INA) [50% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)þ FYM at

5 t ha21þ biofertilizers (Rhizobiumþ PSB)] significantly enhanced average plant

height, crop biomass, leaf area index, number and dry weight of root nodules of

chickpea and plant height and crop biomass in mustard as compared to control. INA

also produced significantly more grain and biological yield of chickpea and mustard

and more chickpea equivalent yield (2664 kg ha21) and net return (US $617 ha21)

as compared to control grown under intercropping system. INA also significantly

increased the NPK content in shoot and grain of chickpea and mustard as compared

to control causing significantly higher total uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and

potassium in chickpea and mustard. This treatment also made available more

nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in the soil after the harvest of crop in comparison

to chickpeaþmustard intercropping system under moisture stress conditions.

Keywords: Biofertilizers, Brassica juncea, Chickpea, Cicer arietinum, cropping

system, FYM, mustard, PSB, Rhizobium

Received 7 March 2005, Accepted 22 May 2006

Address correspondence to R. L. Arya, Central Tobacco Research Institute,

Research Station, Dinhata, Cooch Behar Dist., West Bengal, India. E-mail:

[email protected]

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 38: 229–240, 2007

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 0010-3624 print/1532-2416 online

DOI: 10.1080/00103620601094189

229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

INTRODUCTION

Chickpea and mustard is a prominent intercropping system not only in the

Indo-Gangetic plains of north India but in the entire Indian subcontinent on

dry lands in conserved moisture conditions. Chickpea occupies the largest

area (6.4 mha), production (5.1 m tons), and productivity (796 kg ha21)

(Anonymous 2004). Low productivity of the system is a serious concern,

and so increasing the yield of chickpea or mustard is a major deciding

factor in the profitability and sustainability of the system. The few studies

carried out on integrated use of nutrients to chickpea/mustard intercropping

suggest not only the enhancement in the productivity of these crops but

sustainability of the productivity over the years (Kushwaha and De 1987).

Use of farmyard manure and vermicompost with dual inoculation with

phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) and rhizobium make nutrients and

moisture available for the longer period under moisture-stress situations. To

increase the production per unit area, intercropping systems provide

resources to the resource-poor farmers, more efficient use of land and labor,

and better control of weeds, insects/pests, and pathogens than sole crops

(Singh and Rathi 2003). Intercropping has been in practice for centuries to

sustain yield, minimize risk, utilize the lag phase, and improve productivity

(Aiyer 1949; Jodha 1977; Willey 1979a; Dwivedi and Kumar 1999; Rao

2000; Sharma and Gupta 2001). Because information is lacking on the

influence of integrated nutrient application in chickpea–mustard intercrop-

ping system, the present study was undertaken to see if the combined use of

organic, inorganic, and biofertilizers under moisture-stress situations could

enhance sustainable yield.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during two consecutive years of 2000–1

and 2001–2 at the Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, to study the

integrated nutrient management in a chickpea–mustard intercropping

system under rain-fed conditions. The research farm lies at a latitude of 26830 N and a longitude of 808 150 E and has an elevation of 126 m above see

level and an annual rainfall of 810 mm. The experiment comprised ten

treatment combinations, namely absolute control, 50% recommended dose of

fertilizers (RDF), 100% RDF, FYM at 5 t ha21, vermicompost at 5 t ha21,

50% RDFþ FYM at 5 t ha21, 50% RDFþ vermicompost at 3 t ha21, 50%

RDFþ biofertilizers (rhizobiumþ phosphate solubilizing bacteria), 50%

RDFþ FYMþ biofertilizers and 50% RDFþ vermicompostþ biofertilizers

(INA), which were evaluated in a factorial randomized block design with

three replications. The soil at the experimental field was Typic Usochrept,

sandy loam in texture, with a pH of 7.5. The soil was low in organic carbon

(C) (0.32%) and available nitrogen (N) (251 kg ha21) and medium in

R. L. Arya, J. G. Varshney, and L. Kumar230

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

available phosphorus (P) (16.9 kg ha21) and potassium (K) (208 kg ha21)

(AOAC 1960). Chickpea (JG 315) and mustard (Varuna) were sown at a 6:2

row ratio (chickpea–mustard) in replacement series as suggested by Willey

(1979b). In a replacement series, proportional populations or proportions are

related to the sole crops of the series whatever their population, and the two

proportions must always add up to 100 (Willey 1979b). The crops were

sown at a row distance of 30 cm in chickpea and 40 cm in mustard. Plant-to-

plant distance for chickpea and mustard was kept at 20 and 10 cm, respectively.

Weeds were removed manually at the 30-day stage of crop growth. The net plot

size was 2.70 m � 4 m (10.8 m2) in the 6:2 row ratio of chickpea and mustard.

The recommended doses of fertilizer for chickpea (20þ 40 kg N and P ha21)

and for mustard (60þ 40 kg N and P ha21) were applied at the time of sowing

(Ali and Mishra 2000). Chickpea and mustard were sown on 9 November 2000

and 17 October 2001, harvesting of mustard was done on 15 March 2001 and 5

March 2002, and harvsting of chickpea was done on 8 April 2001 and 25 March

2002. During the first year of experimentation, no rainfall was received during

the cropping season; in the second year, 52 mm of rainfall was received.

All plots were sampled at harvest stage. Samples from each plot consisted

of three randomly chosen plants from both the adjoining rows of chickpea and

mustard. For dry-weight measurements, plants were chopped into pieces, sun

dried for 10 days, and oven dried at 858C to a constant weight. The dry weight

was averaged to obtain the per plant weight. For nodulation study in chickpea,

three plants in each plot were dug out to a depth of 30 cm and a width of 35 cm

intact. These soil cubes were kept in water for 2 h, and thereafter the soil

adhering to the roots was washed off thoroughly in slow running water. The

clean roots obtained were used to determine nodulation. The grain and bio-

logical yield data were recorded from each plot area and converted into

kilogram per hectare.

The chickpea equivalent yield (CEY) was computed as below:

CEY ¼

Economic yield of main crop

þ Economic yield of associated intercrop

Economic yield of main crop

where economic yield of main crop is chickpea (US$ ha21) and economic

yield of associated intercrop is mustard (US$21).

The oven-dried samples of plants and air-dried samples of grains and soil

were ground to pass through a 40-mesh sieve in a Macro-Wiley Mill. From

each sample, 0.5 g was weighed separately for chemical analysis to determine

the content of N, P, and K by straw and grain and soil after harvest of crop.

The N content in plant, grain, and soil samples was determined by modified

Kjeldahl method (Jackson 1967). The P determination was done in the tri-acid

extract colorimetrically using the vanado-molybdo-phosphoric yellow color

Integrated Nutrient Application 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

method (Jackson 1967). The K content was determined by the flame photometer

method (AOAC 1960). The percentage of N, P, and K content in plants recorded

at the time of harvest was multiplied by total dry weight of plants per hectare

under each treatment to obtain the uptake of each nutrient in kilogram per

hectare. Similarly the percentage of N, P, and K in grain was multiplied by

the produce (grain) per hectare. The total nutrient uptake per hectare was

estimated by multiplying the percent nutrient content in shoot and grain to

total shoot and grain biomass. The error variance of the 2-year experiment

were subjected to a homogeneity test (Bartlett’s test) and found to be hom-

ogenous, so the results were pooled. Statistical significance of treatment differ-

ence was studied by F test at the 5% level (Fisher 1952).

RESULTS

Growth Attributes

Data pertaining to growth attributes such as plant height (48.2 cm), dry-matter

accumulation (17.49 g), leaf area index (2.73), number (8.2), and dry weight

(0.09 g) of root nodules per plant of chickpea have shown a positive trend with

INA as compared to absolute control (Table 1). Similarly INA significantly

increased the mean plant height (168.4 cm) and dry-matter accumulation

(46.05 g) per plant of mustard over control in mustard. Application of

inorganic fertilizers adversely affected the number and dry weight of root

nodules per plant. The application of organic manures and/or biofertilizers

(rhizobiumþ PSB) considerably increased the number and dry weight of

nodules as compared to control in chickpea, which might be on account of

creation of a better soil environment, paving the way for better root growth

and subsequently shoot development (Sonboir and Sarawgi 1998). The

increase in growth attributes of chickpea and mustard with the INA might

be due to an increase in availability of plant nutrients and soil moisture for

the longer period of crop growth (Kushwaha and De 1987).

Yield

Significantly higher grain (1794 kg ha21) and straw (3642 kg ha21) yield of

chickpea and grain (540 kg ha21) and stalk (4078 kg ha21) yield of mustard

were obtained with INA over control (Table 2). Application of 50% RDFþ

vermicompostþ biofertilizers was also equally effective for increasing the

grain and straw/stalk yields of chickpea and mustard in the intercropping

system than the other combinations of plant nutrients. The increase in grain

yield of chickpea was up to 65.5%, whereas in mustard it increased by

75.9% with the application of INA over control. The increase in grain yield

of chickpea and mustard might be due to an improved soil environment.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Table 1. Effect of different treatments on growth parameters of chickpea and mustard

Treatment

Plant height

(cm)

Plant biomass plant21

(g)Leaf area

index

Nodules plant21

(no.)

Dry weight of

nodules

plant21 (g)Chickpea Mustard Chickpea Mustard

Control 38.3 137.1 14.09 35.00 1.82 5.4 0.07

50% RDF 43.7 146.2 14.96 38.11 2.12 4.6 0.04

100% RDF 45.9 161.6 16.86 42.77 2.54 3.9 0.04

FYM @ 5 t ha21 44.0 148.4 15.06 35.72 2.18 5.7 0.06

Vermicompost @ 5 t ha21 42.7 144.6 15.32 37.48 2.19 6.2 0.07

50% RDFþ FYM @ 5 t ha21 45.3 153.3 16.46 41.97 2.44 7.1 0.08

50% RDFþ vermicompost @

3 t ha2144.2 146.4 15.84 39.17 2.26 6.4 0.09

50% RDFþ biofertilizer

(Rhþ PSB)

44.7 148.7 16.03 40.94 2.34 7.0 0.07

50% RDFþ FYMþ

biofertilizers (INA)

48.8 168.4 17.49 46.05 2.73 8.2 0.09

50% RDFþ vermicompostþ

biofertilizers

47.2 164.2 17.0 44.46 2.60 8.1 0.09

LSD (P ¼ 0.05) 4.5 12.9 1.37 1.43 0.20 0.9 0.03

Notes: RDF: recommended dose of fertilizers, Rh: rhizobium, PSB: phosphate solubilizing bacteria, FYM: farmyard manure.

Integ

rated

Nu

trient

Ap

plica

tion

23

3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Shiva Kumar, Shiray, and Khokhar (2002) found that the grain yield of

chickpea showed significant increase with the application of FYM at

5 t ha21 with rhizobiumþ PSB and 60 kg P2O5 ha21 as compared to no

FYMþ no biofertilizersþ no phosphorus application. Dubey, Jain and

Sharma (1990) also obtained similar positive response in terms of grain

yield of chickpea with application of P under dry land conditions. Application

of FYM or compost helps in improving the physicochemical properties of soil

and provides a better soil environment for the biological activity (Shiva

Kumar, Shivay, and Khokhar 2002). Ali and Mishra (2000) also highlighted

the importance of biofertilizers in enhancing the productivity of legumes

including chickpea, due to increased availability of N and P in soil to legumes.

Chickpea Equivalent Yield

On the basis of equivalent yield, significantly higher chickpea equivalent yield

(2664 kg ha21) was obtained with INA as compared to other sources of

nutrients. The use of other combinations of plant nutrients also proved

superior for producing significantly higher chickpea equivalent yield than

Table 2. Effect of nutrient application on productivity of chickpea and mustard

Treatment

Yield (kg ha21)

Grain

Biological

(straw/stalk)Chickpea

equivalentChickpea Mustard Chickpea Mustard

Control 1084 307 2093 2715 1551

50% RDF 1297 356 2566 3173 1852

100% RDF 1583 473 3326 3699 2313

FYM @ 5 t ha21 1213 339 2501 3067 1743

Vermicompost @ 5 t ha21 1393 399 2817 3301 1996

50% RDFþ FYM @

5 t ha211379 289 2939 3243 1982

50% RDFþ vermicompost

@ 3 t ha211370 430 2921 3461 2028


(Rhþ PSB)

1370 420 2944 3369 2015

50% RDFþ FYMþ


1794 540 3642 4078 2664

50% RDFþ

vermicompostþ

biofertilizers

1692 520 3449 3904 2488

LSD (P ¼ 0.05) 249 65 315 288 258


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

the control. The extent of increase in mean chickpea equivalent yield due to

application of INA was 71.7% over the control. It is an established fact that

application of organic sources of plant nutrients in soil makes the nutrients

available for a longer period than inorganic fertilizers. Vyas(2000–1) found

that highest pigeonpea equivalent yield (1677 kg/ha) was recorded with

treatment of 100% recommended dose of fertilizer followed by 50% RDFþ

FYMþ biofertilizers (1593 kg ha21).

Economics

INA gave the maximum gross return (US$ 765 ha21), net return (US$

461 ha21), and benefit–cost ratio (2.52) followed by 50% RDFþ

vermicompostþ biofertilizers and 100% RDF (Table 3). However,

minimum gross return (US$ 447 ha21), net return (US$ 180 ha21), and

benefit–cost ratio (1.67) were recorded in absolute control plots in

chickpea–mustard intercropping system. Highest benefit–cost ratio was

also observed in INA in soybean–pigeon pea intercropping system under

rain conditions by Vyas (2000–1). Jain et al. (1999) reported that combined

application of PSB with 60 kg P2O5 ha21 produced the significantly higher

seed yield of 1.63 t ha21 and higher net return of chickpea than no biofertili-

zers and no P application. Similar results were also reported by Yadav and

Shrivastava (1997) and Sonboir and Sarawgi (1998) in chickpea. Shinde

(2000–1) achieved that maximum productivity and net return from pigeon

pea–pearl millet intercropping system (2:2) with application of 50%

Table 3. Effect of nutrients application on gross/net return and B:C ratio of chickpea

and mustard

Treatment

Gross return

(US$ ha21)

Net return

(US$ ha21)

Benefit–cost

ratio

Control 447 180 1.67

50% RDF 532 255 1.92

100% RDF 666 376 2.30

FYM @ 5 t ha21 500 208 1.72

Vermicompost @ 5 t ha21 580 226 1.64

50% RDFþ FYM @ 5 t ha21 567 265 1.88

50% RDFþ

vermicompost @ 3 t ha21584 254 1.77


(Rhþ PSB)

579 300 2.07

50% RDFþ FYMþ


765 461 2.52


biofertilizers

715 361 2.02


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

RDFþ FYM at 5 t ha21þ biofertilizers to both the component crops under

rain-fed conditions.

Nutrient Content and Uptake

Results revealed that significantly higher N, P, and K content in plant and grain

of chickpea and mustard were obtained with the application of 50% RDFþ

FYMþ biofertilizers as compared to the control (Tables 4–6). It was also

observed that combined application of organic, inorganic, and biofertilizers

as well as individual application of these nutrients recorded significantly

higher N, P, and K content in plant and grain of chickpea and mustard than

the absolute control. Significantly higher total uptake of N in chickpea

(116.33 kg ha21) and mustard (51.55 kg ha21) was obtained with combined

application of inorganic, organic and biofertilizers as compared to absolute

control. Similarly significantly higher P and K uptake in chickpea (17.17

and 86.28 kg ha21) and mustard (18.23 and 87.36 kg ha21) were recorded

in 50% RDFþ FYMþ biofertilizer as compared to control, respectively.

Table 4. Effect of nutrient application on N content and total N uptake of chickpea

and mustard

Treatment

N content (%)

Total N uptake

(kg ha21)

Chickpea Mustard

Chickpea MustardPlant Grain Plant Grain

Control 1.11 2.13 0.68 2.75 46.26 26.97

50% RDF 1.13 2.67 0.70 2.83 63.25 32.23

100% RDF 1.19 3.37 0.71 2.91 93.03 39.94

FYM @ 5 t ha21 1.25 3.53 0.72 3.02 74.04 32.48

Vermicompost @

5 t ha211.19 3.50 0.72 2.97 82.44 35.45

50% RDFþ FYM @

5 t ha211.30 3.69 0.80 3.21 89.18 35.29

50% RDFþ

vermicompost

@ 3 t ha21

1.28 3.67 0.79 2.20 87.53 36.72


(Rhþ PSB)

1.22 3.36 0.78 2.14 81.91 35.15

50% RDFþ FYMþ


1.56 3.86 0.82 3.35 125.79 51.55

50% RDFþ

vermicompostþ

biofertilizers

1.53 3.76 0.81 3.27 116.33 48.74

LSD (P ¼ 0.05) 0.23 0.45 0.18 0.41 11.48 8.32


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

It was also observed that nutrient content in plant and grain was also more in

organic and biofertilizer-treated plots than those treated with inorganic

fertilizer under moisture-stress conditions. It might be because under such

situations, there probably is an induced effect on root distribution to

deeper layers, causing an increase in the availability of these nutrients.

Available Nutrients in the Soil

After the completion of the first crop cycle, it was observed that INA enhanced

available N (103.49 kg ha21), P (14.32 kg ha21), and K (259 kg ha21) in the soil

followed by 50% RDFþ vermicompostþ biofertilizer, 50% RDFþ FYM,

50% RDFþ vermicompost, and 50% RDFþ biofertilizers in comparison

with absolute control (Table 7), which might be due to the activity of the

bacteria synthesizing more N and making available more P under the

treatment. Better nutrient utilization by more healthy and vigorous plants

under recommended and balanced level of nutrients results in more biomass pro-

duction and yield, causing an increase in total uptake of nutrients. The dual

inoculation of rhizobium and PSB relatively increased nutrients uptake, which

has also been reported by several workers (Poi, Ghose, and Kabi 1989;

Shindeand Saraf 1992; Vaishya, Bapat, and Dubey 1996).

Table 5. Effect of nutrient application on P content and total P uptake of chickpea and

mustard

Treatment

P content

(%)

Total uptake P

(kg ha21)

Chickpea Mustard


Control 0.13 0.28 0.19 0.50 5.75 6.68

50% RDF 0.18 0.31 0.20 0.52 8.65 8.19

100% RDF 0.19 0.31 0.22 0.52 11.22 10.61

FYM @ 5 t ha21 0.20 0.32 0.26 0.54 8.86 9.81

Vermicompost @ 5 t ha21 0.20 0.32 0.26 0.53 10.09 10.69

50% RDFþ FYM @ 5 t ha21 0.25 0.36 0.34 0.57 12.27 12.68


3 t ha210.25 0.35 0.27 0.56 12.08 11.78


(Rhþ PSB)

0.21 0.33 0.27 0.55 10.75 11.40

50% RDFþ FYMþ


0.27 0.40 0.37 0.58 17.17 18.23


biofertilizers

0.26 0.39 0.36 0.60 15.58 17.15

LSD (P ¼ 0.05) 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.09 4.96 5.72


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Table 6. Effect of nutrient application on K content and total K uptake of chickpea

and mustard

Treatment

K content (%)

Total uptake K

(kg ha21)

Chickpea Mustard


Control 1.24 0.86 1.39 1.15 35.22 41.27

50% RDF 1.40 1.09 1.52 1.20 50.04 52.47

100% RDF 1.42 1.13 1.50 1.21 65.09 61.19

FYM @ 5 t ha21 1.56 1.19 1.59 1.36 53.43 53.35

Vermicompost @ 5 t ha21 1.46 1.15 1.58 1.30 57.17 57.34

50% RDFþ FYM @ 5 t ha21 1.69 1.25 1.76 1.57 66.89 61.64


3 t ha211.59 1.23 1.73 1.54 63.25 66.48


(Rhþ PSB)

1.46 1.20 1.62 1.40 59.43 60.45

50% RDFþ FYMþ


1.74 1.28 1.93 1.60 86.28 87.36


biofertilizers

1.71 1.25 1.79 1.62 80.05 78.29

LSD (P ¼ 0.05) 0.26 0.24 0.35 0.32 16.47 15.23

Table 7. Effect of nutrients application on available nutrients (NPK) in the

soil (kg ha21) after the crop harvest of chickpea and mustard

Treatment

Available nutrients in the soil (kg ha21)

N P K

Control 65.13 10.90 201.0

50% RDF 68.40 11.53 203.0

100% RDF 69.08 11.77 214.0

FYM @ 5 t ha21 72.13 12.32 216.0

Vermicompost @ 5 t ha21 70.13 11.82 214.0

50% RDFþ FYM @ 5 t ha21 87.81 13.65 240.0


3 t ha2178.40 13.64 239.0


(Rhþ PSB)

76.40 12.89 235.0

50% RDFþ FYMþ


103.49 14.32 259.0


biofertilizers

100.35 14.30 248.0


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present investigation suggest that INA produced signifi-

cantly higher growth attributes, enhanced productivity of chickpea (43.9%)

and mustard (69.4%), and increased net profitability (156%) in the intercrop-

ping system (6:2) under moisture-stress conditions of the northern plain zone

of India. INA enhanced soil NPK status to the level of 38.36, 3.42, and

58.0 kg ha21 after two crop cycles in comparison to the control. It may be

concluded that the integrated application of inorganic, organic, and biofertili-

zer sources of plant nutrients is beneficial for improving the productivity, prof-

itability, and availability of nutrients in a chickpea–mustard intercropping

system under rain-fed conditions of the northern plain zone of India.

REFERENCES

Aiyer, K.K.Y.N. (1949) Mixed cropping in India. Indian Journal of AgriculturalScience, 19: 439–445.

Ali, M. and Mishra, J.P. (2000) Nutrient management in pulses and pulse basedcropping system. Fertilizer News, 45: 37–69.

Anonymouns. (2004) Agricultural Statistics at a Glance; 38. Agricultural StatisticsDivision, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture andCooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India: New Delhi, India.

Methods of Analysis; AOAC. (1960) Association of Agricultural Chemists: Washing-ton, D.C.

Dubey, S.K., Jain, S.C., and Sharma, A.K. (1990) The performance of chickpeavarieties at different levels of phosphorus and seed rates under rainfed conditions.Research and Development Report, 7: 32–36.

Dwivedi, G.K. and Kumar, D. (1999) Nitrogen economy, dry matter production andseed production potential of Setaria sphacelata by intercropping of pasturelegumes. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Sciences, 182: 121–125.

Fisher, R.A. (1952) Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 12th ed.; Oliver &Boyd: Edinburgh, U.K.

Jackson, M.L. (1967) Soil Chemistry Analysis; Prentice Hall of India: New Delhi, India;Jain, P.C., Kushwaha, P.S., Dhakad, V.S., Khan, H., and Trivedi, S.K. (1999) Response

of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to phosphorus and biofertilizers. Legume Research,22: 241–244.

Jodha, N.S. (1977) Resources base as a determinant of cropping patterns; ICRISATEconomics Program occasional paper 14, Hyderabad, India: ICRISAT.

Kushwaha, B.L. and De, R. (1987) Studies of resource use and yield of mustardand chickpea grown in intercropping systems. Journal of Agricultural ScienceCambridge, 108: 487–495.

Poi, S.C., Ghose, G., and Kabi, M.C. (1989) Response of chickpea to combinedinoculation with rhizobium, phosphobacteria and mycorrhizal organism. Zentralblatfur Mikrobiologie, 144: 249–253.

Rao, B.R.R. (2000) Biomass yield and essential oil yield variations in Java citronella(Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt.) intercropped with food legumes and vegetables.Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 185: 99–103.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Sharma, O.P. and Gupta, A.K. (2001) Comparing the feasibility of pearl millet–basedintercropping system supplied with varying levels of nitrogen and phosphorus.Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 186: 91–95.

Shinde, S.H. (2000–1) Annual Report of NATP, MPKV; Mahatma Phule KrishiVidyapith: Rahuri, Maharastra, India, 18.

Shinde, V.S. and Saraf, C.S. (1992) Sulphur and phosphorus interactions in thepresence of phosphate solubilizing bacteria in chickpea. International ChickpeaNewsletter, 26: 27–29.

Shiva Kumar, B.G., Shivay, Y.S., and Khokhar, R.K. (2002) Performance of chickpea(Cicer arietinum) as influenced by FYM, biofertilizers and phosphorus under limitedmoisture supply conditions. In 2nd International Agronomy Congress on BalancingFood and Environmental Security—A Continuing Challenge; Indian Society ofAgronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute: New Delhi, India, 602–604;

Singh, K.K. and Rathi, K.S. (2003) Dry matter production and productivity as influ-enced by staggered sowing of mustard intercropped at different row ratios withchickpea. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 189: 169–175.

Sonboir, H.L. and Sarawgi, S.K. (1998) Effect of phosphorus, bacterial culture andmicronutrients on growth, yield and balance sheets of N and P in chickpea.Annals of Agricultural Research, 19: 488–491.

Vaishya, U.K., Bapat, P.N., and Dubey, A.V. (1996) Phosphate solubilizing efficiencyof microorganisms on gram grown on Vertisol. Journal of Indian Society of SoilScience, 44: 524–526.

Vyas, M.D. (2000–1) Annual Report of National Agriculture Technology Project;Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapith: Rahuri, Maharastra, India, 27;

Willey, R.W. (1979a) Intercropping: Its importance and research needs, part I: Compe-tition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstract, 32: 1–10.

Willey, R.W. (1979b) Intercropping: Its importance and research needs, part II:Agronomy research approach. Field Crop Abstract, 32: 73–85.

Yadav, R.P. and Shrivastava, V.K. (1997) Response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) tophosphorus and biofertilizer. Legume Research, 20: 137–140.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

AM

Ciu

dad

Uni

vers

itari

a] a

t 20:

24 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

effect of integrated nutrient application in chickpea mustard intercropping system in the semi-arid...

Documents