effect of vermicompost and chemical fertilizer on growth, herb, oil yield, nutrient uptake, soil...
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 12 July 2014, At: 07:44Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communications in Soil Science andPlant AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20
Effect of Vermicompost and ChemicalFertilizer on Growth, Herb, Oil Yield,Nutrient Uptake, Soil Fertility, and OilQuality of RosemaryM. Singh a & Kundan Wasnik ba Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Council ofScientific and Industrial Research Centre , Bangalore , Indiab Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants , Lucknow ,IndiaAccepted author version posted online: 11 Jul 2013.Publishedonline: 01 Oct 2013.
To cite this article: M. Singh & Kundan Wasnik (2013) Effect of Vermicompost and ChemicalFertilizer on Growth, Herb, Oil Yield, Nutrient Uptake, Soil Fertility, and Oil Quality ofRosemary, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 44:18, 2691-2700, DOI:10.1080/00103624.2013.813532
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2013.813532
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 our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 44:2691–2700, 2013Copyright © CSIR-CIMAPISSN: 0010-3624 print / 1532-2416 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00103624.2013.813532
Effect of Vermicompost and Chemical Fertilizer onGrowth, Herb, Oil Yield, Nutrient Uptake, Soil
Fertility, and Oil Quality of Rosemary
M. SINGH1 AND KUNDAN WASNIK2
1Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Council of Scientific andIndustrial Research Centre, Bangalore, India2Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, India
Essential oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) possesses good olfactoryproperties and is suitable for use in perfumes, soaps, and fragrances. Field experimentswere conducted for 2 years (2003−2005) in an area experiencing a semi-arid tropicalclimate to study the influence of vermicompost and chemical fertilizer on growth, herb,oil yield, nutrient uptake, soil fertility, and oil quality of rosemary. Results from theexperiment revealed that among the seven treatments, the application of vermicompost(8 t ha−1) + fertilizer nitrogen (N)−phosphorus (P)− potassium (K) (150:25:25 kgha−1) produced optimum herbage and oil yield of rosemary compared with control (nofertilizer) and was found to be on par with application of fertilizer NPK 300:50:50 kgha−1. Content and quality of oil were not influenced by vermicompost and chemicalfertilizers. Furthermore, it was noticed that available N and P were greater in posthar-vest soils that received vermicompost alone or in combination with inorganic fertilizersthan control (no fertilizer) and inorganic fertilizer−treated soil. This study indicatesthat combined application of vermicompost and chemical fertilizer helps to increasecrop productivity and sustain the soil fertility.
Keywords Chemical fertilizer, herb, rosemary, soil fertility, vermicompost
Introduction
Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) is an evergreen woody aromatic herb with a char-acteristic aroma and lavender-like leaves. The plant is native to the Mediterranean regionwhere it grows wild along with the sea coast. Rosemary is cultivated on a large scalein Spain, Italy, France, Algeria, and Portugal for its essential oil. Morocco, one of theworld’s leading producers of rosemary oil, is second only to Spain and Tunisia in termsof volume of production (Bolens 1985). The leaves of rosemary are also used for culi-nary purpose and are reported to possess antioxidant properties. Rosemary is also usedin food products, for example to control Salemonella infection in meat (Soliman et al.1994). Rosemary oil is obtained by steam or hydrodistillation of twigs and leaves and isused extensively in the food, flavor, and fragrance industries and in aromatherapy. Thecrop normally responds to the application of nitrogen (N) fertilizer (Prakasa Rao et al.
Received 2 February 2011; accepted 14 March 2012.Address correspondence to M. Singh, Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants,
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Centre, Allalasandra, GKVK Post, Bangalore 560 065,India. E-mail: [email protected]
2691
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
2692 M. Singh and K. Wasnik
1999; Singh 2004; Singh, Ganesha Rao, and Ramesh 2007). Integrated supply of nutri-ents to plants through planned combinations of organic and inorganic sources is becomingan increasingly important aspect of environmentally sound agriculture. No research hasbeen reported on the influence of vermicompost and conjoint application of vermicompostand inorganic fertilizers on yield and quality of rosemary oil. Keeping this in view, thepresent experiment was conducted to study the effect of vermicompost in combinationwith chemical fertilizers on growth, yields, soil fertility, and oil quality of rosemary.
Materials and Methods
A field experiment was conducted for 2 years during 2003−2005 on the farm of the CentralInstitute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Resource Centre, Bangalore, India, to study theeffect of vermicompost and chemical fertilizers on growth, yield, soil fertility, and qualityof essential oil of rosemary crop. The soil of experimental plot was a red sandy loam, hav-ing pH 6.3 (soil-to-water ratio 1:2.5), organic carbon (C) 2.5 g kg−1 (Walkley and Black1934) available nitrogen (N) 210.0 kg ha−1 (Subbaiah and Asija 1956), available phospho-rus (P) 12.0 kg ha−1 [0.5 M sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)−extractable P; John 1970],and exchangeable potassium (K) 91 kg ha−1 [1M ammonium (NH4) acetate−extractable;Jackson 1958]. Vermicompost contained 1.88% N, 0.3% P, and 0.6% K. The treatmentsconsisted of seven combinations of vermicompost and fertilizer (NPK): T1, control (nofertilizer); T2, vermicompost (16 t ha−1); T3, vermicompost (12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK(100:25:25 kg ha−1); T4, vermicompost (8 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK (150:25:25 kg ha−1);T5, vermicompost (12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK (75:12.5:12.5 kg ha−1); T6, vermicompost(4 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK (225:37.5:37.5 kg ha−1); and T7, fertilizer NPK (300:50:50 kgha−1) (Table 1). The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design with threereplications. The N, P, and K were applied as urea, single superphosphate, and muriate ofpotash, respectively. The vermicompost and fertilizer P and K were applied as per treat-ment before planting in the plots (3.6 × 3.6 m2) and incorporated. Nitrogen was applied insix equal splits in both years at 60-day intervals. The rooted cuttings of 50-day-old rose-mary were transplanted on 13 March 2003 and 20 March 2004 in rows 45 cm apart with aplant-to-plant distance of 45 cm. Standard irrigation (30 mm irrigation water was appliedper irrigation), weeding, and other management practices were followed when requiredthroughout the growth period. Two harvests of rosemary were taken each year: The firstharvest was taken in winter (November 2003) and the second harvest was taken in thespring (March 2004); and similarly in the second year, the first harvest was in October2004 and the second harvest in March 2005. Essential oil was extracted by hydrodistillation(Clevenger 1928) at harvest, fresh weights were recorded in each plot, and representativeplant (whole shoot) and soil samples were collected after harvest for chemical analysis.Soil and plant samples were analyzed for NPK following standard procedures as depictedby Jackson (1973) and Piper (1926), respectively. Soil organic C was analyzed followingthe method of Walkley and Black (1934). Oil samples were analyzed by gas chromatog-raphy using PE 8500-chromatograph (Perkin-Elmer, Waltham, Mass.) fitted with a flameionization detector and a fused silica column (25 m × 0.25 mm ID) coated with methylpolysiloxane (BP-1). The injector and detector temperature were 250 ◦C and 300 ◦C,respectively, and the oven temperature was raised from 100 ◦C to 210 ◦C at 5 ◦C perminute. Nitrogen was a carrier gas with an inlet pressure of 10.0 psi. A split mode of injec-tion was used with a split ratio of 1:80. Compounds were identified by co-injection withauthentic samples and calculation of retention indices. After carrying out Bartlet’s test for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
Vermicompost and Fertilizer Effect on Rosemary 2693
Table 1Different treatment combinations and applied nutrient levels under different treatments
Fertilizer (kg ha−1)Total applied
nutrient (kg ha−1)
Treatment N P KVermicompost
(t ha−1) N P K
T1 (control) — — — — — — —T2: vermicompost 16 t ha−1 — — — 16 300.8 48.0 96.0T3: vermicompost 12 t ha−1
+ fertilizer 100:25:25 NPKkg ha−1
100 25 25 12 325.6 61.0 97.0
T4: vermicompost 8 t ha−1
+ fertilizer 150:25:25 NPKkg ha−1
150 25 25 8 300.4 49.0 73.0
T5: vermicompost 12 t ha−1
+ fertilizer 75:12.5:12.5NPK kg ha−1
75 12.5 12.5 12 300.6 48.5 84.5
T6: vermicompost 4 t ha−1
+ fertilizer 225:37.5:37.5NPK kg ha−1
225 37.5 37.5 4 300.2 49.5 61.5
T7 : Fertilizer NPK300:50:50 NPK kg ha−1
300 50 50 — 300 50.0 50.0
homogeneity of variance, the 2 years of data were pooled, and statistical analysis of datawas performed in the form of factorial taking year as one factor and fertilizer as anotherfactor by following the procedure depicted in Panse and Sukhatme (1976).
Results and Discussion
Plant Growth
Data presented in Table 2 revealed that application of fertilizer NPK (T7) andvermicompost alone and in combination increased the plant height and plant canopy inrosemary over the control (no fertilizer). Plant height increased by 10.5, 9.8, 16.0, 12.1,21.6, and 20.0% over control (T1), with T2, vermicompost (16 t ha−1); T3, vermicompost(12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK 100:25:25 kg ha−1; T4, vermicompost (8 t ha−1) + fertilizerNPK 150:25:25 kg ha−1; T5, vermicompost (12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK 75:12.5:12.5 kgha−1; T6, vermicompost (4 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK 225:37.5:37.5 kg ha−1; and T7, fer-tilizer NPK 300:50:50 kg ha−1 respectively. Combined application of vermicompost (4 tha−1) + fertilizer NPK 225:37.5:37.5 kg ha−1 resulted in significantly higher plant heightthan the vermicompost applied alone in the first harvest and application of NPK signifi-cantly increased the plant height compared with the control (no fertilizer). There was noeffect of combined application of NPK fertilizer and vermicompost in the second harvest.Plant canopy was significantly greater with a combined application of vermicompost andNPK fertilizer compared with the control in the first harvest. In the second harvest, applica-tion of fertilizer NPK and vermicompost alone and in combination significantly increased
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
Tabl
e2
Influ
ence
ofor
gani
can
din
orga
nic
fert
ilize
rson
plan
tgro
wth
ofro
sem
ary
(poo
led
data
of2
year
s)
Plan
thei
ght(
cm)
Plan
tcan
opy
(m2/pl
ant)
Tre
atm
ent
Har
vest
1H
arve
st2
Incr
ease
(%)
over
cont
rola
Har
vest
1H
arve
st2
Incr
ease
(%)
over
cont
rola
Yea
rY
160
.23a
46.6
3a—
0.21
9a0.
298a
—Y
259
.17a
42.1
6a—
0.21
9a0.
169b
—SE
±m
1.25
2.26
—0.
015
0.01
1—
CD
N.S
.N
.S.
—N
.S.
0.02
3—
Fert
ilize
rle
vels
T1
53.1
738
.48
—0.
134
0.17
6—
T2
58.7
7c42
.85
10.9
0.20
0b0.
224a
bc36
.8T
358
.40c
43.5
811
.40.
215a
b0.
242a
bc47
.7T
461
.67a
c43
.614
.80.
266a
0.24
4abc
63.2
T5
59.6
0ab
49.9
719
.70.
226a
b0.
251a
54.2
T6
64.6
7a45
.22
19.9
0.24
3a0.
248a
bc58
.7T
763
.80a
b47
.72
21.8
0.24
7ab
0.25
0ab
60.6
SEM
2.34
4.22
—0.
027
0.02
1—
CD
(P=
0.05
)4.
80N
.S.
—0.
056
0.04
4—
aM
ean
oftw
oha
rves
ts.
Not
es.V
alue
sde
note
dby
the
sam
ele
ttera
reno
tsig
nific
antly
diff
eren
t.T
1,c
ontr
ol(n
ofe
rtili
zer)
;T2,v
erm
icom
post
16th
a−1;T
3,v
erm
icom
post
12t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(100
:25:
25kg
ha−1
);T
4,v
erm
icom
post
8th
a−1+
fert
ilize
rN
PK(1
50:2
5:25
kgha
−1);
T5,v
erm
icom
post
12th
a−1+
fert
ilize
rN
PK(7
5:12
.5:1
2.5
kgha
−1);
T6,
verm
icom
post
4t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(225
:37.
5:37
.5kg
ha−1
);an
dT
7,
fert
ilize
rN
PK(3
00:5
0:50
kgha
−1.
SE,
stan
dard
erro
r;C
D,c
ritic
aldi
ffer
ence
;and
N.S
.,no
tsig
nific
ant.
2694
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
Vermicompost and Fertilizer Effect on Rosemary 2695
the plant canopy. In addition, plant canopy with full fertilizer NPK (300:50:50 kg ha−1)was significantly greater than a full dose of vermicompost (applied 16 t ha−1). However,combined application of vermicompost with half of dose of fertilizer NPK resulted insignificantly greater canopy than the organic source applied alone.
Herb, Oil Yield and Oil Quality
Data presented in Table 3 revealed that application of full fertilizer NPK and vermicompostalone and in combination significantly increased the herb (fresh weight) and oil yield inrosemary over the control (no fertilizer). Herb yield increased by 48.5, 79.9, 105.0, 77.8,94.8, and 110% over the control (T1, no fertilizer), with T2, vermicompost (16 t ha−1);T3, vermicompost (12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK 100:25:25 kg ha−1; T4, vermicompost (8 tha−1) + fertilizer NPK 150:25:25 kg ha−1; T5, vermicompost (12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK75:12.5:12.5 kg ha−1; T6, vermicompost (4 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK 225:37.5:37.5 kgha−1; and T7 (full fertilizer NPK 300:50:50 kg ha−1) respectively. In addition, mean herbyield with full fertilizer NPK was significantly greater than a full dose of vermicompost(applied at 16 t ha−1). However, combined application of vermicompost with half of doseof fertilizer NPK resulted in significantly greater herb yield than the organic source appliedalone. Similar results were reported by Patra, Anwar and Chand (2000) and Chand, Anwar,and Patra (2001) in menthol mint (Mentha arvensis). A similar trend was observed with oilyield. The greatest oil yield was recorded with full dose of NPK compared with T2 (fullvermicompost) and T1 (control no fertilizer). In general, it was greater in all the treatedplots as compared with control (T1). Among the seven treatments compared, the lowestincrease over control (49.4%) was with vermicompost applied 16 t ha−1 (T2), and thegreatest increased in oil yield was with full fertilizer NPK (300:50:50 kg ha−1) followedby vermicompost (4 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK (225:37.5:37.5 kg ha−1). Oil content was notinfluenced by vermicompost and fertilizer NPK, which ranged from 0.84 to 1.08 (data notpresented). The oil was also analyzed for its chemical composition and quality in terms ofprincipal constituents (i.e., 1,8-cineole ranges from 25.5 to 27%, camphor 25.7−29.6%,α-pinene 7.2−10.9, camphene 4.5−6.1%, verbenone 7.6−9.6, and β-pinene 2.8−4.0%).There was no effect of organic manure and inorganic fertilizers on composition of rosemary(data not presented). Similar results were reported by Singh, Ganesha Rao, and Ramesh(2007).
Nutrient Uptake by Plant
Uptake of major nutrients by plant was significantly influenced by treatments (Table 4).The greatest N uptake was recovered with T7 (full fertilizer NPK 300:50:50 kg ha−1) fol-lowed by T6 vermicompost (4 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK (225:37.5:37.5 kg ha−1), whichwere about 134.1% and 125.2.9% greater than the control, respectively. Increases in Nuptake for T2, T3, T4, and T5 were 51.8, 85.7, 120.0, and 83.14%, respectively, over thecontrol (T1). A similar trend was observed with respect to P uptake by the plants. Increasesin P uptake over the control with vermicompost at 16 t ha−1 (T2) and vermicompost(12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK (75:12.5:12.5 kg ha−1) T5 and T3, vermicompost (12 tha−1) + fertilizer NPK (100:25:25 kg ha−1) and T4, vermicompost (8 t ha−1) + fertil-izer NPK (150:25:25 kg ha−1) were 46.8, 72.3, and 74.4% respectively. As in N, P andK uptake were greatest with T7 (full fertilizer NPK 300:50:50 kg ha−1), which was about134% more than that in the control (T1). The treatment effect with respect to K uptakewas in order T7 > T4 > T5 > T6 > T3 > T2> T1. The greater uptake of NPK under
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
Tabl
e3
Influ
ence
ofor
gani
can
din
orga
nic
fert
ilize
rson
herb
age
and
oily
ield
ofro
sem
ary
(poo
led
data
of2
year
s)
Her
bage
yiel
d(t
ha−1
)O
ilyi
eld
(kg
ha−1
)
Tre
atm
ent
Har
vest
1H
arve
st2
Tota
lIn
crea
se(%
)ov
erco
ntro
lH
arve
st1
Har
vest
2To
tal
Incr
ease
(%)
over
cont
rol
Yea
rY
17.
15a
9.48
a16
.63a
—77
.67a
103.
16a
180.
83a
—Y
17.
85a
10.4
7a18
.32a
—70
.31a
99.1
8a16
9.18
a—
SEM
0.69
0.69
0.85
—4.
787.
228.
54—
CD
(P=
0.05
)N
.S.
N.S
.N
.S.
—N
.S.
N.S
.N
.S.
—Fe
rtili
zer
leve
lsT
14.
725.
3410
.06
—43
.01
54.6
497
.65
—T
26.
61d
8.33
14.9
448
.558
.90
87.0
7b14
5.97
d49
.5T
36.
96d
11.1
2ac
18.1
0bc
79.9
64.9
3d11
3.81
ab17
8.74
abcd
83.0
T4
8.93
abc
11.6
9a20
.62a
105.
084
.33a
bc11
6.84
a20
1.18
a10
6.0
T5
7.43
d10
.46a
17.8
9cd
77.8
69.3
abc
106.
12ab
175.
41ab
c79
.6T
68.
98a
10.6
2a19
.60a
bc94
.884
.68a
b10
7.04
ab19
1.72
abc
96.3
T7
8.87
abc
12.3
0a21
.14a
110
84.8
0a11
2.65
ab19
0.78
abc
95.4
SEM
0.69
1.29
1.30
—8.
9113
.51
15.9
7—
CD
(P=
0.05
)1.
432.
642.
68—
18.3
327
.78
32.8
4—
Not
es.
Val
ues
deno
ted
byth
esa
me
lette
rar
eno
tsi
gnifi
cant
lydi
ffer
ent.
T1,
cont
rol
(no
fert
ilize
r);
T2,
verm
icom
post
16t
ha−1
;T
3,
verm
icom
post
12t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(100
:25:
25kg
ha−1
);T
4,
verm
icom
post
8t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(150
:25:
25kg
ha−1
);T
5,
verm
icom
post
12t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(75:
12.5
:12.
5kg
ha−1
);T
6,v
erm
icom
post
4th
a−1+
fert
ilize
rN
PK(2
25:3
7.5:
37.5
kgha
−1);
and
T7,f
ertil
izer
NPK
(300
:50:
50kg
ha−1
.SE
,sta
ndar
der
ror;
CD
,cr
itica
ldif
fere
nce;
and
N.S
.,no
tsig
nific
ant.
2696
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
Tabl
e4
Influ
ence
ofor
gani
can
din
orga
nic
fert
ilize
rson
N,P
,and
Kup
take
ofro
sem
ary
(poo
led
data
of2
year
s)
Tre
atm
ent
Tota
lNup
take
(kg
ha−1
)In
crea
se(%
)ov
erco
ntro
lTo
talP
upta
ke(k
gha
−1)
Incr
ease
(%)
over
cont
rol
Tota
lKup
take
(kg
ha−1
)In
crea
se(%
)ov
erco
ntro
l
Yea
rY
198
.59a
—8.
91a
—56
.90a
—Y
210
0.38
a—
8.21
a—
52.4
8a—
SEM
2.52
—0.
33—
2.74
—C
D(P
=0.
05)
N.S
.—
N.S
.—
N.S
.—
Fert
ilize
rle
vels
T1
53.2
9—
4.85
—31
.22
—T
280
.94
51.9
7.12
46.8
48.9
556
.8T
398
.98d
85.7
8.46
cd74
.454
.99b
c76
.1T
411
7.28
abc
120.
110
.39a
b11
4.2
64.6
8ab
107.
2T
597
.60d
83.1
8.36
cd72
.459
.72a
bc91
.3T
612
0.04
ab12
5.3
9.56
bc97
.156
.56a
bc81
.2T
712
4.77
a13
4.1
11.1
6a13
0.1
66.7
1a11
3.7
SEM
4.73
—0.
62—
5.12
—C
D(P
=0.
05)
9.72
—1.
27—
10.5
3—
Not
es.
Val
ues
deno
ted
byth
esa
me
lette
rar
eno
tsi
gnifi
cant
lydi
ffer
ent.
T1,
cont
rol
(no
fert
ilize
r);
T2,
verm
icom
post
16t
ha−1
;T
3,
verm
icom
post
12t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(100
:25:
25kg
ha−1
);T
4,
verm
icom
post
8t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(150
:25:
25kg
ha−1
);T
5,
verm
icom
post
12t
ha−1
+fe
rtili
zer
NPK
(75:
12.5
:12.
5kg
ha−1
);T
6,v
erm
icom
post
4th
a−1+
fert
ilize
rN
PK(2
25:3
7.5:
37.5
kgha
−1);
and
T7,f
ertil
izer
NPK
(300
:50:
50kg
ha−1
.SE
,sta
ndar
der
ror;
CD
,cr
itica
ldif
fere
nce;
and
N.S
.,no
tsig
nific
ant.
2697
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
2698 M. Singh and K. Wasnik
Table 5Influence of organic and inorganic fertilizers on available N, P2O5, and K2O after harvest
of crop
Treatment
AvailableN (kgha−1)
Increase(%) overcontrol
AvailableP2O5 (kg
ha−1)
Increase(%) overcontrol
AvailableK2O (kg
ha−1)
Increase(%) overcontrol
T1 230.07 — 8.10 — 50.23 —T2 237.18 3.1 20.91 158.1 52.64 4.8T3 237.20 3.1 33.35 311.7 70.04 39.4T4 249.75 8.6 29.90 269.1 70.16 39.7T5 242.38 5.4 26.21 223.6 66.89 33.2T6 262.97 14.3 30.86 281.0 76.59 52.5T7 241.98 5.2 29.55 264.8 68.59 36.6CD (P = 0.05) N.S. — 10.71 — 14.05 —
Notes. Experiment conducted on second year same site. Values denoted by the same letter are notsignificantly different. T1, control (no fertilizer); T2, vermicompost 16 t ha−1; T3, vermicompost12 t ha−1 + fertilizer NPK (100:25:25 kg ha−1); T4, vermicompost 8 t ha−1 + fertilizer NPK(150:25:25 kg ha−1); T5, vermicompost 12 t ha−1 + fertilizer NPK (75:12.5:12.5 kg ha−1);T6, vermicompost 4 t ha−1 + fertilizer NPK (225:37.5:37.5 kg ha−1); and T7, fertilizer NPK(300:50:50 kg ha−1. SE, standard error; CD, critical difference; and N.S., not significant.
different combinations was due to the combined influence of greater nutrient concentra-tion and dry-matter yield with those treatments (data not presented). Similar trends werereported by Patra, Anwar, and Chand (1997), Minhas and Sood (1994), and Dudhat et al.(1997).
Available NPK in Soil after Harvest of Crop
Major nutrients in the soil after harvest of rosemary were significantly affected by thetreatments applied before planting (Table 5). The lowest available N was recorded inT1 (the control). The extents of increases in available N over the control in the remain-ing treatments were 3, 3.1, 9, 5.4, and 14% from T2, vermicompost (16 t ha−1); T3,vermicompost (12 t ha−1) + fertilizer NPK (100:25:25 kg ha−1); T5, vermicompost (12 tha−1) + fertilizer NPK (75:12.5:12.5 kg ha−1); and T6, vermicompost (4 t ha−1) + fertil-izer NPK (225:37.5:37.5 kg ha−1), respectively. There was a greater buildup of N in soilin combination with NPK-treated soils than in soils receiving NPK alone. This may bedue to slow mineralization of the N from vermicompost compared with fertilizer. Greaterapplication of N through vermicompost and a sustained availability to the crop were evi-denced by greater herb and oil yields in vermicompost-treated soils. The soil, being lightin texture and low in CEC in nature (15 meq / 100 g), may be expected to lose fertil-izer N via leaching and other mechanisms. Chand, Anwar and Patra (2001) reported agreater recovery of fertilizer N in a soil−plant system when applied in combination withfarmyard manure. A similar trend was observed in respect to available P in postharvestsoils. The greatest available P was recorded in T3, vermicompost (12 t ha−1) + fertilizerNPK (100:25:25 kg ha−1) soils, which received more P than other treatments. AvailableK was significantly greater in fertilizer- and vermicompost-treated soils than in thecontrol (T1).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
Vermicompost and Fertilizer Effect on Rosemary 2699
Conclusion
The results of the study showed that application of vermicompost (8 t ha−1) + fertilizerNPK (150:25:25 kg ha−1) T4 produced optimum herbage and oil yield of rosemary undersemi-arid tropical conditions of Bangalore, on par with full fertilizer NPK (300:50:50 kgha−1) (T7). Integration of NPK fertilizer with organic manure, especially vermicompost,helped in building up soil fertility in terms of soil nutrient availability. Content and qualityof oil were not influenced by organic and chemical fertilizers.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the director, CIMAP, Lucknow, and the scientist-in-charge of thecenter for use of the facilities and their encouragement, and to S. Ramesh for GC analysisof the oil samples.
References
Bolens, M. H. 1985. The essential oil from Rosmarinus officinalis L. Perfumer and Flavorist 10:21–37.
Chand, S., M. Anwar, and D. D. Patra 2001. Influence of combined application of farmyard manure(FYM) and inorganic fertilizer on herb, essential oil yield, and nutrient accumulation in mentholmint (Mentha arvensis). Journal of Aromatic and Medicinal Plant Sciences 23: 29–33.
Clevenger, J. F. 1928. Apparatus for determination of volatile oil. Journal of AmericanPharmaceutical Association 17:346.
Dudhat, M. S., M. D. Malvia, R. K. Muthukia, and V. D. Khanpara. 1997. Effect of nutrient man-agement through organic and inorganic sources of growth, yield, quality, and nutrient uptake ofwheat. Indian Journal of Agronomy 43: 455–458.
Jackson, M. L. 1973. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.Jackson M. L. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. London: Constable.John, M. K. 1970. Colorimetric determination of phosphorus in soil and plant materials with ascorbic
acid. Soil Science 190: 214–220.Mihnas, R. S., and A. Sood. 1994. Effect of inorganics and organics on the yield and nutrient uptake
by three crop rotations on an acid Alfisol. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 47: 411–414.Panse, V. G., and P. V. Sukhatme. 1976. Statistical methods of agricultural workers. New Delhi:
Indian Council of Agricultural Research.Patra, D. D., M. Anwar, and S. Chand. 1997. Residue recycling for restoring soil fertility and produc-
tivity in Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis) and mustard (Prasica juncia) system. In Proceedingsof Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Food Production and Environment, ed. T. Ando, 587–588.Tokyo, Japan: Kluwer.
Patra, D. D., M. Anwar, and S. Chand. 2000. Integrated nutrient management and waste recycling forrestoring soil fertility and productivity of Japanese mint and mustard sequence in Uttar Pradesh,India. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 80: 267–275.
Piper, C. S. 1926. Soil and plant analysis. Bombay, India: Hans Publishers.Prakasa Rao, E. V. S., C. T. Gopinath, R. S. Ganesha Rao, and S. Ramesh 1999. Agronomic and
distillation studies of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) in a semi-arid tropical environment.Journal of Herbs, Spices and Medicinal Plants 6: 25–30.
Singh, M. 2004. Effects of plant spacing, fertilizer, modified urea material and irrigation regimeon herbage, oil yield, and oil quality of rosemary in semi-arid tropical conditions. Journal ofHorticultural Science and Biotechnology 79: 411–415.
Singh, M., R. S. Ganesha Rao, and S. Ramesh. 2007. Effects of N and K on growth, herbage, oil yield,and nutrient uptake pattern in rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) under semi-arid tropicalconditions. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 82: 414–419.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4
2700 M. Singh and K. Wasnik
Soliman, F. M. E. A., F. L. Kashoury, M. M. Fathy, and M. H. Gonaid. 1994. Analysis and biologicalactivity of the essential oil of Rosmarinus officinalis L. from Egypt. Flavour and FragranceJournal 9: 29–33.
Subbaiah, B. V., and H. L. Asija. 1956 A rapid procedure for the estimation of the available nitrogenin soils. Current Science 25: 259–260.
Walkley, A., and I. A. Black. 1934. An examination of the Degtejareff method for determining soilorganic matter and a proposed modification of the chronic acid titration method. Soil Science37:29
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Mem
oria
l Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ewfo
undl
and]
at 0
7:44
12
July
201
4