INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY

(Founded in 1955)

Executive Council for 2017 and 2018

President : Dr A.K. Vyas, ADG (HRM), ICAR, KAB-II, New Delhi

Vice President : Dr V.K. Singh, Head, Division of Agronomy, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi

Secretary : Dr Y.S. Shivay, Professor & Principal Scientist, Division of Agronomy, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi

Joint Secretary : Dr Prashant S. Bodake, Chief Scientist (Agronomy), AICRP on WM, MPKV, Rahuri, MS

Treasurer : Dr Ashok Kumar, Principal Scientist, ICAR, KAB-I, New Delhi

Editor-in-Chief : Dr T.C. Jain, Ex-Senior Agriculturist, World Bank, Gurugram, Haryana

Past Presidents : Drs Ambika Singh, G.B. Singh, A.S. Faroda, Panjab Singh, D.P. Singh,M.S. Gill, Arvind Kumar and Gurbachan Singh[Deceased: Sh. Panjabrao S. Deshmukh, Drs P.C. Raheja, O.P. Gautam, Maharaj Singh,R.P. Singh, R.P.S. Ahlawat, P.S. Lamba]

CouncillorsAndhra Pradesh Dr (Mrs.) V. Chandrika, Tirupati Punjab Dr Thakar Singh, Ludhiana

Asom Dr Hemen Kalita, Nagaon Rajasthan Dr Dilip Singh, Udaipur

Bihar Dr Ravi Nandan, Samastipur Tamil Nadu Dr A. Velayutham, Killikulam

Chhattisgarh Dr Rajendra Lakpale, Raipur Telangana Dr K. Avil Kumar, Hyderabad

Delhi Dr Shankar Lal Jat, New Delhi Uttarakhand Dr Rohitashav Singh, Pantnagar

Gujarat Dr Arvindbhai M. Patel, SK Nagar Uttar Pradesh Dr Satish Kumar Tomar, Sohna

Haryana Dr Satish Kumar, Hisar West Bengal Dr Arun Kumar Barik, Sriniketan

Himachal Pradesh Dr Janardan Singh, Palampur Industries Dr D.S. Yadav, FAI, New Delhi

Jammu & Kashmir Dr B.C. Sharma, Jammu Dr Jitendra Kumar, Syngenta, Rudrapur

Jharkhand Dr M.S. Yadav, Ranchi Dr O.P. Singh, Dhanuka, New Delhi

Karnataka Dr V.S. Kubsad, Dharwad Dr Rajvir Rathi, Bayer, Gurugram

Kerala Dr A. Abdul Haris, Kayamkulam Dr R.M. Kummur, NABARD, Mumbai

Madhya Pradesh Dr M.D. Vyas, Sehore Dr Shashi Kant Bhinde, MOSAIC, Gurugram

Maharashtra Dr V.S. Khawale, Nagpur Dr Soumitra Das, IZA, New Delhi

N.E.H. States Dr Subhash Babu, Umiam

Odisha Dr L.M. Garnayak, Bhubaneswar

Mandate of the Society1. To disseminate knowledge of Agronomy

2. To encourage research in the field of soil, water and crop management

3. To provide suitable forum for exchange of ideas to research workers

EDITORIAL BOARD (2017 and 2018)

Editor-in-Chief : Dr T.C. Jain, Ex-Senior Agriculturist, World Bank, Gurugram, Haryana, IndiaCo-Editor-in-Chief : Dr D.S. Rana, ICAR-Emeritus Scientist (Agronomy), ICAR-IARI, New Delhi, India

EditorsDr A. Pratap Kumar Reddy, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh

Dr A. Arunachalam, New Delhi

Dr Amit Kar, New Delhi

Dr Anil Dixit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

Dr Ashok Kumar Gupta, Jobner, Rajasthan

Dr Ashok Kumar, Hisar, Haryana

Dr B. Gangaiah, Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar

Dr B. Gangwar, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh

Dr B.K. Sagarka, Junagadh, Gujarat

Dr B.P. Singh, Agra, Uttar Pradesh

Dr B.S. Dwivedi, New Delhi

Dr Basudev Behera, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Dr Bhagirath Chauhan, ACIAR, Australia

Dr Biswajit Guha, Shillongani, Asom

Dr C. George Thomas, Trichur, Kerala

Dr C.M. Singh, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh

Dr Chhibubhai L. Patel, Navsari, Gujarat

Dr D.K. Sharma, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

Dr D.M. Hegde, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Dr D.N. Gokhale, Parbhani, Maharashtra

Dr D.S. Yadav, Budaun, Uttar Pradesh

Dr Dileep Kachroo, Chatha, Jammu & Kashmir

Dr G. Pratibha, Hyderabad, Telangana

Dr G. Ravindra Chary, Hyderabad, Telangana

Dr Girish Jha, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

Dr Guriqbal Singh, Ludhiana, Punjab

Dr H.L. Sharma, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh

Dr Ishwar Singh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan

Dr J.C. Dagar, Karnal, Haryana

Dr J.K. Bisht, Almora, Uttarakhand

Dr J.P. Dixit, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh

Dr J.S. Mishra, Patna, Bihar

Dr Jagdev Singh, Hisar, Haryana

Dr Jayant Deka, Jorhat, Asom

Dr K. Annapurna, New Delhi

Dr K. Velayudham, Madurai, Tamil Nadu

Dr K.G. Mandal, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Dr K.R. Reddy, Mississippi, USA

Dr K.R. Sheela, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala

Dr Kajal Sengupta, Nadia, West Bengal

Dr Kaushik Majumdar, IPNI, Asia & Africa, Gurugram

Dr M.A. Shankar, Bengaluru, Karnataka

Dr M.B. Dhonde, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra

Dr M.K. Arvadia, Navsari, Gujarat

Dr M.P. Sahu, Bikaner, Rajasthan

Dr M.V. Venugopalan, Nagpur, Maharashtra

Dr M.V.K. Sivakumar, Geneva, Switzerland

Dr Masood Ali, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Dr Navin Kumar Jain, New Delhi

Dr O.P. Chautervedi, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh

Dr P. Devasenapathy, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

Dr P.G. Ingole, Akola, Maharashtra

Dr R.K. Paikray, Bhubaneswar, Odisha

Dr R.P. Sharma, Bhagalpur, Bihar

Dr R.S. Sharma, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

Dr Raihana Habib Kanth, Kashmir, Jammu & Kashmir

Dr Rambilash Mallick, Kolkata, West Bengal

Dr Rattan Lal, Ohio, Columbus, USA

Dr S.A. Chavan, Dapoli, Maharashtra

Dr S.K. Dhyani, New Delhi

Dr S. Panneerselvam, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu

Dr S.P. Singh, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh

Dr S.S. Tomar, Kota, Rajasthan

Dr Shanti Kumar Sharma, Udaipur, Rajasthan

Dr Sandip Kumar Pal, Ranchi, Jharkhand

Dr Seema Jaggi, New Delhi

Dr Sohan Singh Walia, Ludhiana, Punjab

Dr T.K. Das, New Delhi

Dr V.C. Patil, Dharwad, Karnataka

Dr V.S. Korikanthimath, Dharwad, Karnataka

Dr V.S. Pawar, Nasik, Maharashtra

Dr Vikrant Singh, Haridwar, Uttarakhand

Dr C. Vishwanathan, New Delhi

INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY

Indian Journal of Agronomy, the official journal of the Indian Society of Agronomy, is published quarterly inthe month of March, June, September and December since 1956. The journal publishes papers based on theresults of original research in following areas:

i. Crop production and management

ii. Soil-water-plant relationship

iii. Cropping and farming system research

iv. Agro-ecosystems and environment management

v. Other areas of agronomy research and

vi. Invited review papers

Membership and Journal Subscription

*Subscription Price(2018)

Annual LifeA. Individual Membership

Indian ( ) 1,000 (500*) 10,000

Foreign (US $ or its equivalent) 120 (100*) 1,200*For Students

B. Libraries and Institutions Print Online Print+Online(Annually)Indian ( ) 5,000 5,000 6,500

Foreign (US $ or its equivalent) 500 450 650

Payment should be made by Demand Draft in favour of INDIAN SOCIETY OF AGRONOMY payable at New Delhi or NEFTtransaction details: Beneficiary Name: Indian Society of Agronomy; Bank Account No. 91212010007024; Bank & BranchName: SYNDICATE BANK (NSC Branch IFSC Code) SYNB0009121, MICR Code 110025088, Bank Address & Phone Number:National Seeds Corporation, Beej Bhavan, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012, Ph. No. 011-25848197. Back Volumes of thejournal, symposia proceedings and books are also available for sale.All correspondence may please be addressed to Secretary, Indian Society of Agronomy, Division of Agronomy, ICAR-IndianAgricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012. Telefax: +91-11-25842283; 09717078548; E-mail: secretary_isa@hotmail.com;Visit Society Website: isa-india.in for author guidelines and other information.

Indian Journal of Agronomy is indexed in the AGRIS, published by the FAO, theScience Citation Index (SCI) and Current Contents (Agriculture, Biology and En-vironmental Sciences) published by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI),Philadelphia. It is also indexed in the abstraction journals of the Centre for Agri-culture and Biosciences International (CABI) as well as all the major abstractingservices of the world.

Editorial

From the Desk of the Editors

Dear Esteemed ISA Members

I think you would all appreciate some positive steps taken by the New ISA Executive during last one year. Besidestimely publication of the Journal, the society has already published three ISA News Letters and there seems to be someimprovement in the quality of the Journal. But we have lot more to do and would like to request all of you to regularlyinteract among your selves and send your valuable suggestions to the Society to expedite the process of improving thequality and relevance of our Journal in addressing the changing farming priorities.

Contribution of Agronomists in Green-Revolution through developing agronomic practices for individual crops andmore than that by packaging these crops in suitable cropping systems is appreciated by all and have largely benefittedthe farming community. But the emerging challenge of doubling the Farmers Income by 2022, is not only new but alsodifficult. We achieved Green Revolution through increased use of inputs, but the declining availability of natural re-sources such as water and the increasing prices of inputs (seed, fertilizer and pesticides) and also declining responseof these inputs (law of diminishing return) has forced us to focus on improving the efficiency of these costly andscarce inputs. I am sure all of you must be preparing some valuable presentations for the proposed symposium fromOctober 24–26, 2018 at MPUAT, Udaipur to address this most important challenge for the country and especially forus – the Agriculturists.

The EC has also made an attempt to make our presence felt through publishing Success Stories which can bepublished in ISA News Letter. But despite regular requests not enough stories are being received. An attempt is alsogoing on to improve the Employment opportunities for the Agronomists. We need to prove our competence in some ofthe multidisciplinary areas, such as; Crop residue management, Nutrient Use Efficiency and Water Management(Irrigation as well as rain water) to compete/work along with other disciplines. Another important area is to prepareourselves to address the new emerging priorities for which the degree and the present education is not sufficient. Weneed to identify such potential areas and prepare ourselves competent enough through organizing need-based trainingprograms (including skill oriented - Vocational training). It is important to understand and appreciate the type ofopportunities exists in private sector and also the Agri-business sector to develop the desired competence to fill in thegap (between expertise available and required) through specialized training programs.

The one and the most important issue, we are raising in the past and would emphasize again is to find some time andgive your free and frank opinion to improve not only the quality of our Journal but also the overall development ofAgronomists along with the Farming community.

Co-Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief

INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMYMarch 2018 Volume 63 No. 1

CONTENTS

Research Papers

RAJIV NANDAN, VIKRAM SINGH, SATI SHANKAR SINGH, VIRENDER KUMAR, KALI KRISHNA HAZRA, CHAITANYA PRASAD

NATH, SIS PAL POONIA, R.K. MALIK, SUSHEEL KUMAR SINGH AND PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH. Comparative assess-ment of different tillage-cum-crop establishment practices and crop-residue management on crop andwater productivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system

BISWAJIT PRAMANICK, KOUSHIK BRAHMACHARI, DIBAKAR GHOSH AND P.S. BERA. Influence of foliar applicationseaweed (Kappaphycus and Gracilaria) saps in rice (Oryza sativa)–potato (Solanum tuberosum)–blackgram (Vigna mungo) sequence

S. MAJHI, R. THAKUR, S.K. PAL, R.R. UPASANI, A.N. PURAN AND A.N. KUJUR. Long-term influence of nutrientmanagement on productivity and profitability of maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) croppingsystem

S.P. SINGH, R.S. YADAV, AMIT KUMAWAT AND R.C. BAIRWA. Weed control in greengram (Vigna radiata) andits residual effect on Indian mustard (Brassica juncea)

MADHULIKA PANDEY AND THAKAR SINGH. Production potential and economic viability of bed planted wheat(Triticum aestivum) as influenced by different intercropping systems and levels of nutrients applied tointercrops

K.C. SHARMA. Inter/mixed cropping of lentil (Lens culinaris) in late-sown wheat (Triticum aestivum) forhigher productivity and profitability of wheat in Vertisols of Central India

ATIK AHAMAD, NEERAJ KUMAR AND DEVIDEEN YADAV. Integrated nutrient management in pigeonpea-basedintercropping systems

SANTOSH KUMAR, RAKESH KUMAR, J.S. MISHRA, S.K. DWIVEDI, VED PRAKASH, K.K. RAO, A.K. SINGH, B.P.BHATT, S.S. SINGH, A.A. HARIS, VIRENDAR KUMAR, ASHISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU SINGH AND ASHOK

YADAV. Productivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa) genotypes as influenced by crop manage-ment practices under middle Indo-Gangetic Plains

M. PARAMASIVAN AND N. SENTHIL KUMAR. Effect of levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium onproductivity, nutrient uptake and soil fertility in rice (Oryza sativa) in an Alfisols of Tambiraparani tract

TEEKAM SINGH, B.S. SATAPATHY AND K.B. PUN. Influence of seeding density on seedling growth, produc-tivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa) under rainfed lowland

PRATIK SANODIYA AND MANOJ KUMAR SINGH. Effect of live mulches, cover crops and herbicides on weedflora, growth and yield of direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa)

J.S. MISHRA. Response of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) parental lines to split application of nitrogen

H.N. MEENA, R.S. YADAV AND DEBARATI BHADURI. Effects of potassium application on growth of peanut(Arachis hypogaea) and ionic alteration under saline irrigation

(Continued)

1

8

14

21

26

32

39

45

50

55

60

67

73

II CONTENTS [Vol. 63, No. 1

82

87

91

95

100

105

110

117

121

124

SWARNA RONANKI, U.K. BEHERA, Y.S. SHIVAY, R.N. PANDEY, S. NARESH KUMAR AND RAKESH PANDEY. Effect ofconservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management on growth, physiological indices, yieldand nutrient uptake of soybean (Glycine max)

R.R. PISAL, M.K. ARVADIA, N.G. SAVANI AND V.H. SURVE. Intra-row spacing and nitrogen management inwide–spaced winter castor (Ricinus communis) in heavy rainfall zone of south Gujarat

T.V. JYOTHI AND N.S. HEBSUR. Effect of soil and foliar applied potassium fertilizers on yield, quality andeconomics of Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in Vertisol

NAVNIT KUMAR. Effect of planting method on productivity and economics of sugarcane (Saccharumspp. hybrid complex) varieties under waterlogged condition

S.K. THAKUR AND S.S. PANDEY. Effect of soil test based nutrient management on soil fertility, cane yieldand quality of sugarcane (Saccharum species complex hybrid) in calcareous soil of Bihar

AMANJEET SINGH, K.B. SINGH AND GURPREET SINGH. Water balance and water productivity of Japanesemint (Mentha arvensis) as affected by irrigation and mulching

GURVINDER SINGH, TANAY SAHA, SUBHASH CHANDRA, AMIT BHATNAGAR AND SAMARTH. Productivity of mentholmint (Mentha arvensis L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) as relay and sequential cropping systemunder different irrigation scheduling

S.R. MORE, D.P. PACHARNE AND A.R. GAIKWAD. Effect of spacing and fertilizer management on seedproduction of sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea)

Research CommunicationsS. POORNIMA, Y. SIVA LAKSHMI AND T. RAM PRAKASH. Bio-efficacy of early post-emergence herbicidecombinations on weed flora, yield and economics of greengram (Vigna radiata)

TARAMANI YADAV, NISHA K. CHOPRA, N.K. CHOPRA, RAKESH KUMAR AND P.G. SONI. Assessment of criticalperiod of crop-weed competition in forage cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and its effect on seed yield andquality

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 1__7 (March 2018)

Comparative assessment of different tillage-cum-crop establishment practicesand crop-residue management on crop and water productivity and profitability

of rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system

RAJIV NANDAN1, VIKRAM SINGH2, SATI SHANKAR SINGH3, VIRENDER KUMAR4, KALI KRISHNA HAZRA5,CHAITANYA PRASAD NATH6, SIS PAL POONIA7, R.K. MALIK8, SUSHEEL KUMAR SINGH9 AND

PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH10

ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Patna, Bihar 800 014

Received : September 2017; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the winter 2009 at Patna, Bihar, to assess the impact of the continu-ous practice of 4 different tillage-cum-crop establishment and 2 residue-management treatments on crop growth,productivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system (RWCS) ineastern Gangetic plains. After 5-year continuous rice–wheat rotation, crop-residue retention (~33%) in both thecrops significantly improved the rice (9.4–9.7%) and wheat (4.6–9.3%) productivity over the residue removal. Con-servation tillage-based crop-establishment practices, viz. unpuddled transplanted rice followed by (fb) zero-tillwheat (UPTR-ZTW), zero-till transplanted rice fb zero-till wheat (ZTTR–ZTW), zero-till direct-seeded rice, fb zero-till wheat (ZTDSR–ZTW) increased the system productivity of RWCS by 10.3, 16.1, and 23.2% respectively, overconventional puddled transplanted rice fb conventional-till wheat (PTR–CTW). Conservation tillage-based crop-establishment practices and residue retention enhanced the biomass accumulation rate in both crops, beinghigher in ZTDSR-ZTW fb ZTTR-ZTW. Significant up-scaling of water productivity in rice crop was evident in con-servation tillage-cum-crop-establishment practices over PTR-CTW. The additional income of 24,248, 36,689,and 48,553 was realized for the treatments UPTR-ZTW, ZTTR–ZTW and ZTDSR–ZTW respectively, over PTR-CTW.

Key words : Direct-seeded rice, Economics, Productivity, Residue retention, Unpuddled transplanting,Tillage, Zero tillage transplanting

6Corresponding author’s Email: cpnath4@gmail.com1,2Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture Technology and Sci-ences (SHUATS), Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh 211 007; 3,5,6ICAR–In-dian Institute of Pulses Research (ICAR–IIPR), Kanpur, UttarPradesh 208 024; 4International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), LosBaños, Laguna, Philippines; 7,8International Maize and Wheat Im-provement Center (CIMMYT), India; 9Rani Lakshmi Bai CentralAgricultural University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003; 10KrishiVigyan Kendra, Jamui, Bihar 811 313

Rice–wheat cropping system (RWCS) is the dominat-ing cropping system in Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP). Pres-ently, the RWCS covers an area of 10.5 million ha in India(Singh et al., 2016). The productivity and sustainability ofthe RWCS is very crucial for the country’s food securityand livelihood of farmer’s community in the IGP (Jat etal., 2014). However, several major challenges are nowprogressively being evident in RWCS like degradation ofsoil native fertility and multi-nutrient deficiency, the de-cline in watertable, and increased pest pressure including

weeds (Venkatesh et al., 2013; Hazra et al., 2014; Das etal., 2014; Nath et al., 2017a;). In the post-green revolutionera, resource conservation issues have assumed greaterimportance in view of the widespread land and water deg-radation problems due to mechanized intensive tillage inRWCS (Humphreys et al., 2010). In addition, the conven-tional production practices resulted in high cultivation costand inefficient input use. This call for identification ofsuitable production practices other than puddled trans-planted rice followed by conventional till-wheat (PTR-CTW) in the IGP. Also, there is need for shifting produc-tion practices in accordance to the resource availability,particularly with soil characterization and water availabil-ity.

Several alternative rice-establishment practices andconservation tillage practices are now being advocated forRWCS (Jat et al., 2009; Nath et al., 2017b) in place ofPTR-CTW. The unpuddled transplanting of rice, direct-seeded rice, zero-tillage direct-seeded rice and successive

Research Paper

2 NANDAN ET AL [Vol. 63, No. 1

wheat-crop establishment under zero-tillage often recom-mended for conserving the natural resources and improv-ing the sustainability of RWCS (Das et al., 2013). Poten-tial productivity and assured high returns could be realizedfrom these alternative tillage practices in RWCS, whichalso improves the livelihood of the farmers of the region.In cereal-based cropping systems, huge volume of cropresidues are produced and are used as animal feed, thatch-ing homes and domestic fuels. Large portion of unusedcrop residues is burned which leads to environmental pol-lution. Residue application was found beneficial to soilhealth, crop productivity, and nutrient-use efficiency. Zerotillage and surface maintained crop residues result in re-source improvement gradually and benefits come aboutonly with time (Prasad et al., 1999).

Therefore, as major components of conservation agri-culture in RWCS suitable tillage-cum-crop-establishmenttechniques has to be identified based on system productiv-ity, resource-conservation efficiency and profitability.Fewer studies have been conducted on the new generationcrop-establishment practices in rice and in succeedingwheat in the IGP, particularly in a system mode for long-term. Moreover, information regarding the combined ef-fect of residue management and alternate tillage-cum-cropestablishment on water productivity is not available. In thepresent investigation, the mid-term effect of the differentsystem-based tillage-cum-crop establishment practices andresidue management were evaluated at fourth and fifthyears on crop productivity and profitability of RWCS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was initiated during 2009 at re-search farm of Indian Council of Agricultural Research,Research Complex for Eastern Region, Patna, Bihar. Theclimate of experimental site is subtropical humid, with anaverage annual rainfall of 1,130 mm. The experimentalsoil comes under the taxonomical class Typic Ustochreptwith silty-clay soil texture with medium soil organic car-bon (SOC) content (6.5 g/kg soil). In the present investi-gation, we presented the data of 2013–14 (4th year) and2014–15 (5th year) for the comparative assessment of dif-ferent treatments. Treatment comprised 2 levels of residuemanagement [residue removal and residue retention(~33%)], and 4 levels of tillage-cum-crop establishmentpractices as follows: (i) conventional puddled transplantedrice fb conventional-till wheat (PTR-CTW): 2 dry-harrow-ing followed by 2 wet-tillage (puddling) and 1 plankingwas done before the manual transplanting of 21 days oldseedling at 20 cm spacing. After rice harvesting, wheatwas sown by broadcasting in conventionally tilled plots (2harrowing + 2 tillage + 1 planking); (ii) unpuddled trans-planted rice fb zero-till wheat (UPTR-ZTW): dry tillage

was followed by planking and wet tillage was avoided.Rice seedlings of 21 days old were transplanted at 20 cmspacing. Wheat crop was sown under ZT using zero tillhappy-seeder machine; (iii) zero-till transplanted rice fbzero-till wheat (ZTTR-ZTW): The plots were flooded 1day before transplanting of the seedling to make the soilsoft. Line transplanting was done in flooded plots with 20cm spacing. Wheat crop was sown under ZT using Zerotill happy-seeder machine; (iv) zero-till direct-seeded ricefb zero-till wheat (ZTDSR-ZTW): direct-seeding of ricewas done using zero-till seed-cum-fertilizer drill in ZT-flatplots at 20 cm row spacing. Wheat crop was sown in zerotillage using zero till happy-seeder machine. Rice variety(Hybrid ‘Arize Tez’) was sown directly by zero till happy-seeder in ZTDSR-ZT plots in the first fortnight of June.On the same date, rice seedlings for transplanting wereraised in nursery by ‘Wet bed method’. Twentyone daysold seedling was transplanted in the plots with differenttillage practices (PTR-CTW, UPTR-ZTW and ZTTR-ZTW). Recommended dose of fertilizer N : P2O5 : K2Owas 120 : 40 : 40 kg/ha. Half dose of nitrogen and fulldose of phosphorus and potassium along with 25 kgZnSO

4 was applied manually. Remaining dose of nitrogen

in 2 equal split was applied at 30 and 60 days after sowing(DAS). The wheat crop (variety ‘HD 2967’) was sown inthe second fortnight of November with the help of withrow spacing of 22.5 cm and manually brodcasted in con-ventional plot (PTR-CTW). Recommended dose of ap-plied N : P

2O

5 : K

2O was 120 : 60 : 40 kg/ha. The half

quantity of N and full doses of P and K were applied at thetime of sowing. Remaining dose of N in form of urea wasapplied in 2 equal splits at 21 and 50 DAS.

For estimation of crop growth rate (CGR) the dry bio-mass of rice and wheat was recorded at 30, 60, 90, 120DAS. The mean crop growth rate was worked out with thefollowing formula:

W2 – W

1CGR = T2 – T1

⎛⎜⎝ ⎛

⎜⎝ 1

A

⎛⎜⎝

⎛⎜⎝

where, W1 and W

2 are dry weight (g) of plants at time

T1 and T2, respectively; T2- T1 is the interval of time indays; A is the land area (m2) occupied by plants.

In the present investigation, the irrigation water wasapplied at measured quantity using water meter accordingto the tillage-cum-crop establishment treatments. The irri-gation water productivity (IWP) (kg/ha-cm) was calcu-lated as:

Grain yield (kg/ha)IWP =

Total irrigation water applied (ha–cm)

March 2018] CONSERVATION TILLAGE EFFECT ON RICE–WHEAT SYSTEM 3

Rice and wheat were harvested using combine har-vester and were threshed by a power-operated thresher.Data on grain yield were recorded from the net plot,whereas tillers density was measured by using quadrat of0.5 m × 0.5 m by selecting 2 spots randomly and densitywas expressed in number of tillers/m2. The economics oftreatments was computed on the basis of prevailing mar-ket prices of inputs and outputs under each treatment. Forcalculating economics of the systems, the input costs of allthe items like tillage operation, costs of seed, herbicidetreatment application, chemical fertilizers, and the hiringcharges of human labour and machines for land prepara-tion, irrigation, fertilization, harvesting, and threshingwere used in cost of cultivation. While, gross output wascalculated based on the grain and straw price producedfrom the field. The benefit: cost ratios were calculated foreach treatments applied in the system as the ratios of netreturns to cost of cultivation. The data collected for allparameters at different crop stages were compiled and sub-jected to statistical analysis using the analysis of variancetechnique (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). The critical differ-ence (at 5% level of probability) was computed for com-paring treatment mean in cases where effect came out tobe significant by F-test as follows.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Crop-growth rateThe crop-residue management and tillage-cum-crop

establishment practices (T and CE) significantly influ-enced the crop-growth rate (CGR) of both rice and wheatcrop at 4th (2013–14) and 5th (2014–15) year of crop ro-tation (Fig. 1). During both the study year, rice crop under

residue retention plots had higher rate of biomass accumu-lation over residue removal plots. The increased CGR inresidues-retention treatment might be associated with ad-ditional input of plant nutrients added through the cropresidues and improved soil properties, particularly the soilorganic carbon (Venkatesh et al., 2013). Likewise, amongthe different T and CE practices, the conservation tillagepractices (UPTR-ZTW, ZTTR-ZTW, and ZTDSR-ZTW)had the higher rate of crop growth during 30–60, 60–90,and 90–120 DAS. The ZTDSR-ZTW treatment resulted inhigher CGR values over other T and CE practices (Fig. 1).However, results indicated that ZT-based crop-establish-ment practices resulted in slow crop-growth rate comparedwith conventional PTR-CTW at initial stage (0–30 DAS).According the Jat et al. (2014), the higher biomass accu-mulation under continuous ZT-based crop-establishmentpractices is attributed to higher production of tillers andtheir individual growth. This way, the results indicated thatconventional puddle-based system is not necessarily theoptimum for rice growth and there is a long-term negativeimpact on crop growth.

Likewise for wheat crop, the significant difference inCGR was apparent at different growth stages with differ-ent residues management and T and CE practices. Thetrend was almost similar to the rice crop and crop-residuesretention improved the crop-biomass accumulation, par-ticularly at 30–60 and 90–120 DAS. On the other side,conservation T and CE improved the CGR than conven-tional PTR-CTW treatment. In fact, the line sowing ofwheat by machine in conservation-tillage treatments is oneof the reasons of improved crop growth than broadcastsown conventional wheat in PTR-CTW. Moreover, resi-

Table 1. Grain yield (t/ha) of rice and wheat as influenced by residue management and tillage-cum-crop-establishment practices during 4thand 5th year of crop rotation

Treatment Grain yield (t/ha) System productivity (REY*, t/ha)

2013–2014 2014–2015 2013–2014 2014–2015

Rice Wheat Rice Wheat

Residue managementResidue removal 4.61 5.02 4.43 5.12 9.63 9.74Residue retention 5.08 5.29 4.81 5.66 10.37 10.68

SEm± 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.06CD (P=0.05) 0.13 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.12 0.36

Tillage-cum-crop-establishmentPTR-CTW 4.47 4.59 4.06 4.68 9.06 8.92UPTR-ZTW 4.59 5.07 4.46 5.51 9.66 10.18ZTTR-ZTW 4.94 5.34 4.75 5.63 10.28 10.59ZTDSR-ZTW 5.39 5.62 5.21 5.73 11.01 11.15

SEm± 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.21 0.18CD (P=0.05) 0.29 0.41 0.34 0.40 0.66 0.57

REY, Rice-equivalent yield (t/ha); PTR-CTW, puddled transplanted rice fb conventional-till wheat; UPTR-ZTW, unpuddled transplantedrice fb zero-till wheat; ZTTR-ZTW, zero-till transplanted rice fb zero-till wheat; ZTDSR-ZTW, zero-till direct-seeded rice fb zero-till wheat

4 NANDAN ET AL [Vol. 63, No. 1

Fig. 1. Crop growth rate of rice and wheat crop as influenced by residues retention and tillage-cum-crop-establishment practices

Residue removal Residue retention Residue removal Residue retention

Residue removal Residue retention Residue removal Residue retention

March 2018] CONSERVATION TILLAGE EFFECT ON RICE–WHEAT SYSTEM 5

dues application under ZT-wheat treatments (UPTR-ZTW,ZTTR-ZTW, and ZTDSR-ZTW) moderated abiotic stress,particularly soil temperature and conserved soil moisture,resulting in better crop growth. This effect of ZT was alsocompounded by the residue retention, which suppressedthe weed growth due to shedding of residue. The ZT withresidues retention suppressed weed-seedling emergence,delayed the time of emergence, and allowed the crop togain an advantage over weeds that ultimately enhanced thecrop growth (Nath et al., 2015).

Grain yield and system productivityIn the present study, continuous residues retention

(~33%) significantly improved the grain yield of both thecomponent crops. For rice crop, 9.4–9.7% higher grainyield was realized with retention of crop residues. Like-wise, residues retention increased the wheat grain yield by4.6–9.3% (Table 1). In consistent with our results,Choudhury et al. (2014) and Laik et al. (2014) also re-ported the improved crop productivity with residues reten-tion in RWCS. The effect of T and CE practices was muchstronger and conservation tillage practices had improvedthe grain yield of both rice and wheat crop over conven-tional puddled transplanted rice. Among the T and CEpractices, higher grain yield were registered in ZTDSR-ZTW (5.21–5.39 t/ha) closely followed by ZTTR-ZTW

(4.75–4.94 t/ha) and recorded the least in PTR-CTW(4.06–4.47 t/ha). Like rice crop, wheat grain yield was alsohigher in ZT-based crop establishment and higher yieldwas realized in ZTDSR-ZTW (5.62–5.73 t/ha) indicatingthat the tillage practices adopted in preceding rice cropmay impact largely to the successive wheat crop (Table 1).Indeed, wheat crop was particularly suffered after pud-dling for rice which can be attributed to poor rooting dueto soil compaction and poor aggregation, as reported byother researchers in the region (Jat et al. 2009; Kumar andLadha, 2011; Gathala et al. 2011). The increased grainyield of rice and wheat was mainly associated with theincreased tiller formation under conservation tillage-basedcrop-establishment practices. Therefore, a higher correla-tion (r) of grain yield and tiller density was evident in thestudy (Fig. 2). The system productivity as expressed byrice-equivalent yield (t/ha) was increased by 10.3, 16.1,and 23.2%, respectively, in UPTR-ZTR, ZTTR-ZTW andZTDSR-ZTW treatments over conventional PTR-CTW.The grain yield in ZT was significantly higher owing togreater number of ear-bearing tillers/m2 and 1,000-grainweight (data not presented). This might have resulted fromgreater sink and good growth in the reproductive phase (asreflected in higher CGR and tillers in rice and wheat). Alsothere may be a positive impact of ZT and residues on soilwater balance, because of reduction in soil evaporation

Fig. 2. Relationship between tiller density (numbers/m2) and grain yield of rice and wheat during 2013–2014 and 2014–2015

6 NANDAN ET AL [Vol. 63, No. 1

and better soil water retention that ultimately increasedwheat yields (Das et al., 2014; Nath et al., 2017b; Kumaret al., 2017). Similarly, higher system productivity is dueto fact that ZT and residues retention increased the cropyield component by improving soil condition, with highersoil water content and other soil physical, chemical andbiological properties.

Water productivityIn the present investigation, variable rate of irrigation

water was applied according to the principles of differentT and CE practices and crop-water requirement. Thehigher amount of irrigation water to rice crop was appliedin PTR-CTW (156 ha-cm) > ZTDSR-ZTW (126 ha-cm) >UPTR-ZTW = ZTTR-ZTW (117 ha-cm) (Table 2). Whilea similar quantity of water was applied to wheat crop irre-spective of the treatments. The data on irrigation waterproductivity indicate that residue retention had marginallyimproved the irrigation water productivity of rice, wheatas well as in system. On the other side, the higher produc-tivity and minimum use of irrigation water increased thewater productivity of both the crops in ZTDSR-ZTW sys-tem. The higher water requirement under PTR-CTW dras-tically reduced the WP of rice crop. In this IGP region,crop residues are either removed or burned and resourcesare indiscriminately used. As a result, productivity andresource use efficiency in the region has become static orstarted declining. To address these issues, this experimentwas conducted under different T and CE and residues-management practices in a rice–wheat sequence and inten-sive studies were undertaken. The higher water productiv-ity of ZTDSR-ZTW, UPTR-ZTW and ZTTR-ZTW sys-

Table 2. Irrigation water productivity and economics under different residue management and tillage-cum-crop-establishment practices inrice–wheat system (mean data of 2 years, 2013–2014 and 2014–2015)

Treatment Irrigation water applied (ha-cm) Irrigation water productivity EconomicsRice Wheat System (kg/ha-cm) GR* NR** Benefit:

Rice Wheat System (×103 /ha) (×103 /ha) cost ratio

Residue managementResidue removal 129 36 165 35.0 140.8 58.7 184.0 127.4 2.30Residue retention 129 36 165 38.3 152.1 63.8 178.7 123.5 2.25

SEm± – – – 0.1 0.6 0.2 – – –CD (P=0.05) – – – 0.7 4.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 –

Tillage-cum-crop-establishmentPTR-CTW 156 36 192 27.3 128.8 46.8 162.4 98.1 1.61UPTR-ZTW 117 36 153 38.7 146.9 64.8 177.4 122..3 2.24ZTTR-ZTW 117 36 153 41.4 152.4 68.2 187.3 134.8 2.50ZTDSR-ZTW 126 36 162 42.1 157.6 68.4 198.2 146.6 2.76

SEm± – – – 0.7 3.6 1.2 – – –CD (P=0.05) – – – 2.1 11.1 3.6 10.5 10.5 0.25

GR, Gross return; NR, net return; PTR-CTW, puddled transplanted rice fb conventional-till wheat; UPTR-ZTW, unpuddled transplantedrice fb zero-till wheat; ZTTR-ZTW, zero-till transplanted rice fb zero-till wheat; ZTDSR-ZTW, zero-till direct seeded rice fb zero-till wheat

tems over PTR-CTW was due to higher system yield,which was in turn owing to consistent trends for higherrice and wheat (Laik et al., 2014; Das et al., 2014). Thesetreatments received lower water input and also had highersystem yield, resulting in higher system water productiv-ity to that of PTR-CTW (farmers practice).

EconomicsThe data on economics revealed that at 4th and 5th year

of crop rotation residues retention treatment was economi-cally inferior to that of residue removal (Table 2). How-ever, no significant difference was apparent in benefit:cost for both the residue treatments. The economic returnform conservation T and CE was largely higher than con-ventional PTR-CTW. In the study, the average of 2 yearsdata show that the UPTR-ZTW, ZTTR-ZTW and ZTDSR-ZTW fetched an addition income of 24,248, 36,689 and48,553 respectively. The positive effects of zero tillage andresidues management on yield were well reflected intomore favourable economics both for rice and wheat pro-duction and thus for the system as well. Higher net returnsin zero-till direct seeding systems (with and without resi-due retention, flat and bed planting) can be attributedmainly to reduced cost of production. Zero tillage resultedin lower cost of cultivation because of less use of machin-ery, labour and less fuel cost.

Thus, it can be concluded that crop residue retention(~33%) and conservation tillage particularly the zero till-age-based crop establishment (ZTTR-ZTW and ZTDSR-ZT) of rice and wheat crop could improve the crop pro-ductivity, reduced water requirement and enhance farmincome in the IGP.

March 2018] CONSERVATION TILLAGE EFFECT ON RICE–WHEAT SYSTEM 7

REFERENCES

Choudhury, S.G., Srivastava, S., Singh, R., Chaudhari, S.K.,Sharma, D.K., Singh, S.K. and Sarkar, D. 2014. Tillage andresidue management effects on soil aggregation, organic car-bon dynamics and yield attribute in rice–wheat croppingsystem under reclaimed sodic soil. Soil and Tillage Research136: 76–83.

Das, T.K., Bhattacharyya, R., Sharma, A.R., Das, S., Saad, A.A. andPathak, H. 2013. Impacts of conservation agriculture on totalsoil organic carbon retention potential under an irrigatedagro-ecosystem of the western Indo-Gangetic Plains. Euro-pean Journal of Agronomy 51: 34–42.

Das, T.K., Bhattacharyya, R., Sudhishri, S., Sharma, A.R.,Saharawat, Y.S., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Sepat, S., Bana,R.S., Aggarwal, P., Sharma, R.K., Bhatia, A., Singh, G., Kar,A., Singh, B., Singh, P., Pathak, H., Vyas, A.K. and Jat, M.L.2014. Conservation agriculture in an irrigated cotton–wheatsystem of the western Indo-Gangetic Plains: crop and waterproductivity and economic profitability. Field Crops Re-search 158: 24–33.

Gathala, M.K., Ladha, J.K., Saharawat, Y.S., Kumar, V., Kumar, V.and Sharma, P.K. 2011. Effect of tillage and crop establish-ment methods on physical properties of a medium-texturedsoil under a seven-year rice–wheat rotation. Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal 75: 1,851–1,862.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures forAgricultural Research. John Wiley & Sons.

Hazra, K.K., Venkatesh, M.S., Ghosh, P.K., Ganeshamurthy, A.N.,Kumar, N., Nadarajan, N. and Singh, A.B. 2014. Long-termeffect of pulse crops inclusion on soil-plant nutrient dynam-ics in puddled rice (Oryza sativa L.)–wheat (Triticumaestivum L.) cropping system on an Inceptisol of Indo-Gangetic plain zone of India. Nutrient Cycling inAgroecosystems 100(1): 95–110.

Humphreys, E., Kukal, S.S., Christen, E.W., Hira, G.S., Singh, B.,Yadav, S. and Sharma, R. K. 2010. Halting the groundwaterdecline in North-West India – which technologies will bewinners? Advances in Agronomy 109: 155–217.

Jat, M.L., Gathala, M.K., Ladha, J.K., Saharawat, Y.S., Jat, A.S.,Kumar, V., Sharma, S.K., Kumar, V. and Gupta, R. 2009.Evaluation of precision land leveling and double zero-tillsystems in the rice–wheat rotation: water use, productivity,profitability and soil physical properties. Soil and TillageResearch 105: 112–221.

Jat, R.K., Tek, B., Sapkota, R.G., Singh, M.L., Jat, M.K. and Gupta,R.K. 2014. Seven years of conservation agriculture in a rice–wheat rotation of Eastern Gangetic Plains of South Asia:Yield trends and economic profitability. Field Crops Re-search 164: 199–210.

Kumar, S., Kumar, R., Mishra, J.S., Dwivedi, S.K., Prakash, V.,

Bhakta, N., Singh, A.K., Singh, S.K., Singh, S.S., Haris,A.A., Rao, K.K., Mondal, S, Bhatt, B.P., Singh, S. andYadav, A. 2017. Evaluation of rice (Oryza sativa) cultivarsunder different crop-establishment methods to enhance pro-ductivity, profitability and energetics of rice in middle Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 62(3):307–314.

Kumar, V. and Ladha, J.K. 2011. Direct seeding of rice: recent de-velopments and future research needs. Advances inAgronomy 111: 297-413.

Laik, R., Sharma, S., Idris, M., Singh, A.K., Singh, S.S., Bhatt, B.P.and Ladha, J.K. 2014. Integration of conservation agricul-ture with best management practices for improving systemperformance of the rice–wheat rotation in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environ-ment 95: 68–82.

Nath C.P., Das, T.K., Rana, K.S., Bhattacharyya, R., Pathak, H.,Paul, S., Meena, M.C. and Singh, S.B. 2017a. Weed andnitrogen management effects on weed infestation and cropproductivity of wheat–mungbean sequence in conventionaland conservation tillage practices. Agricultural Research6:33–46.

Nath, C.P., Das, T.K., Rana, K.S., Pathak, H., Bhattacharyya, R.,Paul, S. and Meena, M.C. 2017b. Greenhouse gases emis-sion, soil organic carbon and wheat yield as affected by till-age systems and nitrogen management practices. Greenhousegases emission, soil organic carbon and wheat yield as af-fected by tillage systems and nitrogen management practices.Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 63(12): 1,644–1,660.

Nath, C.P., Das, T.K., Rana, K.S., Pathak, H., Bhattacharyya, R.,Paul, S., Singh, S.B. Meena, M.C. 2015. Weed managementand wheat productivity in a conservation agriculture-basedmaize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum)–mungbean(Vigna radiata) system in north-western Indo-Gangeticplains of India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 60(4): 554–563.

Prasad, R., Ganagaiah, B. and Aipe, K.C. 1999. Effect of crop resi-due management in a rice– wheat cropping system ongrowth and yield of crops and on soil fertility. ExperimentalAgriculture 35: 427–435.

Singh, D.K., Singh, R., Singh, G.D., Singh, A.P., Chaturvedi, S. andRathi, A. 2016. Influence of rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat (Triti-cum aestivum) system diversification on productivity andprofitability under Garhwal Himalayan region. Indian Jour-nal of Agronomy 61(4): 425–428.

Venkatesh, M.S., Hazra, K.K., Ghosh, P.K., Praharaj, C.S. andKumar, N. 2013. Long-term effect of pulses and nutrientmanagement on soil carbon sequestration in Indo-Gangeticplains of India. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 93(1):127–136.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 8__13 (March 2018) Research Paper

Influence of foliar application seaweed (Kappaphycus and Gracilaria) saps in rice(Oryza sativa)–potato (Solanum tuberosum)–blackgram (Vigna mungo) sequence

BISWAJIT PRAMANICK1, KOUSHIK BRAHMACHARI2, DIBAKAR GHOSH3 AND P.S. BERA4

Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal 741 252

Received : November 2016; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during 2011–12 and 2012–13 on sandy loam soil at Uttar Chandamari vil-lage (22°57' N, 88° 20' E), Kalyani, District Nadia, West Bengal, to study the effect of seaweed (Kappaphycus andGracilaria) saps on crop growth, yield and nutrient uptake and monetary advantages in rice (Oryza sativa L.)–po-tato (Solanum tubersoum L.)–blackgram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] sequence. Pooled results indicated that foliarapplication of seaweed extracts at different concentrations (2.5, 5.0, 10.0 and 15.0% V/V) significantly enhancedthe growth, yield and nutrient uptake of all the crops. Application of 15% Kappaphycus sap with 75% recom-mended dose of fertilizer (RDF) resulted in the highest productivity in terms of rice-equivalent yield (REY) with an-nual net monetary returns of 231,686/ha and benefit: cost ratio of 2.61. The highest N, P, K uptake in all thecrops was also observed in the same combination.

Key words: Foliar nutrient management, Rice–potato-blackgram cropping systems, Seaweed sap

In eastern fraction of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (IGP) andparallel areas, many studies have been carried out in thepast to find out important cropping systems in terms ofproductivity, profitability, energy efficiency, soil fertilityand nutrient balances. Rice–wheat–jute system was foundmost productive but had the lowest benefit: cost ratio,whereas rice–Indian mustard–sesame was least productivebut had a high benefit: cost ratio. In a similar study, rice–potato–jute was the most productive and profitable crop-ping sequence (Biswas et al., 2006). Mukhopadhyaya andRoy (2000) reported potato–jute–rice as a more productivesystem than other systems such as potato–greengram–jute,potato–maize–rice and wheat–jute–rice. Adoption ofproper crop sequence involving crops like pulses and veg-etables in cereal-based system to sustain food security andnutritional security simultaneously. Rice is the staple ce-real food crop of India, providing 43% of calorie require-ment for more than 70% of Indian population. A short-duration crop like potato produces more dry matter, edibleprotein/unit land and time than many other major crops

like wheat and rice. Moreover, to nourish the protein en-ergy malnourished (PEM) people and to maintain soilhealth properly pulse crops can be included in the crop-ping system. Any improvement in agricultural system thatimproves crop production should have less negative im-pact on environment and should enhance the sustainabilityof the system. During post Green Revolution era, to in-crease production per unit area per unit time for maintain-ing food security of the entire nation, an unsystematic ex-ploitation of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicidesalong with natural resources was made putting the entireenvironment vis-à-vis overall ecological balance in danger(Nellemann et al., 2009 and Lee, 2017). So, it is the hightime for reshaping our present package of practices by in-troducing some alternative approaches which can mitigatethe hazards and sustain the production. The use of bio-stimulants can enhance the effectiveness of conventionalmineral fertilizers (Pramanick et al., 2013). The bioactivesubstances extracted from marine algae are used in agri-cultural and horticultural crops, and many beneficial ef-fects may be attained in terms of enhancement of yield andquality. Liquid extracts obtained from seaweeds have re-cently gained importance as foliar sprays for many cropsincluding various cereals, pulses and different vegetablespecies. It supplies nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium aswell as trace minerals like Zn, Mn, Mg, Fe, etc. It alsocontains natural plant-growth substances like auxins, gib-

1Corresponding author’s Email: bipra.its4u@gmail.com1Assistant Professor (Agronomy), Govind Ballabh Pant Universityof Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145;2,4Professor (Agronomy), Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya,Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal 741 252; 3Scientist (Agronomy),ICAR-Directorate of Weed Research, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 482001

March 2018] FOLIAR APPLICATION OF SEAWEEDS SAPS IN RICE–POTATO–BLACKGRAM SEQUENCE 9

berellins and cytokinins. One such source is foliar appli-cation and direct assimilation through crop foliage andcanopy. Hence a field experiment was carried out to studythe effect of different seaweed saps on growth and yield ofcrops in rice–potato–blackgram sequence, nutrient uptakeand monetary advantages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted during 2011–12and 2012–13 in sub-tropical humid on Inceptisols locatedat 22° 57' N latitude, 88° 20' E longitude and 7.8 m altitudein Uttar Chandamari village of Nadia district of West Ben-gal in India. The soil was sandy clay loam, having pH6.45, total nitrogen 115%, available P 27.0 kg/ha andavailable K 146.0 kg/ha. Ten treatments, viz. 2.5%Kappaphycus (K) sap + 75% recommended dose of fertil-izer (RDF), 5% Kappaphycus sap + 75% RDF, 10%Kappaphycus sap + 75% RDF, 15% Kappaphycus- sap +75% RDF, 2.5% Gracilaria (G) sap + 75% RDF, 5%Gracilaria sap + 75% RDF, 10% Gracilaria - sap + 75%RDF, 15% Gracilaria - sap + 75% RDF, 75% RDF + wa-ter spray and 100% RDF), were tested in randomizedblock design with 4 replications in rice–potato–blackgramsystem. Three sprays of Kappaphycus and Gracilaria ex-tract were applied in case of rice [20, 40 and 60 days af-ter transplanting (DAT)], and potato [20, 35 and 50 daysafter planting (DAP)], whereas 2 sprays were applied toblackgram [20 and 40 days after sowing (DAS)]. Chemi-cal compositions of Kappaphycus and Gracilaria extractare given in Table 1. Extracts were mixed with proper sur-factant (active 80 @ 0.5 mL/L water) at the time of spray-

ing. The total spray volume was 550 L/ha in each applica-tion. The net plot size was 5 m × 6 m. The recommendeddose of N, P

2O

5 and K

2O was applied through urea, single

superphosphate and muriate of potash respectively. TheRDF of rice, potato and blackgram was 60 : 30 : 30, 180: 120 : 120 and 20 : 40 : 20 kg/ha N : P2O5 : K2O respec-tively. Irrigations were applied as and when required.‘Satabdi’, ‘Kufri Jyoti’ and ‘Sarada’ varieties were usedfor rice, potato and blackgram respectively. Standard pack-age of practices were applied except nutrient-managementpractices. Growth, yield attributes, yield and nutrient up-take were studied as per standard protocols. Data weretaken through random sampling at harvesting to measureplant height, dry-matter accumulation. The prevailingmarket prices taken for calculation ( /t) were 13,000 forrice, 10,000 for potato and 35,000 for blackgram. Priceof rice straw and blackgram stover was considered

2,500/t for each. Common costs of cultivation for rice,potato and blackgram were 38,045, 80,500 and 18,100/ha respectively. Rate of seaweed saps derived fromKappaphycus and Gracilaria was 15/L. The yields ofcrops grown during different seasons were converted intorice-equivalent yields (REY) for comparison. The statisti-cal analysis of data was done using SAS Windows Version9.3. The effect of the years was non-significant and therewere no significant interactions between treatments andyears. Treatment means were separated with the use ofTukey’s Honestly Significant Difference test at the 5%level of significance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth and yield attributes of crops in the sequenceResponse of vegetative growth of different crops in the

sequence was found to be increased with the application ofseaweed extraction compared to 75% RDF + water sprayand 100% RDF. In general, gradual increase in plantheight, dry-matter accumulation and leaf-area index (LAI)was observed with increasing seaweed extract applicationin all the 3 crops in the system (Tables 2, 3 and 4). Thehighest values of all the growth parameters of rice, viz.plant height (93.3 cm), DMA (449 g/m2), no. of tillers/m2

(356), LAI (4.29) and yield attributes such as, panicles/m2

(349), length of panicle (29 cm), filled grains/panicle(100.8), test weight (21.2) were recorded with the applica-tion of 15% K-sap + 75% RDF and this treatment was sta-tistically at par with the application of 15% G-sap+75%RDF in most of the occasions (Table 2). Combined appli-cation of 15% K-sap + 75% RDF increased the plantheight, DMA, tillers/ m2, LAI, panicles/m2, filled grains/panicle of rice to the tune of 13, 11, 18, 24, 18 and 26%over conventional 100% RDF. In case of 2 other crops inthe system, viz. potato and blackgram, the application of

Table 1. Chemical compositions of Kappaphycus sap and Gracilariasap

Chemical analysis of Kappaphycus- Gracilaria-seaweed sap sap sap

Organic carbon (%) 0.71 0.62Total nitrogen (%) 0.10 0.04Total phosphorus (%) 0.01 0.002Total potassium (%) 11.1 5.97Total calcium (%) 13.5 5.45Total magnesium (%) 9.29 6.67Cu (mg/g) 0.36 0.37Zn (mg/g) 0.01 0.12Mn (mg/g) 0.40 0.19Fe (mg/g) 0.63 0.67IAA (mg/L) 23.4 20.2Gibberellin GA3 (mg/L) 27.9 22.6Kinetin + Zeatin (mg/L) 31.91 25.33

[Data courtesy-National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, India(except growth hormone data generated by CSMCRI using quan-titative MS-MS and LC-MS techniques)]

10 PRAMANICK ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

15% K-sap + 75% RDF and 15% G-sap + 75% RDFshowed promising result over all other treatments concern-ing growth and yield attributes. These 2 treatments in-creased the growth and yield attributes of potato to thetune of 11–20% over 100% RDF only. Regardingblackgram also these treatments augmented the growthattributes to the tune of 10–24% and yield attributes al-most 18-39% over conventional 100% RDF. These resultsare in agreement with the view of Jeannin et al. (1991),who opined that the foliar application of seaweed extract(Goemar GA

14) increased total fresh-matter production of

cereal maize seedlings by 15–25% over the control. Physi-ological responses owing to application of seaweed ex-tracts gave rise to nutrient mobilization as well as parti-tioning, growth of a strong root-system, increased chloro-

phyll content and leaf area and senescence retardation inthe plant system (Akila and Jeyadoss, 2010). All these fac-tors ultimately improved the plant height, DMA, LAI, andvaried yield-attributing characters of a crop.

Total yield may be considered to be the mirror of allgrowth and yield-attributing features. Spraying ofKappaphycus extract @ 15% thrice along with 75% RDFresulted in the highest values of yield attributes for rice,potato and blackgram. The highest grain and straw yieldsof rice, tuber yield of potato and seed and stover yields ofblackgram were concomitant with using the higher levelof seaweed extract as the best treatment (Tables 2, 3 and4). Per cent increment of the grain yield through the appli-cation of 15% K-sap + 75% RDF and 15% G-sap + 75%RDF was almost 27 and 26% respectively over 100%

Table 3. Effect of Kappaphycus and Gracilaria seaweed extracts on growth, yield attributes and yields of potato (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Plant height Dyr-matter Leaf-area Tuber dry Tuber Tubers/ Tuber(cm) accumulation index at weight bulking rate m2 yield

(g/m2) 60 DAP (g/m2) (g/m2/day) (t/ha)

2.5% K-sap + 75% RDF 62.8 125.3 2.97 2106 26.9 40.6 18.25% K-sap + 75% RDF 64.6 131.3 3.01 2134 27.0 41.7 18.810% K-sap + 75% RDF 67.9 141.0 3.23 2204 27.6 44.8 20.815% K-sap + 75% RDF 71.3 145.1 3.41 2353 30.5 47.3 23.92.5% G-sap + 75% RDF 62.2 125.0 2.93 2100 26.9 40.9 18.25% G-sap + 75% RDF 63.7 129.7 2.99 2156 27.0 41.1 18.310% G-sap + 75% RDF 66.0 135.3 3.15 2200 27.7 44.1 20.115% G-sap + 75% RDF 70.0 143.9 3.33 2325 30.1 47.3 23.575% RDF + water spray 56.8 101.4 2.67 2020 23.0 35.0 16.3100% RDF 60.7 121.4 2.99 2090 26.0 41.0 18.1

SEm± 1.11 2.0 0.09 11 1.21 1.66 1.12CD (P=0.05) 3.3 6.0 0.25 33 3.17 4.95 3.33

K-sap, Kappaphycus- sap; G-sap, Gracilaria-sap; RDF, recommended dose of fertilizer

Table 2. Effect of different concentration of seaweeds extracts of Kappaphycus and Gracilaria on growth, yield attributes and yields of ricereceiving (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Plant Dyr-matter Tillers/ Leaf-area Panicles/ Length of Filled 1,000- Grain Strawheight accumulation m2 index at m2 panicle grains/ seeds yield yield(cm) g/m2) 60 DAT (cm) panicle weight (g) (t/ha) (t/ha)

2.5% K-sap + 75% RDF 88.1 414 309 3.43 300 28.0 80.0 20.4 3.99 4.225% K-sap + 75% RDF 88.8 416 313 3.55 306 28.1 81.2 20.5 4.02 4.3310% K-sap + 75% RDF 90.2 428 334 3.97 324 28.1 90.5 20.8 4.77 4.9915% K-sap + 75% RDF 93.3 449 356 4.29 349 29.0 100.8 21.2 5.01 5.672.5% G-sap + 75% RDF 87.1 408 301 3.29 298 27.8 77.7 20.1 3.96 4.195% G-sap + 75% RDF 88.1 410 311 3.50 301 27.9 81.1 20.2 3.99 4.3010% G-sap + 75% RDF 89.3 420 330 3.88 320 28.1 89.5 20.9 4.67 4.8915% G-sap + 75% RDF 92.4 440 350 4.11 340 28.6 95.9 21.1 4.95 5.5575% RDF + water spray 72.3 389 278 2.95 267 27.1 70.0 20.1 3.77 4.00100% RDF 82.4 406 301 3.45 295 28.6 80.1 20.3 3.93 4.25

SEm± 1.53 6.5 6.6 0.11 6.6 0.45 4.29 0.58 0.16 0.20CD (P=0.05) 4.59 19 20 0.33 20 NS 12.8 NS 0.48 0.61

DMA, Dry-matter accumulation; K-sap, Kappaphycus-sap; G-sap, Gracilaria-sap; RDF, recommended dose of fertilizer

March 2018] FOLIAR APPLICATION OF SEAWEEDS SAPS IN RICE–POTATO–BLACKGRAM SEQUENCE 11

RDF. In case of potato and blackgram, application of 15%K-sap + 75% RDF showed approx 30 and 45% more tuberand seed yields correspondingly over conventional prac-tice, i.e. 100% RDF. However, there was not much im-provement in the yield of the different crops in the systemwhen seaweed extract concentration was increased from2.5% (V/V) to 5% (V/V). While, the sap concentrationwas 10% or more, a significant augmentation in the eco-nomic yield of the crops was recorded. Such incrementmight be owing to the fact that seaweed extract is a bio-stimulant, which provides the crops with macro and micro-nutrients and significant amounts of cytokinins, auxinsand betaines ultimately increasing the chlorophyll produc-tion by boosting the photosynthetic process, thereby stimu-lating vegetative growth (Blunden, 1991). Thus, the over-all plant performance would be enhanced accordingly andfinally reflecting through an escalated productivity. Theseresults corroborate the findings of Bai et al. (2008) onPhaseolus aureus and Abdel-Mawgoud et al. (2010) onwatermelon, Pramanick et al. (2013, 2017) on greengramand potato.

Nutrient uptake by crops in the sequenceThe use of the seaweed extracts at higher concentra-

tions (10% and above) increased N, P and K uptake in thegrains, seeds and tubers of respective crops significantlyand the uptake reached the maximum level at 15% of boththe 2 seaweed extracts compared with the treatments hav-ing only inorganic sources of nutrients (Tables 5, 6 and 7).The maximum values of N, P and K uptake in grain/tuber/seed as well as straw/stover of different crops were re-corded with the application of 15% K-sap + 75% RDFbeing statistically at par with the application of 15% G-sap

+ 75% RDF, while the minimum values were observedunder 75% RDF+water spray (Table 5). Application of15% K-sap + 75% RDF resulted in 49, 74 and 36% moreN, P and K uptake in rice grain respectively; 11, 20 and12% more N, P and K uptake in potato tuber and 42, 88and 45% more N, P and K uptake in backgram seed thanthat of under conventional practice. It was already ob-served that combined application of both K and G-sap @10% or more (v/v) with 75% RDF increased the yield ofrice, potato and blackgram to a great extent. So, ultimatelyhigher nutrient uptake was also observed with these sapapplication. These results confirm the findings of Crouchet al. (1990), who noted increased uptake of Mg, K and Cain lettuce with application of seaweed concentrate. Turanand Köse (2004) and Mancuso et al. (2006) also observedincreased uptake of N, P, K and Mg in grapevines andcucumber with application of seaweed extract. The pres-ence of marine bioactive substances in seaweed extractimproves stomata uptake efficiency in treated plants com-pared to non-treated plants (Mancuso et al. 2006). Sea-weed sap is proved to increase root size and vigour, root:shoot ratios and biomass accumulation by stimulating rootgrowth. All these indicate that the components in seaweed,particularly having a good amount of phosphorus as wellas auxin, had a considerable effect on root growth anddevelopment (Jeannin et al., 1991).

System productivity and economicsThe highest values of system productivity (30.25 t/ha/

year) and REY (38.88 t/ha/year) were evident with theapplication of 15% Kappaphycus-sap along with 75%RDF and it was statistically at par with the application of15% Gracilaria-sap along with 75% RDF (Table 6). The

Table 4. Growth, yield attributes and yields of blackgram receiving different concentration of seaweed Kappaphycus and Gracilaria extracts(pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Plant Dry-matter Nodules/ Leaf-area Branches/ Pods/ Seeds/ 1,000-seed Seed Stoverheight accumulation plant index at plant plant pod weight yield yield(cm) (g/m2) 60 DAS (g) (t/ha) (t/ha)

2.5% K-sap + 75% RDF 31.3 342 18.5 2.89 5.17 11.02 5.42 41.0 0.92 3.465% K-sap + 75% RDF 32.3 352 19.3 3.21 5.47 11.83 5.74 41.2 0.96 3.4810% K-sap + 75% RDF 34.2 359 20.2 3.31 6.24 12.55 6.02 42.1 1.19 4.0015% K-sap + 75% RDF 36.7 392 23.1 3.47 6.97 13.23 7.17 42.9 1.35 4.022.5% G-sap + 75% RDF 30.0 332 17.8 2.99 5.09 10.59 5.45 41.1 0.91 3.405% G-sap + 75% RDF 30.6 349 18.3 3.12 5.37 10.74 5.98 41.4 0.93 3.4510% G-sap + 75% RDF 33.5 351 19.2 3.38 6.09 12.06 6.13 42.1 1.17 3.9015% G-sap + 75% RDF 36.0 384 22.9 3.49 6.53 12.98 6.97 42.6 1.32 4.0075% RDF + water spray 25.2 326 16.8 2.77 4.55 8.67 4.89 40.0 0.86 3.05100% RDF 29.9 351 18.7 2.89 5.05 10.97 5.16 41.1 0.91 3.15

SEm± 1.41 6.7 1.26 0.18 0.4 1.7 0.4 1.26 0.80 0.90CD (P=0.05) 4.18 20 3.74 0.53 1.2 5.1 NS NS 2.37 2.69

K-sap, Kappaphycus- sap; G-sap, Gracilaria-sap; RDF, recommended dose of fertilizer

12 PRAMANICK ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

maximum net monetary return ( 231.7 × 103/ha/year) andbenefit: cost ratio (2.61) were also observed in the samecombination. Though the application of foliar extractsover 75% RDF increased the cost of cultivation to the tuneof 700 to 7,300 under 5, 10 and 15% (V/V) sap concen-tration over conventional 100% RDF, the significant yieldaugmentation owing to the application of these extractsescalated the net monetary return and ultimately the ben-efit: cost ratio over conventional method of cultivation.Being a wealthy source of versatile plant nutrients espe-cially potassium (K), phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), iron(Fe), manganese (Mg) etc., phytohormones especially cy-tokinin, auxin and gibberellins; amino acids; vitamins;stimulatory and antibiotic substances the liquid seaweedextract enhances root volume and proliferation, biomassaccumulation, plant growth, flowering, distribution ofphotosynthates from vegetative parts to the developingfruits and promotes fruit development, reduces chlorophylldegradation, disease occurrence etc., resulting in improvednutrient uptake, water and nutrient-use efficiency causingsound general plant growth and vigour ultimately reflect-ing higher yield and superior quality of agricultural prod-ucts.

Thus it can be concluded that the seaweed extracts areeffective in increasing the growth parameters, yield at-tributes, yield vis-à-vis economics of the cropping system.The saps also enhance nutrient uptake by different crops.Presence of microelements and plant-growth regulators,especially cytokinins (Zodape et al., 2009) inKappaphycus and Gracilaria extracts is responsible forthe increased yield and improved nutrition of differentcrops receiving foliar application of the aforesaid 2 saps.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Mawgoud, A.M.R., Tantawy, A.S., Hafez, M.M. and Hoda,A.M. 2010. Seaweed extract improves growth, yield andquality of different watermelon hybrids research. Journal ofAgriculture and Biological Science 6(2): 161–186.

Akila, N. and Jeyadoss, T. 2010. The potential of seaweed liquidfertilizer on the growth and antioxidant enhancement ofHelianthus annuus L. Oriental Journal of Chemistry 26(4):1,353–1,360.

Bai, N.R., Banu, N.R.L., Prakash, J.W. and Goldi, S.J. 2008. Effectof seaweed extracts (SLF) on the growth and yield ofPhaseolus aureus L. Indian Hydrobiology 11(1): 113–119.

Biswas, B., Ghosh, D.C., Dasgupta, M.K., Trivedi, N., Timsina, J.and Dobermann, A. 2006. Integrated assessment of croppingsystems in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic plain. Field CropsResearch 99(1): 35–47.

Blunden, G. 1991. Agricultural uses of seaweeds and seaweed ex-tracts. (In) Seaweed Resources in Europe-Uses and Poten-tial, pp. 65–81, Guiry, M.D. and Blunden, G., (Eds). Wiley,Chichester, the UK.

Crouch, I.J., Beckett, R.P. and Van Staden, J. 1990. Effect of sea-weed concentrates on the growth and mineral nutrition ofTa

ble

5.E

ffec

t of

dif

fere

nt c

once

ntra

tions

of

Kap

paph

ycus

and

Gra

cila

ria

seaw

eeds

ext

ract

on

nutr

ient

upt

ake

in g

rain

/tube

r/se

ed a

nd s

traw

/sto

ver

of r

ice,

pot

ato

and

blac

kgra

m(p

oole

d da

ta o

f 2

year

s)

Tre

atm

ent

Gra

in/tu

ber/

seed

upt

ake

(kg/

ha)

Stra

w/s

tove

r up

take

(kg

/ha)

NP

KN

PK

Ric

eP

otat

oB

lack

-R

ice

Pot

ato

Bla

ck-

Ric

eP

otat

oB

lack

-R

ice

Bla

ck-

Ric

eB

lack

-R

ice

Bla

ck-

gram

gram

gram

gram

gram

gram

2.5%

K-s

ap +

75%

RD

F53

.793

.345

.39.

2128

.93.

3556

.120

117

.941

.385

.513

.83

4.33

180.

158

.45%

K-s

ap +

75%

RD

F54

.995

.746

.39.

8529

.33.

8957

.320

918

.142

.691

.914

.55

4.67

60.1

60.1

10%

K-s

ap +

75%

RD

F59

.399

.851

.011

.07

31.5

4.51

60.2

217

19.7

45.7

101.

715

.23

5.67

70.7

70.7

15%

K-s

ap +

75%

RD

F64

.210

2.4

57.7

13.6

832

.65.

8565

.722

223

.049

.114

3.3

17.0

57.

8381

.081

.02.

5% G

-sap

+ 7

5% R

DF

51.7

90.9

41.7

8.95

28.5

3.22

54.6

200

16.9

41.0

81.2

12.9

4.03

55.5

55.5

5% G

-sap

+ 7

5% R

DF

53.1

91.8

45.2

9.33

29.0

3.51

56.4

206

17.5

42.0

89.8

13.9

34.

5259

.859

.810

% G

-sap

+ 7

5% R

DF

56.9

95.9

48.8

10.2

730

.03.

9358

.821

218

.044

.298

.114

.87

5.25

66.9

66.9

15%

G-s

ap +

75%

RD

F61

.699

.455

.112

.99

31.0

5.21

63.3

218

21.7

48.0

133.

316

.74

6.93

76.6

76.6

75%

RD

F +

wat

er s

pray

40.6

89.7

38.1

7.03

25.1

2.5

46.7

189

14.4

36.7

71.0

10.3

33.

2548

.748

.710

0% R

DF

43.2

92.1

40.7

7.83

27.1

3.11

48.3

199

15.9

38.8

85.0

12.0

53.

9953

.653

.6S

Em

±2.

191.

723.

810.

451.

420.

331.

713.

61.

411.

294.

890.

720.

271.

761.

76C

D (

P=0.

05)

6.6

5.47

11.2

1.34

3.84

0.97

5.15

104.

133.

8814

.52.

150.

855.

35.

3

K-s

ap, K

appa

phyc

us-

sap;

G-s

ap,

Gra

cila

ria-

sap;

RD

F, r

ecom

men

ded

dose

of

fert

ilize

r

March 2018] FOLIAR APPLICATION OF SEAWEEDS SAPS IN RICE–POTATO–BLACKGRAM SEQUENCE 13

nutrient stress lettuce. Journal of Applied Phycology 2(3):269–272.

Jeannin, I., Lescure, J.C. and Morto Gaudry, J.F. 1991. The effect ofaqueous seaweed’s spray on the growth of maize. BotanicaMarina 34(5): 469–473.

Lee, K. 2017. Harmful Effects of the Green Revolution. <https://sciencing.com/harmful-effects-green-revolution-8587115.html>

Mancuso, S., Azzarello, E., Mugnai, S. and Briand, X. 2006. Marinebioactive substances (IPA extract) improve foliar ion uptakeand water tolerance in potted Vitis vinifera plants. Advancesin Horticultural Science 20(2): 156–161.

Mukhopadhyaya, S.K. and Roy, D. 2000. Potato-based crop rota-tions in West Bengal. Environment and Ecology 18(4): 793–797.

Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus,B., Prins, A.G. and Kaltenborn, B.P. 2009. The environmen-tal Food Crisis: the Environment’s Role in Averting FutureFood Crises. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United

Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.Birkeland Trykkeri A.S., Arendal.

Pramanick, B., Brahmachari, K. and Ghosh, A. 2013. Effect of sea-weed sap on growth and yield improvement of greengram.African Journal of Agricultural Research 8(13): 1,180–1,186.

Pramanick, B., Brahmachari, K., Mahapatra, B.S., Ghosh, A.,Ghosh, D. and Kar, S. 2017. Growth, yield and quality im-provement of potato tubers through the application of sea-weed sap derived from the marine alga Kappaphycusalvarezii. Journal of Applied Phycology 29(6): 3,253–3,260.

Turan, M. and Köse, C. 2004. Seaweed extracts improve copperuptake of grapevine. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Sec-tion B-Soil and Plant Science 54(4): 213–220.

Zodape, S.T., Mukherjee, S., Reddy, M.P. and Chaudhary, D.R.2009. Effect of Kappaphycus alvarezii (Doty) Doty ex silvaextract on grain quality, yield and some yield components ofwheat (Triticum aestivum L.). International Journal of PlantProduction 3(2): 97–101.

Table 6. System productivity, rice-equivalent yield (REY) and economics of different treatments of seaweed extracts (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment System REY of Cost of Gross returns Net returns Benefit:productivity system cultivation (× 103 /ha/yr) (× 103 /ha/ cost ratio(t/ha/year) (t/ha/year) (× 103 /ha/year) year)

2.5% K-sap + 75% RDF 23.10 29.82 135.6 285.2 149.6 2.105% K-sap + 75% RDF 23.76 30.50 137.3 293.0 155.7 2.1310% K-sap + 75% RDF 26.73 35.09 140.6 333.8 193.2 2.3715% K-sap + 75% RDF 30.25 38.88 143.9 375.6 231.7 2.612.5% G-sap + 75% RDF 23.02 29.66 135.6 283.8 148.1 2.095% G-sap + 75% RDF 23.25 29.97 137.3 287.2 149.9 2.0910% G-sap + 75% RDF 25.90 34.14 140.6 324.2 183.7 2.3115% G-sap + 75% RDF 29.72 38.23 143.9 368.8 224.9 2.5675% RDF + water spray 20.96 26.31 134.0 259.9 125.9 1.94100% RDF 22.95 29.52 136.6 282.4 145.7 2.07

SEm± 0.66 1.09 1.32 11.4 5.55 0.037CD (P=0.05) 1.95 3.20 3.91 33.7 16.8 0.11

K-sap, Kappaphycus-sap; G-sap, Gracilaria-sap; RDF, recommended dose of fertilizer

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 14__20 (March 2018)

Long-term influence of nutrient management on productivity and profitability ofmaize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system

S. MAJHI1, R. THAKUR2, S.K. PAL3, R.R. UPASANI4, A.N. PURAN5 AND A.N. KUJUR6

Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, Jharkhand 834 006

Received : July 2017; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A long-term fertilizer experiment on maize (Zea mays L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system was ini-tiated during 1983 at the Birsa Agricultural University farm, Ranchi, Jharkhand. The present investigation was partof this long-term experiment started after 29 crop cycles during 2013–14 and 2014–15, to find out the effect oflong-term fertilization on productivity and economics of maize–wheat cropping system. The experiment was laidout in partially confounded design with 18 treatments and 1 control with 4 replications. Treatment comprised 3 lev-els of nitrogen (40, 80 and 120 kg N/ha), 3 levels of phosphorus (0, 40 and 80 kg P2O5/ha) and 2 levels of potas-sium (0 and 40 kg K

2O/ha). Results showed that balanced fertilization of maize–wheat cropping system with

N120

P80

K40

kg/ha resulted in the maximum grain yield of maize (4.21 t/ha), wheat (4.52 t/ha) as well as maize-equivalent yield (9.41 t/ha) with net returns of 67,396/ha and benefit: cost ratio (1.09). Continuous application of120 kg N/ha alone for more than 30 years drastically reduced the grain yield of maize (0.94 t/ha), wheat (1.50 t/ha)and maize-equivalent yield (2.66 t/ha), which was 29.05% less than the control (1.32 t/ha, grain yield of maize).However, an application of 40 kg P2O5/ha along with nitrogen remarkably improved the productivity of individualcrop as well as cropping system.

Key words: Cropping system, Economics, Long-term fertilization, Maize, Productivity, Wheat

Based on a part of Ph.D. thesis of the first author, submitted to BirsaAgricultural University, Ranchi, during 2017 (unpublished)

1Corresponding author’s Email: majhishushama@gmail.com1Ph.D. Research Scholar, 2,3,4University Professor-cum-Chief Sci-entist, 5Junior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor, Department of SoilScience and Agricultural Chemistry; 6Research Scholar, Departmentof Agricultural Physics and Meteorology

Out of 30 important cropping systems, maize–wheat isthe third most important cropping system – occupies aboutan area of 1.8 million ha with an productivity of 8-10 t/ha(Jat et al., 2012). The contribution of this cropping systemto total food grain production of the country is consider-ably large and it is pre-dominant system in Jharkhand withproductivity of 3.25 t/ha (Kumar et al., 2013). Croppingsystem involving cereal and cereal had led to mining nu-trient from soil which resulted in deterioration of soilhealth (Porpavai et al., 2011). Both maize and wheat arefertilizer responsive and exhibit full yield potential whensupplied with adequate quantities of nutrients at propertime. Among the various production factors, fertilizermanagement is a key factor for increasing the yield ofcrop. The nitrogen requirement of crop is more than any

other nutrients and its deficiency at any stage of growth,especially tasseling and silking stage of maize may leadsto virtual crop failure. However, continuous application ofonly nitrogen drastically reduces the grain yield of maizeand wheat over years due to gradual increase in exchange-able acidity, deficiency of basic cations and imbalanceamong the nutrients (Sahay and Singh, 2004). Soils ofJharkhand are acidic (Alfisols) in reaction, low inavaibility of nitrogen and phosphorus, medium to high inpotassium and poor in water-retention capacities. Alfisolsare abundant in Fe, Al and Mn, phosphorus fixation ismore, which creates nutrient imbalance in the soil result-ing in the deficiency of certain plant nutrients. The aver-age yield of cereals particularly maize and wheat in theseacidic soils reveal low productivity. Therefore, to meet thedemand of foodgrain for burgeoning population, there isneed of sustainable production through the resource man-agement and to maintain the soil fertility by judicious ap-plication of fertilizer. Hence present investigation wasplanned to find out the effect of long-term nutrient man-agement on productivity and economics of maize-wheatsystem.

Research Paper

March 2018] NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN MAIZE 15

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A long-term field experiment was initiated during 1983at the Birsa Agricultural University Farm, (23o17’ N,85o19’ E, 625.22 m above mean sea-level) Ranchi,Jharkhand, and the present investigation was part of thislong-term experiment started after 29 crop cycles during2013–14 and continued for 2 consecutive years. At thebeginning (1983), experimental soil was sandy-loam, hav-ing pH 6.4, available N 260 kg/ha, available P 19.5 kg/haand available K 195 kg/ha. However, before the start ofpresent experiment it varies depending on the fertilizerlevel. Maximum reduction in pH 4.65 was observed inplot receiving only nitrogen (N120P0K0 kg/ha). Climate ofthe experimental area is subtropical with hot and dry sum-mer, comparatively cool rainy season followed by moder-ate winter. The average rainfall in both the years during thestudy period was 1,017.5 mm and 638.0 mm during 2013and 2014 from June to October, while wheat crop received75.3 mm and 59.1 mm from October to April during2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. The mean maximumand minimum temperature for maize was 28.9 and 22.0oCin the first year and 30.1 and 22.2oC in the second year.For wheat, the maximum and minimum temperature wasrecorded 25.6 and 10.2oC in the first year and 25.8 and11.2oC in the second year respectively.

The experiment was laid out in partially confoundeddesign with 18 treatments and 1 control, replicated 4times. Treatments comprising 3 levels of nitrogen (40, 80and 120 kg N/ha), 3 of phosphorus (0, 40 and 80 kg P2O5/ha) and 2 of potassium (0 and 40 kg K

2O/ha). Variety used

for rainy season (kharif) maize and (rabi) winter seasonwheat was ‘Suwan’ and ‘K 9107’ respectively. Nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium were applied through urea,diammonium phosphate and muriate of potash respec-tively.

In maize, one-third dose of nitrogen and full doses ofphosphorus and potassium were applied at the time ofsowing, while remaining nitrogen was equally side-dressed at knee high (days after sowing) and tesselingstages. At physiological maturity, cobs were harvestedmanually. After drying in the Sun, the grains were sepa-rated out and weighed to record economic yield. Afterharvesting of the kharif crop, wheat was sown in the sameplots in the rabi season with same fertilizer dose. Halfdose of nitrogen and full doses of phosphorus and potas-sium were applied at the time of sowing, while remainingnitrogen in 2 equal split was top-dressed at the first andsecond irrigation. Wheat was harvested at physiologicalmaturity stage and after Sun drying and threshing,weighed to record grain and straw yields. Finally eco-nomic crop yields were recorded and their monetary re-

turns were calculated on the basis of prevailing marketprices of the produce. System productivity was calculatedin terms of maize equivalent yield (MEY).

Data obtained in the cropping sequence for 2 consecu-tive years were pooled and statistically analyzed using theF test, the procedures given by Gomez and Gomez (1984).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Grain yield of maizeThe maximum grain yield of maize was recorded in

crop fertilized with 120 kg N/ha which was 14.7, 18.7 and109.8% higher than 80, 40 kg N/ha and the control respec-tively (Table 1). The increment in yield might be owing tofavourable effect of N on growth parameter and yield at-tributing characters. Results confirm the finding ofNasrollahzadeh et al. (2015).

Among phosphorus levels, the maximum grain yield ofmaize was recorded with 80 kg P

2O

5/ha, being which was

13.9, 219.0 and 159.9% higher than 40, 0 kg P2O5/ha andthe control respectively. Drastic increase in yield might beowing to better nutritional environment in soil, positiveand significant effect in root formation, proliferation andtheir functional activities. Our results confirm findings ofSepat and Rai (2013).

In case of potassium application, the maximum grainyield of maize was recorded with 40 kg K

2O/ha which was

10.2 and 99.1% higher than maize fertilized with 0 kgK

2O/ha and the control respectively. This was mainly be-

cause of healthy plant growth which keeps plant cells tur-gid by controlling osmotic processes in cell-sap, reduceslodging and resistant to diseases and pest. The majority ofK accumulation occurs before silking might have positiveeffect on yield increase (Hanway, 1962; Karlen et al.1988).

Regarding interaction effect of N and P, the maximumgrain yield of maize was recorded in plot getting 120 kg Nand 80 kg P2O5/ha which was 207.6% higher than the con-trol and was significantly superior to rest of the combina-tion of N and P level (Table 2). Increasing N level from 40to 120 kg/ha without any phosphorus gradually decreasedgrain yield of maize might have been because of extremelowering of soil pH and depleted the P in soil. However,addition of P either with 40 or 80 kg/ha significantly in-creased the grain yield of maize, irrespective of N level,owing to creating favourable condition for crop growthresulting in superiority of yield attributes. It also helped inthe efficient absorption and utilization of the other re-quired plant nutrients which ultimately increased the grainyield (Sepat and Rai, 2013).

Addition of 40 kg K2O along with 120 kg N/ha in-

creased the grain yield of maize (3.00 t/ha) by 33.9% incomparison to 40 kg N along with 0 kg K

2O/ha (Table 3).

16 MAJHI ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

This was possibly because of increase in the K applicationthat promoted vigorous growth in plants when those plantsreceived any doses of N. Seidel et al. (2015) also observeda positive interaction effect of N and K.

When P and K interact, the maximum grain yield ofmaize was recorded with 80 kg P205 and 40 kg K2O/ha,being 169.7% higher than the control (1.32 t/ha) and wassignificantly superior to rest of the combination of P andK level (Table 4), owing to favorable effect of P, causingvigorous growth of plant may process a storing of energyby photosynthesis as reported by Massood et al. (2011).

However, in balanced fertilization, grain yield of maize(4.21 t/ha) was recorded maximum with N

120P

80K

40 kg/ha

which was at par with N120P40K40 kg/ha (4.00 t/ha) andN

120P

80K

0 kg/ha (3.92 t/ha). Grain yield of maize was dras-

tically reduced due to omission of phosphatic fertilizer ir-respective of N and K level. However, addition of phos-phorus changes the yield trend just reverse. This was pos-sibly due to continuous application of N only, leading toextreme lowering of soil pH, but balanced use of fertilizermaintains the soil reactions and productivity (Sharma andJain, 2014).

Grain yield of wheatGrain yield of wheat was statistically influenced by N

and P levels as well as in N × P and P × K interactions.The maximum grain yield of wheat was recorded with 120kg N/ha (3.18 t/ha) which was 10.6, 17.5 and 259.4%higher than 80, 40 kg N/ha and the control respectively(Table 1). Singh and Agarwal (2001) also reported thesimilar findings.

Among P levels, the maximum grain yield of wheatwas recorded with 80 kg P

2O

5/ha, which was 11.4, 155.1

and 332.5% higher than 40, 0 kg P2O5/ha and the controlrespectively. Drastic increase in yield was possibly owingto cell elongation, root development, increased number oftillers and ultimately increased dry-matter accumulation.These results confirm those of Mumtaz et al. (2014).

In combination of N and P, the maximum grain yield ofwheat was recorded with application of 120 kg N and 80kg P

20

5/ha which was 388.2% higher than the control and

was significantly superior to rest of the combinations of Nand P (Table 2). Increasing nitrogen level from 40 to 120kg/ha without any P gradually decreased grain yield ofwheat. However, addition of 40 and 80 kg P

2O

5/ha along

with 120 kg N/ha drastically increase the grain yield of

Table 1. Grain yield of maize, wheat, maize-equivalent yield (MEY) and economics as influenced by long-term nutrient management inmaize–wheat system (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Grain yield (t/ha) System economics

Maize Wheat MEY Gross returns Net returns Benefit:( /ha) ( /ha) cost ratio

N0P0K0 1.32 0.89 2.34 32,260 –5,986 –0.16N levelN40 2.34 2.71 5.46 74,922 24,154 0.44N80 2.42 2.88 5.73 78,867 26,774 0.47N120 2.77 3.18 6.44 88,323 34,906 0.58

SEm± 0.05 0.05 0.07 880 880 0.02CD (P=0.05) 0.14 0.13 0.19 2,450 2,450 0.05

P levelP

01.08 1.50 2.81 38,740 –4,552 -–0.10

P40

3.02 3.44 6.98 95,652 41,519 0.76P

803.44 3.83 7.85 107,720 48,866 0.83

SEm± 0.05 0.05 0.07 880 880 0.02CD (P=0.05) 0.14 0.13 0.19 2,450 2,450 0.05

K levelK

02.39 2.92 5.75 78,992 28,276 0.51

K40

2.63 2.93 6.00 82,416 28,946 0.48SEm± 0.04 0.04 0.05 672 672 0.01CD (P=0.05) 0.11 NS 0.14 1,871 NS NS

Interaction CD (P=0.05)N × P 2.23 0.21 0.30 3,969 3,969 0.08N × K 0.19 NS 0.25 3,241 3,241 NSP × K 0.19 0.17 0.25 3,241 3,241 0.06N × P × K 0.33 NS 0.43 5,614 5,614 NS

March 2018] NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN MAIZE 17

wheat by 221.0 and 248.2%, respectively, in comparisonto 120 kg N along with 0 kg P2O5/ha owing to favourablecondition for crop growth, resulting in higher yield at-tributes and ultimately yield.

Maximum grain yield of wheat was recorded with 80kg P2O5 with 40 kg K2O/ha, which was 350.2% higherthan the control and was significantly superior to rest ofthe combination of P and K level (Table 4), owing tofavourable effect of phosphorus, causing vigorous growthof plant and storing of energy by photosynthesis. Resultsconfirm the finding of Regmi et al. (2002).

System productivityThe maximum MEY (6.44 t/ha) was recorded in plot

getting 120 kg N/ha, being 12.3, 18.0 and 174.8% higherthan 80, 40 kg N/ha and the control respectively (Table 1).

However, among phosphorus level, maximum MEY (7.85t/ha) was recorded with 80 kg P2O5/ha, which was 12.5,179.7 and 234.9% higher than 40, 0 kg P

2O

5/ha and con-

trol respectively. Among the potassium level, maximumMEY (6.00 q/ha) was recorded with 40 kg K

2O/ha, which

was 4.4 and 156.2% higher than 0 kg K2O/ha and the con-trol respectively.

Crop fertilized with 120 kg N and 80 kg P2O5/ha re-corded the maximum MEY (9.04 t/ha). However, in inter-action of N and K, the maximum (6.65 t/ha) was foundwith 120 kg N and 40 kg K

2O/ha (Table 3). Again, inter-

action effect of P and K, the maximum MEY (8.16 t/ha)was recorded in 40 kg K

2O with 80 kg P

2O

5/ha. In 3 fac-

tor interaction of N, P and K, significantly higher MEY(9.41 t/ha) was recorded with N

120P

80K

40 kg/ha which was

301.8% higher than the control.

Table 3. Interaction effect of nitrogen × potassium on grain yield of maize, wheat, maize-equivalent yield (MEY) and economics influencedby long-term nutrient management in maize–wheat system (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatments Grain yield (t/ha) System economics

Maize Wheat MEY Gross returns Net returns Benefit:( /ha) ( /ha) cost ratio

N0P

0K

01.32 0.89 2.34 32,260 –5,986 –0.16

N × K interactionN

40K

02.24 2.65 5.29 72,702 23,311 0.45

N40

K40

2.44 2.77 5.62 77,142 24,997 0.44N

80K

02.38 2.92 5.73 78,831 28,115 0.51

N80

K40

2.46 2.84 5.74 78,903 25,433 0.42N

120K

02.55 3.19 6.23 85,444 33,403 0.58

N120

K40

3.00 3.18 6.65 91,203 36,408 0.58SEm± 0.07 0.06 0.09 1,164 1,164 0.02CD (P=0.05) 0.19 NS 0.25 3,241 3,241 NS

Table 2. Interaction effect of nitrogen × phosphorus on grain yield of maize, wheat, maize-equivalent yield (MEY) and economics as influ-enced by long-term nutrient management in maize–wheat system (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Grain yield (t/ha) System economics

Maize Wheat MEY Gross returns Net returns Benefit:( /ha) ( /ha) cost ratio

N0P0K0 1.32 0.89 2.34 32,260 –5,986 –0.16N × P interactionN

40P

01.30 1.73 3.29 45,300 3,333 0.08

N40

P40

2.74 2.83 6.00 82,317 29,508 0.56N

40P

802.97 3.57 7.08 97,150 39,620 0.69

N80

P0

1.05 1.54 2.82 38,910 –4,382 –0.10N

80P

402.94 3.50 6.97 95,633 41,500 0.77

N80

P80

3.27 3.60 7.42 1,02,058 43,204 0.73N

120P

00.88 1.24 2.31 32,009 –12,607 –0.28

N120

P40

3.37 3.99 7.96 1,09,007 53,550 0.96N

120P

804.07 4.33 9.04 1,23,953 63,775 1.06

SEm± 0.08 0.07 0.11 1,425 1,425 0.03CD (P=0.05) 0.23 0.21 0.30 3,969 3,969 0.08

18 MAJHI ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

Soil fertilityLong-term fertilizer applications (1983-2013) of N, P

and K through inorganic fertilizer as influence soil reac-tion, maximum reduction in soil pH (4.52) was recordedwith N120P0K0 kg/ha and minimum reduction (5.61) withN

40P

0K

40 kg/ha (Table 6). It might be due to use of only

nitrogenous fertilizer which causes acidity by excessiveaccumulation of cation ion in soil. Control plot as well asbalanced fertilizer treated plot had the least variation. Soil

Table 5. Interaction effect of nitrogen × phosphorus × potassium on grain yield of maize, wheat, maize-equivalent yield (MEY) and econom-ics influenced by long-term nutrient management in maize–wheat system (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatments Grain yield (t/ha) System economics

Maize Wheat MEY Gross returns Net returns Benefit:( /ha) ( /ha) cost ratio

N0P

0K

01.32 0.89 2.34 32,260 –5,986 -0.16

N × P × K InteractionN

40P

0K

01.40 1.92 3.60 49,712 9,122 0.22

N40

P0K

401.20 1.54 2.97 40,888 –2,456 –0.06

N40

P40

K0

2.57 2.72 5.69 78,077 26,646 0.52N

40P

40K

402.91 2.95 6.31 86,556 32,371 0.60

N40

P80

K0

2.75 3.33 6.58 90,318 34,166 0.61N

40P

80K

403.20 3.82 7.58 1,03,981 45,075 0.77

N80

P0K

01.12 1.70 3.07 42,414 499 0.01

N80

P0K

400.99 1.38 2.57 35,407 –9,262 –0.21

N80

P40

K0

2.77 3.49 6.78 92,985 40,229 0.76N

80P

40K

403.11 3.52 7.16 98,281 42,771 0.77

N80

P80

K0

3.25 3.57 7.36 1,01,095 43,618 0.76N

80P

80K

403.29 3.63 7.47 1,03,021 42,790 0.71

N120

P0K

00.94 1.50 2.66 36,805 –6,435 –0.15

N120

P0K

400.83 0.99 1.97 27,214 –18,780 –0.41

N120

P40

K0

2.79 3.95 7.34 1,00,571 46,491 0.86N

120P

40K

403.95 4.02 8.58 1,17,443 60,609 1.07

N120

P80

K0

3.92 4.13 8.67 1,18,955 60,153 1.02N

120P

80K

404.21 4.52 9.41 1,28,951 67,396 1.09

SEm± 0.12 0.11 0.15 2,015 2,015 0.04CD (P=0.05) 0.33 NS 0.43 5,614 5,614 NS

Table 4. Interaction effect of phosphorus × potassium on grain yield of maize, wheat, maize-equivalent yield (MEY) and economics influ-enced by long-term nutrient management in maize–wheat system (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Grain yield (t/ha) System economics

Maize Wheat MEY Gross returns Net returns Benefit:( /ha) ( /ha) cost ratio

N0P

0K

01.32 0.89 2.34 32,260 –5,986 –0.16

P × K interactionP

0K

01.15 1.70 3.11 42,977 1,062 0.03

P0K

401.00 1.30 2.50 34,503 –10,166 –0.22

P40

K0

2.71 3.39 6.60 90,544 37,788 0.71P

40K

403.33 3.50 7.35 1,00,760 45,250 0.81

P80

K0

3.31 3.68 7.54 1,03,456 45,979 0.80P

80K

403.57 3.99 8.16 1,11,985 51,754 0.86

SEm± 0.07 0.06 0.09 1,164 1,164 0.04CD (P=0.05) 0.19 0.17 0.25 3,241 3,241 NS

pH influenced the N, P and K avaibility. Imbalanced use ofnutrient (only N) through inorganic fertilizer had deleteri-ous effect on soil health, leading to unsustainable produc-tivity even less than the control. The results confirm thefindings of Gathala et al. (2007), Kumari et al. (2013) andSingh and Wanjari, (2013).

System economicsCrop fertilized with 120 kg N/ha resulted in signifi-

March 2018] NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN MAIZE 19

cantly higher gross returns ( 88,323/ha), net returns( 34,906/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (0.58) (Table 1). Ben-efit: cost ratio (B:C) with 120 kg N/ha was 23.4 and31.8% higher than 80 and 40 kg N/ha, whereas in the con-trol, higher dose of only nitrogen and omission of phos-phorus fertilized plot gave negative value. Effect of 120 kgN/ha on beneficial return was reported by Upasani et al.(2013).

Among the phosphorus levels, crop fertilized with 80kg P

2O

5 ha recorded significantly the maximum gross re-

turns ( 1,07,720/ha), net returns ( 48,866/ha) and B : Cratio (0.83). Maximum B : C ratio was 9.2% higher thancrop fertilized with 40 kg P2O5/ha in a system as a resultof significant increase in yield owing to phosphorus appli-cation. Again crops fertilized with 0 kg P2O5/ha in a sys-tem showed negative B:C ratio due to very poor yield.

Among the potassium levels, the maximum gross re-turns ( 82,416/ha) was recorded with 40 kg K

2O/ha; how-

ever, net returns and B : C ratio were not influenced andboth were more or less statistically similar because of po-tassium application was not as responsive as the phospho-rus.

The maximum gross returns ( 123,953/ha), net returns( 63,775/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.06) were recordedwith 120 kg K

2O with 80 kg P

2O

5/ha as a result of system

significant increase in yield owing to phosphorus applica-tion. However, interaction effect of N and K resultedmaximum gross returns ( 91,203/ha) and net returns( 36,408/ha) in the crop fertilized with 120 kg N with 40kg K2O/ha owing to very higher yield.

By the 3 factor interaction of N, P and K the maximumgross returns ( 1,28,951/ha) and net returns ( 67,396/ha)were recorded with higher level of fertilizer doseN120P80K40 kg/ha. It indicates that crops grown at higherfertilizer dose as well as all the combinations of N, P andK levels were economically viable except crop fertilizedwithout P fertilizer. Kumar et al. (2005) also and Pathak etal. (2005) reported similar results.

Thus, it may be concluded that balanced use of fertil-izer with N120P80K40 kg/ha in long-term maize–wheat crop-ping system maintained maximum individual crop yield ofmaize (4.21 t/ha), wheat (4.52 t/ha) as well as maize-equivalent yield with net returns of 67,396/ha and B:Cratio of 1.09. Whereas, continues use of nitrogenous fer-tilizer alone not only deteriorated soil fertility but alsodrastically reduced yield in acidic soil of Jharkhand.

REFERENCES

Gathala, M.K., Kanthaliya, P.C., Verma, A. and Chahar, M.S. 2007.Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil propertiesand humus fractions in the long-term fertilizer experiments.Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 55: 360–363.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures forAgricultural Research, edn 2, pp. 97–107. An InternationalRice Research Institute Book. Wiley-Inter-Science Publica-tion-John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Hanway, J.J. 1962. Corn growth and composition in relation to soilfertility: III. Percentages of N, P and K in different plant partin relation to stage of growth. Agronomy Journal 54: 222–229.

Jat, N.K., Kumar, A., Meena, S.R., Rana, D.S., Meena, B.P. andRana, K.S. 2012. Influence of integrated nutrient manage-ment on the productivity, quality and soil health of maize(Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. In-dian Journal of Agronomy 57(4): 327–332.

Karlen, D.L. Flannery, R.L. and Sadler, E.J. 1988. Aerial accumu-lation and partitioning of nutrients by corn. Agronomy Jour-nal 80: 232–242.

Kumar, A., Gautam, R.C., Singh, R. and Rana, K.S. 2005. Growth,yield and economics of maize(Zea mays)–wheat (Triticumaestivum) cropping sequence as influenced by integratednutrient management. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sci-ences 75(11): 709–711.

Kumar, R., Karmakar, S., Kumari, S., Sarkar, A.K., Datta, S.K. andMajumdar, K. 2013. Improving productivity and profitabilityof the maize–wheat system in Jharkhand. Better Crops 97(4):29–31.

Kumari, G., Thakur, S.K., Kumar, N. and Mishra, B. 2013. Long-term effect of fertilizer, manure and lime on yieldsustainability and soil organic carbon status under maize(Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system inAlfisols. Indian Journal of Agronomy 58(2): 152–158.

Table 6. Fertility status of soil after crop harvesting (31 crop cycle)as influenced by long-term nutrient management in maize–wheat system (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Soil Available N Available P Available KpH (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)

N0P

0K

06.05 215.1 13.1 137.3

N40

P0K

05.14 198.6 23.2 129.4

N40

P0K

405.61 225.5 19.7 176.0

N40

P40

K0

5.56 213.0 93.9 118.8N

40P

40K

405.45 251.8 87.9 166.3

N40

P80

K0

5.36 237.4 201.3 115.1N

40P

80K

405.53 268.7 183.7 152.9

N80

P0K

04.91 225.7 17.2 120.6

N80

P0K

405.46 256.5 12.9 171.6

N80

P40

K0

5.20 234.4 88.0 116.3N

80P

40K

405.43 264.9 84.0 146.2

N80

P80

K0

5.27 243.4 193.3 112.4N

80P

80K

405.31 264.1 165.4 127.2

N120

P0K

04.52 262.7 12.2 106.1

N120

P0K

404.54 271.2 13.7 136.7

N120

P40

K0

5.10 283.0 85.3 104.2N

120P

40K

405.02 292.2 76.8 88.0

N120

P80

K0

5.19 286.0 153.5 91.6N

120P

80K

405.22 328.6 150.3 108.6

SEm± 0.07 9.92 3.58 6.31CD (P=0.05) 0.20 NS NS 17.89Initial (1983) 6.40 260 19.5 195

20 MAJHI ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

Masood, T., Gul, R. Munsif, F., Jalal, F. Hussain, Z. Noreen, N. K,Nasiruddin, H. and Khan, H. 2011. Effect of different phos-phorus levels on the yield components of maize. SarhadJournal of Agriculture 27(2): 167–170.

Mumtaz, M.Z., Aslam, M., Jamil, M. and Ahmad, M. 2014. Effectof different phosphorus levels on growth and yield of wheatunder water stress conditions. Journal of Environment andEarth Science 4(19): 23–30.

Nasrollahzadeh, S., Aysan, H., Kolvanagh, J. Shafagh, S. andShaker, K. 2015. Effect of nitrogen rates and weed interfer-ence on yield and yield components of corn (Zea mays L.).International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Re-search 7: 1–6.

Pathak, S.K., Singh, S.B., Jha, R.N. and Sharma, R.P. 2005. Effectof nutrient management on nutrient uptake and changes insoil fertility in maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum)cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(4): 269–273.

Porpavai, S., Devasenapathy, P., Siddeswaran, K. and Jayaraj, T.2011. Impact of various rice-based cropping system on soilfertility. Journal of Cereals and Oilseeds 2(3): 43–46.

Regmi, A.P., Ladha, J.K., Pathak, H., Pashuquine, E., Dawani, D.,Hobbs, P.R., Joshi, D., Maskey, S.L. and Pandey, S.P. 2002.Yield and soil fertility trends in a 20 years rice-wheat experi-ment in Nepal. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:857–867.

Sahay, S. and Singh, B. P. 2004. Effect of cropping and nutrientuse on yield and protein content of wheat. Journal of Re-search (BAU) 16(2): 197–201.

Seidel, E.P., Willian, R., Bruna, B., Joice, K., Alisson, D.C. andJonatan, E.F. 2015. Nitrogen and potassium topdressing inmaize intercropped with Brachiaria ruziziensis. SustainableAgriculture Research 4(4): 49–56.

Sepat, S. And Rai, R.K. 2013. Effect of phosphorus levels andsources on productivity, nutrient uptake and soil fertility ofmaize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping sys-tem. Crop Research 58(3): 292–297.

Sharma, S.K. and Jain, N.K. 2014. Nutrient management in wheat(Triticum aestivum)-based cropping systems in sub-humidsouthern zone of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Agronomy59(1): 26–33.

Singh, R. And Agrawal, S.K. 2001. Growth and yield of wheat(Triticum aestivum) as influenced by levels of farmyard ma-nure and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agronomy 46(3): 462–467.

Singh, M. and Wanjari, R.H. 2013. Measures to sustain and restoredeclined productivity in Aifisoles under long term fertilizerexperiments. Indian Journal of Fertilisers 9(2): 24–32.

Upasani, R.R., Thakur, R., Puran, A.N. and Singh, M.K. 2013. Ef-fect of nitrogen and weed control on productivity of wheat.Indian Journal of Weed Science 42(2): 106–108.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 21__25 (March 2018)

Weed control in greengram (Vigna radiata) and its residual effect on Indianmustard (Brassica juncea)

S.P. SINGH1, R.S. YADAV2, AMIT KUMAWAT3 AND R.C. BAIRWA4

Agricultural Research Station, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Rajasthan 334 006

Received : August 2017; Revised accepted : December 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy (kharif) season of 2013 and 2014 at Agricultural ResearchStation, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Rajasthan to study the effect of pre- andpost-emergence application of herbicides on greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] and their carry over effecton Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. & Coss] during succeeding winter (rabi) seasons of 2013–14 and2014–15. The experiment comprised 10 weed control treatments, viz. pendimethalin 1,000 g/ha (pre-em),imazethapyr 50 g and 70 g/ha (early post-em), imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 800, 900, and 1,000 g/ha(pre-em), imazethapyr + imazamox 60 and 70 g/ha (early post-em), 2 hand-weedings at 20 and 40 days after sow-ing (DAS) and weedy check applied to greengram in randomized block design with 3 replications. Two hand-weedings at 20 and 40 DAS resulted in the lowest weed count of broad-leaf and grassy weeds and weed dry mat-ter at 60 days after sowing. It also recorded significantly the highest number of branches/plant, pods/plant, seeds/pod and seed and straw yields over the other treatments. Among different herbicidal weed-control treatments, thehighest weed-control efficiency was recorded with application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 900 g/ha, and lowest weed index was recorded in imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 800 g/ha. Application of her-bicides did not cause any adverse effect on succeeding Indian mustard in both the years.

Key words: Greengram, Mustard, Pendimethalin, Residual effect, Weeds

1Corresponding author’s Email: spbhakar2010@gmail.com1,4Assistant Professor (Agronomy), 2Professor (Agronomy), 3SeniorResearch Fellow (Agronomy)

Greengram is one of the major pulse crops in Indiawhich is cultivated in arid and semi-arid region. Lack ofimproved cultural practices, cultivation on marginal andsub-marginal lands of poor fertility, inadequate fertiliza-tion, monsoon-dependent cultivation, heavy weed infesta-tion, high sensitivity to pests and diseases, and non-avail-ability of suitable varieties are the major factors respon-sible for low yield of rainy (kharif) pulses includinggreengram. Traditionally, weeds in greengram are con-trolled by manual weeding and hoeing at appropriategrowth stages. Manual weeding is time-consuming andexpensive and often not possible due to intermittent rainsduring rainy season. In the era of reduced drudgery labouris also becoming scarce, not available in time and expen-sive to further increase the cost of cultivation. Under sucha situation, use of appropriate herbicide with suitable doseremains the pertinent choice for timely control of weeds.

Keeping in view the diverse weed flora, no single her-bicide provides desired weed control, hence, herbicide

mixtures or sequential use of herbicides may be more ef-fective. Several workers have reported the effect ofpendimethalin and imazethpyr on weed control and pro-ductivity of greengram/ pulses (Kaur et al., 2010). Theseherbicides are reported to have long persistence in soil(Das, 2008) and therefore, the knowledge of their residualeffect on succeeding crop in a crop sequence is essentialbefore making any recommendation for the growers.Greengram–Indian mustard is a common crop rotation insemi-arid north-western region of India. The present studywas, therefore, conducted to study the effect of pre- andearly post-emergence herbicides on weed management ingreengram and its carry-over effect on succeeding Indianmustard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field study was conducted during the rainy (kharif)season of 2013 and 2014 at the research farm of Agricul-tural Research Station, Swami Keshwanand RajasthanAgricultural University, Bikaner, Rajasthan. The treat-ments comprised pre-emergence application ofpendimethalin at 1,000 g/ha and imazethapyr +pendimethalin at 800, 900 and 1,000 g/ha, post-emergence

Research Paper

22 SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

application of imazethapyr (ready mix/company made) at50 and 70 g/ha, imazethapyr + imazamox (ready mix) at60 and 70 g/ha and compared 2 hand-weedings at 20 and40 days after sowing (is also considered as weed free atthe time of calculating weed index) and weedy check ingreengram. These treatments were evaluated in a random-ized block design with 3 replications. The soil of experi-mental site was loamy sand having 0.08% organic carbon,8.22 pH, 78, 22 and 210 kg/ha available N, P and

K re-

spectively. Greengram ‘SML 668’ was sown on 18 July2013 and 16 July 2014 at 30 cm row- to -row spacing us-ing seed rate of 20 kg/ha and was harvested on 11 October2013 and 10 October 2014 respectively. Recommendeddose of fertilizers (20 kg N + 40 kg P2O5 + 40 kg K2O/ha)was applied basal. Pre-emergence application ofpendimethalin and imazethapyr + pendimethalin was doneon the next day of sowing, whereas the post-emergenceapplication of imazethapyr and imazethapyr + imazamoxwas made at 25 DAS (3–4-leaf stage) as per the treatmentswith knap-sack sprayer. Weed density was recorded byusing quadrate of 0.25 m2 at 60 DAS in all the treatmentsand then converted into number of weeds/m2. The weedswere dried in oven till a constant weight was observed andthen converted into g/m2 . The data on total weed countand weed dry matter were subjected to square-root trans-formation to normalize their distribution (Gomez andGomez, 1984). Weed-control efficiency was calculated onthe basis of transformed values of total weed dry weight.The residual effect of different herbicides applied ingreengram was studied on the succeeding Indian mustard.In case of Indian mustard, plant population/unit area, plantheight and yields were recorded at maturity.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect on weedsThe experimental field was infested with Amaranthus

spinosus L., Digera arvensis Forssk., Trianthemaportulacastrum L., Gisekia poedious, Mollugo verticillataL., Euphorbia hirta L., Aristida depressa Retz., Portulacaoleracea L., Cenchrus biflorus Roxb., Cleome viscose L.,Tribulus terrestris L., Corchorus tridense L., Cyperusrotundus L., Eleusine verticillata Roxb. and Eragrostistennela (L.) P. Beauv. during the 2 seasons of experimen-tation.

The density of both broad-leaf and grassy weeds andtheir total dry weight recorded at 60 DAS were signifi-cantly reduced by all the weed-control treatments com-pared to weedy check (Table 1). However, 2 hand-weedings recorded the lowest number of broad-leaf,grassy and total weeds compared to rest of the weed-con-trol treatments. Among different herbicides, pre-emer-gence application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin 1,000 Ta

ble

1.E

ffec

t of

wee

d-co

ntro

l mea

sure

s on

wee

d co

unt,

wee

d dr

y w

eigh

t, w

eed-

cont

rol e

ffic

ienc

y an

d w

eed

inde

x in

gre

engr

am (

pool

ed d

ata

of 2

yea

rs)

Tre

atm

ent

Dos

eA

pplic

atio

nW

eed

coun

t (N

o./m

2 ) a

t 60

DA

SW

eeds

dry

Wee

d co

ntro

lW

eed

(g/h

a)tim

eB

road

lea

fG

rass

yT

otal

wei

ght (

g/m

2 ) a

tef

fici

ency

inde

x60

DA

S (

%)

(%)

Pend

imet

hali

n1,

000

–5.

47 (

29.4

6)0.

81 (

0.17

)5.

49 (

29.6

3)5.

75 (

32.5

)21

.217

.1Im

azet

hapy

r50

3–4-

leaf

sta

ge3.

58 (

12.5

5)1.

99 (

3.45

)4.

04 (

15.9

9)3.

68 (

14.8

)49

.615

.8Im

azet

hapy

r70

3–4-

leaf

sta

ge2.

62 (

6.41

)1.

63 (

2.16

)3.

01 (

8.57

)1.

94 (

3.3)

73.4

17.2

Imaz

etha

pyr

+ pe

ndim

etha

lin80

0–

1.56

(2.

08)

0.71

(0.

00)

1.56

(2.

08)

1.07

(0.

7)85

.33.

7Im

azet

hapy

r +

pend

imet

halin

900

–1.

37 (

1.40

)0.

71 (

0.00

)1.

37 (

1.40

)0.

90 (

0.3)

87.7

5.2

Imaz

etha

pyr

+ pe

ndim

etha

lin1,

000

–0.

98 (

0.47

)0.

71 (

0.00

)0.

98 (

0.47

)1.

28 (

1.3)

82.5

6.1

Imaz

etha

pyr

+ im

azam

ox60

3–4-

leaf

sta

ge2.

16 (

4.20

)0.

99 (

0.49

)2.

27 (

4.68

)2.

63 (

6.7)

64.0

16.1

Imaz

etha

pyr

+ im

azam

ox70

3-4-

leaf

sta

ge1.

56 (

1.92

)0.

71 (

0.00

)1.

56 (

1.92

)1.

13 (

0.8)

84.5

17.1

2 ha

nd-w

eedi

ngs

–20

and

40

DA

S0.

71 (

0.00

)0.

71 (

0.00

)0.

71 (

0.00

)0.

71 (

0.0)

90.3

–W

eedy

che

ck–

–7.

81 (

60.5

6)2.

29 (

4.80

)8.

11 (

65.3

6)7.

30 (

52.9

)–

31.8

SE

m±

––

0.63

0.09

0.23

1.69

––

CD

(P=

0.05

)–

–1.

460.

210.

533.

91–

–

Ori

gina

l va

lues

are

in

pare

nthe

ses,

n+0

.5 s

quar

e ro

ot t

rans

form

atio

n; D

AS,

day

s af

ter

sow

ing

March 2018] WEED CONTROL IN GREENGRAM AND ITS EFFECT ON MUSTARD 23

g/ha was the most effective in reducing the density of bothbroad-leaf and grassy weeds and total dry weight ofweeds, followed by its lower doses (imazethapyr +pendimethalin 900 g/ha and 800 g/ha) and application ofimazethapyr + imazamox 60 g/ha and 70 g/ha (Table 1).Application of pendimethalin 1,000 g/ha as pre-emergencewas effective against grassy weeds, whereas imazethapyr50 g and imazethapyr 70 g were at par and significantlyreduced the density of broad-leaf weeds as compared toweedy check. Pendimethalin is a versatile pre-emergenceherbicide which is rapidly absorbed by germinating weedsand inhibits cell-division and cell elongation in the rootand shoot meristems of the susceptible plants/weeds. Thegrowth of susceptible plants/ weeds is inhibited directlyfollowing absorption through hypocotyls and shoot region.The present results confirm the findings of Yadav et al.(2011).

Imazethapyr and imazethapyr + imazamox areimidazolinone herbicide which are absorbed both by theroots and the shoots, and can effectively control a broadspectrum of weeds (Saltoni et al., 2004). These inhibit theplastid enzyme acetolactate syntheses (ALS) in plantswhich catalyses the first step in the biosynthesis of essen-tial branched chain amino acids (valine, leucine, isoleu-cine). The ALS inhibitors thus stop cell-division and re-duce carbohydrate translocation in the susceptible plants(Das, 2008). Imazethapyr and imazethapyr + imazamoxare selective herbicides and are applied as post-emergencewith a view to control late-emerging weeds. Results ofweed density corroborate with the findings of Sasikala etal. (2007) and Singh et al. (2017). Reduction in both den-sity and dry weight of grassy weeds with application ofimazethapyr + imazamox might be due to the more effec-tiveness of imazamox against grassy and thick broad-leaf

weeds. Hand-weeding twice removed the weeds com-pletely and created conditions which were morefavourable for crop growth, and ultimately resulted in thelowest density of later-emerged weeds and their lowestbiomass during the crop-growth period. The results con-firm the findings of Punia et al. (2011). Lower density ofweeds by imazethapyr + pendimethalin in reducing weeddry matter may be ascribed to broad-spectrum activity ofherbicidal combination, particularly on emergence of bothbroad-leaf and grassy weeds and its greater efficiency toretard cell-division of meristems causing rapid drying ofweeds. In earlier study, Kanter et al. (1999) reported about84.6% control of weed biomass with application ofimazethapyr in chickpea. Papierniks et al. (2003) also re-ported that, imazethapyr application inhibitedacetohydroxy acid synthase and the synthesis of branchedchain amino acids and was effective for weed control inlegumes. The highest weed-control efficiency was re-corded with application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin(ready mix) 900 g/ha and the lowest weed index was re-corded in imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) 800 g/ha.

Effect on greengramAll weed management options resulted in significant

increase in number of branches/plant over the weedycheck (Table 2). The highest number of branches/plantrecorded with 2 hand-weedings was at par with all thedoses of imazethapyr + pendimethalin (800, 900 and1,000 g/ha). This might be owing to better availability ofresources to the crop in absence of weeds. The lowestnumber of branches/plant under recorded under weedycheck might be due to severe competition by weeds tocrop for resources.

Table 2. Effect of weed-control measures on yield attributes, yields and economics of greengram (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Dose Application Branches/ Pods/ Seeds/ 1,000- Yield (kg/ha) Net Benefit:(g/ha) time plant plant pod grains Seed Straw returns cost

weight ( /ha) ( /ha) ratio(g)

Pendimethalin 1,000 – 3.22 54.44 4.19 24.37 749 1,451 19,970 2.20Imazethapyr 50 3–4-leaf stage 3.03 53.49 3.81 24.25 760 1,502 20,881 2.29Imazethapyr 70 3–4-leaf stage 3.11 55.20 3.91 24.11 748 1,502 20,012 2.21Imazethapyr + pendimethalin 800 – 3.59 62.87 4.61 24.83 870 1,613 25,203 2.47Imazethapyr + pendimethalin 900 – 3.52 60.92 4.45 24.75 856 1,541 24,227 2.40Imazethapyr + pendimethalin 1,000 – 3.44 59.65 4.36 24.70 848 1,546 23,672 2.35Imazethapyr + imazamox 60 3–4-leaf stage 3.32 54.47 4.05 24.29 758 1,497 21,411 2.37Imazethapyr + imazamox 70 3–4-leaf stage 3.30 55.54 3.95 24.40 749 1,495 20,946 2.332 hand-weedings – 20 and 40 DAS 3.77 63.37 4.76 25.09 903 1,546 25,903 2.46Weedy check – – 2.78 42.30 3.53 23.70 616 1,157 15,226 2.03

SEm± – – 0.11 2.68 0.10 0.81 22 27 – –CD (P=0.05) – – 0.32 7.70 0.29 NS 64 81 – –

24 SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

The number of pods/plant, seeds/pod and seed andstraw yields were significantly increased under variousweed-control treatments as compared to weedy check(Table 2) and the effect was more pronounced with 2hand-weeding treatment, closely followed by pre-emer-gence application of imazethapyr + pendimethalin (800,900 and 1,000 g/ha) and pendimethalin (1.0 kg/ha). Thiswas attributed to minimum infestation of weeds and con-sequently lesser competition for growth resources. Theresults corroborate with the findings of Singh et al. (2006)and Yadav et al. (2014). Reduced crop-weed competitionduring critical phase of crop growth better regulates thecomplex process of yield formation owing to better avail-ability of resources to the crop plant. Reduced crop-weedcompetition under different weed-control treatments mighthave influenced the ‘source’ by virtue of higher photosyn-thetic and metabolic activity which in turn improvedgrowth and consequently yield components of crop. Theadverse effect of weed competition under present investi-gation is clearly reflected under weedy check whereindense population of weeds reduced crop growth comparedto 2 hand-weedings treatment as well as other treatmentsand ultimately resulted in reduced number of pods/plantand seeds/pod. Among different treatments, application ofimazethapyr + pendimethalin 800 g/ha resulted in higherseed and straw yields over weedy check and was at parwith its higher doses and 2 hand-weedings (Table 2).Kanter et al. (1999) observed 63.6% higher seed yield ofchickpea over unweeded check with application ofimazethapyr. The reduced crop-weed competition causedsignificant increase in growth characters and yield, andultimately led to the higher seed yield of greengram. Thesignificant improvement in seed as well as straw yield asa result of 2 hand-weedings and all herbicidal weed-con-trol treatments could be ascribed to the fact that yield of

Table 3. Residual effect of weed-control measures applied in greengram on succeeding Indian mustard (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Dose Application Plant stand/m Plant Seed Straw(g/ha) time row length at height at yield yield

maturity maturity (cm) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)

Pendimethalin 1,000 – 7.34 149.7 1,082 2,337Imazethapyr 50 3–4-leaf stage 7.84 151.0 1,072 2,330Imazethapyr 70 3–4-leaf stage 8.34 151.1 1,047 2,119Imazethapyr + pendimethalin 800 – 7.84 149.8 1,030 2,091Imazethapyr + pendimethalin 900 – 8.34 150.4 1,023 2,084Imazethapyr + pendimethalin 1,000 – 7.67 150.8 1,014 2,034Imazethapyr + imazamox 60 3–4-leaf stage 7.67 152.6 1,045 2,073Imazethapyr + imazamox 70 3–4-leaf stage 8.17 152.8 1,027 2,0112 hand-weedings – 20 and 40 DAS 7.50 150.4 1,073 2,121Weedy check – – 7.83 149.5 1,027 2,038

SEm± – – 0.43 0.86 22 47CD (P=0.05) – – NS NS NS NS

crop depends on several yield components which are in-terrelated. Under weedy situation, at early crop growthstage a greater part of resources present in soil and envi-ronment were depleted by weeds for their growth. Thecrop plant thus, faced stress which ultimately affected itsgrowth, development and yield. Upadhayay et al. (2013)also reported similar results in soybean .

EconomicsAll weed-control treatments recorded higher net returns

and benefit: cost ratio over the weedy check (Table 2).However, the highest net returns and benefit: cost ratiowere obtained with 2 hand-weedings. Among differentherbicidal treatments, application of imazethapyr +pendamethalin 800 g recorded the highest mean net re-turns ( 25,203/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.47), closelyfollowed by its higher doses. Among other treatments,imazethapyr + imazemox 60 g/ha resulted in higher netreturns ( 21,411/ha), with a benefit: cost ratio of 2.37 de-spite the higher cost involved. The higher seed yield re-corded with this treatment might be responsible for highernet returns. These findings are in close vicinity with thosereported by Yadav et al. (2014).

Residual effect on succeeding Indian mustardDifferent weed-management practices or application of

different herbicides applied to greengram did not causeany adverse effect on plant population, plant height andyield of succeeding mustard crop on pooled mean of 2years (Table 3).

From the present investigation, it can be concluded thatall the weed control treatments are almost equally impor-tant in controlling weeds and improving crop yield.Imazethapyr + pendamethalin 800 g/ha was superior to allwith respect to yield, yield attributes and monitory returns.

March 2018] WEED CONTROL IN GREENGRAM AND ITS EFFECT ON MUSTARD 25

REFERENCES

Das, T.K. 2008. Fate and persistence of herbicides in soil. WeedScience: Basics and Application, pp. 465–484. JAINBROTHERS, 16/873, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, NewDelhi.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures forAgricultural Research, edn 2, pp. 316–355. A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley & Sons, New York, theUSA.

Kanter, F., Elkoca, E. and Zengin, H. 1999. Chemical andagronomical weed control in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)Tropical Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 23: 631–635.

Kaur, G., Brar, H.S. and Singh, G. 2010. Effect of weed managementon weeds, nutrient uptake, nodulation, growth and yield ofsummer mungbean (Vigna radiata). Indian Journal of WeedScience 42(1 and 2): 114–119.

Papiernik, S.K., Grieve, C.M., Yates, S.R. and Lesch, S.M. 2003.Phytotoxic effects of salinity, imazethypyr and chlorimuronon selected weed species. Weed Science 51(4): 610–617.

Punia, S.S., Singh, S. and Yadav, D. 2011. Bioefficacy ofimazethapyr and chlorimuron-ethyl in cluster bean and theirresidual effect on succeeding rabi crops. Indian Journal ofWeed Science 43(1, 2): 48–53.

Saltoni, N., Shropshire, C., Cowan, T. and Sikkema, P. 2004. Toler-ance of black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil application

of S-metalochlor and imazethapyr. Weed Technology 18:111–118.

Sasikala, B., Kumari, C.R., Obulamma, U. and Reddy, C.R. 2007.Effect of chemical weed control on yield and economics ofrabi groundnut. Journal of Research, ANGRAU 35: 70–73.

Singh, P., Nepalia, V. and Tomar, S.S. 2006. Effect of weed controland nutrient management on soybean (Glycine max) produc-tivity. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51: 314–317.

Singh, S.P., Yadav, R.S., Godara, S.L. and Kumawat, A. 2017. Ef-ficacy of herbicides in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) underhot arid conditions of Rajasthan. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 62(2): 201–205.

Upadhyay, V.B., Singh, A. and Rawat, A. 2013. Efficacy of earlypost-emergence herbicides against associated weeds in soy-bean. Indian Journal of Weed Science 44(1): 73–75.

Yadav, R.S., Singh, S.P., Sharma, V. and Bairwa, R.C. 2014. Herbi-cidal weed control in greengram in arid zone of Rajasthan.(In) 9th Biennial Conference of Indian Society of Weed Sci-ence on Emerging Challenges in Weed Management. Direc-torate of Weed Science Research, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

Yadav, S.L., Kaushik, M.K. and Mundra, S.L. 2011. Effect of weedcontrol practices on weed dry weight, nutrient uptake andyield of clusterbean [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.]under rainfed condition. Indian Journal of Weed Science43(1, 2): 81–84.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 26__31 (March 2018)

Production potential and economic viability of bed planted wheat (Triticumaestivum) as influenced by different intercropping systems and levels of

nutrients applied to intercrops

MADHULIKA PANDEY1 AND THAKAR SINGH2

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004

Received : June 2016; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, during the winter (rabi) sea-sons of 2012–13 and 2013–14 in a split-plot design with 3 replications. The main plots treatments involved 5 inter-cropping systems, viz. wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) + spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.), wheat + fenugreek(Trigonella foenum-graccum L.), wheat + fodder oats (Avena sativa L.), wheat + canola (Brassica napus L.) andwheat + linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.). Each main plot was divided into 4 subplots to allocate the different lev-els of recommended dose of nutrients, i.e. 0, 50, 75 and 100% of recommended dose of nutrients to intercrops.Higher biological, straw and grain yields of wheat were observed in wheat + spinach (12.17, 6.77, 5.40 t/ha) inter-cropping system which was statistically at par with wheat + fenugreek (12.01, 6.72, 5.29 t/ha) and wheat + fodderoats (11.74, 6.61, 5.12 t/ha), but significantly higher than wheat + linseed (11.37, 6.29, 5.07 t/ha) and wheat +canola (10.39, 5.64, 4.75 t/ha) intercropping system. Significantly lowest values biological, straw and grain yieldwere observed in wheat + canola intercropping system than the rest of the intercropping systems. Wheat + fodderoats intercropping system exhibited significantly higher wheat-equivalent yield, system productivity and the eco-nomic returns followed by the wheat + spinach intercropping system compared with the other intercropping sys-tems. With the increased dose of nutrients from 0 to 100% applied to intercrops on area basis, there was progres-sive increase in yield of intercrops. The application of 100% recommended dose of nutrients to the intercrops re-sulted in significantly higher value of wheat-equivalent yield, system productivity and economic returns than theother recommended dose of nutrients applied to the intercrops.

Key words: Bed-planted wheat, Intercropping systems, System productivity, Wheat-equivalent yield

Based on a part of Ph.D. Thesis, submitted by the first author toPunjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana in 2015 (unpublished)

2Corresponding author’s Email: thakarsingh@pau.edu;hodagr@pau.edu1Teaching Associate (Agronomy), Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricul-tural University, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh 284 003; 2Senior Agronomistand Head, Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004

The population of the developing countries like India isincreasing day by day but the food production remainsstagnant due to low crop productivity and limited re-sources. So, there is need for increasing production offoodgrains per unit of the resource availability. Smallfarmers in many countries are getting low production dueto limited resources. Intercropping is a possible way ofincreasing the productivity on small farms, as it providessecurity against potential losses of monoculture. Intercrop-ping increases diversity in the cropping system and results

in higher yield on a certain piece of land by making moreeffective usage of the existing growth resources such aslight, heat and water with a combination of crops of di-verse rooting ability, canopy arrangement, height and nu-trient requirements based on the corresponding exploita-tion of growth resources by the component sole crops(Lithourgidis et al., 2011; Eskandari, 2011). Chapagainand Riseman (2014) also reported that intercropping im-proved the biomass, nitrogen and grain protein contentcompared with monoculture. Therefore, in modern agri-culture, it can help to increase crop productivity particu-larly at small farms as it satisfies the diversified demandsof the farm people (Imran et al., 2011). As conventionalagriculture systems become dominated by monospecificcrops, nutrient cycles become more open and thereforemore susceptible to losses through leaching, run-off andvolatilization (Crews and Peoples, 2005). Growing two ormore than two crops in the same field at the same time asin intercropping system increases efficient utilization of

Research Paper

March 2018] INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS ON BED PLANTED WHEAT 27

available nutrients, reduces nutrient leaching and increasesnutrient cycling, through complementary resource parti-tioning. This in turn can decrease the amount of externalfertilizer inputs. The greatest limitation of increasing theproductivity of crops in intercropping system is the inad-equate supply of nutrients, as most of the soils are poor innative fertility and continuous application of fertilizerseven in balanced form may not sustain soil fertility andproductivity. Thus, balanced fertilization along with soundcrop husbandry provides a great scope for increasing pro-ductivity. Presently, sole wheat is grown in Punjab. In bed-planted wheat, there is scope of growing some intercropsin furrows during early growth stages of crop. The produc-tion potential of bed-planted wheat and different inter-crops may also vary in relation to the intercropping sys-tems and different levels of nutrients applied to intercrops.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out during the winter (rabi)seasons of 2012–13 and 2013–14 at research farm of De-partment of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana (30º 54’ N, 75º 48’ E, 247 m above the meansea-level). The soil of the experimental field was loamysand with pH 7.2. It was moderately fertile, being low inorganic carbon (0.26%), available nitrogen (81.5 kg/ha),available potassium (103.0 kg/ha) and medium in avail-able phosphorus (17.5 kg/ha). Sowing of wheat on bedswas done with the help of a bed planter, which enables 2wheat rows, 20 cm apart on 37.5 cm wide bed and makes30 cm wide furrow between 2 beds and intercrops weresown in consecutive furrows. Sowing time for the wheatvariety ‘PBW 621’ and intercrops was 9 November 2012and 12 November 2013 respectively. The control of weedson both beds and furrow was done by hand-weeding.Other package of practices for wheat and intercrops werefollowed as per PAU recommendations. Wheat and inter-crops were sown in 2 : 1 row arrangement. The experi-ment was laid out in a split-plot design with 3 replicationswith 5 intercropping systems, i.e. wheat + spinach, wheat+ fenugreek, wheat + fodder oats, wheat + canola andwheat + linseed, in the main plots. Each main plot wasdivided into 4 subplots to allocate the different levels ofrecommended dose of nutrients, i.e. 0, 50, 75 and 100% tointercrops. The nitrogen, phosphorus and potash were ap-plied through urea, single superphosphate and muriate ofpotash respectively.

During 2012–13, it rained 162.0 mm in 13 rainy days(no rainfall during October and November, 17.4 mm inDecember, 8.2 mm in January, 96.4 mm in February, 35.6mm in March and 4.4 mm in April), whereas during 2013–14, total 227.0 mm rainfall in 18 rainy days with reason-able distribution was received (36.2 mm in October, 4.6

mm in November, 28.0 mm December, 55.5 mm in Janu-ary, 36.7 mm in February, 35.0 mm in March and 31 mmin April). The intercropping systems were evaluated interms of wheat-equivalent yield (q/ha), system productiv-ity (kg/ha/day) and economic returns. Economic returns( /ha) for individual crop in intercropping system werecalculated on the basis of prevailing market rates of inputsand selling price of produce. The system productivity wascalculated by converting the yield of all crops grown in in-tercropping system in terms of wheat-equivalent yield inkg/ha and dividing it with the duration of intercroppingsystem. It was expressed as kg/ha/day. Yield of individualcrop was converted into equivalent yield (q/ha) on thebasis of prevailing market price of the crop. It was calcu-lated by the following formula:

Yield of intercrops × Price of intercropsWEY = Grain yield of wheat +

Price of wheat

The average prices (2 years) of wheat, canola and lin-seed grain and straw for calculation of WEY and eco-nomic returns were taken as 13,880, 28,770, 34,000,2,000, 1,000, 100 /t respectively. The average prices (2years) of spinach, fenugreek and oats fodder were 3,500,4,500 and 1,560 /t respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Meteorological observationsIn this research experiment, the meteorological data

showed marked variation in weather conditions during the2 years of experiment (Table 1). Precipitation during thecrop season during 2013–14 was equally distributed and65.0 mm higher than the crop season during 2012–13.Consequently, to meet the water requirement of cropsmore irrigation was given during the first year than thesecond. Heavy rainfall in February (96.4 mm) during2012–13, resulted in the lodging of the wheat, canola andlinseed crop grown as sole or intercropped. Average tem-perature during February–April coinciding with the repro-ductive and maturity stages of the wheat, canola and lin-seed crops remained lower during 2013–14 than the cropseason of 2010-13 which elongates the growing periods ofthese crops and resulted in better yield of wheat, canolaand linseed crop during 2013–14.

Yield-attributing charactersThere was significant effect of intercropping systems

on ears/meter row length. Among the intercropping sys-tems, ears/m row length were maximum in wheat + spin-ach intercropping system (82.6) which was statistically atpar with wheat + fenugreek, wheat + fodder oats andwheat + linseed but significantly higher than wheat +canola intercropping system during both the growing sea-sons. On the basis of pooled analysis of 2 years data, the

28 PANDEY AND SINGH [Vol. 63, No. 1

highest number of ears/m row length and grains/ear wasrecorded in wheat + spinach intercropping system whichwas statistically at par with wheat + fenugreek and wheat+ oats fodder but significantly higher than wheat + linseedand wheat + canola intercropping systems. Wheat + canolaintercropping system showed the lowest values of ears/mrow length and grains/ear than the other intercropping sys-tems. Kumar (2008) and Khan et al. (2005) also reportedthe similar findings that wheat intercropped with Indianmustard resulted in significantly lower grain yield andyield attributes. The data showed ears/m row length andgrains/ear were non-significantly influenced by differentdoses of nutrients applied to intercrops (Table 2). Wheatcrop sown on raised bed and fertilized with 100% recom-mended dose of nutrients, whereas different levels of rec-ommended dose of nutrients to intercrops were applied infurrows due to this competition between wheat and the

component crops for the resources were minimum. Yieldattributes (ear weight, ear length and 1,000-seed weight)were not affected significantly in relation to the intercrop-ping systems and different levels of nutrients applied tointercrops.

Biological, grain and straw yield of wheat and yield ofintercrops

The pooled data presented in Table 3 depicted thatamong the intercropping systems higher biological, strawand grain yields of wheat were found in wheat + spinach(12.17, 6.77, 5.40 t/ha) intercropping system which wasstatistically at par with wheat + fenugreek, wheat + fodderoats but significantly higher than wheat + linseed andwheat + canola intercropping systems. Significantly low-est values biological, straw and grain yields of wheat wereobserved in wheat + canola intercropping system as com-

Table 1. Climatic parameters during 2012–13 and 2013–14

Month 2012–13 2013–14

Rainfall Rainy Maximum Minimum Average Rainfall Rainy Maximum Minimum Average(mm) days temperature temperature temperature (mm) days temperature temperature temperature

(oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC) (oC)

October 0.0 – 31.6 16.2 23.9 36.2 2 31.4 20.2 25.8November 0.0 – 26.6 10.5 18.6 4.6 1 26.7 10.1 18.4December 17.4 2 19.4 7.4 13.4 28.0 2 20.0 7.4 13.7January 8.2 1 17.0 5.1 11.1 55.5 3 17.5 7.0 12.2February 96.4 8 20.5 9.7 15.1 36.7 3 19.4 8.2 13.9March 35.6 2 27.6 13.2 20.4 35.0 5 25.3 12.5 18.9April 4.4 1 34.2 18.3 26.3 31.0 2 32.7 16.7 24.7Total 162.0 13 – – – 227.0 18 – – –

Table 2. Effect of different intercropping systems and levels of nutrients applied to intercrops on yield attributes of wheat (pooled data of 2years)

Treatment Ears/m Grains/ Ear length Ear weight 1,000-seedrow length ear (cm) (g) weight (g)

Intercropping systemWheat + spinach 82.6 60.0 11.4 2.7 42.9Wheat + fenugreek 81.7 59.7 11.0 2.6 42.7Wheat + fodder oats 78.8 57.5 10.9 2.6 42.2Wheat + canola 74.4 55.9 10.7 2.5 40.5Wheat + linseed 77.9 57.1 10.8 2.5 41.4

SEm± 1.3 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.9CD (P=0.05) 4.2 2.7 NS NS NS

Recommended dose of nutrients to intercrop (i.e.)0% 77.6 56.5 10.6 2.4 40.650% 78.5 57.8 10.9 2.6 41.375% 79.8 58.6 11.1 2.6 42.5100% 80.5 59.3 11.4 2.7 43.3

SEm± 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.8CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS

NS, Non-significant

March 2018] INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS ON BED PLANTED WHEAT 29

pared to other intercropping systems, it is because of inintercropping system, canola was more exposed to the Sunand wheat suffered more as it was growing under thecanola canopy. Similar findings also reported by Khan etal., (2005) and Kumar (2008). Biological, straw and grainyields of wheat were not significantly influenced by thedifferent levels of nutrients applied to intercrops (Table 3),which may be attributed to fact that wheat crop sown inraised bed and fertilized with 100% recommended dose ofnutrients, whereas different levels of recommended doseof nutrients to intercrops were applied in furrows. Becauseof this competition between wheat and the componentcrops for the resources like water, nutrients, space andsunlight were minimum and there was non-competitive orcomplimentary effect of different doses of nutrients ap-plied to the intercrops on the performance of wheat. Har-vest index and grain: straw ratio were not affected signifi-cantly in relation to the intercropping systems and differ-ent levels of nutrients applied to intercrops.

With the increased dose of nutrients from 0 to 100%applied to the intercrops on area basis resulted progressiveincrease in yield of intercrops (Table 3). This may be at-tributed to the greater availability of nutrients at higherrate of fertilizer application, which in turn increased theyield of the intercrops.

Wheat-equivalent yield and system productivityWheat-equivalent yield was affected significantly by

the intercropping systems and levels of nutrients applied tothe intercrops. Among the intercropping systems, wheat +fodder oats (6.64 t/ha) intercropping system resulted in

significantly highest wheat-equivalent yield followed bywheat + spinach followed by wheat + canola intercroppingsystem. Fodder oats is a fast-growing crop, having higheryield potential, short duration and less competitive thancanola and linseed. Spinach and fenugreek were also shortduration, less competitive than fodder oats but their yieldpotential was less as compared to the fodder oats in inter-cropping system. So, the wheat-equivalent yield of wheat+ fodder oats intercropping system was significantlyhigher than the other intercropping systems. There weresignificant effects of different levels of nutrients applied tointercrops on wheat-equivalent yield. The data revealedthat with increased dose of nutrients from 0 to 100% ap-plied to intercrops on area basis, there was progressiveincrease in wheat-equivalent yield. Average of 2 years datarevealed that application of 100% recommended dose ofnutrients to the intercrops resulted in significantly higherwheat-equivalent yield (6.26 t/ha) than the 75% recom-mended dose of nutrients to the intercrops (6.07 t/ha),which was higher than 50% recommended dose of nutri-ents to the intercrops (5.88 t/ha) and control plots (5.72 t/ha) (i.e. nutrients was not applied to the intercrops). Simi-lar trend was observed for system productivity. Among theintercropping systems, wheat + fodder oats (41.8 kg/ha/day) intercropping system revealed significantly highersystem productivity than the other wheat-based intercrop-ping systems during both the growing seasons. The appli-cation of 100% recommended dose of nutrients to the in-tercrops resulted in significantly higher value of systemproductivity (39.3 kg/ha/day) than the other levels of nu-trients applied to the intercrops on area basis.

Table 3. Effect of different intercropping systems and levels of nutrients applied to intercrops on biological, grain and straw yields of wheatand yield of intercrops (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Biological Grain yield Straw yield Harvest Grain: Intercropyield (t/ha) (t/ha) (t/ha) index (%) straw ratio yield (t/ha)

Intercropping systemWheat + spinach 12.17 5.40 6.77 44.4 0.80 3.10Wheat + fenugreek 12.01 5.29 6.72 44.1 0.79 1.21Wheat + fodder oats 11.74 5.12 6.61 43.7 0.78 13.63Wheat + canola 10.39 4.74 5.64 45.7 0.84 0.52Wheat + linseed 11.37 5.07 6.29 44.7 0.82 0.21

SEm± 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.8 0.03CD (P=0.05) 0.53 0.30 0.43 NS NS –

Recommended dose of nutrients to intercrop (i.e.)0% 11.39 5.05 6.36 44.3 0.80 3.1150% 11.48 5.08 6.37 44.6 0.81 3.6375% 11.59 5.15 6.43 44.6 0.81 3.98100% 11.68 5.21 6.46 44.7 0.81 4.21

SEm± 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.6 0.02CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS –

NS, Non-significant

30 PANDEY AND SINGH [Vol. 63, No. 1

Table 4. Effect of intercropping systems and levels of nutrients applied to intercrops on wheat-equivalent yield, system productivity andeconomic returns of bed-planted wheat (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Wheat-equivalent System Gross Net returns Benefit :yield (t/ha) productivity returns ( × 103 /ha) cost ratio

(kg/ha/day) ( × 103 /ha)

Intercropping systemWheat + spinach 6.18 38.8 99.3 65.6 1.94Wheat + fenugreek 5.69 35.8 92.4 58.4 1.72Wheat + fodder oats 6.64 41.8 105.5 71.4 2.09Wheat + canola 5.81 36.5 94.3 56.9 1.52Wheat + linseed 5.60 35.2 90.3 54.8 1.54

SEm± 0.09 0.6 1.3 1.2 0.03CD (P=0.05) 0.29 1.8 4.1 4.3 0.09

Recommended dose of nutrients to intercrop (i.e.)0% 5.72 36.0 92.6 58.1 1.7050% 5.88 37.0 94.9 60.0 1.7275% 6.07 38.2 97.7 62.6 1.79100% 6.26 39.3 100.3 65.0 1.85

SEm± 0.06 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.02CD (P=0.05) 0.15 1.0 2.2 2.1 0.05

EconomicsWheat + fodder oats intercropping system resulted in

significantly higher value of gross returns ( 105,500) thanthe other wheat-based intercropping systems, followed bywheat + spinach ( 99,300) followed by wheat + canola( 94,300) intercropping system. There were significanteffects of different levels of nutrients applied to intercropson gross returns. With the increased dose of nutrients from0 to 100% applied to intercrops on area basis, there wasprogressive increase in gross returns. The lowest value ofgross returns was recorded in control plots, i.e. nutrientswere not applied to the intercrops, which were increasedsignificantly with the increased levels of nutrients appliedto intercrops. The application of 100% recommended doseof nutrients to the intercrops resulted in significantlyhigher value of gross returns ( 100,300) than the 75%recommended dose of nutrients to the intercrops( 97,700) which was higher than the 50% recommendeddose of nutrients to the intercrops ( 94,900) and the con-trol plots ( 92,600) (i.e. nutrients was not applied to theintercrops) (Table 4). Wheat + fodder oats intercroppingsystem resulted in significantly higher value of net returns( 71,400), followed by wheat + spinach ( 65,600) thanthe rest of the wheat-based intercropping systems. Appli-cation of 100% recommended dose of nutrients to the in-tercrops resulted in significantly higher value of net re-turns ( 65,000) than the other recommended dose of nu-trients applied to the intercrops on area basis (mean of 2years data). Among the intercropping systems wheat +fodder oats (2.09) showed significantly higher value ofbenefit: cost ratio than the other wheat-based intercrop-

ping systems. The 100% recommended dose of nutrientsto the intercrops resulted in significantly higher value ofbenefit cost ratio (1.85) than the other recommended doseof nutrients applied to the intercrops on area basis (Table4).

It was concluded that wheat + fodder oats intercroppingsystem gave significantly higher wheat-equivalent yield,system productivity and the economic returns followed bywheat + spinach intercropping system than the other inter-cropping systems. With the increased dose of nutrientsfrom 0 to 100% applied to intercrops on area basis, therewas progressive increase in yield of intercrops. The appli-cation of 100% recommended dose of nutrients to the in-tercrops resulted in significantly higher value of wheat-equivalent yield, system productivity and economic re-turns than the other recommended dose of nutrients ap-plied to the intercrops.

REFERENCES

Chapagain, T. and Riseman, A. 2014. Intercropping wheat andbeans: effects on agronomic performance and land produc-tivity. Crop Sciences 54: 2,285–2,293.

Crews, T.E. and Peoples, M.B. 2005. Can the synchrony of nitrogensupply and crop demand be improved in legume and fertil-izer-based agro-ecosystems? Nutrient Cycling in Agor-eco-systems 72: 101–120.

Eskandari, H. 2011. Intercropping of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)and bean (Vicia faba): Effects of complementarity and com-petition of intercrop components in resource consumption ondry matter production and weed growth. African Journal ofBiotechnology 10: 17,755–17,762.

Imran, M., Ali, A., Waseem, M., Tahir, M., Mohsin, A.U., Shehzad,M., Ghaffari, M. and Rehman, H. 2011. Bio-economic as-

March 2018] INFLUENCE OF DIFFERENT INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS ON BED PLANTED WHEAT 31

sessment of sunflower mungbean intercropping system atdifferent planting geometry. International Research Jour-nal of Agricultural and Soil Sciences 1: 126–36.

Khan, M., Khan, R.U., Wahab, A. and Rashid, A. 2005. Yield andyield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping ofchickpea, lentil and rapeseed in different proportions. Paki-stan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 42: 3–4.

Kumar, M. 2008. Studies on intercropping of mustard/safflower withchickpea and wheat. M.Sc. Thesis, University of AgriculturalSciences, Dharwad, India.

Lithourgidis, A.S., Dordas, C.A., Damalas, C.A. and Vlachostergios,D.N. 2011. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway forsustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Sciences5: 396–410.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 32__38 (March 2018)

1Corresponding author’s Email: kc_64sharma@yahoo.com1Principal Scientist

Inter/mixed cropping of lentil (Lens culinaris) in late-sown wheat(Triticum aestivum) for higher productivity and profitability of wheat in

Vertisols of Central India

K.C. SHARMA1

ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Station, Indore, Madhya Pradesh 452 001

Received : March 2017; Revised accepted : December 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was carried out the during winter (rabi) seasons of 2012–13 and 2013–14 at Research Farmof ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Regional Station, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, to study the perfor-mance of different inter and mixed cropping systems of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) in late-sown wheat (Triticumaestivum L.). Treatments tested were wheat sole, lentil sole, wheat (line sowing) + lentil (50% seed broadcast),wheat (broadcast) + lentil (line sowing), wheat + lentil (mixed sowing of 100% seed rates), wheat + lentil (mixedsowing of 50% seed rates), wheat + lentil (1 : 1 row ratio), wheat+ lentil (2 : 1 row ratio), wheat + lentil (2 : 2 rowratio) and wheat + lentil (3 : 1 row ratio). Pooled over data of 2 years indicated that grain and biological yields(5.87 and 14.8 t/ha) recorded with wheat (line sowing) + lentil (broadcast), which being substantially higher to thetune of 4.45 and 3.35% over wheat sole in addition to a bonus yield of 40 kg lentil/ha were significantly higher thanrest of the treatments. The same treatment also recorded the highest values of number of fertile tillers/m2 (461.1/m2), length of spike (9.55 cm), number of spikelets/spike (16.8), total N uptake (169.6 kg/ha), wheat-equivalentyield (5.96 t/ha), land-equivalent ratio (1.07), aggressivity index (1.01), sustainability-yield index (0.96), productionefficiency (47.5 kg/ha/day), monetary return-use efficiency ( 443.6/ha/day), net returns ( 55.7 thousands/ha) andbenefit: cost ratio (2.65). However, relative crowding coefficient (73.6) and total protein yield were observed withwheat + lentil (3 : 1 row ratio) and lentil sole respectively.

Key words : Grain and biological yield, Intercropping, Land-equivalent ratio, Lentil, Mixed cropping,Wheat, Wheat-equivalent yield

Intercropping systems have the potential to exceed theyields possible in monocultures of their component spe-cies (Willey, 1979) and Banik et al. (2006) indicated thatintercropping systems register significant increase in totalproductivity per unit area and improve land-use efficiency.It also reduces the failure risk of a single crop that is sus-ceptible to environmental fluctuations (Khan et al., 2005).Intercropping system intercepts more solar energy andprovides comparatively higher yield stability (Tsubo et al.,2003). According to Sullivan (2003) intercrops staggeredthe maturity dates or developmental periods and take ad-vantage of variations in demands for nutrients, water, andsunlight. Mixed cropping systems which define growingof two or more species or cultivars on the same piece ofland during the same season is known to increase the sizeand stability of yields through the effective utilization ofnatural resources as compared to mono-cropping

(Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2006). Considering that wheatis the most important cereal crop in the world and it playsa vital role in global agricultural economy, and in India, itranks second only after rice and has a large land area(more than 30 million ha) under wheat crop. Aziz et al.(2015) reviewed the wheat-based intercropping systemsand found wheat a most suitable crop for intercroppingsystem. Growing of multiple crops as mixed or intercrop-ping systems in association of wheat not only opens theavenues of production of pulses and oilseeds in associa-tion of wheat but also beneficial for soil health(Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2001). Khan et al. (2005) alsoconcluded that, intercropping of chickpea and wheat in 1: 1 ratio increased the grain yield of wheat.

In Central Zone of the country, a sizeable land area isunder late sown wheat due to late harvesting of some long-duration crops of rainy (kharif) season, viz. paddy, cotton,chilly, etc. These preceding crops are highly exhaustive fornutrients and succeeded wheat crop puts heavy demand of

Research Paper

March 2018] INTER/MIXED CROPPING OF LENTIL IN WHEAT 33

nutrients on soil. In these conditions, inter/mixed croppingsystems by inclusion of legume as a complementary cropin the system have the scope and potential to exceed theyields not possible in monocultures of their componentspecies (Willey, 1979). The intercropping of pulses likelentil, chickpea, pea in association of wheat has been ad-vocated by several researchers for higher productivity andeconomic viability under different configurations (Akter etal., 2004, Khaliq et al., 2001, Khan et al., 2005; Das et al.,2012). However, information on legume intercropping inlate-sown wheat is lacking. Keeping these in view, presentinvestigation was carried out to find out the effect of len-til as inter or mixed crop on late-sown wheat in Vertisolsof Central India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was carried during the winter(rabi) seasons of 2012–13 and 2013–14 at Research Farmof ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, RegionalStation, Indore, (22°37°N, 75°50°E, 557 m above meansea-level) Madhya Pradesh, and has a semi-arid tropicalclimate with mean annual rainfall of 758 mm. The soil wasvery fine clay loam (Vertisols) with the following charac-teristics in 0–15 cm depth: pH 7.4 (1:2.5 soil/water sus-pension), electrical conductivity 0.23 dS/m, medium inorganic carbon (0.52%), available nitrogen (232 kg/ha)and available phosphorus (20.5 kg P

2O

5/ha), and high in

available potassium (423.5 kg K2O/ha). Mean monthlymeteorological observations during the crop seasons ofboth the years are presented in Table 1. A total of 10 inter/mixed cropping treatments, consisting T

1, wheat sole; T

2,

lentil sole; T3, wheat (line sowing) + lentil (broadcast); T4,wheat (broadcast) + lentil (line sowing); T

5, wheat + len-

til (mixed sowing of 100% seed rates of both); T6, wheat+ lentil (mixed sowing of 50% seed rates of both); T

7,

wheat + lentil (1 : 1 row ratio), T8, wheat + lentil (2:1 rowratio); T

9, wheat + lentil (2 : 2 row ratio) and T

10, wheat +

lentil (3 : 1 row ratio), were laid out in randomized blockdesign with 3 replications. All mixed cropping treatments(T3 to T6) were planted in additive series and treatments T7

to T10

(intercropping treatments) were sown in replace-ment series. Cultivars ‘Vidisha’ of wheat and ‘L 4076’ oflentil were used in the trial. The crops were raised on 6and 4 December and harvested on 14 and 16 April duringthe first and second years respectively. The recommendeddose of fertilizers for wheat @ 120 : 26.4 : 33.2 kg of N :P : K/ha and 20 : 26.4 : 33.2 of N : P : K/ha to lentil wereapplied through urea, single superphosphate and muriateof potash on the basis of proportionate area of crop in plot.In wheat and wheat + lentil, 50% N and full doses of P andK were applied basal and the remaining N was top-dressedjust before the first irrigation. While in lentil sole, whole

dose of fertilizers was used basal at the time of sowing.Experiment was conducted under irrigated conditions and2 irrigations were applied to lentil sole and 3 irrigations towheat as well as wheat + lentil plots in both the years. Onehand-weeding was carried out at 35–40 days after sowingin both the years. Available N, P and K contents in soilsamples were determined by modified Kjeldahl procedureby using Kjeltec Auto Analyser, Calorimetric by vanado-molybdate yellow colour method and flame photometermethod (Jackson, 1973) respectively. The powdered frac-tions of grain and straw of wheat samples were digested indi-acid HNO3 + HClO4 (3 : 1) and N content was esti-mated according to modified Kjeldahl procedure usingKjeltec Auto Analyser. Estimated N was used for crudeprotein content and yield. The observations on tillersheight and number/m2were undertaken just before harvest-ing and 5 tillers/plot were uprooted randomly for post-har-vest studies. Grain and biological yields were recorded atharvest. All the data recorded on growth, yield attributes,yield and quality were statistically analysed as per proce-dure outlined by Gomez and Gomez (1984). Wheat-equivalent yield of lentil was worked out on the basis ofprevailing market price of each crop by using followingformula and added in the yields of wheat in mixed or in-tercropped systems:

WEY = {Yield of intercrop (t/ha) × Price of intercrop( /t)}/ Price of main crop (( /t)

Land-equivalent ratio (LER), aggressivity index (AI)and relative crowding co-efficient (RCC) were worked outas per Verma et al. (2005) and all mixed cropping treat-ments were considered as 50 : 50 rows proportion. Theinter/mixed cropping systems were also evaluated basedon sustainability-yield index (SYI) using mean wheat-equivalent yield (Ymean), standard deviation (ó) and maxi-mum equivalent yield (Y

maximum) and it was calculated as

per formula suggested by Wanjari et al. (2004). Productionefficiency and monetary return-use efficiency were alsoworked out as per their procedures of calculation. Eco-nomic benefits were worked out on the basis of mean dataover 2 years and prevalent market prices for different out-puts and inputs were used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth and yield attributesGrowth and yield attributes revealed that there was no

significant variation in plant height, length of spike and1,000-grain weight due to inter/mixed cropping treat-ments, but fertile tillers/m2and spikelets/spike of wheatvaried significantly with highest values under treatmentT

3, where wheat was sown at 20 cm apart rows and lentil

as broadcast (Table 2). Fertile tillers/m2 of treatment T3

were statistically at par with treatment T1, T

5 and T

10 but

34 SHARMA [Vol. 63, No. 1

significantly higher over rest of the treatments. Whereas,spikelets/spike of treatment T3 were at par with most of thetreatments except treatments T

4 and T

7, where difference

was significant. It was also noted that highest values oflength of spike (9.55 cm.) and 1,000-grain weight (47.3 g,which was 1.28% higher than T1) were also observed withtreatment T

3, but these could not reach the level of signifi-

cance. However, the maximum height of wheat plant (87.3cm) was observed under wheat sole (T

1). Reduction in fer-

tile tillers under mixed cropping was mainly because ofpoor tillering in wheat. But in intercropping systems, de-creased area under wheat crop might be responsible forlower values, as treatments were imposed under replace-ment series and legume incorporation could not be able tobenefit the crop to that extent needed for comparableyields of wheat sole or wheat + lentil grown in additiveseries. Increased values of length of spike, spikelet/spikeand 1,000-grain weight under T3 (mixed cropping) mightbe owing to less competition and additional N suppliedthrough biological nitrogen fixation activity of broadcastlentil. These results confirm the findings of Khaliq et al.(2001) and Khan et al. (2005).

Grain and biological yieldsDifferent inter/mixed cropping treatments brought

about significant variation in grain and biological yields ofboth component crops and the maximum wheat yieldswere obtained under treatment T3 (line sowing of wheat +broadcasting of lentil), which were significantly higherthan rest of the treatments except wheat sole (T1), wheredifferences were non-significant. Among the mixed crop-ping systems (T3 to T6), grain and biological yields re-corded with T

3 treatments were followed by T

5 (sowing of

100% seed rate of both crop species), and recorded thelowest yields when seed rate was decreased to 50% ofboth species. However, in case of intercropping systems(T

7 to T

10), treatment T

10 (3 : 1 ratio) resulted in the high-

est wheat grain (5.40 t/ha) and biological (13.27 t/ha)yields, which being at par with ratio 2 : 1 (T

8) were signifi-

cantly higher than rest of the intercropping systems.Theincrease in grain and biological yields of wheat undertreatment T3 was to the tune of 4.45 and 3.35%, respec-tively, over wheat sole (T

1) in addition to a bonus yield of

40 kg/ha of lentil grain. Increase in wheat yields under T3

treatment might be owing to beneficial effect of legume

Table 1. Mean monthly meteorological observations during crop seasons of both the years

Month Temperature (oC) Rainfall (mm) Relative humidity (%) Open PERMaximum Minimum 2012–13 2013–14 2012–13 2013–14 (mm/day)

2012–13 2013–14 2012–13 2013–14 2012–13 2013–14

December 27.5 26.0 8.6 9.0 0 2.2 78.0 80.2 3.9 4.0January 23.8 23.4 5.8 7.1 0 0 78.4 80.1 3.4 3.7February 26.4 25.6 10.4 7.5 23.2 42.2 79.4 78.7 4.3 4.6March 33.4 31.7 15.0 12.5 0 0 76.0 79.4 6.9 6.5April 37.7 38.7 19.2 18.8 0 0 80.3 81.6 7.8 8.9Mean 29.8 29.1 11.8 11.0 4.6 8.9 78.4 80.0 5.3 5.5

Table 2. Effect of mixed and intercropping of lentil on growth, yield attributes and yields of wheat (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Plant height Fertile Length of Spikelets/ 1,000-grain Grain yield (t/ha) Biological yield (t/ha)(cm.) tillers/m2 spike (cm) spike weight (g) Main crop Intercrop Main crop Intercrop

T1 87.3 445.8 9.15 16.5 46.7 5.62 – 14.32 –T2 – – – – – – 1.16 – 5.21T3 85.5 461.1 9.55 16.8 47.3 5.87 0.04 14.80 0.23T4 83.5 386.5 8.81 14.3 46.6 5.03 0.08 12.97 0.49T5 86.0 433.1 8.58 15.4 46.9 5.29 0.05 13.86 0.27T6 85.7 391.8 8.28 15.5 46.4 4.76 0.05 12.98 0.22T7 83.9 369.8 8.51 14.8 46.0 4.92 0.14 12.20 0.70T8 84.1 400.2 8.48 15.4 46.5 5.14 0.08 12.88 0.47T9 84.3 377.3 8.70 15.3 46.7 4.39 0.23 10.85 1.35T10 85.7 420.3 9.07 16.1 46.5 5.40 0.07 13.27 0.37

SEm± 1.12 14.2 0.38 0.64 0.58 0.14 0.02 0.30 0.10CD (P=0.05) NS 40.9 NS 1.84 NS 0.40 0.07 0.86 0.30

T1, Wheat sole; T2, lentil sole; T3, wheat (line sowing) + lentil (broadcast); T4, wheat (broadcast) + lentil (line sowing); T5, wheat + lentil(mixed sowing of 100% seed rates of both); T6, wheat + lentil (mixed sowing, 50% seed rates of both); T7, wheat + lentil (1 : 1 row ratio);T8, wheat + lentil (2 : 1 row ratio); T9, wheat + lentil (2 : 2 row ratio); and T10, wheat + lentil (3 : 1 row ratio)

March 2018] INTER/MIXED CROPPING OF LENTIL IN WHEAT 35

component to the wheat crop through BNF activity, whichimproved the growth and yield attributes, resulting inhigher wheat yield attributes and yields. This higher wheatproductivity was the function of higher no. of fertile tillersper unit area and comparatively increased values of lengthof spike, spikelets/spike and 1,000-grain weight recordedunder treatment T

3. In case of intercrop, the maximum

grain and biological yields of lentil were obtained underlentil sole (T

2), which were significantly higher than all the

other treatments. Lower lentil yields under inter/mixedcropping systems was the outcome of proportionately de-creased in area under lentil and dominated plant stature ofwheat causing over-shading, exhaustive nutrients andgreater competition for light with lentil, resulting poorproductivity. Similar trend in productivity of wheat andlentil in sole and intercropping systems was also observedby Khaliq et al., (2001). Subedi (1997) also reported thatmixing of pea @ 30–45 kg in Indian mustard was mostprofitable in terms of grain yield. Khan et al. (2005) re-ported higher wheat yield when grown in association ofchickpea.

Nitrogen uptake and protein yieldData on nitrogen uptake and protein yields by compo-

nent crops indicate that, N uptake individually in grain andstraw as well as total differed significantly and N uptakerecorded with grain and straw of wheat under treatment T

3

(wheat was sown in line at 20 cm apart rows and lentil asbroadcast) was significantly higher over rest of the treat-ments except straw of treatment T1, where difference wasstatistically non-significant (Table 3). The magnitude ofincrease of N uptake in grain and straw of wheat in T3 was

to the tune of 6.15 and 7.04%, respectively, compared withwheat sole (T1). However, among the intercropping sys-tems, the highest N uptake in wheat and straw was ob-served under treatment T10, where wheat and lentil weresown at 3:1 row ratio, followed by T

8 (2 : 1 row ratio).

Higher uptake of N under treatment T3 was the combinedeffect of the highest wheat yield and production of N-richproduction of lentil grain and straw. Among the intercrop-ping systems, the highest N uptake in wheat grain andstraw under treatment T10 were the sole reason of the high-est wheat yields compared with the other intercroppingsystems. This may also be explained by the fact that sym-biotic effect of legume crop might be beneficial in improv-ing N content of soil for both border rows of the systemand crop yields, and in-turn increased the N uptake. Incase of N uptake in grain and straw of lentil, treatment T2

(lentil sole) recorded the highest N uptake values due togrowing in non-competitive atmosphere. But in the case ofdifferent inter or mixed cropping systems, treatment T

9

recorded the maximum values of 9.2 and 33.3 kg/ha of Nuptake in grain and straw of lentil, respectively, followedby T7 (5.7 and 16.4 kg/ha). It was mainly because ofhigher productivity of N-rich grain and straw of lentil in T

9

due to comparatively less competition with wheat cropbecause of growing in replacement series (2 : 2 rows ra-tio). Similar trend was also observed for protein yields inmain and intercrop as well as total protein yield excepttreatment T2 (lentil sole), where total CP recorded slightlyhigher than treatment T

3. It was mainly because of propor-

tionally higher protein rich straw yield of lentil comparedto wheat + lentil (T

3).

Table 3. Effect of mixed and intercropping of wheat and lentil on nitrogen uptake and protein yield (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment N uptake (kg/ha) Protein yield (kg/ha)

Main crop Intercrop Total Main crop Intercrop Total

Grain Straw Grain Straw

T1 117.1 35.5 – – 152.6 891.7 – 891.7T2 – – 48.6 115.3 163.9 – 998.6 998.6T3 124.3 38.0 1.5 5.7 169.6 948.5 44.2 992.7T4 104.9 32.3 3.2 10.3 151.5 801.9 82.7 884.6T5 110.2 35.2 2.1 6.0 153.5 850.3 49.5 899.8T6 99.9 34.0 2.2 4.6 140.7 783.9 41.3 825.2T7 102.0 29.9 5.7 16.4 154.0 770.3 135.1 905.4T8 108.6 31.6 3.4 11.1 154.8 818.7 88.8 907.5T9 93.3 27.2 9.2 33.3 163.0 703.7 260.7 964.4T10 113.1 32.8 2.7 8.8 156.6 851.9 70.4 922.3

SEm± 2.12 0.89 0.7 1.6 3.31 15.39 12.20 19.69CD (P=0.05) 6.11 2.57 1.91 4.62 9.50 44.33 35.14 56.50

T1, Wheat sole; T2, lentil sole; T3, wheat (line sowing) + lentil (broadcast); T4, wheat (broadcast) + lentil (line sowing); T5, wheat + lentil(mixed sowing of 100% seed rates of both); T6, wheat + lentil (mixed sowing, 50% seed rates of both); T7, wheat + lentil (1 : 1 row ratio);T8, wheat + lentil (2 : 1 row ratio); T9, wheat + lentil (2 : 2 row ratio); and T10, wheat + lentil (3 : 1 row ratio).

36 SHARMA [Vol. 63, No. 1

Wheat-equivalent yield and competition indicesDifferent treatments had different yield potential of

component crops and economic values, and therefore forbetter comparison, the yields of wheat and lentil were con-verted into wheat-equivalent yield (WEY) on the basis ofprevalent market prices (Table 4). Wheat-equivalent yieldvalues revealed that, the highest wheat-equivalent yield(5.96 t/ha) was obtained under the treatment T

3, followed

by wheat sole (T1), with minimum values recorded withlentil sole (3.08 t/ha).The magnitude of increase in WEYunder the treatment T3 was 6.05% over treatment T1

(wheat sole). Mixed cropping of lentil with wheat under T3

treatment showed advantage in terms of wheat-equivalentyield owing to improvement in wheat yield along with abonus yield of lentil to the tune of 40 kg/ha. Among themixed/intercropping systems (except T

3), treatment T

10 (3

: 1 row ratio) recorded almost similar WEY to wheat sole.Despite reduction in area of wheat under treatment T

10,

similar productivity of WEY might be the function of bor-der effect, which might be beneficial in enhancing wheatyield despite of substantial reduction in wheat area under3 : 1 rows ratio of treatment T

10 and lentil yield recorded

under the treatment as well. Banik (1996) and Kumar et al.(2008) also recorded comparatively higher wheat-equiva-lent yield under wheat + lentil than wheat sole.

Land-equivalent ratio (LER) is frequently used as indexof biological advantage, which places the componentcrops on a relative and directly comparable basis (Willey,1979). The LER also verifies the effectiveness of mixedcropping for using the resources of the environment com-pared to sole cropping (Mead and Willey, 1980; Dhima et

al., 2007). In present study, the highest land-equivalentratio (LER) was recorded under T3 (1.07), followed by T10

(1.02), whereas rest of the inter-mixed cropping systemsrecorded LEY values almost 1 or less than 1, which are notbeneficial and recommendable for adoption by farmers.Akter et al. (2004) reported that, higher yield of wheat andlentil was achieved when both crops were sown in linesthan broadcast systems.

Computation of aggressivity index (AI) indicated that,all treatments (T3 to T6) planted as mixed sowing underadditive series recorded higher AI values, ranging from0.73 to 1.01, than intercropping systems planted under re-placement series (0.26 to 0.75). The maximum value of AIwas worked out under treatment T3, which was followedby T

4 (sowing of lentil in line and wheat broadcast). How-

ever, the minimum AI value was observed under treatmentT

10, which being almost similar to T

9 was substantially

lower than the other intercropping treatments, viz., T8 andT

7. These results showed that sowing of legume compo-

nent in additive series might have increased the competi-tion between plants of component crops and thereby re-sulted increase the dominance power of wheat and re-corded higher value of AI. However, intercropping sys-tems due to sowing in replacement series might have de-creased the competition between both the componentcrops and lowered the power of dominance of wheat cropand thus recorded lower values of aggressivity index.However, treatments T6 (mixed seed of 50% seed of bothcomponent crops in additive series) and T

7 (1:1 row ratio

in replacement series) recorded almost similar values of AIto the extent of 0.73 and 0.75, respectively, indicated simi-

Table 4. Effect of mixed and intercropping of lentil on wheat-equivalent yield, competition indices and economics of late-sown wheat

Treatment Wheat- Land- Relative Aggressivity Sustaina- Production Monetary Economicsequivalent equivalent crowding index bility efficiency return-use Cost of Gross Net Benefit:

yield ratio coefficient yield (kg/ha/day) efficiency cultivation returns returns cost(t/ha) index ( /ha/day) (×103 /ha) (×103 /ha) (×103 /ha) ratio

T1 5.62 1.00 - - 0.90 44.8 408.8 33.0 84.3 51.3 2.55T2 3.08 1.00 - - 0.48 24.5 220.9 18.5 46.2 27.7 2.50T3 5.96 1.07 23.5 1.01 0.96 47.5 443.6 33.8 89.5 55.7 2.65T4 5.24 0.96 8.5 0.92 0.84 41.7 360.4 33.4 78.6 45.2 2.35T5 5.43 0.99 16.0 0.90 0.87 43.3 373.3 34.6 81.5 46.8 2.35T6 4.90 0.89 5.5 0.73 0.78 39.0 325.9 32.6 73.5 40.9 2.25T7 5.29 1.00 7.0 0.75 0.85 42.1 377.8 32.0 79.4 47.4 2.48T8 5.37 0.99 21.4 0.39 0.86 42.8 383.2 32.3 80.4 48.1 2.49T9 4.99 0.98 3.6 0.29 0.80 39.8 341.9 32.0 74.9 42.9 2.34T10 5.58 1.02 73.6 0.26 0.89 44.5 390.2 32.5 81.5 49.0 2.51

SEm± 0.11 0.02 - - - - - - - 1.56 0.05CD (P=0.05)0.31 0.06 - - - - - - - 4.64 0.14

The prices of different produce per tonne used for calculation were: 15,000 for wheat grain, 4,000 for wheat straw, 40,000 for lentilgrain and 6,000 for lentil straw. The input costs used for calculation of cost of cultivation were: 167/manday, 800/harrowing, 1,000/rotavator, 1,200/irrigation, 13.0/kg N, 31.2/kg P and 11.7/kg K, whereas the prices of seed were based on market price

March 2018] INTER/MIXED CROPPING OF LENTIL IN WHEAT 37

lar level of competition and dominance power of wheatover legume component.

Relative crowding coefficient (RCC) revealed that allthe inter and mixed cropping systems recorded more than1 values with a maximum value of 73.6 under T

10, where

wheat and lentil were sown at a row ratio of 3 : 1 in re-placement series, which was followed by treatment T

3

(23.5). Treatment T9 (2:2 row ratio) and T6 (mixed sowingof 50% each of component crops) recorded lowest valuesto the tune of 3.6 and 5.5, respectively. Higher values ofRCC indicate better land utilization efficiency of the sys-tem by the component crops. Differential effectiveness oflegume component in different planting systems might bethe reason of varied values of RCC observed.

Sustainability-yield index (SYI) and production effi-ciency (PE) computed based on wheat-equivalent yieldsand monetary return-use efficiency (MRUE) based onprevalent market prices of inputs and outputs showed thattreatment T

3 holds its superiority and recorded the highest

values of all the above traits, viz., SYI 0.96, PE 47.5 kg/ha/day and MRUE 443.6/ha/day, which were greaterthan wheat sole (T1) and substantially higher over rest ofthe inter/ mixed cropping systems. These parameters indi-cate the comparative production potentiality and economicviability of the system. Thus, treatment T

3 can be consid-

ered a productive and economically efficient planting sys-tem rather than wheat sole or other mixed or intercroppingsystems.

EconomicsBased on mean data over 2 years, the economic analy-

sis (Table 4) showed that, treatment T3, i.e. wheat (linesowing) + lentil (broadcast) gave the highest net returns of

55,675/ha and benefit: cost ratio of 2.65, followed bywheat sole ( 51,305/ha and 2.55) with the minimum val-ues under lentil sole ( 27,718/ha and 2.50). This highernet benefit in wheat (line sowing) + lentil (broadcast) wasthe result of higher total wheat yields alongwith a bonusyield of lentil as compared to wheat sole (T

1). Reduction

in net benefits under other inter-mixed cropping treatmentswas the outcome of lower wheat and lentil yields com-pared with sole. Akter et al. (2004) also reported the maxi-mum LER (1.52), monetary advantage (63%), benefit: costratio (1.84) under lentil + wheat as mixed cropping sys-tem. Under intercropping systems, the highest BCR (2.07)was recorded in wheat–lentil intercropping at 1:1 row ra-tio (Das et al., 2012). Banik (1996) evaluated gram, peaand lentil crops as intercrop with wheat in 1 : 1 and 2 : 1under row replacement series and reported that when ac-tual sown proportion was considered wheat + lentil (1:1)resulted in the maximum monetary advantage.

On basis of two year study, it may be inferred that line

sowing of wheat with recommended seed rate at 20 cm.apart rows and broadcast sowing of lentil at half rate (30kg/ha) holds promise to provide higher and economicalwheat productivity with a bonus yield of lentil in Vertisolsof Central India.

REFERENCES

Akter, N., Alim, Md.A., Islam, M.M., Naher, Z., Rehman, M. andIqbal Hossain, A.S.M. 2004. Evaluation of mixed and inter-cropping of lentil and wheat. Journal of Agronomy 3(1): 48–51.

Aziz, M., Mahmood, A., Asif, M. and Ali, M. 2015. Wheat-basedintercropping systems: a review. The Journal of Animal andPlant Sciences 25(4): 896–907.

Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B.K. and Ghosh, S.S. 2006. Wheat andchickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experi-ment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journalof Agronomy 24(4): 325–332.

Banik, P. 1996. Evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and legumeintercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series sys-tem. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 176(5): 289–294.

Das, A.K., Khaliq, Q.A. and Haider, M.L. 2012. Efficiency ofwheat–lentil and wheat–chickpea intercropping systems atdifferent planting configurations. International Journal ofSustainable Crop Production 7(1): 25–33.

Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.A., Vasilakoglou, I.B. and Dordas,C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cerealintercrops in 2 seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100:249–256.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedures forAgricultural Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.

Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P. and Jensen, E.S. 2001. Tempo-ral and spatial distribution of roots and competition for nitro-gen in pea-barley intercrops–a field study employing 32Ptechnique. Plant and Soil 236: 63–74.

Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Knudsen, M.T., Jorgensen, J.R. and Jensen,E.S. 2006. Intercropping wheat with pea for improved wheatbaking quality. (In) Proceedings of the European Joint Or-ganic Congress, Odense, Denmark, pp. 268–269.

Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis, pp. 187, Practice Hallof India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.

Khaliq, A., Khan, M.B., Saleem, M.F. and Zamir, S.I. 2001. Lentilyield as influenced by density of wheat intercropping. Jour-nal of Research Science 12(2): 159–162.

Khan, M., Khan, R.U., Wahab, A. and Rashid, A. 2005. Yield andyield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping ofchickpea, lentil and rapeseed in different proportions. Paki-stan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 42(3–4): 1–3.

Kumar, N., Ved Prakash, Mina, B.L., Gopinath, K.A. andSrivastava, K.A. 2008. Evaluation of toria (Brassicacampestris) and lentil (Lens culinaris) varieties in intercrop-ping system with wheat (Triticum aestivum) under rainfedconditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 53(1): 47–50.

Mead, R. and Willey, R.W. 1980. The concept of a land equivalentratio and advantages in yields for intercropping. Experimen-tal Agriculture 16: 217–228.

Subedi, K.D. 1997. Wheat intercropped with toria (Brassicacampestris var. toria) and pea (Pisum sativum) in the subsis-

38 SHARMA [Vol. 63, No. 1

tence farming system of the Nepalese hills. Journal of Agri-cultural Sciences, Cambridge 128: 283–289.

Sullivan, P. 2003. Intercropping principles and production prac-tices. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas(ATTRA). Fayetteville, Arkansas. Agronomy Systems Guide,pp. 1–12.

Tsubo, M., Mukhala, E., Ogindo, H.O. and Walker, S. 2003. Produc-tivity of maize–bean intercropping in a semi-arid region ofSouth Africa. Water South African 29: 381–388.

Verma, S.S., Joshi, Y.P. and Saxena, S.C. 2005. Effect of row ratioof fodder sorghum (Sorghum bicolour) in pigeonpea

(Cajanus cajan) intercropping system on productivity, com-petition functions and economics under rainfed conditions ofNorth India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(2): 123–125.

Wanjari, R.H., Singh, M.V. and Ghosh, P.K. 2004. Sustainabilityyield index: An approach to evaluate the sustainability oflong-term intensive cropping systems in India. Journal ofSustainable Agriculture 24(4): 39–56.

Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping–Its importance research needs.Part 1. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crops Ab-stracts 32(2): 1–10.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 39__44 (March 2018) Research Paper

Integrated nutrient management in pigeonpea-based intercropping systems

ATIK AHAMAD1, NEERAJ KUMAR2 AND DEVIDEEN YADAV3

Narendra Deva University of Agricultural and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh 224 229

Received: February 2017; Revised accepted: August 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy (kharif) seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15 at Faizabad, UttarPradesh, on silty loam soils, to study the effect integrated nutrient management practices on pigeonpea [Cajanuscajan (L.) Millsp.]-based intercropping systems. The treatments comprised 3 intercropping systems of pigeonpeasole, pigeonpea + urdbean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] and pigeonpea + maize (Zea mays L.) with different inte-grated nutrient management levels. On the basis of 2 year results, pigeonpea + urdbean intercropping system re-corded significantly higher pigeonpea seed yield (1.72 t/ha), root nodules, N, P and K uptake by grain and straw/stover over sole pigeonpea and pigeonpea + maize intercropping system. An intercropping of urdbean withpigeonpea recorded significantly higher value of organic carbon, available N, P, K and S contents, net returns(69.5 × 103 /ha) over other the other cropping systems at harvest. Among the INM practices, application of rec-ommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha + ‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha recorded signifi-cantly higher pigeonpea yield (1.69 t/ha), root nodules, N, P and K uptake by grain and straw/ stover, organic car-bon, available N, P, K and S contents, net returns (56.8 × 103 /ha) over RDF.

Key words : Harit-vardan, Integrated nutrient management, Pigeonpea-based intercropping systems,Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, Rainfed, Rhizobium

1Corresponding author’s Email: atikcsa@gmail.com1Assistant Professor, Department of Agriculture, Dolphin (PG) Col-lege of Science and Agriculture, Chunni Kalan Fatehgarh Sahib,Punjab 140 403; 2Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Scienceand Agricultural Chemistry, Narendra Deva University of Agricul-tural and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh 224 229;3Ph.D. Scholar, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, NewDelhi 110 012

The major pigeonpea-producing countries include India(63.7% of global production), Myanmar (19.0%), Malawi(6.1%), Tanzania (4.4%) and Uganda 2.0%). India growsthe largest variety of pulses in the world, accounting forabout 32% of the area under cultivation and 25% of theworld production. The important pulse crops are chickpeawith a 49% share, pigeonpea with a 16% share andurdbean with 4%. The major pulse-producing states areMadhya Pradesh with a 27% share and Uttar Pradesh withan 8% share which together accounted for 63% of the to-tal production (IIPR, 2014).

In India, pigeonpea cultivated over an area of about3.88 million ha with production and productivity of 3.17million tonnes and 1,188 kg/ha, respectively, during 2013–14. In Uttar Pradesh, it is grown on 0.64 million ha areawith production of 0.79 million tonnes and productivity of

1,234 kg/ha (IIPR, 2014). The basic principle of integratednutrient management is the maintenance of soil fertility,sustainable agriculture and improving farmer’s profitabil-ity through the judicious and efficient use of mineral fer-tilizers, organic manures, green manures and crop residueetc. Continuous use of only chemical fertilizers in inten-sive cropping system is leading to imbalance of nutrientsin soil, which has an adverse effect on soil health and alsoon crop yields. On the other hand, continuous use of or-ganics helps buildup soil humus and beneficial microbes,besides improving the soil physical properties. But use oforganics alone does not result in spectacular increase incrop yields due to their low nutrient content and also avail-ability. ‘Harit-vardan’ is a biofertltzer supports the cropplants under water-stress conditions by making regularsupply of moisture and nutrient throughout the crop sea-son and increase water and fertilizer-use efficiency. There-fore, effect of judicious combination of organic and inor-ganic fertilizers on performance and nutrient uptake aswell as soil chemical properties of pigeonpea-based inter-cropping systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during rainy (kharif)seasons of 2013–14 and 2014–15 at Agronomy Research

40 ATIK AHMAD ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

Farm, Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Tech-nology, Kumarganj, Faizabad (26< 47' N, 82< 12' E and113 m above the mean sea-level) Uttar Pradesh, in theIndo-Gangetic alluvial soil belt of Eastern Uttar Pradesh.The soil of the experimental field was silty loam havingslight alkaline (pH 7.8), electrical conductivity 0.33 dS/m,poor in organic carbon (0.29%), available nitrogen (164.2kg) medium in available phosphorus (16.7 kg) and potas-sium (250.6 kg). The treatment combinations comprised 3intercropping systems (pigeonpea sole, pigeonpea +urdbean and pigeonpea + maize) and 4 nutrient manage-ment levels recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF), RDF+ phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB) + Rhizobium,RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha and RDF +PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha + ‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5kg/ha]. The experiment was laid out in a factorial random-ized block design with 3 replications. The required quan-tity of various organic manures, viz. FYM and ‘Harit-vardan biofertilizer, were applied in moist soil as per treat-ment about 1 week before sowing of crop and at the timeof sowing respectively. Seeds of pigeonpea and urdbeanwere inoculated with Rhizobium and PSB before sowingas per treatments. The recommended dose of fertilizerswas given for (pigeonpea 20 : 40 : 00, urdbean 20 : 40 : 00and maize 80 : 60 : 40 kg N : P

2O

5 : K

2O/ha) in the form

of urea, diammonium phosphate and muriate of potashwere applied basal. In case of intercropping treatments,fertilizers were applied in proportionate to the sole opti-mum population for main crop and intercrop, separately.Weeding and plant-protection measures were undertakenas per their need and the required plant population wasmaintained. ‘Narendra Arhar 1’, ‘Narendra Urd 1’ and‘MM 1107’ varieties of pigeonpea, urdbean and maize,respectively, were used. The seed rate of the crops @ 16kg/ha (pigeonpea), 20 kg/ha (urdbean) and 25 kg/ha(maize) was used and the crops were raised on 15 June2013 and 20 June 2014, respectively, under rainfed condi-tion. The optimum plant population was maintained bythinning and gap filling 10 days after germination to en-sure the uniform plant population. Weeding and plant-pro-tection measures were undertaken as per the need. Thecrops were harvested at their physiological maturity. Thenodules/plant were counted from the roots of 5 sampledplants at flowering stage at 90 DAS in pigeonpea and 45days after sowing (DAS) in urdbean.

Post-harvest soil samples were drawn 15 cm soil depthand analyzed for organic carbon by wet digestion method(Walkley and Black, 1934), available N by alkaline per-manganate method (Subbiah and Asija, 1956), availablephosphorus (P) by 0.5 M NaHCO3. extractable Olsen’sColorimetric method (Olsen’s, 1965), available potassium(K) by neutral normal ammonium acetate method (Jack-

son, 1973) and S by Turbidimetric method (Chesnin andYien, 1950). The plant samples (grain and straw samplesseparately) of both the seasons were collected after theharvesting of crop and analyzed for uptake of nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium content by following standardmethods, and plant uptake of nutrients was calibrated us-ing grain and straw yields data. The data collected fromthe experimental field and laboratory analysis were sub-jected to statistical analysis by adopting Fischer’s methodof analysis of variance. The level of significance used in‘F’ and ‘t’ test was P=0.05. Critical difference was calcu-lated wherever ‘F’ test was significant.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Nodulation study In pigeonpea, significantly higher number of nodules,

fresh and dry weight of nodules/plant were recorded un-der pigeonpea + urdbean intercropping system thanpigeonpea sole and pigeonpea + maize intercropping(Table 1). The legumes to attain its potential growththrough biological nitrogen fixation, the symbiosis be-tween the plant and Rhizobium in nodules must be work-ing properly. The healthy nodules and their number de-pend on the manufacture of carbohydrate in the leaf andtheir downward translocation to the nodules, which mustbe adequate for better symbiosis. Thus, the better nodula-tion and more fresh and dry weight occurred in pigeonpea+ urdbean intercrop of might be attributed to better photo-synthesis and translocation of photosynthetic to root nod-ules, because of adequate light and space. These resultsconfirm the findings of Singh and Faroda (1986).

Total number of nodules per plant, fresh and dry weightof nodules in pigeonpea/ urdbean crop were found signifi-cantly maximum under RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM@ 3 t/ha + ‘Harit vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha as compared to RDFalone during both the years. Inoculation of PSB withRhizobium and FYM could bring more phosphorus to soilsolution, ultimately increased phosphorus uptake whichenhances root growth. Phosphorus has a specific role innodule initiation, growth and function in addition to itsrole in host plant growth (Singh and Yadav, 2008). Mi-croorganisms with phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, po-tentially increase the availability of soluble phosphate andenhance the plant growth by improving biological nitrogenfixation (Ponmurugan and Gopi, 2006). Singh et al.,(2008) also reported beneficial effect on number of nod-ules/ plant, fresh and dry weight of urdbean.

Yield of components crop and pigeonpeaGrain yields were found significantly higher under

pigeonpea + urdbean intercropping system than pigeonpeasole and intercropping of pigeonpea + maize (Table 2). In

March 2018] INM IN PIGEONPEA-BASED INTERCROPPING 41

pigeonpea + urdbean or pigeonpea + maize intercroppingsystem, the grain yield of pigeonpea was increased 10.2%and 24.3% over pigeonpea sole respectively. Similarly, thepigeonpea + urdbean intercropping system increased thegrain yield of pigeonpea was 31.4% over pigeonpea +maize intercropping system. Inclusion of urdbean as inter-crop with pigeonpea attributed to less exhaustion of soilfertility, reduced early stage of crop-weed competition dueto their smoothing effect on weeds as compared to solepigeonpea and pigeonpea + maize intercropping, therebyincreased the yield indices and finally the grain-equivalentyield of pigeonpea. However, in pigeonpea + maize inter-

cropping, maize plants approved above the height ofpigeonpea, thus produces shading effect on pigeonpea andreduced penetration of light to the pigeonpea leaves. Theleaves export higher proportion of their assimilates to theroot at early stage, hence there is more active and pro-longed root system and more efficient uptake of water andnutrients to shoots. Similar results were also reported bySingh et al. (1998) and Pandey et al. (2003).

Amongst integrated nutrient management applicationof RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha + ‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha recorded the maximum grain yield overall the nutrient management system, which was statisti-

Table 1. Effect of intercrop and nutrient management on nodulation in pigeonpea and urdbean (pooled mean of 2 years)

Treatment Pigeonpea UrdbeanNumber of Fresh weight Dry weight Number of Fresh Dry weightnodules/ of nodules of nodules nodules/ weight of of nodules

plant (mg/plant) (mg/plant) plant nodules (mg/plant)(mg/plant)

Intercropping systemPigeonpea sole 9.1 97.9 11.5 – – –Pigeonpea + urdbean 10.7 129.0 15.7 70.3 278.6 74.0Pigeonpea + maize 4.0 69.8 8.0 – – –

SEm± 0.2 2.6 0.4 – – –CD (P=0.05) 0.5 7.7 0.9 – – –

Integrated nutrient management systemRDF 7.1 81.6 9.8 58.1 245.5 65.5RDF + PSB + Rhizobium 7.7 93.9 11.1 67.9 273.4 72.8RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha 8.4 107.9 12.7 76.3 285.6 78.2RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha + 8.6 112.2 13.4 78.7 301.0 79.7

‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/haSEm± 0.2 2.9 0.3 2.2 5.8 1.1CD (P=0.05) 0.6 8.7 1.1 7.4 20.2 3.8

RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer; PSB phosphate-solubilizing bacteria

Table 2. Effect of integrated nutrient treatments on yield of crops in pigeonpea-based intecropping systems (pooled mean of 2 years)

Treatment Grain yield (t/ha)Pigeonpea Urdbean Maize

Intercropping systemPigeonpea sole 1.56 - -Pigeonpea + urdbean 1.72 0.71 -Pigeonpea + maize 1.18 - 2.59

SEm± 0.04 - -CD ( P=0.05) 0.11 - -

Integrated nutrient management systemRDF 1.25 0.54 2.19RDF + PSB + Rhizobium 1.41 0.67 2.42RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha 1.6 0.78 2.84RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha ‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha 1.69 0.83 2.89

SEm± 0.04 0.03 0.09CD (P=0.05) 0.12 0.10 0.32

RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer; PSB phosphate-solubilizing bacteria

42 ATIK AHMAD ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

cally at par with RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha during both the years of study (Table 2). The increasein yield might be owing to the beneficial effect of com-bined use of organics with balanced inorganic fertilizationto the extent of with FYM @ 3 t/ha with ‘Harit-vardan’ @5 kg/ha + RDF + seed inoculation of biofertilizer overRDF alone. These results corroborated the findings ofKumar and Gautam (2004) and Saritha et al. (2012).

Nutrient uptakeThe pooled data on N, P and K uptake of pigeonpea,

urdbean and maize (Table 3) indicated significantly higheruptake of N, P and K of pigeonpea under pigeonpea +urdbean inter cropping system as compared to pigeonpeasole and pigeonpea + maize inter cropping. Application ofRDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha + ‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha, being at par with RDF + PSB + Rhizo-bium + FYM @ 3 t/ha, recorded significantly higher up-take of N, P and K than RDF alone. This was mainly ow-ing to higher biological production and developed rootsystem with enhanced root activity (Sasode, 2006; Patiland Padmani, 2007; Jain et al., 2007). It was also evidentthat yields were deciding factors for the uptake of nutrientby crop. Moreover, soil organic matter (SOM) is storehouse of nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur and therebycontributed significantly to supply of these nutrients tocrop plants. All these are conducive to availability of nu-trients and thereby more uptake by crop (Vasanthi andSubramaniam, 2004). The value of total uptake of N, P, Kand S has positive and significant correlation with grainyield. All of which have a strong bearing on the grainyield, as they are the yield-determining components (Goudand Kale, 2010).

Soil chemical propertiesAt harvesting stage of crop, organic carbon (%), avail-

able N,P, K and S content in the soil after harvesting ofpigeonpea recorded in pigeonpea + urdbean intercroppingsystem were significantly higher than pigeonpea sole, butwere at par with pigeon sole + maize (Table 4). The appli-cation of RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha +‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha resulted in significantly maxi-mum organic carbon (0.35%) over RDF alone whichmight be due to use of only inorganic fertilizers which canalso lead to decline in soil organic matter by enhancing itsdecomposition (Narde et al., 2004).

The improved organic matter content of soil in the treat-ments receiving organic materials with chemical fertilizersmight be owing to direct addition of organic substances insoil, better root growth and more plant residues recycledin soil (Sharma et al., 2000). The subsequent decomposi-tion of these roots might have resulted in increase organic Ta

ble

3. U

ptak

e of

nitr

ogen

, pho

spho

rus

and

pota

ssiu

m a

s in

flue

nced

by

pige

onpe

a-ba

sed

inte

rcro

ppin

g sy

stem

and

inte

grat

ed n

utri

ent m

anag

emen

t (po

oled

mea

n of

2 y

ears

)

Tre

atm

ent

Pige

onpe

a (k

g/ha

)U

rdbe

an (

kg/h

a)M

aize

(kg

/ha)

N u

ptak

eP

upta

keK

upt

ake

N u

ptak

eP

upta

keK

upt

ake

N u

ptak

eP

upta

keK

upt

ake

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Gra

inSt

raw

Inte

rcro

ppin

g sy

stem

Pige

onpe

a so

le48

.549

.33.

69.

17.

646

.2–

––

––

––

––

––

–Pi

geon

pea

+ u

rdbe

an56

.055

.34.

410

.78.

854

.224

.411

.83.

42.

15.

419

.7Pi

geon

pea

+ m

aize

34.5

38.2

2.5

7.0

5.5

39.8

––

––

––

40.5

38.0

12.0

3.1

15.7

38.8

SEm

±1.

31.

60.

10.

20.

21.

6–

––

––

––

––

––

–C

D (

P=0.

05)

3.8

4.6

0.3

0.7

0.6

4.7

––

––

––

––

––

––

Inte

grat

ed n

utri

ent

man

agem

ent

RD

F37

.134

.82.

66.

35.

834

.917

.78.

32.

41.

33.

914

.831

.229

.89.

62.

313

.132

.3R

DF

+ P

SB +

Rhi

zobi

um42

.843

.03.

18.

06.

742

.622

.911

.03.

12.

05.

018

.736

.234

.610

.92.

814

.536

.3R

DF

+ P

SB +

Rhi

zobi

um +

50.8

54.0

4.0

10.2

8.1

52.4

27.5

13.3

3.8

2.5

6.0

21.8

46.7

43.4

13.6

3.7

17.5

42.8

FYM

@ 3

t/ha

RD

F +

PSB

+ R

hizo

bium

+54

.558

.74.

411

.28.

757

.029

.614

.44.

12.

76.

523

.348

.044

.113

.93.

717

.843

.6FY

M @

3 t/

ha ‘

Har

it-va

rdan

’@

5 k

g/ha

SEm

±1.

51.

50.

10.

302

1.9

1.2

0.45

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.7

1.8

1.3

0.5

0.1

0.6

2.4

CD

(P=

0.05

)4.

55.

40.

40.

80.

65.

44.

11.

570.

40.

40.

62.

36.

24.

71.

80.

41.

78.

4

RD

F, R

ecom

men

ded

dose

of

fert

ilize

r; P

SB p

hosp

hate

-sol

ubili

zing

bac

teri

a

March 2018] INM IN PIGEONPEA-BASED INTERCROPPING 43

Table 5. Economical yield of pigeonpea as influenced bypigeonpea-based intercropping and integrated nutrientmanagement (pooled mean of 2 years)

Treatment Net returns Benefit:(× 103 /ha) cost

ratio

Intercropping systemPigeonpea sole 38.8 1.5Pigeonpea + urdbean 69.5 2.2Pigeonpea + maize 45.8 1.4Integrated nutrient management systemRDF 38.8 1.4RDF + PSB + Rhizobium 47.9 1.7RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha 57.4 1.9RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha 56.8 2.0

‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha

RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer; PSB phosphate-solubilizingbacteria

Table 4. Available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur as influenced by pigeonpea-based intercropping system and integrated nutri-ent-management system

Treatment OC (%) N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha) K (kg/ha) S (ppm)

Intercropping systemPigeonpea sole 0.32 158.6 17.3 238.5 10.7Pigeonpea + urdbean 0.35 163.6 19.0 244.6 11.1Pigeonpea + maize 0.32 15.3 16.7 232.1 10.1

SEm± 0.01 1.0 0.5 2.1 0.7CD (P=0.05) 0.03 2.8 1.8 6.2 NS

Integrated nutrient management systemRDF 0.30 152.3 15.6 236.8 9.3RDF + PSB + Rhizobium 0.32 156.1 17.2 238.1 10.3RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha 0.34 160.9 18.6 240.8 11.3RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha ‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha 0.35 161.3 19.0 241.3 11.8

SEm± 0.01 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.4CD (P=0.05) 0.03 3.8 1.4 1.7 1.1

RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer; PSB phosphate-solubilizing bacteria

carbon content of the soil (Tolanur and Badanur, 2003).The improvement in nutrient status of the soil may be as-cribed to more biomass (leaves and root etc.) added by thepigeonpea. Shivran and Ahlawat (2000) also reported im-provement in status of the soil through addition of fertil-izers. Application of 3 t FYM/ha with 5 kg/ha. Harit-vardan reduced the bulk density, and pH of the soil, andincrease in the organic carbon and available NPKS contentof the soil over RDF. This might be owing too addition ofFYM that directly resulted in increases of organic carboncontent of the soil, while increases in nitrogen content asa result of organically bond nitrogen converted to miner-alizable from nitrogen, phosphorus as a result of organicmaterials reducing phosphorus fixing capacity of the soiland available K due to release non-exchangeable K from

the soil. This released K and also applied K not only metcrop requirement but also build up available K content ofthe soil.

Economics The intercropping system of pigeonpea + urdbean re-

corded significantly higher net return than sole crop ofpigeonpea and pigeonpea + maize (Table 5). The sametrend in benefit: cost ratio was observed under intercrop-ping system (2.2). Kumar and Rana (2007) reported highermonetary returns at higher fertility level in pigeonpea +greengram intercropping system. Goyal et al. (1991) andBajpai and Singh (1992) also reported similar findings inintercropping of pigeonpea with greengram. Combinedapplication of RDF + PSB + Rhizobium + FYM @ 3 t/ha‘Harit-vardan’ @ 5 kg/ha significant higher net returns andbenefit cast ratio over RDF alone. Similar findings werealso reported by Vyas et al. (2006).

REFERENCES

IIPR. 2014. IIPR Annual Report. Externally funded projects-NICRA. Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Indian In-stitute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh India

Bajpai, R.P. and Singh, V.K. 1992. Performance of pigeonpea(Cajanus cajan)-based intercropping in rainfed condition.Indian Journal of Agronomy 37(4): 655–658.

Chesnin, L. and Yien, C.H. 1950. Turbidmetric determination ofavailable sulphur. Soil Science Society Proceedings 15: 149–151.

Gaud, V.V. and Kale, H.B. 2010. Productivity and profitability ofpigeonpea under different source of nutrients in rainfed con-dition of central India. Journal of Food Legumes 23(3 and4): 212–217.

Goyal, S.N., Patel, N.L., Patel, N.M. and Ahlawat, I.P.S. 1991. In-tercropping studies in pigeonpea under rainfed conditions.Indian Journal of Agronomy 36(1): 49–51.

44 ATIK AHMAD ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India,Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

Jain, A.K., Kumar, S. and Panwar, J.D.S. 2007. Response ofmungbean (Vigna radiata) to phosphorus and micronutrientson N and P uptake and seed quality. Legume Research,30(3): 201–204.

Kumar, A. and Rana, K.S. 2007. Performance of pigeonpea(Cajanus cajan) + greengram (Phaseolus radiatus) inter-cropping system as influenced by moisture-conservationpractices and fertility levels under rainfed conditions. IndianJournal Agronomy 52(1): 31–35.

Kumar, N. and Gautam, R.C. 2004. Effect of moisture conservationand nutrient management practices on growth and yield ofpearlmillet under rainfed conditions, Indian Journal ofAgronomy 49: 182–185.

Narde, S., Morari, F., Berti. A., Tosoni, M. and Giondini, L. 2004.Soil organic matter properties after 40 years of different useof organic and mineral fertilizers. European Journal ofAgronomy 21: 357–367.

Olsen R.S., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S. and Dean, L.A. 1954. Esti-mation of available P in soil by extraction with sodium bicar-bonate. Circular, United State Development of Agriculture19: 939.

Pandey, I.B., Bharti, V. and Mishra, S.S. 2003. Effect of maize (Zeamays)-based intercropping systems on maize yield and asso-ciated weed under rainfed condition. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 48(1): 30–33.

Patil, A.B. and Padmani, D.R. 2007. Effect of IPM practices onyield, quality and economic of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan(L.) Millsp.] under rainfed conditions. International Journalof Agriculture Science 3(2): 202–204.

Ponmurugan, P. and Gopi, C. 2006. Distribution pattern andscreening of phosphate solubilizing bacteria isolatedfrom different food and storage crops. Journal of Agronomy5: 600–604.

Saritha, K.S., Pujari, B.T., Basavarajappa, R., Naik, M.K.,Rameshbabu and Desai, B.K. 2012. Effect of irrigation, nu-trient and planting geometry on yield, yield attributes andeconomics of pigeonpea. Karnataka Journal of AgriculturalSciences 25(1): 131–33.

Sasode, D.S. 2006. Effect of fertility levels and sulphur sources onyield and seed quality of mungbean (Vigna radiata) and fer-tility of alluvial soil. Legume Research 29(3): 221–224.

Sharma, M.P., Bal, S.V. and Gupta, D.K. 2000. Crop yield and prop-

erties of inceptisol as influenced by residue managementunder rice–wheat cropping sequence. Journal Indian Societyof Soil Science 48(3): 506–509.

Shivran, D.R. and Ahlawat, I.P.S. 2000. Crop productivity, nutrientuptake and soil fertility as influenced by cropping systemand fertilizer in pigeopea–wheat cropping system. IndianJournal of Agricultural Sciences 70(10): 815–819.

Singh, D., 2011. ‘Harit-vardan’: A new tool for nest revolution indry land agriculture. Managing director, Indian MedicinalPlants Marketing Federation. Agrobios Newsletter 10(6):33–35.

Singh, R.C. and Faroda, A.S. 1986. Effect of cropping system andphosphorus on nodulation in pigeonpea and soil fertility.Indian Journal of Agronomy 31(2): 203–204.

Singh, R.S. and Yadav, M.K. 2008. Effect of phosphorus andbiofertilizers on growth, yield and nutrient uptake of longduration pigeonpea under rainfed condition. Journal of FoodLegumes 21(1): 46–48.

Singh, S.K., Singh, B., Singh, G and Singh, A.K. 1998. Studies onFertilizer management in pigeonpea based intercroppingsystems under dryland condition. Indian Journal of DrylandAgricultural Research Development 13: 1–4.

Singh, Y., Singh, V.K., Rana, N.S., Kumar, S., Ranwar, G.S. andKumar, Y. 2008. Response of urdbean to form yard manureand phosphorus application under urdbean–wheat croppingsequence. Journal of Food Legumes 21: 119–121.

Subbiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. 1956. A rapid procedure for the esti-mation of available nitrogen in soil. Current Science 25:259–260.

Tolanur, S.I. and Badanur, V.P. 2003. Changes in organic carbon,available N, P and K under integrated use of organic manure,green manure and fertilizer on sustaining productivity ofpearlmillet–pigeonpea system and fertility of an Inceptisol.Journal of Indian Society Soil Science 51(1): 37–41.

Vasanthi, D. and Subramanian, S. 2004. Effect of vermicompost onnutrient uptake and protein content in blackgram. LegumeResearch 27(4): 293–295.

Vyas, A.K., Billore, S.D. and Joshi, O.P. 2006. Productivity andeconomics of integrated nutrient management in soybean(Glycine max) + pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) intercroppingsystem. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 76(1): 7–10.

Walkley, A. and Black, J.A. 1934. An examination of Degtzariffmethod for determination of soil organic matter and pro-posed modification of chromic acid titration method. SoilScience 37: 29–38.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 45__49 (March 2018)

Productivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa) genotypes as influenced bycrop management practices under middle Indo-Gangetic Plains

SANTOSH KUMAR1, RAKESH KUMAR2, J.S. MISHRA3, S.K. DWIVEDI4, VED PRAKASH5, K.K. RAO6, A.K. SINGH7,B.P. BHATT8, S.S. SINGH9, A.A. HARIS10,VIRENDAR KUMAR11, ASHISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA12,

SUDHANSHU SINGH13 AND ASHOK YADAV14

ICAR Research Complex for Eastern Region, Patna, Bihar 800 014

Received : December 2017; Revised accepted : February 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was carried out during the wet seasons of 2012 and 2013 at Patna, Bihar, to evaluate theperformance of 7 promising rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes under 2 crop establishment methods, viz. best man-agement practices (BMPs) and system of rice intensification (SRI). Results revealed that BMPs recorded signifi-cantly higher grain yield, biological and production efficiency than to SRI. Among the rice genotypes, ‘IR83387 B-B40-1’ recorded significantly higher grain yield (4.86 t/ha) followed by ‘Abhishek’ (4.52 t/ha) and ‘Shusk Samrat’(4.40 t/ha). Rice genotype ‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ found significantly superior in terms of gross and net returns( 66.3×103/ha and 34.5×103/ha) to rest of the genotypes. Moreover, BMP gave the highest carbohydrateequivalent and carbon output (3.34 t/ha and 4.71 t CO2/ha) as compared to SRI (3.17 t/ha and 4.22 t CO2/ha).

Key words: Best management practices, Carbohydrate equivalent, Carbon output, Rice genotypes, SRI

2Corresponding author’s Email: rakeshbhu08@gmail.com1,2,4,5,6Scientist, 3Head (Division of Crop Research), 7Principal Sci-entist, 8Director; 9Head, Crop Production, Indian Institute of PulsesResearch, Kanpur, 10Principal Scientist (Agronomy), ICAR-CPCRI,Kayamkulum, Kerala 690 533,11,12,13IRRI-India, New Delhi 110 012,14CSISA, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751 014

Rice is the most important staple food crop for morethan half of the world’s population, providing ~21% of thetotal calorie intake (Singh et al., 2017). In India, it occu-pies an area of ~43.8 million ha and a production of ~105million tonnes (mt), with average productivity of ~2.21 t/ha (Kumar et al., 2016a). Demand for rice growing is in-creasing every year, and it is estimated that by 2025 AD, itsrequirement would be ~140 mt (Kumar et al., 2016b). Tosustain the present food self-sufficiency and to meet thefuture food requirement, India has to increase rice produc-tivity by~3% per annum (Kumar et al., 2016c).The con-ventional method of crop establishment in rice is manualtransplanting of seedling into puddled soil. It requires alarge amount of water, energy, labour, which are becomingincreasingly scarce and expensive (Bohra and Kumar,2015). Moreover, continuous puddling of rice fields overdecades has led to the deterioration of soil physical prop-erties through structural breakdown of soil aggregates,capillary pores and clay dispersion, thereby restricting ger-

mination and rooting of succeeding crops (Mandal et al.,2011; Roy et al., 2011).

However, appropriate seedling age at transplanting isessential for optimum yield (Das et al., 2014). The systemof rice intensification (SRI) concept maintains that earlytransplanting of younger seedling preserves potential ofplant for much greater tillering, more root growth and bet-ter yield than older ones. Number of seedlings that aretransplanted in a hill also influences crop yield (Kumar etal., 2015a). The SRI advocates use of transplanting ofyounger seedling at single seedling/hill, use of wider spac-ing, intermittent irrigation, seedling uprooting by scoopingand careful transplanting, and weed control by cono-weeder and use of organic manures (Kumar et al., 2015b).Although SRI is gaining wider acceptance in many coun-tries, there are some limitations in high productive areas ofthe eastern India, wherein production of rice is not prom-ising as it should have been. To overcome these decorativelimits of SRI, at the outset one can go for the best manage-ment practices (BMPs), in which 21 days old seedlings aretransplanted with spacing of 20 cm × 15 cm at 1 seedling/hill, and organic manures as well as fertilizers are used inintegration. Hence integration of BMPs along with iden-tification of responsive rice genotypes is a cost-effectiveand safe approach to sustain rice productivity, particularly

Research Paper

46 SANTOSH KUMAR ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

by the resource-poor farmers of this region (Kumar et al.,2016d). It is therefore, imperative to identify the best cropmanagement practices and efficient rice genotypes, whichmaximize the productivity as well as profitability inmiddle Indo-Gangetic Plains. Hence, keeping these thingsin view the present investigations was undertaken.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted at the ICAR Re-search Complex for Eastern Region, Patna (25.30ON, lon-gitude 85.15OE), during 2 wet seasons of 2012 and 2013under the rainfed condition of Bihar. Soil of the experi-mental plot was clay loam (42% sand, 35% silt and 23%clay), low in organic carbon (0.46%) and N (212 kg/ha),and medium in available phosphorus (26 kg P

2O

5/ha) and

potassium (215 kg K2O/ha). Total rainfall received duringcropping period (June–November) was 542.4 and 715.7mm in 2012 and 2013 respectively (Fig. 1). Experimentaltreatments comprising 2 crop establishment methods, viz.best management practices (BMPs) and system of ricecultivation (SRI), in main plots and 7 rice genotypes in-cluding released 4 drought-tolerant released varieties, viz.‘Sahbhagi Dhan’, ‘Shusk Samrat’, ‘CR Dhan 40’,‘Abhishek’, along with 3 advanced breeding lines, viz.‘IR83387 B-B-40-1’, ‘IR 82870-11’, and ‘IR 84899 B 183CRA 19-1’, in subplots, were replicated thrice. The grossand net plot size was 5 m × 5 m and 4.5 m × 4.5 m, respec-tively, and treatments were superimposed in same plotsduring both years to study the cumulative treatment effect.Nurseries for both the crop establishment methods weresown on the same day, but transplanting dates varied asper treatment requirement. For SRI, 13-day-old seedlingsat 1 seedling/hill were used with 25 cm × 25 cm spacing,while for BMPs, 21-day-old seedlings at 1 seedling/hillwith a spacing of 20 cm × 15 cm were planted. Nurseriesfor SRI as well as BMPs were prepared using a modifiedmat-nursery method (MMN method) as suggested by Das

et al. (2014). Seedlings were raised in 4 cm layer of soilarranged on a firm surface covered with plastic sheet. Awooden frame of 1 m width, 0.04 m height and suitablelength, divided into the equal segment of 0.75 m each, wasplaced over this firm surface covered with plastic sheet.The frame was filled with soil mixture uniformly, and pre-germinated seeds were sown on soil surface with a seedrate of 50 g/m2 and covered with same soil mixture. Soilmixture (4 m3 for 100 m2 of mat nursery) was prepared bymixing 80% soil and 20% well-decomposed farmyardmanure (FYM). Seed-bed was sprinkled with water usingrose-can, as and when needed. The young seedlings attain-ing one and half leaf stage in ~13 days, by scooping singleseedlings for SRI, and 2–3 leaves 21-day-old seedlings forBMPs were transplanted. The farmyard manure was ap-plied @ 10 t/ha, 20 days ahead of transplanting to the mainfield. Recommended dose of fertilizers, i.e. 100, 50 and 40kg N, P and K/ha was applied for both the establishmentmethods through urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP) andmuriate of potash (MoP). Half dose of N and full dose ofP and K were applied basal and the remaining N was ap-plied in 2 equal splits– at maximum tillering and panicle-initiation stages. The field was subjected to conditions ofalternate wetting and drying, and only a thin film of waterwas maintained by closing and opening of bund aroundplots as necessary for SRI and BMP rice culture. For easyirrigation and drainage of water, channel of 30 cm widthand 20 cm depth was provided around each plot. Thegrowth and yield attributes, i.e. plant height, tillers/hill,dry-matter production, number of grains/panicle and1,000-grain weight, were recorded at harvesting from 5random hills in each plot. Crop was threshed manually;grains were cleaned and weighed for expressing yield in t/ha. Economics was calculated on the basis of prevailingmarket prices of inputs and produce. Net returns were cal-culated by deducting cost of cultivation from gross re-turns. The production efficiency and economic efficiencywere computed as suggested by Kumawat et al. (2012).Economic yield of rice was converted into equivalentvalue of carbohydrate (t/ha) as suggested by Gopalan et al.(2004). Carbon output was calculated based on plant bio-mass (Lal, 2004) and Singh and Ahlawat (2015). The fielddata obtained for 2 years were pooled and statisticallyanalysed using F-test (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). Test ofsignificance of the treatment differences were done on thebasis of t-test. The significant difference between treat-ment means were compared with critical differences at 5%levels of probability.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth parametersThe growth parameters, viz. plant height, tillers and

Fig. 1. Weather conditions during the experimentation (2012 and2013)

March 2018] RICE RESPONSE TO CROP MANAGEMENT 47

dry-matter production, of rice were influenced markedlyby the crop establishment methods (Table 1). Significantlyhigher plant height was recorded with the BMPs (100.6cm) than that under SRI (93.8 cm). This might be due tobetter management practices influencing these attributespositively, which helped in better crop growth and devel-opment (Das et al., 2014; Wahlang et al. 2016). The tillersand dry-matter production were significantly higher withSRI (311 and 27.2 g) than BMPs (280 and 23.3 g). Thismight be owing to better establishment methods andyoung seedlings along with the wider spacing might beresponsible for production of more tillers and dry matter(Kumar et al., 2017). The per cent increase in number oftillers and dry-matter production of SRI over BMPs was11.1 and 16.7%, respectively. This might be ascribed toadvantage of early transplanting of younger seedling un-der SRI that produced more tillers and more root growth,leading to better crop growth and development (Kumar etal., 2016d). There was marked variation amongst the ricegenotypes in terms of growth attributes, i.e. plant height,tillers and dry-matter production/hill (Table 1). Signifi-cantly taller plants were recorded with ‘CR Dhan 40’ (115cm), followed by ‘IR84899 B183-CRA 19-1’ (107 cm)than the other genotypes. However, maximum tillers perunit area were recorded with ‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ (334/m2), which being on a par with ‘Abhishek’ (322/m2), wassignificantly superior to rest of the genotypes. ‘Abhishek’rice had significantly higher dry-matter production/hill(27.6 g), being on a par with ‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ (26.2 g)and ‘Shusk Samrat’ (25.7 g). Similarly, rice variety‘Sahbhagi Dhan’ took significantly lesser number of daysto 50% flowering (79 days) than ‘Abhishek’ (92 days) and‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ (91 days).

Yield attributes and yieldThe yield attributes of rice, viz. grains/panicle, spikelet

fertility, grain and biological yield, production and biologi-cal efficiency and carbohydrate-equivalent yield werehigher under BMPs than SRI, but it could not reach thelevel of significance (Table 1). However, 1,000-grainweight and harvest index were higher under SRI thanBMPs. This might be attributed to the effective crop man-agement leading to improvement in these attributes underthe BMPs. It was probably owing to better growth andhigher values of yield-attributing characters caused bybetter nutrient absorption from the soil, increased rate ofmetabolic process and photosynthesis under the BMPs(Kumar et al., 2015b; Singh and Ahlawat, 2015).

The yield attributes of rice genotypes varied signifi-cantly among themselves (Table 1). Genotype ‘IR83387B-B 40-1’ (184), being at par with ‘CR Dhan 40’ (180)and ‘Abhishek’ (178), produced significantly higherTa

ble

1. G

row

th, y

ield

attr

ibut

es a

nd y

ield

of

rice

gen

otyp

es u

nder

dif

fere

nt m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es (

aver

age

data

of

2 ye

ars)

Tre

atm

ent

Pla

ntT

iller

s/m

2D

ryD

ays

Gra

ins/

1,00

0-gr

ain

Spik

elet

Gra

inB

iolo

gica

lH

arve

stP

rodu

ctio

nB

iolo

gica

lhe

ight

mat

ter

to 5

0%pa

nicl

ew

eigh

tfe

rtili

tyyi

eld

yiel

din

dex

effi

cien

cyef

fici

ency

(cm

) (

g/hi

ll) f

low

erin

g (

g) (

%)

(t/h

a) (

t/ha)

(kg

/ha/

day)

(kg

/ha/

day)

Man

agem

ent

prac

tices

BM

P10

0.6

280

23.3

8717

521

.686

.74.

2710

.10.

4029

33.6

SR

I93

.831

127

.286

171

21.9

85.0

4.15

9.6

0.42

2728

.7SE

m±

1.2

2.89

0.9

0.77

2.3

0.3

0.93

0.02

0.05

0.01

1.03

0.7

CD

(P=

0.05

)3.

711

.83.

4N

SN

SN

SN

SN

SN

SN

SN

S2.

3

Gen

otyp

es‘I

R 8

3387

B-B

40-

1’93

.233

426

.291

184

24.8

88.6

4.86

11.3

0.44

4136

.0‘S

husk

Sam

rat’

94.9

290

25.7

8816

820

.982

.54.

4010

.20.

4339

35.5

‘Abh

ishe

k’87

.132

227

.692

178

21.6

91.3

4.52

10.8

0.42

3733

.5‘I

R 8

2870

11’

88.1

304

25.0

9016

120

.782

.84.

0110

.30.

3932

27.7

‘Sah

bhag

i D

han’

95.0

271

24.4

8517

222

.688

.44.

0210

.10.

4037

34.4

‘CR

Dha

n 40

’11

5.0

272

22.9

7918

020

.480

.73.

558.

80.

4026

23.7

‘IR

8489

9 B

183

CR

A 1

9-1’

107.

027

825

.280

169

21.1

84.5

3.78

9.45

0.43

3228

.4SE

m±

1.8

9.3

1.05

1.27

4.6

0.42

1.42

0.03

0.07

0.01

1.4

1.24

CD

(P=

0.05

)5.

328

.94.

15.

014

.81.

134.

70.

110.

280.

034.

33.

6

BM

P, B

est

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

; SR

I, s

yste

m o

f ri

ce i

nten

sifi

catio

n

48 SANTOSH KUMAR ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

grains/panicle than the remaining genotypes. Significantlyhigher 1,000-grain weight was noted with ‘IR83387 B-B40-1’ (24.8 g) followed by ‘Sahbhagi Dhan’ (22.6 g) andAbhishek (21.6 g). Spikelet fertility, one of major yieldattributes, might be higher owing to conversion of sourceto sink effectively in respective genotypes. The spikeletfertility was significantly higher with ‘Abhishek’ (91.3%)followed by ‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ (88.6%) and ‘SahbhagiDhan’ (88.4%). Rice genotype ‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ per-formed significantly better in terms of grain yield (4.86 t/ha) and biological yield (11.3 t/ha) than the remainingpromising genotypes (Table 2) and similar trend was fol-lowed in case of harvest index also, might be owing tobetter growth, i.e. plant height and dry-matter production,resulting in more value of yield attributes and ultimatelyhigher grain yield. Production efficiency and biologicalefficiency were higher with ‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ (36 and83.7 kg/ha/day) and the lowest with ‘CR Dhan 40’ (23.7and 58.7 kg/ha/day) (Table 1). Significantly higher valuesof carbohydrate equivalent was recorded with ‘IR83387B-B 40-1’ (3.89 t/ha). The differential values of attributesamong the genotypes might be due to genetic traits(Kumar et al., 2016d; Singh and Ahlawat, 2015).

EconomicsHigher gross returns ( 58.3×103/ha), net returns

( 27.9×103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.92) were re-corded with BMPs as compared to SRI (Table 2). TheBMPs revealed 5.43 and 25.7% higher gross and net re-turns over SRI owing to higher yield accounted with therespective treatments. Similar finding was reported by

Kumar et al. (2015a). Among the rice genotypes,‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ had significantly highest gross returns( 66.3×103/ha), net returns ( 34.5×103/ha) and benefit:cost ratio (2.09). However, the lowest values of these at-tributes were associated with ‘CR Dhan 40’ because of itslower yield. Economic efficiency was higher with‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ ( 256 ha/day) compared to rest ofthe genotypes. This might be owing to the higher grainyield with the respective genotypes (Kumar et al., 2015b;Kumar et al., 2016d).

Interaction effectsSignificant interaction was observed between the crop

establishment methods and the rice genotypes for grainyield (Table 3). On the pooled basis, rice genotypes‘Abhishek’, ‘Sahbhagi Dhan’ and ‘IR84899 B 183 CRA19-1’ gave significantly higher grain yield when planted

Table 2. Economics of rice genotypes as influenced by different crop management practices (average data of 2 years)

Treatment Cost of Gross Net Benefit: Economic Carbohydrate- Carboncultivation returns returns cost efficiency equivalent output(×103 /ha) (×103 /ha) (×103 /ha) ratio ( /ha/day) yield (t/ha) (CO2 eq./ha)

Management practicesBMP 30.4 58.3 27.9 1.92 220 3.34 4.71SRI 33.1 55.3 22.2 1.67 157 3.17 4.22

SEm± – 0.02 0.02 0.09 6.7 0.02 0.3CD (P=0.05) – NS NS NS NS NS NS

Genotypes‘IR 83387 B-B 40-1’ 31.8 66.3 34.5 2.09 256 3.89 4.97‘Shusk Samrat’ 31.8 60.1 28.3 1.89 228 3.51 4.49‘Abhishek’ 31.8 61.7 29.9 1.94 221 3.73 4.77‘IR 82870 11’ 31.8 54.7 22.9 1.72 158 3.56 4.55‘Sahbhagi Dhan’ 31.8 54.9 23.1 1.73 197 3.49 4.46‘CR Dhan 40’ 31.8 48.5 16.7 1.52 111 3.03 3.87‘IR84899 B 183 CRA 19-1’ 31.8 51.6 19.8 1.62 149 3.25 4.16

SEm± – 0.32 0.32 0.11 9.8 0.04 0.5CD (P=0.05) – 1.1 1.1 0.29 29 NS NS

BMP, Best management practices; SRI, system of rice intensification

Table 3. Interaction effect on grain yield of rice genotypes underdifferent management practices (average data of 2 years)

Rice genotype Grain yield (t/ha)BMP SRI

‘IR 83387 B-B 40-1’ 5.03 4.69‘Shusk Samrat’ 4.30 4.50‘Abhishek ‘ 4.94 4.10‘IR 82870 11’ 3.65 4.37‘Sahbhagi Dhan’ 4.30 3.74‘CR Dhan 40’ 3.49 3.61‘IR84899 B 183 CRA 19-1’ 4.18 3.37SEm± 0.04CD (P=0.05) 0.14

March 2018] RICE RESPONSE TO CROP MANAGEMENT 49

with BMPs as compared to SRI. However, ‘ShuskSamrat’ and ‘IR 82870-11’ gave significantly higher grainyield, when planted with SRI as compared to BMPs.These varieties were more responsive to SRI managementpractices owing to adopting younger seedlings and betterestablishment methods (Kumar et al., 2017)

It was concluded that growing of rice genotypes‘IR83387 B-B 40-1’ and ‘Abhishek’ with the best manage-ment practices gives higher productivity and profitabilityunder the Middle Indo-Gangetic Plains of India.

REFERENCES

Bohra, J.S. and Kumar, R. 2015. Effect of crop establishment meth-ods on productivity, economics and energetics in rice (Oryzasativa)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) system. Indian Journal ofAgricultural Sciences 85(2): 217–223.

Das A., Patel, D.P., Munda, G.C., Ramkrushna, G.I., Kumar, M. andNgachan, S.V. 2014. Improving productivity, water and en-ergy-use efficiency in lowland rice (Oryza sativa) throughappropriate establishment methods and nutrient managementpractices in the mid altitudes of north east India. Experimen-tal Agriculture 50(3): 353–75.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedure for Ag-ricultural Research, edn. 2, pp. 241–71. John Wiley & Sons,New York.

Gopalan, C., Sastri R. and Balasubramaniam. 2004. Nutritive Valueof Indian Foods, revised edition, pp. 47–57. National Insti-tute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research,Hyderabad, India.

Kumar, A., Sen, A. and Kumar, R. 2016a. Micronutrient fortificationin crop to enhance growth, yield and quality of aromatic rice.Journal of Environmental Biology 37(5): 973–977.

Kumar, M., Kumar, R., Meena, K.L., Rajkhowa, D.J. and Kumar, A.2016b. Productivity enhancement of rice through crop estab-lishment techniques for livelihood improvement in EasternHimalayas. Oryza 53(3): 300–308.

Kumar, R., Hangsing, N., Zeliang, P.K. and Deka, B.C. 2016c. Ex-ploration, collection and conservation of local ricegermplasm of Nagaland. Environment and Ecology 34(4D):2,514–2,517.

Kumar, R., Kumar, M. and Deka, B.C. 2015a. Production potential,profitability and energetics of transplanted rice as influencedby establishment methods and nutrient management prac-tices in Eastern Himalaya. Research on Crop 16(4): 625–633: doi: 10.5958/2348–7542.2015.00088.1.

Kumar, R., Kumar, M., Kumar, A. and Pandey, A. 2015b. Produc-tivity, profitability, nutrient uptake and soil health as influ-enced by establishment methods and nutrient managementpractices in transplanted rice (Oryza sativa) under hill eco-system of North East India. Indian Journal of AgriculturalSciences 85(5): 634–639.

Kumar, S., Kumar, R., Mishra, J.S., Dwivedi, S.K., Prakash, V.,Bhkata, N., Singh, A.K., Singh, S.K., Haris, A.A., Rao,K.K., Mondal, S., Bhatt, B.P., Singh, S. and Yadav, A. 2017.Evaluation of rice (Oryza sativa) cultivars under differentcrop establishment methods to enhance productivity, profit-ability and energetics of rice in middle Indo-Gangetic Plainsof Eastern India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 62(3): 307–314.

Kumar, S., Mishra, J.S., Singh, A.K., Dwivedi, S.K., Singh, S.K.,Singh, S.S., Haris, A.A., Mondal, S, Bhatt, B.P., Singh, S.and Yadav, A. 2016d. Response of rice (Oryza sativa) geno-types to weed management in rainfed ecosystems of easternIndia. Indian Journal of Agronomy 61(1): 37–44.

Kumawat, N., Singh, R.P., Kumar, R., Kumari, A. and Kumar, P.2012. Response of intercropping and integrated nutrition onproduction potential and profitability of rainfed pigeonpea.Journal of Agricultural Science 4(7): 154–162. doi:10.5539/jas.v4n7p154.

Lal, R. 2004. Carbon emission from farm operations. Environmen-tal International 30: 981–990.doi: 10.1016/j. envint.2004.03.005.

Mandal, D., Singh, D., Kumar, R., Kumari, A. and Kumar, V. 2011.Effects on production potential and economics of directseeded rice sowing dates and weed management techniques.Indian Journal of Weed Science 43(3 & 4): 139–144.

Roy, D.K., Kumar, R. and Kumar, A. 2011. Production potentialityand sustainability of rice-based cropping sequences in floodprone lowlands of North Bihar. Oryza 48(1): 47–51.

Singh, R.J. and Ahlawat, I.P.S. 2015. Energy budgeting and carbonfootprint of transgenic cotton-wheat production systemthrough peanut intercropping and FYM addition. Environ-mental Monitoring and Assessment 187(5): 1–16.doi:10.1007/s10661-015-4516-4.

Singh, S.K., Abraham, T., Kumar, R. and Kumar, R. 2017. Responseof crop establishment methods and split application of nitro-gen on productivity of rice under irrigated ecosystem. Envi-ronment & Ecology 35(2A): 859–862.

Wahlang B., Das, A., Layek, J., Munda, G.C., Ramkrushna, G.I. andPanwar, A.S. 2016. Effect of establishment methods andnutrient management on physiological attributes and water-use efficiency of rice (Oryza sativa) in a sub-tropical climate.Indian Journal of Agronomy 60(4): 157–163.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 50__54 (March 2018)

Effect of levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on productivity,nutrient uptake and soil fertility in rice (Oryza sativa) in an Alfisols of

Tambiraparani tract

M. PARAMASIVAN1 AND N. SENTHIL KUMAR2

Agricultural College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Killikulam, Vallanad,Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu 628 252

Received : March 2016; Revised accepted : December 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the winter (rabi) seasons of 2011–12 and 2012–2013 at AgriculturalCollege and Research Institute, Killikulam, Tamil Nadu, to study the effect of different levels of NPK on productiv-ity, nutrient uptake, economics and soil fertility of rice (Oryza sativa L.). The experiment was carried out in random-ized block design and replicated thrice with 7 treatments involving of 3 levels of N and 2 levels of P and K each.Application of 200 : 75 : 75 kg N : P : K/ha resulted in the maximum plant height (95.7 cm), productive tillers/plant(18.3), panicle length (27.2), grains/panicle (25.3 ), seed weight (24.1 g), grain yield (7.04 t/ha), straw yield (8.58 t/ha), net returns ( 52.6 × 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.65), N, P and K (171.9, 28.6 and 185.2 kg/ha respec-tively) uptake compared to the control. Significant built up of organic carbon (1.24%), available N (326.7 kg/ha),available P (21.4 kg/ha) and available K (362.7 kg/ha) was registered with 200 : 75 : 75 kg N : P : K/ha. The maxi-mum balance of N, P and K (50.7, 5.6 and 74.0 kg/ha respectively) were also recorded under the same treatment.

Key words : Alfisols, Available nutrients, Grain and straw yields, N : P : K levels, Nutrient content and up-take

2Corresponding author’s Email: paramusoil@gmail.com1Assistant Professor (SS & AC), 2Assistant Professor (Agronomy)

Rice is the most important stable food crop in the worldand is grown under abroad range of environmental condi-tions. The global production of rice has been estimated tobe at the level of 680 million tonnes and the area of pro-duction is estimated as 150 million ha (Fageria et al.,2014). India is the second largest producer of rice afterChina. In India, it is cultivated in an area of 43.97 millionha with the production of 106.29 million tonnes with pro-ductivity of 2.37 t/ha (DAC, GoI, 2014). In Tamil Nadu,the production is 7.46 million tonnes from the area of 2.01million ha with the productivity of 3.9 t/ha (DES, 2014).

The productivity of rice has been stagnant inTambiraparani river basin during the last decade, mostlybecause of inadequate and imbalanced supply of plantnutrients. The erratic rainfall and poor economic status ofthe rice farmers of this river basin are major causes of lowdose of fertilizers. Under certain situation, cost of cultiva-tion exceeds the net realization, making it an un profitable.Yield enhancement has been the major challenge whichhas to come through increased productivity in the back-

drop of imbalanced nutrition. Apart from many improvedproduction technologies, imbalanced use of chemical fer-tilizers leading to the emergence of multiple nutrient defi-ciencies are major constraints in achieving higher yield. Toachieve sustainable yield increases to meet the growingdemand of the state population, it is essential to enhancethe productivity of rice in this basin. To augment the riceproduction, the rescheduling of NPK fertilizers have beenconceptualized wherein lowland rice-growing soils. Therescheduling NPK is an effective nutrient managementtechnology for increasing the productivity of rice and nu-trient-use efficiency. It is not only for obtaining higheryield but also a cost-effective nutrient-management tech-nique of lowland rice farmers. Nutrient managementshould be aimed at achieving the main goal of sustainableproductivity. Since the location-specific nutrient manage-ment in this river basin is lacking, the study was under-taken to evaluate the right scheduling of NPK on growthand yield of rice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during the winter(rabi) seasons of 2011–12 and 2012–13 at Agricultural

Research Paper

March 2018] RICE RESPONSE TO NPK 51

College and Research Institute, Killikulam, Thoothukudi,Tamil Nadu. The climate of the experimental site is semiarid with mean annual rainfall of 750 mm. The soil wasclay loam, nearly neutral in reaction (pH 6.85), low in or-ganic carbon (0.42%), low in available N (276 kg/ha),medium in available phosphorus (15.8 kg/ha) and high inavailable potassium (288 kg/ha). The cation-exchangecapacity of the soil was 27.4 c mol (p+)/kg. The bulk den-sity of the soil was 1.33 Mg/m3. The soil was taxonomi-cally grouped as Rhodustalfs.

The experiment was carried out in randomized blockdesign (RBD) in 40/m2 for each plot size with 7 treatmentsreplicated 3 times. The treatments were: T

1, recommended

dose of fertilizer (RDF) alone (150 : 50 : 50 kg of N : P :K/ha); T

2, 175 : 50 : 50 kg of N : P : K/ha; T

3, 200 : 50 :

50 kg of N : P : K/ha; T4, 150 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha;T

5, 175 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha; T

6, 200 : 75 : 75 kg of

N : P : K/ha; and T7, absolute control. The rice variety‘ASD 16’ was taken as test crop for the 2 years during theseason of 2011–2012 and 2012–2013. Transplanting ofrice was done during December of every season, with thespacing of 25 cm × 25 cm and harvested in March in allthe years of experimentation.

The cultivation practices were followed as per the guid-ance of crop production guide of Tamil Nadu AgriculturalUniversity (TNAU, 2010). The fertilizer sources were ureafor N (46% N), single superphosphate for P (16% water-soluble P2O5) and muriate of potash for K (60% of K2O).Nitrogen was applied in 3 equal splits, i.e. one-third eachat transplanting, active tillering and panicle-initiationstage. Potash was applied in 2 splits with 60% at trans-planting and 40% at panicle-initiation stage. Five repre-sentative plants from each plot were collected and obser-vations of biometric and yield attributes such as plantheight, productive tillers/plant, panicles/m2, length ofpanicle, grains/panicle and seed weight were recorded asper the standard procedures. Soil samples were collectedfrom the surface layer (0–30 cm) from all the plots beforeapplication of treatments and after rice harvesting. Thenutrient content and uptake by plant were analysedthrough prescribed laboratory procedures. Soil sampleswere analysed for organic carbon (Walkley and Black,1934), alkaline permanganate-oxidizable N (Subbiah andAsija, 1956), 0.5 M NaHCO3-extractable P (Olsen et al.,1954) and available potassium by flame photometry afterextracting 1 N NH4OAC (Schollenberger and Simon,1965). Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was per-formed for each trait for all seasons and the combined(pooled) over seasons after testing error variance homoge-neity was carried out according to the procedure outlinedby Gomez and Gomez (1984) statistical package. Signifi-cance difference between the treatments were compared

with the critical difference at (± 5%) probability by LSD.Economics of the rice cultivation as influenced by chemi-cal fertilizer and management practices were calculated byconsidering the prevailing market price of rice grain andstraw and different inputs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth attributesThe growth and yield attributes of rice, viz. plant

height, number of productive tillers, panicle length, num-ber of grains and seed weight, were significantly influ-enced by different NPK levels (Table 1). The height ofplant significantly differed for various treatments. Theranges of the plant height was 88.5 to 95.7 cm at final har-vesting. At harvesting, the tallest plant (95.7 cm) was re-corded in the treatment with 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha), followed by treatment with 200 : 50 : 50 kg of N : P: K/ha had recorded next tallest plant (94.4 cm). The in-crease in plant height owing to the enhanced level of NPKapplication might have attributed to the better rooting andabsorption of nutrients by plants (Mahajan et al. 2011).The shortest plant (88.5 cm) were recorded in the absolutecontrol.

Yield attributesYield attributes of rice, viz. productive tillers/plant,

panicles/m2, grains/panicle and seed weight, were signifi-cantly affected due to application of different levels of ni-trogen with phosphorus and potassium (Table 1). In gen-eral, N : P : K at higher level (200:75:75 kg/ha) resulted insignificantly higher values of yield attributes than that oflower levels of NPK as 150:50:50 kg/ha. The maximumvalues of yield attributes, viz. maximum productive tillers/plant (18.3), longest panicle (27.2 cm), maximum grains/panicle (211.7) and the maximum seed weight (25.98 g)were obtained from the treatment 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N :P : K/ha. The treatment with 200 : 50 : 50 kg of N : P : K/ha recorded the next best values of productive tillers/plant(16.9), longest panicle (26.1 cm), maximum grains/panicle(202.3) and the maximum seed weight (25.9 g). Both thetreatments were at par with each other. The results are sup-port the findings of Upadhyay and Vishwakarma (2009).

YieldThe grain and straw yields of rice varied significantly

among the treatments. The maximum grain and strawyields (7.0 and 8.6 t/ha) were recorded in the treatmentapplied with 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha, being 72%higher over the control followed by the application of 200: 50 : 50 kg of N : P : K/ha registered the next best grainand straw yield (6.7 and 8.0 t/ ha) and these treatmentswere at par with each other. The increase in grain and

52 PARAMASIVAN AND SENTHIL KUMAR [Vol. 63, No. 1

straw yield with the increase in NPK levels might attrib-uted to increase growth parameters and yield attributes.The results confirm the findings of Sandhu and Mahal(2014). The low yield of grain and straw might be due tothe fact low levels of NPK might not favourable for propergrowth and formation of yield attributes. This result cor-roborates the findings of Gill et al. (2014).

EconomicsThe application of 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha

fetched significantly highest net returns (52.6 × 103) andbenefit: cost ratio (1.65) over the rest of the treatments(Table 1), followed by treatment was 200 : 50 : 50 kg of N: P : K/ha. This might be owing to higher productivity aswell as efficient use of fertilizers owing to increased eco-nomic returns in rice. The variation in the cost of cultiva-tion under different treatments were recorded due to vari-able cost of fertilizers. Grain and straw yields were themajor factors which caused differences in net return.These results are in close conformity with the findings ofReddy et al. (2009).

Nutrient uptake and balanceThe total uptake of N, P and K in rice was significantly

influenced by the application of N, P and K (Table 2). Thesignificantly highest amount of N, P and K uptake by ricewas recorded with an application of 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N: P : K/ha and on par with 200 : 50 : 50 kg of N : P : K/ha.The percentage increase in N, P and K uptake with 200 :75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha to the tune of 91.4, 72.4 and81.9, respectively over the control. However, the applica-tion of 175 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha recorded signifi-cantly higher uptake of P and K to the magnitude of 23.6and 170.1 kg/ha, respectively, over the control. This in-crease was mainly owing to increased grain and strawyields and higher concentration of respective applied nu-trients, i.e. N, P and K. These results confirm the findingsof Singh et al. (2012) and Chaudhary et al. (2014).

A positive N, P and K balance was observed under thetreatment applied with enhanced levels of N with P and K.The treatment applied with 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha registered the maximum balance of N, P and K (50.7,5.6 and 74.0 kg/ha respectively), followed by 200 : 50 : 50

Table 2. Nutrients balance sheet as influenced by different levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Nutrients added (kg/ha) Nutrients removed (B)/ Soil available nutrients (C) Actual gain/loss(N : P : K kg/ha) N P K uptake (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (C–A*) (kg/ha)

N P K Organic N P K N P Kcarbon (%)

T1, 150 : 50 : 50 150 50 50 128.8 16.9 132.2 0.74 251.7 14.9 295.0 -24.3 -0.9 7T2, 175 : 50 : 50 175 50 50 136.9 19.3 139.6 0.95 273.0 15.8 298.3 -3 0 10T3, 200 : 50 : 50 200 50 50 164.2 21.9 149.4 1.13 309.3 16.5 300.7 33.3 0.7 12.7T4, 150 : 75 : 75 150 75 75 144.3 22.8 161.3 0.95 285.3 18.4 314.0 9.3 2.6 26T5, 175 : 75 : 75 175 75 75 145.1 23.6 170.1 1.02 269.3 19.3 328.3 -6.7 3.5 40T6, 200 : 75 : 75 200 75 75 171.9 28.6 185.2 1.24 326.7 21.4 362.7 50.7 5.6 74T7, 0 : 0 : 0 (control) 0 0 0 89.8 10.5 101.8 0.57 218.0 11.9 263.3 -58 -3.9 -25

SEm± – – – 5.73 2.00 6.02 0.098 23.17 1.01 15.96 – – –CD (P=0.05) – – – 12.48 4.36 13.13 0.215 50.50 2.20 34.79 – – –

*Initial status 276.0 : 15.8 : 288.0 kg N : P : K/ha (A*)

Table 1. Effect of NPK levels on growth, yield attributes, yield and economics of rice (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Plant Productive Panicle Grains/ 1,000- Grain Straw Gross Cost of Net Benefit:(N : P : K kg/ha) height tillers/plant length panicle grain yield yield returns cultivation returns cost

(cm) (cm) weight (s) (t/ha) (t/ha) ( ×103/ha) ( ×103/ha) ( ×103/ha) ratio

T1, 150 : 50 : 50 92.9 13.8 22.7 193.7 24.5 5.3 7.0 64.1 27.2 36.9 2.36T2, 175 : 50 : 50 93.1 13.3 24.9 198.3 24.9 5.6 7.3 64.2 28.3 35.9 2.27T3, 200 : 50 : 50 94.4 16.9 26.1 202.3 25.9 6.7 8.0 80.4 30.8 49.6 2.61T4, 150 : 75 : 75 92.7 15.2 25.6 200.0 25.6 5.8 7.5 69.8 30.5 39.2 2.29T5, 175 : 75 : 75 93.4 16.2 25.7 201.7 25.9 6.5 7.5 77.9 31.7 46.2 2.46T6, 200 : 75 : 75 95.7 18.3 27.2 211.7 20.0 7.0 8.6 84.5 31.9 52.6 2.65T7, 0 : 0 : 0 (control) 88.5 12.9 20.5 174.3 24.1 4.1 5.6 48.9 23.8 25.1 2.05

SEm± 1.38 1.43 0.81 6.24 0.09 0.124 37.6 – – – –CD (P=0.05) 3.01 3.13 1.75 13.60 0.20 0.271 82.0 – – – –

March 2018] RICE RESPONSE TO NPK 53

kg of N : P : K/ha (33.3, 0.7 and 12.7 kg/ha, respectively)(Table. 2). A negative balance of N, P and K were noticedunder all the treatment applied with low level of N as 150kg/ha. The negative balance values for N, P and K weretoo high in control (–58.0, –3.9 and –25.0 kg/ha respec-tively) due more mining of soil NPK coupled with absenceof fertilization. Srivastava, et al. (2014) also reported thesimilar results.

Soil fertilityAt the end of the experiment, the organic carbon and

available N content of the soil varied from 0.57 to 1.24%and from 218.0 to 326.7 kg/ha, respectively, in varioustreatments. The highest organic carbon (1.24%) obtainedby the application of 200 : 75 : 75 kg N : P : K/ha. Theapplication of 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha had provedsuperior by registering significantly highest available N(326.7 kg/ha). The next superior value (309.3 kg/ha) ofavailable N was recorded for the treatment which received200 : 50 : 50 kg of N : P : K/ha. The decline in the avail-able N status of the soil might be attributed to the utiliza-tion of N for growth of rice. These results are in agreementwith the findings of Patra et al. (2017).

The treatment 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha hadachieved the highest value of available P (21.4 kg/ha) fol-lowed by 19.3 kg/ha with 175 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha.The higher available P might be owing to the enhancedlevel of P fertilizers with higher doses and the higher avail-ability in the soil-available pool due to water solubility, asreported earlier by Gupta et al. (2006) and Urkurkar et al.(2010).

The highest available K value (362.7 kg/ha) was regis-tered for the treatment applied with 200 : 75 : 75 kg of N: P : K/ha. The treatment with 175 : 75 : 75 kg of N : P : K/ha which recorded the next highest level of available K(328.3 kg/ha). Available K content in the soil increasedowing to an increased level of K fertilizers added in thesoil. Similar results were reported by Ravichandran et al.(2011).

Based on 2 year study, it can be concluded that the ap-plication of 200 : 75 : 75kg of N : P : K/ha is advisable forobtaining higher yield of rice, net returns and sustainingthe soil fertility.

REFERENCES

Chaudhary, S.K., Shiveshwar Pratap Singh, Singh, Y. andDharmendar. 2014. Influence of integrated use of fertilizerson SRI grown rice (Oryza sativa) and their residual effect onsucceeding wheat (Triticum aestivum) in calcareous soilproperties. Indian Journal of Agronomy 59(4): 527–533.

DAC, GoI. 2014. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Gov-ernment of India, New Delhi (www.dacnet.nic.in).

DES. 2014. Season and Crop Report, Directorate of Economics andStatistics. Government of Tamil Nadu.

Fageria, N.K., Wander, A.E., and Siva, S.C. 2014. Rice (Oryza sa-tiva) cultivation in Brazil. Indian Journal of Agronomy59(3): 350–358.

Gill, Jagjot Singh and Walia, Sohan Songh. 2014. Quality and grainyield of basmati rice as influenced by different establishmentmethods and nitrogen levels. An Asian Journal of Soil Sci-ence 8(2): 311–318.

Gomez, K.M. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical Procedure for Ag-ricultural Research. edn 2 574 pp. John Wiley, New York.

Gupta, V., Sharma, R.S. and Vishvakarma, S.K. 2006. Long-termeffect of integrated nutrient management on yieldsustainability and soil fertility of rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat(Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 51(3): 160–164.

Mahajan, G., Chauhan, B.S. and Gill, M.S. 2011. Optimal nitrogenfertilization timing and rate in dry-seeded rice in northwestIndia. Agronomy Journal 103: 1,676–1,682.

Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S. and Dean, L.A. 1954. Esti-mation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction withsodium bicarbonate (NaHCO

3). United States Department of

Agricultural Circular 939: 1–19.Patra, A.K., Mishra, K.N., Garnayak, L.M., Halder, J. and Swain,

S.K. 2017. Influence of long-term integrated nutrient man-agement on productivity soil properties in rice (Oryza sa-tiva)–rice cropping system in an acidic soil. Indian Journalof Agronomy 62(2): 111–117.

Ravichandran, M. and Sriramachandrasekharan 2011. Optimizingtiming of potassium application in productivity enhancementof crops. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science 24(1):75–80.

Reddy, M.G.B., Hebbena, M., Patil, V.C. and Patil, S.G. 2009. Re-sponse of transplanted rice to level and timing of NPK appli-cation; effect of growth, grain yield and economics. An AsianJournal of Soil Science 49(2): 248–253.

Sandhu, S.S. and Mahal, S.S. 2014. Performance of rice (Oryza sa-tiva) under different planting methods, nitrogen levels andirrigation schedules. Indian Journal of Agronomy 59(3):392–397.

Schollenberger, C.J. and Simon, R.H. 1945. Determination of ex-change capacity and exchangeable bases in soils: ammoniumacetate method. Soil Science 59: 13–24.

Singh, S.P., Suppaiah, S.V. and Kumar, R.M. 2012. Response of ricevarieties to nitrogen application time under direct seededpuddle condition. Oryza 43: 157–158.

Srivastava, V.K., Singh, J.K., Bohra, J.S. and Singh, S.P. 2014. Ef-fect fertilizer levels and organic sources of nitrogen on pro-duction potential of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa) and soil prop-erties under system of rice intensification. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 59(4): 607–612.

Subbiah, B.U. and Asija, C.L. 1956. A rapid procedure for estima-tion of available nitrogen in soil. Current Science 25(1):259–260.

TNAU. 2010. Crop Production Guide. Tamil Nadu AgriculturalUniversity, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

Upadhyay, V.B and Vishwakarma, S.K. 2014. Long-term effect ofintegrated nutrient management in rice (Oryza sativa)–wheat(Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 59(2): 209–214.

54 PARAMASIVAN AND SENTHIL KUMAR [Vol. 63, No. 1

Urkurkar, J.S., Tiwari, A., Shrikant Chitale and Bajpai, R.K. 2010.Influence of long term use of inorganic and organic manureson soil fertility and sustainable productivity of rice (Oryzasativa)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) in Inceptisols. Indian

Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80(2): 208–212.Walkley, A. and Black, I.A. 1934. An examination of soil organic

carbon by chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37(1–6): 29–38.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 55__59 (March 2018)

ISA/2016(12)/208

Influence of seeding density on seedling growth, productivity and profitability ofrice (Oryza sativa) under rainfed lowland

TEEKAM SINGH1, B.S. SATAPATHY2 AND K.B. PUN3

Regional Rainfed Lowland Rice Research Station, ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Gerua,Kamrup, Asom 781 102

Received : December 2016; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy seasons of 2012 and 2013 at Gerua, Asom, to evaluate theeffect of seeding density on growth parameters, productivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa L.). The lowestseeding density (40 g/m2) proved superior the higher density in respect of seedling height, number of leaves, dry-matter accumulation, crop growth rate (CGR), and relative growth rate (RGR). However, there was gradual reduc-tion in growth and yield parameters and yield with increasing density from 40 to 160 g/m2. The maximum values ofeffective tillers/m2, filled grains/panicle and grain yield were recorded with 40 g/m2 followed by 60 g/m2, which werefound significantly superior to 140 and 160 g/m2 density. Seeding density of 40, 60 and 80 g/m2 resulted in 32.5,27.4 and 20.5% higher grain yield than 160 g/m2 seeding density. Among the densities, the highest net returnsand benefit: cost ratio were recorded with 40 g/m2, which was closely followed by 60 g/m2 density.

Key words : Growth indices, Rice, Rainfed lowland, Seeding density, Yield

1Corresponding author’s Email: tiku_agron@yahoo.co.in*Senior Scientist, Division of Agronomy, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi,2Scientist, ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, 3Prin-cipal Scientist, Division of Plant Pathology, ICAR-IARI, New Delhi

Rice is the major foodgrain crop of India, and to meetthe demand of increasing population, by 2050 India willneed 137.3 million tonnes (mt) of rice annually (CRRI,2013) as against a production of 106.3 mt in 2013–14(GoI, 2014). Thus, an additional of 31 mt of rice is re-quired and to be produced from the same or even less cul-tivated area with decreasing availability of inputs like fer-tilizers, pesticides, water etc., and shortage of land andwater for rice cultivation (Khush, 2005). Keeping growthrate of rice production, India will be able to produce suf-ficient rice but a plateauing or even a negative yield trendhas been reported in rice–wheat cropping system (Prasad,2005). More than 50% of the rice cultivated in India isunder rainfed conditions, of which 65, 27 and 8% is underlowland, upland and flood-prone conditions, respectively.The productivity of rice under rainfed lowland and uplandsituations is very low (less than 2 t/ha) which is compara-tively lower than that of the national average. There areseveral factors responsible for low productivity of rice in-cluding poor crop management practices under rainfedconditions.

Rice production technology has variability in perfor-mance at farmer’s field due to poor crop managementpractices. Farmers have been seen to raise rice nurserywith very high seed rate in flat seed beds without any ap-plication of fertilizers. This variation is often exhibited bythe failure to establish a good crop stand with uniformgrowth of seedlings. The success of transplanted rice cul-tivation depends on the seedling. Among the differentcomponents of nursery management, adequate nutrition,better seeding densities and transplanting seedlings at theappropriate age are important factors to obtain vigorousplant stand (Lal and Roy, 1996; Kewat et al., 2002).Healthy seedlings provide rapid and uniform crop estab-lishment and reduce mortality rate after transplanting.Yield and yield components of rice crop are negativelyaffected by using a higher seeding density at the nurserylevel, while yield increased when a lower seeding densityrate is used in nursery (Bond et al., 2005; Sarwar et al.,2011; Adhikari et al. 2013). Since information is meageron the influence of seeding density in nursery bed onvigourness of seedlings and consequent impact on plantgrowth and productivity of rice, the present study was car-ried out to study these aspects under rainfed lowland situ-ations.

Research Paper

56 TEEKAM SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was carried out during the rainy sea-sons of 2012 and 2013 at Regional Rainfed Lowland RiceResearch Station, ICAR-National Rice Research Institute,Gerua, (26° 14' 59" N, 91° 33' 44" E, 49 m above meansea-level) Asom. The experimental area is located underthe subtropical monsoon climate, which is specialized bymoderately high temperature and heavy rainfall during therainy (kharif) season (April–September) and low rainfallwith moderately low temperature during the winter (rabi)season (October–March). Thus, rice crop is naturallyadapted suitable crop during rainy (kharif) season. Soil ofthe experimental site was slightly acidic (pH 6.1), high inorganic carbon (1.22%), available nitrogen (272 kg/ha),phosphorus (16.5 kg/ha) and potassium (236 kg/ha). Theweather data showed that rainfall distribution was moreerratic and higher during 2012 than that of in 2013 (Fig.

biomass were recorded after drying in an electric oven at65 ± 2 ºC temperature till constant weight recorded. Cropgrowth rate (CGR), relative growth rate (RGR) and otherseedling vigour indices were calculated on the basis ofdry-matter accumulation by using following formulae.

Crop growth rate (CGR) = = g/seedling/day

where W1=weight of dry-matter/seedling at time t

1;

W2= weight of dry-matter/seedling at time t2.

Relative growth rate (RGR) = = g/g/day

where W1= weight of dry-matter/seedling at time t1;W

2= weight of dry-matter/seedling at time t

2 and I

n =

Natu-

ral logarithm.After measuring seedling length (shoot and root) and

dry-matter accumulation, seedling vigour indices werecalculated by using following formulas (Ashkan and Jalal,2013).

Seedling length vigor index (SLVI)= (mean shoot length + mean root length) × GP

Seedling weight vigor index (SWVI) = mean seedling weight × GP

where GP is germination percentage.Experiment in main field was laid out in randomized

complete block design with 3 replications, having plot size30 m2. Seedlings of 30 days were transplanted at a spacingof 20 cm × 15 cm in the first week of July during both theyears. Recommended dose of fertilizers, i.e. 60: 30: 30 kg/ha of N: P

2O

5: K

2O was applied as urea, diammonium

phosphate and muraite of potash respectively. Full dose ofP

2O

5, one-third of N and three-fourths of K

2O were applied

basal at the time of transplanting. Remaining N was ap-plied in 2 equal splits–at the maximum tillering andpanicle-initiation stage, one-fourth of K

2O was applied as

top-dressing at panicle initiation. Rest agronomic practiceswere kept normal and uniform for all the treatments. Thecrop was harvested in the last week of October during boththe years. A unit area (1 m2) was selected and harvested tomeasure yield variables includes effective tillers/m2,panicle length, grains/panicle, grain weight/panicle and1,000-grain weight. Grain yield was recorded on the ba-sis of net plot 5 m × 4 m harvested and threshed and ex-pressed in t/ha at 14% moisture. The amount of seed re-quired per hectare was calculated and the cost of seed wasestimated based on their market price. The minimum sup-port price of paddy ( 12,500 and 13,100/t in 2012–2013and 2013–2014 respectively) was used to calculate eco-nomics and profitability of the treatments during the yearof experimentation. Pooled means average data of 2 yearswere analyzed statistically using the F-test as per the stan-

Fig. 1. Meteorological data recorded during crop growth period of2012 and 2013

1). Crop received 1,329 and 537 mm rainfall during boththe years respectively. Average bright sunshine hours were5.1 and 5.8 hours, and monthly evaporation was 115.5 and112.1 mm during 2012 and 2013, respectively.

Seven seeding densities were evaluated, viz. 40, 60, 80,100, 120, 140, 160 g/m2. High-yielding rice variety‘Chandrama’ (140 days duration) was used for nurseryraising with the wet method. Land was prepared with 2 to3 cross-ploughings, followed by 2 laddering before raisingnursery. Seven nursery beds, one for each treatment, wereraised and each seeding density replicated thrice. Theseeds were uniformly sown in the wet nursery beds in thefirst week of June during both the years. Random sam-pling of 10 representative seedlings from each plot wastaken at 10 days interval to evaluate seedling height, rootlength, number of leaves/seedling, seedlings and roots dryand fresh weight. The dry weight of seedlings and roots

(W2 – W

1)

(t2 – t1)

(In W2 – In W1)

(t2 – t1)

March 2018] EFFECT OF SEEDING DENSITY ON RICE PERFORMANCE 57

dard procedure. LSD values at P=0.05 were used to deter-mine the significance of difference between treatmentmeans.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Seedling characteristicsSeeding density significantly influenced the seedling

fresh and dry weight, root length and root weight (Table1). Seeding density of 40, 60, and 80 g/m2 recorded sig-nificantly higher dry-matter accumulation over 140 and160 g/m2 seeding density at the time of transplanting.Similarly, root length and root dry-matter accumulationwith the lowest seeding density (40 g/m2) were signifi-cantly higher over the highest seeding density (160 g/m2).The maximum values for seedling height, root and shootdry matter, root length and number of leaves/seedling wererecorded with the lowest seeding density. However, a de-creasing trend in all the growth parameters was recordedwith the increasing seeding density from. This might beowing to competition-free healthy and robust seedlingfrom low seeding density. The maximum values of crop-growth rate (CGR), relative growth rate (RGR) andvigourness indices were recorded with 40g/m2 seeding

density (Table 2). A decreasing trend in CGR between 10and 20 days was recorded with increasing seeding densitybut the differences remained non-significant. However,there was significant reduction in CGR between 20 and 30days with increment in the seeding density. The maximumCGR between 20 and 30 days was recorded with 40 g/m2

seeding density. The RGR remained statistically at par butdecreasing trend was observed with increasing seedingdensity. Similarly, seedling vigourness indices (SLVI andSWVI) also exhibited a decreasing trend with the increas-ing seeding density. This might be due to more competi-tion between seedlings for place, nutrient and light whengrown at higher seeding rate during later seedling growthstages in the nursery. Seedlings raised from low seedingdensity in nursery produced robust and healthy seedlingswith higher biomass, height, more leaves, long roots: highroot to shoot ratio (Singh et al., 1997; Sarwa et al., 2011;Gorgy, 2012). These results could be attributed to the factthat, the competition is less under low seeding rate in nurs-ery which provides the adequate competition-free condi-tions to seedlings in nursery to grow well. In a study,Jayawardena et al. (2004) reported low inter-plant compe-tition among the seedlings at 20 and 30 g/m2 densities

Table 1. Effect of seeding density on growth and root characteristics of rice seedlings at the time of transplanting (average data of 2 years)

Seeding density Seedling fresh Seedling dry Root length Root fresh Root dry(g/m2) weight (g) weight (g) (cm) weight (g) weight (g)

40 1.27 0.62 13.37 0.77 0.5460 1.12 0.56 12.17 0.67 0.4380 1.06 0.54 12.30 0.60 0.39100 1.04 0.52 11.13 0.62 0.39120 1.04 0.51 10.22 0.60 0.37140 0.89 0.45 10.45 0.48 0.36160 0.83 0.43 10.42 0.48 0.33

SEm± 0.07 0.04 0.91 0.07 0.05CD (P=0.05) 0.15 0.09 1.99 0.16 0.10

Table 2. Effect of seeding density on growth indices of rice seedlings (average data of 2 years)

Seeding density CGR CGR RGR RGR SLVI SWVI(g/m2) (10–20) (20–30) (10–20) (20–30)

40 0.007 0.055 0.043 0.072 29.610 0.53060 0.006 0.044 0.036 0.069 29.968 0.48280 0.005 0.044 0.033 0.067 28.738 0.462100 0.005 0.039 0.035 0.066 27.795 0.450120 0.005 0.034 0.036 0.064 27.990 0.437140 0.004 0.034 0.035 0.054 27.615 0.387160 0.004 0.033 0.041 0.048 28.274 0.374

SEm± 0.001 0.006 0.008 0.008 – –CD (P=0.05) NS 0.001 NS NS – –

RGR, Relative growth rate (g/g/day); CGR, crop-growth rate (g/seeling/day); SLVI, seedling length vigour index; SWVI, seedling weightvigour index

58 TEEKAM SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

could be the reason for producing multi-tillered seedling atlow seeding densities in nurseries. In this study, the maxi-mum values for seedling height, root and shoot dry matter,root length, number of leaves/seedling, CGR, RGR andseedling vigour indices (SLVI and SWVI) were recordedwith lowest seeding density 40 g/m2 and thereafter, a de-creasing trend in all the growth parameters was recordedwith increasing seeding density from 40 to 160 g/m2.

Growth, yield attributes, productivity and profitabilityAll the seeding density treatments did not affect the

plant height significantly; however, a decreasing trend inplant height was observed with increasing seeding densityfrom 40 to 160 g/m2. The maximum plant height (108.9cm) was obtained with the lowest seeding density. Amongthe yield components, number of productive tillers/m2,filled grains/panicle and panicle length were highly af-fected by seeding density (Table 3). Seeding density of 40and 60 g/m2 were recorded significantly higher productivetillers/m2, filled grains/panicle and long panicles over 140and 160 g/m2. The maximum effective tillers (389.2/m2),filled grains/panicle (133.1), panicle length (22.4 cm) and1,000 grain weight (22.42 g) were recorded with the low-est seeding density (40 g/m2) and thereafter, decreasingtrend was observed with increasing seeding density up to160 g/m2. Overall the seedlings obtained from lower seed-

Table 3. Effect of seeding density on plant height and yield attributes of rice (pooled data of 2 years)

Seeding density Plant height Effective Panicle Filled 1,000-grain(g/m2) (cm) tillers/m2 length (cm) grains/panicle weight (g)

40 108.9 362.7 22.4 133.1 22.460 107.3 357.0 22.1 130.2 22.380 106.5 346.2 21.7 127.6 22.3100 105.6 343.1 20.9 127.4 22.3120 104.5 325.1 20.8 124.2 22.2140 103.4 323.8 20.8 119.8 22.1160 102.2 307.1 20.1 114.7 22.0

SEm± 3.6 14.1 0.5 4.7 0.17CD (P=0.05) NS 30.6 1.0 10.3 0.36

Table 4. Effect of seeding density on yield and economics of rice (pooled data of 2 years)

Seeding Straw yield Grain yield Harvest Gross returns Net returns Benefit:density (g/m2) (t/ha) (t/ha) index (×103 /ha) (× 103 /ha) cost ratio

40 5.77 5.17 0.47 71.9 38.7 2.1760 5.47 4.97 0.47 69.0 35.5 2.0680 5.33 4.70 0.47 65.5 31.6 1.93100 5.17 4.54 0.47 63.2 29.0 1.85120 4.87 4.50 0.48 62.5 27.8 1.80140 4.73 4.07 0.46 56.8 21.7 1.62160 4.33 3.90 0.47 54.3 18.8 1.53

SEm± 0.40 0.34 0.03 – – –CD (P=0.05) 0.90 0.74 NS – – –

ing density resulted in higher values of yield attributesthan that of higher seeding rate which might be due to ro-bust and healthy seedling and less root damage, as healthyseedlings easily establish themselves after transplanting inthe main field. Vigorous seedlings of rice obtained fromlower seeding rate provide rapid and uniform crop estab-lishment in the field which may be due to the decreasedmortality rate after transplanting and produced higheryield and yield-attributing characters (Jayawardena et al.,2004; Gorgy, 2012). Singh et al. (1997) also investigatedthe reduction in number of panicles/hill and grains/paniclewhile using rice seedlings grown in a nursery using seed-ing rate of 20, 40, 60 and 80 g/m2 were transplanted inpermanent field using 1-3 seedlings/hill. Subedi (2013)reported significantly higher filled grains/panicle withlower seeding rate (100 g/m2).

Grain and straw yields were significantly influenced byseeding density; the highest grain (5.2 t/ha) and straw yield(5.8 t/ha) were obtained in the minimum seeding density(40 g/m2) plots (Table 4). However, decreasing trend wasobtained in grain and straw yields with increasing seedingdensity from 40 to 160 g/m2. Seeding density of 40 and 60g/m2 resulted in significantly higher grain yield over 140and 160 g/m2. The seeding density 40, 60 and 80 g/m2 re-sulted in 32.5, 27.4 and 20.5 higher grain yield over thehighest seeding density (160 g/m2), respectively. Increases

March 2018] EFFECT OF SEEDING DENSITY ON RICE PERFORMANCE 59

in the seeding density were negatively correlated withgrain yield (Fig. 2). The higher productivity of rice withlower seeding density is owing to better plant growth andhigher values of yield attributes as compared to higherseeding density. Maiti and Bhattacharya, (2011) also re-ported 12–33% increase in grain yield of hybrid rice with10 and 20 g/m2 seeding rate over 30 g/m2. Economicanalysis pooled over 2 years (Table 4) revealed that treat-ment 40 g/m2 seeding density resulted the maximum netreturns ( 38,713) and benefit: cost ratio (2.17) owing tocomparatively lower cost of cultivation which was closelyfollowed by treatment 60 g/m2 with net return ( 35,478)and benefit: cost ratio (2.06). However, there was decreas-ing trends in net returns and benefit: cost ratio with in-creasing seeding density from 40 to 160 g/m2 which mightbe due to decrease in grain yield with higher seed rate andhigher cost of cultivation.

Based on the above findings it may concluded that riceproductivity is increased with lower seeding density (40–60 g/m2) in nurseries and cost of production is also re-duced by saving valuable seed. Thus, in the rainfed low-land conditions where farmers generally follow very highseeding density in flat seed beds due to uncertainty of rain-fall and obtain poor seedling growth are suggested to raiseseedlings on raised bed with low seeding density.

REFERENCES

Adhikari, B.B., Mehera, B. and Haefele, S. 2013. Impact of ricenursery management, seeding density and seedling age onyield and yield attributes. American Journal of Plant Sci-ences 4: 146–155.

Ashkan, A. and Jalal, M. 2013. Effects of salinity stress on seedgermination and seedling vigour indices of two halophytic

plant species (Agropyron elongatum and A. pectiniforme).International Journal of Agriculture Crop Science 5(22):2,669–2,676.

Bond, J.A., Walker, T.W., Bollich, P.K., Koger, C.H. and Gerard, P.2005. Seeding rates for stale seedbed rice production in theMid-southern United States. Agronomy Journal 97(6):1,560–1,563.

CRRI. 2013. Vision 2050, p. 9. Central Rice Research Institute,Cuttack, Odisha.

GoI. 2014. Economic Survey A-17. Ministry of Finance, Govern-ment of India, New Delhi.

Gorgy, R.N. 2012. Performance of transplanted hybrid rice varietiesunder different seed rates and N-levels. Journal of PlantProduction 3(1): 75–89.

Jayawardena, S.N., Abeysekera, S.W., Dharmasena, A.G.S.P. andSubasinghe, S. 2004. Effect of seed bed seed rate on thequality of the seedlings and the grain yield of three rice hy-brids. Annals of Sri Lanka Department of Agriculture 6:115–122.

Kewat, M.L., Agrawal, S.B., Agrawal, K.K. and Sharma, R.S. 2002.Effect of divergent plant spacing and age of seedlings onyield and economics of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.). IndianJournal of Agronomy 47(3): 367–371.

Khush, G.S. 2005. Taxonomy, ecology and agronomy of rice culti-vation vis-avis genetic engineering of rice. (In) Biosafety ofTransgenic Rice, pp. 26–37. Chopra, V.L., Shantharam, S.and Sharma, R.P. (Eds). National Academy of AgriculturalSciences, New Delhi, India.

Lal, M. and Roy, R.K. 1996. Effect of nursery seeding density andfertilizer on seedling growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa).Indian Journal of Agronomy 41(1): 642–644.

Maiti, P.K. and Bhattacharya, B. 2011. Effect of seeding rate andnumber of seedlings/hill on the growth and yield of hybridrice (Oryza sativa) grown in dry (boro) season. Crop Re-search 42(1, 2, and 3): 18–22.

Prasad, R. 2005. Rice–wheat cropping system. Advances inAgronomy 86: 255–339.

Sarwar, N., Muhammad, M., Wajid, S.A. and Anwar-ul-Haq, M.2011. Impact of nursery seeding density, nitrogen, and seed-ling age on yield and yield attributes of fine rice. ChileanJournal of Agricultural Research 71(3): 343–349.

Singh, K.N., Hassan, B., Kanday, B.A. and Bhat, A.K. 2005. Effectof nursery fertilization on seedling growth and yield of rice(Oryza sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(3) : 187–189.

Singh, S.P., Singh, A. and Singh, B. 1997. Effect of nitrogen andseed rate on rice, cv. Aswani under rainfed conditions. Jour-nal of Applied Biology 7(1/2): 38–40.

Subedi, R. 2013. Nursery management influences yield and yieldattributes of rainfed lowland rice. Journal of SustainableSociety 2(4): 86–91.

Fig. 2. Relationship between grain yield and seeding density

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 60__66 (March 2018)

Effect of live mulches, cover crops and herbicides on weed flora, growth andyield of direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa)

PRATIK SANODIYA1 AND MANOJ KUMAR SINGH2

Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 005

Received : March 2017; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field investigation was conducted during the rainy season of 2014 and 2015 at Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, tostudy the effect of live mulches, cover crops and herbicides on weed flora, growth and yield in direct-seeded rice(Oryza sativa L.). At 60 days after sowing (DAS), amongst the weed management treatments, Sesbania covercrop followed by (fb) bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS reduced weed density of variousweeds and dry weight than sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron30 g/ha at 15 DAS thus resulting in the lowest weed index except hand weeding at 15 and 35 DAS. Sesbaniacover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS markedly improved plant height, tillers/m2,dry-matter accumulation, leaf-area index, chlorophyll content and yield attributes, viz. panicle length, panicleweight, panicles/m2, grains/panicle and 1,000-grain weight. Sesbania cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS improved the grain and straw yields with higher gross returns, net returns andbenefit: cost ratio than sunnhemp cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS.Sesbania cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS exhibited lower nutrients (NPKand Zn) uptake by weeds and higher nutrients (NPK and Zn) uptake by crop than hand-weedings at 15 and 35DAS.

Key words : Azimsulfuron, Bispyribac Na, Direct-seeded rice, Economics, Sesbania, Sunnhemp

1Corresponding author’s e-mail: prsanodiya10@gmail.com1Assistant Professor, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences;2Professor, Department of Agronomy

Direct-seeded rice (DSR) is becoming more popular asan alternative to transplanted rice, as it is more remunera-tive if the crop managed properly (Sharma et al., 2007).India ranks first in acreage (43.86 million ha), second inproduction (104.80 million tonnes) after China and aver-age productivity of rice is 2,390 kg/ha. The area underdirect-seeded rice (DSR) systems is expected to increasein the future because of labour and water shortages.Weeds, however, are the major constraints to DSR produc-tion. To achieve effective, long-term and sustainable weedcontrol in DSR, there is need to integrate different weed-management options, such as the use of cover crops, livemulches and appropriate herbicide mixtures, timing anddoses. Aerobic edaphic conditions under non-flooded con-ditions in DSR stimulate germination of diverse weed spe-cies. Season-long weed competition in DSR may causeyield reduction up to 72–80% (Sunil et al., 2010; Raj etal., 2013). Weed problem in DSR can be managed by

implementing integrated weed management. Brown ma-nuring with 2, 4-D significantly reduces weed populationand weed dry weight compared to other incorporationmethod (Anitha et al., 2009). Singh et al. (2007) reportedthat, Sesbania coculture reduced broad-leaf and grassweed density by 76–83% and 20–33%, respectively, andtotal weed biomass by 37–80% compared with a sole ricecrop. However, weeds in DSR cannot be controlled byincorporation of cover crops and live mulches alone be-cause of various flushes of weeds during crop growth. It isimperative to identify effective weed-management prac-tices using live mulches and cover crops and to work outtheir feasibility. Therefore, present study was taken up toassess the efficacy of herbicides along cover crops and livemulches on weed flora and yield of direct-seeded rice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy sea-son of 2014 and 2015 at Agricultural Research Farm, In-stitute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The soil was sandy clay loam,with pH 7.40, low in available organic carbon (0.41%),

Research Paper

March 2018] RESPONSE OF DIRECT SEEDED RICE TO LIVE MULCHES, COVER CROPS AND HERBICIDES 61

available nitrogen (207.47 kg/ha), and medium in avail-able phosphorus (23.85 kg/ha) and potassium (219.60 kg/ha). The experiment was laid out in a randomized blockdesign, replicated thrice, comprising 9 treatments, viz.Sesbania cover crop followed by (fb) bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 days after sowing (DAS),sunnhemp cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS, Sesbania cover crop fbSesbania co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS,sunnhemp cover crop fb sunnhemp co-culture fb 2, 4-D0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, Sesbania co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, sunnhemp co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at30 DAS, bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at15 DAS, hand-weedings at 15 and 35 DAS and weedyduring both the years. Sowing of Sesbania and sunnhempas cover crops was done in plots allotted to cover cropbefore sowing of rice manually, using seed rate of 25 kg/ha 15 days before sowing of rice. Co-culture was alsosown along with sowing of rice by manually. In other ex-perimental plots, rice was also sown manually using seedrate of 30 kg/ha. In cover crops treated plot 1 week aftersowing rice, cover crops were cut and placed as greenmulch between the 2 rows of rice. A recommended dose offertilizer (150 kg N, 60 kg P2O5 and 60 kg K2O) was ap-plied through urea, single super phosphate and muriate ofpotash. Full dose of P and K were applied basal, while Nwas applied half as basal and remaining half in 2 equalsplits– at tillering and panicle-initiation stages of rice.Application of alone and tank-mixed post-emergence her-bicides was done as per the treatments using knap-sacksprayer fitted with flat-fan nozzle. The spray volume ofpost-emergence herbicides was 300 litres/ha. The cropwas raised under irrigated condition under the recom-mended package of practices. Species-wise weed densityand their dry weight were measured at 60 DAS by placinga quadrate of 0.50 m × 0.50 m randomly at 2 places ineach plot. These were subjected to square-root transforma-tion before analysis. Weed-control efficiency (Tripathi andMishra, 1971) and weed index (Gill and Kumar, 1969)was also calculated at 60 DAS. Nutrient (N, P, K and Zn)uptake by weeds and crop was calculated multiplyingweed dry weight and crop dry-matter with their respectivenutrient contents at 60 DAS. Biometric characters, viz.growth attributes, yield attributes and yields (grain andstraw), of crop were recorded at 60 DAS and at harveststages. Prevailing price of inputs in the market during2014 and 2015 were used to calculate the economics. Thedata on weed, crop growth and yield, nutrient uptake wereaveraged for 2 years before statistical analysis. DuncanMultiple Range Test (DMRT) (Gomez and Gomez, 1984)was used for comparing treatment means.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Density and dry weight of weedsThe major weed flora with their relative composition

observed in experimental field included Echinocloacolona (L.) (13.83%) Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.(13.70%), Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. (10.16%) amonggrasses; Cyperus iria L. (10.59%), Cyperus difformis L.(10.25%) and Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Rottb. (10.90%)among sedges; and Ammannia baccifera (L.) Roxb(10.12%) and Caesulia axillaris (L.) Roxb. (10.14%)among broad-leaf weeds besides other weeds (10.27%) at60 DAS.

Density of weed species and their dry weight variedsignificantly at 60 DAS due to integrated weed-manage-ment treatments (Tables 1, 2). At 60 DAS, Sesbania covercrop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at15 DAS resulted in significantly lower weed density thanrest of the treatments except hand-weeding at 15 and 35DAS and it was comparable with sunnhemp cover crop fbbispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS.This might be due to effective suppression of weeds bySesbania cover crop at the time of crop emergence, as itcovered the soil and did not allow weed seeds to germinatealong with crop. Similar hypothesis had been also pro-posed by Nelson et al. (1991), who reported that rapiddevelopment of dense ground covering by the crop sup-pressing weeds. Sesbania cover crop fb Sesbania co-cul-ture fb 2, 4 D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS showed lesser weeddensity of all weed species than sunnhemp cover crop fbsunnhemp coculture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS andboth treatments were statistically similar to each other(Table 1). Sesbania cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS recorded lower weed dryweight of all weed species in comparison to sunnhempcover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS and both treatments were statistically at parwith each other. This might be due to sowing of Sesbaniacover crop reduced dry-matter accumulation of weedsbefore sowing and after sowing, whereas post-emergenceherbicides bispyribac and azimsulfuron checked subse-quent weed flushes at 15 DAS. Sesbania co-culture fb 2,4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS exhibited lesser weed dry weightof all weed species than sunnhemp co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5kg/ha at 30 DAS and both the treatments were statisticallysimilar to each other (Table 2). The vigorous growth andbetter canopy coverage of live mulches suppressed thegrowth of weeds.

At 60 DAS, Sesbania cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS recorded higherweed-control efficiency than sunnhemp cover crop fbbispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS,

62 SANODIYA AND SINGH [Vol. 63, No. 1

Sesbania cover crop fb Sesbania co-culture fb2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, sunnhemp covercrop fb sunnhemp coculture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, Sesbania coculture fb 2, 4-D0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, sunnhemp co-culture fb2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, bispyribac Na 25g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS (Table2). This might be due to lower weed dry-mat-ter accumulation under this treatment .Chongtham et al., (2016) also reported similarfindings in direct seeded rice.

Nutrient depletion by weedsAmongst the integrated weed-management

treatments, Sesbania cover crop fb bispyribacNa 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DASresulted in significantly lesser nutrient (NPKand Zn) uptake by weeds than sunnhempcover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS, Sesbaniacover crop fb Sesbania co-culture fb 2, 4-D0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, sunnhemp cover crop fbsunnhemp co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30DAS, Sesbania co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/haat 30 DAS, sunnhemp co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5kg/ha at 30 DAS, bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS (Table 3).These results are in close conformity withthose reported by Menon et al. (2014).

Growth attributesAt 60 DAS, Sesbania cover crop fb

bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/haat 15 DAS resulted in higher plant height,tillers/m2, dry-matter accumulation (g/runningm), leaf-area index and chlorophyll content incomparison to sunnhemp cover crop fbbispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/haat 15 DAS and both treatments were statisti-cally similar to each other except for chloro-phyll content. Sesbania co-culture fb 2, 4 D0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS had higher plant height,tillers/m2, dry-matter accumulation (g/runningm), leaf-area index and chlorophyll contentthan sunnhemp co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/haat 30 DAS and both the treatments were statis-tically at par to each other (Table 3). Thecover crops and live mulches might have con-trolled weeds at initial stage, resulting in theminimum competition from weeds for growthfactors like moisture, nutrient, light and space(Table 1). Mechanical undercutting to kill theTa

ble

1. E

ffec

t of

wee

d m

anag

emen

t on

wee

d de

nsity

(/m

2 ) a

t 60

days

aft

er s

owin

g in

dir

ect-

seed

ed r

ice

(ave

rage

of

2 ye

ars)

Tre

atm

ent

Ech

inoc

hloa

Ech

inoc

hloa

Cyn

odon

Cyp

erus

Cyp

erus

Fim

bris

tyli

sA

mm

anni

aC

aesu

lia

Oth

ers

colo

nacr

us-g

alli

dac

tylo

n i

ria

diff

orm

is m

iliac

eaba

ccif

era

axil

lari

s

Sesb

ania

cov

er c

rop

fb b

ispy

riba

c1.

5 (1.9

)1.

3 (1.2

)1.

2 (1.0

)1.

2 (1.1

)1.

2 (1.0

)1.

2 (1.1

)1.

3 (1.3

)1.

2 (1.1

)1.

3 (1.2

)N

a 25

g/h

a +

azi

msu

lfur

on 3

0 g/

haat

15

DA

SSu

nnhe

mp

cove

r cr

op f

b bi

spyr

ibac

1.6 (2

.1)

1.3 (1

.3)

1.2 (1

.1)

1.3 (1

.3)

1.3 (1

.2)

1.3 (1

.3)

1.4 (1

.6)

1.3 (1

.2)

1.3 (1

.4)

Na

25 g

/ha

+ az

imsu

lfur

on30

g/h

a at

15

DA

SSe

sban

ia c

over

cro

p fb

Ses

bani

a1.

8 (2.9

)1.

5 (2.0

)1.

5 (1.8

)1.

5 (1.7

)1.

5 (1.8

)1.

5 (2.8

)1.

5 (1.8

)1.

5 (1.7

)1.

5 (1.8

)co

-cul

ture

fb

2, 4

-D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Sunn

hem

p co

ver

crop

fb s

unnh

emp

1.8 (3

.0)

1.6 (2

.1)

1.6 (2

.0)

1.5 (2

.0)

1.6 (2

.0)

1.6 (2

.1)

1.6 (1

.9)

1.5 (1

.8)

1.5 (2

.0)

co-c

ultu

re fb

2, 4

-D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Sesb

ania

co-

cultu

re f

b 2,

4-D

1.9 (3

.1)

1.6 (2

.2)

1.6 (2

.1)

1.6 (2

.1)

1.6 (2

.1)

1.6 (2

.3)

1.6 (2

.1)

1.6 (2

.1)

1.6 (2

.1)

0.5

kg/h

a at

30

DA

SSu

nnhe

mp

co-c

ultu

re fb

2, 4

-D2.

0 (3.5

)1.

7 (2.4

)1.

6 (2.1

)1.

6 (2.2

)1.

6 (2.3

)1.

7 (2.4

)1.

6 (2.3

)1.

6 (2.3

)1.

7 (2.3

)0.

5 kg

/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Bis

pyri

bac

Na

25 g

/ha

+ a

zim

sulf

uron

1.8 (2

.8)

1.4 (1

.6)

1.3 (1

.4)

1.4 (1

.6)

1.4 (1

.6)

1.5 (1

.6)

1.4 (1

.6)

1.4 (1

.5)

1.4 (1

.6)

30 g

/ha

at 1

5 D

AS

Han

d-w

eedi

ng a

t 15

and

35 D

AS

0.7 (0

.0)

0.7 (0

.0)

0.7

(0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)W

eedy

4.0 (1

5.8)

4.0 (1

5.6)

3.4 (1

1.6)

3.5 (1

2.1)

3.4 (1

1.5)

3.6 (1

2.4)

3.4 (1

1.5)

3.4 (1

1.5)

3.4 (1

1.7)

SE

m±

0.08

0.06

0.03

0.06

0.02

0.03

0.15

0.07

0.05

CD

(0.

05)

0.21

0.17

0.09

0.18

0.07

0.08

0.50

0.24

0.23

Dat

a w

ere

subj

ecte

d to

squ

are-

root

(√X

+0.

05)

tran

sfor

mat

ion;

fig

ures

in

pare

nthe

ses

are

orig

inal

val

ues

March 2018] RESPONSE OF DIRECT SEEDED RICE TO LIVE MULCHES, COVER CROPS AND HERBICIDES 63Ta

ble

2.E

ffec

t of

wee

d m

anag

emen

t on

wee

d dr

y w

eigh

t (g/

m2 )

and

wee

d-co

ntro

l eff

icie

ncy

(%)

at 6

0 da

ys a

fter

sow

ing

in d

irec

t-se

eded

ric

e (a

vera

ge o

f 2

year

s)

Tre

atm

ent

Ech

inoc

hloa

Ech

inoc

hloa

Cyn

odon

Cyp

erus

Cyp

erus

Fim

bris

tyli

sA

mm

anni

aC

aesu

liaa

-O

ther

sW

eed-

colo

na c

rus-

galli

dac

tylo

n i

ria

dif

form

ism

ilia

cea

bacc

ifer

axi

llar

isco

ntro

lef

fici

ency

(%)

Sesb

ania

cov

er c

rop

fb b

ispy

riba

c1.

3 (1.4

)1.

1 (0.7

)0.

8 (0

.2)

1.1 (0

.7)

1.1 (0

.7)

1.1 (0

.8)

0.8 (0

.1)

1.1 (0

.8)

1.2 (0

.9)

90.7

Na

25 g

/ha

+ a

zim

sulf

uron

30

g/ha

at 1

5 D

AS

Sunn

hem

p co

ver

crop

fb

bisp

yrib

ac1.

4 (1.5

)1.

1 (0.8

)0.

8 (0.2

)1.

1 (0.9

)1.

2 (0.8

)1.

2 (0.9

)0.

8 (0.2

)1.

2 (0.9

)1.

2 (1.0

)89

.5N

a 25

g/h

a +

azi

msu

lfur

on 3

0 g/

haat

15

DA

SSe

sban

ia c

over

cro

p fb

Ses

bani

a1.

6 (2.1

)1.

3 (1.2

)0.

9 (0.4

)1.

3 (1.2

)1.

3 (1.3

)1.

3 (1.3

)0.

8 (0.2

)1.

3 (1.2

)1.

3 (1.4

)85

.4co

-cul

ture

fb2

, 4-D

0.5

kg/

haat

30

DA

SSu

nnhe

mp

cove

r cr

op fb

sun

nhem

p1.

6 (2.1

)1.

3 (1.3

)0.

9 (0.4

)1.

3 (1.4

)1.

4 (1.4

)1.

4 (1.5

)0.

8 (0.2

)1.

3 (1.3

)1.

4 (1.5

)84

.1co

-cul

ture

fb 2

, 4-D

0.5

kg/

haat

30

DA

SSe

sban

ia c

o-cu

lture

fb

2,1.

6 (2.2

)1.

3 (1.4

)1.

0 (0.4

)1.

4 (1.4

)1.

4 (1.4

)1.

4 (1.6

)0.

8 (0.2

)1.

4 (1.6

)1.

4 (1.6

)83

.24-

D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Sunn

hem

p co

-cul

ture

fb

2,1.

7 (2.5

)1.

4 (1.5

)1.

0 (0.5

)1.

4 (1.6

)1.

4 (1.6

)1.

5 (1.7

)0.

9 (0.3

)1.

5 (1.7

)1.

5 (1.7

)81

.64-

D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Bis

pyri

bac

Na

25 g

/ha

+1.

5 (2.0

)1.

2 (1.0

)0.

9 (0.3

)1.

2 (1.1

)1.

3 (1.1

)1.

3 (1.2

)0.

8 (0.2

)1.

2 (1.1

)1.

3 (1.2

)86

.9az

imsu

lfur

on 3

0 g/

haat

15

DA

SH

and-

wee

ding

at 1

5 an

d 35

DA

S0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)0.

7 (0.0

)10

0W

eedy

3.4 (1

1.3)

3.2 (9

.7)

1.7 (2

.6)

3.0 (8

.5)

2.9 (8

.1)

3.0 (8

.8)

2.4 (5

.4)

2.9 (8

.6)

3.0 (8

.8)

0S

Em

±0.

030.

060.

030.

040.

020.

050.

040.

030.

03C

D (

0.05

)0.

100.

170.

090.

090.

070.

130.

090.

090.

08

Dat

a w

ere

subj

ecte

d to

squ

are-

root

(√X

+0.

05)

tran

sfor

mat

ion;

fig

ures

in

pare

nthe

ses

are

orig

inal

val

ues

64 SANODIYA AND SINGH [Vol. 63, No. 1

cover crop in Sesbania might have left athick evenly distributed layer of weed-suppressing mulch 1 week after sowingrice. This surface mulch may limit furtherweed development through its effect onlight transmittance, soil temperature andsoil moisture (Teasdale, 1993).

Nutrient uptake by cropWeed management treatments brought

significant variation in nutrient uptake byrice compared with weedy (Table 3).Hand-weeding at 15 and 35 DAS resultedin the highest nutrients (NPK and Zn)uptake by crop. Sesbania cover crop fbbispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30g/ha at 15 DAS recorded significantlyhigher nutrient (NPK and Zn) uptake thansunnhemp cover crop fb bispyribac Na 25g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS,Sesbania cover crop fb Sesbania co-cul-ture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS,sunnhemp cover crop fb sunnhemp co-culture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS,Sesbania coculture fb 2, 4-D 0.5 kg/ha at30 DAS, sunnhemp coculture fb 2, 4-D0.5 kg/ha at 30 DAS, bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS.This might be due to more grain yield inrespective cover crops treated weed-man-agement treatments. Our results confirmwith the findings of Menon and Prameela(2015).

Yield attributes and yieldWeed-management treatments resulted

in marked increase in yield attributes andlower weed index, which had signifi-cantly higher grain and straw yields overweedy (Table 4). Sesbania cover crop fbbispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30g/ha at 15 DAS resulted in higher paniclelength, panicle weight (g/panicle),panicles/m2, grains/panicle and 1,000-grain weight in comparison to sunnhempcover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS and bothtreatments were statistically similar toeach other. The increase in grain yieldunder Sesbania cover crop fb bispyribacNa 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15DAS and sunnhemp cover crop fb Ta

ble

3.E

ffec

t of

wee

d m

anag

emen

t on

plan

t hei

ght,

num

ber

of ti

llers

, dry

-mat

ter

accu

mul

atio

n, le

af-a

rea

inde

x (L

AI)

, chl

orop

hyll

cont

ent a

nd N

, P, K

(kg

/ha)

and

Zn

(g/h

a) u

ptak

eby

wee

ds a

nd c

rop

at 6

0 D

AS

in d

irec

t-se

eded

ric

e (a

vera

ge o

f 2

year

s)

Tre

atm

ent

Pla

ntN

umbe

rD

ry m

atte

rL

AI

Rel

ativ

eN

utri

ent u

ptak

e by

wee

ds a

t 60

DA

SN

utri

ent u

ptak

e by

cro

p at

60

DA

She

ight

of t

iller

sac

cum

ulat

ion

chlo

roph

yll

NP

KZ

nN

PK

Zn

(cm

)/m

2 (

g/ru

nnin

gco

nten

t(k

g/ha

)(k

g/ha

)(k

g/ha

)(g

/ha)

(kg/

ha)

(kg/

ha)

(kg/

ha)

(g/h

a)m

)(S

PAD

val

ue)

Sesb

ania

cov

er c

rop

fb b

ispy

riba

c53

.615

7.6

33.1

2.8

43.6

79.3

45.4

85.7

2485

.214

.83.

118

.061

2.7

Na

25 g

/ha

+ a

zim

sulf

uron

30

g/ha

at 1

5 D

AS

Sunn

hem

p co

ver

crop

fb

bisp

yrib

ac53

.315

7.3

32.9

2.8

43.0

90.5

51.8

97.6

2835

.714

.52.

917

.760

4.4

Na

25 g

/ha

+ a

zim

sulf

uron

30

g/ha

at 1

5 D

AS

Sesb

ania

cov

er c

rop

fb S

esba

nia

52.5

156.

532

.02.

842

.512

4.2

71.1

134.

039

05.7

13.8

2.6

16.9

580.

6co

-cul

ture

fb2

, 4-D

0.5

kg/

haat

30

DA

SSu

nnhe

mp

cove

r cr

op f

b52

.115

6.0

31.7

2.8

42.3

134.

677

.214

5.4

4242

.813

.62.

416

.657

1.6

sunn

hem

p co

-cul

ture

fb

2,4-

D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Sesb

ania

co-

cultu

re f

b 2,

51.8

155.

531

.52.

742

.014

2.1

81.4

153.

544

82.0

13.3

2.1

16.3

559.

74-

D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Sunn

hem

p co

-cul

ture

fb

2,51

.415

5.0

31.0

2.7

41.7

155.

989

.216

8.2

4916

.612

.92.

015

.954

9.2

4-D

0.5

kg/

ha a

t 30

DA

SB

ispy

riba

c N

a 25

g/h

a +

azi

msu

lfur

on53

.215

7.0

32.8

2.8

42.8

111.

563

.712

0.1

3494

.314

.32.

717

.459

8.5

30 g

/ha

at 1

5 D

AS

Han

d-w

eedi

ng a

t 15

and

35 D

AS

55.6

161.

038

.32.

945

.10.

00.

00.

00.

017

.24.

121

.274

2.5

Wee

dy38

.612

9.8

18.3

1.4

37.4

983.

641

0.3

840.

725

790.

57.

41.

09.

128

7.3

SEm

±0.

430.

210.

400.

100.

100.

020.

040.

040.

190.

090.

200.

747.

34C

D (

0.05

)1.

290.

531.

300.

200.

400.

070.

150.

110.

560.

130.

610.

7521

.99

March 2018] RESPONSE OF DIRECT SEEDED RICE TO LIVE MULCHES, COVER CROPS AND HERBICIDES 65

bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/haat 15 DAS was 115.31% and 103.40% overweedy. This could be due to significantlyhigher weed-control efficiency and lower weedindex than all other treatments except hand-weeding at 15 and 35 DAS. Sesbania covercrop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron30 g/ha at 15 DAS revealed the highest harvestindex in comparison to all integrated weed-management treatments except hand-weedingat 15 and 35 DAS. Due to effective suppres-sion of weeds in cover crop-treated plots(Tables 1, 2) and restricting the competition byweeds for growth resources which helped inimproving yield attributes and yield.

EconomicsThe gross returns varied significantly due to

different weed-management treatments, whichultimately influenced the net returns and ben-efit: cost ratio amongst weed managementtreatments. Sesbania cover crop fb bispyribacNa 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DASresulted in higher gross returns than sunnhempcover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 DAS and bothtreatments were statistically similar to eachother. The highest net returns and benefit: costratio were also observed in Sesbania covercrop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha + azimsulfuron30 g/ha at 15 DAS (Table 4). This could be at-tributed to higher grain yield and gross returns.

Thus, it may be concluded that Sesbaniacover crop fb bispyribac Na 25 g/ha +azimsulfuron 30 g/ha at 15 days after sowingshould be raised for minimizing weed growthand to obtain higher yield and remuneration indirect-seeded rice.

REFERENCES

Anitha, S., Mathew, J. and Abraham, C.T. 2012. Con-current growing of green manure with wet-seeded rice for cost-effective weed manage-ment. Indian Journal of Weed Science 44(1):34–37.

Chongtham, S.K., Singh, R.P. and Singh, R.K. 2016.Effect of crop establishment methods and weedmanagement practices on weed flora and yieldof direct seeded rice (Oryza sativa). IndianJournal of Agronomy 61(1): 33–36.

Gill, G.S. and Kumar, V. 1969. Weed index–a newmethod for reporting control trials. IndianJournal of Agronomy 14(2): 96–98.

Gomez, K.A. and Gomez.A.A. 1984. Statistical Proce-Tabl

e 4.

Eff

ect o

f w

eed

man

agem

ent o

n yi

eld

attr

ibut

es, y

ield

s, w

eed

inde

x, h

arve

st in

dex

and

econ

omic

s of

dir

ect s

eede

d ri

ce (

aver

age

of 2

yea

rs)

Tre

atm

ent

Pan

icle

Pan

icle

Pani

cles

/G

rain

s/1,

000-

Gra

inSt

raw

Wee

dH

arve

stG

ross

Net

Ben

efit:

leng

thw

eigh

tm

2pa

nicl

egr

ain

yiel

dyi

eld

inde

xin

dex

retu

rns

retu

rns

cost

rat

io(c

m)

(g/

pani

cle)

(g)

(t/h

a)(t

/ha)

(%)

(%)

(×10

3/h

a)(×

103

/ha)

(/h

a)

Sesb

ania

cov

er c

rop

fb b

ispy

riba

c21

.92.

524

1.8

108.

618

.85.

05.

92.

445

.781

.844

.22.

2N

a 25

g/h

a +

azi

msu

lfur

on 3

0 g/

haat

15

DA

SSu

nnhe

mp

cove

r cr

op f

b bi

spyr

ibac

21.9

2.5

240.

810

8.0

18.8

4.7

5.7

7.8

45.2

77.4

39.8

2.1

Na

25 g

/ha

+ a

zim

sulf

uron

30

g/ha

at 1

5 D

AS

Sesb

ania

cov

er c

rop

fb S

esba

nia

21.8

2.4

240.

110

7.0

18.8

4.6

5.7

10.3

44.9

75.5

39.8

2.1

co-c

ultu

re f

b 2,

4-D

0.5

kg/

haat

30

DA

SSu

nnhe

mp

cove

r cr

op fb

sun

nhem

p21

.82.

423

9.8

106.

518

.74.

65.

611

.444

.774

.639

.02.

1co

-cul

ture

fb 2

, 4-D

0.5

kg/

haat

30

DA

SSe

sban

ia c

o-cu

lture

fb

2,21

.82.

423

9.5

106.

018

.74.

55.

612

.344

.873

.839

.62.

24-

D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Sunn

hem

p co

-cul

ture

fb

2,21

.82.

423

9.1

102.

618

.74.

55.

513

.244

.873

.138

.92.

14-

D 0

.5 k

g/ha

at 3

0 D

AS

Bis

pyri

bac

Na

25 g

/ha

+21

.92.

524

0.5

107.

318

.84.

75.

79.

244

.876

.440

.82.

1az

imsu

lfur

on 3

0 g/

ha a

t 15

DA

SH

and-

wee

ding

at 1

5 an

d 35

DA

S23

.32.

925

0.5

111.

620

.75.

16.

10.

045

.883

.937

.91.

8W

eedy

16.6

1.6

213.

369

.315

.92.

33.

354

.641

.63.

87.

41.

2S

Em

±0.

500.

030.

210.

310.

511.

022.

01–

0.71

1.02

2.35

1.23

CD

(0.

05)

1.41

0.11

0.65

0.84

1.44

3.00

6.23

–2.

643.

236.

943.

74

66 SANODIYA AND SINGH [Vol. 63, No. 1

dures for Agricultural Research edn 2, p. 680. John & Wileyand Sons Inc., New York, the USA.

Menon, S.S. and Prameela, P. 2015. Promising post emergence her-bicides for effective weed management in direct seeded rice.International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 33(2): 327–331.

Menon, S.S., Prameela, P. and Abraham, C.T. 2014. Weed control inwet-seeded rice by post-emergence herbicides. Indian Jour-nal of Weed Science 46(2): 169–171.

Nelson, W.A., Kahn, B.A. and Roberts, B.W. 1991. Screening covercrops for use in conservation tillage systems for vegetablesfollowing spring plowing. Hortscience 26: 860–862.

Raj, S.K., Jose, N., Mathew, R. and Leenakumary, S. 2013.Chemi-cal management of non-grassy weeds in direct-seeded rice.Indian Journal of Weed Science 45(3): 159–162.

Sharma, R.P., Pathal, S.K. and Singh, R.C. 2007. Effect of nitrogenand weed management in direct-seeded rice (Oryza sativa)

under upland conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 52(2):114–119.

Singh, S., Ladha, J.K., Gupta, R.K., Bhushan, L., Rao, A.N.,Sivaprasad, B. and Singh, P.P. 2007. Evaluation of mulch-ing, intercropping with Sesbania and herbicide use for weedmanagement in dry-seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.). Crop Pro-tection 26: 518–524.

Sunil, C.M., Shekara, B.G., Kalyanamurthy, K.N. andShankaralingappa, B.C. 2010. Growth and yield of aerobicrice as influenced by integrated weed management practices.Indian Journal of Weed Science 42(3, 4): 180–183.

Teasdale, J.R.1993. Interaction of light, soil moisture, and tempera-ture with weed suppression by hairy vetch residue. WeedScience 41: 46–51.

Tripathi, R.S. and Mishra, R. 1971. Phytosociological studies of thecrop weed association at Varanasi. Journal of Indian Botani-cal Society 50: 142–152.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 67__72 (March 2018)

Response of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) parental lines to split application ofnitrogen

J.S. MISHRA1

Indian Institute of Millets Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 030

Received : December 2016; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy seasons of 2012 and 2013 at the Hyderabad, Telangana, toinvestigate the optimal timing and proportion of N applications for increasing partial factor productivity (PFP

N) of

sorghum parental lines. Treatments comprised combinations of 6 parental lines of 3 popular grain sorghum hy-brids, viz. ‘CSH 14’ (‘AKMS 14B’ and ‘AKR 150’), ‘CSH 16’ (’27B’ and ‘C 43’) and ‘CSH 23’ (‘7B’ and ‘RS 627’) and4 different times of nitrogen fertilizer application, viz. 50% N at sowing and 50% at 30 days after sowing (DAS),25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30 DAS + 25% N at boot-leaf stage (BLS-55 DAS), 25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30DAS + 15% N at BLS-55 DAS + 10% at flowering (70 DAS) and 25% N at sowing + 45% N at 30 DAS + 5% at 45DAS (foliar spray) + 15% N at BLS-55 DAS + 10% at flowering (70 DAS).These were replicated thrice in a split-plot design. Medium-duration parental lines, viz. ‘RS 627’, ‘C 43’ and ‘AKR 150’ produced the higher leaf-area in-dex (4.14–5.28) than short-duration ‘AKMS 14 B’ (2.76). Significantly maximum plant height (141 cm), leaf-area in-dex (4.29) and harvest index (25.73%) were recorded with application of 25% N at sowing + 45% N at 30 DAS +5% at 45 DAS (foliar spray) + 15% N at BLS-55 DAS + 10% at flowering (70 DAS). This treatment also gained ayield advantage of 0.27 t/ha over the control (50% N at sowing and 50% at 30 DAS), and recorded the highestPFP

N (68.10 kg grain/kg N applied). The highest net returns (33.60 × 103 /ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.08) was

however obtained with application of 25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30 DAS + 15% N at BLS-55 DAS + 10% at flow-ering (70 DAS).

Key words : Net returns, N- uptake, Parental lines, Partial factor productivity, Sorghum, Yield

1Corresponding author’s Email: jsmishra31@gmail.com1Head, Division of Crop Research, ICAR-Research Complex forEastern Region, Patna, Bihar 800 014

Sorghum is an important crop in the semi-arid tropicalregions of India. Its productivity is limited by soil fertility,especially nitrogen (N). Nitrogen availability influencesthe uptake of N and other nutrients (Onasanya et al.,2009). Since N is highly mobile, it is subjected to thegreater losses from the soil-plant system (Abd El-Lattief,2011). Nitrogen stress during critical stages of cropgrowth is a major abiotic challenge. Leaf chlorosis, indi-cating poor N nutrition, is prevalent on most soils at pre-anthesis and grain-filling stages. Poor N nutrition may bedue to inadequate N fertilization or temporal mismatchbetween N availability in soil solution and crop uptake.Poor synchrony occurs when large pre-plant applicationsof fertilizer N are available before the crop has sufficientroot capacity for rapid uptake (Shanahan et al., 2008).Matching N availability in soil solution and crop uptake iscritical to nitrogen-use efficiency (NUE) and economic

viability. There is a need for greater synchrony betweencrop N demand and the N supply from all sources through-out the growing season for improving NUE in crop-pro-duction systems (Cassman et al., 1993). Since N in soilsolution is vulnerable to losses, large pre-plant applica-tions may pollute the environment and also waste re-sources (Cassman et al., 2002). Only about 50% of the Napplied to soil is taken up and used by sorghum plants(Maiti, 1996). The remainder is lost through leaching,volatilization and denitrification making the nutrient un-available during critical stage of crop growth. With thecost of chemical fertilizer increasing, farmers feel the con-sequence of this loss more than ever. This problem can besolved either through developing nutrient-efficient geno-types to effectively utilize supplemental nitrogen added tothe soil or through developing alternative crop and soilmanagement practice that will minimize the loss.

Partial factor productivity (PFP) is a useful measure ofnutrient-use efficiency (Yadav, 2003). Adoption of ineffi-cient nitrogen-management practices is responsible forlow PFP. Timing of fertilizer application is a low-cost

Research Paper

68 MISHRA [Vol. 63, No. 1

strategy to reduce nutrient leaching, so that nutrient sup-ply is synchronized with plant demand (Gehl et al., 2005).The N content in plant tissues is influenced by the doseand time of fertilizer application, variety and managementpractices. Split application of nitrogen is one of the meth-ods to increase the N-use efficiency and factor productiv-ity by the crop while reducing the nutrient loss throughleaching and volatilization (Tolessa et al. 1994;Muthukumar et al., 2007). Presently, the recommendedsplit application used for rainy season grain sorghum inIndia is 1/2 of the total N at planting and the remainder at30–35 days after sowing (DAS). Most sorghums today aregrown from hybrid (or F

1) seed. For obtaining the N-effi-

cient F1 seed in the hybrid seed production programme,use of the N efficient parental lines is a prerequisite.Hence for developing N-efficient sorghum hybrids anyimprovements have to be bred into the parental lines. Sor-ghum genotypes are known to vary in their response tonitrogen; however, the information on response of sor-ghum parental lines as influenced by split application of Nis limited. The objective of this study was to determine theoptimal timing and proportion for N applications for grainsorghum parental lines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present experiment was conducted at the researchfarm (17o 31’ N, 78o 39’ E, and 545 m above mean sea-level) of the ICAR-Indian Institute of Millets Research,Hyderabad, Telengana during the rainy seasons of 2012and 2013. The climate of the area is semi-arid and tropical.The total rainfall received during cropping season (June–October) was 730.2 and 817.8 mm in 2012 and 2013 re-spectively. The soil was an Alfisols, Udic Rhodustalf,sandy loam (66% sand, 13% silt and 21% clay), with 7.42pH, 0.18 dS/m electrical conductivity, 0.39% organic car-bon, 1.63 g/cc bulk density, 7.34% available soil moisture;low in available N (163 kg/ha), medium in available phos-phorus (29 kg P2O5 /ha) and high in potassium (360 kgK

2O/ha) content. The experiment was conducted in a split-

plot design with 3 replications. Parental lines of 3 popular

grain sorghum hybrids ‘CSH 14’ (‘AKMS’ ’14B’ and‘AKR 150’), ‘CSH 16’ (’27B’ and ‘C 43’) and ‘CSH 23’(‘7B’ and ‘RS 627’) (Table 1) were randomized in themain-plots and time of nitrogen application was the sub-plots. Four different times of nitrogen fertilizer applicationevaluated were 50% N at sowing and 50% at 30 DAS,25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30 DAS + 25% N at boot-leaf stage (BLS-55DAS), 25% N at sowing + 50% N at30 DAS + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS) + 10% at flowering(70 DAS) and 25% N at sowing + 45% N at 30 DAS +5% at 45 DAS (foliar spray) + 15% N at BLS (55DAS) +10% at flowering (70 DAS).

Recommended fertilizer (80 kg N, 40 kg P2O

5 and 40

kg K2O/ha) was applied. Whole dose of P as single super-phosphate and K as muriate of potash were applied basal.Nitrogen from the source of urea was applied as per thetreatments. The sorghum parental lines were sown manu-ally in rows at 45 cm × 15 cm on 5 July 2012 and 8 July2013. Furadan 3G (@ 20 kg/ha) was applied in furrows atplanting to control the shoot fly (Atherigona soccata). Tocontrol weeds, atrazine at 0.50 kg a.i./ha was applied aspre-emergence next day after sowing in 500 l/ha sprayvolume with knapsack sprayer fitted with flat-fan nozzle.Hand-hoeing was done with hand hoe at 25 DAS and in-tra-row weeds were removed by hand-weeding. Crop wascultivated under rainfed condition; however sprinkler irri-gation was applied immediately after sowing to ensureproper germination. The land remained fallow during sub-sequent winter (rabi) season and the same treatments wereallocated to same experimental units during both years.Data on days to 50% flowering and plant height were re-corded as per standard procedures. Leaf chlorophyll con-centration of the second leaf from the top was assessed at50% flowering on 20 plants, with a portable Chlorophyllmeter (SPAD-502 Minolta) and was expressed in arbitraryabsorbance (or SPAD) values. All chlorophyll meter read-ings were taken midway between the stalk and the tip ofthe leaf. In addition, leaf-area index (LAI) was estimatedwith a portable canopy analyzer LICOR-2000 at floweringstage. Nitrogen concentrations in sorghum grain and sto-

Table 1. Brief description of sorghum parental lines

Parental Developed Days to 50% Plant height 100-seed Institute whereline hybrid flowering (cm) weight (g) developed

‘AKMS 14B’ ‘CSH 14’ 56 (early) 145 (short) 2.68 IIMR, Hyderabad‘AKR 150’ ‘CSH 14’ 66 (medium) 138 (short) 2.64 IIMR, Hyderabad‘27 B’ ‘CSH 16’ 69 (medium) 161 (medium) 2.71 IIMR, Hyderabad‘C 43’ ‘CSH 16’ 71 (medium) 155 (medium) 3.11 IIMR, Hyderabad‘7 B’ ‘CSH 23’ 56 (early) 147 (short) 2.68 IIMR, Hyderabad‘RS 627’ ‘CSH 23’ 74 (medium) 211 (medium) 2.58 IIMR, Hyderabad

IIMR, Indian Institute of Millets Research

March 2018] SORGHUM PARENTAL LINES RESPONSE TO N 69

ver, and NPK content and soil organic carbon in initial soilsamples were analysed using standard laboratory proce-dures (Jackson, 1973) and N uptake was obtained as prod-uct of concentration and yield. Partial factor productivity(PFP

N) under different methods of N application was cal-

culated by dividing the grain yield (kg/ha) with amount ofN applied (80 kg/ha). Data of both years were pooled andeconomics was computed considering the local price ofinput and output. Net income and Benefit: cost ratio wereworked out. All the data were subjected to analysis of vari-ance (ANOVA) by using a split-plot design and main ef-fects and interactions were tested for significance. Treat-ment means obtained by ANOVA were compared usingcritical difference (CD) at P=0.05 level of significance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth, yield attributes and yieldSignificant differences were observed among parental

lines for growth and yield attributes (Table 2). Mean plantheight differed significantly and ranged from 128 cm(‘C43’) to 148 cm (‘27B’). Leaf-area index (LAI) andSPAD values at 60 DAS, and days to 50% flowering alsodiffered significantly among the parental lines. The high-est LAI (5.28) was recorded with ‘RS 627’, followed by

‘C 43’ and ‘AKR 150’, and the lowest (2.76) with ‘AKMS14B’. The leaf chlorophyll content in terms of SPAD val-ues did not vary significantly among parental lines exceptfor ‘C 43’ which produced significantly the lowest value(45.78). The highest SPAD value (49.50) was recordedwith ‘AKR 150’ closely followed by ‘AKMS 14B’. Paren-tal lines ‘AKMS 14 B’ and ‘7 B’ flowered earlier (55–56days for 50% flowering) followed by ‘AKR 150’ (65days), ’27B’ (69 days) and ‘C43’ (70 days). However, ‘RS627’ was late and took the highest number of days (72days) for 50% flowering. Mishra et al. (2015) also re-ported variation in phenology of sorghum cultivars. Yieldattributes, viz. panicle length and 100-grain weight, dif-fered significantly among the sorghum parental lines. Line’27 B’ produced the longest panicle (29.81 cm) and ‘C 43’(20.14 cm), the lowest. The 100-seed weight among pa-rental lines ranged from 2.31 g (‘RS 627’) to 3.36 g (‘7B’). Nitrogen scheduling significantly affected the plantheight and LAI. The maximum plant height (141 cm) andLAI (4.29) were recorded with application of 25% N atsowing + 45% N at 30 DAS + 5% at 45 DAS (foliarspray) + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS) + 10% at flowering (70DAS). Other parameters, viz. SPAD value at 60 DAS,days to 50% flowering, panicle length, 100-seed weight

Table 2. Growth, yield attributes and yield of sorghum parental lines as influenced by split application of nitrogen (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Plant Leaf area SPAD Days Panicle 100-seed Grain Stover Harvestheight index at value at to 50% length weight yield yield index(cm) 60 DAS 60 DAS flowering (cm) (g) (t/ha) (t/ha) (%)

Parental lines‘7 B’ 133 3.29 47.96 56 23.09 3.36 5.36 16.97 24.01‘27 B’ 148 3.87 48.89 69 29.81 2.43 4.25 12.34 25.60‘AKMS 14 B’ 130 2.76 49.34 55 22.13 2.60 5.53 16.27 25.37‘C 43’ 128 4.66 45.78 70 20.14 2.94 5.59 17.43 24.27‘AKR 150’ 139 4.14 49.50 65 23.26 2.78 5.24 16.21 24.43‘RS 627’ 147 5.28 48.26 72 23.84 2.31 5.92 17.30 24.96

SEm± 2 0.13 1.18 2 0.47 0.35 0.20 0.65 0.46CD (P=0.05) 6 0.39 3.52 6 1.42 1.01 0.56 2.02 1.30

Nitrogen scheduling50% N at sowing and 134 3.75 47.45 66 23.62 2.57 5.18 15.19 24.41

50% at 30 DAS25% N at sowing + 50% 136 4.16 48.59 63 23.89 3.09 5.25 15.94 24.92

N at 30 DAS + 25%N at BLS (55 DAS)

25% N at sowing + 50% Nat 30 DAS +15%N atBLS + 10% at flowering(70 DAS) 138 3.99 48.61 65 23.52 2.64 5.38 16.21 25.41

25% N at sowing + 45% N 141 4.29 48.45 65 23.79 2.64 5.45 15.74 25.73at 30 DAS + 5% at 45DAS (foliar spray) + 15%N at BLS + 10% at flowering

SEm± 2 0.11 0.97 1 0.39 0.27 0.16 0.55 0.32CD (P=0.05) 5 0.36 NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.95

70 MISHRA [Vol. 63, No. 1

and grain and stover yields, were not significant.Sorghum parental lines differed significantly (P<0.05)

for grain yield (Table 2). The highest grain yield (5.92 t/ha) was obtained with ‘RS 627’, which was at par with ‘C43’ (5.59 t/ha) and ‘AKMS 14 B’ (5.53 t/ha), but signifi-cantly superior to ‘7B’, ‘AKR 150’ and ’27B’. The lowestgrain yield (4.25 t/ha) was recorded with ’27B’. The dif-ferences among N application times were not significantfor grain yield of parental lines. However, the highestgrain yield (5.45 t/ha) was observed when nitrogen wasapplied 25% at sowing + 45% at 30 DAS + 5% as foliarspray at 45 DAS + 15% at boot-leaf stage-BLS (55 DAS)+ 10% at flowering (70 DAS) (Table 3). The particularapplication exhibited a yield advantage of 0.27 t/ha (5.2%)over the recommended practice (50% N at sowing and50% at 30 DAS). In light soils and in high rainfall areas,3 splits of N fertilizer – 50% at sowing, 25% at floral pri-mordial initiation and 25% at flowering – has been foundbeneficial (Choudhary, 1978). The stover yield did notvary significantly among parental lines except for ‘27 B’which produced significantly the lowest value (12.34 t/ha).The mean harvest index (HI) was significantly higher in’27B’ (25.60) than ‘7 B’ (24.01%). Higher HI in ’27 B’and ‘AKMS 14B’ (25.37%) showed that these parental

lines were more efficient in converting biological yieldinto economic yield (Kusalkar et al., 2003). Changes inharvest index of plants also depend on difference and rateof assimilates production and synthesis during grain-fill-ing stage and assimilates remobilization before each geno-type pollination and sink strength (Buah and Maranville,2005). Variation in nitrogen scheduling had significanteffect on HI. The highest HI (25.73%) was obtained withsplit application of 25% N at sowing + 45% N at 30 DAS+ 5% at 45 DAS (foliar spray) + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS)+ 10% at flowering (70 DAS) which was significantlyhigher than that of applying 50% N at sowing and 50% at30 DAS (24.41%). This might be owing to increased syn-thesis of assimilates during grain-filling stage and assimi-lates remobilization (Amiri et al. 2014)

N uptake and partial factor productivityNitrogen content in grain and stover varied signifi-

cantly among the parental lines (Table 3). Maximum Ncontent in grain (1.46%) was recorded with ‘27 B’, fol-lowed by ‘AKR 150’ (1.44%), while the minimum content(1.29%) was observed in ‘AKMS 14B’. The N content instover was however, maximum (1.09%) in ‘AKR 150’ andminimum (0.59%) with ‘RS 627’. Methods of N schedul-

Table 3. Economics and nitrogen uptake of sorghum parental lines as influenced by split application of nitrogen (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment N content (%) N uptake (kg/ha) PFPN (kg Net Benefit:

Grain Stover Grain Stover Total grain/kg returns cost(grain + N applied) (× 103 ratiostover) /ha)

Parental lines‘7 B’ 1.31 0.92 70 110 180 67.10 33.19 2.07‘27 B’ 1.46 0.97 62 105 167 53.08 19.75 1.63‘AKMS 14B’ 1.29 0.96 71 104 175 69.18 35.20 2.13‘C 43’ 1.30 0.93 73 143 216 69.78 35.80 2.15‘AKR 150’ 1.44 1.09 76 149 225 65.55 31.72 2.02‘RS 627’ 1.35 0.59 78 99 177 74.08 39.91 2.28

SEm± 0.05 0.04 5 7 9 4.56 0.95 0.13CD (P=0.05) 0.14 0.12 15 21 28 13.21 2.71 0.38

Nitrogen scheduling50% N at sowing and 50% at 1.35 0.99 69 133 202 64.73 31.62 2.04

30 DAS25% N at sowing + 50% N 1.37 0.91 71 120 191 65.70 32.31 2.05

at 30 DAS + 25% N atBLS (55 DAS)

25% N at sowing + 50% N at 1.37 0.84 74 101 175 67.30 33.60 2.0830 DAS + 15% N at BLS +10% at flowering (70 DAS)

25% N at sowing + 45% N at 1.34 0.90 73 121 194 68.10 32.86 2.0130 DAS + 5% at 45 DAS(foliar spray) + 15% N atBLS + 10% at flowering

SEm± 0.04 0.03 4 6 8 3.22 0.73 0.08CD (P=0.05) NS 0.10 NS 17 22 NS NS NS

March 2018] SORGHUM PARENTAL LINES RESPONSE TO N 71

ing did not cause significant variation in N content anduptake in grains. Sorghum parental lines differed signifi-cantly in response to N uptake. The highest N uptake ingrain (78 kg/ha) was recorded with ‘RS 627’ and in stover(149 kg/ha) with ‘AKR 150’. The total (grain + stover) Nuptake (225 kg/ha) was however, maximum with ‘AKR150’. Application of 50% N at sowing and 50% at 30 DASrecorded the maximum total N uptake (202 kg/ha). Theincrease in N uptake was due to increase in N content andgrain and stover yields. Higher concentration and avail-ability of N in rhizosphere led to higher N uptake by theplant biomass. Gardner et al. (1994) demonstrated thegenetic diversity for N use-efficiency in grain sorghum andconcluded that the differences among sorghum cultivarsfor higher NUE mechanisms were associated with indi-vidual morphological, anatomical and biophysical traits.Exploiting these differences in nutrient demand and effi-ciency is a possible alternative for reducing the cost andreliance upon fertilizer.

Sorghum parental lines varied with respect to partialfactor productivity (PFP

N). Maximum PFP

N (74.08 kg

grain/kg N applied) was recorded with ‘RS 627’ and mini-mum (53.08 kg) with ‘27 B’. The variation in PFP

N was

mainly due to differences in grain yields of respective pa-rental lines. Methods of N scheduling did not cause sig-nificant variation in PFPN, but it was higher (68.10 kg)with 25% N at sowing + 45% N at 30 DAS + 5% at 45DAS (foliar spray) + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS) + 10% atflowering (70 DAS) as compared to 64.73 kg with 50% Nat sowing and 50% at 30 DAS. The PFPN of sorghum pa-rental lines varied significantly in their response to Nscheduling (Fig. 1). Sorghum parental lines, viz. ‘AKMS

14B’ and ‘27 B’ did not respond much to more splitting ofN over the control (50% N at sowing and 50% at 30DAS). The maximum PFP

N of ‘AKR 150’ and ‘7 B’ was

recorded with application of 25% N at sowing + 50% N at30 DAS + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS) + 10% at flowering(70 DAS), whereas ‘RS 627’ responded maximum with25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30 DAS + 25% N at BLS(55 DAS). The PFPN of ‘C 43’ increased linearly withsplitting of N and the highest was recorded with applica-tion of 25% N at sowing + 45% N at 30 DAS + 5% at 45DAS (foliar spray) + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS) + 10% atflowering (70 DAS).

EconomicsThe highest net returns (39.91 × 103 /ha) and benefit:

cost ratio (2.28) were obtained with ‘RS 627’ and the low-est with ‘27 B’ (Table 4). Nitrogen scheduling at differentstages did not influence the economic parameters signifi-cantly. However, application of 25% N at sowing + 50%N at 30 DAS + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS) + 10% at flow-ering (70 DAS) was more economical and recorded themaximum net returns (33.60 × 103 /ha) and benefit: costratio (2.08).

It may be concluded that the grain yield, economic re-turns and nitrogen-use efficiency of sorghum parentallines varied with timing and split application of nitrogen.This strongly underscores the benefit of fine tuning nitro-gen application in order to match nutrient supply to cropdemand. Application of 25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30DAS + 15% N at BLS (55 DAS) + 10% at flowering (70DAS) was the more economical.

Fig 1. Partial factor productivity (PFPN) of parental lines as influenced by N scheduling[M1, 50% N at sowing and 50% at 30 DAS; M2, 25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30 DAS + 25% N at BLS (55DAS); M3, 25% N at sowing + 50% N at 30 DAS + 15% N at BLS + 10% at flowering (70 DAS); M4, 25%N at sowing + 45% N at 30 DAS + 5% at 45 DAS (foliar spray) + 15% N at BLS + 10% at flowering]

72 MISHRA [Vol. 63, No. 1

REFERENCES

Abd El-Lattief, E.A. 2011. Nitrogen management effect on the pro-duction of two sweet sorghum cultivars under arid regionsconditions. Asian Journal of Crop Science 3(2): 77–84.

Amiri M., Mozaddam, M., Shokouhfar, A. and Bakhtiarinejad, N.2014. The effect of different levels and time of nitrogen ap-plication on grain yield, some physiological traits and nitro-gen use efficiency in grain sorghum. Indian Journal of Fun-damental and Applied Life Sciences 4(3): 223–227.

Buah, S. and Maranville, G. 2005. Response of nitrogen use efficientsorghum to nitrogen fertilizer. Journal of Plant Nutrition,Zill 2,303–2,318.

Cassman, K.G., Kropff, M.J., Gaunt, J. and Peng, S. 1993. Nitrogenuse efficiency of irrigated rice: What are the key constraints?Plant and Soil 155/156: 359–362.

Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A.R. and Walters, D.T. 2002.Agroecosystems, Nitrogen-use Efficiency, and NitrogenManagement. Agronomy & Horticulture-Faculty Publica-tions. Paper 356. Ambio 31(2): 132–140.

Choudhary, S.D. 1978. Efficiency of nitrogen applied through soiland foliar on grain sorghum. Journal of Maharashtra Agri-cultural Universities 3: 26–27.

Gardner, J.C., Maranville, J.W. and Paparozzi, E.T. 1994. Nitrogenuse efficiency among diverse sorghum cultivars. Crop Sci-ence 34: 728–733.

Gehl, R.J., Schmidt, J.P., Maddux, L.D. and Gordon, W.B. 2005.Corn yield response to nitrogen rate and timing in sandy ir-rigated soils. Agronomy Journal 97: 1,230–1,238.

Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis., pp. 183–184. PrenticeHall of India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi.

Kusalkar, D.V., Awari, V.R., Pawar, V.Y. and Shinde, M.S. 2003.

Physiological parameters in relation to grain yield in rabisorghum on medium soil. Advances in Plant Science 16:119–122.

Maiti, R.K. 1996. Germination and seedling establishment. (In)Maiti, R.K. (Ed.), Sorghum Science. Science, Lebanon, NH,pp. 41–98.

Mishra, J.S., Thakur, N.S., Singh, Pushpendra, Kubsad, V.S.,Kalpana, R., Alse, U.N. and Sujathamma, P. 2015. Produc-tivity, nutrient-use efficiency and economics of rainy-seasongrain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) as influenced by fertilitylevels and cultivars. Indian Journal of Agronomy 60(1): 76–81.

Muthukumar, V.B., Velayudham, K. and Thavaprakaash, N. 2007.Plant growth regulators and split application of nitrogenimproves the quality parameters and green cob yield of babycorn (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agronomy 6(1): 2,008–2,011.

Onasanya, R.O., Aiyelari, O.P., Onasanya, A., Nwilene, F.E. andOyelakin, O.O. 2009. Effect of different levels of nitrogenand phosphorous fertilizers on the growth and yield of maize(Zea mays L.) in Southwest Nigeria. International Journalof Agricultural Research 4(6): 193–203.

Shanahan, J.F., Kitchen, N.R., Raun, W.R. and Schepers, J.S. 2008.Responsive in-season nitrogen management for cereals.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 61(1): 51–62.

Tolessa, D., Gemechu, G., Melakeselam, L. 1994. Response ofmaize to split application of nitrogen fertilizer at Bako. (In)Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference, 3–4 May 1994,Crop Science Society of Ethiopia (1995). Addis Abeba,Ethiopia, Vol. 6. pp. 56–60.

Yadav, R.L. 2003. Assessing on-farm efficiency and economics offertilizer N, P and K in rice–wheat system of India. FieldCrops Research 18: 39–51.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 73__81 (March 2018)

Effects of potassium application on growth of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) andionic alteration under saline irrigation

H.N. MEENA1, R.S. YADAV2 AND DEBARATI BHADURI3

ICAR-Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh, Gujarat 362 001

Received : March 2017; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the summer seasons, of 2011 and 2012 at Junagadh, Gujarat, toevaluate the ameliorative effect of potassium in salinity tolerance of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Treatments in-cluded 2 differentially salt-responsive cultivars (‘GG 2’ and ‘TG 37A’) and 3 levels of salinity (control, 2.0 dS/m, 4.0dS/m) along with 2 levels of potassium fertilizer (0 and 30 kg K2O/ha). Supplementary application of potassium re-sulted in improved salinity tolerance in terms of growth (plant height, branches, root length and weight); yield at-tributes (100-pod and kernel weight and shelling %); yields (pod, kernel and haulm yield) and Na+: K+ ionic ratio in(shoot, root, leaf and kernel). Cultivar ‘GG 2’ showed better salt tolerance by excluding sodium from uptake al-though cultivar ‘TG 37A’ allowed more sodium to accumulate in all the peanut parts (root, shoot, leaf and kernel),hence showed more susceptibility to salinity stress. Further about 3–4 times higher sodium was accumulated inroot over shoot, leaf and kernel. External application of potassium resulted in nullifying the harmful effect of salinitystress with slightly better response in the susceptible cultivar ‘TG 37A’ as compared to cultivar ‘GG 2’.

Key words : Amelioration, Na+: K+ ratio, Peanut, Saline irrigation, Yield

1Corresponding author’s Email: hariagro@gmail.com1Senior Scientist, Agronomy, 2Senior Scientist, Soil Science, 3Sci-entist, Soil Science

Peanut is one of the important grain legumes which ismainly cultivated on marginal and sub-marginal lands withlow inputs. Grain legumes are more significant as theyprovide large amounts of high quality proteins which con-tain relatively more of the essential amino acids. Despiteof an oilseed, peanut harbours Rhizobium bacteria in rootnodules; which enable to fix about 180–200 kg atmo-spheric nitrogen/ha in every crop season. It is now be-ing increasingly realized that peanut is much more than amere oilseed crop, rather a multi-purpose crop and henceit should rightly be described as a confectionary, food, andfodder crop particularly in the Indian context.

Soil salinity is a serious worldwide problem for agricul-ture and covers around 6.7 million ha area in India and1,200 million ha in world. Salinity can inhibit plant growthby a range of mechanisms, including low external waterpotential, ion toxicity and interference with the uptake ofnutrients. Plants growing in arid or semi-arid region, mayexhibit more tolerance to salt stress, because of the accu-mulation of osmo-protectants in their tissues (Le Rudulier,2005). Significant research in the past has put emphasis on

the osmotic effects of salinity. However, specific ion ef-fects are also equally important to cause salinity-inducedreduction in growth and yield of the crop. The knowledgefor ion-specific effects induced by salinity like ion toxici-ties and nutritional disorders are increasingly emphasizedfor salinity management. For example, adequate level ofpotassium is essential for plant survival in saline habitats(Hauser and Horie, 2010) which lowered down the os-motic potential in the stele of roots, essentially required forturgour-pressure-driven solute transport in xylem and thewater balance of the plants. The main feature of the rela-tively salt-tolerant plants is higher accumulation of Na+ inleaves and an apparent capacity for K+ redistribution toyounger leaves. Approximately 13–36% of the Na+ and K+

ions imported in to leaves through xylem were exported bythe phloem (Lohaus et al., 2000). Though little informa-tion is available showing effects of potassium applicationin sodium-dominated soils like reduced uptake and trans-location of sodium by plants, increasing K+: Na+ within theplant (Ashraf and Ahmad, 2000), improved plant growthand yield (Grattan and Grieve, 1999) etc. it is not certainthat the potassium application reduces the deleterious ef-fects of salinity (Cerda et al., 1995). Further, calcareoussoils are mostly alkaline, base saturated and dominated bycalcium cation which directly or indirectly affected the

Research Paper

74 MEENA ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

chemistry and availability of soil nutrients (Obreza et al.,1993). Thus in this study we studied how the beneficialeffect of application of potassium contributes to overallsalt tolerance in peanut cultivars.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted at research farm,ICAR-Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh,Gujarat (70.36° E and 21.31° N; 60 m above mean sea-level). The climate of this area is semi-arid with an aver-age rainfall of 650 mm. The soil under study was mediumblack calcareous Vertisols and developed on weatheredhard monolithic limestone parent materials. The soil depthwithin the root zone was shallow, very dark grey in colourand clayey. Soils are alkaline (pH 7.5–8.0), low in avail-able nitrogen (<140 N kg/ha) and phosphorus (8–15 P2O5

kg/ha) and medium in available potassium (160–250 K2O

kg/ha). The soils are rich in calcium carbonate (>5%) hav-ing cation-exchange capacity (CEC) ranged from 45 to 55cmol (+)/kg soil which is dominated by Ca+2 (65–75%)and Mg+2 (15–20%) cations. Soil organic carbon was 0.5–0.75% in the root zone.

The field experiment was conducted for 2 summer sea-sons during 2011 and 2012. These were laid out in split-split plot design, consisting of 3 different treatments asNaCl irrigation water of 3 salinity levels [5.6 mm (con-trol), 22 mm and 44 mm] to main plots, 2 spanish cultivarsof peanut (‘TG 37A’ and ‘GG 2’) in subplots and 2 levelsof potassium (0 and 30 kg K

2O/ha) in sub-subplots. Potas-

sium fertilizer (muriate of potash) was applied basal at thetime of sowing. All the treatments were replicated 3 times.The gross plot size of main plot was 42 m2 (7 m × 6 m) andeach salinity block was separated by placing a 250-micronpolythene sheet up to 60 cm soil depth in different chan-nels surrounding the plots. Bunds were also raised aroundeach block (30 cm wide and 30 cm height) to avoid lateralmovement of saline water among different salinity blocks.The extent of rainfall and its distribution along with otherweather parameters were presented (Table 1). The peanutcrop was sown in the first fortnight of February in eachyear at 30 cm spacing after applying recommended fertil-izers (25 kg N and 22 kg P/ha) as basal dose. The freshwa-ter source used for irrigation purpose has the electricalconductivity of 0.5 dS/m and treated as the control. How-ever, the saline waters of different levels were preparedusing sodium chloride salts which were achieved using 22mm (2.6 kg in 2000 l water) and 44 mm (5.2 kg in 2,000l water) NaCl solutions using freshwater for 2 dS/m and 4dS/m respectively. The NaCl salt used for application oftotal 8 saline water irrigation during cropping period for22 mM was 20.8 kg and for 44 mm salinity level it was

41.6 kg/plot. Four sintex drums of 2,000 l capacity eachwere used for application of different saline water irriga-tion under field conditions.

The crop was raised using the fresh irrigation watersource in all the plots at germination stage (up to 10–15days after sowing; DAS); however at later stage irrigationswere used as per the treatments in main plots. In totalityabout 10 irrigations were used including 8 irrigations asNaCl water irrigations as per the treatments throughout thecrop season in both the years. The crop was harvested inthe first week of June (110–115 DAS) during both theyears of experimentation. Individual plots were harvestedmanually and the peanut pods were air-dried for final yieldand other observations. The growth and yield-attributingcharacters were recorded in peanut crop at harvest.

Soil samples were collected from 0–30 cm soil depthperiodically (30 days interval) during the crop-growingperiod, to monitor the build-up of soil salinity using soilauger during the crop season. The electrical conductivityand pH of the soil were measured using 1:2.5 soil and de-ionized water suspension. The suspension was shaken andallowed to stand overnight and then measured usingHanna make portable combined pH-EC-TDS meter(model HI 991301). All observations were taken by meanvalues of 5 random plants during harvesting. Plants werecarefully dig out from the upper 20 cm soil layer with un-disturbed root-system; the loose soil adhered to the rootswas cleaned. Root length was measured, using the line-intercept method as per Tennant (1975). Principle of thismethod is that root length can be estimated by countingthe number of intersections between roots and samplelines. In this method, roots were spread out with randomorientation in a thin layer of water on a glass plate (about25 cm × 25 cm) marked in grid lines. All intersections ofroots with gird lines (taking the upper or left boundary ofthe line as criterion in case of doubt) are counted. Resultsfor horizontal (H) and vertical (V) grid lines are added tonumber N. If the grid size was D (mm), root length L(mm), then the equation stands:

4ND

Lπ=

Different plant parts collected were ground in the pestleand mortal before extracting the elements. The grindedplant samples were digested using tri-acid mixture anddiluted up to 100 ml. From each digested plant part K andNa contents were directly estimated by Flame photometer.

Analysis of variance was carried out using MS-Excelbased software where least significant difference wascomputed to test the significant differences between treat-ment means at 5% probability (P=0.05).

March 2018] EFFECT OF POTASSIUM ON PEANUT UNDER SALINE IRRIGATION 75

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Root zone soil salinityImposition of salinity stress resulted in significant

changes in electrical conductivity (Fig. 1). The electricalconductivity of saturated soil extract was increased from1.16 to 4.37 and 2.62 to 5.53 dS/m at harvesting underdifferent water salinity levels during 2011 and 2012, re-spectively. This may be due to no rainfall during the crop-growth period and also due to supplemental irrigation ofsaline water which resulted in accumulation of salt duringthe summer 2011 and 2012 seasons. Irrespective to watersalinity levels, the application of potassium fertilizers sig-nificantly reduced the electrical conductivity of saturatedsoil extract (5%) as compared to no potassium fertiliza-tion. The soil salinity again gets reduced in the rainy sea-son before sowing in coming year (2012). This might bedue to leaching of soluble salts from the root zone as dur-

ing the rainy season approximately more than 900 mmrainfall received during July–September 2011 (Table 1).The soil salinity at the time of sowing of peanut in Febru-ary 2012 was 2.04–2.55 dS/m which significantly in-creased to a level of 2.62–5.52 dS/m at the time of harvest-ing of peanut in June 2012.

Effect of salinity on growth and yield of peanutApplication of saline irrigation and potassium fertilizer

affected growth; yields and yield-attributing characters(Table 2). The yield of pod, kernel and haulm was signifi-cantly affected by saline irrigation and soil salinity. Thereduction in pod, kernel and haulm yield was 5.1 and 34%;5.5 and 37.8%, and 5.6 and 27.3% at 22 and 44 mm overapplication of freshwater (control) respectively. However,100-pod and kernel weight and shelling percentage werealso significantly differed by use of saline irrigation waterabove 22 mm. Similar significant decrease in plant heightand root length was also observed, but number of branchesand root weight showed non-significant difference withdifferent salinity levels. The peanut cultivar ‘TG 37A’ per-formed better than to ‘GG 2’ under different levels of wa-ter salinity and the increase in yield was 31.8, 33.1 and9.2% higher for pod, kernel and haulm yield respectively.However, the plant height of ‘GG 2’ was 12% higher thanthat of ‘TG 37A’. Differences in the yield among the geno-types might be due to higher shelling percentage (2.4),100-kernel (10.3%), 100-pod (17.6%) weight and numberof branches (7.7%) of the ‘TG 37A’ than ‘GG 2’. The pod,kernel and haulm yields of peanut were also significantlyaffected with application of K fertilization and signifi-cantly higher yields was found with 30 kg/ha K as com-

Table 1. Weather parameters during crop growth and post-crop-growth seasons in 2011 and 2012

Months Temperature (oC) Relative Rainfall (mm) Wind speed Evaporation2011 2012 Humidity (%) 2011 2012 (km/hr) (mm)

Max. Min. Max. Min. 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012

During crop-growth seasonFebruary 30.7 14.6 31.2 13.3 52 36 0.0 0.0 4.4 5.5 5.2 6.8March 36.6 18.5 36.0 17.7 40 37 0.0 0.0 5.1 5.5 8.0 8.5April 39.1 23.0 39.3 23.2 42 47 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3 9.6 9.7May 37.9 25.9 38.3 25.4 59 57 0.0 0.0 9.5 8.5 9.0 9.5June 36.3 26.9 36.5 27.0 66 64 37.5 84.2 11.3 11.9 6.8 7.8During post-crop growth seasonJuly 32.0 25.2 33.7 26.2 82 75 341.7 67.6 7.4 10.0 3.4 4.5August 30.3 25.1 32.0 25.0 88 80 341.7 79.5 6.5 8.6 2.3 3.4September 30.9 24.2 32.0 24.5 81 78 241.8 193.7 5.7 5.2 3.0 3.4October 35.4 23.0 37.0 21.5 53 48 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.1 5.2 6.0November 34.7 20.0 33.8 15.3 49 42 0.0 0.0 3.3 2.7 5.1 5.0December 31.1 13.7 32.1 15.7 47 43 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.0 4.8 5.2January 28.6 11.4 28.1 11.6 50 45 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3Total 404 252 410 246 708 653 963 425 71 75 67 74

Fig. 1. Build-up of soil salinity due to application of NaCl salineirrigation water in peanut during summer season (2011 and2012)

0.5 dS/m 2.0 dS/m 4.0 dS/m No K2O 30 K2O/ ha

So

il sa

linit

y b

uild

-up

(d

S/m

)

76 MEENA ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

pared to without potassium fertilization. The per cent in-creases in pod, kernel and haulm yield of peanut were 5.1,7.5 and 11.7 higher with the application of 30 kg/ha K ascompared to without potassium fertilization. This might bedue to ameliorative effect of potassium on salinity stress.

Salinity stress generally deters plants growth primarilydue to its osmotic effect and after that because of moreinjurious specific ion toxicity effect. Thus under the initialstage of soil salinity plants started to show altered plantwater status without much effect on cell turgour (Munns,1993). It is well evident that salinity reduces the growth ofthe plants by upsetting water and nutritional balance(Meena et al., 2012, 2014, 2016) and loss of photosynthe-sis capacity (Rajesh et al., 1998). In fact the water move-ment through stomata and its subsequent metabolic as-similation rate during transpiration and photosynthesisprocesses is strongly affected by salinity. Lobato et al.(2008), reported the reduced stomatal conductance forwater loss to the atmosphere under soil and water salinity.

Salinity levels and nutrients accumulation in variousplant parts

Application of NaCl irrigation water increased sodiumcontent in different parts of the peanut which increasedwith successive increase in the salinity levels (Table 3).Although a significant difference in sodium accumulationwith salinity levels was recorded in leaf and kernels. How-ever, shoot and root showed non-significant differenceunder different saline irrigation levels. The sodium contentincreased in root, shoot, leaf and kernel by 25.9 and

75.6%, 41.3 and 59.4%, 38.0 and 100%, and 51.4 and93.8% at 22 mm and 44 mm, respectively, as compared tofresh irrigation water (control). Irrespective of salinity lev-els, Na+ concentration was found to be in the order of root> shoot > leaf > kernel (Table 3).Overall, Na+ accumula-tion was higher in the root than shoot, leaves and kernel ofpeanut (Fig. 2). The accumulation of Na+ was observedhigher in ‘TG 37A’ over ‘GG 2’ in all the parts of peanut.Application of potassium fertilization with 30 kg/ha re-sulted in lowering down Na+ uptake by adjusting the ionicbalance in different parts of peanut. Different workers re-ported that, increasing salt levels were increased Na con-centrations in different plant species (Tuncturk, 2011).They also reported that high Na content generally disruptsthe nutrient balance and thereby causing specific ion tox-icity despite disturbing osmotic regulation (Grattan andGrieve, 1999).

Unlike Na+ content, the K+ content showed an oppositetrend that K+ uptake was decreased in all the parts with theincreasing level of salinity. The results showed that accu-mulation of potassium (K+) in different plant parts was sig-nificantly affected except in roots (Table 3). Differentialaccumulation of K+ was observed under salinity stress indifferent plant parts and the concentration was found inthe order of kernel > leaf > shoot > root (Fig. 2).The po-tassium content decreased in root, shoot, leaf and kernelby 7.1 and 21.4%, 2.3 and 11.9%, 26.0 and 34.0% and 7.8and 9.8% at 22 mm 44 mm respectively and as comparedto fresh irrigation water (control). The K+ accumulation inkernel was about 45.1, 44.7 and 52.2% higher than that in

Table 2. Growth, yield and yield attributing characters of peanut during summer season (average of 2 seasons)

Treatment Growth and yield-attributing characters Yield (kg/ha)Plant Branches Root Root 100-pod 100- Shelling Pod Kernel Haulmheight per plant length weight weight kernel (%)(cm) (cm) (g) (g) weight (g)

Water salinity (S, dS/m)0.5 33.27 4.82 10.25 0.58 76.36 40.46 69.53 2,446 1,694 3,5052 29.71 4.66 10.13 0.56 74.78 39.52 68.77 2,321 1,600 3,3084 25.28 4.64 8.7 0.52 70.15 36.55 64.82 1,614 1,053 2,549

SEm± 0.78 0.10 0.22 0.04 1.07 0.61 0.68 30 25 61CD (P=0.05) 2.23 NS 0.63 NS 3.04 1.74 1.93 84 72 173

Peanut cultivars (V)‘TG 37 A’ 27.74 4.88 9.694 0.55 80.89 40.96 68.52 2,529 1,736 3,271‘GG 2’ 31.09 4.53 9.694 0.56 66.64 36.73 66.89 1,725 1,161 2,970

SEm± 0.64 0.08 0.179 0.08 7.96 1.11 0.55 24 21 50CD (P=0.05) 1.82 0.23 NS NS NS NS 1.57 69 59 142

Potassium levels (K, kg/ha)0 29.35 4.58 9.667 0.54 72.49 37.64 66.91 2,072 1,393 2,92730 29.48 4.83 9.722 0.57 75.04 40.04 68.51 2,182 1,505 3,314

SEm± 0.64 0.08 0.179 0.03 0.87 0.50 0.55 24 21 50CD (P=0.05) NS 0.23 NS NS 2.49 1.42 1.57 69 59 142

March 2018] EFFECT OF POTASSIUM ON PEANUT UNDER SALINE IRRIGATION 77

roots under different NaCl irrigation water levels. Theaccumulation of K+ was higher in ‘GG 2’ than ‘TG 37A’ inall the parts but significant difference was observed in rootand leaf of peanut. Application of potassium fertilizationwith 30 kg/ha significantly increased K+ uptake in differ-ent parts. These results clearly indicate the differentialbehaviour of Na+ and K+ ions towards their acquisition andassimilation by the peanut plants. Salinity causes not onlyhigh Na+ and Cl” accumulation in plants, but it can alsoinuence the uptake of essential nutrients such as K+ andCa2+ due to the effect of ion selectivity (Meena et al.,2015).

The highest Na+:K+ ratio in shoot, root, leaves and ker-nel peanut were observed in saline irrigation using NaClwater of 4.0 dS/m (Table 3). The highest Na+:K+ accumu-

lation ratio was obtained in roots followed by that inleaves then in shoots and the least in kernels. The Na+:K+

accumulation ratio in roots was almost 6 times higher thanthe aerial parts of the peanut which indicated the accumu-lation of Na+ ions in the root cells and also signified therestricted translocation to the aerial part of the peanut un-der saline stress. The accumulation of Na+:K+ was higherin ‘TG 37A’ than ‘GG 2’ in all the parts of peanut. In con-trast, the absorption and translocation of K+ ions werehigher in aerial parts of the peanut than roots which weresignificantly reduced with the increased salinity levels,while Na+:K+ ratio significantly increased with increasedsalinity levels. Similar results was also reported by(Cerda et al., 1995) where they advocated that the reducedpotassium content would be caused by Na+ ion accumula-tion in roots which would likely to be the result of com-petitive intracellular influx of both ions. It also implies thatcompetition between Na+ and K+ absorption in peanutplants resulting in a mass action competition (Taffouo etal., 2010; Meena et al., 2015).Due to similar physic-chemical properties of K+ and Na+ in the growing environ-ment, plants often face K+ deficiency under saline condi-tion (Shabala and Cuin, 2008). Earlier studies indicatedreduction in tissue K+ content in plants grown under salinecondition for prolonged period (Chakraborty et al.,2012a). Thus, maintaining a high cytosolic K+:Na+ ratio inmetabolically active tissues are critical for plant growthand salt tolerance (Wang et al., 2013).

Application of potassium not only increased signifi-cantly the concentration of K in plant parts but also signifi-cantly decreased the accumulation of Na ions as well asNa:K ratio in different plant parts under salinity (Fig. 2).

Table 3. Nutrient content in different plant parts of peanut cultivars having different irrigation water salinity and potassium levels

Treatment Shoot (g/kg) Root (g/kg) Leaf (g/kg) Kernel (g/kg)

Na+ K+ Na+:K+ Na+ K+ Na+:K+ Na+ K+ Na+:K+ Na+ K+ Na+:K+

Water salinity (S, dS/m)0.5 13.8 4.2 3.28 46.4 2.8 16.57 10.8 5.0 2.16 10.7 5.1 2.092 19.5 4.1 4.75 58.4 2.6 22.41 14.9 3.7 4.02 16.2 4.7 3.444 22.0 3.7 5.94 81.5 2.2 37.04 21.6 3.3 6.54 20.7 4.6 4.50

SEm± 2 0.1 0.26 8.2 0.2 7.26 0.8 0.1 0.25 0.3 0.1 0.06CD (P=0.05) NS 0.4 0.73 NS NS NS 2.4 0.3 0.72 0.9 0.2 0.17

Peanut cultivars (V)TG 37 A’ 18.9 3.7 5.10 67.3 2.2 30.50 16.2 3.4 4.76 16.2 4.8 3.20‘GG 2’ 18.0 4.2 4.28 56.9 2.8 20.30 15.3 4.6 3.32 15.4 4.8 3.37

SEm± 0.6 0.3 0.43 1.6 0.2 2.29 0.7 0.1 0.21 0.2 0.1 0.05CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS 4.6 0.4 6.52 NS 0.3 0.59 0.7 NS NS

Potassium levels (K, kg/ha)0 19.5 3.7 5.27 64.7 2.2 29.40 17.2 3.8 4.52 16.3 4.7 3.2730 17.3 4.2 4.11 59.5 2.9 20.50 14.3 4.2 3.40 15.2 4.9 3.30

SEm± 0.6 0.1 0.21 1.6 0.2 2.29 0.7 0.1 0.21 0.2 0.1 0.05CD (P=0.05) 1.8 0.3 0.60 4.6 0.5 6.52 2 0.3 0.59 0.7 0.1 NS

Fig. 2. Accumulation of Na+ and K+ ions in different plant parts ofthe peanut (bars) and Na+:K+ ratio (line) under NaCl irriga-tion water (average of 3 water salinity levels)

78 MEENA ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

The increased magnitude of K content was 11.9, 24.1, 9.5and 4.1% and Na content decreased by 11.2, 8.0, 16.9 and4.9% in shoot, root, leaves and kernel respectively. Con-sequently, the Na to K accumulation ratio also decreasedby 22.0, 30.2, 24.7 and 0.89 in shoot, root, leaves and ker-nels, respectively. Previous studies indicated under salinecondition maintenance of cytosolic K+ concentration at aconstant level is important for plant metabolism, whilevacuolar K+ concentrations may vary greatly (Shabala andCuin, 2008;Wu et al., 2014). Under K+-deficient situationespecially due to reduced uptake of K+ under salinity stressresults in constant consumption of vacuolar K+ in order tomaintain a uniform cytosolic K+ concentration (Wang etal., 2013). It is well established that various transporterswere involved in K+ transport in the plant system whichare differentially regulated in various plant parts or tissuesdepending on the plant age (Su et al., 2001). Although atwhole plant level, the basis of cellular K+ versus Na+ ionsdiscrimination is difcult to establish. Some studies haveshown that K+ concentration in plant tissues get reduced asNa+ salinity or Na+:Ca2+ ratio in the rooting media get in-creased (Subbarao et al., 2003).

Interaction of salinity and potassium levelsInteraction of salinity and potassium levels were signifi-

cantly altered the pod, haulm and kernel yield of peanut,but the effect of potassium was the highest at 0.5 dS/msalinity level. However, this was drastically reduced withincreased levels of salinity especially in pod and kernelyield of peanut. It indicates that application of potassiumwith 30 kg/ha ameliorates the salinity developed by appli-cation of saline irrigation water up to 2 dS/m salinity level(Table 4). The highest application effect of potassium wasobserved on haulm yield (12%) followed by kernel (7%)and least on pod yield (5%) as compared to without appli-cation of potassium fertilizer.supplementary application of

potassium resulted in compensating the salinity inducedyield loss (Tables 4, 5) and the effect was quite higher in‘TG 37A’ than ‘GG 2’, when external potassium was ap-plied. This result advocated that, under potassium with 30kg/ha condition higher availability of potassium (K+) evenin saline condition facilitated both the cultivars to retainbetter physiological status may be through higher uptakeof potassium (K+) or better withholding of potassium (K+)as compared to without application of potassium condi-tion. In salinity stress, the availability of nutrients to plantsincluding that of potassium (K+) is often hampered, hencesufficient availability of potassium (K+) in growing envi-ronment is absolutely essential for plant growth. In earlierstudies, supplementary application of potassium (K+) pro-moted growth and biomass production in various crops(Meena et al., 2015). It is possible that in the saline envi-ronment where there is presence of high salt concentra-tions, the amount of naturally occurring potassium (K+)may suppress plant growth (Chen et al., 2007). Increasing

Table 4. Effect of NaCl irrigation water salinity and potassium levels on peanut productivity and ionic concentration and ionic ratio indifferent plant parts

Treatment Pod Haulm Kernel Leaf Leaf Leaf Root Shoot(kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) K (%) Na (%) Na/K Na (%) Na:K

NaCl water salinity × potassium applicationS0K0 2,314 3,160 1,590 0.502 1.140 2.496 5.292 3.966S0K30 2,577 3,851 1,797 0.491 1.020 2.141 3.978 3.335S2K0 2,287 3,255 1,543 0.304 1.432 4.720 6.088 5.385S2K30 2,355 3,483 1,656 0.432 1.538 3.744 5.590 4.599S4K0 1,614 2,608 1,044 0.327 2.598 8.320 8.023 7.607S4K30 1,613 2,883 1,061 0.335 1.718 5.062 8.283 5.138

SEm± 41.891 85.937 35.70 0.017 0.012 0.36 0.28 0.36CD (P=0.05) 119.482 245.11 101.82 0.049 0.034 1.02 0.79 1.04

S0; NaCl irrigation water of 0.5 dS/m salinity, S2; NaCl irrigation water of 2.0 dS/m salinity, S3; NaCl irrigation water of 4.0 dS/m salinity,K0; No potassium application, K30; application of 30 kg K2O/ha as murate of potash fertilizer

Fig. 3. Changes in Na+ and K+ content in different plant parts of thepeanut as influenced by application of potassium

March 2018] EFFECT OF POTASSIUM ON PEANUT UNDER SALINE IRRIGATION 79

potassium (K+) concentration in growing medium in suchsituations may improve potassium (K+) absorption andtherefore counterbalance the adverse effect of salt stress(Zheng et al., 2008).

The nutrient content of leaf for sodium and potassiumand root for sodium significantly affected by salinity andpotassium levels. Application of potassium enhanced thepotassium content (10%) and reduced sodium content(21%) under different salinity levels as compared to with-out application of potassium fertilization. The sodium con-tent of root was also decreased by (9%) with application of30 kg/ha potassium as compared to without potassiumapplication. The Na:K ratio considerably reduced in leaf(0.36 to 3.26) and shoot (0.63 to 2.47) by the applicationof potassium indicated that application of potassium con-siderably lower down the toxic effect of sodium on plantgrowth and nutrient balance. Potassium (K+) is one of themajor primary inorganic osmoticum in cellular osmoticadjustment whenever the plants face osmotic stress (Wanget al., 2013). Due to similar physico-chemical propertiesof potassium (K+) and sodium (Na+) in the growing situ-ation, plants often face potassium (K+) deficiency undersaline condition (Shabala and Cuin, 2008). Meena et al.,(2015) reported reduction in potassium (K+) content inplants grown under saline condition for long period. Thus,maintaining a high cytosolic K+:Na+ ratio in metabolicallyactive tissues are critical for plant growth and salt toler-ance (Wang et al., 2013). Previous studies suggested un-der saline condition maintenance of cytosolic potassium(K+) concentration at a constant level is important for plantmetabolism, while vacuolar potassium (K+) concentrationsmay vary greatly (Shabala and Cuin, 2008). Under potas-sium (K+)-deficient situation particularly due to reduceduptake of potassium (K+) under salinity stress results in

Table 5. Interaction effect of NaCl irrigation water salinity and peanut cultivars as well as potassium fertilization and peanut cultivars ondifferent plant parameters during summer season

Treatment Shelling Haulm Kernel Leaf Treatment Root Leaf Leaf(%) yield K (%) K (%) Na (%) Na (%) Na:K

(kg/ha)NaCl salinity levels × peanut cultivars Potassium application × peanut cultivars

S0V1 70.14 3676 0.521 0.616 K0V1 6.671 1.904 6.358S0V2 68.93 3335 0.488 0.502 K30V1 6.792 1.326 3.787S2V1 70.15 3360 0.491 0.410 K0V2 6.264 1.542 3.999S2V2 67.39 3255 0.453 0.304 K30V2 5.108 1.526 3.512S4V1 66.48 2883 0.499 0.360S4V2 63.15 2214 0.424 0.327SEm± 0.96 85.94 0.009 0.017 SEm± 0.23 0.010 0.29CD (P=0.05) 2.72 245.11 0.024 0.049 CD (P=0.05) 0.64 0.028 0.83

S0; NaCl irrigation water of 0.5 dS/m salinity, S2; NaCl irrigation water of 2.0 dS/m salinity, S3; NaCl irrigation water of 4.0 dS/m salinity, K0;No potassium application, K30; application of 30 kg K2O/ha as murate of potash fertilizer

constant depletion of vacuolar potassium (K+) in order tomaintain a uniform cytosolic potassium (K+) concentration(Wang et al., 2013). Similarly, we also found reduced po-tassium (K+) uptake under increasing salinity level andconcomitant rise in sodium (Na+) uptake and accumulation(Table 3).

Interaction between salinity levels and peanut cultivarsHaulm yield, shelling per cent, potassium content in

leaf and kernels were significantly altered by salinity andcultivars (Table 5). Haulm yield and shelling percentage of‘TG 37A’ was higher than ‘GG 2’ at all the levels of salin-ity. The potassium content (%) was also significantlyhigher in ‘TG 37A’ than ‘GG 2’ both in leaf and kernels atall the levels of NaCl water salinity. This might be due tothe counter ion effect of potassium and sodium. Although,these effects were specific to salinity levels and needs tofurther study using wide range of salinity levels and geno-types.

Interaction between potassium levels and peanut culti-vars

The interaction effect of potassium and peanut cultivarssignificantly altered the sodium content (%) of root, leafand Na:K ratio of leaf (Table 5). Application of potassiumdrastically reduce the sodium content (1.9 to 1.3%) andNa:K ratio (6.36 to 3.79) in leaf of cultivar TG 37Awhereas this difference was recorded very less in ‘GG 2’,indicating that the effect of potassium to counteract theirrigation water salinity was specific to genotypes. There-fore, this study indicated that peanut genotypes may varyin their choice for specific ion movement in different plantparts. Similarly, sodium content of roots was considerablyreduced in cultivar ‘GG 2’ by application of potassium

80 MEENA ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

fertilizers. However ‘TG 37A’ showed slight increase insodium content by the application of potassium. Also thevariations in Na:K ratio in different plant parts of cultivarindicated the differential behaviour of peanut cultivars foraccumulation of specific ions.

The interactions of NaCl irrigation water salinity, pea-nut cultivars and application of potassium significantlyaltered the sodium content of leaf, potassium content ofleaf and kernel and Na:K ratio for leaf and kernels (datanot shown). Although, no consistent trend was observedfor interaction effect of these three factors on specific pa-rameter and whatever the effects as reported has been al-ready described in above interactions for salinity levelsand peanut cultivars as well as for potassium levels andpeanut cultivars.

From the results, we conclude that application of potas-sium fertilizer proved the ameliorative effect of the potas-sium on salinity stress conditions and counteract the spe-cific ion effects of the sodium on absorption and translo-cation of other counter-ions of sodium chloride enrichedirrigation water for peanut cultivation in calcareousvertisols. The cultivar ‘GG 2’ had basic salt tolerance char-acter, which was evident from its capacity to exclude so-dium from uptake and lesser accumulation particularly inmetabolically active mesophyll tissue. On the other hand,‘TG 37A’ allowed more accumulation of sodium. Applica-tion of potassium seemed to abolish the negative effect ofsalinity in both the cultivars, but the effect was better in‘TG 37A’. The higher accumulation of Na+ in roots and K+

ions in aerial parts of the peanut plants not only indicatesthe selective ion absorption and translocation mechanismsand their interactions but also signifies the physiologicaland metabolic effects of Na+ ions on peanut growth andnutrition under salinity stress. Thus higher Na+ concentra-tion disrupted the nutrient balance in the plant parts andthereby causing ion deficient and/or toxicity in the plants.

REFERENCES

Ashraf, M. and Ahmad, S. 2000. Influence of sodium chloride onion accumulation, yield components and fiber characteristicsin salt tolerant and salt sensitive lines of cotton. Field CropsResearch 66: 115–127.

Cerda, A., Pardines, J., Botella, M.A. and Martinez, V. 1995. Effectof potassium on growth, water relations and inorganic andorganic solute contents for two maize cultivars grown undersaline conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition 18: 839–851.

Chakraborty, K., Sairam, R.K. and Bhattacharya, R.C. 2012a. Dif-ferential expression of salt overly sensitive pathway genesdetermines salinity stress tolerance in Brassica genotypes.Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 51: 90–101.

Chen, Z., Zhou, M., Newman, I.A., Mendham, N.J., Zhang, G. andShabala, S. 2007. Potassium and sodium relations in salin-ized barley tissues as a basis of differential salt tolerance.Functional Plant Biology 34: 150–162.

Glenn, P.E., Brown, J.J. and Blumwald, E. 1999. Salt Tolerance andCrop Potential of Halophytes. Critical Review Plant Sci-ences 18(2): 227–255.

Grattan, S.R. and Grieve, C.M. 1999. Salinity-mineral nutrient re-lations in horticultural crops. Scientia Horticulturae 78:127–157.

Hauser, F. and Horie, T. 2010. A conserved primary salt tolerancemechanism mediated by HKT transporters: a mechanism forsodium exclusion and maintenance of high K/Na ratio inleaves during salinity stress. Plant Cell and Environment 33:552–565.

Le Rudulier, D. 2005. Osmoregulation in rhizobia. The key role ofcompatible solutes. Grain Legumes 42: 18–19.

Lobato, A.K.S., Costa, R.C.L., Olireria Neto, C.F., Santos Filho,B.G., Cruz, F.J.R., Freitas, J.M.N. and Cordeiro, F.C. 2008.Morphological changes in soybean under progressive waterstress. International Journal of Botany and Research 4(2):231–235.

Lohaus, G.M., Hussmann, K., Pennewiss, H., Schneider, J., Zhu, J.and Sattelmacher, B. 2000. Solute balance of a maize sourceleaf as affected by salt treatment with special emphasis onphloem retranslocation and ion leaching. Journal of Experi-mental Botany 51: 1,721–1,732.

Meena, H.N., Meena, M.D. and Yadav, R.S. 2016. Comparative per-formances of seed type on yield potential of peanut (Arachishypogaea L.) under saline irrigation. Field Crops Research196: 305–310.

Meena, H.N., Bhaduri, D., Yadav, R.S., Jain, N.K. and Meena, M.D.2015. Agronomic performance and nutrient accumulationbehaviour in peanut-cluster bean cropping system as influ-enced by irrigation water salinity. Proceedings of the Na-tional Academy of Sciences India Section. B: Biological Sci-ence 87: 31–37.

Meena, H.N., Girdhar, I.K., Bhalodia, P.K., Yadav, R.S. and Misra,J.B. 2014. Possibilities for use of saline irrigation water forhigher land productivity under peanut–mustard rotation insalt affected Vertisols of Saurashtra in Gujarat. Legume Re-search 37: 79–86.

Meena, H.N., Bhalodia, P.K., Jat, R.S. and Vekaria, L.C. 2012. Pros-pects of using saline water for irrigation in groundnut (Ara-chis hypogaea)-pearlmillet (Pennisetum glaucum) croppingsystem in saline black soils of Saurashtra. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 57(2): 122–126.

Munns, R. 1993. Physiological processes limiting plant growth insaline soils : some dogmas and hypothesis. Plant Cell andEnvironment 16(1) : 15–24.

Obreza, T.A., Alva, A.K. and Calvert, D.V. 1993. Citrus fertilizermanagement on calcareous soils. Circular 1127, Soil andWater Science Department, Florida Cooperative ExtensionService, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Univer-sity of Florida. (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_CH086).

Rajesh, A., Arumugam, R., Venkatesalu, V. 1998. Growth and pho-tosynthetic characteristics of Ceriops roxburghiana underNaCl stress. Photosynthetica 35(2): 285–287.

Shabala, S. and Cuin, T.A. 2008. Potassium transport and plant salttolerance. Physiologia plantarum 133: 651–669.

Su, H., Golldack, D., Katsuhara, M., Zhao, C. and Bohnert, H.J.2001. Expression and stress dependent reduction of potas-sium channels transcripts in the common ice plant. PlantPhysiology 125: 604–614.

March 2018] EFFECT OF POTASSIUM ON PEANUT UNDER SALINE IRRIGATION 81

Subbarao, G.V., Ito, O., Berry, W.L. and Wheeler, R.M. 2003. So-dium a functional plant nutrient. Critical Review in PlantSciences 22: 391–416.

Taffouo, V.D., Nouck, A.H., Dibong, S.D. and Amougou, A. 2010.Effect of salinity stress on seedling growth, mineral nutrientsand total chlorophyll of some tomato (Lycopersicumesculentum L.) cultivars. African Journal of Biotechnology9(33): 5,366–5,372.

Tennant, D. 1975. A test of a modified line intersects method of es-timating root length. Journal of Ecology 63: 995–1001.

Tuncturk, R. 2011. Salinity exposure modifies nutrient concentra-tions in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.). African

Journal of Agricultural Research 6(16): 3,685–3,690.Wang, M., Zheng, Q., Shen, Q. and Guo, S. 2013. The critical role

of potassium in plant stress response. International Journalof Molecular Sciences 14: 7,370–7,390.

Wu, H., Zhu, M., Shabala, L., Zhou, M. and Shabala, S., 2014. K+

retention in leaf mesophyll, an overlooked component ofsalinity tolerance mechanism: a case study for barley. Jour-nal of Integrative Plant Biology 57: 171–185.

Zheng, Y., Jia, A., Ning, T., Xu, J., Li, Z. and Jiang, G. 2008. Potas-sium nitrate application alleviates sodium chloride stress inwinter wheat cultivars differing in salt tolerance. Journal ofPlant Physiology 165: 1,455–1,465.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 82__86 (March 2018)

Effect of conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management ongrowth, physiological indices, yield and nutrient uptake of soybean (Glycine max)

SWARNA RONANKI1, U.K. BEHERA2, Y.S. SHIVAY3, R.N. PANDEY4, S. NARESH KUMAR5 AND RAKESH PANDEY6

ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012

Received : June 2016; Revised accepted : December 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment with soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] under soybean–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) croppingsystem was conducted during the rainy (kharif) seasons of 2014 and 2015 at the Indian Agricultural Research In-stitute, New Delhi, to assess the effect of conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management on growth,physiological indices, yield and nutrient uptake of soybean. The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design with4 conservation agricultural practices, viz. zero tillage without residue (ZT–R), zero tillage with soybean residue (ZT+ SR), zero tillage with soybean and wheat residue (ZT + SWR) and conventional tillage without residue (CT–R),in main plots and 4 nitrogen-management practices, viz. 100% recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN) as basal(N

1), 125% RDN as basal (N

2), 100% basal + 25% top-dressing at flowering stage (N

3) and 75 % basal + 25% top-

dressing at flowering stage (N4), in subplots. The results showed that growth parameters, physiological indices as

well as nitrogen (209.2 kg/ha), phosphorus (20.2 kg/ha) and potassium (89.4 kg/ha) uptake were significantlyhigher in ZT + SWR than the other treatments. The ZT + SWR resulted in 14% and 11% higher grain yield and22% and 21% higher profitability than ZT–R and CT – R, respectively. And among the nitrogen-management prac-tices, N

2, being at par with N

3, showed significantly higher growth and better physiological indices at all the growth

stages. However, significantly the highest nitrogen (201.8 kg/ha), phosphorus (19.6 kg/ha) and potassium uptake(88.2 kg/ha) were obtained with basal application of 125% recommended dose of nitrogen (N

2). Significantly

higher seed (1.96 t/ha) and stover yields (4.06 t/ha) were recorded with N2 than the other nitrogen-managementpractices.

Key words : Conservation agriculture, Nitrogen, Nutrient uptake, Residue, Soybean, Zero tillage

Based on a part of Ph.D. thesis of the first author, submitted to ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, during 2016 (un-published)

2Corresponding author’s Email: ukb2008@gmail.com1Scientist (Agronomy), ICAR-Indian Institute of Millets Research,Hyderabad; 2, 3 Principal Scientist, Division of Agronomy; 4Princi-pal Scientist, Division of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry;5Principal Scientist (CESCRA); 6Principal Scientist, Division of PlantPhysiology; ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi110 012

Soybean, designated as ‘golden bean’ rich in protein(40%) and moderate in cholesterol-free oil (20%), has es-tablished its tremendous potential as an industrial vital andviable oilseed crop in India. At present, it covers an area ofabout 11.62 million ha with a production of 8.64 milliontonnes and productivity of 781 kg/ha (SOPA, 2015). Soy-bean builds up the soil fertility by atmospheric nitrogenfixation and it leaves residual nitrogen equivalent to 45 to60 kg/ha for the succeeding crop (Kumar et al., 2012). The

symbiotic relationship between soybean and rhizobiumreduces production costs and makes soybean a good rota-tional crop for use with high nitrogen-consuming crops(Biswas and Gresshoff, 2014). Furthermore, it would helpenhance production of edible oil as India is producing only55% of its edible oil requirement (Hari Ram et al., 2013).However, in soybean-based cropping system, hardly 10–15 days time is available between harvesting of soybeanand timely sowing of wheat. Moreover, delayed sowing ofwheat adversely affects the crop resulting in lower yield.Of late, conservation agriculture (CA) systems havegained importance to facilitate early sowing of crops withreduced production costs.

The CA practice such as zero tillage and residue mulch-ing is an ecological approach for soil surface managementand seedbed preparation (Jain et al., 2007). It is energy-efficient and beneficial to environment as compared toconventional practices. However in CA, the requirementof nutrients may differ from conventional agriculture prac-tices. In the initial 3–4 years of adoption, zero tillage re-

Research Paper

March 2018] SOYBEAN REPSPONSE TO CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT 83

duces N mineralization by decreasing decomposition ofsoil organic matter, while the crop residues influence Ndynamics from immobilization and volatilization (Singh etal., 2015). Several studies reported a reduction in fertilizerN-use efficiency with zero tillage. Gangwar et al. (2006)reported an additional requirement of 25–30 kg N/ha inresidue incorporated ZT plots. Thus proper nitrogen man-agement in conservation agriculture is needed to ensureproper crop growth and development. The present studywas therefore designed to determine the effect of differentconservation agricultural practices and nitrogen manage-ment on growth, physiological indices, yield and nutrientuptake of soybean under soybean–wheat system in North-Western Indo Gangetic Plains of India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy(kharif) seasons of 2014 and 2015 at the research farm ofDivision of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Insti-tute, New Delhi, (28.4°N, 77.1°E, 228.6 m above meansea-level). The soil was a sandy clay loam in texture, neu-tral in reaction (pH 7.6), low in organic carbon (0.38 %),low in available N (150 kg/ha), medium in available P(11.2 kg/ha) and available K (245 kg/ha). The total rainfallduring the study period was 451.0 and 710.7 mm during2014 and 2015 respectively. The experiment was laid outin a split plot design with 3 replications in a fixed lay out.The main plot treatments consisted of 4 conservation ag-ricultural practices, viz zero tillage without residue (ZT–R), zero tillage with soybean residue in the preceedingcrop (ZT + SR), zero tillage with soybean wheat residue(ZT + SWR) (soybean residue is applied to the previouscrop and wheat residue to soybean crop) and conventionaltillage without residue (CT–R), while the subplot treat-ments were 4 nitrogen-management practices, viz. 100%recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN) as basal (N1),125% RDN as basal (N2), 100% basal + 25% top-dress-ing at flowering stage (N3) and 75 % basal + 25% top-dressing at flowering stage (N4). Under conventional till-age, the plots were ploughed 4–5 times (2 disc harrowing+ 2 cultivators + 1 planking), while in zero tillage the cropwas sown without any tillage operations. Wheat residues@ 3 tonnes/ha were applied to the soybean crop. Soybean‘Pusa 9712’ was sown in rows at 35 cm apart. The N, Pand K were given in the form of urea, single superphos-phate and muriate of potash, respectively in soybean @ 25: 60 : 40 N, P

2O

5 and K

2O. In soybean Pendimethalin @

0.75 kg a.i./ha was applied as pre-emergence followed by2 hand-weedings at 20 days after sowing (DAS) and 40DAS to control the weeds. The growth parameters, crop-growth rate (CGR), relative growth rate (RGR) and netassimilation rate (NAR) were calculated using standard

formula (Radford, 1967). Soil samples after harvestingwere taken and analyzed for available nitrogen (Subbiahand Asija, 1956), available phosphorus (Olsen et al., 1954)and available potassium (Standford and English, 1949),and uptake value was calculated by multiplying the con-tent by grain and stover yield of crop. The data of both theyears were pooled and analyzed by ANOVA and treatmentdifferences were expressed for Least Significant Differ-ences (LSD) at 5% probability to determine the signifi-cance among the treatment means.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth attributes and physiological indicesGrowth parameters of soybean, viz. plant height, leaf-

area index (LAI) and dry-matter accumulation (DMA),were influenced significantly by different conservationagricultural practices. The ZT + SWR recorded signifi-cantly higher plant height (70 cm), LAI (3.5) and DMA(27.7g/plant) at harvesting than ZT + SR, CT–R and ZT–R. The magnitude of increase in DMA by ZT + SWR overCT–R and ZT–R was 10% and 13% respectively. Simi-larly, crop-growth rate, relative growth rate and net assimi-lation rate were also found numerically superior at 30–60DAS and 60–90 DAS under ZT + SWR (Table 1). How-ever, significant increase in CGR and NAR was observedonly at 30–60 DAS. This improvement in growth param-eters of soybean in zero-tilled residue-applied plots wasascribed to higher soil moisture conservation and im-proved soil physical conditions as residue cover conservedsoil moisture and improved the microenvironment of soil,thus created conducive environment for plant growth anddevelopment (Choudhary et al., 2016).

Soybean growth parameters were influenced signifi-cantly by different nitrogen-management practices. Thehighest plant height, LAI and dry-matter/plant were re-corded with basal application of 125% RDN (N2), whichwere significantly higher than basal application of 100%RDN (N1) and 75% basal + 2% top-dressing at floweringstage (N4), but remained at par with 100% basal + 25%top-dressing of nitrogen at flowering stage (N3). Thisshows that the top-dressing of nitrogen at flowering stagedoes not add additional advantage over basal applicationof nitrogen. The various physiological indices were notsignificantly influenced by nitrogen management exceptthe RGR at 60–90 DAS and NAR. The increase in growthattributes with increasing N levels was owing to morenumber of leaves and their better growth under adequatenitrogen (Sharma et al., 2012). Nitrogen influenced thetotal photosynthesis of plants through its effect on the leafarea. All these might have cumulatively produced higherdry matter under the highest level of nitrogen (Watson,1952). Similar results were reported by Raja (2001), where

84 RONANKI ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

an increase in DM accumulation was observed with higherlevel of nitrogen owing to better crop growth, in terms ofplant height and LAI.

Nutrient uptakeThe nutrient uptake by seed and stover of soybean es-

timated at harvesting stage and total uptake were signifi-cantly affected by different conservation agricultural prac-tices and nitrogen management (Table 2). The maximumN, P and K uptake in seed and stover and total uptake wasobtained with ZT + SWR, it was significantly superior toZT + SR, ZT–R and CT–R. ZT–R and CT–R were foundat par with each other. The ZT + SWR enhanced the totalnitrogen uptake by 17%, total P uptake by 23.1% and to-tal K uptake by 19.5% over ZT–R and CT–R respectively.Improved soil physical, chemical and biological propertiesafter decomposition of crop residues resulted in the maxi-mum availability of nutrients and better nutrient uptake.Among the nitrogen-management practices, the maximumN, P and K uptake in seed, stover and total uptake wasobserved with basal application of 125% RDN, it was ona par with 100% basal+ 25% top-dressing and signifi-cantly superior to 100% RDN treatments. This increase inuptake of nutrients may be attributed to higher N, P, Kcontent, higher dry-matter production and higher seedyield/ha which was owing to continuous supply of essen-tial plant nutrients to plants throughout crop-growth periodat higher fertility levels (Morshed et al., 2008).

Yield and profitabilityThe conservation agricultural practices and N manage-

ment had significant effect on seed yield of soybean (Table3). Significantly maximum seed yield was recorded withZT + SWR (2.0 t/ha). It was followed by ZT + SR and CT– R. And the lowest seed yield was recorded with ZT – R(1.7 t/ha). The magnitude of increase in seed yield with ZT+ SWR over ZT – R and CT – R was 18% and 11% re-spectively. This increment might be owing to improvedgrowth parameters in ZT + SWR which could be attrib-uted to the better utilization of soil moisture, nutrientsuptake and less fluctuation in the soil temperature underresidue conditions. Similar trend was also found in stoveryield. The yield increase under residue application mightbe owing to additional nutrient release through residueapplication to the tune of 25.5–107.4 kg N, 1.35–2.76 kgP and 90.6–188.7 kg K/ ha during decomposition and itssustained release to meet the requirement of crop growth(Tsuji et al., 2006).

Among the nitrogen-management practices, basal ap-plication of 125% RDN resulted in significantly higherseed yield (1.94 and 1.95 t/ha) and stover yield (4.16 and3.96 t/ha). It was on a par with 100% basal + 25% top-dressing and significantly superior to basal application of100% RDN and 75% basal + 25% top-dressing. The seed-yield improvement with N2 was 9.4, 5.3 and 10% overN1, N3 and N4 respectively. Higher N levels might haveenhanced the manufacturing and storage of photosynthateswhich attributed to higher growth and yield parameters

Table 1. Effect of conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management on growth parameters and physiological indices in soybean(pooled mean data of 2 years)

Treatment Growth parameters at Crop-growth Relative growth Net assimilation ratephysiological maturity rate (g/g/day) rate (mg/g/day) (g/m2 leaf area/day)

Plant Dry-matter Leaf- 30–60 60–90 30–60 60–90 30–60 60–90height accumulation area DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS(cm) (g/plant) index

Conservation agricultural practicesZT – R 63.5 24.2 3.0 10.6 7.1 67.6 15.1 7.4 2.5ZT + SR 64.5 25.7 3.3 11.2 8.6 67.8 17.1 7.6 2.8ZT + SWR 70.1 27.7 3.5 12.6 8.2 70.6 15.2 8.1 2.5CT – R 64.5 24.9 3.1 11.1 7.7 68.0 15.8 7.5 2.6

SEm± 1.04 0.29 0.04 0.21 0.32 0.76 0.74 0.14 0.10CD (P=0.05) 3.62 1.01 0.13 0.71 NS NS NS 0.47 NS

Nitrogen managementN1 (100% basal) 62.7 24.42 3.16 10.86 7.16 67.47 15.04 7.87 2.38N2 (125% basal) 68.9 26.98 3.38 11.96 8.93 69.60 16.74 7.41 2.80N3 (100% basal + 25% top-dressing) 68.1 26.66 3.25 11.79 8.50 69.27 16.34 7.46 2.77N4 (75% basal + 25% top-dressing) 62.9 24.40 3.17 10.88 7.11 67.55 15.03 7.90 2.38

SEm± 1.03 0.31 0.04 0.21 0.41 0.62 0.75 0.17 0.14CD (P=0.05) 3.02 0.89 0.12 0.61 1.20 1.80 NS NS NS

Details of treatments are given under Materials and Methods

March 2018] SOYBEAN REPSPONSE TO CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT 85

and consequently in higher yield. Similar results were alsoreported by Morshed et al. (2008), who stated that appli-cation of 25% higher N over recommended could givemaximum seed yield, protein content and nutrient uptakeby soybean seed.

Economic analysis revealed that significantly highestnet returns were obtained in ZT + SWR followed by ZT +SR and ZT–R which in turn on a par with CT–R. Thismight be owing to higher seed and stover yields under ZT+ SWR compared to the other treatments. There are sev-eral reports showing savings in irrigation water, labour and

production costs, and higher net economic returns in notillage compared with conventional tillage systems(Karunakaran and Behera, 2016). Among the nitrogen-management practices, basal application of 125% RDNfetched the maximum net returns (28.3 ×103 /ha) andbenefit: cost ratio (1.16) over other nitrogen-managementpractices. This might be owing to higher seed and stoveryields at higher nitrogen doses.

Protein content and protein yieldProtein content in soybean responded positively to the

Table 3. Effect of conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management on yield, quality and profitability of soybean (pooled meandata of 2 years)

Treatment Seed Stover Protein Protein Net returns Benefit:yield yield content yield (× 103 /ha) cost ratio(t/ha) (t/ha) (%) (kg/ha)

Conservation agricultural practiceZT – R 1.7 3.7 38.7 663.7 22.2 0.93ZT + SR 1.8 3.9 39.9 723.2 24.9 1.04ZT + SWR 2.0 4.0 41.1 816.3 28.4 1.15CT – R 1.8 3.8 38.9 690.0 22.5 0.90

SEm± 0.03 0.03 0.31 15.83 0.82 0.03CD (P=0.05) 0.11 0.11 1.06 54.79 2.85 0.12

Nitrogen managementN1 (100% basal) 1.7 3.7 38.7 671.4 22.3 0.92N2 (125% basal) 2.0 4.1 40.0 784.8 28.3 1.16N3 (100% basal + 25% top-dressing) 1.9 3.9 40.6 763.2 25.7 1.05N4 (75% Basal + 25% top-dressing) 1.7 3.7 39.1 673.8 21.7 0.89

SEm± 0.03 0.05 0.26 13.62 0.82 0.03CD (P=0.05) 0.09 0.16 0.75 39.76 2.39 0.10

Details of treatments are given under Materials and Methods

Table 2. Effect of conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen management on nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) uptake(kg/ha) in seed and stover of soybean (pooled mean data of 2 years)

Treatment N uptake N uptake Total N P uptake P uptake Total P K uptake K uptake Total Kby seed by stover uptake by seed by stover uptake by seed by stover uptake(kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)

Conservation agricultural practiceZT – R 106.2 65.3 171.5 7.5 8.1 15.6 9.8 61.1 70.9ZT + SR 115.7 75.2 190.9 8.5 9.1 17.6 13.1 71.0 84.2ZT + SWR 130.6 78.6 209.2 10.0 10.3 20.2 14.8 74.6 89.4CT – R 110.4 66.9 177.3 8.1 8.2 16.2 11.5 63.3 74.7

SEm± 2.53 0.60 2.09 0.14 0.22 0.30 0.37 1.33 1.45CD (P=0.05) 8.77 2.07 7.24 0.50 0.76 1.05 1.28 4.59 5.02

Nitrogen managementN1 (100% basal) 107.4 67.1 174.6 7.8 7.9 15.7 11.0 63.1 74.1N2 (125% basal) 125.6 76.3 201.8 9.6 9.9 19.6 14.2 73.9 88.2N3 (100% basal + 25% top-dressing) 122.1 75.5 197.6 9.0 9.6 18.6 13.0 69.8 82.8N4 (75% Basal + 25% top- dressing) 107.8 67.1 174.9 7.7 8.2 15.9 11.0 63.1 74.0

SEm± 2.18 1.04 2.31 0.18 0.20 0.25 0.40 1.24 1.38CD (P=0.05) 6.36 3.03 6.74 0.52 0.57 0.72 4.03 3.62 4.03

Details of treatments are given under Materials and Methods

86 RONANKI ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

conservation agricultural practices and nitrogen manage-ment. The ZT + SWR resulted in significantly higher pro-tein content and yield in soybean crop than the other con-servation agricultural practices. The protein content andprotein yield in ZT + NR and CT + NR were statisticallysimilar. Younesabadi et al. (2013) also reported that CTand NT did not differ significantly with respect to proteincontent as well as protein yield in soybean. Among thenitrogen-management practices, 100% basal + 25% top-dressing resulted in significantly higher protein contentwhich was on a par with basal application of 125% RDN.Nitrogen (N) is often the most limiting factor in crop pro-duction and affects amino acid composition of protein andin turn its nutritional quality. Increasing nitrogen supply tocrops generally resulted in increased grain yield, grainprotein content and protein yield.

Conservation agricultural practices involving zero till-age and application of crop residues of soybean and wheat@ 3.0 t/ha enhanced the growth parameters, nutrient up-take and yield of soybean. Top-dressing of nitrogen fertil-izer at flowering stage of soybean did not show any addedadvantage over basal application. Our findings indicatethat zero tillage with soybean and wheat residues alongwith application of 25% higher recommended dose of ni-trogen either as basal or as top-dressing can be a viablealternative to conventional practices for sustainable pro-duction in Indo-Gangetic plains of India.

REFERENCES

Biswas, B. and Gresshoff, P.M. 2014. The role of symbiotic nitro-gen fixation in sustainable production of biofuels. Interna-tional Journal of Molecular Sciences 15(5): 7,380–7,397.

Choudhary, M., Rana, K.S., Rana, D.S. and Bana, R.S. 2016. Till-age and crop residue effects in rainfed pearlmillet in con-junction with sulphur fertilization under pearlmillet–Indianmustard cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy61(1): 15–19.

Gangwar, K.S., Singh, K.K., Sharma, S.K. and Tomar, O.K. 2006.Alternative tillage and crop residue management in wheatafter rice in sandy loam soils of Indo-Gangetic plains. Soiland Tillage Research 88: 242–252.

Ram, H., Singh, Y., Saini, K.S., Kler, D.S. and Timsina, J. 2013.Tillage and planting methods effects on yield, water use-ef-ficiency and profitability of soybean–wheat system on aloamy sand soil. Experimental Agriculture 49(4): 524–542.

Jain, N., Mishra, J.S., Kewat, M.L. and Jain, V. 2007. Effect of till-age and herbicides on grain yield and nutrient uptake bywheat (Triticum aestivum) and weeds. Indian Journal of

Agronomy 52(2): 131–134.Karunakaran, V. and Behera, U.K. 2016. Tillage and residue man-

agement for improving productivity and resource-use effi-ciency in soybean (Glycine max)–wheat (Triticum aestivum)cropping system. Experimental Agriculture 52(4): 617–634.

Kumar, P., Rana, K.S. and Rana, D.S., 2012. Effect of planting sys-tems and phosphorus with bio-fertilizers on the performanceof sole and intercropped pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) underrainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 57(2): 127–132.

Morshed, R.M., Rahman, M.M. and Rahman, M.A. 2008. Effect ofnitrogen on seed yield, protein content and nutrient uptake ofsoybean (Glycine max L.). Journal of Agricultural and Ru-ral Development 6(1, 2): 13–17.

Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S. and Dean, L.A. 1954. Esti-mation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction withsodium bicarbonate.USDA Circular No. 939, Washington.

Radford, P.J. 1967. Growth analysis formulae-their use and abuse.Crop Science 81: 139–145.

Raja, R. 2001. Effect of time of sowing and nutrient levels on dry-land sorghum varieties and evaluation of DSSAT v3.5CERES-Sorghum model to optimize farm management strat-egies. Ph.D. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

Sharma, P., Abrol, V. and Kumar, R. 2012. Effect of water regimesand nitrogen levels on rice crop performance and nitrogenuptake. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation 40(2): 122–128.

Singh, M., Sidhu, H.S., Humphreys, E., Thind, H.S., Jat, M.L.,Blackwell, J. and Singh, V. 2015. Nitrogen management forzero till wheat with surface retention of rice residues innorth-west India. Field Crops Research 184: 183–191.

Sinha, B.L. 2015. Effect of tillage and nutrient management on yieldof pearlmillet and soil health in semi arid tropics. Interna-tional Journal of Information Technology Engineering andApplied Sciences Research 4(2): 33–39.

SOPA. 2015. The soybean processors Association of India, Indore.India. http://www.sopa.org/CRK2015EN.pdf

Stanford, S. and English, L. 1949. Use of flame photometer in rapidsoil tests of K and Ca. Agronomy Journal 41: 416–447.

Subbiah, B.V. and Asija, G .L. 1956. A rapid procedure for estima-tion of available nitrogen in soils. Current Science 25: 259–260.

Tsuji, H., Yamamoto, H., Matsuo, K. and Usuki, K. 2006. The ef-fects of long-term conservation tillage, crop residues and Pfertilizer on soil conditions and responses of summer andwinter crops on an Andosol in Japan. Soil and Tillage Re-search 89: 167–176.

Younesabadi, M., Das, T.K. and Sharma, A.R. 2013. Effect of till-age and tank-mix herbicide application on weed manage-ment in soybean (Glycine max). Indian Journal of Agronomy58(3): 372–378.

Watson, D.J. 1952. The physiological basis of variation in yield.Advances in Agronomy 4: 101–145.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 87__90 (March 2018)

Intra-row spacing and nitrogen management in wide–spaced winter castor(Ricinus communis) in heavy rainfall zone of south Gujarat

R.R. PISAL1, M.K. ARVADIA2, N.G. SAVANI3 AND V.H. SURVE4

Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat 396 450

Received : July 2017; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

An experiment was conducted for 3 consecutive winter (rabi) seasons of 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 onclayey soil of the Soil and Water Management Research Farm, Navsari, Gujarat, to study the response of wide-spaced (2.4 m), drip-irrigated winter (rabi) castor (Ricinus communis L.) to intra-row spacing under varying nitro-gen (N) levels. In all, 10 treatments comprising 3 intra-row spacings (60, 90 and 120 cm) and 3 N levels (80, 120and 160 kg N/ha) besides, 1 paired row control [0.6 m × 0.6 m × 1.2 m paired row + recommended dose of fertil-izer (RDF)] treatment outside the experimental plot. Intra-row spacing of 120 cm resulted in significantly highernumber of branches, leaves, spikes and seed yield/plant. However, intra-row spacing of 60 cm remained superiorin respect of plant height, seed, stalk and oil yields and nutrient uptake. Improvement in seed yield under 0.6 m in-tra-row spacing was 12.68 and 4.18% over 1.2 and 0.9 m respectively. Among the N levels, an application of 160kg N/ha recorded significantly higher plant height, number of branches, leaves, spikes, seed yield/plant and alsoresulted in higher seed, stalk and oil yields. On pooled data basis, the magnitude of increase in seed yield under160 kg N/ha was 5.84 and 2.11% over 80 and 120 kg N/ha respectively.

Key words : Castor, Intra-row spacing, Nitrogen, Yield

1Corresponding author’s Email: rrpagri@gmail.com1Assistant Professor, NAU, Waghai, 2Principal, NMCA, NAU,Navsari, 3Assistant Professor, NAU, Bharuch and 4Assistant ResearchScientist, SWMRU, NAU, Navsari

In south Gujarat heavy rainfall zone, the predominantcrop sequence is rice-rice and paddy-sugarcane, which isthe main cause for waterlogging and salinity problems inthese areas. Also this system proves uneconomical day byday due to increased cost of cultivation as well as de-creases in yield trend of sugarcane. Hence there is an ur-gent need to find out an alternate crop sequence with lowwater requirement and higher economic returns to over-come these problems. As the south Gujarat lies in heavyrainfall zone with heavy black clay soil, castor is sownduring late rainy (kharif) or rabi season. To fill up the gapbetween onset of monsoon and sowing time of castor,farmer can grow crops like rice, mungbean, urdbean, cow-pea, sesame, mothbean etc., in kharif season and thus, thefarmer can be benefited from short-duration crop. Whenpulses are grown in crop sequence it provides residual ni-trogen. Inclusion of castor in a crop sequence reduces in-puts requirement with its low cost production technology,less water requirement which also minimizes salinity prob-

lems and improves soil health. Now-a-days, with increas-ing demand of castor oil for industrial purpose, castorfetches good market price and higher economic returnsover existing addy-sugar cane cropping system in shorterduration. Optimum plant stand is essential for an intercep-tion of sunlight and consequently increases the uptake ofwater and nutrients thereby higher dry-matter production.An adequate supply of nitrogen is associated with vigor-ous plant growth and deep green colour of plant. Sincecastor, being indeterminate in growth habit, shows re-sponse to the space and N, there is need to evaluate itsperformance under wider spacing and higher levels of ni-trogen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during the winter(rabi) seasons of 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 at Soiland Water Management Research Farm, Navsari Agricul-tural University, Navsari, Gujarat. The soil of experimentalplot was clayey in texture and slightly alkaline. The soilwas low in available N, medium in available P and high inavailable K. The experiment was laid out in a randomizedblock design with factorial concept with 3 replications.There were 10 treatments, comprising combinations, of 3

Research Paper

88 PISAL ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

intra-row spacings (S1: 60 cm, S

2: 90 cm and S

3: 120 cm)

and 3 N levels (N1: 80 kg N/ha, N2: 120 kg N/ha and 160kg N/ha) besides 1 paired row control [0.6 m × 0.6 m × 1.2m paired row + recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)]outside the experimental plot. The common wide inter-rowspacing of 2.4 m was mentained for all plots except pairedrow control. The recommended dose of fertilizer (80 : 40: 0, N : P : K) was given to the control plots, while otherplots fertilized with various levels of nitrogen as per treat-ment and common phosphorus of 40 kg/ha. The crop wasfertilized with basal dose of 40 kg/ha P and 10% of Nlevel, while remaining 90% N was given in equal 9 splitsat 10-day intervals, starting from 20 DAS (days after sow-ing) up to 100 days through fertigation. The crop wasraised with agronomic package of practices, and observa-tions were made periodically.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Intra-row spacingThe intra-row spacing failed to show significant effect

on plant height, no. of spikes/plant, capsules/spike and100-seed weight (Table 1). Though higher seed yield/plantwas registered with wider intra-row spacing (120 cm), sig-nificantly higher seed (2,941 kg/ha) and stalk yield (4,737kg/ha) were realised owing to closer intra-row spacingbecause of significantly more plant population (6,818/ha).Increase in intra-row spacing decreased the seed and stalkyields to 2,823 kg/ha and 4,345 kg/ha (90 cm) and 2,618kg/ha and 4,037 kg/ha (120 cm) respectively. The mean

seed yield advantage under 0.6 m intra-row spacing was12.68 and 4.18% over 1.2 and 0.9 m respectively. Similarresults were also reported by Rana et al. (2006).

Varying intra-row spacings did not significantly influ-ence available soil N, P, K and oil content in castor seed(Table 2). However, significantly higher oil yield was ob-tained under treatment receiving 0.6 m intra-row spacingover 1.2 m, but remained statistically at par with 0.9 m.Sardana et al. (2008) in castor also reported the non sig-nificant response of oil content to various spacings. Intra-row spacing of 0.6 m accrued maximum net returns of

68,986/ha with benefit: cost ratio of 1.73 (Table 2). Thistreatment increased the net returns to 11,401/ha and4,016/ha over 1.2 and 0.9 m respectively. The increase innet profit was attributed to large yield differences withvery minute differences in cost of production under differ-ent intra-row spacings. Closer intra-row spacing wasfound superior to wider ones. Singh (2003) and Tank et al.(2007) also reported similar pattern.

NitrogenThough positive effect of N on growth and yield-attrib-

uting characters were reported earlier by Paida and Parmar(1980), Patel et al. (2005) and Rana et al. (2006) none ofgrowth and yield attributes of castor were significantlyinfluenced by application of graded levels of N in our ex-periment. Nitrogen application has multifarious effect onplant growth and influenced the various growth param-eters significantly. Since N levels unable to produce any

Table 1. Influenced of intra-row spacings and nitrogen levels on growth, yield parameters and yield of castor (mean data of 3 years)

Treatment Plant Plant Branches/ Spikes/ Length Capsules Seed 100-seed Seed Stalkpopulation/ height plant plant of primary on primary yield weight yield yield

ha (cm) spike (cm) spike (g/plant) (g) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)

Intra-row spacing (cm)S1, 60 6,818 59.2 24.5 20.4 71.0 63.1 458.9 29.77 2,941 4,737S2, 90 4,572 57.2 27.1 21.0 72.7 63.7 656.5 30.25 2,823 4,345S3, 120 3,431 59.0 27.6 21.1 71.1 62.0 834.2 30.48 2,618 4,037

SEm± 38.5 0.79 0.55 0.24 0.86 1.12 10.9 0.17 39.06 132.8CD (P=0.05) 109.4 NS 1.55 0.67 NS NS 30.9 NS 110.1 377.8

N level (kg/ha)N1, 80 4,921 58.3 25.1 19.8 70.6 61.5 632.7 29.73 2,634 3,924N2, 120 4,920 58.8 26.8 20.9 72.1 63.8 658.0 30.26 2,772 4,405N3, 160 4,979 58.2 27.3 21.8 72.0 63.4 658.9 30.51 2,977 4790

SEm± 38.5 0.79 0.55 0.24 0.86 1.12 10.9 0.17 39.06 132.8CD (P=0.05) NS NS 1.55 NS NS NS NS 0.48 110.1 377.8

Interaction NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NSControl vs restIntra-row spacing (Normal) 4,940 58.4 26.4 20.8 71.6 62.9 649.9 30.17 2,794 4,373Paired row (Control) 16,999 64.2 11.0 9.3 59.1 50.7 158.0 29.54 2,404 4,023

SEm± 41.2 1.48 0.91 0.40 1.49 1.95 8.0 0.13 49.4 97.7CD (P=0.05) 116.8 4.16 2.56 1.13 4.19 5.48 22.8 NS 139.0 NS

March 2018] INTRA-ROW SPACING AND N MANAGEMENT IN RABI CASTOR 89

significant impact on plant stand, it indicates the unifor-mity of plants/unit area in all the treatments (Table 1).Similarly, N levels also failed to exert any significant im-pact on plant height at harvesting, but numerically it wasfound to be increased with increase in N levels. Amongthe N levels, castor fertilized with 160 kg N/ha recordedsignificantly higher number of branches/plant at harvest-ing than 80 kg N/ha but remained statistically at par with120 kg N/ha. Though various yield-attributing characterswere failed to show significant influence of N, 100-seedweight was found significantly affected with varying Nlevels (Table 1). Application of 160 kg N/ha remarkablyincreased the number of spikes/plant 100-seed weight with160 kg N/ha over 80 kg N/ha, but closely followed by 120kg N/ha.

Soil-available P, K after crop harvesting, oil content andoil yield were not affected significantly due N levels, ex-cept N content in soil. Oil content in castor seed followeddecreasing trend with increase in N level. So far economicassessment is concerned, the maximum net returns of69,738/ha and benefit: cost ratio of 1.73 were accrued withthe application of N @ 160 kg/ha, which was followed byN @ 120 kg/ha (63,031/ha and 1.59 respectively).

Interaction effect and control vs rest analysisThe interaction between intra-row spacing and N levels

was found non-significant for almost all parameters stud-ied. However, treatment combination of 1.2 m intra-rowspacing with 160 kg N/ha resulted in higher values ofnumber of branches, spikes, seed yield/plant and 100-seed

Table 2. Influence of intra-row spacing and N levels on oil content, yield, soil nutrient status and economics in castor (mean data of 3 years)

Treatment Oil content Oil yield Soil N Soil P Soil K Net returns Benefit:(%) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) ( /ha) cost ratio

Intra-row spacing (cm)S1, 60 50.4 1,560 238.0 49.2 512.5 68,986 1.73S2, 90 50.6 1,505 244.1 49.6 521.7 64,970 1.65S3, 120 50.3 1,428 247.6 50.3 527.4 57,585 1.47

SEm± 0.37 17.44 4.14 1.18 12.40 – –CD (P=0.05) NS 49.58 NS NS NS – –

N levels (kg/ha)N1, 80 50.6 1,457 230.6 50.9 528.1 58,802 1.52N2, 120 50.5 1,505 245.5 50.1 519.6 63,031 1.59N3, 160 50.3 1,532 253.7 48.1 513.7 69,738 1.73

SEm± 0.37 17.44 4.14 1.18 12.40 – –CD (P=0.05) NS NS 11.76 NS NS – –

Interaction NS NS NS NS NS – –Control vs restIntra-row spacing (Normal) 50.5 1,498 243.3 49.7 520.5 63,846 1.62Paired row (Control) 50.4 1,364 227.0 47.1 498.8 45,165 1.03

SEm± 0.28 12.95 3.04 0.87 9.34 – –CD (P=0.05) NS 36.72 NS NS NS – –

weight. However, treatment combination of 0.6 m intra-row spacing with 160 kg N/ha resulted in higher seed,stalk and husk yields of castor. Soil-available N, P, K af-ter crop harvesting and oil content were not affected sig-nificantly due to interaction of intra-row spacing and Nlevels. However, treatment combination of S1N3, i.e. 0.6 mintra-row spacing and 160 kg N/ha, accrued the maximumnet returns ( 69,362/ha) and benfit: cost ratio (1.73).

The control vs rest analysis showed significant varia-tion in almost all the parameters studied. Pair row controltreatment significantly increased the plant population tothe tune of 244.11% over wider row planting. However,other characters like, number of branches, spikes, spikelength, capsules/spike and seed yield/plant were signifi-cantly improved under wider row spacing. Consequently,wider row-planted castor gave significantly higher seedand stalk yields over paired row control to the extent of16.22 and 8.70% respectively. Similar results were alsoreported by Tank et al. (2007). Nutritional study showedthat soil-available N, P, K after crop harvesting and oilcontent were not differed significantly in the control vsrest analysis, except in case of oil yield. Similarly, in thecontrol vs rest analysis, wider intra-row planting of castorshowed higher net returns ( 63,846/ha) and benefit: cost(1.62) ratio as compare to paired row control ( 45,165/haand 1.03 respectively). The increase in net returns by cas-tor for normal wider inter-row spacing over paired rowplanting was to the tune of about 18,681/ha.

From the forgoing discussion, it be concluded that dripirrigated rabi castor has to be grown at 60 cm intra-row

90 PISAL ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

spacing and by applying 160 kg N/ha for higher yield andnet returns, in heavy rainfall zone of south Gujarat.

REFERENCES

Paida, V.J. and Parmar, M.T. 1980. A note on effect of different lev-els of nitrogen and phosphorus on yield and yield attributesof castor GAUCH-1. Gujarat Agricultural University Re-search Journal 5(2): 48–51.

Patel. A.S. 2006. Response of nitrogen and sulphur on uptake andquality of castor (Ricinus communis L.) under irrigated con-dition. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis submitted to SDAU, S.K. Nagar.

Rana, D.S., Giri, G and Panchuri, D.K. 2006. Evaluation of castor

genotypes for productivity, economics, litter fall and changesin soil properties under different levels of intra-row spacingand N. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(4): 318–322.

Sardana, V., Singh, J. and Bajaj, R.K. 2008. Investigation on sow-ing time, plant sensity and nutrient requirements of hybridcastor (Ricinus communis L.) for the non-traditional area ofPunjab. Journal of Oilseeds Research 25(1): 41–43.

Singh, M. 2003. Studies on effect of spacing in castor (Ricinus com-munis L). Annals of Arid Zone 42(1): 89–91.

Tank. D.A., Delvadia, D.R., Gediya. K.M., Shukla, Y.M. and Patel,M.V. 2007. Effect of different spacing and N levels on seedyield and quality of hybrid castor (Ricinus communis L.).Research on Crops 8(2): 335–338.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 91__94 (March 2018)

Effect of soil and foliar applied potassium fertilizers on yield, quality andeconomics of Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) in Vertisol

T.V. JYOTHI1 AND N.S. HEBSUR2

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka 580 005

Received : May 2017; Revised accepted : November 2017

ABSTRACT

A cotton (Gossypium hiresutum L.) hybrid ‘MRC 7351’ was grown during 2012–13 and 2013–14 at main Agri-cultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad in Vertisols under rainfed condition withprotective irrigation to check the effect of potassium on growth, yield and fibre quality of Bt cotton. The crop wassown in a randomized complete-block design and was replicated thrice. Pooled data of 2 years indicated thatnumber of sympodial branches (24.7), number of total bolls/plant (46.9), mean boll weight (7.0 g) and seed-cottonyield/plant (150.4 g) in treatment receiving 100 : 50 : 75 [reccommended dose of nitrogen and phosphorus (RDNP)+ 150% recommended dose of potassium (RDK)] + 2% KNO

3 foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110 days after sowing

(DAS) resulted in significantly higher seed-cotton yield (2,689 kg/ha) over other treatments. Significantly higher fi-bre length (33.5 mm), uniformity ratio (48.8%), ginning outturn (38.5%), seed oil content (16%) and lowestmicronaire value [4.4 μg/inch (2.54 cm)] were also recorded in the same treatment.

Key words : Balanced fertilizers, Cotton, Fibre quality, Foliar spray, Net returns, Potassium

1Corresponding author’s Email: veeranna.jyothi@gmail.com1Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Science and AgriculturalChemistry, SAI, Channapatna; 2Professor, University of AgriculturalSciences, Dharwad, Karnataka

India is important grower of cotton on a global scale(Deshpande et al., 2014). It is a very good source of natu-ral fibre and to some extent supplementary source of ed-ible oil cotton is very important crop in the economy of thefarmers. Cotton plants require a specific amount of certainnutrients in specific format applied at an appropriate timefor their growth and development (Oosterhuis, 2001; Sajidet al., 2008). Balanced fertilization has been proved king-pin in agriculture production under different farming situ-ations. Balanced use of plant nutrients corrects nutrientdeficiency, improves soil fertility, increases nutrient andwater-use efficiency, enhances crop yields and farmer’sincome, maintains crop and environmental quality.

Potassium is the major plant nutrient that determinescrop production and quality and plays an important role intranslocation of carbohydrates, photosynthesis, water rela-tions, resistance against insects and diseases and ion bal-ance (Brar and Tiwari, 2004). Additionally, K also plays asignificant role in photophosphorylation, turgour mainte-nance, photoassimilate transport from source tissues viaphloem to sink tissues, stress tolerance and enzyme activa-tion in plants (Usherwood, 2000), enhances boll weight

and size, lint yield (Akhtar et al., 2003) and fibre develop-ment and fibre quality (Pettigrew et al., 1996).

Since cotton plant has an indeterminate growth habitand therefore requires high K throughout growing season,potassium uptake has profound impact on cotton plantgrowth, development, lint yield and fibre quality (Cassmanet al., 1990). The major demand for K by the plant comesat boll set because bolls are the major sink for potassium.Cotton plant requires large amount of potassium rangingfrom 3 to 5 kg/ha/day. Potassium taken up by plant repre-sents total quantity that is related to the level of availablesoil and potassium fertilizer (Kerby and Adams, 1985) andyield demand of the crop. To produce one bale of cottonfibre (218 kg), cotton plant requires 20 kg of potassium ofwhich approximately 2–5 kg are being removed by seeds(Rimon 1989; Hodges, 1992). Even in soils rated high inavailable K, in-season K shortage can develop due to theheavy demand during rapid boll set and fill. When heavyboll load is set, the demand for K often exceeds the abil-ity of the soils and leaves to supply potassium. Foliar Kapplications under certain conditions, however, cansupplement soil-applied K to increase yield and improvefibre quality of fast fruiting cotton varieties. Foliar K ap-plications offer an opportunity to correct the deficiencymore quickly (within 20 hr) and efficiently, especially latein the season when soil application of K may not be effec-

Research Paper

92 JYOTHI AND HEBSUR [Vol. 63, No. 1

tive (Abaye, 2009). It is in this context, a systematic fieldstudy was planned and executed with an objective to de-termine the effect of soil and foliar fertilizer K applicationon yield, quality and economics of Bt cotton in Vertisols.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted to investigate theeffect of soil and foliar application of potassium on yield,quality and economics of Bt cotton at Main AgriculturalResearch Station, University of Agricultural Sciences,Dharwad (15o29'647'' N, 74o59'254'' 695 m above sea-level) during 2012–13 and 2013–14. The soil was clayhaving neutral pH (7.3), non-saline, low in available N(230.5 kg/ha), medium in available P2O5 (31.60 kg/ha) andavailable K

2O (334.0 kg/ha). The spacing adopted was 90

cm × 60 cm as recommended for hybrid cotton. The ex-periment was executed in randomized complete-blockdesign with 3 replications and 9 treatments, viz. T1, 100 :50 : 0 (RDNP); T

2, 100 : 50 : 50 (RDF); T

3, 100 : 50 : 62.5

(RDNP + 125% RDK); T4, 100 : 50 : 75 (RDNP + 150%RDK); T

5, 100 : 50 : 0 (RDNP) + 2% KNO

3 foliar spray

at 70, 90 and 110 days after sowing (DAS); T6, 100 : 50 :50 (RDF) + 2% KNO

3 foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS;

T7, 100 : 50 : 62.5 (RDNP + 125% RDK) + 2% KNO3

foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS; T8, 100 : 50 : 75

(RDNP + 150% RDK) + 2% KNO3 foliar spray at 70, 90and 110 DAS; T

9, 100 : 50 : 50 (RDF) + water spray at 70,

90 and 110 DAS.Gap filling was done 7 days after sowing to avoid

patchy crop stand. To maintain desired plant density, thin-ning was done at about 20 days after sowing (DAS). En-tire recommended dose of P and K and half of N wereapplied after germination by ring method. The remainingN was applied at 60 DAS as per the package of practice.Foliar spray of KNO

3 @ 2% was applied at 70, 90 and 110

DAS as per treatment details. Adequate plant-protectionmeasures were taken as per the recommended package forBt cotton as and when required at various growth stagescommonly to all the treatments. During growth of the cropand at maturity, different yield parameters like sympodialbranches, number of bolls and boll weight were recorded.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Yield attributes and yieldIn the present study, owing to the integration of all the

favourable yield components such as number of totalbolls/plant (46.9), boll weight (7.0 g) and seed-cottonyield/plant (150.4 g) in treatment receiving 100 : 50 : 75(RDNP + 150% RDK) + 2% KNO3 foliar spray at 70, 90and 110 DAS resulted in significantly higher seed cottonyield (2,689 kg/ha) over other treatments (Table 1). It alsorecorded 26.7% yield increase over RDF. However, the

treatment 100 : 50 : 62.5 (RDNP + 125% RDK) + 2%KNO3 foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS was on par with100 : 50 : 75 (RDNP + 150% RDK) + 2% KNO

3 foliar

spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS. Similar findings were re-corded by Channakeshava et al. (2013), who reported thatincrease in bolls/plant was attributed to the supply of suf-ficient quantity of potassium at critical period, particularlyduring boll-development stage which resulted in retentionof more number of bolls/plant than control which receivedno KNO3 spray. The higher boll weight was also attributedto additional nutrition due to foliar spray of KNO

3 which

increased the dry-matter accumulation and in turn bollsize, weight and kapas yield (Kumar et al., 2011). Thus,synchronizing the nutrient supply at different stagesthrough foliar application resulted in growth and conse-quently higher yields.

Application of only RDNP (100 : 50 : 0 kg N : P2O

5 :

K2O/ha) resulted in lower number of bolls per plant, meanboll weight and seed cotton yield (27.3, 5.3 g, 124.7 g/plant and 1,867 kg/ha, respectively) compared with thetreatments. The reason for decrease in boll weight andyield in potassium-deficient treatment is that potassiumdeficiency resulted in early abscission of leaves and carbo-hydrates accumulation in main stem leaves, so the topbolls of cotton plant developed incompletely, consequentlythe boll weight and seed yield were lower in potassium-deficient plants. The results of the present study are in linewith Gormus (2002), who observed reduced boll weightand seed-cotton yield in K-deficient plants.

Fibre qualityAlthough fibre quality is genetically controlled, appli-

cation of nutrients has been observed to modulate thequality. In this study, results of fibre quality parameters inTables 1 showed that the soil-and foliar-applied potassiumhad significant effect on quality parameters of Bt cotton.Significantly higher fibre length (33.5 mm), uniformityratio (48.8%), ginning outturn (38.5%), seed oil content(16%) and lowest micronaire value (4.4 µg/inch) were re-corded in the treatment receiving 100 : 50 : 75 (RDNP +150% RDK) + 2% KNO

3 foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110

DAS compared with rest of the treatments (Table 1). Thehigher fibre length (28.6 mm), uniformity ratio (42.2%),micronaire value (4.9 mµ g/inch), tenacity (21.8 g/tex),ginning outturn (32.1%) and seed oil content (14.9%)were registered in treatment with no potassium (RDNPonly). Shanmugham and Bhat (1991) and Dewdar andRady (2013) reported positive effects of K on lint qualitycharacteristics and according to them potassium has itsrole in fibre development and hence the foliar applicationof potassium at later stages of cotton crop might havehelped in improving the fibre qualities of cotton. This

March 2018] POTASSIUM MANAGEMENT IN Bt. COTTON 93

might be owing to the enough supply of potassiumduring active fibre growth period, which may cause anincrease in the turgour pressure of the fibre, resultingin higher cell elongation and long fibres at maturity.Improvement of fibre length, uniformity ratio, fibrestrength and fineness were associated with foliar ap-plication of K at flowering. The possible reason ofincreased ginning out turn percentage might be due tothe cellulose synthesis and dry-matter accumulation(Li et al., 1999). The possible reason of increased seedoil content might be attributed to the role of K in bio-chemical pathways in plants. Potassium increases thephotosynthetic rates of crop leaves, CO

2 assimilation

facilitates carbon movement and it has favourable ef-fects on metabolism of nucleic acids and proteins. Theresults are in conformity with the findings of Bednarzand Oosterhuis (1999).

EconomicsIn the present study, the application of 100 : 50 : 75

(RDNP + 150% RDK) + 2% KNO3 foliar spray at 70,

90 and 110 DAS recorded significantly higher grossreturns ( 137,282/ha), net returns ( 99,670/ha) andbenefit: cost ratio (3.7) (Table 2). However, the treat-ment receiving 100 : 50 : 62.5 (RDNP + 125% RDK)+ 2% KNO3 foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS wasat par with 100 : 50 : 75 (RDNP + 150% RDK) + 2%KNO3 foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS. Aladakattiet al. (2011) and Ashraf et al. (2015) also observedsimilar results with basal soil application of potassiumplus foliar application of potassium at flowering andboll-formation stages. They reported that, the highernet returns observed in the above treatments wasmainly owing to the application of foliar nutrients thatimproved the yield-attributing characters and yield ul-timately led to higher net returns and benefit: cost ra-tio. Increased leaf and petiole K concentrations, ac-companied by higher yields and net revenues, havebeen reported from foliar applications of KNO

3

(Howard et al., 1998). Though the gross returns werehigher in the treatment that received 100 : 50 : 0(RDNP) + 2% KNO3 foliar spray at 70, 90 and 110DAS, the benefit: cost ratio (2.6) was lower comparedto rest of the treatments because of higher input costcompared to RDNP.

The results of the experiment indicated that thetreatment receiving recommended dose (RD) of N &P (100:50/kg) and 150% RD of K (75 kg/ha) withfoliar application of 2% KNO

3 at 70, 90, and 110 days

after sowing was found optimum for higher yield, netreturns, benefit: cost ratio and better fibre quality of Btcotton.Ta

ble

1.Y

ield

attr

ibut

es, y

ield

and

fib

re-q

ualit

y pa

ram

eter

s of

Bt c

otto

n as

infl

uenc

ed b

y so

il ap

plic

atio

n of

NPK

fer

tiliz

ers

and

folia

r ap

plic

atio

n of

KN

O3 (p

oole

d da

ta o

f 20

12–1

4)in

Ver

tisol

Tre

atm

ent

Tot

alM

ean

ofSe

ed-c

otto

nSe

ed-

2.5%

spa

nU

nifo

rmity

Mic

rona

ire

Ten

acity

Gin

ning

Seed

oil

num

ber

of10

bol

lsyi

eld

cotto

nle

ngth

rati

ova

lue

3.2

mm

out

turn

cont

ent

boll

s/pl

ant

wei

ght (

g)(g

/pla

nt)

yiel

d(m

m)

(g/in

ch)

(g/te

x)(%

)(%

)(k

g/ha

)

T1,

100

: 50

: 0 (

RD

NP)

27.3

5.3

124.

71,

867

28.6

42.2

4.9

21.8

32.1

14.9

T2,

100

: 50

: 50

(RD

F)34

.36.

313

2.1

2,12

230

.243

.54.

822

.833

.815

.2T

3, 10

0 : 5

0 : 6

2.5

(RD

NP

+ 1

25%

RD

K)

38.4

6.5

137.

62,

291

31.8

44.0

4.7

24.2

36.0

15.5

T4,

100

: 50

: 75

(RD

NP+

150

% R

DK

)42

.96.

814

1.9

2,40

732

.046

.04.

624

.737

.015

.6T

5, 10

0 : 5

0 : 0

(R

DN

P) +

2%

KN

O3

spra

y at

28.6

5.5

126.

71,

940

29.0

42.8

4.8

21.9

32.4

14.9

70, 9

0 an

d 11

0 D

AS

T6,

100

: 50

: 50

(RD

F) +

2%

KN

O3

spra

y at

38.2

6.6

136.

52,

189

31.7

45.3

4.6

24.0

35.3

15.4

70, 9

0 an

d 11

0 D

AS

T7,

100

: 50

: 62.

5 (R

DN

P +

125

% R

DK

) +

44.3

6.9

146.

42,

579

33.0

47.8

4.5

25.4

38.1

15.8

2% K

NO

3 sp

ray

at 7

0, 9

0 an

d 11

0 D

AS

T8,

100

: 50

: 75

(RD

NP+

150

% R

DK

) +

2%

46.9

7.0

150.

42,

689

33.5

48.8

4.4

26.0

38.5

16.0

KN

O3

spra

y at

70,

90

and

110

DA

ST

9, 10

0 : 5

0 : 5

0 (R

DF)

+ w

ater

spr

ay a

t34

.66.

413

2.7

2,15

130

.943

.74.

722

.933

.915

.370

, 90

and

110

DA

SSE

m±

0.97

0.03

1.4

30.7

30.

31.

020.

031.

00.

30.

3C

D (

P=0.

05)

2.89

0.08

4.3

92.1

21.

03.

060.

10N

S0.

9N

S

FYM

, 5 t/

ha; R

DF,

100

: 50

: 50

kg;

N :

P 2O5 : K

2O/h

a

94 JYOTHI AND HEBSUR [Vol. 63, No. 1

REFERENCES

Abaye, A.O. 2009. Potassium Fertilization of Cotton, Review pro-duced by Communications and Marketing, Virginia Poly-technic Institute and State University, pp. 1–4.

Akhtar, M.E., Sardar, A., Ashraf, M., Akhtar, M. and Khan, M.Z.2003. Effect of potash application on seed cotton yield andyield components of selected cotton varieties. Asian Journalof Plant Sciences 2: 602–604.

Aladakatti, Y.R., Hallikeri, S.S., Nandagavi, R.A., Naveen, N.E.,Hugar, A.Y. and Blaise, D. 2011. Yield and fibre qualities ofhybrid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) as influenced by soiland foliar application of potassium. Karnataka Journal ofAgricultural Sciences 24(2): 133–136.

Ashraf, Abd El-Aala., Abd, El-Mohsen., Mohammed, Abd El-AzimAhmed. 2015. The effect of applying different fertilizer re-gimes on productivity and profitability of Egyptian cottonunder middle Egypt conditions. Advances in Agriculture andBiology 4(1): 31–38.

Bednarz, C.W. and Oosterhuis, D.M. 1999. Physiological changesassociated with potassium deficiency in cotton. Journal ofPlant Nutrition 22: 303–313.

Brar, M.S. and Tiwari, K.S. 2004. Boosting seed cotton yield inPunjab with potassium. Better Crops 88: 28–30.

Cassman, K.G., Kerby, T.A., Roberts, B.A., Bryant, D.C. andHigashi, S.L. 1990. Potassium nutrition effects on lint yieldand fibre quality of Acala cotton. Crop Science 30: 672–677.

Channakeshava, S.P., Goroji, T., Doreswamy, C. and Naresh, N.T.2013. Assessment of foliar spray of potassium nitrate ongrowth and yield of cotton. Karnataka Journal of Agricul-tural Sciences 26(2): 316–317.

Deshpande, A.N., Masram, R.S. and Kamble, B.M., 2014. Effect offertilizer levels on nutrient availability and yield of cotton onVertisols at Rahuri, District Ahemadnagar, India. Journal ofApplied and Natural Science 6(2): 534–540.

Dewdar, M.D.H. and Rady, M.M. 2013. Influence of soil and foliarapplications of potassium fertilization on growth, yield andfibre quality traits in 2 (Gossypium barbadense L.) varieties.African Journal of Agricultural Research 8(19): 2,211–

Table 2. Effect of soil applicaton of NPK fertilizers and foliar application of KNO3 on economics of Bt cotton in Vertisol (pooled data of

2012–14)

Treatment Total cost of Gross Net Benefit:cultivation returns returns cost

( /ha) ( /ha) ( /ha) ratio

T1, 100 : 50 : 0 (RDNP) 32,524 90,754 58,230 2.8T2, 100 : 50 : 50 (RDF) 33,962 1,01,517 67,555 3.0T3, 100 : 50 : 62.5 (RDNP + 125% RDK) 34,322 1,15,554 81,232 3.4T4, 100 : 50 : 75 (RDNP+ 150% RDK) 34,687 1,21,273 86,586 3.5T5, 100 : 50 : 0 (RDNP) + 2% KNO3 spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS 35,449 91,744 56,295 2.6T6, 100 : 50 : 50 (RDF) + 2% KNO3 spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS 36,887 1,10,293 73,406 3.0T7, 100 : 50 : 62.5 (RDNP + 125% RDK) + 2% KNO3 spray at 70, 37,247 1,34,343 97,095 3.6

90 and 110 DAST8, 100 : 50 : 75 (RDNP+ 150% RDK) + 2% KNO3 spray at 70, 37,612 1,37,282 99,670 3.7

90 and 110 DAST9, 100 : 50 : 50 (RDF) + water spray at 70, 90 and 110 DAS 33,962 1,04,789 70,827 3.1

SEm± – 1,016.5 1,016.5 0.03CD (P=0.05) – 3,047.6 3,047.6 0.09

FYM, 5 t/ha; RDF, 100 : 50 : 50 kg; N : P2O

5 : K

2O/ha

2,215.Gormus, O. 2002. Effects of rate and time of potassium application

on cotton yield and quality in Turkey. Journal of Agronomyand Crop Sciences 188: 382–388.

Hodges, S.C. 1992. Nutrient deficiency disorders. (In) Cotton Dis-eases, pp. 355–403. R. Hillocks (Ed.). CAB International,Wallingford, UK.

Howard, D.D., Gwathmey, C.O., Roberts, R.K. and Lessman, G.M.1998. Potassium fertilization of cotton produced on a low Ksoil with contrasting tillage systems. Journal of ProductionAgriculture 11: 74–79.

Kumar, J., Arya, K.C. and Sidduqe, M.Z. 2011. Effect of foliar ap-plication of KNO

3 on growth, yield attributes, yield and eco-

nomics of hirsutum cotton. Journal of Cotton Research andDevelopment 25(1): 122–123.

Li, F.S., Xu, Y.Z. and Zhang, C. 1999. Effects of nitrogen, phospho-rus and potassium on the development of cotton bolls insummer. Acta Gossypii Sinica 11: 24–30.

Oosterhuis, D.M. 2001. Physiology and nutrition of high yieldingcotton in the USA. Arkansas University, Fayettevil Arch.72701, pp. 18–24.

Pettigrew, W.T., Heitholt, J.J. and Meredith, W.R. 1996. Genotypicinteractions with potassium and nitrogen in cotton of variedmaturity. Agronomy Journal 88: 89–93.

Rimon, D. 1989. Functions of potassium in improving fibre qualityof cotton. (In) Methods of Potassium Research in Plants.Proceedings of 21st Colloquium, Potash and Phosphate Insti-tute, pp. 319–323.

Sajid, A., Khan, A.R., Mairaj, G., Fida, M. and Bibi, S. 2008. As-sessment of different crop nutrient management practices foryield improvement. Australian Journal of Crop Sciences2(3): 150–157.

Shanmugham, K. and Bhat, J.G. 1991. The effect of potassium onthe fibre properties of high quality cotton varieties. Journalof Indian Society of Cotton Improvement 16(1): 31–35.

Usherwood, N.R. 2000. The influence of potassium on cotton qual-ity. Agri-Briefs, Agronomic News No. 8. Spring 2000. Pot-ash and Phosphate Institute, Norcross, GA, USA.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 95__99 (March 2018)

Effect of planting method on productivity and economics of sugarcane(Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) varieties under waterlogged condition

NAVNIT KUMAR1

Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Bihar 848 125

Received : November 2017; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 at Pusa, Bihar, to evaluate plantingoptions (conventional and trench method) and sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) varieties (‘BO 91’,‘BO 137’, ‘BO 141’, ‘BO 154’ and ‘CoP 2061’) for higher growth, yield and quality of sugarcane under waterloggedconditions. Significantly higher germination (33.2%), plant population (179,600/ha), plant height (294 cm), totaldry-matter accumulation (28.9 t/ha) and leaf-area index (4.38) were observed with trench method of planting thanconventional method of planting. However, significantly higher number of nodes having aerial roots (8.1) and canelodging (48.5%) were observed with conventional method of planting. The maximum cane diameter (2.07 cm),millabe canes (107,600/ha), cane yield (78.1 t/ha), gross returns ( 199,100/ha), net returns ( 114,000/ha) andbenefit: cost ratio (1.34) were obtained with trench method of planting, being higher by 13.7, 18.9, 19.2, 19.2, 22.8and 7.2%, respectively, over that of furrow planting respectively. Similarly, trench planted canes exhibited signifi-cantly higher brix (19.1%), pol (16.93%), commercial cane sugar (11.72%) and sugar yield (9.2 t/ha) than that ofconventional method. Among the varieties, ‘CoP 2061’ showed better performance under waterlogged conditionswith higher germination (37.8%), plant population (1,87,500/ha), plant height (296 cm), total dry matter accumula-tion (30.2 t/ha), LAI (4.60), cane diameter (2.06 cm) and millable canes (1,09,700/ha). Significantly higher caneyield (80.9 t/ha) and gross returns ( 2,06,300/ha) was obtained with the variety ‘CoP 2061’ which was statisticallycomparable to ‘BO 137’ (77.9 t/ha) and ‘BO 154’ (74.1 t/ha). Similarly, higher net returns ( 126,700/ha) and ben-efit: cost ratio (1.59) were obtained with ‘CoP 2061’. However, higher brix content (19.1%) was noticed with ‘BO154’. There were no significant varietal differences for pol and purity per cent juice. Thus, sugarcane should beplanted with trench method and varieties ‘CoP 2061’ and ‘BO 137’ may be adopted to enhance productivity of sug-arcane under waterlogged conditions.

Key words : Crop productivity, Economics, Planting method, Sugarcane varieties, Waterlogged conditions

Sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) is one ofthe most important commercial crops of India and knownto be cultivated since pre-historic periods. In India, it iscultivated in an area of 5.3 million ha, of which Biharshares only 0.28 million ha concentrated in north Bihar.The sugarcane productivity of the state is 50.0 t/ha, whichis also low as compared to national average yield of 63.7t/ha (ISMA, 2017). Low productivity of sugarcane in stateis linked to the biotic and abiotic stresses. Waterloggingamong other abiotic stresses is a major concern, as 30–35% sugarcane area in Bihar is under waterlogged condi-tions. The reduction in yield and quality due to waterlog-ging happens primarily due to creation of anaerobic con-dition in the soil which results in poor root respiration, root

growth and nutrient uptake. If waterlogging occurs duringJuly–September which is the grand growth period of crop,adverse effect is reported on growth, yield and quality ofsugarcane (Kumar, 2009; Kumar et al., 2013). Crop yieldlosses due to waterlogging mainly depend on depth andduration of waterlogging and stage of crop growth. Apartfrom this, the lodging of cane and formation of aerial rootsimpair movement of nutrients leading to emergence ofnew shoots which drain out the food reserves. Kumar et al.(2015) reported that, higher water stagnation during grandgrowth phase (July– September) reduced plant height by9.4%, cane diameter by 13.4%, millable canes by 13.8%and single cane weight by 15.7% compared with normalcondition. Loss of yield and quality in waterlogged condi-tion mainly starts with lodging of canes. Lodging of caneslargely depends upon the method of planting, which couldbe minimized mainly through appropriate planting method

1Corresponding author’s Email: navnitsripusa@gmail.comJunior Scientist-cum-Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy

Research Paper

96 NAVNIT KUMAR [Vol. 63, No. 1

and cultivation of suitable varieties. Conventional methodof sugarcane planting at 15 cm depth restricts the caneyield and quality to a considerable extent owing to exces-sive lodging of canes under waterlogged conditions.Trench method of sugarcane planting is becoming popu-lar due to availability of tractor-drawn trencher; highergermination and plant population that might help in mini-mizing the lodging to some extent since the depth of plant-ing in trench method is greater (30 cm) to that of conven-tional method (15 cm). Choice of suitable variety is an-other factor of prime importance to increase productivity.Growing of sugarcane varieties with no waterlogging tol-erance pulls down the average productivity of state. Thepresent investigation was therefore conducted to study theresponse of sugarcane varieties to planting methods underwaterlogged conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted during 2013–14,2014–15 and 2015–16 at Sugarcane Research Institute, DrRajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa(Samastipur), Bihar under waterlogged conditions. Thesoil was sandy loam and alkaline (pH 8.2). It contained0.44% organic carbon, 29.8% free CaCO3 and was low innitrogen (203 kg/ha), medium in phosphorus (19.4 kg/ha)and poor in potassium (102 kg/ha). The experiment com-prised 2 planting methods, viz. conventional and trenchmethod with furrow and trench depth of 15 and 30 cm,respectively, and 5 sugarcane varieties (‘BO 91’, ‘BO137’, ‘BO 141’, ‘BO 154’ and ‘CoP 2061’). The experi-ment was conducted in randomized block design with 3replications during the spring season. Crop was planted inthe second week of February at 90 cm row spacing andharvested in the last week of January during all the years.Recommended doses of N, P and K (150, 37.1 and 49.8kg/ha) were applied. Urea, diammonium phosphate andmuriate of potash were taken as sources of nitrogen, phos-phorus and potassium respectively. Full dose of P and Kand half the dose of N were applied basal at the time ofplanting and the rest of N in 2 equal splits–after first irri-gation and at the time of earthing up–in each year. Thetotal rainfall received was 980.8, 1,112.5 and 932.6 mmduring 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16 respectively. Theexperiment was conducted under irrigated condition as perrecommended packages of practice. The average depth ofwater in the crop field during the month of July, August,September and October was 60, 105, 115 and 35 cm, re-spectively, during 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Thedata were recorded on growth, yield attributes, yield andquality of sugarcane following the standard procedures.Whole cane samples were taken at the time of harvestingand cane juice was extracted with power crusher and juice

quality was estimated as per method given by Spencer andMeade (1955). Sugar yield was calculated as: sugar yield(t/ha) = [S – 0.4 (B - S) × 0.73] × cane yield (t/ha)/100;where S and B are sucrose and brix in cane juice respec-tively. Fibre per cent cane was estimated by rapi-pol ex-tractor. Economic analysis was done based on pooled yielddata and considering price of input and output of the lastyear of study. The net realization was calculated by de-ducting the total cost of cultivation from the gross realiza-tion. The benefit: cost ratio was calculated as ratio of netrealization to cost of cultivation. Finally the data wereanalysed as per the standard statistical methods.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

GrowthThe data revealed that the method of planting produced

marked variation in growth of sugarcane (Table 1). Trenchmethod of planting recorded the highest germination per-centage (33.2%) at 45 days after planting (DAP), plantpopulation (179,600/ha) at 125 DAP, leaf-area index(4.38) at 240 DAP and plant height (294 cm) and dry-matter accumulation (28.9 t/ha) at harvesting. However,this was statistically at par with conventional method ofplanting in respect of tillers mortality. The better growthand development characters of plants in case of trenchmethod over conventional method of planting could beattributed to availability of optimum moisture at greaterdepth. Singh et al. (2012) and Kumar et al. (2014) alsoreported such results. Trench method of planting de-creased the number of nodes having aerial roots by 14.8%compared with conventional planting. Cane lodging per-centage was also low by 33.8 with trench method. Thereduction in number of nodes having aerial roots and canelodging percentage with trench planted canes might beascribed to extra strength to roots due to deep placementof setts which leads to emergence of shoots from deeperlayers which resists lodging as lodging is the main causeof aerial root formation. All the growth characters weresignificantly influenced by sugarcane varieties (Table 1).It was observed that ‘CoP 2061’ being at par with ‘BO154’ recorded significantly higher germination (37.8%)and plant population (187,500/ha) than ‘BO 91’, ‘BO 137’and ‘BO 141’. Higher germination and plant populationmight be owing to the chemical composition of solublesolids in juice as well as enzymes and hormones present incell-sap, which differ from variety to variety. Variety ‘CoP2061’ recorded taller plants (296 cm), higher dry-matteraccumulation (30.2 t/ha) and leaf area index (4.60).Though it was at par with ‘BO 154’ and ‘BO 91’ in respectof plant height and ‘BO 154’ and ‘BO 137’ in case of dry-matter accumulation. It was mainly due to its fast growthover other varieties. Kumar et al. (2013) also observed

March 2018] PLANTING METHOD AND SUGARCANE VARIETIES FOR WATERLOGGED CONDITIONS 97

marked variation in dry-matter accumulation, plant heightand leaf-area index due to different varieties under water-logged conditions. The highest tillers mortality of 43.6%was recorded with ‘BO 141’ which was statistically com-parable with ‘CoP 2061’ (41.5%) and ‘BO 154’ (40.7%),while the lowest tillers mortality of 34.1% was recordedunder ‘BO 91’. This indicated that, ‘BO 141’ is more sus-ceptible to waterlogging. Similar results were also re-ported by Kumar (2009). Significant variation was ob-served among the varieties in terms of number of nodeshaving aerial roots and cane lodging percentage, and thevariety ‘BO 137’ recorded the minimum number of nodeshaving aerial roots (6.1) and cane lodging (26.7%). The

minimum number of nodes having aerial roots and lowerlodging percentage was mainly due to erect growth habitof ‘BO 137’.

Yield attributes and cane yieldCane diameter, millable canes and cane yield varied

significantly due to planting method, but failed to exertsignificant influence on single cane weight (Table 2). Thetrench method of planting registered a 13.7, 18.9 and19.2% higher cane diameter, millable canes and cane yieldover conventional method. Higher cane diameter, millablecanes and cane yield under trench method of plantingcould be attributed to better soil environment and growth

Table 1. Effect of planting methods and variety on growth of sugarcane under waterlogged condition (pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment Germination Plant Plant height Total LAI at Tillers Number Cane(%) at 45 population at harvest DMA* 240 DAP mortality of nodes lodging

DAP at 125 DAP (cm) at harvest (%) having aerial (%)(×103/ha) (t/ha) roots

Planting methodConventional 30.2 147.9 254 24.7 3.68 38.8 8.1 48.5Trench 33.2 179.6 294 28.9 4.38 40.1 6.9 32.1

SEm± 0.67 4.43 6.2 0.51 0.079 0.88 0.15 0.88CD (P=0.05) 2.0 12.5 18 1.5 0.23 NS 0.4 2.6

Variety‘BO 91’ 31.3 158.0 282 26.3 4.06 34.1 8.0 45.2‘BO 137’ 28.7 156.6 265 28.9 3.91 37.5 6.1 26.7‘BO 141’ 25.2 145.0 247 20.7 3.56 43.6 8.3 58.5‘BO 154’ 35.5 171.8 280 27.8 4.01 40.7 7.5 32.7‘CoP 2061’ 37.8 187.5 296 30.2 4.60 41.5 7.6 38.8

SEm± 1.05 7.01 9.8 0.81 0.124 1.40 0.24 1.39CD (P=0.05) 3.1 19.8 29 2.4 0.37 4.2 0.7 4.1

DAP, Days after planting; DMA*, dry-matter accumulation; LAI, leaf-area index

Table 2. Effect of planting methods and variety on yield attributes, cane yield and economics of sugarcane under waterlogged condition(pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment Cane Millable Single cane Cane Gross Cost of Net Benefit:diameter canes weight yield returns cultivation returns cost ratio

(cm) (×103/ha) (g) (t/ha) (×103 /ha) (×103 /ha) (×103 /ha)

Planting methodConventional 1.82 90.5 726 65.5 167.0 74.2 92.8 1.25Trench 2.07 107.6 735 78.1 199.1 85.1 114.0 1.34

SEm± 0.047 2.44 14.3 1.82 4.49 - 3.09 0.029CD (P=0.05) 0.14 6.9 NS 5.2 13.4 - 9.2 0.08

Variety‘BO 91’ 1.78 104.2 685 70.7 180.3 79.7 100.7 1.26‘BO 137’ 2.09 97.8 802 77.9 198.6 79.7 118.9 1.49‘BO 141’ 1.77 81.8 684 55.4 141.2 79.7 61.5 0.77‘BO 154’ 2.02 101.9 736 74.1 189.0 79.7 109.3 1.37‘CoP 2061’ 2.06 109.7 745 80.9 206.3 79.7 126.7 1.59

SEm± 0.074 3.86 22.6 2.88 7.10 - 4.89 0.045CD (P=0.05) 0.22 10.9 67 8.2 21.1 - 14.5 0.13

98 NAVNIT KUMAR [Vol. 63, No. 1

attributes. Prem Guru et al. (2017) and Katiyar et al.(2013) also reported similar results.

Among the varieties, ‘BO 137’ recorded higher canediameter (2.09 cm) and was significantly superior to ‘BO91’ and ‘BO 141’. Significantly more millable canes(109,700/ha) were recorded with ‘CoP 2061’, at par with‘BO 91’ and ‘BO 154’. It was mainly owing to pre-mon-soon period higher plant population of these varieties thanthe others which led to higher number of millable canes atharvesting. These results confirm the findings of Shukla(2007) and Chakrawal and Kumar (2014). ‘BO 137’ pro-duced thicker canes (802 g/plant) which were significantlysuperior to ‘BO 91’ and ‘BO 141’ and at par with ‘CoP2061’ and ‘BO 154’. Kumar (2009) also noticed signifi-cant variation in aforesaid attributes among different sug-arcane varieties in waterlogged conditions. Significantlyhigher cane yield was recorded with the variety ‘CoP2061’ (80.9 t/ha) than ‘BO 91’ (70.7 t/ha) and ‘BO 141’(55.4 t/ha), being statistically similar with ‘BO 137’ and‘BO 154’, owing to higher number of millable canes withmoderate cane thickness and weight. Kumar (2009),Kumar et al. (2015), and Gulati et al. (2015) also reportedsimilar yield variation under waterlogged conditions.

EconomicsTrench method of planting recorded significantly

higher gross returns ( 199,100/ha), net returns( 114,000/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.34) (Table 2). Themagnitude of increase in gross returns, net returns andbenefit: cost ratio by trench method of planting over con-ventional method was 9.2, 22.8 and 7.2% respectively.This was primarily owing to higher cane yield undertrench method of planting. The cost of cultivation for all

Table 3. Effect of planting methods and variety on quality parameters of sugarcane under waterlogged condition (pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment Brix (%) Pol (%) Purity (%) CCS (%) Cane fibre Sugar yield(%) (t/ha)

Planting methodConventional 18.7 16.45 88.0 11.36 14.3 7.4Trench 19.1 16.93 88.6 11.72 13.5 9.2

SEm± 0.10 0.120 0.32 0.056 0.08 0.15CD (P=0.05) 0.3 0.35 NS 0.17 0.2 0.5

Variety‘BO 91’ 18.9 16.74 88.6 11.59 13.7 8.3‘BO 137’ 19.0 16.92 89.1 11.75 14.0 9.2‘BO 141’ 18.5 16.20 87.6 11.16 13.3 6.2‘BO 154’ 19.1 16.85 88.2 11.65 14.1 8.6‘CoP 2061’ 19.0 16.76 88.2 11.58 14.5 9.4

SEm± 0.15 0.197 0.50 0.089 0.12 0.24CD (P=0.05) 0.4 NS NS 0.26 0.4 0.7

CCS, Commercial cane sugar

the varieties was similar. It was because of similar seedcost of all the varieties. Varieties differed significantly forgross returns, net returns and benefit: cost ratio (Table 2).‘CoP 2061’ recorded the highest gross returns ( 206,300/ha) though it was at par with ‘BO 137’ ( 198,600/ha) and‘BO 154’ ( 189,000/ha). Based on cost analysis variety‘CoP 2061’ gave the maximum net returns ( 126,700/ha)which was statistically comparable to ‘BO 137’( 118,900/ha) and significantly superior to rest of the va-rieties. Similar was the trend in respect of benefit: costratio.

QualityThe results indicated that except for purity per cent

planting methods had significant impact on quality param-eters of sugarcane (Table 3). Significantly higher brix(19.1%), pol (16.93%) and CCS (11.72%) were recordedwith trench method of planting. The magnitude of increasein brix, pol and CCS percentage over conventional methodwas 2.1, 2.9 and 3.2% respectively. Purity per cent juicewas not significantly influenced by planting methods;however, it improved in trench method. Significantlylower cane fibre content (13.5%) was noticed with trenchmethod of planting which reduced by 5.6% against that ofconventional method. This might be due to lower lodgingpercentage in trench-planted canes. Trench method ofplanting gave significantly higher sugar yield (9.2%)which was 24.3% higher than conventional method. Theincrease in sugar yield was owing to increase in CCS%and cane yield under trench method of planting.

Among the varieties, significant variation in brix,CCS%, cane fibre and sugar yield was noticed, while theeffect on pol and purity was non-significant (Table 3). Sig-

March 2018] PLANTING METHOD AND SUGARCANE VARIETIES FOR WATERLOGGED CONDITIONS 99

nificantly higher brix (19.1%) was recorded with the vari-ety ‘BO 154’ which was significantly superior to ‘BO 141’(18.5%) and statistically comparable to rest of the variet-ies. Variety ‘BO 137’ exhibited significantly higher CCS%juice (11.75%) when compared to ‘BO 141’ (11.16%).Significantly higher cane fibre (14.5%) was recorded for‘CoP 2061’ being statistically similar to ‘BO 154’ (14.1%).Higher sugar yield (9.4 t/ha) was obtained with ‘CoP2061’ which was statistically comparable to ‘BO 137’ andsignificantly superior to rest of the varieties. The highercane yield contributed greater extent in enhancing sugaryield than other quality parameters (Table 3).

Based on the study, it may be concluded that trenchmethod of sugarcane planting under waterlogged condi-tions is more productive, profitable and lodging resistantcompared to conventional planting method. Among thevarieties tested, ‘CoP 2061’ and ‘BO 137’ have a greatpromise for increased productivity, profitability and sugaryield of sugarcane under waterlogged conditions.

REFERENCES

Chakrawal, D. and Kumar, Navnit. 2014. Response of sugarcane(Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) varieties to various plant-ing geometry. Indian Journal of Agronomy 59(2): 341–343.

Gulati, J.M.L., Sunmarg, C., Behra, K.J., Jena, S.N. and Lenka, S.2015. Effect of planting methods on growth pattern and pro-ductivity of sugarcane varieties. Indian Journal of Agricul-tural Research 49(3): 222–228.

ISMA. 2017. Indian Sugar Mills Association. Indian Sugar 68(3):49–51.

Katiyar, A.K., Singh, B.B. and Dixit, R. 2013. Increase productiv-ity of sugarcane by trench method of planting along withSSNM techniques. Journal of Rural and Agricultural Re-

search 13(2): 60–62.Kumar, L., Singh, G., Chandra, S., Bhatnagar, A. and Raverkar, K.P.

2014. Yield, quality and irrigation water-use efficiency insugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) as influenced by pre-planting tillage and crop-establishment method in tarai beltof Uttarakhand. Indian Journal of Agronomy 59(1): 175–178.

Kumar, Navnit. 2009. Growth, yield and quality assessment of sug-arcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) varieties under water-logged condition. Journal of Research, Rajendra Agricul-tural University 19(1 & 2): 19–22.

Kumar, Navnit., Singh, H., Kumari, R. and Singh, V.P. 2013.Growth and phasic development of sugarcane genotypesunder waterlogged and normal condition in subtropical In-dia. Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology 28(2): 41–46.

Kumar, Navnit., Singh, H., Kumari, R. and Singh, V.P. 2015. Com-parative analysis of yield and quality in sugarcane genotypesunder waterlogged and normal condition. The Bioscan10(1): 323–327.

Prem, Guru., Kumar, R., Singh, V.D., Kumar, A., Choudhary, R. andAhmad, A. 2017. Effect of planting methods on cane yield,water productivity and economics of spring planted sugar-cane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in Ambala (Haryana). In-ternational Journal of Agricultural Engineering 10(1): 186–190.

Shukla, S.K. 2007. Productivity and economics of high-sugar geno-types of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrid complex) inplant-ratoon system under various planting seasons and fer-tility levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 52(2): 164–167.

Singh, A.K., Singh, S.N., Rao, A.K. and Sharma, M.K. 2012. En-hancing sugarcane (Saccharum hybrid complex) productiv-ity through modified trench method of planting in sub-tropi-cal India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 82(8):692–696.

Spencer, G.L. and Meade, G.P. 1955. Sugarcane Hand Book. JohnWiley & Sons, London.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 100__104 (March 2018)

Effect of soil test based nutrient management on soil fertility, cane yield andquality of sugarcane (Saccharum species complex hybrid) in calcareous soil of

Bihar

S.K. THAKUR1 AND S.S. PANDEY2

Sugarcane Research Institute, Dr Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa, Samastipur, Bihar 848 125

Received : March 2017; Revised accepted : December 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at the Sugarcane Research Institute, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa,Bihar, during 2012–13 to 2014–15 with an aim to assess the influence of different plant nutrients on yield andquality of the sugarcane in calcareous soils of Bihar. The treatments comprised different plant nutrients, viz. N, P,K, S, Zn, Fe, Mn and their combinations. The FYM @ 20 t/ha was also in one of the treatments. Number of tillers,single cane weight, number of millable cane (NMC) and cane yield were significantly influenced due to differenttreatments. A significant increase in cane yield was recorded with application of NPK (RDF) alone or in combina-tion with secondary nutrient like S and micronutrients (Zn, Fe and Mn) over the control. Application of fertilizers onsoil-test basis (STB: 200 kg N, 44.0 kg P, 83.0 kg K, 40.0 kg S and 5.0 kg Zn) recorded significantly higher NMC(97,310/ha), cane yield (96.8 t/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.42) over rest of the treatments. The juice quality, viz.brix, sucrose and purity content, in cane juice was not affected significantly due to different treatments. The nutri-ent uptake and sugar yield were also higher in treatment receiving fertilizers on the basis of soil test. The maxi-mum gain of N, P and K (62.3-7.7 and 24.3 kg/ha) was noticed in plot receiving fertilizer on STB. Thus, Soil testbased fertilizer application proved the best for maintaining soil fertility and exploring higher productivity and profit-ability in calcareous soil of Bihar.

Key words: Cane yield, Plant nutrients, Quality, Soil fertility, Sugarcane,

1Corresponding author’s Email: skthakur111@gmail.com1Senior Scientist (Soil Science), 2Director, Sugarcane Research In-stitute

Sugarcane is a long-duration nutrient-exhaustive cropwhich removes considerable amount of nutrients from thesoil. Sustainable sugarcane production coupled with im-proved quality traits needs sufficient and balanced amountof plant nutrients in soil. Chemical fertilizers play key rolein development of cane and sugar yields, but imbalanceduse of fertilizers seems to be one of the factors responsiblefor the constantly low cane yield. The frequent and exces-sive use of NPK fertilizers has created various problemslike widespread deficiency of secondary and micronutri-ents, decline in crop productivity and increasing environ-mental pollution (Pathak and Ghosh, 1996). Secondarynutrients like sulphur is indispensable element for carbo-hydrate metabolism and crop production. Improvements inthe yield and quality of sugarcane owing to the applicationof sulphur have been reported by Singh et al. (1995). Mi-cronutrients are required in smaller amounts by the cropsbut they are equally important for proper growth and de-

velopment of crop. These nutrients play an important rolein enzyme systems that regulate various metabolic –activi-ties and control several oxidation–reduction systems.Indo-gangetic alluvial plains are generally deficient inmicronutrients such as Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu due toimbalanced and improper inorganic fertilizer application.Thus, the application of these micronutrients is essentialfor normal growth and development of crop (Gupta andRao, 1980). In Bihar, lower average productivity of sugar-cane is mainly due to erratic and imbalanced use of chemi-cal fertilizers. The N, P and K fertilizers are generally ap-plied to sugarcane. The soil fertility is declining due tonon-addition of organic matter. Farmers are experiencingdeclining responses to N and P due to omission of otheressential nutrients in their fertilizer schedules. Sugarcanebeing a heavy feeder crop, depletes essential nutrientsfrom soil and therefore, an addition of adequate nutrient isimportant for proper growth and cane development. Adop-tion of balanced and judicious use of all needed nutrientscan help improve cane productivity and enhance sugarrecovery by rendering resistance against biotic and abiotic

Research Paper

March 2018] EFFECT OF SOIL TEST-BASED NM ON SUGARCANE 101

stresses, and better synthesis and storage of sugar. The aimof present experiments was to study the effect of differentplant nutrients on soil fertility and performance of sugar-cane in calcareous soils of Bihar.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted during 2012–13 to2015–16 under All India Coordinated Research Project onSugarcane at the Sugarcane Research Institute, Pusa(25o57' N, 85o40' E, 52.0 m above mean sea-level) Bihar, toassess the effect of different plant nutrients on soil fertil-ity, cane yield and juice quality in calcareous soils ofBihar. The climate of Bihar is subtropical and mean annualrainfall of the area is about 1,200 mm. The soil was sandyloam, calcareous (CaCO

3 31.2%) having pH 8.28 and elec-

trical conductivity 0.23 dS/m. The soil was low in organicC (0.48%), and available N, P and K (226, 16.5 and 93.8kg/ha). The available S, Zn, Fe and Mn were 10.6, 0.72,11.2 and 3.89 mg/kg respectively. The experiment was laidout in a randomized block design with 13 treatments and3 replications. The treatments comprised: T

1, control (no

fertilizer); T2, N; T3, NP; T4, NPK [recommended dose offertilizer (RDF)]; T

5, NPK + S, T

6, NPK + Zn; T

7, NPK +

Fe; T8, NPK +Mn; T9, NPK + S + Zn; T10, NPK + S + Zn+ Fe; T

11, NPK + S + Zn + Fe + Mn; T

12, Soil-test-based

fertilizer application (STB); and T13, FYM @20 t/ha. TheN-P-K fertilizers were applied @ 150–37.4–49.8 kg/harespectively. The S, Zn and Mn were applied @ 40.0, 5.0and 1.5 kg/ha, while 3 spraying of Fe @ 1% was given atweekly interval. The soil-test-based fertilizers applicationincluded 200 kg N, 44.0 kg P, 83.0 kg K, 40.0 kg S and 5.0kg Zn/ha. The NPK fertilizers were applied through urea(46% N), diammonium phosphate (18% N and 46% P

2O

5)

and muriate of potash (60% K2O) respectively. Nitrogenwas applied in split doses, half at the time of planting, one-fourth at the time of first irrigation and rest at the time ofearthing up, i.e. on onset of monsoon. The mid-late sugar-cane variety ‘BO 154’ was planted at a row distance of 90cm in the last week of February and harvested after 1 year.Four irrigations were given before monsoon. Recom-mended practices were adopted for sugarcane crop. Soilsamples, collected initially and after harvesting of cropwere analyzed for organic carbon, available N, P, K and Scontents by method described by Jackson (1973). TheDTPA-extractable Zn, Fe and Mn were analysed by themethod of Lindsay and Norvell (1978). Cane juice wasextracted with power crusher and juice quality was esti-mated as per method given by Spencer and Meade (1955).Sugar yield was calculated as; Sugar yield (t/ha) = [S-0.4(B-S) × 0.73] × cane yield (t/ha)/100; where S and Bare the sucrose and brix per cent in cane juice. Whole canesamples were analyzed for N, P and K contents. The up-

take of N, P and K were calculated by multiplying theirconcentration with dry-matter yield. The economics wasworked out on prevailing market prices.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cane yieldSugarcane production was influenced by different plant

nutrients (Table 1). The application of NPK alone or incombination with secondary and micronutrients signifi-cantly increased tillers, single cane weight, number ofmillable canes (NMC) and cane yield over the control,while effect on germination, plant height and girth wasnot significant. The maximum number of tillers (135.2 ×103/ha) and NMC (97.3 × 103/ha) were recorded undertreatment T12 receiving fertilizers on soil- test-basis. Thesignificantly higher cane yield (96.8 t/ha) was alsoachieved under T12, indicating significance of replenish-ment of nutrients on soil-test-basis. This could be ascribedto higher yield- attributing characters like NMC and singlecane weight owing to balanced fertilization. Fertilizersapplication based on soil-test recommendations have in-creasing effects on crop yields. However, inadequate andexcessive applications of NPK fertilizers not only limitcrop yield but may increase soil and environment prob-lems (Soomro et al., 2014). These results are in agreementwith the findings of Kumar et al. (2012) and Thakur et al.(2013). The application of RDF along with secondaryplant nutrients (S) and micronutrients (Zn, Fe and Mn)alone did not show significant increase in cane yield (T5–T

8) over NPK (T

4). However, combined application of S

and Zn along with RDF resulted in significantly highercane yield over RDF. This might be owing to the benefi-cial effect of S and Zn on cane yield, as the experimentalsoil was low in N, K and Zn. These results corroborate thefindings of Singh et al. (2003), who opined that applica-tion of NPK and S along with Zn significantly improvedthe cane yield. The cane yield obtained under T13 was atpar with that under T

2, indicating that only organics could

not meet the requirement of the plant nutrients. Singh andBiswas (2000) also proved that neither chemical fertilizeralone nor organic sources exclusively can achieve the pro-duction sustainability of soil and crop. Economics is oneof the important parameters for fertilizer recommendation.The net returns ( 145,015) and benefit: cost ratio weresignificantly higher (2.42) under T12 over rest of the treat-ments, indicating importance of fertilizers addition on soil-test-basis for getting higher yield and profitability.

Nutrient uptakeOn an average, the uptake of N, P and K by plant were

respectively 3.18, 0.31 and 2.86 kg/tonnes of cane pro-duced. The uptake of N, P and K by plant crop varied

102 THAKUR AND PANDEY [Vol. 63, No. 1

from 109.1 to 346.2, 10.7 to 32.5 and 100.3 to 299.8 kg/ha respectively (Table 2). The highest uptake was recordedunder T

12 and lowest in the control. This could be attrib-

uted to soil-test-based fertilizer application supplied bal-anced available nutrients to the plants needed for theirgrowth, resulting higher uptake and cane yield. The resultsfurther indicated that uptake of N and K was higher thancompared to P. These results are in agreement with thefindings of Sankar Babu et al. (2007), Thakur et al. (2012)and Kumar et al. (2015). The cane juice quality did not

exhibit significant variation in respect of brix, sucrose andpurity percent (Table 2). However, sugar yield followedsimilar trend of cane yield and maximum sugar yield(11.00 t/ha) was recorded under treatment T12 and theminimum in the control (4.30 t/ha). Thakur et al. (2010)also reported similar findings.

Soil propertiesThe pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of soil did not

differ under different treatments after harvesting of the

Table 1. Effect of different plant nutrients on growth, yield attributing parameters, cane yield and economics of sugarcane (pooled data of 3years)

Treatment Germination Tillers Plant Girth Single NMC Cane Net Benefit:(%) (× 103/ha) height (cm) cane (× 103/ha) yield returns cost

(cm) weight (g) (t/ha) (×103 /ha) ratio

T1, N0P0K0 (Control) 34.4 85.5 258.0 2.46 707 54.4 39.3 26.6 1.36T2, N 150 33.6 95.7 260.0 2.57 735 59.8 44.6 37.0 1.48T3, N150P37.4 32.7 95.8 258.0 2.64 783 62.9 49.9 45.3 1.55T4, N150P37.4K49.8 (RDF) 33.4 114.7 267.3 2.67 877 81.9 71.6 95.3 2.09T5, RDF + S40.0 33.3 117.2 267.3 2.67 880 83.7 74.2 94.9 2.01T6, RDF + Zn5.0 34.0 120.6 266.0 2.71 902 82.9 76.2 104.9 2.17T7, RDF + Fe (1% spray) 33.8 119.7 266.3 2.68 877 83.7 73.5 96.2 2.06T8, RDF + Mn1.5 34.6 116.1 267.7 2.67 873 81.2 71.9 94.4 2.06T9, RDF + S40.0 + Zn5.0 32.9 124.9 268.0 2.63 932 86.5 80.8 109.3 2.13T

10, RDF + S

40.0+ Zn

5.0 + Fe (1% spray) 35.0 127.7 270.3 2.72 944 88.4 83.7 111.1 2.09

T11

, RDF +S40.0

+ Zn5.0

+ Fe (1% spray) + 33.2 128.6 272.0 2.68 974 89.3 88.0 121.4 2.18Mn

1.5

T12

, N200

P44.0

K83.0

+ S40.0

+ Zn5.0

(STB) 35.2 135.2 274.7 2.62 999 97.3 96.8 145.0 2.42T

13, FYM @ 20 t/ha 33.7 111.6 266.3 2.62 773 69.9 53.4 49.1 1.56SEm± 1.5 3.6 7.8 0.09 33.8 2.8 3.5 4.9 0.05CD ( P=0.05) NS 10.2 NS NS 95.6 7.8 9.8 14.3 0.14

NMC, Number of millable canes; RDF, recommended dose of fertilizer

Table 2. Effect of plant nutrients on cane juice quality and uptake of nutrients by plant crop of sugarcane (pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment Juice quality Sugar yield Uptake of nutrientsBrix (%) Sucrose (%) Purity (%) (t/ha) N (kg/ha) P (kg/ha) K (kg/ha)

T1, N0P0K0 (Control) 18.3 15.8 86.3 4.30 109.1 10.7 100.3T2, N 150 18.1 15.7 87.4 4.94 130.2 12.9 116.7T3, N150P37.4 18.4 16.1 87.5 5.60 150.8 15.2 137.5T4, N150P37.4K49.8 (RDF) 18.7 16.3 87.3 7.86 232.5 22.5 212.7T5, RDF + S40.0 18.5 16.0 86.9 8.13 234.4 23.2 217.4T6, RDF + Zn5.0 18.4 15.9 86.9 8.48 253.4 24.2 228.8T7, RDF + Fe (1% spray) 18.5 15.9 86.7 7.95 235.9 23.4 216.9T8, RDF + Mn1.5 18.6 16.3 87.4 8.08 231.3 22.6 208.3T9, RDF + S40.0 + Zn5.0 18.7 16.4 87.4 8.97 268.6 25.8 239.1T10, RDF + S40.0+ Zn5.0 + Fe (1% spray) 18.7 16.4 87.6 9.40 277.8 27.5 250.3T11, RDF +S40.0 + Zn5.0 + Fe (1% spray) + Mn1.5 18.7 16.4 88.1 9.88 301.4 29.4 262.7T12, N200P44.0K83.0 + S40.0+ Zn5.0 (STB) 18.8 16.5 87.5 11.00 346.2 32.5 299.8T13, FYM @ 20 t/ha 18.5 16.3 87.9 5.97 151.3 14.8 134.8

SEm± 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.66 11.0 1.2 11.5CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.83 30.5 3.3 31.8

RDF, recommended dose of fertilizer; STB, soil-test-based

March 2018] EFFECT OF SOIL TEST-BASED NM ON SUGARCANE 103

Table 3. Effect of plant nutrients on nutrients status after harvesting of sugarcane (pooled data of 3 years)

Treatment pH EC Org. C N P K S Zn Fe Mn(dS/m) (%) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg)

T1, N0P0K0 (Control) 8.26 0.23 0.47 216.2 14.5 86.9 9.46 0.68 9.63 3.68T2, N 150 8.22 0.21 0.48 230.8 16.0 92.1 9.50 0.69 9.48 3.69T3, N150P37.4 8.23 0.19 0.49 230.0 19.1 93.3 9.38 0.68 9.28 3.84T4, N150P37.4K49.8 (RDF) 8.26 0.20 0.54 263.3 20.8 102.9 9.10 0.65 9.34 3.54T5, RDF + S40.0 8.26 0.21 0.52 262.9 20.8 103.3 13.78 0.65 9.44 3.66T6, RDF + Zn5.0 8.25 0.21 0.52 267.0 19.9 105.8 9.54 0.83 9.36 3.61T7, RDF + Fe (1% spray) 8.24 0.20 0.52 263.8 20.0 105.1 9.17 0.66 12.22 3.78T8, RDF + Mn1.5 8.29 0.22 0.52 266.8 20.3 107.6 8.98 0.63 9.05 4.75T9, RDF + S40.0 + Zn5.0 8.26 0.20 0.54 271.9 21.2 104.9 14.33 0.86 9.17 3.91T10, RDF + S40.0+ Zn5.0 + Fe (1% spray) 8.25 0.20 0.54 273.8 20.9 109.9 13.76 0.87 12.69 3.69T11, RDF +S40.0 + Zn5.0 + Fe (1% spray) + 8.24 0.22 0.53 269.2 22.1 110.6 14.77 0.86 12.81 5.16

Mn1.5

T12, N200P44.0K83.0 + S40.0+ Zn5.0 (STB) 8.23 0.23 0.56 289.2 24.2 118.1 14.24 0.89 11.22 3.93T13, FYM @ 20 t/ha 8.25 0.21 0.57 249.7 19.3 92.1 9.92 0.69 10.09 3.82

SEm± 0.05 0.01 0.02 8.5 1.5 3.5 0.12 0.02 0.38 0.13CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS 24.2 4.2 10.0 0.33 0.06 1.02 0.37

EC, Electrical conductivity; Org. C, Organic carbon; RDF, recommended dose of fertilizer; STB, soil-test based

crop (Table 3). The pH ranged from 8.22 to 8.29 and ECfrom 0.19 to 0.23 dS/m. The organic carbon also showednon-significant variation with the maximum (0.57%) inthe plot receiving FYM @ 20 t/ha and the minimum(0.47%) in the control. The post-harvest soil revealed thehighest (18.7%) improvement in soil organic carbon overthe initial owing to application of FYM @ 20 t/ha andcorresponding increase (16.6%) because of application ofnutrients on soil-test-basis. High content of cellulosiccompounds as well as crop residues may be responsiblefor increase in the organic carbon content of the soil(Srivastava, et al., 2008). The available major soil nutri-ents (N, P and K) after harvesting of the crop were signifi-cantly higher in NPK treated plots over the control. Themaximum available N, P and K was recorded under treat-ment T

12 (289.2, 24.2 and 118.1 kg/ha), while the lowest

in the control. Treatment T12

also revealed significantlyhigher available N, P and K than the treatment T

4 (RDF).

This could be attributed to the higher biomass accumula-tion in the soil owing to balanced fertilization which leadsto the stimulated growth and activity of microorganismson account of improved rhizospheric environment, result-ing higher mineralization leading to higher available Nwhile, improved P might be owing to reduced P sorptionand K might be because of addition of K in available pooldue to mineralization. The net positive gain of the N, Pand K nutrients over initial was noticed under treatmentT

4–T

13, indicating positive impact of balanced use of plant

nutrients for maintaining of soil fertility. The gain of N, Pand K were 3.12–62.3, 2.6–7.7 and 9.1–24.3 kg/ha afterharvesting of sugarcane over the initial and the highest

was with T12

Treatment, indicating balanced application ofnutrients is the key factor for improvement of soil fertilityand enhancing sugarcane productivity. Our results con-firm the findings of Patel et al. (2010) Kumar (2012) andThakur et al. (2013). Significant improvement in micronu-trients (S, Zn, Fe and Mn) was noticed in treated plots overnon-treated ones. The available S, Zn, Fe and Mn variedfrom 8.98 to 14.77, 0.63 to 0.89, 9.05 to 12.81 and 3.54 to5.16 mg/kg, respectively, indicating build up of these nu-trients in the soil.

Based on these investigations, it may be concluded thatflat recommendation was not effective in improving yieldand quality of sugarcane. Soil-test-based fertilizer applica-tion proved the best for maintaining soil fertility and ex-ploring higher productivity and profitability in calcareoussoil of Bihar.

REFERENCES

Gupta, G.P. and Rao, G.S.C. 1980. A study on effect of Mn ongrowth, total protein and nucleic acid in sugarcane plant.Proceedings of International Society of Sugarcane Technol-ogy 17: 213–216.

Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of IndiaPvt., Ltd, New Delhi, India.

Kumar, N. 2012. Productivity, quality and nutrient balance in springsugarcane (Saccharum spp. Hybrid complex) under organicand inorganic nutrition. Indian Journal of Agronomy 57(1):68–73.

Kumar, N., Kumari, Geeta and Paswan, S. 2015. Optimizing nutri-ent and irrigation requirement of sugarcane (Saccharum spe-cies hybrid complex) and French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)intercropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 60(4):524–535.

Lindsay, W.L. and Norvell, W.A 1978. Development of DTPA soil

104 THAKUR AND PANDEY [Vol. 63, No. 1

test for Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu. Soil Science Society of AmericaJournal 42: 421-428.

Patel, V.S., Raj, V.C. and Patel, D.D. 2010. Effect of differentsources and levels of organic on sugarcane (Saccharumofficinarum). Indian Journal of Agronomy 55(2) : 152-156.

Pathak, A.K., and Ghosh, T.S. 1996. Nutrient management in rice-wheat cropping system. Fertiliser News 41: 55-58.

Sankar Babu, M.V., Reddy, C.M., Subramanyam, A. andBalaguavaiah, D. 2007. Effect of integrated use of organicand inorganic fertilizers on soil properties and yield of sug-arcane. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 55(2):161-166.

Singh, A. Srivastava, R.N. and Singh, S.B. 2003. Effect of nutrientcombinations on sugarcane productivity. Sugar Tech 5(4) :311-313.

Singh, A., Dua, S.P. and Singh, G.P., 1995. Effect of sulphur on yieldand quality of sugarcane. Indian Sugar XLIV(4) : 230.-234.

Singh, G.B. and Biswas, B.P. 2000. Balanced and integrated nutri-ent management for sustainable crop production: Limitationsand future strategies. Fertiliser News 45(5): 55-60.

Soomro, A.F., Tunio, S., Ibrahim, K., Rajper, I., Chachar, Q. andYounis Arain, M. 2014. Effect of inorganic NPK fertilizersunder different proportions on growth, yield and juice qual-

ity of sugarcane. (Saccharum officinarum L.). Pure AppliedBiology 3(1) : 10-18.

Spencer, G.L. and Meade, G.P. 1955. Cane Sugar Hand Book. JohnWiley and Sons, London.

Srivastava, T.K., Singh, K/P/, Lal, M., Suman, A. and Kumar, P.2008. Productivity and profitability of sugarcane (Saccha-rum spp. complex hybrid) in relation to organic nutritionunder different cropping systems. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 53(4): 310-313.

Thakur, S.K., Jha, C.K., Alam, M. and Singh, V.P. 2012. Productiv-ity, quality and soil fertility of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.complex hybrid) plant and ratoon grown under organic andconventional farming system. Indian Journal of AgriculturalSciences 82(10): 896-899.

Thakur, S.K., Jha, C.K., Kumari, G. and Singh, V.P. 2010. Effect ofTrichoderma inoculated trash, nitrogen level and biofertilizeron performance of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) incalcareous soils of Bihar. Indian Journal of Agronomy55(4): 55-58.

Thakur, S.K., Kumari, G., Alam, M. and Singh, V.P. 2013. Improv-ing soil fertility and yield and quality of sugarcane throughintegrated application of NPK and compost in calcareoussoils of Bihar. Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology27(2): 12-15.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 105__109 (March 2018)

Water balance and water productivity of Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis) asaffected by irrigation and mulching

AMANJEET SINGH1, K.B. SINGH2 AND GURPREET SINGH3

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004

Received : March 2017; Revised accepted : December 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the spring season (March to July) of 2014 and 2015 at the Punjab Ag-ricultural University, Ludhiana, in sandy-loam soil, to study the effect of irrigation and mulching regimes on fieldwater balance and water productivity of Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis L.). Mean seasonal soil-moisture storageand transpiration were significantly more in flood irrigation and drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspiration thandrip irrigation at 100% and 80% of evapotranspiration during both years of the experiment. Mulching @ 6 t/ha and3 t/ha resulted in an increase of 8.50% and 7.19% mean seasonal transpiration and a decrease of 33.97% and22.86% mean seasonal evaporation as compared to the treatment where no mulch was applied. Water productiv-ity (l/ha-mm) was significantly higher in flood irrigation (0.36) and drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspiration(0.38) as compared to drip irrigation at 100% (0.32) and drip irrigation at 80% of evapotranspiration (0.32). Com-pared to flood irrigation, drip irrigation at 80%, 100% and 120% of evapotranspiration saved about 60%, 52% and44% of irrigation water respectively. The highest net returns ( 73,140/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.17) were re-corded in drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspiration compared to other irrigation regimes. Mulching @ 6 t/haalso recorded the highest net returns

and benefit: cost ratio ( 64,580/ha and 2.06).

Key words: Benefit: cost ratio, Drip irrigation, Evapotranspiration, Herb yield, Leaf-area index, Mint oil yield

Based on a part of M.Sc. Thesis of the first author, submitted toPunjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, during 2015 (unpublished)

3Corresponding author’s Email: gsbedi@live.com1Research Fellow, 3Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Soil Science; 2Di-rector, University Seed Farm, Ladhowal, Punjab Agricultural Uni-versity, Ludhiana, Punjab 141 004

Japanese mint, also known as corn mint, or mentholmint, is one of the commercially cultivated and importantessential oil-bearing industrial crops in northern semi-aridand sub-tropical regions of India (Singh and Saini, 2008).It is a potential source of natural menthol and other ingre-dients like mint terpenes, menthone, isomenthone, men-thyl acetate etc. Mentha plays a very significant role in theagricultural economy. The crop is economically significantnot only for its contribution to the livelihood of thousandsof farmers but also for its highly diversified industrial usein confectionary, cosmetics and pharmaceutical sectors.India is one of the largest producers and exporter ofmentha oil and its derivatives. In India, the production ofmentha oil was about 38,000 metric tonnes, covering anarea of around 0.30 million ha, with an average productiv-ity of around 120 kg/ha during 2014 (MCX, 2015). Theglobal production of mentha oil stands at around 48,000

tonnes (MCX, 2015). Japanese mint occupies predomi-nant position (about 15,000 ha) and contributes more than80% of total production of essential oil in Punjab.

Irrigation is the key input for securing optimum produc-tivity and quality of the crop. By providing optimum irri-gation through drip lines in exact quantity, the yield andwater productivity of this medicinal crop could be in-creased to sustain the ever-increasing demand (Behera etal., 2014). During the summer months, irrigation waterproductivity can be enhanced with straw mulching by cur-tailing unproductive water loss through evaporation.

Mulching also plays multipurpose role through smoth-ering of the weeds by cutting light penetration, conservingmoisture, improving the microorganism population andnutrient dynamics which favourably affects the crop yield(Brar et al., 2014). In Japanese mint, mulching with paddystraw is known to conserve soil moisture and reduce soiltemperature under arid and semi-arid conditions whichenhances the herbage and oil yield (Khera et al., 1986).There is lack of information on effect of drip irrigation andmulching on field water balance. Thus, an experiment wasconducted to study the effects of irrigation and mulchingon water balance components, water use and yield of Japa-nese mint.

Research Paper

106 AMANJEET SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted at research farm, De-partment of Soil and Water Engineering, Punjab Agricul-tural University, Ludhiana (30°56’ N, 75°52’ E, 247 mabove mean sea-level), during the spring seasons (Marchto July) of 2014 and 2015. The soil was sandy loam, withpH 8.2 and medium in available organic carbon, nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium. The bulk density of the profileranged from 1.71 to 1.80 Mg/m3. The soil retained 264and 98 mm water at field capacity and wilting point, in 1.2m profile respectively. The crop received 100.9 and 73.3mm rainfall during 2014 and 2015, respectively. The treat-ments comprised 4 irrigation regimes, viz. flood irrigationat 1.2 irrigation water: cumulative pan evaporation (IW:CPE) ratios (IWF

1.2), drip irrigation at 100% (IWD

100%),

120% (IWD120%) and 80% (IWD80%) of evapotranspiration,in the main plot and 3 rates of mulching i.e. 0 (M

0), 3 (M

1)

and 6 (M2) t/ha in the sub-plot. All plots received 2 com-mon irrigations of 5 cm (immediately after transplantingand 7 days after transplanting). The flood irrigation wasapplied on the basis of cumulative pan evaporation anddrip irrigation that of evapotranspiration calculated withCropwat 8.0 model by multiplying respective crop coeffi-cients (Allen et al., 1998). The paddy straw was spread @3 and 6 t/ha between the rows after transplanting of Japa-nese mint. The treatments were replicated thrice in a split-plot design. In case of flood irrigation, water was mea-sured using water meter and that of drip irrigation fromdripper discharge. After pre-sowing irrigation, the fieldwas prepared by conventional tillage. Japanese mint crop(var. Kosi) was transplanted in 45 cm apart rows on 28March 2014 and 30 March 2015. Nitrogen was applied @60 kg N/ha as urea in 2 equal splits- at time transplantingand after 45 days thereafter. Full dose of P (16 kg/ha) wasapplied at the time of transplanting through diammoniumphosphate. Soil water content was determined gravimetri-cally in 0–15, 15–30, 30–60, 60–90, 90–120 cm depthsand multiplied with corresponding soil layer bulk densityto get volumetric moisture content, which was furthermultiplied with depth of layer to calculate soil water stor-age. Actual crop evapotranspiration (ET

a) was estimated

using the soil water balance equation as:

ETa = I + P – R – D ± ∆SW

where I is the irrigation water (mm), P is the precipita-tion (mm), R is the surface runoff (mm), D is the deepdrainage (mm) or mean seasonal drainage (mm) and ÄSWis the change in soil profile moisture storage (mm). Run-off was absent as sufficient dikes were provided. Deepdrainage was zero when soil profile moisture storage wasless than field capacity. When the soil-moisture storageexceeded the field capacity storage of soil profile (0–120

cm) after irrigation or rainfall, then deep drainage wascalculated as difference between the field capacity storageof soil profile (0–120 cm) and soil moisture storage plusirrigation/ rainfall. The actual evapotranspiration (ETa)was partitioned into soil evaporation (E

s) and plant transpi-

ration (Tp) as:E

s = ET

a × e –α LAI

Tp = ETa – Es

where α is the extinction coefficient of radiation, thevalue of which was set as 0.56 (locally calibrated) and LAIis the leaf-area index (measured using SunScan canopyanalyzer of Delta T Devices) at different stages. LAI dur-ing crop growth and senescence was estimated by follow-ing equation:

LAI (t) = atb

where ‘a’ and ‘b’ are the (curve fitted) constants givenin Table 3 and ‘t’ is days after transplanting.

The crop was harvested when lower leaf started fallingon 7 July in 2014 and 9 July in 2015 with sickle to deter-mine herb and mint oil yield. Essential mint oil content in500 g of fresh herb from each plot was extracted withClevenger’s apparatus at harvesting of crop and mint oilpercentage was calculated on V/W basis on fresh herbweight. Real water productivity of crop was calculated bydividing mint oil yield (Y) with total seasonal transpira-tion. The statistical significance of the treatment effects ondifferent parameters was inferred from least significantdifference (LSD) at 5 % level of significance using analy-sis of variance for split-plot design. Net returns were cal-culated as difference of gross returns and total cost. Ben-efit: cost ratio was calculated by dividing the net returnswith variable cost calculated as per PAU package andpractices for cultivation of mentha crop.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Field water balance componentsRainfall and irrigation: Rainfall received up to 60 days

after transplanting was 51.3 mm. Rainfall received from60 to 100 days after transplanting was 33.85 mm. Duringthe active growth period of Japanese mint (40 to 80 daysafter transplanting) 35.3% rainfall was received. Com-pared to flood irrigation, drip irrigation at

80, 100 and

120% of evapotranspiration saved about 60, 52 and 44%of irrigation water, respectively.

Seasonal transpiration: Seasonal transpiration wassignificantly more under drip irrigation at 120% of evapo-transpiration (IWD120%) and flood irrigation (IWF1.2) thandrip irrigation at 100% (IWD

100%) and 80% of evapotrans-

piration (IWD80%) during both the years. The mean sea-sonal transpiration was 390.9, 351.2, 399.3 and 299 mmunder IWF1.2, IWD100%, IWD120% and IWD80% respectively

March 2018] JAPANESE MINT RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION AND MULCHING 107

(Table 1). It was significantly higher under mulch than thatof un-mulched treatments. Compared to no-mulch treat-ment, seasonal transpiration was 7.19 and 8.50% higherunder mulching @ 3 t/ha (M2) and mulching @ 6 t/ha (M3)respectively. Higher mean seasonal evapotranspirationunder IWD120% and M2 may be because of increased soilmoisture storage at root zone of crop (Singh et al., 2015).

Seasonal soil evaporation: A significant reduction inseasonal soil evaporation was observed with mulching.Mulching @ 3 t/ha and 6 t/ha reduced the seasonal soilevaporation by 22.86 and 33.97% as compared to no-mulch treatment (Table 1). Seasonal soil evaporation wasfound non-significant under irrigation regimes. Mulch re-duces soil-moisture evaporation by acting as a barrier be-tween soil and environment. Reduction in soil-moistureevaporation with mulching was also observed by Li et al.(2005).

Seasonal soil water storage: Soil-moisture storage rep-resents the difference in initial (at transplanting) and final(at harvesting) soil-moisture storage (Table 1). Pooledanalysis showed the net gain of 4.6 mm in soil-moisturestorage under IWF1.2, while the other treatments exhibiteda net loss. The difference in soil-moisture storage in differ-ent irrigation level was due to application of variableamount of irrigation water (Singh et al., 2015). There wasno significant difference in soil-moisture storage betweenmulching and no mulching.

Seasonal drainage: Seasonal drainage was signifi-cantly higher under flood irrigation (IWF

1.2) as compared

to drip irrigation at 120% (IWD120%), 100% (IWD100%) and80% (IWD

80%) of evapotranspiration due to application of

more amount of irrigation water during both the years.Pooled analysis showed significantly highest mean sea-sonal drainage under IWF

1.2 (383.4 mm), followed by

IWD120% (47.2 mm), IWD100% (31.1 mm) and the lowestunder IWD

80% (28.9 mm) (Table 1). Differences were not

significant between seasonal drainage of mulch treat-ments.

Leaf-area indexThe coefficients for the calculation of leaf-area index

(LAI) equation are given in Table 2. A good agreement (R2

= 0.99) was observed between the fitted and observed val-

Table 1. Effect of different irrigation and mulching treatments on mean seasonal transpiration, soil-evaporation, soil moisture storage anddrainage of Japanese mint (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Mean seasonal Mean seasonal Mean seasonal change Mean seasonaltranspiration (mm) evaporation (mm) in soil-water storage (mm) drainage (mm)

IrrigationIWF1.2 390.9 158.5 4.6 383.4IWD120% 399.3 147.4 –31.0 47.2IWD100% 351.2 167.1 –48.4 31.1IWD80% 299.0 175.2 –73.9 28.9

SEm± 6.87 1.49 14.3 6.17CD (P=0.05) 20.6 NS 42.8 18.5

MulchingM0 342.2 199.9 –51.8 109.9M1 366.8 154.2 –45.2 124.2M2 371.3 132.0 –37.2 134.1

SEm± 5.8 5.8 1.41 2.34CD (P=0.05) 17.4 17.4 NS NS

IWF1.2, Flood irrigation at irrigation water/cumulative open pan evaporation ratio 1.2; IWD100%, drip irrigation at 100% of evapotranspira-tion; IWD120%, drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspiration; IWD80%, drip irrigation at 80% of evapotranspiration; M0, no mulch, M1,mulch @ 3 t/ha, M2, mulch @ 6 t/ha

Table 2. Leaf-area index estimation coefficients of the equation LAI(t) = atb

Treatment A B R2

Mean of leaf-area index

IrrigationIWF

1.20.0736 0.891 0.99

IWD120%

0.0839 0.870 0.99IWD

100%0.0793 0.831 0.99

IWD80%

0.0837 0.790 0.99

MulchingM

00.0785 0.847 0.99

M1

0.0836 0.849 0.99M

20.0885 0.817 0.99

IWF1.2

, Flood irrigation at irrigation water/cumulative open panevaporation ratio 1.2; IWD

100%, drip irrigation at 100% of evapo-

transpiration; IWD120%

, drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspi-ration; IWD

80%, drip irrigation at 80% of evapotranspiration; M

0,

no mulch, M1, mulch @ 3 t/ha, M

2, mulch @ 6 t/ha

108 AMANJEET SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

ues. Periodic leaf- area index of Japanese mint is presentedin Table 3. Significant increase in LAI was observed un-der irrigation from 60 to 100 days after transplanting dur-ing both the years. The IWF1.2 and IWD120% maintainedhigher LAI throughout the cropping season of both theyears due to development of extensive root-system, whichcreated a conductive environment to absorb more waterand nutrients for better growth (Ram et al., 1995). The

Table 4. Effect of irrigation and mulching on pooled mean fresh herb yield, mint oil yield, net returns and benefit: cost ratio of Japanese mint(pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Mean fresh herb Mean mint oil Net returns Benefit:yield (t/ha) yield (l/ha) ( × 103 /ha) cost ratio

IrrigationIWF1.2 20.97 140.44 64.91 2.06IWD120% 22.04 150.87 73.14 2.17IWD100% 17.56 110.43 36.79 1.59IWD80% 14.90 93.98 22.04 1.35

SEm± 1.20 7.87 – –CD (P=0.05) 3.60 23.6 – –

MulchingM0 17.01 103.97 31.64 1.51M1 19.56 125.98 51.44 1.83M2 20.48 140.57 64.58 2.04

SEm± 0.51 4.53 – –CD (P=0.05) 1.52 13.6 – –

IWF1.2, Flood irrigation at irrigation water/cumulative open pan evaporation ratio 1.2; IWD100%, drip irrigation at 100% of evapotranspira-tion; IWD120%, drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspiration; IWD80%, drip irrigation at 80% of evapotranspiration; M0, no mulch, M1,mulch @ 3 t/ha, M2, mulch @ 6 t/ha

leaf-area index increased significantly by mulching. It washigher under M1 and M2 than M0. Mulching is helpful inconserving better soil moisture which results in absorptionof more water and nutrients for production of higher veg-etative biomass (Khera et al., 1986; Ram et al., 2006).

Herb and mint oil yieldHerb and mint oil yield was more in IWD120% and

IWF1.2

than IWD100%

and IWD80%

because of higher avail-ability of moisture (Table 4). The mean herb yield was20.97, 17.56, 22.04 and 14.90 t/ha and mint oil yield was140.4, 110.4, 150.9 and 94.0 l/ha under IWF1.2, IWD100%,IWD

120% and IWD

80% respectively. Mulching @ 3 t/ha and

6 t/ha significantly increased the mint oil yield by 21.17%and 35.20% as compared to no-mulch treatment (Table 4).Higher yield under mulching is attributed to conservationof moisture due to less evaporation which results in thebetter establishment of the crop (Khera et al., 1986; Ramet al., 2006).

Water productivityWater productivity was significantly affected by irriga-

tion and mulching treatments (Table 5). Water productiv-ity under IWD120% was 5.6% higher than that under IWF1.2

and 22.6% higher than IWD100%

and IWD80%

. Water pro-ductivity increased with an increase in transpiration, whichis directly related to crop yield. The maximum water pro-ductivity was observed under mulching as compared tono-mulching. Water productivity of M

1 and M

2 was 13.3%

and 26.7% higher than M0. Higher water productivity un-der higher irrigation regimes and mulching was owing to

Table 3. Effect of irrigation and mulching on periodic leaf-area in-dex of Japanese mint (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Days after transplanting40 60 80 100

IrrigationIWF1.2 1.76 2.87 3.78 4.65IWD120% 1.91 3.01 3.85 4.74IWD100% 1.63 2.37 3.00 3.81IWD80% 1.46 2.04 2.78 3.34

SEm± 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.18CD (P=0.05) NS 0.30 0.27 0.55

MulchingM

01.35 2.14 2.81 3.33

M1

1.75 2.70 3.52 4.34M

21.98 2.92 3.79 4.74

SEm± 0.08 0.10 0.08 0.13CD (P=0.05) 0.23 0.30 0.25 0.40

IWF1.2, Flood irrigation at irrigation water/cumulative open panevaporation ratio 1.2; IWD100%, drip irrigation at 100% of evapo-transpiration; IWD120%, drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspi-ration; IWD80%, drip irrigation at 80% of evapotranspiration; M0,no mulch, M1, mulch @ 3 t/ha, M2, mulch @ 6 t/ha

March 2018] JAPANESE MINT RESPONSE TO IRRIGATION AND MULCHING 109

Table 5. Effect of irrigation and mulching treatments on water pro-ductivity of Japanese mint (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Irrigation Rainfall Total Water(mm) (mm) water productivity

(mm) (l/ha-mm)

IrrigationIWF1.2 850.25 87.1 937.35 0.36IWD120% 475.65 87.1 562.75 0.38IWD100% 408.90 87.1 496.00 0.32IWD80% 342.05 87.1 429.15 0.32

SEm± – – – 0.01CD (P=0.05) – – – 0.03

MulchingM0 512.95 87.1 600.05 0.31M1 512.95 87.1 600.05 0.35M2 512.95 87.1 600.05 0.39

SEm± – – – 0.01CD (P=0.05) – – – 0.02

IWF1.2

, Flood irrigation at irrigation water/cumulative open panevaporation ratio 1.2; IWD

100%, drip irrigation at 100% of evapo-

transpiration; IWD120%

, drip irrigation at 120% of evapotranspi-ration; IWD

80%, drip irrigation at 80% of evapotranspiration; M

0,

no mulch, M1, mulch @ 3 t/ha, M

2, mulch @ 6 t/ha

higher availability of moisture, which resulted in moretranspiration with better development of crop (Behera etal., 2015).

EconomicsThe highest net returns ( 73,140/ha) and benefit: cost

ratio (2.17) of Japanese mint were recorded underIWD

120%, followed by IWF

1.2 and IWD

100%, and the lowest

under IWD80%

(Table 4). Reduction in frequency of irriga-tion reduced the benefit: cost ratio due to low herbage andoil yield. Behera et al. (2013) also reported higher benefit:cost ratio under drip irrigation as compared to flood irriga-tion. Irrespective of irrigation regimes, M

3 resulted in the

highest net returns ( 64,580/ha) and benefit: cost ratio(2.04), followed by M

2 and M

0 owing to more availability

of soil moisture throughout the growing season (Singh etal., 2015) which have enhanced mint oil yield.

It was concluded that mulching @ 6 t/ha maintainedadequate soil moisture through reducing soil evaporationwhich in turn helped in increasing leaf-area index, freshherb yield and mint oil yield. Compared to flood irrigation,drip irrigation at

120% of evapotranspiration saved about

44% of irrigation water and resulted in 7.43% higher mintoil yield. Mint herb and oil yields were reduced under drip

irrigation at 80% of evapotranspiration due to moisturestress.

REFERENCES

Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. 1998. CropEvapotranspiration–Guidelines for Computing Crop WaterRequirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, pp.293. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Na-tions, Rome, Italy.

Behera, M.S., Mahapatra, P.K., Singhandhupe, R.B. and Kanan, K.2015. Fertigation studies in Japanese mint (Mentha arvensisL.) under humid climate in Odisha, India. African Journal ofAgricultural Research 10(11): 1,320–1,330.

Behera, M.S., Mahapatra, P.K., Singhandhupe, R.B., Kundu, D.K.,Kanan, K., Mandal, K.G. and Singh, A. 2014. Effect of yield,water use efficiency and water productivity of mint (Menthaarvensis L.). Journal of Agricultural Physics 14(1): 37–43.

Behera, M.S., Verma, O.P., Mahapatra P.K., Singandhupe, R.B. andKumar, A. 2013. Effect of irrigation and fertility levels onyield, quality and economics of Japanese mint (Menthaarvensis) under drip irrigation system. Indian Journal ofAgronomy 58(1): 109–113.

Brar, S.K., Gill, B. S., Brar, A. S. and Kaur, T. 2014. Planting dateand straw mulch affect biomass yield, oil yield and oil qual-ity of Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis L.) harvested at suc-cessive intervals. Journal of Essential Oil Bearing Plants17(4): 676–695.

Khera, K.L., Singh, B., Sandhu, B.S. and Aujla, T.S. 1986. Re-sponse of Japanese mint to nitrogen, irrigation and strawmulching on a sandy-loam soil of Punjab. Indian Journal ofAgricultural Sciences 56(1): 434–438.

Li, F., Kustas, W.P., Prueger, J.H. and Diak, G.R. 2005. Utility ofremote sensing based two-source energy balance model un-der low and high vegetation cover conditions. Journal ofHydrometeorology 6(1): 878–891.

MCX. 2015. Mentha oil. http://www.mcxindia.com/SitePages/ContractSpecification.aspx? ProductCode= mentha_oil. Ac-cessed 16 November 2015.

Ram, D., Ram, M. and Singh, R. 2006. Optimization of water andnitrogen application to menthol mint (Mentha arvensis L.)through sugarcane trash mulch in a sandy loam soil of semi-arid subtropical climate. Bioresource Technology 97(7):886–893.

Ram, M., Ram, D. and Singh, S. 1995. Irrigation and nitrogen re-quirements of Bergamot mint on a sandy loam soil undersub-tropical conditions. Agricultural Water Management27(1): 45–54.

Singh, K.B., Jalota, S.K. and Gupta, R.K. 2015. Soil water balanceand response of spring maize (Zea mays) to mulching anddifferential irrigation in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agronomy60(2): 279–284.

Singh, M.K. and Saini, S.S. 2008. Planting date, mulch, and herbi-cide rate effects on the growth, yield, and physicochemicalproperties of menthol mint (Mentha arvensis). Weed Tech-nology 22(4): 691–698.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 110__116 (March 2018)

ISA/2017(7)/161

Productivity of menthol mint (Mentha arvensis) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) asrelay and sequential cropping system under different irrigation scheduling

GURVINDER SINGH1, TANAY SAHA2, SUBHASH CHANDRA3, AMIT BHATNAGAR4 AND SAMARTH5

Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263 145

Received : July 2017; Revised accepted : February 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar,Uttarakhand, India during 2014–15 and 2015–16 to assess the impact of irrigation schedules (IW: CPE 0.6, 0.8,1.0 and 1.2) on mentha (Mentha arvensis L.) growth, productivity, profitability and irrigation water productivity un-der variable cropping systems (sole mint, wheat + mentha relay cropping and wheat-transplanted mint). Sole mintrecorded the maximum values of all the growth parameters, with an exception in leaf: stem. It also produced themaximum fresh herbage (22,170 kg/ha) as well as the oil yields (196.6 kg/ha). The maximum oil content (0.96%)was obtained with transplanted mint crop. Relay cropping of mint with wheat in 2:1 row pattern recorded the maxi-mum mentha oil equivalent yield (MOEY), net return (143.5 × 103 /ha)) and benefit: cost ratio (2.08). Irrigationwater productivity was found maximum (5.35 kg oil/ha-cm) with sole planting of mentha. Irrigating the crop at 1.2irrigation water (IW) to cumulative pan evaporation (CPE) ratio registered significantly highest plant height, leafarea index, lateral spread, dry matter accumulation, fresh herbage and oil yields. Oil content and leaf: stem ex-pressed a declining trend with increasing the irrigation frequency under wider IW: CPE. Irrigation at IW: CPE 1.2gave the maximum MOEY (233.4 kg/ha), net return (134.4 × 103 /ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.93). However, themaximum irrigation water productivity was realized at 0.6 IW: CPE. Wheat + mentha relay cropping (2:1) at IW:CPE 1.2 was better option than others with respect to MOEY and economics.

Key words : Economics, IW: CPE, Menthol mint, Relay cropping, Transplanted mint, Wheat

1Corresponding author Email: guruagronomy@gmail.com1,4 JRO, Agronomy, 2Ex-PG Student, Agronomy, 3Chief Scientist,Agronomy, 5Ph.D Student, Agronomy, Govind Ballabh Pant Uni-versity of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand 263145

Menthol mint (Mentha arvensis L.), a potent source ofmenthol oil (75–85%) occupies a prime position in Indianagriculture due to its extensive use in pharmaceutical,agro-chemicals and flavoring industries (Tassou et al.,2004). India is a leading producer of mint oil, contributingapproximately 85% of the total world production (Anwaret al., 2010). In India, it is cultivated on 0.3 million ha areawith a production of 32,000 tonnes menthol oil. Mentholmint cultivation is mainly confined to central parts ofIndo-Gangetic Plains in the states of Punjab, Haryana,Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, with maximum areain Uttar Pradesh (Khanuja et al., 2005). These areas arepre-dominated by rice-wheat cropping system and facingthe typical monoculture sickness problems. Inclusion ofmint crop in traditional wheat crop rotation is a viableconcept to overcome such problems. It not only favors the

economics but also pave way for agro-based enterprises inthe region. After harvesting of kharif paddy, in rabi seasonadoption of either wheat (November-April) or mint (Feb-ruary-June) does not improve the system productivity upto a desired level as the field remains fallow for a longerperiod and resources are not fully utilized. As the croppingsystem is highly location specific, it urges for evaluation ofthese two crops in a system mode to ensure efficient use ofthe available growing period. Relay planting of mint inwheat and mint transplanting after harvesting of wheat arethe feasible options for system intensification. Relay crop-ping of mentha during late ontogeny of wheat owing tovarying rooting pattern can exploit moisture from rela-tively larger volume of soil, hence, affects water use andwater productivity. Further, intercropping of mint withwheat could be more remunerative than their sole crop-ping. Rathi et al. (2014) also found wheat + menthol mintintercropping system more remunerative as compared tosole cropping of wheat crop.

The active growth period of mentha coincides with hotsummer months when the soil moisture remains inad-equate coupled with high soil and air temperature and high

Research Paper

March 2018] PRODUCTIVITY OF MENTHOL MINT AS RELAY AND SEQUENTIAL CROPPING SYSTEM 111

evapo-transpiration (ET). Moreover, being a shallowrooted crop, its water demand further increase under theseconditions. Both excess as well as sub-optimal soil mois-ture conditions decrease the growth, herbage and oil yields(Shormin et al., 2009). Hence, the maintenance of ad-equate soil moisture is essential through proper monitor-ing and scheduling of irrigation. The scheduling of irriga-tion on the basis of climatological approach (IW: CPE) hasbeen considered more scientific and practical as it takescare of both rainfall and evaporation. Water requirementof mint varies under different cropping systems because ofvariable micro-climatic situations across the growing pe-riod. According to Zhang et al. (2012), intercropping sys-tems could promote the full use of cropland water by plantroots, increase the water storage in root zone, reduce theinter-row evaporation and control excessive transpiration,and create a special micro-climate, advantageous to theplant growth and development. In transplanted mint, thewater demand increases due to its exposure to high tem-perature and lower relative humidity conditions. Thus,under various cropping systems the mint crop reflects avariation in water use; therefore, optimization of irrigationschedule is necessary under variable mentha-based crop-ping systems to get higher crop and water productivity.

As the research work on this aspect is very scanty,hence, the current study was designed to determine theeffect of cropping systems and irrigation schedules ongrowth, productivity, economic viability and irrigationwater productivity of mentha.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was carried out at G.B. Pant Uni-versity of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar (290 Nlatitude, 79.50 E longitude and 243.8 m above mean sea-

level), Uttarakhand, India during 2014-15 and 2015-16.The experimental site is located in the Tarai (young allu-vial soils with shallow to medium water table) belt ofUttarakhand. The area is characterized by a sub-humid andsub-tropical climate. Soil of the experimental site wassandy loam in texture, low in available nitrogen (230 kg/ha ), medium in available phosphorus (21.8 kg/ ha) andpotassium (213 kg/ha) and high in organic carbon (0.87%)with neutral in reaction (pH 7.2). The bulk density of top0-15 cm soil was 1.46 Mg/m3. The soil moisture content atfield capacity and permanent wilting point was 20.0 and8.0%, respectively.

The experiment comprised of 12 treatment combina-tions with three cropping systems (timely planted solementhol mint, wheat + mint relay cropping system andwheat-late transplanted mint sequential cropping system)and four irrigation schedules in mint (IW:CPE 0.6, 0.8, 1.0and 1.2) was laid out in Factorial Randomized Block De-sign with three replications. ‘PBW 550’ and ‘CIM kranti’varieties of wheat and mint, respectively were used for theexperimental study. For timely planted sole mint crop, thedisease free healthy suckers (4-5 cm long) were planted inend to end fashion at a depth of 4 to 5 cm in furrowsspaced 40 cm apart in the first week of February. In relaycropping system of mint with wheat the wheat was sownin mid November in skipped-row planting pattern i.e. af-ter every two rows of wheat (20 cm apart), one row wasskipped which was later used for mint planting in Febru-ary. In wheat-transplanted mint sequential system, afterwheat harvest (mid April), mint seedlings were trans-planted at a spacing of 40 cm x 25 cm. The gross area forevery plot was 12.8 m2. Wheat crop was fertilized uni-formly with 120 kg N, 26.2 kg P

and 33.3 kg K per hect-

are through NPK fertilizer (12:32:16), urea (46% N) and

Fig. 1. Weather condition during crop period of 2014-15 and 2015-16

Max

. Tem

p. (

o C),

Min

. Tem

p. (o C

)

112 SINGH ET AL [Vol. 63, No. 1

MOP (60% K2O). For fertilization in timely planted sole

mint, 100 kg N, 26.2 kg P and 33.3 kg K per hectare wereapplied. Half of nitrogen and full dose of phosphorus andpotassium were applied as basal and the remaining nitro-gen through urea was top dressed in two equal splits at 45and 65 days after sowing (DAS). For relay and trans-planted mint, fertilization was done after the harvesting ofwheat crop. Half of nitrogen and total amount of phospho-rus and potassium were applied after pre-sowing irrigationin harvested wheat and the remaining half of nitrogen wasapplied through urea at 20 days after wheat harvesting. Intransplanted mint, the remaining half of N was appliedthrough urea at 20 days after transplanting. In timelyplanted sole mint crop, a common irrigation was given forproper crop establishment and after that irrigations werescheduled when CPE reached at a pre-determined levelamong different IW: CPE ratios. A uniform irrigationdepth of 6 cm was maintained by using Parshall flume. Inwheat + mint (2:1) relay cropping system, wheat was irri-gated following the recommended package of agronomicpractices. After wheat, mint was subjected to irrigationsaccording to IW:CPE based treatments. In wheat-trans-planted mint cropping system, wheat was irrigated similarto wheat in relay cropping system. After harvesting ofwheat, mint was transplanted followed by an immediateirrigation. To ensure the crop establishment, irrigation wasgiven at 7 days after transplanting. Later on, the irrigationswere given based on IW: CPE ratios. Sole mint crop washarvested in second fortnight of May while, relay andtransplanted mint crops were harvested in the end of June.

Mentha and wheat crops received 218.6 mm and 187.3mm and 376.6 mm and 3.4 mm rainfall during crop periodof 2014-15 and 2015-16, respectively. During 2014-15, insole mint crop, total 2, 3, 4 and 5 irrigations were appliedin 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 IW: CPE, respectively, while inwheat + mentha relay cropping system, number of irriga-tions were 6, 8, 9 and 10, in 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 IW: CPE,respectively and in transplanted mint, 7, 8, 9 and 11 irriga-tions, respectively. During 2015-16, in sole mint crop, total7, 9, 9 and 10 irrigations were applied in 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and1.2 IW: CPE ratios, respectively. In wheat + mentha relaycropping system, numbers of irrigations were 9, 9, 10 and11, in 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 IW: CPE, respectively. In trans-planted mint, a total 8, 9, 9 and 10 irrigations were given.During first year of the study (2014-15) due to frequentrains throughout the crop season, relatively less number ofirrigations were required than 2015-16 which receivedmajor amount of rainfall during May and June (372.2 mm)at harvest stage of crop.

The data on growth parameters of mentha viz. plantheight, lateral spread, leaf area index (LAI), leaf: stem anddry matter accumulation were recorded at crop harvest

stage. The net plot area was harvested for recording thefresh herbage yield. The essential oil content in the freshbiomass was estimated by the hydro-distillation method.The oil content was computed by using the following for-mula:

Weight of oil (g)Oil content % (fresh weight basis) = × 100

Weight of fresh herbage (g)

The oil content was multiplied with the correspondingfresh herbage yield to get the total oil yield and expressedin kg/ha. Mint oil equivalent yield (MOEY) of system wascalculated by using the following formula:

MOEY (t/ha) =

+ Oil yield of mint (t/ha)The economics was worked out on the basis of prevail-

ing market prices of inputs and outputs (mentha oil 900/l and wheat, 17,000/t). B: C ratio was obtained by divid-ing the net return with its cost of cultivation. Irrigationwater productivity of the systems was worked out by usingthe following formula:

Irrigation water productivity (kg/ha-cm) =

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Growth ParametersSole mint crop produced significantly taller plants and

more LAI than relay and transplanted mint crops. The re-spective increase in plant height of sole mint crop was tothe tune of 71.7 and 81.3%, whereas the increment percent in LAI was 40.5 and 134.6%, respectively. Relaycropped mint recorded significantly higher LAI than trans-planted mint by 66.9% (Table 1). Sole mint recoded sig-nificantly wider plant spread than remaining cropping se-quences. Better growth in terms of plant height, lateralspread and LAI of sole mint crop was due to timely plant-ing of crop, absence of intercropping competition andshading effect caused by wheat in relay cropping system.Relatively longer duration of sole mint in main field ascompared to transplanted mint crop also helped in fullexpansion of its growth. Kumar et al. (2002) also observed26.2% higher plant height in timely planted sole mint thanmint relay cropped with wheat.

Sole mint crop also recorded 45.6 and 153.2% higherdry matter accumulation than relay cropping and trans-planted mint crops, respectively. Relay cropped mint wasalso significantly superior to transplanted mint for drymatter accumulation. As a consequence of higher leaf areawhich accumulated greater amount of photosynthates.Shorter growing period in main field, exposure to highertemperature at initial stages of crop growth and transplant-ing shock were some of the probable reasons behind the

Wheat yield (t/ha) × Price of wheat ( /t)

Price of mint oil ( /t)

Mint oil equivalent yield (kg/ha)

Total irrigation depth (cm)

March 2018] PRODUCTIVITY OF MENTHOL MINT AS RELAY AND SEQUENTIAL CROPPING SYSTEM 113

lower LAI and dry matter accumulation in transplantedmint crop. The inferiority of relay cropped mint to solemint crop for accumulation of dry matter was largely be-cause of lesser light interception at initial growth stagesdue to its underneath position in standing wheat crop. Theseedling phase of mint and the reproductive phase ofwheat were overlapped over a period of about two months.During this period, the mint crop did not get any opportu-nity for its growth because of shading effect and capturingof available resources by the actively grown up wheatcrop. Although, after harvesting of wheat, the mint growthwas improved but it was not enough to cope up the earlygrowth inhibitory effect caused by wheat crop. Hence, alower dry matter was accumulated by the relay cropped

mint. Singh et al. (1998) also observed higher dry matteraccumulation in January planted mint than the trans-planted mint crop of April.

Plant height, lateral spread and LAI values increasedwith the increasing moisture supply and were found to bethe maximum at IW: CPE 1.2. Narrow IW: CPE resultedin shorter plants due to reduction in cell elongation as aconsequence of moisture deficit stress. Carpita (1996) re-ported that moisture stress may promote lignin synthesis,leading to increased stiffness of cell walls and reduction ofcell elongation. Similarly, the inhibition in leaf growth wasdue to reduction of cell expansion and cell division as aresult of moisture deficit stress. Kumar et al. (2013) re-ported that water stress reduced the LAI by producing

Table 1. Mint growth parameters at harvest as influenced by different treatments (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Plant height Leaf area Lateral Dry matter Leaf : stem(cm) index spread (cm) accumulation

(kg/ha)

Cropping systemSole mint 58.2 6.24 57.6 4,988 0.76Wheat + mint (2:1) 33.9 4.44 31.9 3,425 1.19Wheat-transplanted mint 32.1 2.66 29.4 1,970 1.48

SEm± 1.1 0.13 1.0 89 0.03CD (P=0.05) 3.3 0.39 2.9 262 0.09

Irrigation schedule (IW:CPE)0.6 37.3 3.72 36.8 2,660 1.210.8 41.4 4.25 38.7 3,119 1.171.0 42.9 4.78 40.5 3,777 1.121.2 43.9 5.04 42.5 4,287 1.07

SEm± 1.3 0.15 1.1 103 0.04CD (P=0.05) 3.8 0.45 3.3 303 0.11

IW, Irrigation water; CPE, Cumulative pan evaporation

Table 2. Mentha yields as affected by different treatments (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Wheat grain Fresh herbage Oil content Oil yield Mint oil equivalentyield (kg/ha) yield (kg/ha) (%) (kg/ha) yield (kg/ha)

Cropping systemSole mint – 22,170 0.89 196.6 196.6Wheat + mint (2:1) 4,441 17,370 0.94 162.1 242.5Wheat-transplanted mint 3,984 12,050 0.96 115.2 187.2

SEm± – 235 0.004 2.21 2.29CD (P=0.05) – 670 0.011 6.30 6.53

Irrigation schedule (IW:CPE)0.6 – 13,230 0.95 125.8 176.90.8 – 16,380 0.94 152.8 203.31.0 – 18,790 0.91 170.1 221.51.2 – 20,390 0.91 183.3 233.4

SEm± – 271 0.004 2.56 2.66CD (P=0.05) – 773 0.011 7.30 7.59

IW, Irrigation water; CPE, Cumulative pan evaporation

114 SINGH ET AL [Vol. 63, No. 1

smaller and lesser number of leaves. Further, bettergrowth in terms of plant height, lateral spread and higherLAI under high moisture regimes resulted in maximumlight interception and eventually greater accumulation ofphotosynthates. Saxena and Singh (1998) also observedthat high irrigation frequencies scheduled at CPE 50 mmproduced 5.5 and 9.9% higher dry matter of mint thanCPE 100 and 150 mm, respectively.

Transplanted mint recorded significantly maximumleaf: stem (1.48) followed by relay cropped mint (1.19).Timely planted sole mint showed the lowest leaf: stem(0.76). It was declined by 19.6 and 48.6% against relaycropped and transplanted mint, respectively. Leaf: stemhas an inverse relation with vegetative growth. Highervegetative growth in sole mint was largely associated withmore branching or stem growth rather than developmentof leaves which finally resulted in to lower leaf: stem. Poorgrowth of relay cropped and transplanted mint crop mightbe reasoned for comparatively less diversion of photosyn-thates for stem formation than the leaves which resulted inhigher leaf: stem. Singh et al. (1998) also observed 35.4%reduction in leaf: stem in timely sown mint crop of midJanuary than that of transplanted late in mid April. Theleaf: stem was found to be the maximum (1.21) in rela-tively more water stressed environment i.e. at IW: CPE 0.6and it decreased with increased frequency of irrigations asbetter moisture regime favored more branching. The re-duction in leaf: stem with an increase in irrigation fre-quency might be ascribed to more growth in favor ofbranching which caused greater senescence of lowerleaves due to mutual shading. According to Singh et al.(1999), the negative relationship between the irrigationlevel and leaf: stem is possible due to the fact that plants

under the influence of higher soil moisture grew fasterwith higher internodal length and branches, with more di-version of photosynthates towards stem rather than toleaves and also due to shading of lower leaves.

Wheat grain yieldWheat under intercropping system produced 11.5%

higher grain yield than sole wheat. It was probably be-cause of the border row effect which offers better utiliza-tion of light and resources as a result of availability ofmore space under skipped row planting.

Fresh herbage yieldTimely planted sole mint crop produced the maximum

herbage yield (22,170 kg/ha). It produced 27.6 and 83.9%higher fresh herbage yield than relay cropped and trans-planted mint, respectively. Higher fresh herbage yield intimely planted sole mint was due to its better plant growthsuch as plant height, lateral spread, dry matter accumula-tion and leaf area index. Because of exposure to suitablelow temperature at initial stages and due to longer growthduration in main field, timely planted mint made well es-tablished root and shoot growth. Whereas, the mint trans-planted in April was exposed to unfavorable higher tem-perature right from planting, hence could not combat theharsh growing conditions effectively as low temperature isrequired for development of its roots (Farrav and Will-iams, 1991). Similarly, Ram et al. (1998) also observed51.7% lower herbage yield in April transplanted mint cropthan January planted mint crop due to higher temperatureduring active growth phase which enhances respirationand initiates reproductive phase. Subsequently, the plantswere hardly left with photosynthates needed for proper

Table 3. Mint economics and water use parameters under different treatments (pooled data of 2 years)

Treatment Cost of Net return Benefit: Total irrigation Irrigation watercultivation (×103 /ha) cost depth (cm) productivity(×103 /ha) (kg oil/ha-cm)

Cropping systemSole mint 60.1 112.5 1.87 36.8 5.35Wheat + mint (2:1) 69.0 143.5 2.08 54.0 4.49Wheat-transplanted mint 69.3 94.2 1.36 53.3 3.52

SEm± - 2.03 0.03 - -CD (P=0.05) - 5.80 0.08 - -

Irrigation schedule ( IW:CPE)0.6 61.2 93.7 1.53 39 4.540.8 64.8 112.7 1.74 46 4.431.0 67.5 126.2 1.87 50 4.421.2 69.6 134.4 1.93 57 4.09

SEm± - 2.35 0.04 - -CD (P=0.05) - 6.70 0.11 - -

IW, Irrigation water; CPE, Cumulative pan evaporation

March 2018] PRODUCTIVITY OF MENTHOL MINT AS RELAY AND SEQUENTIAL CROPPING SYSTEM 115

vegetative growth. Moreover, relay cropped mint pro-duced 44.1% higher fresh herbage yield than transplantedmint crop. Since, it had two months longer growing periodin the main field compared to transplanted mint hence re-corded more values of growth parameters and finally thefresh herbage yield.

Crop irrigated at IW: CPE 1.2 produced the maximumfresh herbage yield (20,390 kg/ha). It was significantlysuperior to the remaining IW: CPE. Higher fresh herbageyield in wider IW: CPE of 1.2 was closely associated withthe beneficial effect of more frequent irrigations on growthparameters like plant height, leaf area index and dry mat-ter accumulation. The crop subjected to lower moistureregime under narrow IW: CPE ratios were incapable offull exploitation of the applied and native nutrients in thesoil. The roots under moisture stress condition might havetended to penetrate deeper into the soil in quest of waterand reduced root activity in the top soil layer might ren-dered lower nutrient uptake where nutrients were applied.Lower utilization of nutrients and less availability of soilmoisture had resulted in reduced vegetative growth andconsequently poor fresh herbage yield. In higher moistureregimes, the crop covered the ground at faster rate anddeveloped sufficient photosynthetic area as evident by LAIwhich resulted in the higher herbage yield (Saxena andSingh, 1996).

Oil contentThe maximum oil content (0.96%) was noticed in trans-

planted mint which was followed by relay cropped mint(0.94%) and timely planted sole mint crop (0.89%). Thereduction in oil content in timely planted sole mint can beexplained by its positive correlation with leaf to stem ra-tio and negatively with herbage yield. Being the site forsynthesis of oil, the proportion of leaf over stem decidesthe oil concentration in mint. Hence, development ofleaves is of great significance in increasing oil concentra-tion. Higher branching of sole mint crop resulted in lesserleaf: stem, which led to decline in oil content. These re-sults confirm the findings of Kumar et al. (2002) whofound 7.8 and 25.0% higher oil content in mint trans-planted after wheat and mint relayed with wheat over thatof the timely planted sole mint, respectively. Lower leaf:stem and oil content with increased herbage production inmenthol mint has also been reported by Ram and Kumar(1998).

Among IW: CPE ratios, the highest oil content wasobserved at 0.6 IW: CPE. There was a decreasing trend inoil content with increase in moisture level. The reductionin oil content with an increase in irrigation frequency un-der wider IW: CPE ratios was attributed to the fact thatunder optimum moisture regimes the crop made higher

vegetative with more stem growth and thus exhibited thelower oil content.

Oil yieldSole mint crop produced the maximum oil yield of

196.6 kg/ha. It was higher by 21.2 and 70.7% than relayedand transplanted mint crop, respectively. Since, the oilyield is a function of fresh herbage yield and its oil con-tent; hence, in spite of having lower oil content, the solemint crop recorded the maximum oil yield because ofhigher fresh herbage yield. Similarly due to lower herbageyield, the transplanted mint gave the minimum oil yield.Kumar et al. (2002) also reported lower oil yield of mintin relay cropping because of the lower herbage yield al-though the essential oil content in the herbage was higherthan in the sole crop of mint. Oil yield exhibited an in-creasing trend with increased level of irrigation being themaximum at 1.2 IW: CPE. It was because of higher freshherbage yield in this treatment.

Mint oil equivalent yieldMint oil equivalent yield refers to the total productivity

of the cropping system in terms of mint oil. The mint oilequivalent yield (MOEY) was recorded to be the highestin wheat + mint (2:1) relay cropping. This was attributedto the contribution of additional bonus wheat yield in thissystem (Table 2). The mint oil equivalent yield increasedwith increasing moisture supply being the maximum atIW: CPE 1.2. MOEY exhibited a positive relation with oilyield of the mint crop, since the irrigation treatments weredesigned only for the mint crop under different croppingsituations. Hence, the effect of irrigation on mint oilequivalent yield has nothing to do with the wheat yield ofthe respective systems. Therefore, higher the oil yield ofthe mint, higher was the mint oil equivalent yield.

Irrigation water productivity Sole planting of mentha recorded the maximum irriga-

tion water productivity (5.35 kg oil/ha-cm) which was19.2 and 51.9% higher than relay cropping with wheat andtransplanted mint after wheat harvest, respectively.Though the relay cropping recorded higher MOEY butbecause of receiving higher irrigation depth (54.0 cm), itresulted in lower irrigation water productivity than solemint crop. Transplanted mint crop recorded the lowest ir-rigation water productivity (3.52 kg oil/ha-cm) because ofits lowest MOEY as well as the higher irrigation depth(53.3 cm). Subjecting the crop to different irrigationschedules, it was observed that crop raised under 0.6IW:CPE was superior to other IW:CPE ratios when irriga-tion water productivity is concerned. Irrigation water pro-ductivity declined gradually with increase in frequency of

116 SINGH ET AL [Vol. 63, No. 1

irrigation. Crop irrigated at 0.6 IW: CPE ratio recorded2.5, 2.7 and 11.0% higher irrigation water productivitythan 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 IW: CPE, respectively. The low ir-rigation water productivity at wider IW: CPE was due tomore depth of irrigation water although increased oil yield.

EconomicsThe maximum cost of cultivation was observed in

wheat-transplanted mint cropping system (Table 3),whereas, sole mint showed the lowest cost of cultivationdue to omission of wheat cultivation in the system. Cost ofcultivation increased with increased level of irrigation dueto the extra cost incurred by more number of irrigations athigher values of IW: CPE. Nakawuka et al. (2014) alsoreported higher cost of cultivation due to increased level ofirrigation. Relay cropping of mint with wheat gave themaximum net return (Table 3). It earned 27.6% higher netreturn than sole mint crop because of higher mint oilequivalent yield. Timely planted sole mint crop gave19.4% higher net return than transplanted mint crop. Itwas due to 5.0% higher MOEY in sole mint crop. Cropsubjected to irrigation at IW: CPE 1.2 recorded the maxi-mum net return, while IW: CPE 0.6 the minimum. Themaximum B: C ratio of 2.08 was observed with relay crop-ping of mint with wheat. It was followed by timely plantedsole mint crop. The statistically lowest B: C ratio wasnoted in transplanted mint crop. Among the irrigation lev-els, 1.2 IW: CPE recorded the maximum B: C ratio. It wassignificantly superior to the remaining IW: CPE ratiosexcept IW: CPE 1.0

From the findings of the present study, it can be inferredthat the relay cropping of mint in wheat is a better optionto achieve higher mint oil equivalent yield, and monetaryreturns. For irrigation water productivity, timely plantingof sole mint crop was the best. For irrigation scheduling,IW: CPE of 1.2 was the most productive and profitable,hence can be advocated.

REFERENCES

Anwar, M., Chand, S. and Patra, D.D. 2010. Effect of graded levelof NPK on fresh herb yield, oil yield and oil composition ofsix cultivars of menthol mint. Indian Journal of NaturalProducts and Resources 1(1): 74–79.

Carpita, N.C. 1996. Structure and biogenesis of cell walls of grasses.Annual Review of Plant physiology and Plant molecularbiology 47: 445–476.

Farrav, J.F. and Williams, J.F. 1991. The effect of increase carbondioxide and temperature on carbon partitioning, source-sinkrelation and respiration. Plant Cell and Environment 14:819–830.

Khanuja, S.P.S., Kalra, A. and Singh, A.K. 2005. Medicinal and aro-matic plants: Gain from entrepreneurship. Survey of IndianAgriculture 191–194.

Kumar, S., Bahl, J.R., Bansal, R.P., Gupta, A.K., Singh, V. andSharma, S. 2002. High economic returns from companionand relay cropping of bread wheat and menthol mint in thewinter-summer season in north Indian plains. IndustrialCrops and Products 15: 103–114.

Kumar, S.T., Pandian, B.J., Rangaswamy, M.V., Manickasundaram,P. and Jeyakumar, P. 2013. Influence of deficit irrigation ongrowth, yield and yield parameters of cotton–maize croppingsequence. Agricultural Water Management 130: 90–102.

Nakawuka, P., Peters, T.R., Gallardo, K.R., Gonzalez, D.T., Okwany,R.O. and Walsh, D.B. 2014. Effect of deficit irrigation onyield, quality and costs of the production of native spear-mint. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 20:140–149.

Ram, M. and Kumar, S. 1998. Yield and resource use optimizationin late transplanted mint (Mentha arvensis) under sub-tropi-cal conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 180:109–112.

Ram, P., Patra, N.K., Kumar, B., Singh, H.B. and Kumar, S. 1998.Productivity and economic viability in early and late plantedJapanese mint (Mentha arvensis L.). Indian Perfumer 42(4):211–215.

Rathi, A.S., Kumar, A., Mishra, M.K., Kumar, R. and Kant, L. 2014.Intercropping of menthol mint (Mentha arvensis L.) in bedplanted wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Rampur district ofUttar Pradesh. Journal of Krishi Vigyan 2(2): 53–55.

Saxena, A. and Singh, J.N. 1998. Effect of irrigation, mulch andnitrogen on yield and composition of Japanese mint (Menthaarvensis) oil. Indian Journal of Agronomy 43: 179–182.

Saxena, A. and Singh. J.N. 1996. Yield and nitrogen uptake of Japa-nese mint (Mentha arvensis) under various moisture re-gimes, mulch application and nitrogen fertilization. Journalof Medicinal and Aromatic plant Sciences 18: 477–480.

Shormin, T., Khan, M.A.H. and Alaungir, M. 2009. Response ofdifferent levels of nitrogen fertilizers and water stress on thegrowth and yield of Japanese mint. Bangladesh Journal ofScientific and Industrial Research 44(1): 137–145.

Singh, A., Singh, M. and Singh, K. 1998. Use of nursery raisedplantlets for delayed planting of Japanese mint (Menthaarvensis L.): an appropriate technology for small holders inIndia. Indian Perfumer 42(2): 92–103.

Singh, S., Singh, A. and Singh V.P. 1999. Use of dust mulch andanti-transpirants for improving water use efficiency of men-thol mint (Mentha arvensis). Journal of Medicinal and Aro-matic Plant Sciences 21: 29–33.

Tassou, C.C., Nychas, G.J.E. and Skandamis, P.N. 2004. Herbs andspices and anti-microbials. In: Peter, K.V. (ed.) Handbook ofHerbs and Spices. Abington, Cambridge CB1 6AH, En-gland, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Abington Hall, pp.35–53.

Zhang, F.Y., Wu, P.T., Zhao, X.N. and Cheng, X.F. 2012. Water-saving mechanisms of intercropping system in improvingcropland water use efficiency. Ying Yong Heng Tai Xue Bao23(5): 1,400–1,406.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 117__120 (March 2018)

Effect of spacing and fertilizer management on seed production of sunnhemp(Crotalaria juncea)

S.R. MORE1, D.P. PACHARNE2 AND A.R. GAIKWAD3

Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra 413 722

Received : August 2017; Revised accepted : January 2018

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy (kharif) season of 2013 to 2015 on medium black soils ofRahuri, Maharashtra, to find out suitable spacing and fertilizer level for growth and seed yield of sunnhemp(Crotalaria juncea L). Treatments consisted of 2 spacings, viz. S

1, 30 cm × 10 cm and S

2, 45 cm × 10 cm, in main

plots and 5 fertilizer doses, viz. T1, control; T2, N : P2O5 : K2O, 20 : 40 : 20 kg/ha + FYM 5 t/ha; T3, N : P2O5 : K2O, 20: 40 : 40 kg/ha + FYM-5 t/ha; T4, N : P2O5 : K2O, 20 : 60 : 40 kg/ha + FYM 5 t/ha; and T5, N : P2O5 : K2O 20 : 60 : 60kg/ha + FYM 5 t/ha in sub-plot treatments in split-plot design, replicated thrice. The gross and net plot sizes were5.0 m × 4.0 m and 4.40 m × 3.60 m respectively. The results indicated that, the crop sown at spacing of 30 cm ×10 cm recorded significantly higher seed yield (1.76, 2.16, 1.79 and 1.90 t/ha) than 45 cm × 10 cm (1.30, 2.06,1.58 and 1.65 t/ha) in the kharif 2013, 2014, 2015 and pooled mean. Similarly, it also registered more net returns( 38.2 × 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.01) than spacing at 45 cm × 10 cm during pooled mean of 3 years.Sunnhemp crop recorded significantly higher seed yield (1.67, 2.28, 1.78 and 1.91 t/ha) with the application of fer-tilizer dose of 20: 60: 40 kg/ha, N : P2O5 : K2O

+ FYM 5 t/ha than the control treatment, but it was at par with rest ofall treatments during 3 years and pooled mean. Similar results were recorded for growth and yield attributes. Thistreatment also recorded significantly maximum net monetary returns ( 37.9 × 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (1.98)than rest of all treatments in pooled mean.

Key words : Economics, Fertilizer levels, Spacing, Seed yield, Yield attributes

2Corresponding author’s Email: pacharne.dattatray@rediffmail.com1Groundnut Breeder, 2Junior Jute Agronomist, 3Jute Breeder, JuteAINP & Cotton Improvement Project, MPKV, Rahuri, Maharashtra413 722

India is the largest producer of sunnhemp (Crotalariajuncea L.) fibre followed by Bangladesh and Brazil, ac-counting for about 27 and 23% worlds area and produc-tion (Chaudhary, 2016). Seed plays an important role inagricultural sector since it is the key factor for improvingthe productivity, quality, diversification, value-additionand sustainability component of our agriculture. Qualityseed of improved variety gives the highest return relativeto its cost. Sunnhemp is cultivated almost in all the statesof country but leading sunnhemp-growing states are UttarPradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Bihar, Maharashtra,Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Punjab, Haryana and West Bengal.The area under this fibre crop is around 0.045 million haand the annual production of fibre is 0.102 million bales,with an average productivity of 401 kg/ha (Tripathi et al.,2013b). Since sunnhemp is a leguminous green manurecrop, it has a tremendous potential in harvesting atmo-

spheric nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixation andcan supplement fertilizer nitrogen in rice–wheat croppingsystem. The 60-day-old crop accumulates about 170 kg N,20 kg P and 130 kg K/ha (Patro, 2002).

Spacing is also one of the major factors affecting seedyield of different crops. It influences growth rate and cropyield as a result of inter-plant competition for differentinputs needed for growth and development (Tripathi et al.,2013a). Among the various factors affecting its produc-tion, phosphorus plays an important role in enhancing theproduction and productivity of the crop. The unavailabil-ity of quality seeds and lack of improved agro-techniqueslike plant spacing and nutrient management are the majorconstraints for seed production of sunnhemp (Chaudhary,2016). Keeping these points in view, the present investiga-tion was undertaken to study the effect of different spac-ing and fertilizer levels on growth and seed yield ofsunnhemp.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted during 2013–2015 un-der All India Network Project on Jute & Allied Fibres,

Research Paper

118 MORE ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

MPKV, Rahuri, (19° 48' N and 19° 57' N and 74° 32' Eand 74° 19' E, 495 to 569 m above mean sea-level),Maharashtra. The soil of the experimental site is clay loam(clay 49.45%, silt 33.20% and sand 16.42%), having pH8.4 and electrical conductivity 0.29 dS/m and organic car-bon 0.58% in top of 15 cm soil. The soil-available nitro-gen was low (178.11 kg/ha), medium in available phos-phorus (17.02 kg/ha) and high in available potassium(423.0 kg/ha) and moderate in Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu i.e.6.59, 9.51, 0.62 and 3.41 µg/g of soil. The field capacity,bulk density and permanent wilting point of the surface(0–15 cm) soil were 33.2% on volume basis, 1.36 g/cc and16.71% respectively. The average annual rainfall at Rahuriis 520 mm. The rainfall received from south-west mon-soon from May to November was 618.4, 493.6 and 380.8mm and rainy days 38, 28 and 33 during 2013, 2014 and2015, which was beneficial for crop growth and seed de-velopment. The average mean annual maximum and mini-mum temperature ranged from 33° to 43°C and 6° to 18°Crespectively. The average relative humidity during morn-ing and evening hours are 59 and 35% respectively. Theexperiment was laid out in split-plot design during thekharif season in 3 replications. The main plot treatmentscomprises 2 spacings, viz. S1, 30 cm × 10 cm and S2, 45cm × 10 cm and sub-plot treatments comprises 5 fertilizerdoses, viz. T1, control; T2, N : P2O5 : K2O, 20 : 40 : 20 kg/ha + FYM 5 t/ha; T

3, N : P

2O

5 : K

2O, 20 : 40 : 40 kg/ha +

FYM 5 t/ha; T4, N : P2O5 : K2O, 20 : 60 : 40 kg/ha + FYM5 t/ha; and T

5, N : P

2O

5 : K

2O, 20 : 60 : 60 kg/ha + FYM

5 t/ha with sunnhemp variety ‘SH 4’. The gross and netplot sizes were 5.0 m × 4.0 m and 4.40 m × 3.60 m respec-tively. Doses of N, P2O5 and K2O were applied as pertreatments fully at the time of sowing during the first weekof July and the crop was harvested in the third week of

November during 2013 to 2015. The intercultural opera-tions, seed rate, protective irrigation as per critical growthstages, topping were done at 30 days after sowing andplant-protection measures were carried out as per the rec-ommendations of sunnhemp crop.

In experimental plot, 5 plants were selected randomlyfrom the second row of each plot for measurement ofgrowth and yield attributes. The crop was harvested andthreshed treatment-wise and seed yield were recordedfrom net plot and converted into t/ha. While calculatingmonetary returns, for sale of sunnhemp seed was taken as40/kg. Net returns were calculated by deducting cost ofcultivation from gross returns.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of spacingGrowth and seed yield: Crop sown at spacing of 30 cm

× 10 cm and 45 cm × 10 cm did not differ significantly ingrowth and yield attributes, but the number of branches,basal diameter (cm) and number of pods/plant were maxi-mum in 45 cm × 15 cm (Table 1). The crop sown at closerspacing recorded the higher plant population at 30 cm ×10 cm (3.33 lakh/ha) and it was reflected in significantlyhigher seed yield (1.76, 2.16, 1.79 and 1.90 t/ha) than 45cm × 10 cm (1.30, 2.06, 1.58 and 1.65 t/ha) during 3 yearsand on pooled mean. The seed yield was 15.15% higherunder plant spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm than spacing of 45cm × 10 cm in the pooled mean (Table 2). This is becausecloser spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm harvested the maximumsolar radiation and resulted in higher photosynthates,which translocated towards reproductive parts (capsule).Ulemale et al., (2001) and Tripathi et al., (2013a, b) alsoobserved significant increase in seed yield of sunnhempdue to closer spacing.

Table 1. Effect of spacings and fertilizer levels on growth and yield attributes of sunnhemp (pooled mean of 3 years)

Treatment Plant height Branches/ Capsules/ Basal Seeds/ 1,000-seed(cm) plant plant diameter/ plant capsule weight

Spacing30 cm × 10 cm 205.30 19.21 60.12 0.98 7.03 37.6945 cm × 10 cm 202.70 19.12 67.33 1.04 8.11 37.95

SEm± 3.3 0.48 1.65 0.03 0.17 0.28CD (P=0.05) NS NS 5.70 NS 0.51 NS

Fertilizer level (N: P2O

5: K

2O, kg/ha)

Control (0) 195.10 16.40 51.80 0.95 6.02 36.1520 : 40 : 20 204.90 19.44 63.75 1.02 7.18 37.0120 : 40 : 40 203.70 19.80 66.94 1.04 7.84 37.6920 : 60 : 40 207.80 21.20 68.02 1.02 8.36 37.6720 : 60 : 60 205.60 18.98 67.13 1.05 8.07 37.44

SEm± 3.30 1.06 3.43 0.03 0.24 0.16CD (P=0.05) NS 3.00 9.74 NS 0.71 0.51

March 2018] SUNNHEMP RESPONSE TO SPACING AND FERTILIZER MANAGMENT 119

Economics: The economic analysis of different cropspacings showed that, the sowing of sunnhemp crop at 30cm × 10 cm recorded the maximum seed yield and whichis ultimately resulted in highest economic returns. At 30cm × 10 cm spacing, significantly higher net returns (38.2× 103 /ha) and benefit: cost ratio (2.01) were recordedthan spacing at 45 cm × 10 cm in pooled mean of 3 years(Table 2). This might be because this treatment resulted inthe maximum seed yield as compared to 45 cm × 10 cmand that gave the maximum monetary benefit duringpooled mean of 3 years. Our results confirm the findingsof Ulemale et al. (2001), Yaragoppa et al. (2003) andChaudhary (2016).

Effect of fertilizerGrowth and yield: The balanced nutrition through ap-

plication of FYM with chemical fertilizer proved its supe-riority by recording significantly maximum growth andyield attributes. When sunnhemp crop fertilized with 20 :60 : 40 kg/ha N: P

2O

5 : K

2O + FYM 5 t/ha recorded the

maximum plant height (207.80 cm), branches/plant(21.20) and number of capsules/plant (68.02), number ofseeds/capsule (8.36). Similarly, it was also resulted inhigher seed yield (1.67, 2.28, 1.78 and 1.91 t/ha) during 3years and pooled mean (Table 2). This indicated that themaximum seed yield of sunnhemp was achieved with ap-plication of fertilizer dose of 20 : 60 : 40 kg/ha of N : P

2O

5

: K2O + FYM 5 t/ha during the period of experimentation.

This might be because of balanced nutrition through appli-cation of FYM with phosphorus fertilizer may help in re-ducing the fixation of applied phosphorus, causing an in-creased uptake of essential nutrients that resulted in in-creased growth attributes. Sunnhemp, being a legume

crop, shows more nitrate reductase activities in rootswhich is beneficial for pod/seed development stage. Theseresults are in conformity with the results obtained byKumar et al. (2005), Tripathi et al., (2009).

Economics: The application of fertilizer doses as pertreatments to the sunnhemp crop recorded different levelsof seed yield and economic returns during the period of 3years and pooled mean (Table 2). Among the fertilizer lev-els, the application of fertilizer dose 20 : 60 : 40 kg/ha ofN : P

2O

5 : K

2O kg/ha + FYM 5 t/ha registered the maxi-

mum seed yield, which ultimately resulted in higher netmonetary returns (37.9 × 103/ha) and benefit: cost ratio(1.98) than remaining fertilizer levels during the period ofexperimentation (Table 2). The results confirms findingsof Ulemale et al. (2001), Patro et al. ( 2002), Yaragoppa etal., (2003) and Tripathi et al. (2012).

InteractionInteraction effects between the different spacings and

fertilizer levels were found non-significant for growth,yield attributes and seed yield of sunnhemp.

On the basis of experiment, it could be concluded thatthe sowing of sunnhemp at spacing 30 cm × 10 cm withapplication of 20 : 60 : 40 kg/ha of N : P

2O

5 : K

2O along

with FYM 5 t/ha is beneficial for higher seed productionand economic returns of sunnhemp.

REFERENCES

Chaudhary, B. 2016. Traditional cultivation of sunnhemp(Crotalaria juncea) in eastern India. Indian Journal of Ag-ricultural Sciences 86(3): 369–372.

Kumar, C.J., Hiremath, S.M., Chittapur, B.M. and Chimmad, V.P.2005. Effect of sowing time and fertilizer levels on seed pro-duction of sunnhemp in northern transitional zone of

Table 2. Seed yield and eeconomics of sunnhemp as influenced by spacing and fertilizer management

Treatment Seed yield (t/ha) Pooled Cost of Net returns Benefit:2013 2014 2015 mean cultivation (× 103 /ha) cost

(× 103 /ha) ratio

Spacing30 cm × 10 cm 1.76 2.16 1.79 1.90 37.8 38.2 2.0145 cm × 10 cm 1.30 2.06 1.58 1.65 37.4 30.9 1.76

SEm± 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.06 – 1.84 –CD (P=0.05) 0.43 NS NS 0.21 – 6.37 –

Fertilizer level (N: P2O

5: K

2O, kg/ha)

Control (0) 1.31 1.89 1.33 1.51 35.0 25.4 1.7320 : 40 : 20 1.46 2.10 1.74 1.77 37.4 33.8 1.9020 : 40 : 40 1.66 2.18 1.77 1.87 38.0 36.8 1.9720 : 60 : 40 1.67 2.28 1.78 1.91 38.5 37.9 1.9820 : 60 : 60 1.56 2.20 1.73 1.83 39.1 34.1 1.90

SEm± 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.09 – 3.72 –CD (P=0.05) 0.24 0.24 0.32 0.25 – NS –

Selling rate of sunnhemp 40,000/t

120 MORE ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences18(3): 594–598.

Patro, H.K. 2002. Integrated nitrogen management in rice–wheatcropping system. Ph.D. Thesis, Govind Ballabh Pant Univer-sity of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand.

Tripathi, M.K., Chaudhary, K.B., Bhandari, H.R. and Harish, E.R.2012. Effect of varieties, irrigation and nitrogen managementon fibre yield of sunnhemp. Journal of Crop and Weed 8(1):84–85.

Tripathi, M.K., Chaudhary, B. Singh S.R. and Bhandari, H.R.2013a. Growth and yield of sunnhemp (Crotalaria junceaL.) as influenced by spacing and topping practices. AfricanJournal Agricultural Research 8(28): 3,744-–3,749.

Tripathi, M.K., Majumdar, B., Sarkar, S.K., Chaudhary, H. andMahapatra, B.S. 2009. Effect of integrated nutrient manage-ment on sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea) and its residual

effect on succeeding rice (Oryza sativa) in eastern UttarPradesh. Indian Journal Agricultural Sciences 79(9): 694–698.

Tripathi, M.K., Majumdar, B., Sarkar, S.K., .Bhandari, H.R.,Chaudhary, B., Saha, A.R. and Mahapatra, B.S. 2013b. In-tegrated nutrient management in (Crotalaria juncea)–rice(Oryza sativa) cropping sequence in eastern Uttar Pradesh.Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 47(3): 253–257.

Ulemale, R.B., Giri, D.G. and Shivankar, R.S. 2001. Effect of sow-ing date, row spacing and phosphate level on biomass stud-ies in sunnhemp. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Uni-versities 26(3): 323–325.

Yaragoppa, S.D., Desai, B.K., Halepyati, A.S. and Pujari, B.T. 2003.Influence of plant densities and phosphorus management ongrowth and seed yield of Sesbania aculeata (Wills.) Poir.Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 16(2): 297–299.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 121__123 (March 2018)

Bio-efficacy of early post-emergence herbicide combinations on weed flora, yieldand economics of greengram (Vigna radiata)

S. POORNIMA1, Y. SIVA LAKSHMI 2 AND T. RAM PRAKASH 3

Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 030

Received : March 2017; Revised accepted : October 2017

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy season, 2015 at Hyderabad, Telangana, on sandy-loam soil,to study the bio-efficacy of new-generation herbicidal combinations for weed management and their impact onweed flora, yield and economics of greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) Hepper]. A medium-duration variety ‘MGG 295’was used for the study. The results revealed that combinations of haloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135 g/ha + imazethapyr@ 75 g/ha at 12–15 days after sowing (DAS) and quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 12–15DAS as early post-emergence were found promising for Southern Zone of Telangana for getting higher productiv-ity and profitability.

Key words : Early post-emergence, Greengram, Hand-weeding, Net returns

Based on a part of M.Sc. Thesis, submitted by the first author toPJTSAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad in 2015 (unpublished)

1Corresponding author’s Email: poornishanmugam97@gmail.com1Ph.D. Scholar, Division of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian AgriculturalResearch Institute, New Delhi 110 012; 2Scientist, Agricultural Re-search Station, 3Senior Scientist, AICRP on Weed Control, Profes-sor Jayashankar, Telangana State Agricultural University, Tornala,Telangana 500 030;

Greengram is the third important pulse crop of India interms of area (3.77 millon ha) and production (1.52 mil-lion tones) (DAC, 2015). It serves as a vital source of veg-etable protein (19.1–28.3%) and vitamins (Singh et al.,2015). Weed infestation is one of the major constraints ingreengram cultivation and causes 50–90% yield loss(Kumar et al., 2006). Hand-weeding is effective in con-trolling the weeds but unavailability of labor and continu-ous rainfall in the rainy season do not permit it to operatetimely. It is also time-consuming and costly. Therefore,chemical control of weed forms an excellent alternative tomanual as well as mechanical weeding and providesweed-free environment from emergence up to 30–35 daysafter sowing (Dungarwal et al., 2003). Hence presentstudy was undertaken to find out the most effective earlypost-emergence herbicidal combinations on weed suppres-sion, productivity and profitability in greengram.

The field experiment was conducted during the rainyseason 2015 at College Farm, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad,Telangana, in a randomized block design with 3 replica-

tions. The experimental soil was sandy loam in texture,neutral in reaction, low in organic carbon and availablenitrogen and high in available phosphorus and potassium.Eleven treatments, viz. pendimethalin @ 1.0 kg/ha as pre-emergence, pendimethalin followed by imazethapyr @ 75g/ha as post-emergence (at 2–4-leaf stage), imazethapyr @75 g/ha, chlorimuron ethyl @ 9 g/ha, quizalofop ethyl @50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha, imazethapyr +imazamox @ 70 g/ha, propaquizafop @ 50 g/ha +imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha, haloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135 g/ha+ imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha, cycloxydim @ 80 g/ha +imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha, hand-weeding at 20 and 40 daysafter sowing (DAS) and unweeded control. The herbicidalcombinations were applied at 12–15 DAS. The crop vari-ety ‘MGG 295’ was sown on 25 July, 2015 at a spacing of30 cm × 10 cm and fertilized with 20 : 40 : 30 kg N : P2O5

: K2O/ha. All the herbicides were applied with knapsack

sprayer fitted with flat-fan nozzle. In hand-weeding treat-ment, only manual weeding was done at 20 and 40 DAS.Data on weeds were recorded at harvesting by using quad-rates (0.25 m2) from 4 randomly selected places in indi-vidual plots. Weeds were counted and cut from the basefor recording their total dry weight and then converted intosquare meter. Weed samples were sun-dried before ovendrying at 70oC until constant weight was obtained. Data onweed dry weight were subjected to square-root transfor-mation before statistical analysis to normalize their distri-bution. The experimental crop was finally harvested on10th September, 2015 after taking 2 picking of pods. The

Research Communication

122 POORNIMA ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

crop was sun-dried for 3 days and manual threshing wasdone separately for each experimental plot. The yield fromall the pickings and finally harvested and threshed cropwas combined to arrive at yield/ha. Economics of the treat-ments was computed by taking into account the prevailingmarket prices of inputs and crop outputs. The analysis ofvariance of data was carried out using OPSTAT and sig-nificance was tested by ‘F-test’.

The results showed that application of early post-emer-gence herbicides significantly influenced the weed flora,yield and economics of greengram (Table 1). Significantlylower density and dry matter of weeds were recorded withhand-weeding at 20 and 40 days after sowing, followed byhaloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/haapplied at 12–15 DAS which remained at par withquizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha ap-plied at 12–15 DAS. The seed yield was significantly su-perior with hand-weeding at 20 and 40 DAS and was ona par with haloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135 g/ha + imazethapyr@ 75 g/ha applied at 12–15 DAS and quizalofop ethyl @50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha applied at 12–15 DAS.The combination of early post-emergence herbicides re-sulted in superior control of weeds leading to higher seedyield. These results corroborate the findings of Mirjha etal. (2013). Cost of cultivation was the highest in case ofhand-weeding at 20 and 40 days after sowing, whereas itwas the lowest for unweeded control. Significantly highernet returns were observed with haloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 12–15 DAS which wason a par with quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha + imazethapyr @75 g/ha at 12–15 DAS, whereas significantly lower netreturns were observed with chlorimuron ethyl @ 9 g/ha at

12–15 days after sowing due to its phytotoxicity. Similarfindings were reported by Begum and Rao (2006). Be-cause of the higher cost of cultivation, hand-weeding at 20and 40 DAS showed significantly lower net returns thanhaloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/haand quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/hadue to more labour charges incurred for hand-weeding.Similar findings were reported by Jinger et al. (2016).Benefit: cost ratio was the highest with haloxyfop-p-me-thyl @ 135 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 12–15 DASfollowed quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75g/ha at 12–15 DAS, whereas lowest benefit: cost ratio wasobserved in chlorimuron ethyl @ 9 g/ha at 12–15 daysafter sowing due to its high phyto-toxicity throughout thecrop growth.

From the above findings it is clear that the combina-tions of haloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135 g/ha + imazethapyr @75 g/ha at 12–15 DAS and quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha +imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha applied at 12–15 DAS may besuggested for weed control in greengram in SouthernZone of Telangana for getting higher yield when there isscarcity of labour.

REFERENCES

Begum, G. and Rao, A.S. 2006. Efficacy of herbicide on weeds andrelay crop of blackgram. Indian Journal of Weed Science38(1, 2): 145–147.

DAC. 2013. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, NewDelhi.

Dungarwal, H.S., Chaplot, P.C. and Nagda, B.L. 2003. Chemicalweed control in mungbean (Plaseolus radiatus L.). IndianJournal of Weed Science 35: 283–84.

Table 1. Effect of early post-emergence herbicides on weed flora, yield and economics of greengram

Treatment Weed density Weed dry Seed Cost of Net returns Benefit:(No/plant) matter yield cultivation (×103 /ha) cost ratio

(g/m2) (kg/ha) (× 103 /ha)

Pendimethalin @ 1 kg/ha as pre-emergence 8.1 (64.4) 10.2 (102.2) 426 20.0 13.1 1.65Pendimethalin @ 1 kg/ha followed by imazethapyr 6.3 (38.5) 7.8 (61.0) 912 21.7 48.4 3.23

@ 75 g/ha as post-emergence (at 2-4 leaf stage)Imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha 7.1 (49.0) 8.9 (77.8) 742 20.1 41.3 3.05Chlorimuron ethyl @ 9 g/ha 8.1 (65.0) 10.2 (103.3) 224 20.1 -3.0 0.85Quizalofop ethyl @ 50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha 5.5 (29.5) 6.9 (46.5) 1008 21.8 55.7 3.55Imazethapyr @ + imazamox @ 70 g/ha 6.3 (38.7) 7.7 (61.4) 900 22.42 46.8 3.09Propaquizafop @ 50 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha 6.2 (38.2) 7.8 (60.5) 920 22.45 48.3 3.15Haloxyfop-p-methyl @ 135 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha 5.5 (29.0) 6.8 (45.7) 1029 22.2 56.9 3.56Cycloxydim @ 80 g/ha + imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha 7.1 (49.5) 8.9 (78.7) 737 20.9 38.4 2.84Hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS 2.3 (4.4) 2.0 (3.2) 1086 28.4 55.0 2.94Unweeded control 9.9 (96.7) 12.5 (155.9) 425 18.4 14.6 1.79

SEm± 0.20 0.19 28 – – –CD (P=0.05) 0.60 0.57 82 – – –

Original values are given in parentheses, which were transformed to “x+0.5; DAS, days after sowing

March 2018] GREENGRAM RESPONSE TO HERBICIDAL COMBINATIONS 123

Jinger, D., Sharma, R. and Dass, A. 2016. Effect of sequential appli-cation of herbicides on weed control indices and productiv-ity of rainy-season greengram (Vigna radiata) in north In-dian plains. Indian Journal of Agronomy 61(1): 112–114.

Kumar, A., Malik, Y.P. and Yadav, A. 2006. Weed management inmungbean. Journal of Legume Research 36(2): 127–129.

Mirjha, P.R., Prasad, S.K., Singh, M.K., Paikra, R.H., Patel, S. andMajumdar, M. 2013. Effect of weed control measures onweeds, nodulation, growth and yield of mungbean (Vignaradiata). Indian Journal of Agronomy 58(4): 615–617.

Singh, G., Kaur, H., Aggarwal, N. and Sharma, P. 2015. Effect ofherbicides on weeds growth and yield of greengram. IndianJournal of Weed Science 47(1): 38–42.

Indian Journal of Agronomy 63 (1): 124__127 (March 2018) Research Communication

Assessment of critical period of crop-weed competition in forage cowpea(Vigna unguiculata) and its effect on seed yield and quality

TARAMANI YADAV1, NISHA K CHOPRA2, N.K. CHOPRA3 , RAKESH KUMAR4 AND P.G. SONI5

Forage Research and Management Centre, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001

Received : May 2016; Revised accepted : November 2017

ABSTRACT

An experiment on crop-weed competition was conducted during the rainy (kharif) season of 2014 at Karnal,Haryana, to determine the critical period of forage cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] and its effect on seedyield and quality. Dominated weed species associated with the crop were Trianthema monogyana L., Commelinabenghalensis L. and Digera arvensis Forssk. among broad-leaf weeds; and Cyperus rotundus L., Echinochloacolona L., among narrow leaf weeds. Seed yield of cowpea reduced significantly with increase in the duration ofcrop-weed competition beyond 20 days after sowing (DAS). The seed yield increased significantly with the in-crease in initial duration of weed-free condition up to 60 days after sowing (DAS) which was at par with 80 DASand season-long weed-free situation. Critical period of crop-weed competition was found to be between 25–57days after sowing. Higher net returns and benefit: cost ratio can be realized keeping the crop weed free for first 60DAS.

Key words : Competition, Cowpea, Critical period, Quality, Seed yield, Weed-free, Weedy-check

Cowpea is grown throughout India for its long, greenvegetable pods, seeds, and foliage for fodder. In India,cowpea is grown on about 0.5 million ha with, an averageproductivity of 6.0 to 7. quintal seeds/ha (Ahlawat andShivakumar, 2005). For getting nutritious fodder everyseason, availability of quality seed with higher germina-tion capacity is required. Among other factors limitingfodder cowpea seed production, inadequate weed controlhad been identified as a major yield limiting factor. Frendaet al. (2013) reported that, the weed interference reducedcowpea seed yield up to 90%. Crop losses by weeds couldbe aggravated by delay in weeding or inability to weedcontrol throughout the crop-growth period. However,studies of the threshold levels of weeds have shown thatcomplete weed eliminations is not essential for highyields, probably because the crop can also competestrongly with weeds, after the critical period of weed inter-ference. Hence determination of critical period of weedcompetition will help in better management of weeds

when it is actually required with economical point of view.Furthermore, information on critical period of crop-weedcompetition is essential to optimize herbicide use. Keep-ing all these points, an experiment was conducted to deter-mine the critical period of crop-weed competition in fod-der cowpea seed crop and its effect on seed yield and qual-ity in north-western part of India.

A field experiment was conducted during the rainy(kharif) season of 2014 at the Research Farm of ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana. Thesoil was sandy clay loam, with pH 7.6 and electrical con-ductivity 0.6 dS/m. The organic carbon content and avail-able N, P and K were 0.60%, 193 kg/ha, 21.6 kg/ha and260 kg/ha respectively. The experiment was laid out in arandomized block design with 4 replications. There were10 treatments, consisting of initial weed-free periods of20, 40, 60, 80 DAS and season long and weedy up to 20,40, 60, 80 DAS and season long (Table 1). Cowpea cv ‘C152’ was sown on 23 June 2014, with row distance of 45cm and seed rate 25 kg/ha. The crop was fertilized withrecommended doses of nitrogen (15 kg N/ha), phosphorus(40 kg P

2O

5/ha) and potassium (25 kg K

2O/ha) as basal

application. A total of 422.9 mm rainfall received duringthe crop season of kharif 2014. One supplemental irriga-tion was given at 23 DAS of crop. The weed dry matterfrom each plot was periodically recorded with help of a

Based on a part of M.Sc. thesis of the first author, submitted toICAR-NDRI, Karnal during 2015 (Unpublished)

4Corresponding author Email: drdudi_rk@rediffmail.com1,5Research Scholar; 4Senior Scientist Agronomy, ICAR-NDRI,Karnal; 2,3Principal Scientist, ICAR-IARI, Regional Station, Karnal,Haryana

March 2018] EFFECT OF CROP-WEED COMPETITION IN FORAGE COWPEA 125

quadrate of 50 cm × 50 cm size. Weed dry matter wererecorded at 20, 40, 60 and 80 DAS with their respectiveperiod of crop-weed competition, as per the treatments.For statistical analysis, the data were subjected to square-root transformation √X+1. The cowpea crop was har-vested at 120 DAS and seed was threshed plot-wise torecord the yield. Critical period of crop-weed competitionwas determined as per the procedure given by Kumar(2001). Seed-quality parameters were recorded accordingto ISTA (1985).

The weed flora of the cowpea field comprised Cyperusrotundas, Echinochloa colona, among narrow leaf weedsand Trianthema monogyana L., Commelina benghalensisL. and Digera arvensis among broad-leaf weeds as domi-nated weed species and Phyllanthus niruri L.,Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Wild., Digitariasanguinalis (L.) Scop. as the other weeds of minor impor-tance during crop season.

The highest weed dry weight in plots kept weedy forseason long was observed during 40 to 60 DAS, indicat-ing high degree of competition during this period. Weeddry weight reduced with increase in weed-free period(Table 1). The maximum values regarding yield attributeswere observed in season long weed-free plot (Table 1)which was at par with 60 DAS weed-free and weed infes-tation up to 20 DAS. Keeping the weedy conditions up to20 DAS did not reduce the yield attributes significantlycompared with weed-free season long treatment. Signifi-cant reduction in seed yield was recorded when weedingwas delayed by 40 days after sowing. There was reductionof 21.8, 28.1, 34.4 and 42.2% in seed yield at weedy 40,60, 80 DAS and season-long weedy compared to weed-free season long. Keeping the crop weed free up to initial40 days recorded 25.1% reduction in yield. Thus, starting

weed-free days favoured the crop growth by suppressingthe weeds. By using the LSD=12.5, we can observe thatthe seed yield was statistically at par with season longweed-free treatment, weed free up to 80 DAS and weedycheck up to 20 DAS. When weedy period lasted only upto 25 days and thereafter weed-free period up to 57 daysor more (Fig. 1) caused non-significant yield reduction;hence an extrapolated critical period of weed competitionranged from 25 to 57 DAS in cowpea during the kharifseason. Tripathi and Singh (2001) reported that, criticalstage of weed competition in cowpea was 15–45 DAS.Weed competition significantly affected the seed-qualityparameters of cowpea. Seed weight (1,000 seeds) was sig-nificantly reduced with the increase of weedy period andlowest was found in season long weedy check followed byweedy up to 80 DAS. The 1,000-seed weight remainedstatistically at par between weed-free up to 60 DAS,weedy up to 20 DAS and season-long weed-free. Chopraet al. (2002) also reported lower 1,000-seed weight inweedy check compared to weed-free conditions.

Season-long weed-free condition recorded 20.5, 13,7and 16.9% higher germination compared to weedy seasonlong, weedy up to 80 DAS and weed free up to 20 DAS,respectively, which might be due to higher weed dry-mat-ter accumulations in these treatments. Weed free up to 60DAS showed significantly higher germination comparedto weed-free up to 20 DAS and weedy season long. Seed-quality parameters were found the highest in season-longweed-free and the minimum in season-long weedy checktreatment. There was reduction in the seedling length ofweedy check and weed free up to 20 DAS was 14.3 and11.2% compared to weed-free season-long, respectively.The seedling-vigour index was the maximum under sea-son-long weed-free condition followed by weed-free for

Table 1. Effect of time of weed removal on weed dry weight and yield attributes in cowpea

Treatment Weed dry weight (g/0.25 m2) Plant Pods/ Pod 1,000-seed20 DAS 40 DAS 60 DAS 80 DAS height plant length weight

(cm) (cm) (g)

WF 20 DAS 0.0 33.1 41.9 23.6 75.5 10.3 14.4 73.0WF 40 DAS 0.0 0.0 29.5 18.5 78.1 11.0 14.4 83.0WF 60 DAS 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9 85.1 13.7 15.2 85.0WF 80 DAS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.1 13.8 15.1 89.0Season-long WF 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.8 14.4 15.5 93.0WC 20 DAS 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.8 13.4 15.1 84.0WC 40 DAS 18.8 67.7 0.0 0.0 85.6 11.4 14.3 81.0WC 60 DAS 19.2 69.2 48.4 0.0 80.8 9.8 14.2 80.0WC 80 DAS 18.7 72.5 47.2 30.4 77.6 9.9 14.0 70.0Season long WC 20.5 72.3 50.6 33.1 76.0 9.1 13.3 61.0

SEm± 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.1 0.2 3.0CD (P=0.05) 6.2 5.9 6.7 5.0 4.6 3.2 0.5 10.0

WF, Weed-free; WC, weedy check; DAS, days after sowing

126 TARAMANI YADAV ET AL. [Vol. 63, No. 1

80 DAS which was at par with weedy check for 20 DAS,whereas it was significantly higher than season long weedfree. The seedling-vigour index is the indicator of thequality of seed and this was being changed with weedstress, possibly because of competition between mothercrop and with weeds. Highest seedling-vigour index wasreported by Das et al. (1993) with heavier seeds in wheat.

The maximum net income was observed with weed-free up to 60 DAS with the highest benefit: cost ratio fol-lowed by season long weed-free condition and the mini-mum with season-long weedy check treatment with high-est cost of production.

Based on this study, it can be concluded that higher

Table 2. Effect of time of weed removal on grain yield, quality, and economics of cowpea

Treatment Green Grain Cost of Gross Net Benefit: Seed Seedling Seedlingfodder yield production returns returns cost germination length vigouryield (t/ha) (× 103 (× 103 (× 103 ratio (%) (cm) index I(t/ha) /ha) /ha) /ha)

WF 20 DAS 23.3 0.41 38.6 74.5 35.9 0.9 78.0 42.9 3,391.3WF 40 DAS 25.3 0.48 38.6 83.4 44.8 1.2 83.0 44.2 3,772.6WF 60 DAS 34.3 0.58 43.6 107.5 63.9 1.5 89.0 45.3 3,708.6WF 80 DAS 35.0 0.60 48.6 109.6 60.9 1.3 89.5 48.1 4,198.5Season long WF 37.5 0.64 53.6 117.3 63.7 1.2 91.3 48.3 4,309.7WC 20 DAS 31.9 0.59 48.6 104.4 55.8 1.1 87.3 47.5 4,153.7WC 40 DAS 28.9 0.50 43.6 91.0 47.4 1.1 86.3 46.1 3,815.2WC 60 DAS 22.5 0.46 38.6 77.0 38.4 1.0 83.3 44.3 3,739.6WC 80 DAS 22.2 0.42 38.6 73.1 34.5 0.9 80.3 44.9 3,707.6Season long WC 18.6 0.37 33.6 63.1 29.5 0.9 75.8 41.4 3,210.2

SEm± 2.3 0.03 – – – – 3.0 1.5 213.4CD (P=0.05) 6.8 0.08 – – – – 8.7 4.4 619.4

Price of cowpea seed, 90/kg, price of fodder, 1600/t) WF, weed free; WC, weedy check

seed yield and quality of forage cowpea seed may be real-ized by controlling the weeds for first 60 days after sow-ing with higher net returns and benefit: cost ratio.

REFERENCES

Ahlawat, I.P.S. and Shivakumar, G.B. 2005. Kharif pulses. (In) Text-book of Field Crops Production, Prasad, R. (Ed.). IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

Chopra, N.K., Chopra, N., Sinha, S.N. and Vinod, K. 2006. Effectof glyphosate spray on seed yield and quality attributes inwatermelon. Seed Research 34(1): 50–53.

Chopra, N., Singh, H.P. and Chopra, N.K. 2002. Effect of weedstress on seed quality of wheat. Indian Journal of Agricul-tural Sciences 72(4): 238–240.

Das, N.R., Ghosh, N. and Mukherjee, N.N. 1993. Seed character

Fig. 1. Interpretation of critical period of crop-weed competition in cowpea (WF, Weed-free; WC, weedycheck)

% W

eed

free

yie

ld

March 2018] EFFECT OF CROP-WEED COMPETITION IN FORAGE COWPEA 127

and seedling vigour of wheat (Triticum aestivum) after trans-planting rice (Oryza sativa) as affected by tillage and fertil-izer. Seed Research 2: 756–762.

Frenda, A.S., Ruisi, P., Saia, S., Frangipane, B., Di Miceli, G.,Amato, G. and Giambalvo, D. 2013. The critical period ofweed control in faba bean and chickpea in mediterraneanareas. Weed Science 61(3): 452–459.

ISTA. 1985. International rules for seed testing. Seed Science andTechnology 13: 299–355.

Kumar, S. 2001. Critical period of weed competition in Cumin(Cuminum cyminum L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science33(1, 2): 30–33.

Tripathi, S.S. and Singh, G. 2001. Critical period of weed competi-tion in summer cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Indian Jour-nal of Weed Science 33: 67–68.