Influence of Integrated Nutrient Management on Soil Properties of Old Alluvial Soil under Mustard Cropping System

Download Influence of Integrated Nutrient Management on Soil Properties of Old Alluvial Soil under Mustard Cropping System

Post on 19-Feb-2017

217 views

Category:

Documents

5 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • This article was downloaded by: [Ume University Library]On: 07 October 2014, At: 08:38Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

    Communications in Soil Science andPlant AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

    Influence of Integrated NutrientManagement on Soil Properties of OldAlluvial Soil under Mustard CroppingSystemArnab Banerjee a , Jayanta K. Datta a , N. K. Mondal a & T. Chanda aa Department of Environmental Science , The University ofBurdwan , West Bengal , IndiaPublished online: 25 Oct 2011.

    To cite this article: Arnab Banerjee , Jayanta K. Datta , N. K. Mondal & T. Chanda (2011)Influence of Integrated Nutrient Management on Soil Properties of Old Alluvial Soil under MustardCropping System, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 42:20, 2473-2492, DOI:10.1080/00103624.2011.609256

    To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2011.609256

    PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

    Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

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

    http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00103624.2011.609256http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2011.609256http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

  • Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 42:24732492, 2011Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0010-3624 print / 1532-2416 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00103624.2011.609256

    Influence of Integrated Nutrient Management onSoil Properties of Old Alluvial Soil under Mustard

    Cropping System

    ARNAB BANERJEE, JAYANTA K. DATTA, N. K. MONDAL,AND T. CHANDA

    Department of Environmental Science, The University of Burdwan, West Bengal,India

    Field experiments were conducted at the fields of Crop Research and SeedMultiplication Farm of Burdwan University, Burdwan, West Bengal, India during thewinter seasons of 20052006, 20062007, and 20072008 in old alluvial soil (pH-6-7)to evaluate the influence of integrated nutrient management on soil physicochemicaland biological properties under mustard (Brassica campestris cv. B9) cropping sys-tem. In the first year (20052006), seven varieties of mustard were cultivated underrecommended dose of chemical fertilizer (100:50:50). In the second year of the exper-iment (20062007), six different doses of biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer wereapplied. In the third year (20072008), six different level of compost along with acombined dose of biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer (T3-3/4 Chemical fertilizer: 1/4biofertilizer) were applied. The results indicated significant improvement in the soilquality by increasing soil porosity and water holding capacity significantly, as well asgradual build-up of soil macronutrient status after harvesting of the crop. Applicationsof biofertilizers have contributed significantly toward higher soil organic matter, nitro-gen (N), available phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). The use of biofertilizers andcompost have mediated higher availability of iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn),copper (Cu), and boron (B) in soil. The use of biofertilizers and compost significantlyimproved soil bacterial and fungal population count in the soil, thereby increasing thesoil health.

    Keywords Biofertilizer, compost, mustard, soil quality

    Introduction

    Applications of chemical fertilizers have contributed significantly to the huge increase inthe world food production. As world population is increasing almost exponentially, thereis an urgent need to consider other novel ways of increasing food production that arecompatible with sustainability and the retention of environmental quality.

    The requirement of nutrients has increased many fold with the adoption of improvedtechnology for obtaining higher yields per unit area. Continuous use of inorganic fertilizersresulted in deficiency of micronutrients, imbalance in soil physicochemical properties, andunsustainable crop production. With the increased cost of inorganic fertilizers, applicationof the recommended dose is difficult for small and marginal farmers to afford. Hence

    Received 11 July 2010; accepted 15 May 2011.Address correspondence to Dr. Arnab Banerjee, Department of Environmental Science, The

    University of Burdwan, Burdwan-713104, West Bengal, India. E-mail: arnabenvsc@yahoo.co.in

    2473

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 2474 A. Banerjee et al.

    renewable and low cost sources of plant nutrients for supplementing and complement-ing chemical fertilizers should be substituted which can be affordable to the majority ofthe farming community. In this context, integrated nutrient management would be a viablestrategy for advocating judicious and efficient use of chemical fertilizers with a matchingaddition of organic manures and biofertilizers.

    Long-term additions of fertilizers along with manures helps to bring soil pH towardneutral, increasing soil organic carbon content, macronutrients [nitrogen (N), phosphate(P), potassium (K)], and micronutrient [iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu),and boron (B)] availability, and improved physical properties leading to sustainance of fer-tility (Maji and Mondal,2004). One hundred percent of NPK applied through chemicalfertilizers increased the bulk density significantly over the organic manure consisting of50% substitution of NPK through vermicompost, gliricidia, and farm yard manure (FYM)after harvest of rice, while later treatments did not show any increase in bulk densityover the initial value (Yadav, 1998). Application of 50% the recommended NPK of fertil-izer + 50% N through FYM significantly reduced the bulk density of the soil as comparedto initial status after harvest of rice, whereas it increased with 100% recommended NPKthrough fertilizers after harvest of maize and groundnut (Talathi et al., 2002). Applicationof 50% of the recommended nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium (NPK) through fertiliz-ers + 50% N through FYM showed remarkable increase in water holding capacity (WHC)of soil after harvest of rice, while 75% of the recommended NPK through fertilizers notedhigher WHC after maize and groundnut reported significant effects of enriched compost onsoil nutrients (Kavitha & Subramanian, 2007). Chavan et al. (2007) reported that physico-chemical properties of the soil improved significantly by the addition of organic manuresand that there was very little change due to inorganic fertilizers. It is apparent that thereis a need to generate more information on integrated nutrient recommendations for crop-ping systems for sustained crop production through increased soil productivity in long termexperiments. Hence, an investigation was undertaken to determine the effect of integratednutrient management with biofertilizer, compost, and inorganic fertilizers on soil fertilityand health under mustard cropping system.

    Material and Methods

    Field experiments were conducted at Crop Research and Seed Multiplication Farm,Burdwan University, Burdwan, West Bengal, India at latitude 875012 E and longi-tude 231512 N during winter season of 20052006, 20062007, and 20072008. In20052006, the treatment comprised of the recommended dose of chemical fertilizer forseven available varieties of mustard (B9, B-54, TWC-3, Panchali, Malek-2, Sanjukta, andNathsona). In 20062007, the treatment combination includes T1-Recommended doses ofchemical fertilizer (100:50:50, i.e., 100 kg ha1N: 50 kg ha1P: 50 kg ha1 K), T2-1/2chemical fertilizer (50 kg ha1N+ 25 kg ha1P: 25 kg ha1 K): 1/2 biofertilizer (0.13kg ha1 Azotobacter + 0.13 kg ha1 Phosphobacter), T3-3/4th Chemical fertilizer(75 kg ha1 N + 37.5 kg ha1 P: 37.5 kg ha1 K: 1/4th biofertilizer (0.06 kg ha1Azotobacter + 0.06 kg ha1 Phosphobacter), T4-3/4th biofertilizer (0.19 kg ha1Azotobacter + 0.19 kg ha1 Phosphobacter): 1/4th chemical fertilizer (25 kg ha1N + 12.5 kg ha1 P: 12.5 kg ha1 K), T5-recommended dose of biofertilizer (0.26kg ha1 Azotobacter + 0.26 kg ha1 Phosphobacter) and T6-Control (without any chemi-cal fertilizer). In 20072008 the treatment comprised of T1-Control without any compost,

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Integrated Nutrient Management 2475

    T2-4.5mt.ha1, T3-6.0 mt.ha1, T4-7.5mt.ha1, T5-9.0 mt.ha1, and T6-10.5 mt.ha1 alongwith T2 treatment of combined dose of biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer of the previousyear of 20062007. The experiments were laid out in a randomized block design (RBD)and the respective treatments were applied to each plot. Each treatment was replicated threetimes. The N, P, and K were applied in the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriateof potash (potassium chloride). A pure culture of Azotobacter chrococcum isolated fromthe rhizospheric soil of rice plants of local crop fields of Burdwan district, West Bengal,India was used, as was a pure culture of Phosphobacter (Bacillus sp) isolated from themunicipal garbage of Burdwan town, West Bengal, India. The strain A. chrococcum weregrown on selective hi media for Azotobacter and the Phosphobacter strain (Bacilus sp)were grown on Pikovskias medium at 30

    c on a shaker incubator at 150 rpm. After 48

    hours, cells were harvested by centrifugation (6000 g for 10 minutes). Cell pellets werewashed twice with sterile water. Washed cells were mixed with sterilized charcoal and usedas inoculum for the seed treatments in the field trials.

    For preparation of the compost, a pit comprising 4 feet 6 feet in dimension and4 feet deep was prepared. Then the pit was filled with the cow dung collected from thesurrounding villages. A final layer of soil was applied over the compost pit and allowed toremain for three months for bacterial decomposition to take place. After three months thecompost was taken out from the pit and applied to the experimental field. The chemicalproperties of the experimental compost were pH 6.9, organic carbon (C) 9.85 %, availableN 1.15%, available P 35.91 kg ha1, and available K 220.19 kg ha1.

    Soil samples were collected prior to layout of the experiment and after harvesting ofcrops for three consecutive years. Soil samples were collected from 030cm depth, ran-domly from three selected spots using a soil augur. After collection of the soil, it wastransferred into thick quality polythene bags and taken to the laboratory for further analy-sis. In the laboratory the soil sample was air dried and then ground by using a wooden pestleand mortar and sieved through the 2mm mesh size sieve. After sieving the refined materialit was used for soil physico-chemical analysis. Soil bulk density, particle density, porosity,and water holding capacity were determined by the standard methods as described by Black(1965). Soil pH was determined using 1:10 soil/water extract and conductivity measuredusing 1:2 soil/water extract. Available N by potassium permanganate (KMnO4)-oxidizableN (Subbiah & Asija, 1956); organic carbon by potassium dichromate oxidation by Walkley(1947) method, as modified by Jackson (1958). Available P of soil was estimated by theOlsen method (Olsen et al., 1954) and available K of soil was estimated by extraction withammonium acetate at pH 7.0 (MAPA, 1994). The available iron (Fe) content in soil wasestimated by extraction with ammonium acetate at pH 3.5 (Krishnamurthi, Mahavir, &Sharma, 1970), available manganese (Mn) by extraction with ammonium acetate at pH 7.0(Willard & Greathouse, 1917), available boron (B) by boron curcumin complex formationmethod (Dible, Truog, & Berger, 1954). The extractable elements (Cu and Zn) were deter-mined by using suitable extractants (0.5 M diethelenetriaminepentaaceticacid (DTPA) +0.01 M calcium chloride (CaCl2) + 0.1 M triethanolamine, adjusted to pH 7.3 (Lindsay &Norvell, 1978).

    For a microbiological analysis of the experimental soil, fresh soil samples were col-lected both before land preparation and after harvesting and microbial assay were donefollowing the method of Walksman and Fred (1922) to enumerate the number of bacte-ria, fungi, Azotobacter, and Phosphobacter in the collected soil sample. All the replicateddata of three years were analysed by one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and then therelevant data were statistically analysed for Duncans Multiple Range Test (DMRT) usingsoftware package STATISTICA (Stat Soft Inc.1998)

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 2476 A. Banerjee et al.

    Results and Discussion

    Soil Physical Characteristics

    Soil bulk density did not showed any significant change in soils both before sowing andafter harvesting irrespective of treatments during both the years20052006 and 20062007which may be due to application of different levels of chemical fertilizers. In 20072008,the bulk density value significantly reduced in soils from T2 to T6 treatments with respectto control (T1) both before sowing and after harvesting when compost were applied alongwith biofertilizers and chemical fertilizers. The addition of organic manure destroyed thedevelopment of hardpan in soil thus lowering the bulk density as was reported by Bavaskarand Zende (1973) (Table 1).

    The particle density (g/cc) of soil reduced significantly in soil in all the treatmentsafter harvesting the crop in comparison to before sowing for all the three years of20052006, 20062007, and 20072008 which might be due to higher levels of organicmatter present in the soil after harvesting, contributing significantly toward the reductionof particle density values (Table 1).

    In 20052006, the porosity value reduced in soil samples after harvesting in com-parison to soil samples before sowing which may be...