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

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 attributed to the deterioration ofsoil structure by the applied nitrogenous fertilizer in the soil (Bhatia & Shukla, 1982). In20062007 and in 20072008, the increased porosity value in soil samples after harvestingin comparison to soil taken before land preparation for seed sowing may be attributed tobetter aggregation and decreased bulk density under the influence of high organic matteraddition leading to development of crumb structure with high soil porosity and better aera-tion. The results of the present investigation are in agreement with the findings of Biswas,Jain, and Mandal (1971). The maximum increase of the porosity value were observed dur-ing 20072008 which might be attributed to the simulative action of compost on nativeearthworms which might have had a build-up of worm population, leading to increases inthe soil macro pores through their burrowing action. The results of the present investigationare in agreement with the findings of Reddy and Reddy (1998) (Table 2).

    Water holding capacity of soil samples increased after harvesting of crops more thanbefore sowing in all of the years, but significant change was found in 2007. In the first year,the balanced dose of NPK fertilizer (recommended dose) and the application of biofertilizerand compost for the second and third year of the experimental period may have contributedsignificantly toward the accumulation of organic matter, resulting in improved aggregationand favorable pore geometry in the soil. The results of the present investigation are inagreement with the findings of Biswas, Jain, and Mandal (1971). The increase in waterholding capacity for the subsequent three years may be partially attributed to the decreasein bulk density of the soil (Malewar & Hasnabade, 1995) (Table 2).

    Soil Chemical Characteristics

    During 20052006, the pH showed both an increasing and decreasing trend due to applica-tion of recommended doses of chemical fertilizer (N:P:K100:50:50). The results of thepresent investigation are in agreement with the findings of Ramteke, Mahadkar, and Yadav(1998). In 20062007, pH value before sowing ranged between 6.59 (T5) to 6.89 (T1) andafter harvesting the value ranged between 6.01 (T1) and 6.80 (T4). The pH value decreasedin all treatments of 20062007 except T6. In 20072008, the pH value showed an increas-ing trend after harvesting of crop with respect to soils before land preparation. Soil pH

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e1

    Soilphysicalproperty

    undermustard

    cropping

    system

    during

    20052006,

    20062007,

    and20072008

    Bulkdensity

    (g/cc)

    Particledensity

    (g/cc)

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    1.35

    a1.28

    abcd

    T1

    1.33

    ab1.32

    ab1.32

    a1.24

    aV

    12.52

    a2.10

    bcde

    T1

    2.53

    a2.18

    abc

    2.53

    a2.18

    a

    V2

    1.34

    abc

    1.23

    abcdef

    T2

    1.34

    a1.33

    a1.28

    ab1.14

    bV

    22.48

    abc

    2.06

    fT2

    2.48

    abcd

    2.08

    e2.46

    ab2.17

    ab

    V3

    1.30

    abcdef

    1.29

    abc

    T3

    1.32

    abcd

    1.31

    abcd

    1.24

    abcd

    1.12

    bcV

    32.46

    abcde

    2.12

    bcT3

    2.51

    ab2.19

    a2.42

    abc

    2.14

    abc

    V4

    1.32

    abcd

    1.31

    abT4

    1.30

    abcde

    1.29

    abcde

    1.18

    e1.10

    bcd

    V4

    2.51

    ab2.14

    bT4

    2.42

    abcde

    2.11

    d2.36

    abcd

    2.12

    abcd

    V5

    1.29

    abcdef

    1.27

    abcde

    T5

    1.33

    abc

    1.32

    abc

    1.26

    abc

    1.07

    bcde

    V5

    2.48

    abcd

    2.12

    bcd

    T5

    2.49

    abc

    2.19

    ab2.28

    abcde

    2.05

    abcde

    V6

    1.35

    ab1.32

    aT6

    1.31

    abcde

    1.26

    abcde

    1.16

    e1.02

    fV

    62.46

    abcdef

    2.18

    aT6

    2.46

    abcde

    2.08

    e2.24

    abcde

    2.09

    abcde

    V7

    1.31

    abcde

    1.25

    abcdef

    V7

    2.44

    abcdef

    2.05

    f

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entarenotsignificantly

    differentat

    5%usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.

    BS=

    before

    sowing;

    AH=

    afterharvestin

    g.

    2477

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e2

    Soilphysicalproperty

    undermustard

    cropping

    system

    during

    20052006,

    20062007,

    and20072008

    Porosity

    (%)

    WHC(%

    )

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    52.00d

    48.57b

    cde

    T1

    47.44a

    50.86a

    b46.62a

    48.38d

    V1

    41.89a

    b42.45a

    bcde

    T1

    43.89a

    44.45a

    bcd

    41.69a

    bcde

    44.54d

    e

    V2

    51.56d

    ef50.00b

    T2

    46.62a

    bcd

    46.17e

    44.56b

    47.95d

    eV

    240.56a

    bcdef45.41a

    T2

    42.26a

    bcd

    43.89a

    bcde

    43.32a

    bc46.16d

    e

    V3

    54.18a

    bc48.58b

    cde

    T3

    45.14a

    bcde

    41.59f

    42.34b

    cd51.83a

    bcV

    340.32a

    bcdef41.87a

    bcdef

    T3

    42.81a

    bc44

    .86a

    bc44

    .18a

    52.38a

    bc

    V4

    54.36a

    b48.13b

    cde

    T4

    44.98a

    bcde

    48.96c

    41.86b

    cde53.87a

    V4

    40.98a

    bcde

    41.16a

    bcdef

    T4

    41.65a

    bcde

    45.87a

    b41

    .16a

    bcde

    48.17d

    V5

    51.56d

    efg

    50.00b

    cT5

    46.66a

    bc51.21a

    40.88b

    cde48.05d

    eV

    541.68a

    bc43.86a

    bcT5

    40.62a

    bcde

    44.45a

    bcde

    42.48a

    bcd

    54.63a

    V6

    56.16a

    53.21a

    T6

    47.32a

    b48.30c

    d42.45b

    c53.54a

    bV

    641.18a

    bcd

    42.50a

    bcd

    T6

    43.38a

    b47

    .50a

    43.39a

    b53.56a

    b

    V7

    50.62d

    efg

    48.78b

    cdV

    742.84a

    44.16a

    b

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entarenotsignificantly

    differentat

    5%usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.

    BS=

    before

    sowing;

    AH=

    afterharvestin

    g.

    2478

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Integrated Nutrient Management 2479

    decreased after harvesting of crops during 20062007, which may be due to the productionof organic acids (amino acid, glycine, cystein, and humic acid) during mineralization(ammonization and ammonification) of indigenous organic materials by heterotrophs andnitrification by autotrophs. The combined application of biofertilizer, chemical fertilizer,and compost for the third year contributed significantly to the increase in the soil pH afterharvesting (Ramteke, Mahadkar, & Yadav, 1998) (Table 3).

    The results show that the electrical conductivity (EC) of soil was significantly influ-enced by the different treatments in all three years of experiment. During 20052006, adecreasing trend appeared in comparison to the level before preparation of the field thatmight be due to the accumulation of salts liberated from the chemical fertilizers (Khiani &Moore, 1984; Patil, 1997). During 20062007 and 20072008, there was a progressiveincrease in the level of EC in all treatments which may be attributed tothe combined effectof biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer which have contributed significantly tothe increasein buffering capacity of the soil. The decomposition of organic materials released acids oracid forming compounds that reacted with the sparingly soluble salts already present inthe soil and either converted them into soluble salts or at least increased their solubility,thus increasing the conductivity value. The results of the present investigation are in agree-ment with the findings of Khiani and Moore (1984) (Table 4). In 20052006, the organiccarbon level before preparation of the field lies between 0.708% (V7) and 0.785 (V1)and after harvesting of the crop the soil organic carbon content varies between 0.645%(V3) and 0.760% (V1). There was a significant amount of decrease in the level of soilorganic carbon under the recommended dose of chemical fertilizer during the first yearwhich may be attributed to the deleterious effect of chemical fertilizer leading to forma-tion of improper stable aggregates and therefore low organic carbon content in soil afterharvesting. In 20062007, the organic carbon (OC) level increased from T2 treatment toT6 treatment with gradual increase in the dose of biofertilizer. In 20072008, the OC levelincreased after harvesting more than before sowing from T2 treatment to T6 treatment incomparison to T1 treatment where no compost had been applied (Table 4). The gradualbuild-up of soil organic carbon status in 20062007 and 20072008 may be attributed toapplication of compost along with biofertilizer and chemical fertilizer.

    Under the influence of biofertilizer, decomposition of complex organic matter in com-post and subsequent conversion to mineralized organic colloids took place, which wasadded to the soil organic carbon pool. The results of the present investigation are inagreement with the findings of Ramaswami and Son (1997).

    In 20052006, the level of nitrogen content in the soil was greater after harvesting ofthe crop as compared to the nitrogen content in the soil before land preparation which maybe due to lack of a balanced dose of nutrients as well as low uptake by the crop plants,therefore increasing the nitrogen status of soil. The results of the present investigationare in agreement with the findings of Nephade and Wankhade (1987). The results of thepresent study showed that the available nitrogen was higher in soil after harvesting ofcrop than before sowing during 20062007 and 20072008 due to positive interactionbetween the applied biofertilizers (Azotobacter, Phosphobacter) and the soil components,as well as biological fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by bacterial fertilizers on one handand continuous release of nutrients from the applied compost on the other hand during thethird year. The results of the present investigation are in agreement with the findings ofDas, Dang, and Shivananda (2008) (Table 4).

    The results of the present study showed that level of available potassium increased inthe post-harvesting soil as compare to soil before land preparation for sowing which may beattributed tothe differential rate of nutrient uptake capacity of the seven varieties of mustard

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e3

    Soilchem

    icalproperty

    undermustard

    cropping

    system

    during

    20052006,

    20062007,

    and20072008

    pHEC(m

    mho

    /cm

    )

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    6.85

    a6.88

    abc

    T1

    6.89

    a6.01

    f6.75

    a6.87

    aV

    10.184b

    c0.108g

    T1

    0.164a

    0.166d

    e0.158a

    bc0.156e

    V2

    6.81

    ab6.68

    fT2

    6.78

    abc

    6.23

    d6.62

    b6.78

    bV

    20.188a

    0.126e

    fT2

    0.162a

    bcd

    0.168d

    e0.146a

    bcde

    0.159e

    V3

    6.66

    abcde

    6.46

    gT3

    6.66

    abcde6.22

    de6.05

    e6.12

    fV

    30.181d

    0.135e

    T3

    0.158a

    bcde

    0.172d

    0.155a

    bcde

    0.170d

    V4

    6.78

    abc

    6.88

    abT4

    6.82

    ab6.80

    a6.22

    c6.47

    deV

    40.178e

    0.156b

    cdT4

    0.154a

    bcde

    0.188b

    c0.158a

    bc0.186c

    V5

    6.71

    abcd

    6.86

    abcd

    T5

    6.59

    abcde6.40

    c6.18

    cd6.48

    dV

    50.185b

    0.178a

    T5

    0.162a

    bc0.189b

    0.168a

    b0.197b

    V6

    6.64

    abcdef

    6.78

    eT6

    6.76

    abcd

    6.65

    b6.24

    c6.58

    cV

    60.176e

    f0.166b

    T6

    0.164a

    b0.195a

    0.174a

    0.199a

    V7

    6.58

    abcdef

    6.92

    aV

    70.168g

    0.159b

    c

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesamelette

    r(S)with

    intreatm

    entare

    notsignific

    antly

    differentat5

    %usingDun

    cansmultip

    lerang

    etest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    are

    taken.

    BS=

    before

    sowing;

    AH=

    afterharvestin

    g.

    2480

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e4

    Soilchem

    icalproperty

    undermustard

    cropping

    system

    during

    20052006,

    20062007,

    and20072008

    OrganicC(%

    )Available-N(kg.ha

    1)

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    0.785a

    0.760a

    T1

    0.722a

    bcde

    0.715f

    0.705f

    0.615f

    V1

    206.976d

    e225.792d

    T1

    216.88

    abcde

    212.83

    a20

    8.97

    6f21

    8.16

    f

    V2

    0.746e

    0.702d

    T2

    0.726a

    bcd

    0.745e

    0.718e

    0.785e

    V2

    201.118d

    ef206.976g

    T2

    210.76

    abcde

    220.46

    b21

    4.11

    8e22

    6.97

    6e

    V3

    0.762d

    0.645g

    T3

    0.732a

    bc0.761d

    0.732d

    0.796d

    V3

    210.372c

    228.752c

    T3

    222.18

    abcd

    251.645c

    218.10

    6cd

    230.11

    2d

    V4

    0.744e

    f0.702d

    eT4

    0.738a

    0.784a

    bc0.768c

    0.816c

    V4

    202.568d

    ef210.112f

    T4

    229.32

    ab273.18

    d21

    9.13

    4c24

    1.47

    2c

    V5

    0.782a

    b0.758a

    bT5

    0.734a

    b0.794a

    b0.782b

    0.836b

    V5

    216.118b

    282.24

    bT5

    235.36

    a282.59

    e22

    4.11

    6b25

    7.15

    2b

    V6

    0.769c

    0.741c

    T6

    0.726a

    bcde

    0.798a

    0.794a

    0.856a

    V6

    208.976d

    213.952e

    T6

    222.48

    abc

    294.78

    f23

    1.11

    8a26

    4.01

    6a

    V7

    0.708g

    0.699d

    efV

    7224.118a

    288.512a

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entarenotsignificantly

    differentat

    5%usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.

    BS=

    before

    sowing;

    AH=

    afterharvestin

    g.

    2481

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 2482 A. Banerjee et al.

    during 20052006. In 20062007, the declining trend in the level of available potassiumin the soil after harvesting of the crops may be attributed to the ready uptake of K by thecrops under greater mobilization in the soil and plant system under the influence of theapplied biofertilizer. During 20072008, the conjoint application of compost, biofertilizer,and chemical fertilizer resulted in an increase in the level of available potassium (K) in thepost-harvest soil. The results indicate that improvements in available potassium contentcame from K released from organic input of applied compost or from increased availabilityof native potassium following the addition of compost. Most of the simple cationic formsof nutrients present in the soil at any time are in exchangeable forms associated with clayminerals and the organic fractions of the soil, of which these can be rapidly exchanged withcations in the soil solution. The results of the present investigation are in agreement withthe findings of Das, Praad, and Goutam (2003) under cotton wheat sequence and Chavanet al. (2007) under sorghum wheat cropping sequences (Table 5).

    During 20052006, the level of available P was higher in the soil samples col-lected after harvesting of crops, which may be attributed to the presence of phosphorousunder adsorbed conditions or insoluble inorganic forms under chemical fertilizer treatment(Sharpley, 2000). During 20062007, there is significant decrease in the available phospho-rous level in the soil after harvesting which may be due to higher amounts of crop uptakedue to higher mobilization of phosphorous in soil from bound form to available form medi-ated by the applied Phosphobacter as biofertilizer in the field. In 20072008, the combinedapplication of biofertilizer, chemical fertilizer, and compost have contributed significantlyto the increase in the level of available phosphorous which may be due to physico-chemicalrelease of inorganic and organic phosphorous by organic acids through the action of lowermolecular weight organic anions such as oxalate which can replace phosphorous absorbedat metal hydroxide surfaces through ligand exchange reactions and dissolved metal oxidesurfaces that absorb phosphorus (Fox, Comeford, & Fee, 1990).

    The overall conclusions drawn from the observed data in 20072008 lead to com-post contributing more than chemical fertilizer in the building of the phosphorous status ofthe soil and when an organic source of nutrition is applied, the bond between phosphoruscompounds with calcium carbonate present in the soil is broken resulting in the release ofphosphorous in a higher available form. The authors findings corroborate with the earlierfindings of Singh et al. (2002). The results of the present study showed that in all threeyears the available iron content increased during post harvesting more than before sow-ing, which is attributed to high levels of indigenous organic matter being present in thesoil along with the applied organic matter in terms of compost bound sufficient quantityof iron as reducible and insoluble form of organic complexes and therefore rendering lowcrop uptake for all the three years of experimental period (Mandal and Mitra, 1982). Theiron can be in oxidized or reduced forms, therefore due to its acidic and reducing char-acteristics, an increase in soil organic matter could increase the more available reducedform of iron Fe+2. Soil iron has a strong tendency to form mobile organic complexes andchelates (KabataPendias, 2000) and thus contributing to increased availability of iron insoil (Table 6).

    The results of the present study show that the level of available manganese contentincreased in the soil taken after harvesting of the crop as compared to the manganesecontent in soil before land preparation for sowing of seeds in all three years of experimen-tal period. During 20072008 the available manganese content significantly influencedthe different treatments over control. The higher level of manganese content in soil sam-ples after harvesting may be attributed to the level of soil pH ranging between 67 ofthe respective soil samples and low uptake by crop plants. Under the said pH range the

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e5

    Soilchem

    icalproperty

    undermustard

    cropping

    system

    during

    20052006,

    20062007,

    and20072008

    Available-P(kg.ha

    1)

    Available-K(kg.ha

    1)

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    420.55

    5de455.213d

    T1

    418.99

    a420.92

    a41

    2.55

    5e41

    0.36

    3eV

    1148.82

    a15

    8.81

    4aT1

    144.37

    a143.19

    a14

    0.81

    5cde

    143.70

    4f

    V2

    434.11

    6ab494.829a

    bT2

    416.84

    b385.59

    b41

    7.18

    4e44

    3.11

    9eV

    2142.18

    b15

    3.70

    4bT2

    142.32

    ab135.33

    b14

    4.72

    8cde

    152.88

    9e

    V3

    384.38

    8c403.333f

    T3

    412.68

    bc378.59

    bc42

    2.22

    4d47

    3.55

    0dV

    3140.034b

    c14

    8.07

    4cd

    T3

    138.38

    abcde128.89

    bc14

    6.11

    8cd

    155.71

    4d

    V4

    421.54

    4d463.504c

    T4

    408.36

    bcd367.26

    bcd43

    8.11

    6c49

    8.63

    2cV

    4138.082b

    cd14

    9.40

    7cT4

    140.32

    abcd

    120.29

    d15

    0.12

    1c16

    2.29

    6c

    V5

    428.34

    6g396.384g

    T5

    402.18

    e323.62

    e44

    6.66

    8b52

    1.83

    7bV

    5126.112e

    f13

    3.18

    5gT5

    136.34

    abcde115.15

    de15

    9.13

    4ab

    188.81

    5b

    V6

    436.11

    8a495.149a

    T6

    416.62

    e317.68

    e45

    8.14

    8a52

    3.76

    4aV

    6132.114e

    141.63

    0ef

    T6

    141.56

    abc

    105.25

    f16

    2.11

    4a19

    5.25

    9a

    V7

    406.00

    8f437.777e

    V7

    129.524e

    f14

    2.37

    0e

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entare

    notsignificantly

    differentat5

    %usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.

    2483

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e6

    Soilmicronutrient

    status

    undermustard

    cropping

    system

    during

    20052006,

    20062007,

    and20072008

    Availa

    ble-iron

    (ppm

    )Availa

    ble-Mn(ppm

    )

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    4.261b

    4.854e

    T1

    4.073b

    cde

    4.028f

    4.161a

    bcde

    4.306c

    deV

    14.087f

    5.174d

    T1

    4.059a

    bcde

    4.068f

    4.287d

    e4.075f

    V2

    4.116c

    d5.256c

    T2

    4.122b

    cde

    4.859d

    e4.244a

    bcde

    4.452c

    dV

    24.384c

    5.261b

    T2

    4.042a

    bcde

    5.072e

    4.342d

    4.611d

    V3

    3.889e

    4.005g

    T3

    4.246b

    cd5.155a

    bc4.374a

    bc4.618c

    V3

    4.556a

    5.087e

    T3

    4.224a

    bc5.349c

    d4.312d

    e4.397d

    e

    V4

    5.116a

    6.161a

    T4

    4.346b

    c4.909d

    4.289a

    bcd

    4.407c

    deV

    44.084f

    4.261g

    T4

    4.312a

    b5.436c

    4.856a

    bc5.047b

    c

    V5

    3.209g

    4.507f

    T5

    4.514a

    5.115a

    b4.612a

    b5.055a

    bV

    54.168e

    5.222c

    T5

    4.216a

    bcdde5.674b

    4.878a

    b5.222b

    V6

    3.358f

    5.753b

    T6

    4.416a

    b5.297a

    4.646a

    5.065a

    V6

    4.315d

    5.523a

    T6

    4.348a

    5.967a

    4.946a

    5.873a

    V7

    4.148c

    5.206c

    dV

    74.416b

    4.698f

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entarenotsignificantly

    differentat

    5%usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.

    BS=

    before

    sowing;

    AH=

    After

    Harvesting.

    2484

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Integrated Nutrient Management 2485

    available manganese (Mn+2) was converted into its higher oxides (Mn+3 and Mn+4) whichare insoluble in water and therefore unavailable to plants (Das, 2007).During the secondand third year of the experimental period the role of organic matter and microbial activityalso played a significant role toward increasing the concentration of Mn in the post-harvestsoil. The role of organic matter in complexing Mn is important because organic matter canaffect the redox status of soils. The microbial decomposition of added organic matter incontinuous crops creates reducing conditions that favor manganese solubilization (Mandaland Mitra, 1982) (Table 6).

    The status of available boron content was significantly higher in all three years of theexperimental period but the increase was significantly greater in 20062007 and 20072008 in all treatments, which may attribute to higher mobility of boron in the soil inpresence of biofertilizer and compost. The gradual build-up of boron in the soil samplesduring the three years of the experimental period might be attributed to lower uptake bythe crop plant (Das, 2007) (Table 7).

    The results of the present investigation show that in all of the years, the level of copperincreased significantly in the soil post harvesting. The concentration of copper in the soil ismainly governed by the sorption and desorption from the surfaces of the oxides as well ason organic matter content (Jenne, 1968). In the present investigation the available coppercontent gradually increased, which may be due to binding of copper with manganese oxidesand organic matter present in the soil rendering it as non-exchangeable form and, therefore,not available for crop uptake. The increased level of copper in the post harvesting soil couldalso be due to formation of stable complexes of copper with humic acid and peat and themetal thus becomes immobilized. McLaren and Crawford (1973) reported that the organicfraction in particular seems to be a source of specific copper adsorption sites in the soil,because of its unique ability to form inner sphere complexes at wide range of pH levels(Das, Santra, and Mandal, 1995) (Table 7).

    In the present investigation the available zinc content was higher in soil after harvest-ing of the crop as compared to the zinc content in soil before land preparation for sowingof seeds in all three years. The increased level of zinc in the post-harvested soil may be dueto formation of solid state organic matter. Zinc forming stable organic complexes with thesoil organic matter resulting into lesser availability for crop plants by the insoluble chela-tion reaction, causing resistance to exchange between plant soil system (Das, 2007). Theaddition of exogenous organic matter during the third year of experimental period may alsocontribute to the zinc level, which due to its ability to form complexes with zinc throughits functional groups promotes zinc availability in soils (Table 8).

    Soil Biological Characteristics

    In 20052006, there was an overall decrease in the soil bacterial population count afterharvesting, indicating the deleterious effect of the sole application of recommended dosesof chemical fertilizer affecting the population of bacteria in natural soil.

    In 20062007, the results indicate that with the gradual increase in the dose of biofer-tilizer along with the reduced dose of chemical fertilizer have contributed significantly tothe increase in the bacterial population in the soil after harvesting than before land prepara-tion for sowing of seeds from treatment T2 to T5. This could be due to rapid multiplicationof bacteria applied through seed inoculation and soil application in a preferable medium.In 20072008, an application of compost along with Azotobacter and Phosphobacter asbiofertilizer significantly contributed toward increased bacterial population counts whichcould be due to rapid multiplication of bacteria applied through seed inoculation and soil

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e7

    Soilmicronutrient

    status

    undermustard

    cropping

    system

    during

    20052006,

    20062007,

    and20072008

    Availa

    ble-Boron

    (ppm

    )Availa

    ble-Cu(ppm

    )

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    0.944g

    0.977e

    fT1

    0.995a

    bcde

    1.023c

    0.994c

    de1.422e

    V1

    0.487c

    d0.526f

    T1

    0.436e

    0.47

    f0.65

    9f0.674f

    V2

    0.958e

    0.982e

    T2

    0.986a

    bcde

    1.055e

    0.878f

    1.392e

    V2

    0.464f

    0.544e

    T2

    0.462b

    cd0.497d

    e0.68

    7cde

    0.722e

    V3

    0.952f

    0.969g

    T3

    1.012a

    bcd

    1.306d

    0.998c

    d1.593d

    V3

    0.488c

    0.644b

    T3

    0.432f

    0.544c

    0.69

    2cd

    0.735d

    V4

    0.988c

    1.053b

    cT4

    1.184a

    b1.625c

    1.024c

    1.746c

    V4

    0.516a

    0.656a

    T4

    0.476a

    0.510d

    0.70

    2c0.745c

    V5

    0.976d

    0.994d

    T5

    1.118a

    bc1.739b

    1.116b

    1.895a

    bV

    50.496b

    0.548d

    T5

    0.468b

    0.589b

    0.73

    4b0.822b

    V6

    0.998a

    1.083a

    T6

    1.216a

    1.812a

    1.248a

    1.942a

    V6

    0.486c

    de0.558c

    T6

    0.464b

    c0.620a

    0.76

    8a0.847a

    V7

    0.994b

    1.058b

    V7

    0.466f

    0.512g

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entare

    notsignificantly

    differentat5

    %usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.

    2486

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Integrated Nutrient Management 2487

    Table 8Soil micronutrient status (available Zinc-ppm) under mustard cropping system during

    20052006, 20062007, and 20072008

    2005 2006-1st exp 2007

    Variety BS AH Treatment BS AH BS AH

    V1 2.046f 2.987a T1 2.145e 2.163f 2.122de 2.314cd

    V2 2.112e 2.212f T2 2.344c 2.652c 2.134d 2.312cd

    V3 2.142d 2.554c T3 2.688a 3.081a 2.169abc 2.356c

    V4 2.216c 2.411d T4 2.312cd 2.534cde 2.175ab 2.456b

    V5 2.022g 2.065g T5 2.218e 2.549cd 2.205a 2.552a

    V6 2.312a 2.886b T6 2.474b 2.973ab 2.118de 2.198e

    V7 2.264b 2.311e

    Means followed by the same letter (S) within treatment are not significantly different at 5% usingDuncans multiple range test (DMRT). Means of three replicates are taken. BS = before sowing;AH = after harvesting.

    application in preferable medium of organic matter, particularly compost. The organicmanure (compost) contributing to increase in the mineral nutrients, growth hormones, vita-mins, and improving other physical characters in soil might have significant influence onmicrobial population (Ismail, 1995). This therefore indicates that chemical fertilizer at therecommended dose is not congenial for growth of bacteria whereas its reduced dose alongwith seed inoculated biofertilizer resulted into more growth of bacterial population undersuch investigations (Table 9).

    In the experimental results of soil fungal count, it was found that the fungal diversity inthe soil samples decreased in soils after harvesting with respect to the soil samples beforeland preparation for seed sowing in 20052006 and subsequently increased in 20062007and 20072008. The combined application of biofertilizer and compost has contributedsignificantly toward increases in the root biomass production, which resulted in higherproduction of root exudates increasing the fungal population count in the soil (Gunadi,Blount, & Edwards, 1999; Masciandaro, Ceccanti, & Ronchi Bauer, 2000) (Table 9).

    In 20062007, applications of biofertilizer contributed significantly toward improve-ment in the soil with Azotobacter, Phosphobacter along with inherent species present inthe soil as well as a gradual increase of the biofertilizer doses that have contributed sig-nificantly to the increase in the Azotobacter and Phosphobacter population in soil afterharvesting of crop in all the treatments with respect to control. The results were found tobe similar in case of 2007 along with seed inoculation of Azotobacter and Phosphobacterbiofertilizer. This is in conformity with the findings of Bhavalker (1991). Therefore, itindicates that crop cultivation under recommended doses of chemical fertilizer rendersinconvenient medium of soil for growth of beneficial microorganisms in relation to cropproductivity. In all the years, data analysis showed significant variation among the differenttreatment combinations (Table 10).

    Conclusion

    The main conclusion of the present investigation includes the integrated nutrient manage-ment system, such as use of different combined doses of chemical fertilizer and biofertilizer

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e9

    Bacterialandfungalpopulatio

    nin

    soil(C

    FUs)(beforesowingandafterharvestin

    g)

    SoilBacterialcoun

    t(CFU

    .g1

    drysoil)

    SoilFu

    ngalcount(CFU

    .g1

    drysoil)

    200506

    200607

    200708

    200506

    200607

    200708

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Variety

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    V1

    87.4

    85T1

    26.18

    24.18

    80.95

    112.19

    V1

    18.32

    21.25

    T1

    16.16

    19.16

    20.95

    4.88

    10

    5de

    10

    5bcde

    10

    6de

    10

    6e

    10

    5e

    10

    5f

    10

    3e

    103

    a

    103

    abcd

    10

    3abcd

    10

    3f

    103

    f

    V2

    88.3

    103.70

    T2

    32.34

    68.17

    88.66

    126.25

    V2

    16.31

    8.64

    T2

    14.32

    16.32

    28.38

    47.5

    10

    5d

    10

    5b

    10

    6abc

    10

    6d

    10

    5e

    10

    5e

    10

    3f

    103

    g

    103

    abcde

    103

    abcde

    103

    e

    103

    e

    V3

    94.16

    86.74

    T3

    34.48

    75.19

    105.12

    138.75

    V3

    18.48

    16.87

    T3

    16.18

    22.16

    34.18

    57.5

    10

    5abc

    10

    5bcd

    10

    6ab

    10

    6abc

    105

    d

    105

    d

    103

    d

    103

    c

    103

    abc

    10

    3abc

    10

    3d

    103

    d

    V4

    164.32

    158.02

    T4

    28.84

    78.48

    114.36

    153.45

    V4

    20.11

    18.07

    T4

    19.34

    28.39

    42.66

    62.39

    10

    5a

    10

    5a

    10

    6d

    10

    6ab

    10

    5c

    10

    5c

    10

    3a

    103

    b

    103

    ab

    103

    ab

    103

    c

    103

    c

    V5

    98.16

    92.30

    T5

    36.66

    84.16

    128.38

    168.15

    V5

    16.612

    15.38

    T5

    23.32

    35.14

    49.88

    74.57

    10

    5ab

    10

    5bc

    10

    6a

    10

    6a

    10

    5b

    105

    ab

    103

    g

    103

    e

    103

    a

    103

    a

    103

    a

    103

    b

    V6

    69.38

    61.72

    T6

    24.86

    16.98

    142.16

    172.32

    V6

    18.99

    14.81

    T6

    15.48

    5.16

    48.16

    86.51

    10

    5f

    10

    5f

    10

    6de

    10

    6f

    10

    5a

    10

    5a

    10

    3c

    103

    f

    103

    abcde

    103

    abcde

    103

    b

    103

    a

    V7

    48.32

    44.93

    V7

    19.34

    16.25

    10

    5g

    10

    5g

    10

    3b

    103

    d

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entare

    notsignificantly

    differentat5

    %usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.BS=

    before

    sowing;

    AH=

    afterharvestin

    g.

    2488

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Tabl

    e10

    Azo

    toba

    cter

    and

    Pho

    spho

    bact

    erPo

    pulatio

    nin

    soil(C

    FUs)(beforesowingandafterharvestin

    g)undermustard

    cropping

    season

    of20062007and20072008

    Soil

    Azo

    toba

    cter

    count(CFU

    .g1

    drysoil)

    Soil

    Pho

    spho

    bact

    ercount(CFU

    .g1

    drysoil)

    200607

    200708

    200607

    200708

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    Treatment

    BS

    AH

    BS

    AH

    T1

    10

    106

    acde

    16.32

    106

    abc

    32.38

    105

    f45.85

    105

    fT1

    14

    106

    e4

    106

    f16.17

    106

    cde

    14.39

    106

    e

    T2

    8.96

    10

    6abcde11.38

    106

    abcde38.18

    105

    e65.15

    105

    eT2

    16.72

    106

    cd32.37

    106

    d18.18

    106

    cd24.39

    106

    d

    T3

    12.38

    106

    ab17.51

    106

    ab48.62

    105

    d86.25

    105

    cdT3

    20.36

    106

    b48.18

    106

    c14.32

    106

    cde

    17.5

    10

    6e

    T4

    10.84

    106

    abcd

    18.96

    106

    a54.14

    105

    c90

    10

    5c

    T4

    18.14

    106

    c58.59

    106

    ab18.38

    106

    c36.84

    106

    c

    T5

    12.54

    106

    a15.16

    106

    abcd

    62.12

    105

    b103.95

    10

    5b

    T5

    24.32

    106

    a61.16

    106

    a24.32

    106

    b89.75

    106

    b

    T6

    11.18

    106

    abc

    14.32

    106

    abcde78.16

    105

    a122.89

    10

    5a

    T6

    13.72

    106

    e16.83

    106

    e30.36

    106

    a98.43

    106

    a

    Means

    follo

    wed

    bythesameletter(S)with

    intreatm

    entare

    notsignificantly

    differentat5

    %usingDuncansmultip

    lerangetest(D

    MRT).Means

    ofthreereplicates

    aretaken.

    2489

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 2490 A. Banerjee et al.

    along with compost, significantly improved the soil fertility in terms of soil macronutrientand micronutrient status, as well as soil health in terms of increased microbial popula-tion in soil. The uses of biofertilizers have resulted in higher soil organic matter, nitrogen,available phosphorus, and potassium. The uses of biofertilizers and compost have mediatedhigher availability of Fe, Mn, Zn. Cu, and B in soil. The use of biofertilizers and compostsignificantly improved soil bacterial and fungal population counts in the soil. Thus, throughintegrated nutrient management practices such as application of biofertilizer and compostsoil can considerably improve the soil fertility and soil health.

    Acknowledgements

    This work was supported by University Grants Commission (UGC) under UGC majorresearch project having basic research grant from Government of India (Ref No.30-109/2004 (SR) dt. 10.11.2004). Author is highly grateful to Prof. J. K. Datta, thePrincipal Investigator of this project and to all staff members of Crop Research and SeedMultiplication Farm of Burdwan University, West Bengal, India for carrying out the fieldexperiments for subsequent three years.

    References

    Bavaskar, V. S., and G. K. Zende. 1973. Soil fertility under continuous manuring and ropping. IndianJournal of Agricultural Science 43 (5): 492499.

    Bhatia, K. S., and K. K. Shukla. 1982. Effect of continuous application of fertilizers and manureson some physical properties of eroded alluvial soil. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science30 (1): 3336.

    Bhavalker, U. S. 1991. Vermiculture biotechnology for LEISSA seminar on low external inputsustainable agriculture, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 16.

    Biswas, T. D., B. L. Jain, and S. C. Mandal. 1971. Cumulative effect of different levels of manureson the physical properties of soil. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 19 (1) :3137.

    Black, C. A. (Ed.). 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I & Part II. Madison, WI: American Societyof Agronomy.

    Chavan, D. A., M. S. Desmukh, S. S. More, and W. N. Narkhede. 2007. Impact of long term fer-tilizer application in yield and nutrient availability in sorghum-wheat-cropping system. Paperpresented at State level seminar on soil health enhancement for food and environmental security.Parbhani, Oct. 1213.

    Das, D. K., G. H. Santra, and L. N. Mandal. 1995. Influence of blue green algae on the availabilityof micronutrients in soils growing rice. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 43 (1):145146.

    Das, D. K. 2007. Micronutrients: Their behavior in soils and plants.2nd revised edition: New Delhi,India.

    Das, K., R. Dang, and T. N. Shivananda. 2008. Influence of biofertilizers on the availability of nutri-ents (N,P, and K) in soil in relation to growth and yield of Stevia rebaudiana grown in SouthIndia. International Journal of Applied Research in Natural Products 1 (1): 2024.

    Das, A., M. Praad, and R. C. Goutam. 2003. Residual effect of organic and inorganic sources of nitro-gen applied to cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) on succeeding wheat (Triticum aestivum). IndianJournal of Agronomy 49 (3): 143146.

    Dible, W. T., E. Truog, and K. C. Berger. 1954. Boron determination in plant and soils. AnalyticalChemistry 26: 418.

    Fox, T. R, N. B. Comeford, and W. W. Fee. 1990. Kinetics of phosphorous release from spodosols:Effect of oxalate and formate. Soil Science Society of America Journal 54: 14411447.

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • Integrated Nutrient Management 2491

    Gunadi, B., C. Blount, and C. A. Edwards. 1999. The growth and fecundity of Eisenia fetida(Savigny) in cattle solids pre-composted for different periods. Pedobiologia 46 (1): 1533.

    Ismail, S. 1995. Earthworms in soil fertility management in organic agriculture. P. K. Thampan, ed.pp. 7895. Cochin, India: Peekay Tree Crops Development Foundation.

    Jackson, M. L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis London: Prentice Hall.Jenne, E. 1968. Trace inorganics in water. Advances in Chemistry Series 73:337387.KabataPendias, A. 2000. Trace Elements in Soils and Plants, 3rd edition. New York: CRC

    Press LLC.Kavitha, R., and P. Subramanian. 2007. Effect of enriched municipal solid waste compost application

    on soil available macronutrients in the rice field. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 53 (5):497506.

    Khiani, K. N., and D. A. Moore. 1984. Long-term effects of tillage operations and farmyard manureapplication on soil properties and crop yield in vertisol. Journal of the Indian Society of SoilScience. 32 (3): 392393.

    Krishnamurthi, G. S. R., A. V. Mahavir, and V. A. K. Sharma. 1970. Spectrophotometric determina-tion of Fe with orhophenanthroline. Micro Chemical Journal 15: 585589.

    Lindsay, W. L., and W. A. Norvell. 1978. Development of DTPA soil test for zinc, manganese andcopper. Soil Science Society America Journal 42: 421428.

    MAPA. 1994 Metados Oficiales de Analisis Tomo III Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura. PescayAlimentacion.

    Maji, N. C., and S. R. Mondal 2004. Effect of long term use of fertilizers and manures or soil fertility.Environment & Ecology. 22(2): 447451.

    Malewar, G. U., and A. R. Hasnabade 1995. Effect of long term application of fertilizers and organicsources on some properties of vertisol. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University. 20 (2):285286.

    Mandal, L. N., and R. R. Mitra. 1982. Transformation of iron and manganese in rice soils underdifferent moisture regimes and organic matter applications. Plant and Soil. 69: 4556.

    Masciandaro, G. B., Ceccanti, V., and Ronchi C. Bauer. 2000. Kinetic parameters of dehydrogenaseand inorganic fertilizers. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 32 (6): 579587.

    McLaren, R. H., and D. V. Crawford. 1973. Studies on soil copper, I: The fractionation of copper insoils. Journal of Soil Science 24: 172181.

    Nephade, D. S., and S. G. Wankhade.1987. Effect of varying levels of sulfur and molybdenum on thecontent and uptake of nutrients and yield of mung PVK Research Journal 11 (2): 139143.

    Olsen, S. R., C. V. Cole, F. S. Watnabe, and L. A. Dean. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorousin soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. U.S. Department of Agriculture Circular. 939.

    Patil, B. D. 1997. Effect of integrated nutrient management on the forms of soil NPK and theiravailability under sorghum wheat sequence in vertisol. PhD thesis submitted to MPKV, Rahuri.

    Ramaswami, P. P., and Son T. T. N. Son. 1997. Effect of organic wastes application on physical andchemical properties of heavy clay soil. Omon Rice 5: 4855.

    Ramteke, J. R., U. V. Mahadkar, and R. S. Yadav. 1998. Sustainable crop production through crop-ping system and organic farming. First International Agronomy Congress. Extended summariesNov., 2327, 1998. New Delhi, India, pp. 393394.

    Reddy, G. B., and M. S. Reddy. 1998. Effect of organic manures and nitrogen levels on soil availablenutrient status in maize soybean cropping system. Journal of the Indian society of Soil Science46(3): 474476.

    Sharpley, A. N. 2000. Bio available phosphorus in soil. In ed. G. M. Pierzynskis Methodsfor Phosphorus Analysis for Soils, Sediments, Residuals and Waters. pp. 3843.SouthernCooperative Series Bulletin No. 396. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

    Singh, S., R. N. Singh, J. Prasad, and B. Kumar. 2002. Effect of green manuring, FYM and biofertil-izer in relation to fertilizer nitrogen on yield and major nutrient uptake by upland rice. Journalof Indian Society of Soil Science. 50 (3): 313314.

    Stat Soft Inc. (1998) STATISTICA for Windows (computer programme manual) Stat Soft.Inc, Tulsa,Oklahoma.

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

  • 2492 A. Banerjee et al.

    Subbiah, B. V., and G. L. Asija. 1956. A rapid procedure for determination of available nitrogen insoils. Current Science. 25: 259260.

    Talathi, M. S., J. R. Ramteke, U. V. Mahadkar, and S. S. Magar 2002 Integrated nutrient managementfor sustaining productivity dynamics under rice based cropping systems. Paper presented at 2ndInternational conference on sustainable agriculture for food, energy and industry at Beijing,China. Sept. 813.

    Walksman, S. A., and E. B. Fred. 1922. A tentative outline of for the plate method for determiningthe number of microorganisms in soil. Soil Science. 14: 2728.

    Walkley, A. 1947. Critical examination of rapid method for determining organic carbon in soils,effect of variation in digestion conditions and of inorganic soil constituents. Soil Science.632: 251.

    Willard, H. H., and L. H. Greathouse. 1917. The colorimetric determination of Manganese byoxidation with periodate. Journal of the American Chemical Society 39: 23662397.

    Yadav, R. S. 1998. Performance of organic farming in rice based cropping system. M.Sc. (Agri.)Thesis, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli (India).

    Dow

    nloa

    ded

    by [

    Um

    e U

    nive

    rsity

    Lib

    rary

    ] at

    08:

    38 0

    7 O

    ctob

    er 2

    014

Recommended

View more >