Printer Friendly

Studies on fertilizer use efficiency in Ragi (Eleusine coracana L.) under rainfed conditions.

Finger millet (Eleusine coracona (L.) Garten.), ranks third in importance among millets in the country in area (2 million ha) and production (2.8 million tonnes) after sorghum and pearl millet (Anon., 2001). One of the striking features which make finger millet an important dry land crop is its resilience and ability to withstand adverse weather conditions when grown in soils having poor water holding capacity. Finger millet is a staple food of millions of people in India and Africa especially for working class and also an ideal food for patients suffering from diabetes. The grains are high in calcium and iron besides being rich in carbohydrates and proteins.

The major finger millet growing states in India are Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Maharashtra and Uttaranchal, Karnataka state has the largest area of around 1.3 million ha (54% of the total area) and has a share of 60 per cent total production in India and productivity of 1325 kg per hectare followed by Maharastra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Uttaranchal, each having 10-12 per cent of the area.

Ragi ranks third both in area and production next only to the sorghum and rice. Among the various methods of fertilizer recommendation, the one based on targeted yield approach is unique in the sense that this method not only indicates the soil test based fertilizer dose,. Targeted yield concept strikes a balance between fertilizing the crop and fertilizing the soil. The theoretical basis and experimental proof for the fact that Liebig's law of minimum operates equally well for N, P, and K from the basis for fertilizer application for targeted yields (Ramamoorthy et al., 1967).

Judicious use of fertilizers is one of the most important means to obtain higher yields. For efficient and economic use, it is necessary to have information on the optimum doses of fertilizers and organics based on soil testing for different soils. Therefore, fertilizer recommendation aim at providing balanced nutrition to crops in order to produce maximum yield. Such balanced fertilization is ensured through soil testing and it increases the efficiency and economy in fertilizer use. Continuous use of inorganic nutrients source will adversely affect soil physico-chemical properties and thereby decline crop yields. In order to sustain the yield and reduce the dependence on inorganic fertilizer use, conjunctive use of organic manures and fertilizer is very much essential. The present investigation are aimed at prescription based fertilizer applications on soil test basis for specific yield targets of ragi to recommended to the farmers for judicious use of fertilizers for sustainable crop production. Hence objective of this study was evaluate the impact of different application rates of fertilizers on biomass, yield, nutrient uptake and nutrient use efficiency in ragi under rainfed condition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A field experiment was conducted on alfisols during 2013 of Zonal Agricultural and Horticultural Research station, college of agriculture, navile, shimoga, which is located at a latitude of 13[degrees] 58' 30.4 north, a Longitude of 75[degrees] 34', the climate of the study area in general is tropical wet and dry summer type. The mean maximum temperature was (33.70[degrees]C) in the month of april and minimum temperature occurs in December with value being 14[degrees]C. The mean annual rainfall of the region is 842.33 mm,. During this season, I have take Ragi has been taken as rainfed crop. The ragi crop cv.GPU28 was sown injune 2013 keeping the plants to plants distance of 22.5 cm and row spacing of 30 cm, following standard package of practices. A total of nine treatments were tried in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replication. The treatments comprise of RDF + compost 10 t [ha.sup.-1], RDF + 50 % NK + compost 10 t [ha.sup.-1], STCR based NPK + compost 10 t [ha.sup.-1], STL based NPK + compost 10 t [ha.sup.-1],RDF through enriched compost, RDF + 50% NK through enriched compost, STCR based through enriched compost, STL based through enriched compost, with a control.

The compost was applied 4-5 weeks before sowing of the ragi crop. NPK were applied in the form of urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash. Full dose of P, K and half dose of N was applied at the time of sowing and half dose of N was top-dressed at 21 days after sowing of ragi crop. Representative soil samples (0-15 cm) were collected from each of the 27 plots before application of fertilizer and compost for sowing of ragi crop. The initial soil properties were analyzed and the soils within the experimental area. Soil texture was sandy loam in nature where clay content 13.72% (Table1). The bulk density was 1.52 Mg [m.sup.-3], the soil pH moderate and no salt problem was detected in the soil. Soil organic carbon content was 4.20 g [Kg.sup.1]. The CEC was 6.53 cmol([P.sup.+])[kg.sup.-1].

The soil sample were analyzed for available N before sowing of the crop by alkaline [KMno.sub.4] method of Subbiah and Asija (1956) and 0.5 M NaHC[O.sub.3] extractable P (Olsen et al. 1954nium acetate). Available K in soils was extracted by neutral normal ammonium acetate (hanway and Heidal 1952) and determined flame photo metrically the compost was digested and analyzed for per cent N, P, and K content following standard procedures. On average well decomposed compost contain 061% N, 0.4% [P.sub.2][O.sub.5], and 0.6% [k.sub.2]O, respectively. The crop observations like date of occurrence of important phonological stages, biomass, yield and yield components, as influenced by different rates of nutrients , were recorded. The plot-wise yield data for grain and straw were recorded at the harvest of ragi crop.

At the time of harvesting from each plot five plants were selected for grain and straw sampling. The plants were analyzed for N by microKjeldahal method (Jackson 1973) and N uptake was calculated by multiplying dry matter with content (%) of plant. The P and k in plant sample were analyzed after digestion with diacid (HN[O.sub.3]: HCl[O.sub.4]) digest was estimated by vanadomolybdate phosphoric acid yellow color method (jackson 1973) using spectrophotometer. Potassium content in the acid digest was measured using flame photometer and total uptake was calculated. With the help of nutrient uptake data and soil test values, the basic data (nutrient requirement in Kg [t.sup.-1] of grain, per cent contribution from soil and applied fertilizer) were computed by Ramamoorthy et al. (1967). The basic data, in turn, was transformed into simple workable fertilizer adjustment equations for calculating fertilizers N,P and K doses for yield targets based on initial soil test values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Application of fertilizer by different approaches in combination with organic manures increased grain and straw yield significantly over control (Table 2). Application of fertilizer based on STCR ([T.sub.3]) produced maximum ragi grain (3238.00 kg [ha.sup.-1]) and, which was35.72 per cent higher over control (2385.70 Kg [ha.sup.-1]). The highest ragi grain yield in [T.sub.3] was statistically on par with [T.sub.2] (3062.00 Kg [ha.sup.-1]) and [T.sub.7] (3012.70 Kg [ha.sup.-1]) treatments. The increase in yield might be due to improvement in yield and components for better partitioning of carbohydrates from leaf to reproductive parts and efficiency of applied nutrient in the soil resulting in increased yield in finger millet. The deviation was further reduced when fertilizer and compost were applied on STCR basis, thus minimum deviation was observed (19.05%) from targated yield 40 q [ha.sup.-1]. The lower deviation might be due to better response to applied nutrients on STCR basis in presence of organic manures indicating the importance of balanced nutrition of crops. These results are conformity with findings of Apoorva et al. (2010).

The lowest straw yield was recorded (6616.00 Kg [ha.sup.-1]) in control plot (Table 2) where as the highest straw yield (8926.00 Kg [ha.sup.-1]) was recorded with application of STCR based NPK and compost 10 t [ha.sup.-1]. The increase in straw yield was due to application of higher dose of major nutrients supply and subsequently uptake of nutrients by crop which was responsible for better growth and dry matter accumulation. Similar results were reported by Ramesh etal. (2007).

The nitrogen uptake increased with advancement in age and the maximum was recorded at harvest stage by ragi grain (Table 3) in [T.sub.3] (29.52 kg [ha.sup.-1]), straw (69.62 kg [ha.sup.-1]) and this lead to higher total uptake of nitrogen in [T.sub.3] (99.14 kg N [ha.sup.-1]) due to application of STCR based NPK and compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1] for a targeted yield 40 q [ha.sup.-1] compared to others. Increased uptake of nutrient in plant system is a consequence of availability of nutrients synergistic relationship between organic manure and chemical fertilizer. Similar pattern of nutrient uptake due to synergistic effect between organic and inorganic sources was reported by Subramanian and Aproorva et al. (2010). The P uptake increased with aging of ragi crop (Table 3) and maximum was recorded at harvest stage in grain (22.01 kg [ha.sup.-1]), straw (58.01 kg [ha.sup.-1]) and the total uptake in same treatment [T.sub.3] (80.02 kg P [ha.sup.-1]). The application of STCR based NPK and compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1] recorded significantly higher P uptake among all the treatments.

The higher p uptake was due to the influence of organic and inorganic acid produced during decomposition of organic material in soils resulted in mineralizing the insoluble phosphate into more soluble phosphate the results evident from finding of Veeranagappa (2010). Significantly higher K uptake by ragi grains in [T.sub.3] (16.19 kg [ha.sup.-1]), straw (78.54 kg [ha.sup.-1]) and higher total uptake of potassium in the [T.sub.3] (94.73 kg [ha.sup.-1]) was recorded with application of STCR based NPK and compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1] for a targeted yield of 40 q [ha.sup.-1] due to addition of compost resulted in the extraction of more K by millet crop when compared to control. The increase in potassium uptake with organic sources of FYM was due to the priming effect that organic on decomposition release organic acids which solubilise native i.e., fixed and nonexchangeable form of K and change the soil solution with potassium ions at later stage of crop growth (Sri Ranjitha et al, 2013).

Effect of organic and different levels of inorganic nutrients on nutrient use efficiency

The use efficiency of total major nutrients indicates clearly that [T.sub.3] recorded higher use efficiency (Table 4). Even on individual nutrient basis i.e. N, P and K separately the same treatments holds the key with higher use efficiency. The nutrient efficiency gradually decreased with increase in the application rates. In general the nitrogen use efficiency of a crop shows declining trend with increasing levels of N application. The phosphorus use efficiency was highest in treatment STCR based NPK + compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1] in [T.sub.3] (67.70 %). Phosphorus application based on STCR approach very low quantity (48 kg [ha.sup.-1]) because of high initial content in soil. The increase in uptake of phosphorus by ragi crop was noticed when application of phosphorus was in smaller quantity which might have caused in higher efficiency. The potassium use efficiency also showed similar results to that of phosphorus. It was higher at lower rate of application. In STCR based approach the potassium application recorded higher biomass production and resulted in higher uptake of K. these results are in conformity with Raina et al. (2011). However, the potassium use efficiency found higher than the nitrogen are presented in and Fig 1, which supports the theory that K is catalytic and enzymatic in nature rather than involving in structural development (Tisdale et al., 1990).

Effect of organic and different levels of inorganic nutrients on agronomic and physiological use efficiency of grain yield of ragi in comparison to control

The data presented in Table 5 pertain to agronomic nutrient use efficiency (ANUE) and physiological nutrient use efficiency (PNUE) for applied nutrients of ragi crop. They are significantly higher in treatment [T.sub.3]. On the other hand lowest AUE as well as PUE was found in [T.sub.1] and [T.sub.5] (4.18 kg [kg.sup.-1]). Application of STCR based NPK + compost 10 t [ha.sup.-1] registered better agronomic nitrogen use efficiency because of synchronized supply of N. Finally, it is recognized that efficiency of added nitrogen would increase when other nutrient are also in adequate supply for crop growth. In general cereal crops showed linear response to a lower fertilizer inputs and quadratic response thereafter as reported by Ramesh et al. (2007).

The agronomic and physiological phosphorus and potassium use efficiency of ragi crop were significantly higher in treatments [T.sub.3] (STCR based NPK + compost 10 t [ha.sup.-1]) as compared to other treatments. The lowest was recorded in the [T.sub.5] (RDF through enriched compost).This is due to lower phosphorus application but higher agronomic use efficiency in STCR approach because initial soil phosphorus is very high.

Further, precise calculation were made for both agronomic and physiological use efficiency (Table 6) by considering the nutrient application uptake pattern of crop and yield difference of treatments to that of RDF ([T.sub.1]). Interestingly, the per se incremental effect of nutrient on yield and uptake was encouraging. It was found clearly that 136 and 158 kg N [ha.sup.-1] the response was linear. The response at addition of 20 kg N [ha.sup.-1] over RDF was 4.00 kg [kg.sup.-1] (agronomic efficiency) and further additional application of 46 kg N [ha.sup.-1] enhanced the response to 15.03. The trend remained same for all.

CONCLUSION

Currently this technology is being focused through frontline demonstrations to farmer's, which revealed that higher benefit: cost ratio was much higher in case of fertilizer treatments based on this methodology as compared to the fertilizer doses based on general recommended dose or local farmer's practice. Therefore equation developed could be used for making fertilizer recommendation for targeted yield of ragi in alfisols . fertilizer recommendation based on this concept are more quantitative, precise and meaningful. Keeping in view the poor socio-economic condition of the farmers with very low income, a yield target of 40 q [ha.sup.-1] was taken so that even at very low input cost farmer can achieve economical yield target. In this, farmer can choose the yield target according to their resources and management conditions.

REFERENCES

(1.) Anonymous, Area, production and productivity of major cereals in India.India stat. com, 2011.

(2.) Apoorva, K.B., Prakash, S.S., Rajesh, N.L, and Nandini, B., STCR approach for optimizing integrated plant nutrient supply on growth, yield and economics of finger millet (Eleusinecoracana (L.) Garten.)EJBS 2010 ; 4(1): 19-27.

(3.) Hanway, T.J. and Heidel, H. Soil analysis methods as used in lowa state College Soil Testing Laboratory. Iowa Agriculture 1952; 57: 1-31.

(4.) Jackson, M.L., Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Dehli, 1973; 1-485.

(5.) Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V, Wantanabe, F.S. and Dean, L.A. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. United state department of Agriculture Circular No.939, 1954.

(6.) Raina, J.N., Tarika Sharma and Shashi Suman., Effect of drip fertigation with different fertilizers on nutrient distribution in soil, leaf nutrient content and yield of apricot (Prunusemeniaca L.). J. Indian Soc. SoilSci., 2011; 59(3): 268-277.

(7.) Ramamoorthy, B., Narasimhan, R.L. and Dinesh, R.S., Fertilizer application for specific yield targets of Sonara 64 (wheat).Indian Fmg, 1967; 17: 43-48.

(8.) Ramesh, S. and Chandrasekaran, B., Effect of establishment technique and nitrogen management on the leaf nitrogen concentration (LNC), flowering, nitrogen use efficiency and quality of rice hybrid (Oryza sativa L.) ADTRH1.J. Agric. Sci, 2007; 2(1): 38-45.

(9.) Sri ranjitha, P., Mahender kumar, R. and Jayasree, G., Evaluation of rice (oryza sativa L.) varieties and hybrids in relation to different nutrient management practices for yield, nutrient uptake and economics in sri.Ann Bio. Res. 2013; 4(10): 25-28.

(10.) Subbaiah, B.V and Asija, A rapid procedure for the estimation of the available nitrogen in soil. Curr. Sci., 1956; 25: 259-260.

(11.) Tisdale, S. L., Nelson, W. L. and Beaton, J. D., Soil fertility and fertilizer. Elements required in plant nutrition. 4th Ed. Maxwell McMillan Publishing, Singapore. 1990; 52-92.

(12.) Veeranagappa, P, Prakash, H.C., Basavaraja, M.K. and Mohamed saqeebulla, H., Effect of zinc enriched compost on yield and nutrient uptake of rice (oryza sativa L.). EJBS 2010; 3(1): 23-29.

Saraswathi [1], Vishawanath Shetty [1], M. Ashwini [2], VP Santhosha [1] and Netravati [3]

[1] Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, UAHS, Shimoga--577 204, India.

[2] Department of Agronomy, UAHS, Shimoga--577204, India.

[3] Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, UAHS, Shivamogga--577 204, India.

(Received: 11 January 2016; accepted: 01 February 2016)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed.
Table 1. Initial soil properties of the experimental site

Parameters                                            Values

Physical properties
Soil order                                       Typic Haplustalf
Sand (%)                                              78.00
Silt (%)                                               8.00
Clay (%)                                              14.00
Textural of soil                                    Sandy Loam
Bulk density (Mg [m.sup.-3])                           1.52
Chemical properties
pH (1:2.5)                                             6.00
EC (dS m-1) at [25.sup.0]                              0.04
Organic Carbon (g [kg.sup.-1])                         4.20
CEC [ cmol ([p.sup.+])[Kg.sup.-1])                     6.53
Available N (kg [ha.sup.-1])                           190
Available [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] (kg [ha.sup.-1])          180
Available [K.sub.2]O (kg [ha.sup.-1])                  223
Available S (ppm)                                      9.50

Table 2. Effect of organic and different levels of inorganic
nutrients of Grain and straw yield of ragi

Treatment                                Grain          Straw
                                         yield          yield
                                          (kg            (kg
                                      [ha.sup.-1])   [ha.sup.-1])

[T.sub.1] - RDF + Compost @             2892.30        7572.00
10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.2] - RDF+ 50 % NK + Compost      3062.00        8500.00
@ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3] -STCR Based NPK +             3238.00        8926.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4] -STL Based NPK +              2938.70        8210.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5] -RDF through                  2735.30        7211.00
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.6] -RDF + 50% NK through         2940.30        8201.00
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.7] -STCR Based through           3012.70        8329.00
Enriched compost

[T.sub.8] -STL Based through            2848.30        7720.00
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.9] -Control                      2385.70        6616.00

SEm [+ or -]                             134.71         249.12

C.D @5%                                  403.89         746.90

Treatment                             % Deviation   % increase
                                       in grain      in grain
                                      yield from    yield over
                                      the target     control

[T.sub.1] - RDF + Compost @             -27.69        21.23
10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.2] - RDF+ 50 % NK + Compost      -23.45        28.34
@ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3] -STCR Based NPK +             -19.05        35.72
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4] -STL Based NPK +              -26.53        23.17
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5] -RDF through                  -31.61        14.65
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.6] -RDF + 50% NK through         -26.49        23.24
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.7] -STCR Based through           -24.68        26.28
Enriched compost

[T.sub.8] -STL Based through            -28.79        19.39
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.9] -Control

SEm [+ or -]

C.D @5%

Table 3. Effect of organic and different levels of inorganic
nutrients on primary total nutrient uptake by ragi grain and straw

Treat        Treatments                       Uptake (kg [ha.sup.-1])

No                                              N       P       K

[T.sub.1]    RDF + Compost @ 10 t             76.71   55.21   76.32
             [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.2]    RDF + 50 % NK + Compost @        91.99   74.05   88.95
             10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3]    STCR Based NPK + Compost @       99.14   80.02   94.73
             10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4]    STL Based NPK + Compost @        86.26   63.42   84.50
             10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5]    RDF through Enriched Compost     75.59   55.06   71.85

[T.sub.6]    RDF + 50% NK through             86.46   64.50   83.51
             Enriched Compost

[T.sub.7]    STCR Based through Enriched      89.60   68.71   86.10
             compost

[T.sub.8]    STL Based through Enriched       81.76   62.71   74.50
             Compost

[T.sub.9]    Control                          64.66   47.52   56.80

             SEm [+ or -]                     4.66    1.88    2.83

             C.D @5%                          13.99   5.63    8.49

Table 4. Effect of organic and different levels of inorganic
nutrients on nutrient use efficiency (N, P, K) in ragi at harvest

                                          Nutrient Use
                                         Efficiency (%)

Treatments                              N       P       K     Total

[T.sub.1]-RDF + Compost @ 10 t        10.86   9.61    22.70   14.17
[ha.sup.-1] (111:80:86)

[T.sub.2]-RDF+ 50 % NK + Compost      20.10   33.16   32.81   27.39
@ 10 t [ha.sup.-1] (136:80:98)

[T.sub.3]-STCR Based NPK + Compost    21.82   67.71   40.35   34.97
@ 10 t [ha.sup.-1](158:48:94)

[T.sub.4]-STL Based NPK + Compost     19.46   23.38   32.21   24.60
@ 10 t [ha.sup.-1] (111:67:86)

[T.sub.5]-RDF through Enriched        9.85    9.43    17.50   12.10
Compost (111:80:86)

[T.sub.6]-RDF + 50% NK through        16.03   21.23   27.26   20.86
Enriched Compost (136:80:98)

[T.sub.7]-STCR Based through          15.78   44.15   31.17   25.14
Enriched Compost (158:48:94)

[T.sub.8]-STL Based through           15.41   22.34   20.58   18.86
Enriched Compost (111:67:86)

[T.sub.9]-Control                       -       -       -     0.00

SEm [+ or -]                          1.61    0.94    1.73    0.83

C.D @5%                               4.89    2.87    5.24    2.54

NUE = (Nutrient Uptake in treated plot - Nutrient uptake
in control plot / Nutrient applied X100)

Table 5. Effect of organic and different levels of inorganic nutrients
on agronomic and physiological use efficiency of grain yield of ragi
in comparison to control

                                                      AUE

Treatments                                     N       P      K

[T.sub.1]-RDF + Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]    4.57   6.34    5.90
(111:80:86)

[T.sub.2]-RDF+ 50 % NK + Compost @ 10 t       4.98   8.46    6.91
[ha.sup.-1] (136:80:98)

[T.sub.3]-STCR Based NPK + Compost @ 10 t     5.40   17.77   9.07
[ha.sup.-1] (158:48:94)

[T.sub.4]-TL Based NPK + Compost 10 @ t       4.98   8.13    6.43
[ha.sup.-1] (111:67:86)

[T.sub.5]-RDF through Enriched Compost        3.15   4.38    4.07
(111:80:86)

[T.sub.6]-RDF + 50% NK through Enriched       4.08   6.94    5.66
Compost (136:80:98)

[T.sub.7]-STCR Based through Enriched         3.97   13.06   6.67
Compost (158:48:94)

[T.sub.8]-STL Based through Enriched          4.17   6.81    5.38
Compost (111:67:86)

[T.sub.9]-Control                              -       -      -

SEm [+ or -]                                  0.40   0.68    0.49

C.D @5%                                       1.23   2.08    1.30

                                                       PUE

Treatments                                      N       P       K

[T.sub.1]-RDF + Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]    37.70   52.39   37.90
(111:80:86)

[T.sub.2]-RDF+ 50 % NK + Compost @ 10 t       33.29   41.35   34.42
[ha.sup.-1] (136:80:98)

[T.sub.3]-STCR Based NPK + Compost @ 10 t     32.66   40.46   34.18
[ha.sup.-1] (158:48:94)

[T.sub.4]-TL Based NPK + Compost 10 @ t       34.07   46.34   34.78
[ha.sup.-1] (111:67:86)

[T.sub.5]-RDF through Enriched Compost        36.19   49.68   38.07
(111:80:86)

[T.sub.6]-RDF + 50% NK through Enriched       34.01   45.59   35.21
Compost (136:80:98)

[T.sub.7]-STCR Based through Enriched         33.62   43.85   34.99
Compost (158:48:94)

[T.sub.8]-STL Based through Enriched          34.84   45.42   38.23
Compost (111:67:86)

[T.sub.9]-Control                             39.89   50.19   41.99

SEm [+ or -]                                  1.05    1.92    1.15

C.D @5%                                       3.13    5.76    3.46

* AUE: Agronomic use efficiency = GYT - GYC / Nutrient applied

* PUE: Physiology use efficiency = GY / Nutrient uptake

Table 6. Nutrient uptake and yield difference over RDF
in different treatments

                                 ND (kg [ha.sup.-1])

Treatments                        N       P        K

[T.sub.1]-RDF + Compost @         -       -        -
10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.2]-RDF + 50 % NK +       25.00    0.00    12.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3]-STCR Based NPK +      47.00   -32.00   8.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4]-STL Based NPK +       0.00    -12.00   0.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5]-RDF through           0.00     0.00    0.00
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.6]-RDF + 50% NK          25.00    0.00    12.00
through Enriched Compost

[T.sub.7]-STCR Based through    47.00   -32.00   8.00
Enriched compost

[T.sub.8]-STL Based through     0.00    -12.00   0.00
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.9]-Control               0.00     0.00    0.00

                                 UD (kg [ha.sup.-1])

Treatments                        N       P       K

[T.sub.1]-RDF + Compost @         -       -       -
10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.2]-RDF + 50 % NK +       15.28   18.84   12.63
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3]-STCR Based NPK +      22.43   24.81   18.41
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4]-STL Based NPK +       9.55    8.21    8.18
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5]-RDF through           -1.12   0.15    4.47
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.6]-RDF + 50% NK          9.75    9.29    7.19
through Enriched Compost

[T.sub.7]-STCR Based through    12.89   13.50   9.78
Enriched compost

[T.sub.8]-STL Based through     5.05    7.50    -1.82
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.9]-Control               0.00    0.00    0.00

                                YD (kg[ha.sup.-1])

Treatments                      Grain     Straw

[T.sub.1]-RDF + Compost @         -         -
10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.2]-RDF + 50 % NK +       169.70   928.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.3]-STCR Based NPK +      345.70   1354.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.4]-STL Based NPK +       46.40    638.00
Compost @ 10 t [ha.sup.-1]

[T.sub.5]-RDF through           157.00   361.00
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.6]-RDF + 50% NK          48.00    629.00
through Enriched Compost

[T.sub.7]-STCR Based through    120.40   757.00
Enriched compost

[T.sub.8]-STL Based through     -44.00   148.00
Enriched Compost

[T.sub.9]-Control                0.00     0.00

* ND: Nutrient difference
* UD: Uptake difference
YD: Yield difference
COPYRIGHT 2016 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Saraswathi; Shetty, Vishawanath; Ashwini, M.; Santhosha, V.P.; Netravati
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Date:Jun 1, 2016
Words:4543
Previous Article:Genetic analysis of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) genotypes for Fusarium wilt using microsatellite markers.
Next Article:Investigation on Phytochemical and antimicrobial properties of tuber extracts of Pueraria tuberosa Linn.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters