Moisture Conservation and Nutrient Management Practices on Growth and Yield of Maize (Zea Mays L.)

Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is an annual C4 plant belonging to the grassy family Poaceae. After rice and wheat, maize is the third most important food crops of India and it is currently cultivated in an area 8.49 m ha^-1 with a production of 21.28 mt and productivity of 2507 kg ha^-1.¹ However, in West Bengal, maize productivity was only 39.4 q ha^-1 with the total production of 0.39 mt from the total area of 0.10 mha.²

Maize, in general, is an exhaustive feeder of nutrients; require much more nutrients compared to the other crops and in order to meet those nutritional requirements the farmers are applying large quantities of inorganic fertilizers without understanding its negative impact in the soil fertility status as well as the concerned environment. Organic source of fertilizers hold the key to the solution of current problems of fertilizers scarcity and expensiveness and continuous use of organics helps to build up soil humus and beneficial microbes besides, improving the soil physical properties and provides regulated supply of nutrients by releasing them slowly and thereby increases nutrient availability and use efficiency.³ Therefore, use of organic fertilizers alone does not result in spectacular increase in crop yields, due to their low nutrient status whereas judicious combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers helps to maintain soil health and improve crop productivity.⁴ However, combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers as an integrated manner is a better solution for conjunctive use of inorganic and organic sources of plant nutrients for crop productivity as well as sustaining soil health.

In Indian condition, maize is cultivated both as kharif and rabi crop though the former is followed more but still there is potential for the latter. Maize cultivation in winter is gaining more popularity due to minimum losses caused by biotic factors and greater response to applied plant nutrients. However, raising a rabi crop is a challenge due to lack of rainfall which is the major source of irrigation to maize crops which is sufficient during Kharif season in rainfed conditions. Lack of adequate moisture in seed zone during seeding is the major constrains for establishment of crop.⁵ Apart from this, the productivity of maize is also limited due to moisture stress⁶ and this could be achieved by soil and nutrient management practices as these are of paramount concern to conserve soil moisture, improve the productivity and fertility.⁷

To overcome of this problem, mulching is an important practice for soil moisture conservation in rainfed condition and it could be greatly increased by imposition of mulches on soil surface.⁸ Mulch particularly restricts the transport of water vapour from soil surface to microclimate, which diminish the direct evaporation loss of water^{9, 10} and increases the availability of soil water to the crops¹¹ regulates of soil temperature.¹² Considering the above mentioned reason, this study was carried out to find out the effects of moisture conservation and nutrient management practices on growth, yield attributes, yield and nutrient uptake of maize.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was carried out to with the objective of studying the growth, yield attributes, yields and nutrients uptake of maize as influenced by moisture conservation and nutrient management practices. The experiment was laid out in a split –plot design with three replications. The plot size is 7.5 (breadth) X 4.5 (length) sq. m and 20 kg ha^-1 seed rate. Date of sowing was done in 16.01.2013 and 17.01.2014. Sowing was done in the lines with the help of tyne by opening a shallow furrow at uniform depth (3-5 cm). 45 cm row-to-row spacing in the North-South direction. Before sowing seeds were treated with Carbendazim @ 3g kg^-1 of seed and spraying Carbaryl 50 WP @ 2 kg in 1000 lt ha^-1 was done with the help of Knapsack sprayer to control the stem borer during both the years. Two irrigation applied at knee high and silking stage. Removal of weeds by hand with the help of khurpi and to cover the base of the plant by soil and earthing up was done after completion of second weeding (35 DAS). The date of harvesting of maize was 06.05.2013 and 07.05.2014. The maize plants were harvested from net plot earmarked for harvesting leaving the boarder rows. Husks were removed from the cobs and were dried under the sun for 7-8 days. Thereafter, grains were removed with the help of maize shellers. Four levels of moisture conservation practices M₀: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @5.0t ha^-1 M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1 were assigned to main plots and four levels of nutrient management N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N:P₂O₅: K₂O N₂:100% RDF + phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter N₃:75% RDF+ PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1 and N₄:50% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50% vermicompost @ 2.5t ha^-1 for sub plot.

The results were analyzed taking consideration of physiological parameters viz. plant height, dry matter accumulation (DMA), leaf area index (LAI) calculated according to the formula given by Watson.¹³

Area of total number of leaves surface

Leaf area index (LAI) = ——————————————————————-

Ground area from which leaf sample were collected

Then the mean LAI (L) was calculated as per the formula given below.

                                       L ₂ – L₁

 Mean LAI (L) = ———————–

                                 Log_e L₂ – Log_e L₁

Where, L₁ and L₂ are the leaf area indices at two successive occasions on time t₁ and t₂ respectively.

Crop Growth Rate (CGR) expresses the gain in dry matter production of the crop per unit land area per unit time and is expressed as gram per meter square per day (g m^-2 day^-1). It is calculated according to the formula given by Watson.¹⁴

 W₂ – W₁

 CGR = ————-

 t₂ – t₁

Where, W₁ and W₂ was the dry weight of the aerial plants per unit area gained at time t₁ and t_2, respectively. Post harvest parameters were number of cobs plant^-1, number of grains cob^-1, 1000-grain weight (g), cob length (cm), cob girth (cm), grain yield (q ha^-1), stover yield (q ha^-1), harvest index (%) and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake. Economic analyses such as gross return (Rs.), net return (Rs.) and return per rupee investment.

Returns per rupee Invested

This is obtained from the formula:

Gross returns

Return per rupee invested = ———————————————-

Total (variable) cost of cultivation

This index provides an estimate of the benefit a farmer derives for the expenditure he incurred in adopting particular cropping systems. Anything above the value of 2.00 (means that the farmer gets Rs. 2.00 in return for every one rupee he has invested) can be considered safe, making allowance for the marketing costs, fixed costs and minor fluctuations in prices of produces.

In the same manner, return per rupee invested on a particular input can be computed. For example, return on labour can be calculated as follows:

Gross Returns-(cost of cultivation except that incurred on labour)

Return per rupee invested = —————————————————————————————-

Cost of Labour

Return per rupee spent on chemicals and power can also be calculated likewise.

Data were analyzed by using INDO-STAT- software for analysis of variance following split- plot design and treatment means were separated by applying CD Test (critical difference) at 5% level of significance.

Result and Discussions

Physiological Parameters

Plant height of maize gradually increased with the advancement of crop age upto harvest. Higher plant height was noted under irrigated plot (M1) during both the years of experimentation. This might be due to the easily available soil moisture which helps to develop suitable environment for root growth and improve micro environment for their growth (Table 1). The application of irrigation at critical stages increases the moisture content in soil which ultimately enhances the plant height of maize.¹⁵ The dry matter accumulation, leaf area index and crop growth rate also recorded highest in irrigated plot (M1) (Table 1, 2, 3 & 4) followed by FYM mulch (M3) and dry weed bio mass mulch (M2) and lowest DMA, LAI and CGR recorded under without irrigation and without mulch (M0).The different water supply conditions at different crop growth stages significantly increases the plant height, dry matter accumulation, leaf area and crop growth.¹⁶ From the data it was revealed that FYM and dry weed biomass mulch also significantly influenced the growth of crop at different stages of crop growth (Table 1, 2, 3 & 4). Plant height, DMA, LAI and CGR were recorded maximum when FYM and dry weed bio mass mulch were applied as compared to without irrigation and without mulch (M0). This was due to the applied mulch materials improve soil physical properties, enhances the available soil moisture and nutrient content in soil. Spreading of farm yard manure as mulching materials increased the soil moisture which enhanced the crop growth and development.⁸ Mulch materials restrict the transportation of water vapour from soil surface to microclimate which ultimately reduces the evaporation loss¹⁷ and availability of soil water to crop which enhances the growth and development of crops.^{11, 18, 19} The growth parameters such as dry matter accumulation, LAI and CGR were higher on irrigated plots compared to the other plots. This finding is also in conformity with the findings of De and Bandyopadhyay²⁰ and Yi et al.,²¹

Table 1: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on plant height of maize

Treatments		Plant height (cm)
		Days after sowing (DAS)
		30			60			75			At harvest
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		20.6	22.5	21.6	66.9	69.7	68.3	123.6	126.0	124.8	191.8	192.9	192.4
M1		29.9	32.2	31.0	77.0	81.1	79.1	141.1	144.5	142.8	215.7	219.6	217.7
M2		22.8	25.0	23.9	70.5	73.0	71.8	132.7	135.3	134.0	204.5	206.7	205.6
M3		26.9	28.6	27.8	73.0	76.5	74.8	135.7	138.6	137.2	209.8	212.9	211.4
S. Em (±)		0.79	0.47	0.43	1.57	1.91	1.38	1.84	1.42	1.05	2.21	1.64	1.31
C.D. (0.05)		2.75	1.63	1.49	4.58	5.58	4.03	5.36	4.15	3.62	7.65	5.68	4.51
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		23.6	25.1	24.3	70.2	73.3	71.8	132.0	134.4	133.2	202.9	204.9	203.9
N2		26.5	28.7	27.6	73.2	76.6	74.9	135.6	138.2	136.9	208.5	210.7	209.6
N3		29.1	31.4	30.2	76.9	79.5	78.2	140.4	143.5	142.0	215.5	218.1	216.8
N4		21.0	23.1	22.1	67.3	70.9	69.1	125.2	128.3	126.7	194.	198.4	196.6
S. Em(±)		0.87	1.23	0.71	0.94	1.09	0.65	1.21	1.01	1.01	1.57	1.63	1.29
C.D. (0.05)		NS	NS	NS	3.26	3.79	2.23	4.17	3.50	NS	4.57	4.76	3.77
Interaction
M0NI		19.6	21.6	20.6	65.38	68.2	66.8	121.5	123.7	122.6	189.2	190.6	189.94
M0N2		21.0	23.0	22.0	67.52	70.8	69.1	124.6	126.4	125.5	195.2	196.5	195.9
M0N3		23.0	24.7	23.8	71.85	73.9	72.8	130.2	133.0	131.6	201.1	202.2	201.6
M0N4		18.7	20.8	19.8	63.20	65.8	64.5	118.2	121.0	119.6	181.6	182.5	182.1
M1N1		27.8	29.2	28.5	75.42	79.0	77.2	139.7	142.7	141.2	212.9	215.3	214.1
MIN2		32.0	34.5	33.3	78.50	83.2	80.8	143.4	146.1	144.7	218.8	223.0	220.9
M1N3		35.5	38.6	37.1	82.33	86.2	84.2	149.2	153.3	151.3	228.1	233.0	230.6
M1N4		24.2	26.3	25.2	71.94	76.3	74.1	132.0	136.1	134.1	203.0	207.2	205.1
M2N1		21.6	23.2	22.4	68.82	71.3	70.0	132.1	134.4	133.2	202.9	203.5	203.2
M2N2		24.1	25.8	25.0	72.38	74.6	73.5	135.1	138.3	136.7	208.1	209.1	208.6
M2N3		26.6	29.2	27.9	75.60	77.2	76.4	139.1	141.4	140.3	212.6	214.6	213.6
M2N4		19.0	21.8	20.4	65.34	69.0	67.1	124.5	127.1	125.8	194.5	199.5	197.0
M3N1		25.3	26.4	25.9	71.37	74.8	73.0	134.4	136.8	135.6	206.7	210.2	208.4
M3N2		29.0	31.3	30.2	74.42	77.8	76.1	139.3	142.1	140.7	212.1	214.3	213.2
M3N3		31.2	33.0	32.1	77.81	80.8	79.3	143.1	146.4	144.7	220.3	222.6	221.4
M3N4		22.2	23.7	22.9	68.75	72.7	70.7	126.1	129.0	127.6	200.2	204.5	202.3
M x N	S. Em (±)	1.75	2.25	1.42	3.14	3.82	2.76	3.67	2.85	2.02	3.13	3.26	2.58
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	11.16	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	1.71	2.00	1.31	2.88	3.49	2.47	3.40	2.66	2.04	3.50	3.26	2.59
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,

N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

 Table 2: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on leaf area index of maize

Treatments		Leaf area index
		Days after sowing (DAS)
		30			60			75			At harvest
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		1.26	1.29	1.28	3.35	3.38	3.37	3.91	3.93	3.92	1.12	1.14	1.13
M1		1.57	1.62	1.60	3.88	3.92	3.90	4.39	4.42	4.41	1.34	1.36	1.35
M2		1.39	1.42	1.41	3.61	3.66	3.64	4.09	4.11	4.10	1.19	1.21	1.20
M3		1.44	1.49	1.48	3.72	3.75	3.74	4.19	4.22	4.21	1.24	1.26	1.26
S. Em(±)		0.01	0.02	0.01	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
C.D. (0.05)		0.04	0.07	0.04	0.12	0.09	0.09	0.07	0.07	0.05	0.03	0.03	0.03
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		1.39	1.43	1.42	3.59	3.63	3.61	4.12	4.14	4.13	1.21	1.23	1.22
N2		1.43	1.47	1.46	3.67	3.72	3.69	4.18	4.21	4.19	1.24	1.26	1.25
N3		1.48	1.53	1.51	3.79	3.83	3.82	4.25	4.27	4.26	1.28	1.31	1.29
N4		1.34	1.39	1.37	3.49	3.54	3.52	4.04	4.07	4.06	1.16	1.18	1.17
S. Em(±)		0.01	0.02	0.01	0.03	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01
C.D. (0.05)		0.04	NS	0.03	0.09	0.09	0.07	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.03	0.02	0.02
Interaction
M0NI		1.25	1.27	1.26	3.33	3.36	3.35	3.88	3.89	3.89	1.10	1.12	1.11
M0N2		1.27	1.30	1.29	3.38	3.42	3.40	3.94	3.96	3.95	1.14	1.15	1.14
M0N3		1.30	1.34	1.32	3.45	3.48	3.46	4.01	4.03	4.02	1.17	1.19	1.19
M0N4		1.21	1.26	1.24	3.24	3.27	3.26	3.81	3.82	3.82	1.07	1.08	1.07
M1N1		1.55	1.59	1.57	3.81	3.86	3.84	4.34	4.37	4.36	1.32	1.34	1.33
MIN2		1.61	1.65	1.63	3.91	3.96	3.94	4.42	4.45	4.44	1.36	1.38	1.37
M1N3		1.67	1.72	1.70	4.05	4.09	4.07	4.52	4.55	4.54	1.40	1.42	1.42
M1N4		1.45	1.52	1.48	3.73	3.78	3.76	4.28	4.32	4.30	1.28	1.30	1.29
M2N1		1.37	1.41	1.39	3.58	3.62	3.60	4.08	4.09	4.09	1.18	1.20	1.19
M2N2		1.41	1.43	1.42	3.65	3.70	3.67	4.12	4.14	4.13	1.21	1.22	1.21
M2N3		1.44	1.46	1.45	3.74	3.80	3.77	4.19	4.21	4.20	1.25	1.27	1.25
M2N4		1.33	1.39	1.36	3.48	3.52	3.50	3.97	3.98	3.98	1.12	1.15	1.13
M3N1		1.41	1.46	1.44	3.63	3.67	3.65	4.16	4.19	4.18	1.23	1.25	1.24
M3N2		1.46	1.50	1.48	3.75	3.79	3.77	4.23	4.26	4.25	1.26	1.28	1.27
M3N3		1.51	1.59	1.55	3.95	3.96	3.96	4.28	4.31	4.29	1.29	1.31	1.30
M3N4		1.36	1.42	1.39	3.53	3.59	3.56	4.10	4.13	4.12	1.19	1.21	1.20
M x N	S. Em (±)	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.07	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	0.09	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	0.02	0.03	0.02	0.06	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	0.10	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:
N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,
N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

Table 3: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on dry matter accumulation of maize

Treatments		Dry matter accumulation (g m-2)
		Days after sowing (DAS)
		30			60			75				At harvest
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII		Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		313.2	315.4	314.3	483.7	489.3	486.5	711.5	716.1		713.8	948.2	957.1	952.6
M1		392.7	396.4	394.6	611.7	618.8	615.2	905.7	911.4		908.6	1198.1	1207.6	1202.8
M2		370.0	373.2	371.6	566.1	571.7	568.9	820.4	823.8		822.1	1078.2	1086.7	1082.4
M3		381.1	384.7	382.9	584.6	593.4	589.0	858.5	862.7		860.6	1127.5	1135.8	1131.7
S. Em(±)		3.38	3.36	3.28	2.75	2.65	2.22	4.60	3.62		4.05	5.32	5.12	5.20
C.D. (0.05)		11.69	11.62	11.36	9.47	9.15	7.65	15.87	12.52		13.98	18.37	17.66	17.96
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		360.7	364.0	362.3	554.9	561.4	558.1	807.0		811.7	809.4	1065.3	1073.2	1069.2
N2		370.9	374.5	372.7	571.2	577.6	574.4	840.1		844.4	842.2	1108.2	1115.7	1111.9
N3		387.4	390.8	389.1	594.5	601.1	597.8	881.7		885.4	883.5	1162.2	1171.3	1166.7
N4		338.1	340.4	339.2	525.5	533.2	529.4	767.4		772.5	769.9	1016.4	1027.1	1021.8
S. Em(±)		1.79	2.16	1.83	1.80	2.24	1.82	2.20		2.09	2.14	2.40	2.51	2.42
C.D. (0.05)		NS	6.32	NS	5.26	6.55	5.33	6.43		6.12	6.24	7.03	7.32	7.07
Interaction
M0NI		313.3	315.5	314.4	479.9	484.8	482.4	700.6		704.6	706.6	932.0	938.7	939.1
M0N2		317.2	321.3	319.3	490.2	498.0	494.1	721.6		726.4	727.2	961.8	968.3	967.1
M0N3		322.1	326.1	324.1	504.1	509.3	506.7	750.6		754.9	755.6	1001.7	1011.5	1006.8
M0N4		300.1	298.6	299.3	460.4	465.0	462.7	673.5		678.4	679.5	897.5	909.8	906.7
M1N1		383.6	385.5	384.6	601.0	604.3	602.7	884.1		890.1	896.2	1169.6	1178.9	1185.6
MIN2		396.5	400.8	398.6	618.7	624.1	621.4	918.9		924.9	927.1	1215.5	1223.4	1227.1
M1N3		420.9	425.3	423.1	648.2	657.5	652.9	970.5		974.1	976.7	1283.7	1293.4	1294.5
M1N4		369.9	374.1	372.0	578.9	589.1	584.0	849.0		856.5	862.7	1123.5	1134.6	1141.1
M2N1		367.2	371.1	369.1	561.6	567.0	564.3	802.2		806.6	812.6	1055.8	1063.1	1067.1
M2N2		381.3	384.6	383.0	580.2	585.0	582.6	844.2		846.9	851.9	1105.6	1114.6	1116.3
M2N3		399.5	402.1	400.8	603.8	609.1	606.4	883.9		886.2	888.2	1155.8	1164.7	1161.7
M2N4		331.9	335.1	333.5	519.0	525.8	522.4	751.3		755.6	758.3	995.4	1004.4	1004.5
M3N1		381.1	383.8	381.2	577.3	589.3	583.3	840.6		845.6	852.5	1103.9	1111.7	1118.2
M3N2		388.5	391.4	390.0	595.6	603.2	599.4	875.7		879.5	885.6	1149.6	1156.3	1160.7
M3N3		407.1	409.7	408.4	621.8	628.5	625.1	922.0		926.3	925.9	1207.4	1215.4	1213.1
M3N4		350.4	353.7	352.1	543.8	552.8	548.3	795.9		799.6	804.7	1049.3	1059.9	1061.7
M x N	S. Em (±)	3.58	4.33	3.66	5.49	5.30	4.44	9.20		7.25	8.10	10.64	10.23	10.40
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	11.36	13.85	11.30	NS		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	4.59	5.03	4.56	4.16	4.70	3.86	5.97		5.13	5.48	6.76	6.71	6.68
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	13.10	14.52	11.95	NS		NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:

N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,
N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

Table 4: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices in crop growth rate of maize

Treatments		Crop growth rate (g. g m-2 day-1)
		Days after sowing (DAS)
		30-45			45-60			60-75			75-90			90- At harvest
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		2.93	3.07	3.01	8.44	8.51	8.48	15.19	15.56	15.37	12.28	12.47	12.29	3.51	3.59	3.55
M1		4.01	4.13	4.07	10.62	10.69	10.66	19.60	20.74	20.17	14.57	14.79	14.52	4.91	4.95	4.93
M2		3.59	3.68	3.64	9.49	9.55	9.52	16.95	17.45	17.19	13.28	13.56	13.28	3.91	3.95	3.93
M3		3.69	3.90	3.80	9.88	10.01	9.95	18.26	18.88	18.57	13.79	14.04	13.73	4.14	4.16	4.14
S. Em(±)		0.05	0.05	0.04	0.11	0.09	0.07	0.30	0.36	0.33	0.18	0.24	0.18	0.15	0.17	0.16
C.D. (0.05)		NS	0.16	0.15	0.38	0.32	0.25	1.05	1.24	1.12	0.61	0.85	0.64	0.54	0.60	0.56
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		3.47	3.62	3.54	9.49	9.54	9.52	16.80	17.45	17.13	13.21	13.42	13.16	4.01	4.01	4.01
N2		3.65	3.77	3.71	9.73	9.76	9.75	17.93	18.54	18.23	13.66	13.86	13.65	4.21	4.23	4.21
N3		3.82	3.92	3.87	9.99	10.12	10.05	19.15	19.85	19.49	14.27	14.49	14.31	4.43	4.56	4.49
N4		3.28	3.48	3.38	9.21	9.36	9.29	16.12	16.78	16.45	12.77	13.10	12.72	3.83	3.87	3.85
S. Em(±)		0.02	0.02	0.02	0.03	0.03	0.02	0.11	0.12	0.11	0.06	0.07	0.04	0.03	0.02	0.02
C.D. (0.05)		0.06	0.06	NS	0.10	0.08	0.07	0.35	0.37	0.33	0.20	0.22	0.14	0.09	0.07	0.07
Interaction
M0NI		2.85	2.95	2.90	8.26	8.33	8.30	14.71	15.16	14.92	12.03	12.22	12.05	3.39	3.38	3.43
M0N2		3.01	3.14	3.07	8.53	8.63	8.58	15.41	15.63	15.46	12.43	12.51	12.42	3.60	3.62	3.67
M0N3		3.19	3.29	3.24	8.95	8.93	8.94	16.43	16.68	16.54	12.92	13.05	12.90	3.81	4.06	3.99
M0N4		2.66	2.89	2.77	8.03	8.14	8.09	14.19	14.79	14.46	11.73	12.11	11.80	3.21	3.31	3.29
M1N1		3.92	4.06	3.99	10.57	10.53	10.55	18.87	20.19	19.97	14.21	14.44	14.09	4.82	4.81	4.78
MIN2		4.13	4.20	4.17	10.77	10.69	10.73	20.02	21.16	20.73	14.79	14.88	14.74	4.98	5.02	4.97
M1N3		4.26	4.33	4.29	10.94	11.15	11.05	21.51	22.54	22.23	15.68	15.89	15.80	5.17	5.40	5.29
M1N4		3.74	3.94	3.84	10.20	10.39	10.29	18.01	19.08	19.05	13.59	13.96	13.48	4.70	4.58	4.59
M2N1		3.55	3.68	3.61	9.41	9.39	9.40	16.09	16.52	16.44	13.08	13.28	13.06	3.78	3.82	3.68
M2N2		3.66	3.72	3.69	9.60	9.63	9.62	17.60	18.09	17.90	13.45	13.81	13.45	3.98	4.03	3.89
M2N3		3.81	3.88	3.84	9.81	9.92	9.87	18.63	19.23	19.17	13.90	14.27	14.00	4.27	4.29	4.12
M2N4		3.35	3.45	3.40	9.12	9.26	9.19	15.48	15.94	15.92	12.67	12.89	12.62	3.61	3.69	3.51
M3N1		3.57	3.79	3.68	9.73	9.90	9.82	17.55	17.95	18.18	13.51	13.74	13.43	4.04	4.00	3.92
M3N2		3.79	4.03	3.91	10.01	10.09	10.05	18.68	19.29	19.38	14.01	14.23	13.98	4.25	4.22	4.07
M3N3		4.04	4.17	4.10	10.28	10.43	10.35	20.01	20.97	20.60	14.57	14.76	14.54	4.45	4.51	4.29
M3N4		3.38	3.63	3.51	9.51	9.64	9.57	16.81	17.33	17.63	13.08	13.44	12.98	3.81	3.92	3.74
M x N	S. Em (±)	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.22	0.18	0.14	0.61	0.71	0.65	0.35	0.49	0.36	0.32	0.35	0.33
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	0.06	0.06	0.05	0.12	0.10	0.08	0.37	0.42	0.38	0.21	0.27	0.20	0.17	0.18	0.17
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:
N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,
N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

Application of 75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1 (N₃) produced maximum plant height, leaf area index, dry matter accumulation and crop growth rate (Table 1, 2, 3 and 4) followed by 100% RDF + PSB+ Azotobacter (N₂) and lowest values of growth parameters were recorded under 50% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50% vermicompost 2.5 t ha^-1 (N₄). This might be due to the availability of higher amount of macro and micro nutrients. Adoption of nutrient management in an integrated manner helps to maintain soil fertility which leads to increase the plant height, LAI, dry matter accumulation and other secondary growth. This is due to the utilization of applied nutrients by crops. These results are also in conformity with the findings of Rajeshwari et al.,²² Zhao and Zhou,²³ Sujatha et al.,⁸ and Kumar and Dhar.²⁴ The 100% recommended dose of fertilizer and vermicompost application which remained at par with 75% recommended dose of fertilizer and vermicompost and 100% recommended dose of fertilizer alone recorded highest growth of crop.²⁵ However, application of 50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50% vermicompost 2.5 t ha^-1 resulted in significantly lower growth compared to the 100% recommended dose of fertilizer. Plant height of maize was improved when combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizer can compare statistically with the blanket application of inorganic fertilizer.²⁶ The application of recommended dose of fertilizers with Azotobacter and phosphate solubilizing bacteria significantly increases growth of maize²⁷ but also make available added phosphorus thereby increasing phosphorus availability and improving the growth of maize.²⁸

Yield Attributes and Yield

Yield attributing characters such as number of rows cob^-1, grains row^-1, 100-grain weight, number of grains cob^-1, cob length, cob girth are presented in Table 5a & 5b, grain, stover yield and harvest index are presented in Table 6. The moisture conservation practices significantly influenced the yield attributes and yield of maize. However, the highest number of rows cob^-1 of maize, grain row^-1, 100- grains weight, number of grains cob^-1, length of cob, cob girth (Table 5a & 5b) and grain, stover yield and harvest index (Table 6) were recorded under irrigation (M1). The application of irrigation at critical stages might have improved soil moisture, availability of water and absorption of moisture by crops which enhanced the crop growth, yield attributing characters and ultimately yield. The application of irrigation both at silking and grain development stage increases the yield parameters like cob girth, cob length and grain yield per plant.^{29, 30} Moisture conservation practices by FYM and dry weed biomass mulch also increased yield attributing characters such as number of rows cob^-1, 100-grain weight, number of grains cob^-1, cob length, cob girth, grain yield and stover yield (Table 5a, 5b and 6). This was due to the applied mulch materials conserve soil moisture which improves the microclimate of soil as well as plant. This result is in conformity with findings of Khan and Parvej.³¹

Table 5a: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on yield attributes of maize

Treatments		No. of cobs plant-1			No. of grains cob-1			Test weight [100-grain weight (g)]			Cob length (cm)
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		1.18	1.26	1.22	236.21	238.92	237.57	27.88	29.30	28.60	13.64	14.89	14.27
M1		1.42	1.55	1.49	335.48	340.40	337.94	34.11	36.10	35.11	17.83	19.21	18.52
M2		1.27	1.39	1.33	311.41	314.88	313.14	30.48	31.96	31.22	14.92	16.43	15.70
M3		1.35	1.47	1.40	319.87	324.11	321.99	31.24	32.97	32.11	16.08	17.34	16.71
S.Em(±)		0.06	0.06	0.04	13.39	7.29	9.77	1.21	0.96	0.86	0.81	0.79	0.59
C.D. (0.05)		0.18	0.19	0.12	42.35	25.02	33.81	4.02	3.30	2.98	2.80	2.39	2.01
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		1.28	1.37	1.33	296.36	300.47	298.42	29.93	31.46	30.69	14.71	16.06	15.41
N2		1.33	1.46	1.39	305.12	309.69	307.41	31.66	33.10	32.37	16.06	17.49	16.78
N3		1.40	1.53	1.47	317.41	320.60	319.01	33.57	35.58	34.58	18.00	19.46	18.73
N4		1.18	1.32	1.25	284.08	287.54	285.81	28.59	30.19	29.40	13.72	14.86	14.29
S. Em(±)		0.03	0.04	0.02	7.31	6.26	5.54	1.33	1.10	0.82	0.49	0.56	0.48
C.D. (0.05)		0.12	0.14	0.07	21.31	18.28	16.17	3.90	3.21	2.41	NS	1.95	1.41
Interaction
M0NI		1.20	1.23	1.22	235.80	238.71	237.25	26.96	28.03	27.50	12.86	14.18	13.52
M0N2		1.23	1.30	1.27	240.69	243.10	241.90	28.94	29.66	29.30	13.76	15.10	14.43
M0N3		1.27	1.37	1.32	252.69	254.28	253.49	30.71	31.73	31.22	15.52	16.65	16.08
M0N4		1.00	1.13	1.07	215.66	219.59	217.62	24.93	27.82	26.38	12.43	13.64	13.03
M1N1		1.37	1.53	1.45	329.72	334.69	332.21	32.97	34.64	33.81	16.93	18.43	17.68
MIN2		1.43	1.57	1.50	335.76	343.04	339.40	34.95	36.89	35.92	18.70	19.88	19.29
M1N3		1.57	1.67	1.62	354.81	360.05	357.43	37.77	40.29	39.03	20.65	21.93	21.29
M1N4		1.30	1.47	1.38	321.63	323.83	322.73	30.75	32.62	31.68	15.06	16.62	15.84
M2N1		1.23	1.33	1.28	305.17	308.30	306.74	29.64	31.12	30.38	14.32	15.51	14.92
M2N2		1.30	1.43	1.37	319.46	321.86	320.66	30.98	32.74	31.86	15.25	16.85	16.05
M2N3		1.33	1.50	1.42	325.19	328.37	326.78	32.48	34.34	33.41	16.91	18.86	17.89
M2N4		1.20	1.30	1.25	295.80	300.97	298.38	28.82	29.65	29.24	13.44	14.49	13.97
M3N1		1.30	1.40	1.35	314.76	320.19	317.47	30.13	32.06	31.10	14.93	16.10	15.51
M3N2		1.37	1.53	1.45	324.56	330.76	327.66	31.66	33.12	32.39	16.54	18.12	17.33
M3N3		1.47	1.57	1.52	336.96	339.68	338.32	33.30	35.99	34.65	18.93	20.42	19.68
M3N4		1.23	1.37	1.30	303.22	305.79	304.51	29.89	30.71	30.30	13.93	14.71	14.32
MxN	S. Em (±)	0.12	0.12	0.08	14.62	12.52	11.08	2.67	2.20	1.65	0.98	1.59	0.96
	C.D. (0.05)	0.36	0.37	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	0.11	0.11	0.08	18.43	13.07	13.69	2.61	2.13	1.67	1.78	1.49	1.02
	C.D. (0.05)	0.33	0.35	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:

N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,
N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

Table 5b: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on yield attributes of maize

Treatments		Cob girth (cm)			No. of rows cob-1			Grain weight cob-1 (g)
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		12.83	13.82	13.32	12.64	13.55	13.09	68.46	69.59	68.03
M1		15.04	16.52	15.78	16.11	17.96	17.04	80.16	82.02	81.09
M2		13.89	14.86	14.38	14.47	15.24	14.86	74.96	76.52	75.74
M3		14.42	15.42	14.92	15.28	16.41	15.85	76.75	78.41	77.71
S. Em(±)		0.43	0.18	0.22	0.70	0.68	0.51	2.42	2.29	1.40
C.D. (0.05)		1.47	0.61	0.76	2.29	2.11	1.57	7.28	6.93	4.78
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		13.66	14.54	14.10	13.93	15.16	14.55	74.18	76.13	75.16
N2		14.48	15.53	15.01	15.13	16.26	15.69	76.05	78.21	77.13
N3		15.34	16.72	16.04	16.39	17.79	17.09	78.97	80.56	79.77
N4		12.69	13.83	13.27	13.06	13.95	13.51	71.14	71.88	71.51
S. Em(±)		0.76	0.66	0.45	0.52	0.47	0.36	1.43	1.19	0.97
C.D. (0.05)		NS	NS	NS	1.78	1.54	1.25	4.91	4.10	3.34
Interaction
M0NI		12.50	13.18	12.84	11.98	12.92	12.45	69.30	67.86	68.58
M0N2		13.58	14.41	13.99	13.18	14.17	13.67	70.95	69.65	70.30
M0N3		14.28	15.32	14.80	14.07	15.03	14.55	72.11	71.52	71.82
M0N4		10.96	12.38	11.67	11.33	12.09	11.71	65.99	64.83	65.41
M1N1		14.42	15.73	15.07	15.31	17.62	16.46	80.34	78.38	79.36
MIN2		15.46	16.89	16.17	16.90	18.22	17.56	82.78	80.72	81.75
M1N3		16.39	18.71	17.55	18.11	20.27	19.19	87.29	84.89	86.09
M1N4		13.88	14.79	14.34	14.13	15.73	14.93	77.68	76.64	77.16
M2N1		13.56	14.28	13.92	13.77	14.52	14.15	76.12	74.22	75.17
M2N2		14.35	14.94	14.64	14.78	15.35	15.07	79.26	76.54	77.90
M2N3		15.00	16.27	15.64	16.44	17.25	16.84	80.20	78.61	79.40
M2N4		12.67	13.96	13.32	12.93	13.86	13.39	70.49	70.49	70.49
M3N1		14.18	14.99	14.59	14.68	15.61	15.15	78.75	76.26	77.51
M3N2		14.54	15.89	15.22	15.67	17.29	16.48	79.85	77.30	78.58
M3N3		15.69	16.60	16.14	16.94	18.64	17.79	82.65	80.84	81.75
M3N4		13.29	14.20	13.75	13.86	14.13	14.00	73.38	72.58	72.98
M x N	S. Em (±)	1.52	1.31	0.91	1.39	1.37	1.02	4.85	4.59	3.28
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	1.38	1.54	0.82	1.31	1.27	0.95	4.44	4.15	3.00
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:
N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,

N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

Table 6: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on yield of maize

Treatments		Grain yield (q ha-1)			Stover yield (q ha-1)			Harvest index (%)
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		26.03	28.46	27.25	94.83	96.67	95.25	21.41	22.76	22.09
M1		40.14	46.94	43.54	119.42	121.84	120.13	25.07	27.81	26.44
M2		31.33	34.42	32.87	107.83	108.66	108.24	22.41	23.94	23.17
M3		36.23	40.84	38.53	112.76	114.49	113.12	24.24	26.32	25.28
S. Em(±)		1.08	1.03	0.86	0.52	0.54	0.52	0.67	0.52	0.53
C.D. (0.05)		3.75	3.57	2.96	1.79	1.88	1.83	2.31	1.94	1.85
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		31.69	35.58	33.64	105.40	107.312	106.86	22.84	24.68	23.75
N2		35.10	38.75	36.93	109.77	111.608	111.19	23.90	25.55	24.73
N3		39.07	45.02	42.05	115.18	117.053	116.61	25.03	27.54	26.28
N4		27.86	31.28	29.57	100.48	102.70	102.09	21.34	23.09	22.21
S. Em(±)		0.45	0.98	0.46	0.25	0.24	0.24	0.25	0.56	0.25
C.D. (0.05)		1.32	2.86	1.35	0.75	0.73	0.72	0.75	1.61	0.74
Interaction
M0NI		25.65	26.79	26.22	93.20	93.88	93.54	21.56	22.18	21.87
M0N2		27.48	29.93	28.71	96.21	96.68	96.45	22.21	23.59	22.90
M0N3		30.68	34.33	32.51	100.18	101.17	100.68	23.43	25.30	24.36
M0N4		20.30	22.80	21.55	89.76	90.98	90.37	18.43	20.01	19.22
M1N1		37.73	44.21	40.97	116.41	117.93	117.17	24.48	27.23	25.86
MIN2		43.21	48.05	45.63	121.35	122.64	122.00	26.26	28.13	27.19
M1N3		46.12	56.38	51.25	128.20	129.35	128.78	26.45	30.34	28.39
M1N4		33.51	39.06	36.28	111.72	113.46	112.59	23.08	25.57	24.33
M2N1		29.95	32.77	31.36	105.62	106.29	105.95	22.08	23.53	22.80
M2N2		32.22	34.92	33.57	110.56	111.46	111.01	22.56	23.83	23.19
M2N3		36.95	40.82	38.88	115.59	116.46	116.02	24.21	25.94	25.08
M3N1		26.19	29.16	27.68	99.55	100.43	99.99	20.79	22.44	21.62
M3N2		33.46	38.55	36.00	110.39	111.15	110.77	23.26	25.70	24.48
M3N3		37.50	42.11	39.81	114.96	115.65	115.31	24.59	26.66	25.63
M3N4		42.55	48.53	45.54	120.74	121.24	120.99	26.04	28.57	27.31
M2N4		31.44	34.11	32.78	104.93	105.93	105.43	23.05	24.33	23.69
M x N	S. Em (±)	0.90	1.96	0.92	1.03	1.08	1.05	1.33	1.12	1.06
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	1.34	1.99	1.17	0.67	0.69	0.68	0.80	1.07	0.69
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:
N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,
N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

The highest yield attributing characters (Tables 5a & 5b and) and grain yield (Table 6) were recorded with treatment receiving 75% RDF in combination with PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1 (N₃). Increased in grain and stover yield with integration of organic and inorganic fertilizers along with vermicompost, Azotobacter and phosphate solubilizing bacteria might be due to improvement in the yield components (number of grains rows cob^-1, grain row^-1, 100-grain weight, number of grains cob^-1, cob length and cob girth). 100% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter (N₂), 100% RDF (N₁) significantly influenced the yield attributes and yield, which was due to the more availability and absorption of nutrients by crop. Application of recommended dose of fertilizers and farm yard manure significantly increased the grain yield, stover yield and harvest index [8]. Combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers increased maize grain yield over application of 100% RDF³² and bio-fertilizers like Rhizobium, Azotobacter and phosphate solubilising bacteria.³³ The integrated use of nutrient significantly influenced yield and yield attributes such as grain weight per cob of maize, number of seeds per cob and test weight.^{34, 35}

Nutrients Uptake

Moisture conservation practices significantly influenced nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake. The highest nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake were recorded under irrigated plot (M1).This is because of increases grain and stover yield and enhances availability of water to the crop (Table 7). Adequate supply of moisture in general is known to influence positively on the growth and dry matter production of crop directly as well as indirectly by increasing the availability and utilization of nutrient and increase the nutrient uptake of N, P and K in sorghum.36 Among the moisture conservation practices, FYM mulch and dry weed biomass mulch recorded highest uptake of N, P and K which was mainly due to increased availability of soil moisture and nutrients in root zone which helped to improve the nutrient content in grain and stover (Table 7). Spreading of FYM as mulch materials not only efficiently conserved the soil moisture and provided better availability of nutrients but also improved the soil physical properties.³⁷ Moisture conservation practices by mulching increased the NPK uptake because of slow decomposition and increased nutrient availability due to mineralization which benefited the maize crop in terms of yield and nutrient uptake.³⁸

Table 7: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on nutrient uptake of maize

Treatments		Nitrogen (kg ha-1)			Phosphorus (kg ha-1)			Potassium (kg ha-1)
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)		YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled	YI	YII	Pooled
M0		75.68	77.20	76.44	39.72	43.16	41.44	84.05	87.02	85.54
M1		87.27	92.65	89.94	52.72	55.91	54.32	102.03	106.23	104.13
M2		79.90	82.84	81.40	43.12	46.29	44.71	89.28	92.98	91.13
M3		83.87	86.08	84.98	47.93	51.86	49.90	94.41	98.89	96.66
S. Em(±)		1.34	1.61	1.00	1.05	0.87	0.82	1.16	1.29	0.96
C.D. (0.05)		4.01	4.91	3.00	3.07	2.54	2.42	4.01	3.97	2.99
Nutrient Management (N)
N1		79.25	82.07	80.66	44.57	48.50	46.54	90.84	94.57	92.70
N2		84.36	87.04	85.76	46.59	50.51	48.56	93.85	97.68	95.77
N3		88.78	91.82	90.30	49.52	53.45	51.49	97.33	101.38	99.36
N4		74.35	77.85	76.10	42.80	44.76	43.78	87.75	91.49	89.62
S. Em(±)		0.87	0.59	0.36	0.52	0.61	0.53	1.11	0.54	0.50
C.D. (0.05)		3.01	2.06	1.24	1.79	2.11	1.83	3.24	1.86	1.74
Interaction
M0NI		73.06	74.28	73.67	38.63	42.81	40.72	83.26	86.14	84.70
M0N2		78.71	79.60	79.16	40.73	44.45	42.59	85.78	88.72	87.25
M0N3		83.22	84.32	83.77	42.69	47.33	45.01	87.93	90.96	89.44
M0N4		67.74	70.58	69.16	36.82	38.04	37.43	79.26	82.25	80.75
M1N1		85.14	90.36	87.75	51.14	54.54	52.84	99.07	102.88	100.98
MIN2		89.15	95.36	92.26	53.40	56.94	55.17	103.22	107.99	105.60
M1N3		93.45	100.29	96.87	56.54	60.63	58.59	108.73	114.17	111.45
M1N4		81.17	84.59	82.88	49.81	51.52	50.67	97.11	99.88	98.50
M2N1		77.85	80.89	79.37	41.71	45.95	43.83	87.85	91.76	89.81
M2N2		82.72	84.23	83.48	43.84	47.44	45.64	90.85	93.85	92.35
M2N3		87.85	89.58	88.72	46.59	49.52	48.06	93.33	96.78	95.06
M2N4		71.41	76.66	74.04	40.33	42.26	41.29	85.06	89.52	87.29
M3N1		80.93	82.73	81.83	46.81	50.71	48.76	93.16	97.49	95.32
M3N2		86.87	88.96	87.91	48.42	53.22	50.82	95.56	100.14	97.85
M3N3		90.58	93.07	91.83	52.26	56.31	54.29	99.33	103.63	101.48
M3N4		77.08	79.56	78.32	44.24	47.21	45.72	89.59	94.33	91.96
M x N	S. Em (±)	2.68	3.22	2.00	1.03	1.23	1.06	2.32	1.08	1.01
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS
N x M	S. Em (±)	2.48	2.85	1.77	1.89	1.62	1.53	2.25	2.29	1.73
	C.D. (0.05)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:
N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,
N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

It would further be found that uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in maize was more in 2014 than in 2013 due to higher biomass and grain yield in 2014 (Table 7). Difference in uptake due to nutrient management treatments were greatly due to difference in biomass yield as because the uptake was the resultant of dry matter content and percentage of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content in both grain and stover. The uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium through grain and stover of maize increased under adequate supply of nutrients. Among the nutrient management practices highest N, P and K uptake was recorded with treatment receiving 75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1 (N₃) followed by 100% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter (N₂), 100% RDF, (N₁) and the lowest N, P and K uptake was observed under 50% RDF +PSB+ Azotobacter + 50% vermicompost 2.5 t ha^-1 (N₄) (Table 7). The uptake of N, P and K by maize was found higher due to application of 75% recommended dose of fertilizer and 2.7 t ha^-1 vermicompost.^{39, 40} Organic matter, like vermicompost and enriched compost, enhanced plant nutrients uptake (N, P and K)⁴¹ and balanced and integrated nutrient supply shows significant higher uptake of primary nutrients.⁴²

Economics

The highest gross return (Rs. 47164 and Rs. 63369 ha^-1), net returns (Rs. 24174 and Rs. 39039 ha^-1) and return per rupee investment (1.05 and 1.55) were recorded under irrigation (M₁) (Table 8). The higher profitability of this treatment was due to higher grain yield and lower total cost obtained as a result of better moisture conservation and improving soil fertility. The lowest gross return (Rs. 30585.25 and Rs. 38421 ha^-1), net return (Rs. 7595 and Rs. 14091 ha^-1) and return per rupee investment (0.33 and 0.61) were recorded under without irrigation and mulch (M₀). Straw mulching showed significantly higher net returns and benefit: cost ratio over spreading FYM mulch and no mulching on linseed.⁸ Moisture conservation practices by mulching were better resulting in higher availability of moisture to the crops under rainfed condition which increased the net return and B: C ratio.⁴³

Table 8: Effect of nutrient management and moisture conservation practices on economics of maize cultivation

	Economics of Maize Production
	YI			YII
Treatments	Gross return (Rs. ha-1)	Net return (Rs. ha-1)	Return/ rupee investment	Gross return (Rs. ha-1)	Net return (Rs. ha-1)	Return/ rupee investment
Moisture Conservation Practices (M)
M0	30585.25	7595.25	0.33	38421	14091.50	0.61
M1	47164.50	24174.50	1.05	63369	39039.50	1.55
M2	36812.75	13022.75	0.54	46467	21337.50	0.88
M3	42570.25	18580.25	0.77	55134	29805.50	1.16
Nutrient Management (N)
N1	37235.75	14245.75	0.65	48033	23704.50	0.96
N2	41242.50	18177.5	0.82	52312	27918.00	1.12
N3	45907.25	18917.25	0.67	60777	32763.00	1.10
N4	32735.50	7245.50	0.28	42228	15929.00	0.60
Interaction
M0NI	31313.75	8323.75	0.38	36166	11837.50	0.48
M0N2	32289.00	9234.00	0.42	40405	16011.00	0.64
M0N3	36049.00	9059.00	0.32	46345	18331.00	0.62
M0N4	23852.50	862.50	0.03	30780	4481.00	0.17
M1N1	44332.75	21342.75	0.91	59683	35354.50	1.32
MIN2	50771.75	27716.75	1.18	64867	40473.00	1.50
M1N3	54191.00	27201.00	0.92	76113	48099.00	1.53
M1N4	39374.25	13884	0.51	52731	26432.00	0.93
M2N1	35191.25	12201	0.53	44239	19910.50	0.77
M2N2	37858.50	14803.50	0.64	47142	22748.00	0.87
M2N3	43416.25	16426.25	0.57	55107	27093.00	0.88
M2N4	30773.25	5283.25	0.20	39366	13067.00	0.47
M3N1	39315.50	16325.50	0.68	52042	27713.50	1.01
M3N2	44062.50	21007.50	0.87	56848	32454.00	1.19
M3N3	49996.25	23006.25	0.77	65515	37501.0	1.17
M3N4	36942.00	11452.00	0.42	46048	19749.00	0.68

 

YI=2014 and YII=2015 M0: without irrigation and without mulch, M₁: irrigation as and when required, M₂: dry weed biomass mulch @ 5.0t ha^-1, M₃: FYM mulch @ 5.0 t ha^-1:
N₁: 100% RDF 80:40:40 kg ha^-1 of N: P₂O₅: K₂O, N₂:100% RDF + Phosphate solubilising bacteria (PSB) + Azotobacter, N3:75% RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1,
N₄:50 % RDF + PSB + Azotobacter + 50 % vermicompost @ 2.5 t ha^-1

The highest gross return (Rs. 45907 and Rs. 60777 ha^-1) and net return (Rs. 27990 and Rs. 32763 ha^-1) was recorded with treatment receiving 75% RDF in combination with PSB + Azotobacter + vermicompost (VC) @ 5.0 t ha^-1 (N₃) (Tables 8). This was due to the higher grain yield. But highest return per rupee investment (0.82 and 1.12) was recorded under treatment receiving 100% RDF and Azotobacter + PSB (N₂) due to the low cost of cultivation compared to the other treatments. The application of vermicompost and increased recommended dose of fertilizers from 50 to 100% increased the yield but net return and benefit cost ratio was low due to the high cost of cultivation⁴⁴ and recommended dose of NPK along with seed inoculation of Azotobacter resulted in higher net returns and B: C ratio of maize crop.⁴⁵ The highest net return per ha and net return per rupee invested was obtained with 100% NPK treatment.⁴⁶ Although nutrient management only gets the better opportunity to reduce the ill effect of soil health this is environmentally sound, socially acceptable and economically viable.

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to the Department of Agronomy, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya and Directorate of Farm for all kinds of assistance throughout the experimentation.

Funding

The research was carried out as a part of Ph.D (Agronomy) programme under Department of Agronomy, Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya and no funding was received for the same manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known declared conflicts of interest related with this piece of research work.

 References

1. Rao,P.V., Subbaiah, G and Veeraraghavaiah, R. Agronomic responses of maize to plant population and nitrogen availability-a review. Int. J. of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences. 2014; 4: 107-116.
2. Anon (2010). Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2010, Ministry of Agriculture Govt. of India.
3. Quansah, C. Integrated soil management for sustainable Agriculture and Food Security. A case study for four countries in W. Africa, FAO. 2000; 1:33-75.
4. Kumar, P., Halepyati, A.S., Pujari, B.T. and Desai, B.K. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity, nutrient uptake and economics of maize (Zea mays L.) under rainfed condition. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 2007; 20(3): (462-465).
5. Hadda, M.S., Khera, K.L. and Kukal, S.S. Soil and water conservation practices and soil productivity in North-Western sub-mountainous tract of India: A review. Indian J. Soil Cons. 2000; 28: 187-192.
6. Rana K.S., Shivran, R.K. and Kumar, A. Effect of moisture-conservation practices on productivity and water use in maize (Zea mays)-based intercropping systems under rainfed conditions. Indian J. Agron. 2006; 51(1): 24-26.
7. Arora, S. and Hadda, M.S. Soil moisture conservation and nutrient management practices in maize-wheat cropping system in rainfed North-Western tract of India. Indian Journal of Dryland Agriculture Research and Development. 2003; 18: 70-74.
8. Singh, R.K., Singh, A. and Singh, K. Effect of moisture conservation practices on linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) under rainfed conditions. Enviroment and Ecology. 2014; 32(2):425-427.
9. Yuan, C., Lei, T., Mao, L., Liu, H. and Wu, Y. Soil surface evaporation processes under mulches of different sized gravel. Catena. 2009; 78: 117-121.
   CrossRef
10. Pang, H.C., Li, Y.Y., Yang, J.S. and Liang, Y.S. Effects of brakish water irrigation and straw mulching on soil salinity and crop yields under monsoonal climatic conditions. Agricultural and Water Management. 2010; 97:1971-1977.
    CrossRef
11. Fuchs, M. and Hadas, A. Mulch resistant to water vapour transport. Agriculture water management. 2011; 98: 990-998.
    CrossRef
12. Ramakrishna, A., Tam, H.M., Wani, S.P. and Long, T.D. Effect of mulch on soil temperature, moisture, weed infestation and yield of groundnut in northern Vietnam. Field crops research. 2006; 95: 115-125.
    CrossRef
13. Watson D.J. Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops. Ann. Bot. 1947; 11:41-76.
    CrossRef
14. Watson D.J. The Physiological basis of variation in yield. Adv. Agron. 1952; 4:104-145.
    CrossRef
15. Girijesh, G.K., Kumara Swamy, A.S., Kumar, D.M., Nataraju, S.P., Vageesh, T.S. and Rajashekarappa, K.S. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) to constraint irrigation under late sown conditions. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 2014; 24(5): 633-635.
16. Wang, C.R., Tian, X.H. and Li, S.X. Effects of plastic sheet-mulching on ridge for rainwater-harvesting cultivation on WUE and yield of winter wheat. Scientia Agrila Sinica. 2004; 37(2): 208-214.
17. Yuan, C., Lei, T., Mao, L., Liu, H. and Wu, Y. Soil surface evaporation processes under mulches of different sized gravel. Catena. 2009; 78: 117-121.
    CrossRef
18. Sharma, P., Abrol, V., Sankar, G.R.M., Singh, B. Influence of tillage practices and mulching options on productivity, economics and soil physical properties of maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) system. Indian J. of Agric. Sci. 2009; 79(11): 865–870.
19. Pervaiz, M.A., Iqbal, M., Shahzad, K. and Hassan, A.U. Effect of mulch on soil physical properties and N, P, K concentration in maize (Zea mays L.) shoots under two tillage systems. Int. J. of Agric. and Bio. 2009; 11(2): 119–124.
20. De, B. and Bandyopadhyay, S. Influence of soil conservation techniques on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in terai region of West Bengal. SAARC J. Agri. 2013; 11(1): 133-147.
    CrossRef
21. Yi, Z.X., Zhou, W.X., Tu, N.M., Tu, X.D., Wu, Y.L., and Yang, W.L. Effects of no tillage and straw mulching on soil nutrient content and drought resistance of maize on dry land. Research Agriculture Moder. 2007; 28(4): 490-493.
22. Rajeshwari, R.S., Hebsur, N.S., Pradeep, H.M. and Bharamagoudar, T.D. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of maize. Karnataka J. of Agric. Sci. 2007; 20(2):399-400.
23. Zhao, J. and Zhou, L. Combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on black soil fertility and maize yield. J. N.E. Agric. University. 2011; 18(2): 24 – 29.
    CrossRef
24. Kumar, A. and Dhar, S. Evaluation of organic and inorganic sources of nutrient in maize (Zea mays) and their residual effect on wheat (Tricticum aestivum) under different fertility levels. Indian J. Agric. sci. 2010; 80(5): 364-71.
25. Hebbarai, M., Ganiger, V.M., Reddy, B.G.M. and Joshi, V.R. Integrated nutrient management sapota (Manilkara zapota) using vermicompost to increase yield and quality. Indian J. of Agric. Sci. 2006; 76(10): 587-90.
26. Ayoola, O.T. and Makinde, E.A. Maize growth, yield and soil nutrient changes with N-enriched organic fertilizers. African Journal of Food Agriculture Nutrition and Development. 2009; 9(1):580-592.
    CrossRef
27. Dadarwal, R.S., Jain, N.K. and Singh, D. Integrated nutrient management in babycorn (Zea mays). Indian J. Agri. Sci. 2009; 79:1023-1025.
28. Dilshad, M.D., Lone, M.I., Jilani, G., Azimmalik, M., Yousaf, M., Khalid, R. and Shamin, F. Integrated nutrient management on maize under rainfed condition. Pakistan J. Nutri. 2010; 9: 896-901.
    CrossRef
29. Annadurai, B., Arunachalam, N. and Mahalingam, K. Effect of tank silt and pressmud mixture amendment on the physical properties of their soils. J. of Soils and Crops. 2005; 15(1): 26-29.
30. Elzubeir, A.O. and Mohamed, A.E. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) growth and yield to irrigation regimes and different tillage systems in arid area of Sudan. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2011; 2(6): 1015-1021.
    CrossRef
31. Khan, M.A.H. and Parvej, M.R. Impact of conservation tillage under organic mulches on the reproductive efficacy and yield of quality protein maize. The Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2010; 5(2): 52-63.
    CrossRef
32. Kalhapure, A.H., Shete, B.T. and Dhonde, M.B. Integrated nutrient management in maize (Zea Mays L.) for increasing production with sustainability. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science Technology. 2013; 4(3):195-206.
33. Singh, R.B., Kumar, P. and Woodhead, T. Smallholder Farmers in India: Food Security and Agricultural Policy. RAP Publication. Bangkok, Thailand, FAO. 2000.
34. Ravikumar, H.S. Effect of FYM and bio-dested liquid manure on growth and yield of groundnut under rainfed condition. M.Sc. (Agri.) thesis, Univ. Agric. Science. Bangolore. (2009).
35. Abunyewa, A. A., Osei, C., Asiedu, E. K. and Safo, E. Y. Integrated manure and fertilizer use, maize production and sustainable soil fertility in sub humid zone of West Africa. J. of Agronomy. 2007; 6(2):302-309.
    CrossRef
36. Mudalagiriyappa, B.K., Ramachandrappa, H.V. and Nanjappa, T. Moisture conservation practices and nutrient management on growth and yield of Rabi sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) in the vertisols of peninsular India. Agricultural Sciences. 2012; 3(4): 588-593.
    CrossRef
37. Chander, G., Suhas, P., Wani, K. Sahrawat. L., Pal, C.K. and Mathur, T.P. Integrated plant genetic and balanced nutrient management enhances crop and water productivity of rainfed production systems in Rajasthan, India. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2013; 44(22).
    CrossRef
38. Narendra, K. and Gautam, R.C. Effect of moisture conservation and nutrient management practices on growth and yield of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) under rainfed conditions. Indian J. Agron. 2004; 49: 182-185.
39. Nanjappa, H.V., Ramachandrappa, B.K. and Mallikarjun, B.O. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and nutrient balance in maize (Zea mays). Indian J. Agron. 2001; 46(4): 698-701.
40. Meena, O., Khafi, H.R., Shekh, M.A., Mehta, A.C. and Davda, B.K. Response of rabi maize (Zea mays L.) to vermicompost and nitrogen levels. Research on Crops. 2006; 8 (1): 93- 94.
41. Shukla, L. and Tyagi, S.P. Effect of integrated application of organic manures on soil parameters and growth of mungbean (Vigna radiata). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2009; 79(3): 174–177.
42. Verma, A., Nepolia, A. and Kanthaliya, P.C. Effect of integrated nutrient supply on growth, yield and nutrient uptake by maize (Zea maize L)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian J. Agron. 2006; 51(1):3-6.
43. Pandey, D.K and Nath, V. Effect of organic mulches on moisture conservation for rainfed turmeric production in mango orchard. Indian J. Soil Cons. 2008; 36: 188-191.
44. Nagappa, C.A.S. and Biradar, D.P. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity, profitability and sustainability of irrigated maize. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 2007; 20(4): (837-839).
45. Joshi, E., Nepalia, V., Verma, A. and Singh, D. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, productivity and economics of maize (Zea Mays). Indian J. of Agronomy. 2013; 58(3): 434.
46. Kumar, A., Guatam, R.C., Singh, R. and Rana, K.S. Growth, yield and economics of maize (Zea mays) – wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping sequence as influenced by integrated nutrient management. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2005; 75(11): 709-711.