Volume 8, Issue 1, March 2020, Page: 6-11
Comparisons of Different Types of Organic Manures Integrated in Diverse Ratios with Inorganic N Fertilizer in Terms of Maize Yield and Productivity
Mussaddiq Khan Khalil, Soil and Environmental Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
Shuja Ur Rehman Qureshi, Plant Breeding and Genetics, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, KPK Pakistan
Muhammad Owais Khan, Soil and Environmental Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
Mukhtiar Ali, Soil and Environmental Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
Waqar Ali, Soil and Environmental Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
Muhammad Tariq, Soil and Environmental Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
Sultan Nawaz, Soil and Environmental Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
Received: Sep. 19, 2019;       Accepted: Sep. 29, 2019;       Published: Apr. 1, 2020
DOI: 10.11648/j.mc.20200801.12      View  257      Downloads  94
Abstract
In modern agriculture the integration of organic and inorganic fertilizers has been proved as the best technique to maximize the nutrient availability to crops for longer period of time and to minimize the essential nutrients loss from rhizosphere soil. However, most of the researchers and farmers are uninformed of that which is the best fertilizer integration ratio and what type of organic manure should be used for obtaining good fertile soil and economical crop yield. In response of the above question the present research experiment was carried out in in kharif season 2018 at Cereal Crop Research Institute (CCRI), Nowshera, KPK, Pakistan to investigate the performance of maize crop in response to different types of organic manures integrated with inorganic nitrogen fertilizer in distinct ratios based on % nitrogen (N). Total 9 treatments were used in the experiment such as T1 (Control=100%N from Urea), T2 (50%N from SSB+50%N from Urea), T3 (50%N from SCB+50%N from Urea), T4 (50%N from PL+50%N from Urea), T5 (50%N from FYM+50%N from Urea), T6 (25%N from SSB+75%N from Urea), T7 (25%N from SCB+75%N from Urea), T8 (25%N from PL+75%N from Urea) and T9 (25%N from FYM+75%N from Urea). The outcomes of the experiment revealed that all the treatments have significantly affected the kernel yield, plant height, 100 kernel weight and ear length while the number of kernel rows was non-significant. Treatments having 1:1 combination (T2, T3, T4 and T5) has far more better results as compared to 3:1 ratio combination (T6, T7, T8 and T9) and 1:0 ratio combination (T1). Among 1:1 treatment the overall performance of treatment T2 (50%N from soya bean straw biochar (SSB)+50%N from urea) was best of all increasing the kernel yield, plant height, 100 kernel weight, ear length and kernel rows per cob up to 54.5%, 15.2%, 16%, 17.7% and 8.1% respectively more than any other treatment. Hence integration of soya bean straw biochar with urea in 1:1 based on %N is advised for maximum yield and better growth performance of maize. Such studies on different cereal and leguminous crops under different soil and climatic conditions is recommended for vast spread application and authorization of results.
Keywords
Maize, Soyabean Straw Biochar, Sugarcane Bagasse, Poultry Litter, Farmyard Manure, Urea, Kernel Yield
To cite this article
Mussaddiq Khan Khalil, Shuja Ur Rehman Qureshi, Muhammad Owais Khan, Mukhtiar Ali, Waqar Ali, Muhammad Tariq, Sultan Nawaz, Comparisons of Different Types of Organic Manures Integrated in Diverse Ratios with Inorganic N Fertilizer in Terms of Maize Yield and Productivity, Modern Chemistry. Vol. 8, No. 1, 2020, pp. 6-11. doi: 10.11648/j.mc.20200801.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
MNFSR. 2014. Agricuture statistics of Pakistan. Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Islamabad, Pakistan.
[2]
Mengel, K. and E. A. Kirkby. 2001. Principles of Plant Nutrition. 5th ed., Kluwer Academic Publishers, London.
[3]
NFDC. 2001. Balanced fertilization through phosphate promotion. Project terminal report. NFDC, Islamabad, Pakistan.
[4]
Tisdale SL, Nelson WL. 1990. Soil fertilizer and effect of magnesium on the yield and chemical of crops. Michigan Agricultural Experimental Statistics. Bull Press, Mechigan, American, p 29-31.
[5]
Jasso-Chaverria C, Hochmuth GJ, Hochmuth RC, Sargent SA. 2005. Fruit yield, size, and colour responses of two Greenhouse cucumber types to nitrogen fertilization in perlite soilless culture. Horticulture Technology. 15: 565.
[6]
Brady C. 1984. The nature and properties of soils. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
[7]
Whalen, J. K. and C. Chang. 2001. Phosphorus accumulation in cultivated soils from long-term annual applications of cattle feedlot manure. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 229-237.
[8]
Maha M. E. Ali. 2018. Effect of Plant Residues Derived Biochar on Fertility of a new Reclaimed Sandy Soil and Growth of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Egypt. J. Soil Science 58 (1): 93-103.
[9]
Ditta, A., J. Muhammad., M. Imtiaz., S. Mehood., Z. Qian and S. Tu. 2018. Application of rock phosphate enriched compost increases nodulation, growth and yield of chickpea. International Journal of Recycling of organic waste in Agriculture. 7: 33-40.
[10]
Ali W., M. Ali., A. Kamal., M. Uzair., N. Ullah and M K Khalil. 2019. Maize Yield Response under Various Phosphorus Sources and their Ratios European Journal of Experimental Biology. 9 1: 5.
[11]
Gee, G. W and J. W. Bauder. 1986. Particle-size Analysis. In: Klute, A. (Ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Physical and Mineralogical methods. Agronomy monograph 9 (2ed). Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison. pp 383-411.
[12]
Mclean, E. O. 1982. Soil pH and Lime Requirement. In: Page, A. L., Ed., Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties, American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 199-224.
[13]
Black, C. A. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part I, Physical and Mineralogical Properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
[14]
Nelson, D. W and I. E. Sommer. 1982. Total carbon, Organic carbon and organic matter. pp. 539-577: In: A. L. page, R. H. Miller and D. R. Keeny, (ed.) Methods of soil analysis part 2 2nd ed. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin.
[15]
Bremner, J. M. and C. S. Mulvaney 1982 Total nitrogen Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and microbiological properties American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 1119-1123.
[16]
Soltanpur, P. N., and A. P Schwab. 1997. A new soil test from simultaneous extraction of macro and micro nutrients in alkaline soils. Comm. Soil. Sci. Plant analysis. 8: 195-207.
[17]
Jan, M. T., P. Shah, P. A. Hollington, M. J. Khan and Q. Sohail. 2009. Agriculture Research: Design and Analysis. Dept. of Agronomy, KPK Agric. Uni. Peshawar, Pakistan.
[18]
Kapoor K. K., Mishra M. M., Kukreja K. (1989): Phos¬phate solubilization by soil microorganisms. A review. Indian J. Microbiol., 29: 119–127.
[19]
Biederman L A and W. Stanley Harpole. 2012. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biology Bioenergy. Volume 5, Issue 2, Special Issue: Biochar. 202-214.
[20]
Kamal, M. 2014. Effect of biochar prepared from popular tree leaves on some microbiological properties of soil. In: F. Rasul and S. Shackley, eds., Proceedings of an International Workshop on Biochar in Pakistan: Biochar for climate-friendly agriculture shifting paradigms towards higher precision and efficiencies, held at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. 7: 24-27.
[21]
Zhang A, Liu Y, Pan G, Hussain Q, Li L, Zheng J, Zhang X. 2012. Effect of biochar amend¬ment on maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions from a soil organic carbon poor cal¬careous loamy soil from Central China Plain, Plant Soil. 351: 263-275.
[22]
Srđan I. Šeremeši, Milorad S. Živanov, Dragiša S. Milošev, Jovica R. VASIN, Vladimir I. ĆIRIĆ, Marjana B. Vasiljević, Nataša J. Vujić. 2015. Effects of biochar application on morphological traits in maize and soybean. J. Nat. Sci. Novi Sad, №. 129: 17-25.
[23]
Jamal, K., M. Nawaz., M. Shah and J. K. Khattak. 1989. Effect of pretreated farmyard manure (FYM) with phosphatic fertilizers on yield of wheat. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research. 10 (4): 315-322.
[24]
Udom GN and Bello HM. 2009. Effect of poultry litter on the yield of two maize varieties in the northern gulnea savanna. J Trop Agric Food Environ Exten 8: 51-54.
Browse journals by subject