Rice Science ›› 2016, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (6): 326-333.DOI: 10.1016/j.rsci.2016.02.007
收稿日期:2015-10-17
接受日期:2016-02-02
出版日期:2016-12-12
发布日期:2016-08-10
. [J]. Rice Science, 2016, 23(6): 326-333.
| Treatment | Nitrogen from urea (%) | Nitrogen from organic sources (%) | Total nitrogen applied (kg/hm2) | |||||
| Cattle | Poultry | Sheep | Onion | Wheat | Berseem | |||
| T1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| T2 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T3 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T4 | 75 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T5 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T6 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T7 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 120 |
| T8 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 120 |
| T9 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T10 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T11 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T12 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T13 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 120 |
| T14 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 120 |
| T15 | 25 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T16 | 25 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T17 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T18 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T19 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 120 |
| T20 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 120 |
| T21 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T22 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 120 |
| T26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 120 |
Table 1 Treatments used in this study
| Treatment | Nitrogen from urea (%) | Nitrogen from organic sources (%) | Total nitrogen applied (kg/hm2) | |||||
| Cattle | Poultry | Sheep | Onion | Wheat | Berseem | |||
| T1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| T2 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T3 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T4 | 75 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T5 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T6 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T7 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 120 |
| T8 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 120 |
| T9 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T10 | 50 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T11 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T12 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T13 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 0 | 120 |
| T14 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50 | 120 |
| T15 | 25 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T16 | 25 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T17 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T18 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T19 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 0 | 120 |
| T20 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 120 |
| T21 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T22 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T23 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 120 |
| T25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 120 |
| T26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 | 120 |
| Source of variance | df | No. of panicles per plant | No. of filled grains per panicle | 1000-grain weight | Grain yield |
| Year | 1 | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Block | 6 | - | - | - | - |
| Treatment | 25 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Control vs Rest | (1) | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Urea vs Pure organic source | (1) | ns | *** | *** | *** |
| Among all organic source | (23) | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Pure organic source vs Mixture | [1] | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Pure organic source | [5] | ns | *** | *** | *** |
| Animal manure vs Crop residue | {1} | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Mixture | [17] | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Ratio | {2} | * | ** | *** | * |
| Organic source | {5} | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Ratio × Organic source | {10} | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Year × Treatment | 25 | ns | *** | *** | *** |
| Year × Control vs rest | (1) | ** | *** | ** | *** |
| Year × Urea vs Pure organic source | (1) | ns | * | ns | *** |
| Year × Among all organic source | (23) | ns | *** | ** | *** |
| Year × Pure organic source vs Mixture | [1] | ns | *** | ns | * |
| Year × Pure organic source | [5] | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Year × Animal manure vs Crop residue | {1} | ns | ns | * | ns |
| Year × Mixture | [17] | ns | ns | * | *** |
| Year × Ratio | {2} | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Year × Organic sources in mixture | {5} | ns | ns | ns | * |
| Year × Ratio × Organic source | {10} | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Error | 150 | - | - | - | - |
| Total | 207 | - | - | - | - |
| Coefficient of variation (%) | - | 7.4 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 8.5 |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. | |||||
Table 2 Analysis of variance and significance level for each parameter of Pukhraj as affected by organic and inorganic N management
| Source of variance | df | No. of panicles per plant | No. of filled grains per panicle | 1000-grain weight | Grain yield |
| Year | 1 | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Block | 6 | - | - | - | - |
| Treatment | 25 | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Control vs Rest | (1) | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Urea vs Pure organic source | (1) | ns | *** | *** | *** |
| Among all organic source | (23) | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Pure organic source vs Mixture | [1] | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Pure organic source | [5] | ns | *** | *** | *** |
| Animal manure vs Crop residue | {1} | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Mixture | [17] | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Ratio | {2} | * | ** | *** | * |
| Organic source | {5} | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Ratio × Organic source | {10} | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Year × Treatment | 25 | ns | *** | *** | *** |
| Year × Control vs rest | (1) | ** | *** | ** | *** |
| Year × Urea vs Pure organic source | (1) | ns | * | ns | *** |
| Year × Among all organic source | (23) | ns | *** | ** | *** |
| Year × Pure organic source vs Mixture | [1] | ns | *** | ns | * |
| Year × Pure organic source | [5] | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Year × Animal manure vs Crop residue | {1} | ns | ns | * | ns |
| Year × Mixture | [17] | ns | ns | * | *** |
| Year × Ratio | {2} | ** | *** | *** | *** |
| Year × Organic sources in mixture | {5} | ns | ns | ns | * |
| Year × Ratio × Organic source | {10} | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Error | 150 | - | - | - | - |
| Total | 207 | - | - | - | - |
| Coefficient of variation (%) | - | 7.4 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 8.5 |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. | |||||
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 12 | 14 | 13 | |
| Poultry manure | 12 | 14 | 13 | |
| Sheep manure | 12 | 13 | 13 | |
| Onion leaves | 12 | 13 | 12 | |
| Wheat straw | 11 | 12 | 12 | |
| Berseem straw | 12 | 13 | 12 | |
| Level of significance | ns | ns | ns | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 12 | 14 | 13 | |
| Level of significance | * | ** | * | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 13 | 14 | 13 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 13 | 14 | 13 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 12 | 13 | 12 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 13 | 14 | 13 | |
| Level of significance | *** | ns | ** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 11 | 10 | 10 b | |
| Rest | 13 | 14 | 13 a | |
| Urea | 14 | 14 | 14 a | |
| Mixture | 13 | 14 | 13 b | |
| Pure organic source | 12 | 13 | 12 b | |
| Mixture | 13 | 14 | 13 a | |
| Urea | 14 | 14 | 14 a | |
| Pure organic source | 12 | 13 | 12 a | |
| Animal manure | 13 | 14 | 13 a | |
| Crop residue | 12 | 13 | 13 b | |
| Urea | 14 | 14 | 14 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 13 | 14 | 13 b | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
Table 3 Number of panicles per plant as affected by organic and inorganic N management
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 12 | 14 | 13 | |
| Poultry manure | 12 | 14 | 13 | |
| Sheep manure | 12 | 13 | 13 | |
| Onion leaves | 12 | 13 | 12 | |
| Wheat straw | 11 | 12 | 12 | |
| Berseem straw | 12 | 13 | 12 | |
| Level of significance | ns | ns | ns | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 13 | 13 | 13 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 12 | 14 | 13 | |
| Level of significance | * | ** | * | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 13 | 14 | 14 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 13 | 14 | 13 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 13 | 14 | 13 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 12 | 13 | 12 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 13 | 14 | 13 | |
| Level of significance | *** | ns | ** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 11 | 10 | 10 b | |
| Rest | 13 | 14 | 13 a | |
| Urea | 14 | 14 | 14 a | |
| Mixture | 13 | 14 | 13 b | |
| Pure organic source | 12 | 13 | 12 b | |
| Mixture | 13 | 14 | 13 a | |
| Urea | 14 | 14 | 14 a | |
| Pure organic source | 12 | 13 | 12 a | |
| Animal manure | 13 | 14 | 13 a | |
| Crop residue | 12 | 13 | 13 b | |
| Urea | 14 | 14 | 14 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 13 | 14 | 13 b | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 186 | 216 | 201 | |
| Poultry manure | 189 | 225 | 207 | |
| Sheep manure | 187 | 219 | 203 | |
| Onion leaves | 180 | 209 | 194 | |
| Wheat straw | 160 | 191 | 175 | |
| Berseem straw | 181 | 216 | 198 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 230 | 225 | 227 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 229 | 237 | 233 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 225 | 232 | 228 | |
| Level of significance | ns | *** | ** | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 231 | 234 | 232 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 234 | 236 | 235 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 230 | 234 | 232 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 227 | 229 | 228 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 217 | 220 | 219 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 229 | 231 | 230 | |
| Level of significance | ** | *** | *** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 143 | 126 | 135 b | |
| Rest | 220 | 228 | 224 a | |
| Urea | 242 | 240 | 241 a | |
| Mixture | 228 | 231 | 229 b | |
| Pure organic source | 180 | 213 | 196 b | |
| Mixture | 228 | 231 | 229 a | |
| Urea | 242 | 240 | 241 a | |
| Pure organic source | 180 | 213 | 196 b | |
| Animal manure | 220 | 231 | 226 a | |
| Crop residue | 212 | 222 | 217 b | |
| Urea | 242 | 240 | 241 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 216 | 226 | 221 a | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
Table 4 Number of filled grains per panicle as affected by organic and inorganic N management
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 186 | 216 | 201 | |
| Poultry manure | 189 | 225 | 207 | |
| Sheep manure | 187 | 219 | 203 | |
| Onion leaves | 180 | 209 | 194 | |
| Wheat straw | 160 | 191 | 175 | |
| Berseem straw | 181 | 216 | 198 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 230 | 225 | 227 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 229 | 237 | 233 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 225 | 232 | 228 | |
| Level of significance | ns | *** | ** | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 231 | 234 | 232 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 234 | 236 | 235 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 230 | 234 | 232 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 227 | 229 | 228 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 217 | 220 | 219 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 229 | 231 | 230 | |
| Level of significance | ** | *** | *** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 143 | 126 | 135 b | |
| Rest | 220 | 228 | 224 a | |
| Urea | 242 | 240 | 241 a | |
| Mixture | 228 | 231 | 229 b | |
| Pure organic source | 180 | 213 | 196 b | |
| Mixture | 228 | 231 | 229 a | |
| Urea | 242 | 240 | 241 a | |
| Pure organic source | 180 | 213 | 196 b | |
| Animal manure | 220 | 231 | 226 a | |
| Crop residue | 212 | 222 | 217 b | |
| Urea | 242 | 240 | 241 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 216 | 226 | 221 a | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 33.74 | 33.86 | 33.80 | |
| Poultry manure | 34.48 | 36.01 | 35.25 | |
| Sheep manure | 33.59 | 34.36 | 33.97 | |
| Onion leaves | 32.27 | 33.31 | 32.79 | |
| Wheat straw | 29.70 | 32.42 | 31.06 | |
| Berseem straw | 31.53 | 34.10 | 32.82 | |
| Level of significance | *** | ** | *** | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 34.69 | 34.29 | 34.49 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 33.95 | 35.91 | 34.93 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 33.35 | 34.61 | 33.98 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 34.89 | 35.81 | 35.35 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 35.54 | 36.21 | 35.88 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 34.74 | 35.56 | 35.15 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 33.48 | 34.49 | 33.98 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 31.59 | 32.72 | 32.16 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 33.76 | 34.81 | 34.28 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 29.19 | 27.74 | 28.47 b | |
| Rest | 34.13 | 34.97 | 34.55 a | |
| Urea | 37.06 | 36.60 | 36.83 a | |
| Mixture | 34.00 | 34.93 | 34.47 b | |
| Pure organic source | 32.55 | 34.01 | 33.28 b | |
| Mixture | 34.00 | 34.93 | 34.47 a | |
| Urea | 37.06 | 36.60 | 36.83 a | |
| Pure organic source | 32.55 | 34.01 | 33.28 b | |
| Animal manure | 34.78 | 35.58 | 35.18 a | |
| Crop residue | 32.50 | 33.82 | 33.16 b | |
| Urea | 37.06 | 36.60 | 36.83 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 33.64 | 34.70 | 34.17 b | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
Table 5 1000-grain weight as affected by organic and inorganic N management. g
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 33.74 | 33.86 | 33.80 | |
| Poultry manure | 34.48 | 36.01 | 35.25 | |
| Sheep manure | 33.59 | 34.36 | 33.97 | |
| Onion leaves | 32.27 | 33.31 | 32.79 | |
| Wheat straw | 29.70 | 32.42 | 31.06 | |
| Berseem straw | 31.53 | 34.10 | 32.82 | |
| Level of significance | *** | ** | *** | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 34.69 | 34.29 | 34.49 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 33.95 | 35.91 | 34.93 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 33.35 | 34.61 | 33.98 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 34.89 | 35.81 | 35.35 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 35.54 | 36.21 | 35.88 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 34.74 | 35.56 | 35.15 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 33.48 | 34.49 | 33.98 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 31.59 | 32.72 | 32.16 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 33.76 | 34.81 | 34.28 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 29.19 | 27.74 | 28.47 b | |
| Rest | 34.13 | 34.97 | 34.55 a | |
| Urea | 37.06 | 36.60 | 36.83 a | |
| Mixture | 34.00 | 34.93 | 34.47 b | |
| Pure organic source | 32.55 | 34.01 | 33.28 b | |
| Mixture | 34.00 | 34.93 | 34.47 a | |
| Urea | 37.06 | 36.60 | 36.83 a | |
| Pure organic source | 32.55 | 34.01 | 33.28 b | |
| Animal manure | 34.78 | 35.58 | 35.18 a | |
| Crop residue | 32.50 | 33.82 | 33.16 b | |
| Urea | 37.06 | 36.60 | 36.83 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 33.64 | 34.70 | 34.17 b | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 7 203 | 8 219 | 7 711 | |
| Poultry manure | 7 617 | 9 302 | 8 459 | |
| Sheep manure | 7 045 | 8 112 | 7 579 | |
| Onion leaves | 6 422 | 7 528 | 6 975 | |
| Wheat straw | 5 887 | 6 514 | 6 200 | |
| Berseem straw | 6 491 | 7 614 | 7 052 | |
| Level of significance | * | *** | *** | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 8 804 | 9 388 | 9 096 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 8 350 | 10 484 | 9 417 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 7 882 | 10 146 | 9 014 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | * | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 8 722 | 10 639 | 9 681 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 8 971 | 11 236 | 10 104 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 8 629 | 10 718 | 9 674 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 8 013 | 9 469 | 8 741 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 7 662 | 8 669 | 8 165 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 8 076 | 9 304 | 8 690 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 4 378 | 3 961 | 4 169 b | |
| Rest | 8 290 | 9 517 | 8 904 a | |
| Urea | 10 311 | 9 772 | 10 041 a | |
| Mixture | 8 345 | 10 006 | 9 176 a | |
| Pure organic source | 6 778 | 7 881 | 7 329 b | |
| Mixture | 8 345 | 10 006 | 9 176 a | |
| Urea | 10 311 | 9 772 | 10 041a | |
| Pure organic source | 6 778 | 7 881 | 7 329 b | |
| Animal manure | 8 403 | 10 284 | 9 344 a | |
| Crop residue | 7 504 | 8 665 | 8 085 b | |
| Urea | 10 311 | 9 772 | 10 041 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 7 953 | 10 339 | 9 146 b | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
Table 6 Grain yield as affected by organic and inorganic N management. kg/hm2
| Treatment | 2011 | 2012 | Mean | |
| Cattle manure | 7 203 | 8 219 | 7 711 | |
| Poultry manure | 7 617 | 9 302 | 8 459 | |
| Sheep manure | 7 045 | 8 112 | 7 579 | |
| Onion leaves | 6 422 | 7 528 | 6 975 | |
| Wheat straw | 5 887 | 6 514 | 6 200 | |
| Berseem straw | 6 491 | 7 614 | 7 052 | |
| Level of significance | * | *** | *** | |
| Ratio | ||||
| 75% urea and 25% organic source | 8 804 | 9 388 | 9 096 | |
| 50% urea and 50% organic source | 8 350 | 10 484 | 9 417 | |
| 25% urea and 75% organic source | 7 882 | 10 146 | 9 014 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | * | |
| Mixture | ||||
| Urea + Cattle manure | 8 722 | 10 639 | 9 681 | |
| Urea + Poultry manure | 8 971 | 11 236 | 10 104 | |
| Urea + Sheep manure | 8 629 | 10 718 | 9 674 | |
| Urea + Onion leaves | 8 013 | 9 469 | 8 741 | |
| Urea + Wheat straw | 7 662 | 8 669 | 8 165 | |
| Urea + Berseem straw | 8 076 | 9 304 | 8 690 | |
| Level of significance | *** | *** | *** | |
| Planned mean comparison | ||||
| Control | 4 378 | 3 961 | 4 169 b | |
| Rest | 8 290 | 9 517 | 8 904 a | |
| Urea | 10 311 | 9 772 | 10 041 a | |
| Mixture | 8 345 | 10 006 | 9 176 a | |
| Pure organic source | 6 778 | 7 881 | 7 329 b | |
| Mixture | 8 345 | 10 006 | 9 176 a | |
| Urea | 10 311 | 9 772 | 10 041a | |
| Pure organic source | 6 778 | 7 881 | 7 329 b | |
| Animal manure | 8 403 | 10 284 | 9 344 a | |
| Crop residue | 7 504 | 8 665 | 8 085 b | |
| Urea | 10 311 | 9 772 | 10 041 a | |
| Pure organic source + Mixture | 7 953 | 10 339 | 9 146 b | |
| *, ** and *** indicate that data are significant at the 5%, 1% and 0.1% levels, respectively; ns stands for the non-significant data at the 5% level. Means followed by different letters in the same category are significantly different at the 5% level. | ||||
| 1 | Ahmad R M, Naveed M, Aslam Z A, Arshad M.2008. Economizing the use of nitrogen fertilizer in wheat production through enriched compost.Rev Agric Food Sys, 23: 243-249. |
| 2 | Amanullah, Almas L K, Shah P.2010. Timing and rate of nitrogen application influence profitability of maize planted at low and high densities in Northwest Pakistan.Agron J, 102: 575-579. |
| 3 | Amanullah.2011. Rice and phosphorus.Rice Plus, 4: 4. |
| 4 | Amanullah, Inamullah.2016a. Dry matter partitioning and harvest index differ in rice genotypes with variable rates of phosphorus and zinc nutrition.Rice Sci, 23(2): 78-87. |
| 5 | Amanullah, Inamullah.2016b. Residual phosphorus and zinc influence wheat productivity under rice-wheat cropping system.Springer Plus, 5: 255. |
| 6 | Anonymous. 2014. . |
| 7 | Antil R S, Singh M.2007. Effects of organic manures and fertilizers on organic matter and nutrients status of the soil.Arch Agron Soil Sci, 53: 519-528. |
| 8 | Biswas P P, Sharma P D.2008. A new approach for estimating fertilizer response ratio-the Indian.Ind J Fert, 4(7): 59-62. |
| 9 | de Datta S K.1986. Improving nitrogen fertilizer efficiency in low land rice in tropical Asia.Fert Res, 9: 171-186. |
| 10 | Ebaid R A, El-Refaee I S.2007. Utilization of rice husk as an organic fertilizer to improve productivity and water use efficiency in rice fields.Afr Crop Sci Conf Proc, 8: 1923-1928. |
| 11 | El-Refaee I S, Ebaid R A, El-Rewiny I M.2006. Performance of rice (Oryza sativa L.) plant under different water regimes and methods of planting. Alex J Agric Res, 51(2): 47-55. |
| 12 | Fageria N K, Baligar V C.2005. Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants.Adv Agron, 88: 97-185. |
| 13 | Fageria N K, Baligar V C, Clark R B.2006. Physiology of Crop Production. New York: Haworth Press. |
| 14 | Fageria N K, dos Santos A B, Cobucci T.2011. Zinc nutrition of lowland rice.Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal, 42: 1719-1727. |
| 15 | Fageria N K.2003. Plant tissue test for determination of optimum concentration and uptake of nitrogen at different growth stages in low-land rice. Comm. Soil Sci Plant Anal, 34: 259-270. |
| 16 | Fan T L, Young W, Lue J J, Gao Y F.2005. Long term fertilizer and water availability effect on cereal yield and soil chemical properties in North West China.Soil Sci Soc Am J, 69: 842-855. |
| 17 | Fu J, Wang Z Q, Yu L M, Wang X M, Yang J C.2014. Effect of nitrogen rates on grain yield and some physiological traits of super rice.Chin J Rice Sci, 28(4): 391-400. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| 18 | Gately T F, Kelly D.1987. Sources of nitrogen for spring barley. Soils and Grassland Production Research Report. Dublin. A Foras Taluntais: 27-28. |
| 19 | Garrity D P, Flinn J C.1987. Farm-level management systems for green manure crop in Asian rice environment. In: Green Manures in Rice Farming: Proc Symp. The Role of Green Manures in Rice Farming Systems. 25-29 May, 1987. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. |
| 20 | Hasanuzzaman M, Ahamed K U, Rahmatullah N M, Akhter N, Nahar K, Rahman M L.2010. Plant growth characters and productivity of wetland rice (Oryza sativa L.) as affected GY application of different manures, Emir J Food Agric, 22(1): 46-58. |
| 21 | Hidaytullah, Amanullah.2015. Sources, ratios and mixtures of organic and inorganic nitrogen influence plant height of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa) at various growth stages. EC Agric, 2(3): 328-337. |
| 22 | Hossaen M A, Shamsuddoha A T M, Paul A K, Bhuiyan M S I, Zobaer A S M.2011. Efficacy of different organic manures and inorganic fertilizer on the yield and yield attributes of Boro rice.Agricultures, 9(1/2): 117-125. |
| 23 | Iqbal A S, Abbasi M K, Rasool G.2002. Integrated plant nutrition system (IPNS) in wheat under rainfed condition of Rawalkot Azad Jammu and Kashmir.Pak J Soil Sci, 21: 79-86. |
| 24 | Khan A R, Chandra C, Nanda P, Singh S S, Ghorai A K, Singh S R.2004. Integrated nutrient management for sustainable rice production.Arch Agron Soil Sci, 50: 161-165. |
| 25 | Kumar A, Mathew J.1994. Timing of green-leaf manuring in presence and absence of liming on growth yield and nutrient uptake in trasplanted rice (Oryza sativa L.). Ind J Agron, 39(2): 630-633. |
| 26 | Masarirambi M T, Mandisodza F C, Mashingaidze A B, Bhebhe E.2012. Influence of plant population and seed tuber size on growth and yield components of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Int J Agric Biol, 14: 545-549. |
| 27 | Myint A K, Yamakawa T, Kajihara Y, Zenmyo T.2010. Application of different organic and mineral fertilizers on the growth, yield and nutrient accumulation of rice in a Japanese ordinary paddy field.Sci World J, 5(2): 47-54. |
| 28 | Patil V C.2008. Declining factor productivity and improving nutrient use efficiency. In: National Symposium on “New Paradigms in Agronomic Research”. Navsari, Gujarat, 19-21 November, 2008. |
| 29 | Pei P G, Zhang J H, Zhu L F, Hu Z H, Jin Q Y.2015. Effects of straw returning coupled with N application on rice photosynthetic characteristics, nitrogen uptake and grain yield formation.Chin J Rice Sci, 29(3): 282-290. (in Chinese with English abstract) |
| 30 | Place G A, Sims J L, Hall U L.1970. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorous on the growth yield and cooking characteristics of rice.Agron J, 62: 239-241. |
| 31 | Prasad R.2005. Organic farming vis-à-vis modern agriculture.Curr Sci, 89: 252-254. |
| 32 | Rahman M H, Ali M H, Ali M M, Khatun M M.2007. Effect of different level of nitrogen on growth and yield of transplant rice cv BRRI dhan 32. Int J Sust Crop Prod, 2(1): 28-34. |
| 33 | Sahrawat K L.2006. Organic matter and mineralizable nitrogen relationships in wetland rice soils.Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal, 37: 787-796. |
| 34 | Salem A K M.2006. Effect of nitrogen levels, plant spacing and time of farmyard manure application on the productivity of rice.J Appl Sci Res, 2(11): 980-987. |
| 35 | Shah A, Shah S M, Mohammad W, Shafi M, Nawaz H, Shehzadi S, Amir M.2010. Effect of integrated use of organic and inorganic N sources on wheat yield.Sarhad J Agric, 26: 559-563. |
| 36 | Singh R, Agarwal S K.2001. Analysis of growth and productivity of wheat in relation to levels of FYM and nitrogen.Ind J Plant Physiol, 6: 279-283. |
| 37 | Steel R G D, Torrie J H, Dickey D.1996. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. MYCaw-Hill, USA. |
| 38 | Suzuki A.1997. Fertilization of rice in Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Japan FAO Association. |
| 39 | Swarup A, Yaduvanshi N P S.2000. Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil properties and yield of rice in alkali soils.J Ind Soc Soil Sci, 48: 279-282. |
| 40 | Yadana K L, Aung K M, Takeo Y, Kazuo O.2009. The effects of green manure (Sesbania rostrata) on the growth and yield of rice. J Fac Agric Kyushu Univ, 54(2): 313-319. |
| 41 | Yadav D S.2008. Long-term effect of nutrient management on soil health and productivity of rice(Oryza sativa) wheat, 2008. |
| 42 | Yaduvanshi N P S, Swarap A.2005. Effect of continuous use of sodic irrigation water with and without gypsum, farm yard munre, pressmud and fertilizer on soil properties and yields of rice and wheat in a long term experiment.Nutr Cycl Agroecos, 73: 111-118. |
| 43 | Zia M S, Baig M B, Tahir M B.1998. Soil environmental issues and their impact on agricultural productivity of high potential areas of Pakistan.Sci Vision, 4: 56-61. |
| 44 | (Managing Editor: Fang Hongmin) |
| No related articles found! |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||
