Influence of Organic and Inorganic Nitrogen on Grain Yield and Yield Components of Hybrid Rice in Northwestern Pakistan

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2016.02.007

Abstract

Abstract:

Field experiments were conducted to assess the impact of various organic sources, inorganic nitrogen (N) and the different combinations of inorganic N (urea) + organic source on the yield components (YC) and grain yield (GY) of hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L., Pukhraj) under rice-wheat system. The experiments were conducted at Batkhela (Malakand), Northwestern Pakistan, in 2011 and 2012. Our results revealed that YC and GY ranked first for the hybrid rice when applied with sole inorganic N (urea), followed by the application of N in mixture (urea + organic sources), while the control plots (no N applied) ranked in the bottom. Among the six organic sources (three animal manures: poultry, sheep and cattle; three crop residues: onion, berseem and wheat), application of N in the form of poultry manure was superior in terms of higher YC and GY. When applying 120 kg/hm² N source, 75% N from urea + 25% N from organic source resulted in higher YC and GY in 2011, while applying 50% N from urea + 50% N from organic sources caused higher YC and GY in 2012. Therefore, the combined application of N sources in the form of urea + organic source can produce good performances in terms of higher YC and GY of rice under rice-wheat cropping system.

Key words: rice, organic source, urea, nitrogen, yield component, grain yield

Amanullah, Hidayatullah. Influence of Organic and Inorganic Nitrogen on Grain Yield and Yield Components of Hybrid Rice in Northwestern Pakistan[J]. Rice Science, 2016, 23(6): 326-333.

Figures/Tables 6

References 44

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)

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.

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	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	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.