PPT THESIS Physiological and biochemical response of Maize

Agriculture

1. PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL RESPONSE OF MAIZE TO LOW GRADE ROCK PHOSPHATE UNDER ACID SOILS OF ODISHA SUBMITTED BY, ALAKA SAHU 06PP/12

2. INTRDUCTION Soil acidity and poverty are synonymous in the state of Odisha ). In Odisha , the acid soils occupy nearly 70 per cent of the total cultivated area ( Mitra et al ,2002).Entire upland (46 %) and major part of the medium lands (30 %) are under acidic . Acidic parent materials (granite), leaching of bases from the surface soils due to high rainfall, use of nitrogenous fertilizers like ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate, ammonium chloride and urea induces soil acidity . Out of 30 districts, in 15 districts more than 70 per cent of soils are acidic -(Cuttack,Kendrapada,Jagatsinghpur,Jajpur,Koraput,Khurda,Nawarangpur,Malkangiri,Dhenkanal,Puri,Rayagada,Mayurbhanj,Nayagarh,Anugul , Kandhamal ), 8 districts soils are between 50 to 70 per cent acidic ( Jharsuguda,Ganjam,Gajapati,Baragarh , Sambalpur,Sundergarh,Boudh,Deogarh ) and rest 7 districts less than 50 per cent of soils are acidic ( Bhadrak , Balasore,Kalahandi , Keonjhar , Sonepur,Bolangir , Nuapada ).

3. Phosphorus is one of the most limiting nutrient in the soils of Odisha owing to P fixation and immobile nature of P ( Pattanayak et al., 2008 ). In recent years the increase in price of phosphatic fertilizers and environmental pollution, practice of application of rock phosphate is definitely cheap and ecofriendly . The total reserves of rock phosphates in India is around 200M.T (Fertilizer Focus, 1991) The efficiency of chemically processed fertilizers is very slow due to chemical fixation and perpetuation making 10 – 20% of applied ‘P’ available to the crops.

4. OBJECTIVE Considering the above facts, the present experiment was planned and conducted in the during kharif ‘ 2015 with the following objective. 1.To study the physiological and biochemical effect of different low grade rock phosphate in maize crop in acid soils of Odisha . . 2. To study the impact using lime in combination with rock phosphate as an ameliorating material. 3. To study the yield attributing characters in maize.

5. EXPERIMENTAL SITE Location A field experiment was conducted during 2015-2016 at the agronomy farm, Central Research Station of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar located at 20º 15’ N latitude and 85º 52’ E longitude and at an altitude of 25.9 m above mean sea level. The station comes under the East and South Eastern Coastal Plain Agro-climatic Zone of Orissa.

6. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN R III R II R I T 5 T 3 T 7 T 2 T 6 T 6 T 1 T 2 T 4 T 3 T 1 T 5 T 7 T 5 T 2 T 4 T 4 T 1 T 6 T 7 T 3

7. TREATMENT DETAILS T 1 ‘P’ Control T 2 100% P (RP) T 3 100 % P (SSP) T 4 75% P (RP) + 25% S (SSP) T 5 50% P (RP) + 50% P (SSP) T 6 25% P (RP) + 75% P (SSP) T 7 100 % P(SSP) + 0.2 LR

8. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS Total no. of treatment = 7 Total no. of replication = 3 Total no. of plot = 21 Size of Plot = 10m X 10m Crop = Maize Variety :- Pioneer P3441 Sowing Date :- 11/08/2016 Fertilizer Dose = 150:50:50

9. OBSERVATIONS 1)Physiological analysis Plant height No. of leaves Leaf area Dry weight 2)Yield attributing characters Cob weight cob length cob width no. of cobs/plant no. of seeds/cob 1000 seed weight. 3)Biochemical Analysis Chlorophyll estimation. Nitrogen, Phosphorous & Potassium content of the plant. Seed protein, carbohydrate & sugar content. Seed N,P & K content

10. PLANT HEIGHT Treatment At knee height (cm) At harvest(cm) T1 49.82 187.33 T2 52.13 193.67 T3 63.95 225.83 T4 56.19 207.33 T5 57.00 215.67 T6 56.33 213.00 T7 57.33 220.67 S.E.m (±) 1.338 4.468 C.D .(0.05) 4.124 13.768 C.V . 4.131 3.702

11. Number of leaves Treatment At knee height At harvest T1 7.67 6.33 T2 9.00 6.00 T3 9.00 7.33 T4 8.00 6.67 T5 8.67 7.33 T6 7.33 6.33 T7 7.67 7.00 S.E.m (±) 0.367 0.262 C.D .(0.05) 1.132 0.808 C.V . 7.768 6.766

12. CHLOROPHYLL Treatment At knee height (mg/gm FW of tissue) At harvest (mg/gm FW of tissue) T1 1.83 0.95 T2 2.31 1.10 T3 2.80 1.31 T4 2.62 1.10 T5 2.75 1.20 T6 2.64 1.05 T7 2.95 1.68 S.E.m (±) 0.130 0.060 C.D .(0.05) 0.400 0.186 C.V . 8.801 8.718

13. Dry weight of plant (gm) Treatment At knee height At harvest T1 18.05 196.29 T2 18.81 202.95 T3 25.03 219.94 T4 21.64 204.02 T5 24.47 218.94 T6 22.20 215.95 T7 24.84 224.18 S.E.m (±) 0.306 0.653 C.D .(0.05) 0.942 2.012 C.V . 2.390 0.534

14. GROWTH PARAMETERS Treatment LAI CGR (g/m 2 /day ) RGR ( g/day) NAR (g/m 2 /day) T1 1.89 17.82 0.0396 9.45 T2 1.85 18.41 0.0394 10.05 T3 2.26 19.51 0.0363 8.64 T4 2.16 18.24 0.0374 8.47 T5 2.03 19.45 0.0362 9.57 T6 2.10 19.37 0.0378 9.27 T7 2.39 19.92 0.0363 8.34 S.E.m(±) 0.072 0.074 0.000262 0.322 C.D.(0.05) 0.221 0.229 0.000806 0.992 C.V. 5.844 0.679 1.20509 6.119

15. Carbohydrate , Protein And Sugar of grain Treatment Carbohydrate (%) Protein(%) Sugar(%) T1 60.33 9.42 3.1 T2 60.97 10.20 3.1 T3 64.67 10.53 4 T4 62.33 10.07 3.2 T5 64.03 10.20 3.7 T6 63.04 10.43 3.5 T7 65.29 11.00 4.2 S.E.m (±) 0.839 0.149 0.096 C.D .(0.05) 2.586 0.460 0.296 C.V . 2.309 2.519 4.698

16. NUTRIENT CONTENT IN PLANT Treatment N% In Shoot P% In Shoot K% In Shoot T1 1.75 0.33 1.19 T2 2.00 0.35 1.32 T3 1.96 0.44 1.67 T4 1.73 0.36 1.56 T5 1.66 0.37 1.59 T6 1.84 0.42 1.64 T7 2.06 0.52 1.81 S.E.m(±) 0.086 0.026 0.077 C.D.(0.05) 0.265 0.081 0.236 C.V. 8.014 11.468 8.638

17. NUTRIENT CONTENT IN GRAIN Treatment N% P% K% T1 0.69 0.37 0.45 T2 1.02 0.38 0.50 T3 1.30 0.53 0.61 T4 1.02 0.41 0.57 T5 1.30 0.49 0.61 T6 1.08 0.41 0.55 T7 1.40 0.55 0.73 S.E.m(±) 0.035 0.040 0.011 C.D.(0.05) 0.109 0.122 0.035 C.V. 5.465 15.338 3.372

18. YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTTING CHARACTER Treatment Cob weight (gm) No. Of seed per cob No. Of row per cob Cob length Cob diameter 1000 seed weight(gm) T1 67.72 209.67 12.00 20.65 12.47 249.00 T2 84.41 246.67 12.00 22.83 12.60 269.30 T3 97.61 481.67 14.00 23.90 13.70 292.31 T4 86.94 304.00 12.00 23.18 12.10 276.60 T5 91.71 313.67 16.00 23.37 13.00 281.65 T6 94.98 410.00 16.00 23.71 13.03 285.33 T7 103.63 530.67 18.00 24.93 13.77 305.13 S.E.m(±) 1.247 4.757 0.563 0.267 0.218 2.839 C.D.(0.05) 3.841 14.658 1.736 0.823 0.672 8.748 C.V. 2.411 2.310 6.831 1.992 2.915 1.757

19. HARVEST Treatment Yield( t/ha) HI T1 4.06 36.24 T2 5.06 43.73 T3 5.86 43.25 T4 5.22 41.96 T5 5.50 42.53 T6 5.70 44.62 T7 6.22 46.96 S.E.m (±) 0.075 1.096 C.D.(0.05) 0.230 3.379 C.V. 2.411 4.442

20. CONCLUSION High chlorophyll content and high nutrient content of the shoot and grain in T7 (100 % P(SSP) + 0.2 LR) followed by T3 (100% P (SSP). Yield is higher in T7( (100 % P(SSP) + 0.2 LR) due to more availability nutrient for better plant growth and metabolism so there is heigher Cob diameter, cob weight, no. of seeds per cob ,1000 seed weight . T7 (100 % P(SSP) + 0.2 LR) performs well as compared to other treatments because addition of lime, which makes the soil neutral.

21. REFERENCE Jibrin J.M , Chude V.O ,Horst W.J and Amapu I.Y (2002 )Effect of Cover Crops, Lime and Rock Phosphate on Maize ( Zea mays L.) in an Acidic Soil of Northern Guinea Savanna of NigeriaJournal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics Volume 103, No. 2, 2002, pages 169–176. Muhammad M., Mehrunisa M.* , Kazi S.M and Kakar H.(2013), Maize dry matter yield and P uptake as influenced by rock phosphate and single super phosphate treated with farm manure ., Soil Environ. 32(2): 130-134, 2013. Anthony, K.O. and E.A. Akinrinde .(2009), .Effects of phosphate fertilizers and maize plant density on productivity of cassava/maize/ egusi -melon mixtures on Alfisols of Ekiti State, South-Western Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 7: 224-227.   Bado B V,Lompo F,Sedogo M P, Cescas M (2010) .,Establishment of the Critical Limit of Soil Available Phosphorous for Maize Production in Low Acidic Ultisols of West Africa, Institut de l'Environement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Bobo-Dioulasso , Burkina Faso Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis ; Vol 41No 8,Jan2010; PP: 968- 976 Msolla M M , J M R Semoka,Szilas C; Borggaard K(2007)., Crop (Maize) Response to Direct Application of Local Phosphate Rock on Selected Acid Soils of Tanzania;Department of Soil Science, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro , Tanzania;Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis ; Vol 38 No 1-2,2007; PP: 93-106.