Response of nitrogen and sulphur levels on productivity and profitability of QPM hybrid (Zea mays) under dryland condition of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Authors

  • SABHA JEET KVK Halsi, Lakhisarai, BAU, Sabour
  • J P SINGH Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 005.
  • RAKESH KUMAR ICAR RC NEH Region Nagaland Centre, Jharnapani, Nagaland 797 106
  • HARI OM IARI, New Delhi 110 012

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v84i5.40479

Keywords:

Grain yields, Net return, Protein content, Protein yields and QPM hybrids

Abstract

A field experiments was conducted during, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 at Varanasi , under dryland condition to assess the growth, yield, quality, nutrient content and economics of QPM hybrids (Zea mays L.) under different nitrogen and sulphur levels. Twenty four treatment combination arranged in split plot design replicated three times with four nitrogen levels control, 50 kg N/ha, 100 kg N/ha and 150 kg N/ha in main plot treatments, two QPM hybrids Shaktiman-2 and Shaktiman-4 and three sulphur levels 15 kg S/ha, 30 kg S/ha and 45 kg S/ha as sub-plot treatments. Significant differences were observed among the treatments for all the parameters studied. Dry matter accumulation (g/plant), cob diameter (cm), test weight, protein content (%), protein yield (q/ha), N, P2O5, K2O and S content in plant was increased significantly as a result of nitrogen and sulphur levels. Application of 150 kg N/ha recorded significantly higher grain yield 43.94% and 43.43% over 0 kg N/ha in 1st and 2nd years, respectively. The highest net return (65.76% and 64.07%) and B: C ratio (39.08% and 38.72%) was recorded under 150 kg N/ha in 1st and 2nd years, respectively over 0 kg N/ha. QPM hybrid, Shaktiman-4 proved significantly higher growth, yield attributes, quality, net return and B: C ratio compared to Shaktiman-2. Shaktiman-4 recorded 3.55% and 2.62% higher grain yield over Shaktiman-2 in 1st and 2nd years, respectively. Application of 45 kg S/ha obtained 10.77% and 10.25% highest grain yield during 1st and 2nd years, respectively over 15 kg S/ha. The highest net return (12.56% and 11.69%) and B: C ratio (3.15% and 3.52%) was recorded under 45 kg S/ha in 1st and 2nd years, respectively over 15 kg S/ha.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bhat R A, Altaf Wani, Beigh, M A H and Dawson J. 2008. Integrated nitrogen management on the growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) under conditions of Uttar Pradesh. Asian Journal of Horticulture 3 (2) : 229–31.

Black C A. 1965. Soil-Plant Relationship. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York.

Cheema H S and Singh B. 1991. Software Statistical Package CPCS-1. Department of Statistics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Choudhary V S, Singh, V, Gola R P and Kumar S. 2007. Influence of integrated nutrient management on the physiological growth of wheat. Research on Crop 8 (1): 62–4.

Cochran W G and Cox G M. 1967. Experimental Designs. Asia Publishing House, New Delhi.

Gupta H S, Agrawal P K, Mahajan V, Bisht G S, Kumar A, Verma P, Srivastava1 A, Saha, S, Babu R, Pant M C and Mani V P. 2009. Quality protein maize for nutritional security: rapid development of short duration hybrids through molecular marker assisted breeding. Current Sciences 96 : 2–25.

Hamidi A and Nasab A D M. 2001. The effect of various plant density and nitrogen use levels on phenology of two medium- maturity corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 32 (4) : 857–74.

Khan A, Jan A. and Alam S. 2005. Effect of nitrogen and seed size on maize crop. Journal of Agricultural Society of soil Science 1 (4) : 378–9.

Jaction M L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall of India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi.

Mahdi S S, Hasan, B and Singh L.2012. Influence of seed rate, nitrogen and zinc on fodder maize (Zea mays) in temperate conditions of western Himalayas. Indian Journal of Agronomy 57 (1) : 85–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v57i1.4604

Maurya K L, Sharma H P, Tripathi H P and Singh S. 2005. Effect of nitrogen and sulphur application on yield attributes, yield and net returns of winter maize (Zea mays. L). Haryana Journal of Agronomy 21 (2) : 115–6.

Meena K N, Kumar A, Rana D S and Meena M C. 2011. Productivity and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays) - wheat cropping system under different bio-sources and nitrogen levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 56 (3) : 182–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v56i3.4692

Mehta Y K, Shaktawat M S and Singhi S M. 2005. Influence of sulphur, phosphorus and farmyard manure on yield attributes and yield of maize (Zea mays) in southern Rajasthan conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50 (3): 203–5.

Patel P C, Yadavendra J P and Kotecha A V. 2004. Effect of source and level of sulphur on seed yield and nitrogen and sulphur uptake by lucerne (Medicago sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy 49 : (2) 128–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v49i2.5176

Rasheed M, Ali H, and Tariq M. 2004. Impact of nitrogen and sulfur application on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Crop Research (Science) 15 (2) : 153–7.

Sahrawat K L, Wani S P, Rego T J, Pardhasaradhi G and Murthy K V S. 2007. Wide spread deficiency of sulphur, boran and zinc in dryland soils of the Indian semi-arid tropics. Current Sciences 93: 1 428–32.

Sakal R, Sinha R B, Singh A P, Bhogal N S and Ismail M D. 2000. Influence of sulphur on yield and mineral nutrition of crops in maize-wheat sequence. Journal of Indian Society of Soil Science 48 (2): 325–9.

Subbiah B V and Asija G L.1973. A rapid procedure for estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current Sciences 28 (8): 259– 60.

Vishram R, Singh R N and Singh K. 2006. Studies on integrated use of FYM, nitrogen and sulphur on growth, yield attributes and yield on winter maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Archive 6 (2): 749.

Downloads

Published

2014-05-07

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

JEET, S., SINGH, J. P., KUMAR, R., & OM, H. (2014). Response of nitrogen and sulphur levels on productivity and profitability of QPM hybrid (Zea mays) under dryland condition of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 84(5), 589–94. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v84i5.40479