EFFECT OF MOISTURE CONSERVATION PRACTICES, PHOSPHORUS LEVELS AND BACTERIAL INOCULATION ON GROWTH, YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)

Article Id: ARCC3635 | Page : 68 - 72
Citation :- EFFECT OF MOISTURE CONSERVATION PRACTICES, PHOSPHORUS LEVELS AND BACTERIAL INOCULATION ON GROWTH, YIELD AND ECONOMICS OF CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.).Legume Research-An International Journal.2006.(29):68 - 72
L.R. Meena1, R.K. Singh and R.C. Gautam
Address : Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi - 110 012, India

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during rabi (winter) season of the years 1997–98 and 1998–99 to study the response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to soil moisture conservation, varied levels of phosphorus and bacterial (Pseudomonas striata) inoculation of seed. Among the moisture conservation practices, the field bunding + FYM @ 10 t/ha showed beneficial effects on seed yield and protein content of chickpea. Higher values of growth and yield attributing characters were also observed with field bunding + FYM @ 10 t/ha as compared to other practices. Maximum economic return of Rs 10,927/ha was obtained with field bunding + green manuring (dhaincha) (Sesbenia aculeate L.), which also gave higher benefit cost ratio (2.01) against control on pooled data basis. Application of phosphorus @ 60 kg P2O5/ha resulted in statistically significant increased growth and yield attributes and seed yield as compared to formal levels. However, more net returns were received at 30 kg P2O5/ha as compared to higher level of phosphorus (60 kg P2O5/ha). Further, the application of phosphorus had positive effect on protein contents in seed and its level was observed higher at 60 kg P2O5/ha (21.67%). Seed treatment with phosphobacterin (PSB) culture resulted in improvements in growth and yield attributing characters, seed yield, quality and net return per rupee invested when compared with no phosphobacterin inoculation.

Keywords

References

  1. Asthana, A.N. and Mishra, J.P. (1999). The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, pp. 61-65.
  2. Barea, J.M. et al. (1976). J. Applied Bacteriol., 40: 129-134.
  3. Borgohain, M. and Agarwal, S.K. (1986). Indian J. Agron., 31: 229-234.
  4. Bhandari, P.B.S. et al. (1982). JNKVV Res. J., 16: 113-115.
  5. Cheng, L.Z. and Wang, J.Y. (1987). J. Soil Sci. China, 1: 270-273.
  6. Chandra, R. and Kumar, N. (1995). Legume Res., 18: 103-108.
  7. Das, D. (1985). Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi.
  8. Gautam, R.C. and Kumar, Rajender (1992). Indian J. Agron., 37: 551-553.
  9. Pandey, S.K. (1987). Ph.D. Thesis, Division of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi.
  10. Shinde, V.S. and Saraf, C.S. (1994). Indian J. Pulses Res., 7: 76-79.
  11. Singh, K. et al. (1986). Ann. Agric. Res., 7: 44-51.
  12. Tiwari et al. (1994). Indian J. Agron., 36: 599-600.
  13. Varshney et al. (1998). In: Ist International Agronomy Congress held at New Delhi, India (Nov. 23-27), pp. 177-178.
  14. Venketeshwarlu, J. (1983). Project Bulletin No. 5. All India Coordinated Research Project for Dry land Agriculture, Hyderabad, India.

Global Footprints