| Literature DB >> 34095576 |
Anup Das1, Krishnappa Rangappa1, Savita Basavaraj1,2,3, Utpal Dey4,5, Meghna Haloi1, Jayanta Layek1, Ramkrushna Gandhiji Idapuganti1,6, Rattan Lal7, Nishant A Deshmukh1, Gulab Singh Yadav8, Subhash Babu1,8, Shishomvanao Ngachan1.
Abstract
Low soil moisture during dry season, poor soil properties and lack of adequate crop varieties are the major constraints for sustainable intensification of eastern Himalayas in changing climate. Suitable varieties, tillage alteration and integrated nutrient management with emphasis on locally available crop residues/plant biomass may help addressing these issues. The role of minimum tillage (MT) and no-till (NT), and organic matter substitution on conferring of favourable root environment, improvement in morpho-physiology and subsequent productivity of the crops are not objectively studied in Himalayan ecosystems. Thus, a six year field study was conducted for examining the residual effect of tillage and nutrient management (NM) practices applied to summer (rainy) rice (Oryza sativa L) on root growth-attributes and impact on morpho-physiology of succeeding winter pea (Pisums ativum L.) grown uniformly under NT. Higher root surface area, total root length, root volume, root length ratio (RLR) and root tissue densityin pea crop were observed under residual effect of conventional tillage (CT) relative to NT and MT. In addition, significantly higher values of functional root traits viz., root length ratio (RLR), root mass ratio and root finenessin pea were observed under CT and application of 50% NPK and 100% NPK relative to other tillage and NM practices. However, increased root exudation was observed under NT and MTalong with organic residue addition. Noticeable changes in stress responsive morpho-physiological traits like enhanced chlorophyll pigmentation and favourable leaf characteristics were observed in pea crop grown under NT with 50% NPK+weed biomass (WB)/green leaf manure (GLM) applications. Higher leaf area expansion and thickness were recorded with optimum turgidity under NT and MT than that under CT. Comparative increase in green pod and stover yield of pea with enhanced partition efficiency and harvest index were recorded under MT/NT along with 50% NPK+WB/GLM application than that under CT and other NM practices. Thus, adoption of MT/NT along with 50% NPK+WB/GLM in summer rice is recommended for inducing favourable root environment and optimised pea production in succeeding winter season in study region of the Eastern Himalayas, India and other similar agro-ecosystems.Entities:
Keywords: Hill ecosystem; Morpho-physiology; Root architectural plasticity; Root exudation; Root: shoot ratio; Tillage
Year: 2021 PMID: 34095576 PMCID: PMC8167228 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1a. Seasonal trend of total rainfall, mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature recorded during cropping season (2014–15); b. Seasonal trend of mean monthly maximum RH (morning RH) and mean monthly minimum RH (evening RH) recorded during cropping season (2014–2015).
Figure 4Performance of Pea cultivars in terms of chlorophyll a/b ratio, carotenoids/total chlorophyll and anthocyanin/total chlorophyll content under different residual effect tillage and nutrient management practices NT - No-till, MT - Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure. Vertical bars represent standard error. Bars with same letters are not significant and with different letters are significantly different at p = 0.05 after Duncan's multiple range test.
Figure 5Performance of Pea cultivars as reflected by varied cell membrane stability under different residual effect of tillage and nutrient management practices. NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure. Vertical bars represent standard error. Bars with same letters are not significant and with different letters are significantly different at p = 0.05 after Duncan's multiple range test.
Figure 6Performance of Pea cultivars in terms of yield components under different residual effect tillage and NM practices. NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure. Vertical bars represent standard error. Bars with same letters are not significant and with different letters are significantly different at p = 0.05 after Duncan's multiple range test.
Root morphological parameters of pea cultivars as influenced by tillage and NM practices under rice fallows.
| Treatment | Root surface area (cm2plant−1) | TRL (cm plant−1) | RV (cm3plant−1), | Av. diameter (mm) | RDW (gplant−1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tillage | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P |
| NT | 46.14 (0.55) | 46.77 (0.77) | 81.1 (0.62) | 78.7 (0.77) | 2.72 (0.50) | 1.47 (0.56) | 1.49 (0.47) | 1.46 (0.72) | 0.324 (1.12) | 0.323 (1.31) |
| MT | 58.85 (0.70) | 49.10 (0.81) | 88.7 (0.68) | 86.3 (0.84) | 3.18 (0.58) | 1.61 (0.62) | 1.89 (0.60) | 1.60 (0.79) | 0.316 (1.09) | 0.368 (1.50) |
| CT | 83.86 (C) | 60.95 (C) | 129.9 (C) | 102.4 (C) | 5.44 (C) | 2.61 (C) | 3.16 (C) | 2.02 (C) | 0.290 (C) | 0.246 (C) |
| S.Em (±) | 3.03 | 2.12 | 2.40 | 4.23 | 0.26 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| l.s.d ( | 8.78 | 6.13 | 6.94 | 12.2 | 0.76 | 0.33 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Nutrient management practices | ||||||||||
| 50% NPK | 38.98 (0.74) | 31.50 (0.75) | 101.9 (0.96) | 88.6 (0.93) | 2.73 (0.80) | 0.95 (0.59) | 2.12 (1.15) | 1.26 (0.93) | 0.312 (0.84) | 0.310 (0.94) |
| 100 % NPK | 52.99 (C) | 42.06 (C) | 106.5 (C) | 94.9 (C) | 3.40 (C) | 1.62 (C) | 1.84 (C) | 1.35 (C) | 0.372 (C) | 0.328 (C) |
| 50% NPK+ISRR | 56.89 (1.07) | 47.53 (1.13) | 86.6 (0.81) | 84.2 (0.89) | 3.98 (1.17) | 1.39 (0.85) | 1.95 (1.06) | 1.44 (1.07) | 0.251 (0.68) | 0.306 (0.93) |
| 50% NPK+WB | 70.51 (1.33) | 64.20 (1.53) | 94.7 (0.89) | 91.7 (0.97) | 3.77 (1.11) | 2.13 (1.31) | 2.25 (1.22) | 2.14 (1.58) | 0.274 (0.74) | 0.320 (0.97) |
| 50% NPK+GLM | 95.37 (1.80) | 76.06 (1.81) | 109.7 (1.03) | 86.5 (0.91) | 5.03 (1.48) | 3.38 (2.08) | 2.75 (1.50) | 2.29 (1.69) | 0.341 (0.92) | 0.297 (0.91) |
| S.Em (±) | 3.91 | 2.73 | 3.09 | 5.46 | 0.34 | 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| l.s.d ( | 11.3 | 7.91 | 8.96 | NS | 0.98 | 0.42 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.011 | 0.038 |
| CV (%) | 18.65 | 15.67 | 9.29 | 7.48 | 26.92 | 22.99 | 8.08 | 11.79 | 3.70 | 12.67 |
Note: NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure, l.s.d (p = 0.05) least significant difference, CV- Co-efficient of variation, RSA: Root surface area, TRL: Total root length, RV: Root volume,Av. diameter: Average root diameter, RDW: Root dry weight, R:S ratio: Root to shoot ratio, A-Arkel, P- Prakash, C-Control, NS- Non-significant. Figures in parenthesis indicate response co-efficient.
Figure 2Root architecture of selected pea cultivars under different tillage and nutrient management practices. NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT - Conventional tillage, WB - Weed biomass.
Functional root parameters of pea cultivars as influenced by residual effect of tillage and NM practices under rice fallows.
| Treatment | RLR | RMR | RF | RTD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tillage | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P |
| NT | 15.8 (0.58) | 16.9 (0.78) | 0.065 (1.08) | 0.063 (1.21) | 34.7 (1.37) | 75.1 (1.46) | 266.7 (0.55) | 269.5 (0.64) |
| MT | 16.3 (0.59) | 14.2 (0.65) | 0.056 (0.91) | 0.062 (1.19) | 32.9 (1.30) | 76.0 (1.48) | 292.4 (0.61) | 238.7 (0.57) |
| CT | 27.4 (C) | 21.7 (C) | 0.061 (C) | 0.052 (C) | 25.4 (C) | 51.3(C) | 482.7 (C) | 421.2 (C) |
| S.Em (±) | 1.10 | 1.14 | 0.002 | 0.004 | 2.17 | 6.00 | 12.73 | 17.87 |
| l.s.d ( | 3.20 | 3.31 | 0.007 | NS | 6.28 | 17.4 | 36.88 | 51.75 |
| Nutrient management practices | ||||||||
| 50% NPK | 24.0 (1.01) | 19.9 (1.03) | 0.073 (0.92) | 0.068 (1.04) | 44.1 (1.30) | 98.7 (1.63) | 334.9 (1.08) | 306.9 (0.91) |
| 100 % NPK | 23.9 (C) | 19.4 (C) | 0.080 (C) | 0.065 (C) | 34.0 (C) | 68.1 (C) | 309.7 (C) | 337.1 (C) |
| 50% NPK+ISRR | 18.2 (0.76) | 15.5 (0.80) | 0.052 (0.66) | 0.055 (0.85) | 25.5 (0.75) | 68.2 (1.12) | 343.5 (1.11) | 302.4 (0.90) |
| 50% NPK+WB | 15.3 (0.64) | 15.4 (0.79) | 0.042 (0.53) | 0.053 (0.82) | 27.6 (0.81) | 57.9 (0.95) | 428.3 (1.38) | 293.3 (0.87) |
| 50% NPK+GLM | 17.8 (0.75) | 15.8 (0.82) | 0.056 (0.70) | 0.054 (0.84) | 23.6 (0.69) | 44.4 (0.73) | 320.0 (1.03) | 309.3 (0.92) |
| S.Em (±) | 1.43 | 1.48 | 0.003 | 0.005 | 2.80 | 7.75 | 16.43 | 23.06 |
| l.s.d ( | 4.13 | NS | 0.009 | NS | 8.11 | 22.4 | 47.61 | NS |
| CV (%) | 21.56 | 16.94 | 15.36 | 23.35 | 27.14 | 31.1 | 14.20 | 16.57 |
Note: NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure, l.s.d (p = 0.05) = least significant difference, CV – Co-efficient of variation, A-Arkel, P- Prakash, NS- Non-significant, RLR-Root length ratio, RMR-Root mass ratio, RF-Root fineness, RTD-Root tissue density, C-Control. Figures in parenthesis indicate response co-efficient.
Figure 3Rhizosphere acidification of selected pea cultivars after incubation for 48 h with different root exudation patterns under different tillage and nutrient management practices (NT-no-till and MT- Minimum tillage CT- Conventional tillage).
Leaf pigmentation of pea cultivars as influenced by tillage and NM practices under rice fallows.
| Treatment | Chl a (mg g−1 FW) | Chl b (mg g−1 FW) | Total chl. (mg g−1 FW) | Car (μg g−1 FW) | Anth (μg g−1 FW) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tillage | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P |
| NT | 0.76 | 0.82 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 1.19 | 1.27 | 39.3 | 38.2 | 32.1 | 29.4 |
| MT | 0.74 | 0.93 | 0.22 | 0.28 | 1.18 | 1.26 | 37.6 | 35.6 | 27.1 | 27.2 |
| CT | 0.67 | 0.81 | 0.20 | 0.27 | 1.06 | 1.14 | 36.4 | 32.5 | 25.4 | 25.7 |
| S.Em± | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 1.16 | 1.01 | 1.36 | 1.00 |
| l.s.d ( | 0.07 | NS | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 0.11 | NS | 2.92 | 3.94 | 2.89 |
| Nutrient management practices | ||||||||||
| 50% NPK | 0.60 | 0.71 | 0.18 | 0.24 | 1.10 | 1.18 | 34.7 | 31.4 | 22.0 | 23.2 |
| 100 % NPK | 0.64 | 0.74 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 1.12 | 1.20 | 35.3 | 32.1 | 27.0 | 24.9 |
| 50% NPK+ISRR | 0.69 | 0.85 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 1.14 | 1.22 | 37.6 | 34.9 | 29.5 | 27.2 |
| 50% NPK+WB | 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.26 | 0.28 | 1.17 | 1.25 | 39.8 | 38.6 | 32.4 | 31.2 |
| 50% NPK+GLM | 0.89 | 1.00 | 0.26 | 0.30 | 1.20 | 1.28 | 41.4 | 40.1 | 30.2 | 30.7 |
| S.Em± | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 1.49 | 1.30 | 1.76 | 1.29 |
| l.s.d ( | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 0.04 | NS | NS | 4.33 | 3.77 | 5.09 | 3.72 |
| CV (%) | 12.56 | 17.01 | 14.37 | 15.03 | 11.90 | 12.30 | 11.87 | 11.02 | 14.62 | 14.07 |
Note: A-Arkel, P- Prakash, NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure, l.s.d (p = 0.05)- least significant difference, CV – Co-efficient of variation, NS- Non-significant, Chl a – Chlorophyll a, Chl b – Chlorophyll b, Tot. chl- Total chlorophyll, Car-Carotenoids, Antho-Anthocyanin.
Leaf characteristics of pea cultivars influenced by conservation tillage and NM practices under rice fallows.
| Treatment | Leaf thickness (μm) | Specific leaf area (cm2g−1) | Specific leaf weight (mg cm−2) | LDMC | TWC (%) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tillage | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P |
| NT | 318 (0.98) | 355 (0.96) | 86.2 (0.97) | 154.8 (0.88) | 12.1 (1.05) | 7.20 (1.13) | 0.636 (1.08) | 0.636 (1.07) | 57.5 (0.82) | 57.3 (0.83) |
| MT | 343 (1.05) | 383 (1.04) | 97.7 (1.10) | 121.7 (0.69) | 11.4 (0.98) | 8.40 (1.31) | 0.630 (1.07) | 0.617 (1.04) | 58.9 (0.84) | 62.3 (0.90) |
| CT | 325 (C) | 369 (C) | 88.6 (C) | 175.5 (C) | 11.6 (C) | 6.39 (C) | 0.589 (C) | 0.592 (C) | 69.9 (C) | 68.9 (C) |
| S.Em (±) | 6.73 | 6.53 | 6.36 | 3.61 | 0.75 | 0.21 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 1.15 | 0.88 |
| L.S.D ( | 19.5 | 18.9 | NS | 10.5 | 2.18 | 0.60 | 0.013 | 0.010 | 3.32 | 2.54 |
| Nutrient management practices | ||||||||||
| 50% NPK | 330 (1.01) | 368 (1.03) | 99.3 (0.96) | 121.9 (0.77) | 10.8 (1.00) | 8.53 (1.31) | 0.605 (0.99) | 0.605 (1.00) | 65.6 (1.03) | 65.7 (1.01) |
| 100 % NPK | 327 (C) | 357 (C) | 103.0 (C) | 157.8 (C) | 10.9 (C) | 6.52 (C) | 0.612 (C) | 0.607 (C) | 63.7 (C) | 64.9 (C) |
| 50% NPK+ISRR | 320 (0.98) | 370 (1.04) | 83.7 (0.81) | 149.4 (0.95) | 12.2 (1.13) | 7.22 (1.11) | 0.617 (1.01) | 0.616 (1.01) | 62.4 (0.98) | 62.4 (0.96) |
| 50% NPK+WB | 321 (0.98) | 366 (1.02) | 85.4 (0.83) | 164.5 (1.04) | 12.0 (1.11) | 6.36 (0.97) | 0.623 (1.02) | 0.628 (1.03) | 60.7 (0.95) | 59.3 (0.91) |
| 50% NPK+GLM | 346 (1.06) | 386 (1.08) | 83.5 (0.81) | 159.8 (1.01) | 12.6 (1.16) | 8.02 (1.23) | 0.634 (1.04) | 0.619 (C) | 58.2 (0.91) | 61.8 (0.95) |
| S.Em (±) | 8.69 | 8.43 | 8.21 | 4.66 | 0.97 | 0.27 | 0.006 | 0.004 | 1.48 | 1.13 |
| l.s.d ( | NS | NS | NS | 13.5 | NS | 0.77 | 0.017 | 0.013 | 4.29 | 3.28 |
| CV (%) | 7.93 | 6.85 | 27.09 | 9.27 | 24.98 | 10.86 | 2.90 | 2.14 | 7.15 | 5.41 |
Note: A-Arkel, P- Prakash, NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure, l.s.d (p = 0.05)- least significant difference, CV – Co-efficient of variation, LDMC-Leaf dry matter content, TWC-Total water content, NS- Non-significant. C - Control. Figures in parenthesis indicate response co-efficient.
Shoot characteristics of pea cultivars as affected by different tillage and NM practices.
| Treatment | Shoot dry weight (gplant−1) | Shoot length (cm) | No. of primary branches | R:S ratio | TDM (g plant−1) | PE (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P | A | P | |
| Tillage | ||||||||||||
| NT | 4.77 (1.37) | 4.65 (0.89) | 77.9 (1.03) | 72.9 (1.03) | 1.80 (1.23) | 1.67 (1.02) | 0.242 (1.01) | 0.134 (1.17) | 5.18 (1.03) | 5.25 (1.10) | 56.5 (1.10) | 55.6 (1.02) |
| MT | 4.50 (1.29) | 6.25 (1.19) | 82.4 (1.09) | 75.4 (1.06) | 2.00 (1.36) | 1.68 (1.03) | 0.220 (0.92) | 0.109 (0.94) | 5.89 (1.18) | 6.28 (1.31) | 56.1 (1.10) | 54.4 (1.00) |
| CT | 3.48 (C) | 5.24 (C) | 75.7 (C) | 71.1 (C) | 1.47 (C) | 1.63 (C) | 0.239 (C) | 0.115 (C) | 5.01 (C) | 4.78 (C) | 51.1 (C) | 54.4 (C) |
| S.Em± | 0.15 | 0.27 | 1.46 | 0.87 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.75 | 0.61 |
| l.s.d ( | 0.45 | 0.78 | 4.24 | 2.53 | NS | NS | NS | 0.017 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 2.18 | 1.76 |
| Nutrient management practices | ||||||||||||
| 50% NPK | 2.91 (0.69) | 4.89 (1.08) | 68.2 (0.89) | 65.5 (0.94) | 1.33 (0.92) | 1.33 (0.91) | 0.166 (0.92) | 0.108 (0.97) | 4.35 (0.91) | 4.62 (0.91) | 52.1 (0.98) | 53.5 (0.98) |
| 100 % NPK | 4.22 (C) | 4.55 (C) | 76.9 (C) | 69.4 (C) | 1.44 (C) | 1.47 (C) | 0.180 (C) | 0.111 (C) | 4.77 (C) | 5.06 (C) | 53.4 (C) | 52.5 (C) |
| 50% NPK+ISRR | 4.50 (1.07) | 5.27 (1.16) | 81.0 (1.05) | 75.4 (1.09) | 1.89 (1.31) | 1.56 (1.06) | 0.295 (1.65) | 0.120 (1.08) | 4.96 (1.04) | 5.59 (1.10) | 55.1 (1.03) | 55.0 (1.03) |
| 50% NPK+WB | 4.32 (1.02) | 6.09 (1.34) | 84.9 (1.10) | 78.3 (1.13) | 2.11 (1.46) | 1.82 (1.24) | 0.226 (1.26) | 0.118 (1.06) | 6.42 (1.35) | 6.10 (1.21) | 56.5 (1.06) | 57.1 (1.07) |
| 50% NPK+GLM | 5.30 (1.26) | 6.10 (1.34) | 82.5 (1.07) | 77.0 (1.11) | 2.00 (1.38) | 2.11 (1.44) | 0.301 (1.69) | 0.138 (1.25) | 6.29 (1.32) | 5.80 (1.15) | 55.9 (1.05) | 55.8 (1.04) |
| S.Em± | 0.20 | 0.35 | 1.89 | 1.13 | 0.20 | 0.28 | 0.015 | 0.007 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.97 | 0.78 |
| l.s.d ( | 0.58 | 1.01 | 5.48 | 3.27 | 0.59 | NS | 0.044 | NS | 0.77 | 0.80 | 2.84 | NS |
| CV (%) | 14.12 | 19.41 | 7.41 | 4.62 | 34.86 | 49.78 | 19.58 | 18.60 | 14.91 | 15.27 | 5.33 | 4.29 |
Note: NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure, l.s.d (p = 0.05) = least significant difference, CV – Co-efficient of variation, R:S ratio-Root to Shoot ratio, TDM: Total dry matter, PE-Partitioning Efficiency, NS- Non-significant, A-Arkel, P- Prakash.
Tissue phosphorus content and its efficiency in pea cultivars as influenced by different of tillage and NM practices under rice fallows.
| Treatment | Tissue P (mg g−1) | Shoot P: Root P ratio | PUpE (mg of shoot P g−1 of root weight) | PUE (g of shoot mg−1 of shoot P) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arkel | Prakash | Arkel | Prakash | Arkel | Prakash | Arkel | Prakash | |||
| Tillage | Root | Shoot | Root | Shoot | ||||||
| NT | 2.71 | 3.87 | 2.32 | 2.84 | 1.43 | 1.45 | 13.5 | 9.03 | 0.81 | 1.08 |
| MT | 2.87 | 3.04 | 3.25 | 2.68 | 1.05 | 0.89 | 10.0 | 7.35 | 1.06 | 1.11 |
| CT | 2.72 | 3.72 | 2.52 | 3.74 | 1.39 | 1.48 | 14.1 | 15.8 | 0.79 | 0.82 |
| S.Em (±) | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 0.04 | 0.05 |
| L.S.D ( | NS | 0.15 | 0.38 | 0.07 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.95 | 1.40 | 0.10 | 0.15 |
| Nutrient management practices | ||||||||||
| 50% NPK | 2.78 | 3.69 | 2.84 | 2.93 | 1.38 | 1.09 | 12.2 | 10.2 | 0.69 | 0.81 |
| 100% NPK | 2.49 | 2.99 | 2.57 | 3.52 | 1.19 | 1.41 | 8.07 | 12.2 | 0.92 | 0.88 |
| 50% NPK+ISRR | 2.80 | 4.18 | 2.24 | 3.58 | 1.50 | 1.64 | 17.4 | 13.0 | 0.77 | 1.05 |
| 50% NPK+WB | 2.93 | 4.00 | 3.48 | 2.31 | 1.37 | 0.73 | 16.6 | 7.31 | 0.92 | 1.13 |
| 50% NPK+GLM | 2.83 | 2.85 | 2.34 | 3.11 | 1.01 | 1.52 | 8.34 | 10.9 | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| S.Em (±) | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.42 | 0.62 | 0.05 | 0.07 |
| l.s.d ( | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.48 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.26 | 1.22 | 1.81 | 0.14 | 0.19 |
| CV (%) | 7.30 | 5.81 | 18.63 | 2.85 | 10.50 | 20.80 | 10.10 | 17.45 | 15.82 | 19.48 |
Note: NT- No-till, MT- Minimum tillage, CT- Conventional tillage, ISRR- In-situ residue retention; WB- Weed biomass; GLM- Green leaf manure, l.s.d (p = 0.05) = least significant difference, CV – Co-efficient of variation, NS- Non-significant, PUpE-Phosphorus uptake efficiency, PUE-Phosphorus utilization efficiency.