Maximizing Yields, Nutrient Uptake and Balance for Mustard-Mungbean-T. Aman Rice Cropping Systems through Nutrient Management Practices in Calcareous Soils


  •  M. Quddus    
  •  M. J. Abedin Mian    
  •  H. M. Naser    
  •  M. A. Hossain    
  •  S. Sultana    

Abstract

The experiment was conducted to measure crop yields, nutrient concentration, nutrient uptake and balance by using different nutrient management practices for mustard-mungbean-T. aman rice cropping system in calcareous soil of Madaripur, Bangladesh. Different nutrient management practices were absolute nutrient control (T1); farmer’s practice (T2); AEZ based nutrient application (T3) and soil test based nutrient application (T4). The practices were compared in a randomized completely block design with three replications over two consecutive years. The average yield through application of soil test based nutrient (T4) was showed effective to get highest yields of mustard (1530 kg ha-1), mungbean (1632 kg ha-1) and T. aman rice (4729 kg ha-1). The same practices (T4) exhibited the greatest nutrients uptake by the test crops. The apparent balance of N and K was negative; however it was less negative and less deficiency detect in T4 treatment. Positive balance of P observed in all practices except in T1. There was a positive S balance (7.60 kg ha-1) in T4 but negative in T1, T2 and T3. Zinc balance was found positive in T3 and T4 and negative in T1 and T2. Boron balance in the system was neutral or slightly positive in T1 and negative in T2 but positive in T3 and T4. Organic matter, N, P, S, Zn and B status in soil was improved by T4 treatment. The results suggested that the soil test based nutrient application is viable and sustainable for mustard-mungbean-T. aman rice cropping system in calcareous soils of Bangladesh.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact