The Journal of Research ANGRAU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

KIRAN KUMAR Table 1. Pooled analysis data for growth components of chilli as influenced by foliar spray Plant Plant Plant Treatments Height (cm) Spread E-W(cm) Spread N-S(cm) T 1-19:19:19 NPK @ 2.5 g l -1 90.3 57.7 55.1 T 2 -19:19:19 NPK @ 5.0 g l -1 93.8 56.4 54.6 T 3-19:19:19 NPK @ 7.5 g l -1 96.8 56.0 54.9 T 4 -19:19:19 NPK @ 10.0 g l -1 96.2 56.7 54.4 T 5 -19:19:19 NPK @ 2.5 g l -1 + KNO 3 @5 g l -1 92.7 54.5 53.5 T 6 -19:19:19 NPK @ 5g/l + KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 89.9 54.2 55.0 T7-19:19:19 NPK @ 7.5 g/l + KNO3 @ 5 g l -1 98.4 57.4 55.2 T 8 -19:19:19NPK @ 10 g/l + KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 91.1 56.7 55.9 T 9 -KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 from one month after transplanting 94.4 57.5 56.3 T 10 -KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 at the time of flowering 91.6 54.4 52.7 T 11-Control 89.9 53.9 52.8 CD @ 5% NS NS NS SEm ± 2.72 1.39 1.25 application of 19:19:19 NPK and KNO 3. combination with KNO 3 @ 5g l -1 (T 5 to T 8 ) and KNO 3 @ 5g l -1 (T 9 ) were scheduled at monthly intervals starting one month after transplanting. At the time of flower initiation two sprays of KNO 3 @ 5g l -1 (T 10 ) was scheduled at monthly intervals and unsprayed control (T 11 ). Intercultural operations and Plant protection measures were uniform in all the experimental plots. For recording observations on plant height, plant spread, fresh weight, dry weight, fruit length and fruit girth, five plants in each bed were selected at random and labelled. The data thus recorded for three years was pooled and subjected to statistical analysis (Panse and Sukhatme, 1985). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION There was no significant difference in the plant height and plant spread (Table 1), fruit girth and percentage of dry pod recovery (Table 2). Fresh pod yield (9820 kg ha -1 ) and dry pod yield (3320 kg ha -1 ) were significantly maximum with four foliar 6
EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF NPK NUTRIENTS ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF CHILLI Table 2. Pooled analysis data for yield components of chilli as influenced by foliar spray Treatments Fruit Length (cm) Fruit Girth (cm) Fresh pod yield (kg ha -1 ) Dry pod yield (kg ha -1 ) Recovery (%) T 1 -19:19:19 NPK @ 2.5 g l -1 7.3 0.9 8380 2650 31.6 T 2 -19:19:19 NPK @ 5.0 g l -1 7.4 1.0 8380 2800 32.8 T 3 -19:19:19 NPK @ 7.5 g l -1 7.6 1.0 8870 2910 33.4 T 4 -19:19:19 NPK @ 10.0 g l -1 7.4 1.0 8330 2850 33.5 T 5 -19:19:19 NPK @ 2.5 g l -1 + KNO 3 @5 g l -1 7.2 1.0 7970 2670 34.2 T 6 -19:19:19 NPK @ 5g/l + KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 7.5 1.0 8590 2730 31.8 T 7 -19:19:19 NPK @ 7.5 g/l + KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 7.6 1.0 9820 3320 33.8 T 8 -19:19:19NPK @ 10 g/l + KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 7.5 1.0 8490 2720 32.0 T 9 -KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 from one month after transplanting T 10 -KNO 3 @ 5 g l -1 at the time of flowering 7.5 0.9 8070 2730 33.8 7.5 1.0 8310 2690 32.3 T 11 -Control 7.1 0.9 6450 2240 34.7 CD @ 5% 0.3 NS 1444 480 NS SEm ± 0.1 0.02 489 160 0.82 application of 19:19:19 NPK and KNO 3. sprays of 19:19:19 NPK @ 7.5g l -1 + KNO 3 @ 5g l -1 scheduled at monthly intervals starting from one month after transplanting (Table 2). These results were supported by Lovatt (2005), who reported that foliar spray of 1% either 19:19:19 or KNO 3 at 45, 60 and 75 days after planting increased the crop yield by about 10% over unsprayed control. These results are in line with those of Patil and Biradar (2001), who applied NPK 19:19:19 as foliar application and found significant effect on fruit weight of chilli. Singh et al. (2002) reported that gross and marketable yield of Onion was highest with basal application of NPK and foliar application of 1% KNO 3 at 30, 45 and 60 days after transplanting. Foliar application of 19:19:19 NPK@7.5 g l -1 + KNO 3 @ 5g l -1 resulted significantly longer fruits (7.6 cm) (Table 2). Similarly, Baloch (2008) reported significant increase in fruit length by foliar application 7
Page 1 and 2: 1
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS PART I : PLANT SCIENCE Eff
Page 5: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 1-4, 2013 EFFEC
Page 9 and 10: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 5-13, 2013 NUTR
Page 11 and 12: NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY RICE CROP UNDER
Page 19 and 20: LAKSHMI et al Fig 1. Changes in C/N
Page 21 and 22: LAKSHMI et al Changes in C/N ratio
Page 23 and 24: LAKSHMI et al Table 3. Changes in h
Page 25 and 26: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 20-29, 2013 INF
Page 27 and 28: PRASAD and PRASADINI of bulk densit
Page 29 and 30: PRASAD and PRASADINI to as high as
Page 31 and 32: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 4 . Infl
Page 33 and 34: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 8. Influ
Page 35 and 36: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 30-38, 2013 GEN
Page 37 and 38: VEMANNA et al The range in mean val
Page 39 and 40: VEMANNA et al grain yield per plant
Page 41 and 42: VEMANNA et al 41
Page 43 and 44: VEMANNA et al Singh, S. P and Khan,
Page 45 and 46: RAMANA et al RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Page 47 and 48: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 42-46, 2013 A S
Page 49 and 50: RAJANNA et. al. Table 2. Reasons fo
Page 51 and 52: RAJANNA et al the present findings
Page 53 and 54: NARASIMHA et al Table 1. Proximate
Page 55 and 56: NARASIMHA et al Maynard, L., Lossli
Page 57 and 58:
RAMANA et al with small follicles m
Page 59 and 60:
RAMANA et al Characteristics of fol
Page 61 and 62:
Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
Page 63 and 64:
KIRTHY et al Akhtar et al., 2008; S
Page 65 and 66:
KIRTHY et al El Gharras H. 2009. Po
Page 67 and 68:
SANDYARANI et al Weed parameters li
Page 69 and 70:
SANDYARANI et al Table 2. Influence
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
KUMAR et al Table 2. Effect of seed
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
DEEPAK et al Table 2 Price spread a
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
YAMINI et al Table 3. Estimates of
Page 83 and 84:
YAMINI et al coupled with high per
Page 85 and 86:
LOKESH et al Table 1. Clustering pa
Page 87 and 88:
LOKESH et al Table 4. Mean values o
Page 89 and 90:
ABIRAMI et al Socio-economic Impact
Page 91 and 92:
ABIRAMI et al socio-economic impact
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
VEMANNA et al Table 1. Discriminant
Page 97 and 98:
VEMANNA et al total biomass, fresh
Page 99 and 100:
RAO et al Table 1. Plant height, nu
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
DEVI et al S.No Category Frequency
Page 105 and 106:
DEVI et al extension contact and ma
Page 107 and 108:
NIRMALA and VASANTHA earliness in a
Page 109 and 110:
NIRMALA and VASANTHA adopted this t
Page 111 and 112:
SUDHARANI et al Table 1. Genotypic
Page 113 and 114:
SUDHARANI et al At genotypic level,
Page 115 and 116:
NIRMALA et al weight of pods per pl
Page 117 and 118:
NIRMALA et al Table 3. Cluster mean
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI 6.5 6.
Page 125 and 126:
PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI REFERE
Page 127 and 128:
KATTEL et al Table 1. Item Analysis
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
RADHIKA et al Thus, the results of
Page 133 and 134:
RAJU et al estimated daily dietary
Page 135 and 136:
RAJU et al Table 3. Physico-chemica
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
MINNIE et al Table 2. Estimates of
Page 141 and 142:
Statement about ownership and other
Page 143 and 144:
GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF M
Page 145:
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDER
show all

The Journal of Research ANGRAU

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?