1. 1Dipsikha Chakrabarty, 2Diana Shamurailatpam , 1P K Patra and 2R K Ghosh
Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science,
Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, P.O.- Krishi Viswavidyalaya,
Mohanpur-741252, Nadia, West Bengal, India
Effect of nutrient management on nutrient
availability, GHG emission and growth,
nutrient content and yield of rice under SRI

2.  The traditional system of “Production intensification" through adoption of
chemical based technology during the green revolution era resulted in a
quantum jump in agricultural production that reached a new height from a
paltry 51 Mt during 1950-51 to 263 Mt during 2012-13.
 This system though had brought in food security of the country when it was
needed most, it also had resulted in decline in soil fertility and overall
deterioration of soil health, depletion of water tables, aggravation of air
pollution, and resistance to some weeds insects and diseases to certain
pesticides.
 Imbalance in plant nutrients has been identified as one of the major reasons
for downward compound growth rate in area production and productivity of
rice since 1990.

3. CONTD….
 Top priority has to be given for enhancement of efficiency of production
systems in the small holding units through meticulous management of basic
agricultural resource - soil, water and biological inputs
 Enhanced productivity from the existing rice areas of lndia has to be achieved
by narrowing the existing gap between the realized and potential yield
 Technologies that lower costs, improve and sustain soil health are favourable to
the environment, save resources such as water and nutrients; saves the use of
insecticide and other pesticides and improve returns are currently in high demand
 The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) first developed in Madagascar and
now being tested in many countries, is an example of an on-farm productivity
enhancing approach. This system is a niche –production method

4. CONTD….
 SRI is based largely on closely related practices, such as organic farming, ecological
farming and low-input sustainable agriculture that give substantial yield without the use of
inorganic fertilizers. This system also leads to reduction in methane emission from rice fields
 SRI is not a package of fixed technical specifications; it is rather a system of production
formulated on certain core principles from soil chemistry and biology, rice physiology and
genetics and the principles of sustainability with the possibility of adjusting the exact
technical components based on the prevailing biophysical and socioeconomic realities of an
area
 Nutrient management constitute the one of the most important domain of SRI and
nutrients should be added to the soil, preferably in the form of organic matter such as
compost or mulch
 The use of chemical fertilizer should be minimized and gradually avoided as the nutrient
status of the soil develops

5. OBJECTIVE
The present research project was formulated to
study the effect of integration of organic
manure and chemical fertilisers in different
proportions on the availability of nutrients and
growth and yield of rice under SRI

6. TECHNICAL PROGRAMME
 A research experiment was conducted during summer and kharif seasons, 2012 and
at summer,2013 on a sandy loam soil at the Instructional Farm of Bidhan Chandra
Krishi Vishwavidyalaya at Jaguli, Nadia
 Variety of rice : Satabdi.
 Design : Randomized Complete Block
 Plot size: 5m x 4m
 Treatments: The following 5 treatments were imposed
T1– Farmers’ common practice (FCP)
T2 – 100% Nutrient from Chemical source (RFD)
T3 - 25% Nutrient N from Organic source + 75% from chemical source + P,K same
as T2
T4 – 50% Nutrient N from Organic source + 50% from chemical source + P,K same
as T2
T5 – 50% Nutrient N from chemical source + Green manuring (Dhaincha) + Rest
Nutrient N from other Organic source + P,K same as T2

7. Soil Characteristics Values
Bulk Density (g.cm-3) 1.329
Sand (%) 55.4
Silt (%) 23.2
Clay (%) 21.3
Textural Class Sandy loam

8. pH (1:2.5 :: soil : water ratio) 6.85
Electrical Conductivity
(dS.m-1)
1.47
Organic Carbon (%) 0.590
Total Nitrogen (%) 0.0585
Available Phosphorus (kg
P2O5.ha-1)
29.4
Available Potassium (kg
K2O.ha-1)
125.4

10. Treatme
nt
Plant height at Harvest
(cm)
No. of Tillers .hill-1
Summe
r, 2012
Kharif,
2012
Mean Summer
2012
Kharif 2012 Mean
Harves
tHarvest 30
DAT
45 DAT
Harves
t
T1 96 99.5 97.8 18 11.60 23.75 31.52 24.76
T2 103 101.6 102.3 19 11.95 25.34 32.35 25.68
T3 100 102.3 101.2 16 11.60 26.28 32.55 24.28
T4 95 102.5 98.8 17 11.15 24.56 31.30 24.15
T5 95 100.2 97.6 25 11.10 21.93 32.40 28.70
LSD
(P=0.05)
2.2 2.14 1.2 0.62 2.02 1.11
Table 2: Plant height (cm) and number of tillers (hill-1) of rice under
different nutrient management practices in SRI

11. 90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
PlantHeightatharvest(cm) Summer, 2012 Kharif, 2012 Mean
Fig. 1: Plant height (cm) of rice under different nutrient
management practices in SRI

12. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
No.oftillershill-1 Summer 2012 Harvest Kharif 2012 Harvest
Kharif 2012 30 DAT Kharif 2012 45 DAT
Mean Harvest
Fig. 2: Number of tillers (hill-1) of rice under different
nutrient management practices in SRI

13. Treatmen
ts
No. of
Panicles
m-2
Panicle Length (cm) No. of Grains Panicle-1
Summe
r, 2013
Summe
r, 2012
Kharif,
2012
Mean
Summe
r, 2012
Kharif,
2012
Mean
T1 185 24.0 22.8 23.4 283 185 234.0
T2 178 25.0 21.5 23.2 280 178 229.0
T3 182 24.5 20.6 22.6 230 182 206.0
T4 185 30.0 21.9 25.9 286 185 235.5
T5 172 27.5 19.9 23.7 255 172 213.5
LSD
(P=0.05) 10.21 1.0 2.49 1.7 10.21
Table 3: Number of panicles (m-2), panicle length (cm) and
number of grains (panicles-1) of rice under different nutrient
management practices in SRI

14. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
165
170
175
180
185
190
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
Paniclelength(cm)
NoofPaniclesm-2
Panicle Length (cm) Summer, 2012 Panicle Length (cm) Kharif, 2012
Panicle Length (cm) Mean No. of Panicles m-2 Summer, 2013
Fig. 3: Panicle length (cm) and number of panicles (m-2) of rice under
different nutrient management practices in SRI

15. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
No.ofGrains.Panicle-1
Summer, 2012 Kharif, 2012 Mean
Fig.4: Number of grains (panicle-1) of rice under different nutrient
management practices in SRI

16. Treatment
Leaf Chlorophyll (%), Kharif 2012
Kharif
2012
Summer
2012
30
DAT
45
DAT
60
DAT
Test
weight (g)
CO2
(ppm)
60 DAT
T1 46.26 47.40 56.80 20 386
T2 45.05 45.83 55.71 21 312
T3 47.64 46.27 59.03 22 360
T4 45.71 46.68 57.40 22 348
T5 46.87 47.99 56.56 18 398
LSD
(P=0.05)
0.72 0.52 1.01 NS 2.3
Table 4: Chlorophyll content (%) of rice leaves under
different nutrient management practices in SRI

17. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
LeafChlorophyllContent(%)
30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT
Fig. 5: Chlorophyll content (%) of rice leaves under different
nutrient management practices in SRI

18. 0
5
10
15
20
25
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
TestWeightofGrains(g)
Test weight (g)
Fig.7: Test weight (1000 seeds) (g) of rice grains
under different nutrient management practices in SRI

19. 0
75
150
225
300
375
450
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
CO2Concentration(ppm) CO2 (ppm), 60 DAT
Fig.6: Concentration of CO2 (ppm) in the rice field under
different nutrient management practices in SRI

20. Treatm
ent
Grain Yield (t.ha-1)
StrawYield (t.ha-1)
Summe
r 2012
Kharif
2012
Summer
2013
Mean Summe
r 2012
Kharif
2012
Summe
r 2013
Mean
T1 4.3 4.61 6.58 5.16 5.2 5.20 7.43 5.94
T2 4.1 4.31 6.16 4.86 5.0 6.14 8.77 6.64
T3 4.2 4.54 6.49 5.08 5.2 5.98 8.54 6.57
T4 5.2 4.69 6.70 5.53 6.5 5.82 8.32 6.88
T5 4.9 4.64 6.63 5.39 5.5 5.27 7.53 6.10
CD at
5%
0.1 0.196 0.28 0.1 0.434 0.62
Table 5: Grain (t.ha-1) and straw yield (t.ha-1) of rice under different
nutrient management practices in SRI

21. 0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
GrainYield(t.ha-1)
Summer 2012 Kharif 2012 Summer 2013 Mean
Fig.8: Grain yield (t. ha-1) of rice under different nutrient
management practices in SRI

22. 0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
StrawYield(t.ha-1 Summer 2012 Kharif 2012 Summer 2013 Mean
Fig.9: Straw yield (t. ha-1) of rice under different nutrient
management practices in SRI

23. Treat
ment
Available nitrogen
(kg ha-1)
Available
phosphorus (kg ha-1)
Available
Potassium(kg ha-1)
30
DAT
60
DAT
Harve
st
30
DAT
60
DAT
Harve
st
30
DAT
60
DAT
Harve
st
T1 269.5 254.1 251.53 29.13 30.67 33.02 264.79 246.72 246.19
T2 292.6 272.07 261.80 30.16 34.14 34.17 244.36 220.00 228.38
T3 284.9 277.2 252.60 27.74 31.31 31.48 236.50 258.50 247.24
T4 269.5 269.5 179.87 32.34 34.91 36.53 253.22 255.36 262.57
T5 284.9 266.3 189.93 30.80 30.93 36.55 231.00 244.09 237.29
Table 6: Available N (kg ha-1), available P2O5(kg ha-1) and available
K2O (kg ha-1) content of rice soil under different nutrient
management practices in SRI

24. Treat
ment
s
Nitrogen
(kg ha-1)
Phosphorus
(kg ha-1)
Potassium
(kg ha-1)
30
DAT
60
DAT
Harve
st
30
DAT
60
DAT
Harve
st
30
DAT
60
DAT
Harve
st
T1 65 74 77 13.0 13.7 14.4 45.4 61.8 81.6
T2 63 69 81 17.2 17.6 18.1 57.2 79.7 88.5
T3 69 76 79 19.8 20.4 21.1 62.9 86.7 94.8
T4 65 67 69 22.4 22.9 23.5 75.9 80.9 108.4
T5 56 59 63 25.2 26.0 26.7 62.9 77.9 105.4
Table 7: Uptake of N (kg ha-1), P2O5(kg ha-1) and K2O (kg ha-1) by
rice at different stages of growth under different nutrient
management practices in SRI

25. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
AvailableNinSoil(kg.ha-1) Available N in Soil (kg.ha-1)
30DAT 60DAT Harvest
Fig. 10: Available N (t. ha-1) content of rice soil under different
nutrient management practices in SRI

26. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
NUptakebyRice(kg.ha-1) N Uptake by Rice (kg.ha-1)
30 DAT 60 DAT Harvest
Fig.11: Uptake of N (kg ha-1) by rice at different stages of growth
under different nutrient management practices in SRI,

27. 0
10
20
30
40
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
AvailableP2O5(kg.ha-1)inSoil Available P2O5 (kg.ha-1) in Soil
30DAT 60DAT Harvest
Fig.12: Available P2O5 (kg ha-1) content of rice soil under different
nutrient management practices in SRI

28. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
PUptakebyRice(kg.ha-1)
P Uptake by Rice (kg.ha-1)
30DAT 60DAT Harvest
Fig.13: Uptake of P2O5 (kg ha-1) by rice at different stages of
growth under different nutrient management practices in SRI,

29. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
AvailableK2O(kg.ha-1)inSoil
Available K2O (kg.ha-1) in Soil
30DAT 60DAT Harvest
Fig.14: Available K2O (kg ha-1) contentof ricesoil under different
nutrient management practices in SRI

30. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
PotassiumUptakebyRice(kg.ha-1)
Potassium Uptake by Rice (kg.ha-1)
30DAT 60DAT Harvest
Fig.15: Uptake of K2O (kg ha-1) by rice at different stages of
growth under different nutrient management practices in SRI

31. CONCLUSION
 Nutrient management integrating organic
manures with inorganic fertilisers play very
important role in the success of SRI
 Substitution of 50% of the total N
requirement of rice through organic sources
and application of usual amounts of
fertilizer P and K resulted in increased grain
yield of rice under SRI

32. Organic substitution (T_4) resulted in
increased availability of P during crop growth
stages particularly at the reproductive stage
and more uptake of this nutrient along with K
which probably explain higher crop yield
The possibility of mitigating/reducing
emission of nitrous oxide at the expense of
CO2 under deficit supply of water as is
practiced in SRI, using more organic manures
needs further investigation
CONCLUSION

33.  Our results point out that use of organic
manure, P availability has increased
 This could be due to immobilized P due to the
high C:P ratio under organic addition (which
otherwise would have been fixed by soil colloids)
which mineralized and continued to supply P at
the later stages of growth
 This would result in increased utilization
efficiency of P which still revolves between 15-
20%
CONCLUSION

34.  Practicing SRI in successive years resulted in
improvement of productivity of rice growing
soils
 To achieve better productivity of rice growing
soils SRI should include integrated application
of organic manures and chemical fertilisers
 Further intensive research is needed to get
conclusive results
CONCLUSION