04.06.2016 Views

Ramasamy et al. - 1997 - Yield formation in rice in response to drainage an

Ramasamy et al. - 1997 - Yield formation in rice in response to drainage an

Ramasamy et al. - 1997 - Yield formation in rice in response to drainage an

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

S. <strong>Ramasamy</strong> <strong>et</strong> <strong>al</strong>. /Field Crops Research 51 (<strong>1997</strong>1 65-82 71<br />

Table<br />

Treatment<br />

D;N100<br />

D,-Nl50<br />

D, -N200<br />

1 (cont<strong>in</strong>ued)<br />

Root wt at Productive tillers Spikel<strong>et</strong>s per p<strong>an</strong>icle (No.)<br />

harvest (kg/ha) (No. pa hill)<br />

<strong>to</strong>t<strong>al</strong> filled unfilled<br />

1240 10.8 75.2 65.1<br />

1300 11.1 78.6 66.3<br />

1310 11.5 82.6 67.5<br />

10.2<br />

12.3<br />

15.3<br />

Gra<strong>in</strong> weight Harvest Index Gra<strong>in</strong> yield<br />

hg) (ratio) (kg/ha)<br />

18.5 0.53 8380<br />

18.6 0.52 8460<br />

18.5 0.52 8870<br />

Dra<strong>in</strong>age<br />

SEd<br />

CD<br />

Nitrogen<br />

SEd<br />

CD<br />

D at IX<br />

SEd<br />

Cd<br />

N at D<br />

SEd<br />

CD<br />

31 0.3 0.93 0.71 0.62 0.24 0.01 51<br />

71 NS NS 1.60 1.40 N’s 0.03 162<br />

29 0.3 1.11 0.58 0.73 0.14 0.0 1 79<br />

NS 0.54 2.3 NS 1.5 0.28 0.02 172<br />

4s 0.32 1.59 0.69 1.04 0.29 0.02 160<br />

NS NS NS NS 1.2 NS 0.04 350<br />

39 0.37 1.58 0.82 1.03 0.19 0.03 152<br />

NS NS NS 1.69 2.1 NS NS 331<br />

Expt. 4 *<br />

4<br />

D, + N<br />

DW<br />

D, + N<br />

2. I<br />

2.1<br />

4.3<br />

3.2<br />

9.1<br />

9.1<br />

8.3<br />

8.3<br />

120 71.1<br />

121 70.2<br />

116 89.3<br />

116 95.0<br />

43.2<br />

50.6<br />

26.7<br />

21.2<br />

18.9 n.d. 6500<br />

18.7 n.d. 5850<br />

20.3 n.d. 7390<br />

20.3 n.d. 7740<br />

SEd<br />

CD<br />

0.05<br />

0.11<br />

0.3<br />

0.6<br />

1.3 3.1<br />

2.8 6.7<br />

2.3<br />

4.9<br />

0.35 n.d. 209<br />

0.75 n.d. 455<br />

NS: not signific<strong>an</strong>t at P = 0.05; CD: critic<strong>al</strong> difference at P = 0.05; n.d.: not d<strong>et</strong>erm<strong>in</strong>ed: 0,: undra<strong>in</strong>ed; D,: dra<strong>in</strong>ed; NlOO, N150, N200:<br />

100, 150 <strong>an</strong>d 200 kg fertilizer N ha-’ : + N (Expt. 4): 30 kg N ha ’ at head<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

’ Root oxidiz<strong>in</strong>g power <strong>in</strong> mg h- ’ per g of fresh root.<br />

of the dra<strong>in</strong>ed plots. Larger applications of N resulted<br />

<strong>in</strong> greater leaf N concentrations <strong>an</strong>d <strong>to</strong>t<strong>al</strong><br />

amounts of N <strong>in</strong> leaves. The maximum amount of N<br />

<strong>in</strong> green leaves recorded <strong>in</strong> <strong>al</strong>l three experiments was<br />

68 kg/ha (Expt. 2, at 61 DAT with 200 kg N). The<br />

amount of N <strong>in</strong> green leaves just before harvest was<br />

signific<strong>an</strong>tly larger <strong>in</strong> pl<strong>an</strong>ts from dra<strong>in</strong>ed th<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

those from undra<strong>in</strong>ed plots (Table 3; Fig. 2).<br />

Dra<strong>in</strong>age <strong>in</strong>creased the tr<strong>an</strong>slocation of N accumulated<br />

<strong>in</strong> stems, from 24 <strong>to</strong> 34 kg N haa’ (i.e.<br />

57-64% of accumulated stem N) <strong>to</strong> 46 <strong>to</strong> 56 kg<br />

ha- ’ (SO-82%). More N was tr<strong>an</strong>slocated from stems<br />

th<strong>an</strong> from leaves, under dra<strong>in</strong>ed conditions (Table 3).<br />

3.5. Root growth. color und actidty; culms<br />

The amount of N <strong>in</strong> dead <strong>an</strong>d senescent leaves Tot<strong>al</strong> root dry weight <strong>in</strong>creased up <strong>to</strong> head<strong>in</strong>g <strong>an</strong>d<br />

<strong>an</strong>d <strong>al</strong>so the correspond<strong>in</strong>g N concentrations, <strong>in</strong>- was greater under dra<strong>in</strong>ed conditions. It decreased 14<br />

creased as crop age adv<strong>an</strong>ced. A largest qu<strong>an</strong>tity of <strong>to</strong> 23% <strong>in</strong> dra<strong>in</strong>ed field conditions after reach<strong>in</strong>g its<br />

25 kg N <strong>in</strong> dead <strong>an</strong>d senescent leaves was recorded peak v<strong>al</strong>ue, compared <strong>to</strong> 26 <strong>to</strong> 29% <strong>in</strong> undra<strong>in</strong>ed<br />

for IR20 at harvest (Expt. 2). The N concentration <strong>in</strong> plots, lead<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> f<strong>in</strong><strong>al</strong> v<strong>al</strong>ues (at harvest) that were 20<br />

these tissues <strong>in</strong>creased from 0.3% of dry matter soon <strong>to</strong> 36% greater <strong>in</strong> dra<strong>in</strong>ed th<strong>an</strong> <strong>in</strong> undra<strong>in</strong>ed treatafter<br />

head<strong>in</strong>g <strong>to</strong> 0.7% at maturity. V<strong>al</strong>ues were ments. Root biomass <strong>in</strong>creased with N application<br />

slightly lower <strong>in</strong> dra<strong>in</strong>ed th<strong>an</strong> undra<strong>in</strong>ed plots. level. The largest amounts were observed <strong>in</strong> Expt. 2

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!