Effect of organic and inorganic sources on soil properties, yield and growth of spring maize (Zea mays L.)

Introduction

Maize, scientifically known as Zea mays L, is an emerging crop renowned for its remarkable adaptability to diverse agro-climatic conditions. It holds the esteemed title of the "queen of cereals" globally, primarily due to its exceptional productivity potential, ranking third after wheat and rice. The demand for maize grains is continuously escalating, driven by factors like population growth and economic development. Consequently, maize plays a crucial role as a staple crop worldwide, catering to the increasing needs of food, animal feed, and various industries [1] . According to FAOStat, 2021, the total area of maize grown for dry grain is around 197 M hectares [3] . According to estimates from the International Grain Council, maize output is anticipated to reach 1178.6 million tonnes in 2022-2023 while demand is anticipated to continue at 1196.8 million tonnes for food, feed, and industrial use [4] . Recently, the FAO increased the overall area under global cereal production by 7.7 million tonnes (0.3 percent), bringing it to 2 785 million tonnes. The estimated worldwide production of coarse grains in 2023 is 1467 m t. With a total of 1.2 billion tonnes produced globally in 2020 (FAO 2022), maize output is around 12 percent [5] . The output of maize in the world increased by 31% in the United States, with China coming in second and Brazil third. By 2050, there will be 9.7 billion people on the planet (or 8.9 to 10.7 billion depending on expected growth rates; UN-DESA, 2019), a growth of 2 billion above the present 7.7 billion [6] . The ability to grow healthy crops depends on the condition of the soil. To boost the microbial biomass and soil enzymatic activity, the right proportion of organic and inorganic manures is needed [10] . It is vital to employ ecologically friendly fertilisers, such as bio fertilisers, because the continual use of chemical-based fertilisers is ineffective at promoting the development of healthy soil (Fitriatin et al., 2020) [11] .

Bacteria that can dissolve phosphorus and fixed nitrogen, as well as supply macronutrients and break down organic materials, make up the native soil microorganisms. When applied to seeds, plant surfaces, or soil, bio fertilisers are compounds that include living organisms that colonise the rhizosphere or interior of plants and promote plant development through boosting the accessibility of primary nutrients and/or encouraging specific development in plants (Fitriatin et al., 2020) [11] . The prolonged usage of chemical fertilisers without balancing it through the addition of organic matter can lead to significant challenges while having an effect on soil deterioration. Utilising ecologically friendly fertilisers, such as bio fertilisers, can assist improve the health of the soil and supply micronutrients that are unavailable to plants as a different approach to this issue [11] . Bio fertilisers can increase soil fertility, fertilisation effectiveness, and the condition of the soil. Increased food availability and maintenance of the nutritional N cycle are crucial functions of bacteria in the root system environment. To boost the population of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the rhizosphere environment, which is anticipated to enhance soil nutrients, one method is to inject bio fertilisers made of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The usage of bio fertilisers will not leave residues on crop yields, making them safe for both the ecosystem and the health of people [11] . Plant growth and yield are increased by using bio fertilisers. The bacteria that solubilize phosphate increase phosphatase activity, plant development, and maize production (Fitriatin et al., 2020) [11] . The greatest microbial diversity was seen in soil treated with organic and NPK fertilisers. A less expensive, less costly to operate, and environmentally benign way to increase agricultural output is through a combined application of biofertilizers. Azotobacter is an autonomous, aerobic, diazotrophic bacterium that is typically found in soil and has the capacity to utilise N2 as the only source of nitrogen. The most prevalent organisms in Indian soil, among other species, are Azotobacter chrococcum. Approximately 33 percent of the studies using Azotobacter inoculation on crops were carried out in India and showed positive responses [12] . Therefore, the goal of this study is to identify the best application technique that promotes maize development and production. It also aims to find the best treatment that may be used on the maize crop to produce a high yield of highquality maize. The current study's objective is to assess the effectiveness of using PSB in liquid form and soil application of Azotobacter in conjunction with nitrogen and phosphate fertiliser to grow maize.

Materials and Methods

The research experiment was conducted under title as, "Effect of organic and inorganic sources on soil properties, yield and growth of spring maize (Zea mays L.)" carried out at Main Agricultural Research Field, Department of Agriculture, Sant Baba Bhag Singh University, Khiala, Jalandhar during spring 2023. The experiment was conducted in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with three replications at the experimental Farm of main Agricultural Research Field, SBBSU, Punjab. The plot size for each treatment was 2.6 m x 4.7 m. The seeds of crop were placed manually in the ridges at a plant to plant distance of 20 cm with a seed rate of 10 kg/ha and sown on 13 February 2023, while harvested on 6 th June 2023. Seed treatment with 120 ml of PSB + 100% N and P T3 Soil application of 200 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P T4

Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P T5 Soil application of 350 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P T6

Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P T7 Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P

Results and Discussion

The data recorded on different parameters of maize crop are discussed in this chapter under the following heads:

Seed germination percentage was increased with the application of biofertilizer along with inorganic fertilizer. The maximum seed germination percentage 99.4% was found under T4 (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) and followed by T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) was 94.1%. The minimum seed germination percentage 51.8% were found under treatment T1 (Control) and 58.7% under T3 (Soil application of 200 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P. This is in conformity with the results of Umesha et al. 2014 [16] who observed such increased germination due to biofertilizers application. Babu et al., 2017 [27] results also supported.

Plant height

The maximum plant height was observed with T4 treatment (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) as 160.6 cm at 90 DAS respectively which in terms of statistics, was comparable to the T6 treatment (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) and also significantly higher than the other biofertilizer application. The lowest plant height was observed in T1 treatment (Control Plot) as 122.4 cm at 90 DAS as compared to other treatments. Azotobacter, a bacterium fixes N from the air, which is subsequently fixed in the soil, and produces phytohormones in the root zone of plants that can boost plant growth and production. The increase in is what causes plants to grow to their maximum height [11] . Fitriatin et al., 2021 [11] stated that seed treatment and soil application of biofertilizer increase the plant height.

Number of leaves per plant

The data indicates that the number of leaves per plant increased with different biofertilizers application. The T4 treatment (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) recorded the maximum number of leaves per plant at 90 DAS, as 11.1 respectively, which was statistically at par with the T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) which was statistically higher than other treatment. The lowest number of leaves per plant was recorded in T1 treatment (Control Plot) as 8.1 after 90 DAS as compared to other treatment. Purwani et al., 2020 [31] also state that combination of chemical fertilizers and biofertilizer produced higher number of leaf than control treatment.

Leaf area index (LAI)

The maximum LAI recorded after 90 DAS was under treatment T4 (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) as 5.42 respectively, which was statistically at par with T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) but also significantly higher than the other treatment. Kouchebagh et al., 2012 [23] revealed that interaction of seed inoculation (Biofertilizer Pseudomonas, Azospirillum and Azotobacter) and N fertilization could increase crop LAI (44%) significantly, as compared to non treated ones.

Crop phenology Days taken to 50% tasselling

The maximum numbers of days taken for 50% of tasselling is under T1 (Control Plot) as 75.7 days. This treatment combination has no biofertilizer application and it was significantly more as compared to all other biofertilizer level combinations. The minimum number of days taken to 50% tasselling were recorded under treatment T4 (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) as 72.5 days.

Days taken to 50% silking

The maximum number of days taken for 50% silking is under treatment T1 (Control Plot) as 78.5 days and minimum number of days taken to 50% silking were recorded under treatment T3 (Soil application of 200 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) as 75.1 days. Taipodia et al., 2013 [85] seed inoculation with PSB along with 5t FYM ha -1 has taken less number of days to 50% of silking as compared control where no use of biofertilizer with FYM.

Days taken to physiological maturity

The treatment T1 (Control Plot) has taken significantly maximum number of 113 days to reach the stage of physiologically maturity which was at par with the treatment. The shortest period of days was 104 days for physiological maturity was under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P). Latha et al., 2018 [83] and Soleymanifard et al., 2013 [81] also observed the similar result.

Yield attributes Number of cobs per plant

The treatment T3 (Soil application of 200 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) has significantly highest number of cobs per plant as mean value 1.07 as compared to treatment T1 (Control Plot). The minimum number of cobs 0.68 per plant was discovered under treatment T1 (Control Plot). Similar result was also reported by Taipodia et al., 2013 [85] and Choudhary et al., 2012 [73] .

Number of grains per cob

The maximum number of grains 499.2 per cob was observed as under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) which were at par with the treatment T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) and significantly higher as compared to other treatments. Umesha et al., 2014 [16] observed that the higher number of grains per cob founded due to positive effect of biofertilizer.

1000-grain weight

The treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) produces maximum 1000-grains weight of 342.0 g and minimum 1000-grain weight of 233.5 g was observed under treatment T1 (Control plot). Similar results were reported by Naseri et al., 2013 [36] and Taipodia et al., 2013 [85] .

Cob length

The maximum cob length 18.7 cm was observed under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) which was at par treatment T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) and significantly higher as compared to other treatments. Minimum cob length of 15.2 cm was found under treatment T1 (Control plot). The results are conformity with finding of Umesha et al., 2014 [16] and Rina et al., 2020 [44] . [85] and Latha et al., 2018 [83] .

Number of grain rows per cob

The maximum number of grain rows 15.3 per cob was observed under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) and Minimum number of grain rows per cob was observed as 11.9 under treatment T1 (Control). The results of Naseri et al., 2013 [36] are also supported.

Grain yield

The treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) produces maximum grain yield of 61.5 q ha -1 . Minimum grain yield of 27.1 q ha -1 was recorded under treatment T1 (Control Plot). Meena et al., 2013 [12] also observed that combine application of inorganic fertilizers, FYM and Azotobacter inoculation produced high maize yield.

Stover yield

The maximum stover yield 148.9 q ha -1 was recorded under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) which was statistically at par with the treatment T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) but significantly higher as compared to other treatments. Minimum stover yield of 82.3 q ha -1 was recorded under treatment T1 (Control Plot). Rina et al., 2020 [44] and Singh L et al., 2017 [54] also reported about increased of stover yield with the application of biofertilizers. [54] also observed higher shelling percentage obtain with the combine application of organic and inorganic fertilizers.

Harvesting index

The maximum harvesting index of 29.1% was recorded under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) and the minimum harvesting index 24.0% was observed in treatment T1 (Control Plot). Naserirad et al., 2011 [22] also found that maximum harvesting index because usage of bio-fertilizers increased the harvest index through affecting dry weight and assigning more photosynthetic matter to grain.

Chemical properties of soil Soil pH

The maximum pH were discovered in treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) 7.8 and the minimum value of pH was discovered in treatment T1 (Control Plot), but it was at par treatment T2 (Seed treatment with 120 ml of PSB + 100% N and P). Taipodia et al., 2013 [85] also found that biofertilizer application had significant impact on soil pH.

Soil electrical conductivity (dSm -1 )

The maximum electrical conductivity were observed in treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) 0.24 dSm -1 which was at par with T2 (Seed treatment with 120 ml of PSB + 100% N and P). The minimum electrical conductivity was found in treatment T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) 0.10. Similar finding was observed by Manohar et al., 2021 [64] .

The maximum organic carbon (%) were found in treatment T1 (Control Plot) 0.40% which was statistically at par with treatment T4 (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P) 0.39%. The minimum organic carbon (%) were found in treatment T3 (Soil application of 200 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) 0.22%. The results of Manohar et al., 2021 [64] and Ahmad et al., 2013 [60] were also supported. [64] found the similar results. Similar results were also found by Ahmad et al., 2013 [60] .

Economic Analysis Gross returns

The maximum gross returns of Rs. 128535 ha -1 is found under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P). The minimum gross return is Rs. 56639 ha -1 under treatment T1 (Control Plot), because of no application of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Similarly, Singh et al., 2019 [75] found significantly increase of gross returns with combine use of organic and inorganic fertilizers.

Net returns

The treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) produces maximum net returns of Rs.79981 ha -1 , but it was at par with the treatment T6 (Seed treatment with 220 ml of PSB + 100% N and P), T4 (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P). The minimum net returns of Rs.27321 ha -1 is found under treatment T1, because no application of organic and inorganic fertilizers. Similar finding were also found by Tomar et al., 2017 [69] and Singh et al., 2019 [75] .

Benefit cost ratio (B:C Ratio)

The maximum benefit cost ratio of 2.64 was found under treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) and minimum benefit cost ratio of 1.93 found under treatment T1 (Control Plot). Similar observations were also observed by Rachana et al., 2018 [15] , Singh S et al., 2018 [79] and Suryavanshi et al., 2017 [71] .

Conclusion

The results obtain from research experiment showed that the maximum performance in growth parameters (plant height, number of leaves per plant, LAI) was observed in treatment T4 (Seed treatment with 160 ml of PSB + 100% N and P. In terms of grain yield and yield parameters (number of cobs per plant, number of grains per cob, 1000-grain weight, cob length, cob girth, number of grain rows per cob) treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) produces maximum grain yield and yield parameters.

The available nutrients status in soil was also increases with the applications of biofertilizer. Therefore, it may be concluded that treatment T7 (Soil application of 450 g Azotobacter + FYM + 100% N and P) produces the most during the spring season in Punjab's central plain.

References

1. Marngar E, Dawson J. Effect of biofertilizers, levels of nitrogen and zinc on growth and yield of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(9):3614-22.
2. Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, et al. Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Sec. 2022;14:1295-1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7
3. Anonymous. Maize Price Forecasting (Oct-Nov 2022) [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Jun 15]. Available from: http://www.aau.in/sites/default/files/31_maize_pf_post_ harvest_2022_eng.pdf
4. Anonymous. FAO Cereal Supply and Demand Brief | World Food Situation [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 Jun 15]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
5. Anonymous. Maize Outlook Report-January To December 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2024 Jun 15]. Available from: https://angrau.ac.in/downloads/AMIC/OutlookReports/ 2020/6MAIZE%20OUTLOOK%20REPORT_January%20to %20December%202020.pdf
6. Brar A, Gosal SK, Walia SS. Effect of biofertilizers and farm yard manure on microbial dynamics and soil health in maize (Zea mays L.) rhizosphere. Chem Sci Rev Lett. 2017;6(23):1524-9.
7. Fitriatin BN, Yusuf MIM, Sofyan ET, Nurbaity A. Biofertilizers application to improve growth of maize and soil nutrients. E3S Web Conf. 2021;316:03020.
8. Meena MD, Tiwari DD, Chaudhari SK, Biswas DR, Narjary B, Meena AL, et al. Effect of biofertilizer and nutrient levels on yield and nutrient uptake by maize (Zea mays L.). Ann Agric Bio Res. 2013;18(2):176-81.
9. Singh V, Mithare P. Effect of different levels of phosphorus and biofertilizers (PSB and VAM) on growth and yield of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(4):1076-80.
10. Umesha S, Srikantaiah M, Prasanna KS, Sreeramulu KR, Divya M, Lakshmipathi RN. Comparative effect of organics and biofertilizers on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays. L). Curr Agri Res J. 2014;2(1):55-62.
11. Naserirad H, Soleymanifard A, Naseri R. Effect of integrated application of bio-fertilizer on grain yield, yield components and associated traits of maize cultivars. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 2011;10(2):271-7.
12. Kouchebagh SB, Mirshekari B, Farahvash F. Improvement of corn yield by seed biofertilization and urea application. World Appl Sci J. 2012;16(9):123942.
13. Purwani J, Nurjaya N. Effectiveness of inorganic fertilizer and biofertilizer application on maize yield and fertilizer use efficiency on Inceptisol from West Java. J Trop Soils. 2020;25(1):11-20.
14. Naseri R, Moghadam A, Darabi F, Hatami A, Tahmasebei GR. The effect of deficit irrigation and Azotobacter chroococcum and Azospirillum brasilense on grain yield, yield components of maize (SC 704) as a second cropping in western Iran. Bull Environ Pharmacol Life Sci. 2013;2(10):104-12.
15. Rina L, Singh V, Dawson J. Effect of row spacing with different levels of phosphorus and biofertilizer on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;8(3):1171-3.
16. Singh L, Kumar S, Singh K, Singh D. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield attributes of maize under winter season (Zea mays L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(5):1625-8.
17. Ahmad W, Shah Z, Khan F, Ali S, Malik W. Maize yield and soil properties as influenced by integrated use of organic, inorganic and bio-fertilizers in a low fertility soil. Soil Environ. 2013;32(2).
18. Dalavi VM, Swaroop N, Thomas T, David AA. Effect of NPK levels and micronutrients with and without liquid biofertilizer on physico-chemical properties of soil in maize. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2021;10(02):3214-27. Available from: https://www.ijcmas.com/10-22021/Dalavi%20Vishal%20Manohar,%20et%20al.pdf
19. Tomar SS, Singh A, Dwivedi A, Sharma R, Naresh RK, Kumar V, et al. Effect of integrated nutrient management for sustainable production system of maize (Zea mays L.) in Indo-Gangetic plain zone of India. Int J Chem Stud. 2017;5(2):310-6.
20. Choudhary M, Verma A, Singh H. Productivity and economics of maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by phosphorus management in southern Rajasthan. Ann Agric Res New Ser. 2012;33:88-90.
21. Singh KK, Adarsh A, Kumari S, Shahi B, Kumari A. Nutrient management in maize (Zea mays L.) through varying NP level and bio-fertilizers. J AgriSearch. 2019;6(Special):14-7.
22. Singh S, Singh V, Shukla RD, Singh K. Effect of fertilizer levels and bio-fertilizer on green cob yield of corn (Zea mays L.). Int J Chem Stud. 2018;6(2):218890.
23. Soleymanifard A, Piri I, Naseri R. The effect of plant growth promoting bacteria on physiological and phonological traits of maize (Zea mays L.) at different levels of nitrogen fertilizer. Bull Environ Pharmacol Life Sci. 2013;2(9):55-64.
24. Latha B, Shivaprakash MK, Devakumar N, Mallikarjuna N. Evaluation and effect of microbial inoculants for production of growth hormones and organic formulations on growth of baby corn (Zea mays L.) under green house condition. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(10):2167-2179.
25. Taipodia R, Yubbey D. Application of phosphate solubilizing bacteria and its ecological effect on growth and yield of winter maize (Zea mays L.). IOSR J Agric Vet Sci. 2013;4:71-75.
26. Babu SV, Triveni S, Reddy RS, Sathyanarayana J. Persistence of PSB-fungi biofilmed biofertilizer in the soils and its effect on growth and yield of maize. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(12):1812-1821.