Varietal Performance of wheat under agro-ecological conditions of Uttarakhand

Introduction

Among the cereals, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) rank first in terms of nutritional value and it is considered as the most important field crop in the world covering 220.10 m ha and with a production of 763.26 m t (USDA, 2019). It is used as staple food by more than one third of the world's population. As one of the commonest cereal crops, it plays an important role in daily energy intake and in many developing nations, provides over 50% of the daily caloric intake (Cakmak, 2008). In India, wheat is the 2nd most important food crop next to rice with a production of 99.87 m t in 29.65 m ha in the year 2018-19. The share of wheat to total food grain production in India is around 35% and it occupies about 23.3% of the total area under food grains (MoA&FW, 2019). Keeping in view of the growing population demand, wheat production needs to achieve a targeted demand of 140 million tonnes by 2050 (ICAR-IIWBR, 2015) [20] . It is quite clear that sustaining wheat productivity is essential to both food as well as nutritional security in India. Green revolution has greatly increased the food crop production in India with the introduction of high yielding, dwarf, fertilizer-responsive varieties of rice and wheat. This made India selfsufficient in food grain production, but the demand for food has been increasing as the population of the country is increasing tremendously, approximately at the pace of 1.2% every year over the existing population of 1.3 billion. Cereals play an important role to meet the global food demand, particularly in developing countries where cereal-based production system is the predominant source of nutrition and calorie intake. As per the estimate, around 50-70% more cereal would be required by 2050 to satisfy the increasing food demand of the 9 billion world population (Singh et al., 2011) [44] . In the 21st century, stagnant cereal production necessitate special initiatives to meet the increasing demands. As a result, physical, economic, and ecological access to food still remains our major challenge. Uttar Pradesh, on nine different varieties of wheat. The purpose of the experiment was to investigate the responses of wheat when it was grown in conditions of poor fertility and inadequate irrigation. They found that variety K 9533 had the largest plant height possible, measuring 120.49 centimetres, whereas variety PBW 502 had a height of 90.02 centimetres and a dry weight of 123.00 grams when it was harvested. In their field experiment conducted in Jammu during the kharif season of 2016-2017, Kumar et al. (2015) reported that the growth characteristics of all three wheat cultivars (HD-2967, RSP-561, and RAJ-3077) remained comparable to one another. At Pantnagar, Srivastava et al. (2016) conducted a field experiment in which they employed a number of different wheat cultivars. They found that the shoots of UP 2628 received the greatest amount of dry matter accumulation, followed by the shoots of UP PBW175, and UP 2554. Following a period of two years in which field trials were conducted on wheat, Ghasal et al. (2017) came to the conclusion that HD 2932 had the greatest CGR at 30-60 DAS on average. Additionally, HD 2894 had maximal NAR, which was comparable to that of HD 2932, and PBW 343, which was significantly superior to HD 2851, HD 2687, and HD 2967 at both the 30-60 and 60-90 DAS stages. A field experiment that was carried out in Jammu by Singh et al. (2017) [44] during the years 2016 and 2017. In terms of growth characteristics such as plant height, CGR, and RGR, they reported that all three kinds that were examined (HD-2967, RSP561, and RAJ-3077) stayed comparable and comparable to one another. During the course of an experiment that was carried out in Allahabad in 2017-2018 on a variety of wheat varieties at various times, Ali et al. (2018) made the observation that out of the twelve early-sown varieties, HD-2967 achieved a considerably higher maximum plant height of (92.66 cm) in comparison to PBW-502 (79.06 cm) and HUW-234 (89.26 cm). The researchers came to the conclusion that the varietal treatments had a substantial impact on the growth characteristics obtained at various periods of observation. Out of the parameters, the LAI, CGR, and AGR all grew up to 90 DAS, while the RGR climbed up to 60 DAS and then fell after that. In addition, Sharma et al. (2016) [42] reported findings that were not dissimilar. During their two-year field experiment at MAU, Ram et al. (2018) [34] found that the variety HD 2967 performed much better than KRL 213, HD 2733, PBW 550, PBW 502, and DBW 39 in terms of all growth parameters, including LAI, CGR, RGR, and NAR. This was the case for all eight growth characteristics. The researchers Goverdhan et al. observed that the plant height of PDW 315 was much higher than that of other genotypes while they were working on three different varieties of wheat in Hyderabad. The experiment focused on four different types of wheat, namely "HD 2967," "WR 544," "HD 2987," and "HD 2931." "HD 2967" was the variety that produced significantly greater effective tillers per square metre, spike length, spikelets per spike, grains per spike, and grain yield compared to the other types. In Pantnagar, Mathpal et al. conducted research on two wheat genotypes that were very different from one another. These genotypes were UP 2628 and UP 262. They came to the conclusion that UP 2628 produced a higher grain yield than UP 262. However, UP 262 generated a greater amount of total dry matter and straw than other varieties. Kumar et al. conducted an experiment in New Delhi during the winter seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15. The results of the experiment revealed that the wheat variety "HD 2967" had better grain and straw yields compared to the other varieties. New Delhi was the location where Ghasal et al. (2017) carried out their field trials over the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. In comparison to the other six wheat types, the results showed that HD 2967 had the longest and heaviest spike, which was very similar to HD 2687. Additionally, HD 2967 had the largest grain yield, which was much higher than PBW 343. According to the findings of a pot research that was conducted in Pantnagar by Rawat et al. (2017), the plant with the highest grain production and the highest average dry matter yield per plant at harvest was UP 2628, whereas the plant with the lowest value was UP 262. Jammu was the location of a field experiment that was carried out by Singh et al. (2017) [44] during the kharif season of 2016 2017. It was found that HD-2967 had the maximum grain yield, which was comparable to that of the variety Raj-3077. On the other hand, the number of ear heads per square metre, spike length, spike weight, test weight, straw production, and biological yield were all comparable among all three wheat varieties. Ali et al. conducted research on various wheat varieties and found that HD-2967 had the highest number of spikes per plant (8.33), spike length (13.98), grain yield per plant (18.30) [34] , who were working at MAU, observed that out of the six potential wheat varieties that were investigated, HD 2967 had the largest number of tillers, grains spike-1, and ultimately a greater grain yield. between their experiment on wheat that took place in Hyderabad between the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, Goverdhan et al. observed that among the varieties that were evaluated, the grain yield of PDW 315 was much higher than that of Raj 4037, and it was comparable to that of HP4080. An experiment was carried out by Patel et al. (2019) in Varanasi during the rabi seasons of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 in order to determine the variety of wheat that would be most suitable for the conditions of eastern Uttar Pradesh, which are characterised by late sowing. The results showed that HUW 510 had significantly higher values of yield and yield contributing features, such as spike length (cm), number of grains spike-1, test weight, grain yield, and straw yield. This was followed by HUW 234, PBW 373, and Kundan.

Effect of varieties on growth parameters

Effect of varieties on yield attributes and yield

Effect of varieties on nutrient uptake

An experiment was carried out in the field by Kumar et al. (2015) in New Delhi during the winter season of 2011-12 and 2012-13. The experiment was conducted on four different types of wheat, namely HD 2967, WR 544, HD 2987, and HD 2931. Between the several types, HD 2987 had a nitrogen uptake that was noticeably higher than that of the other varieties. It was found that HD2987 had significantly higher levels of phosphorus and potash compared to WR 544 and HD 2931. According to Kumar et al. (2016), who conducted an experiment in New Delhi during the winter seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15, it was found that the cultivar with the highest overall uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc was "HD 2967." This was in comparison to the other cultivars. While Ghasal et al. (2017) were working on various varieties of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in New Delhi, they observed that among the many wheat varieties, the highest levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium were found in grain of HD 2967, HD 2967, and HD 2687, respectively. On the other hand, the cultivars HD 2851, PBW 343, and HD 2894 were found to have the greatest relative levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in their straw. When it comes to the intake of nutrients, HD 2967 showed a larger uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc, whereas variety HD 2894 showed a higher uptake of potassium. HD 2967 reported considerably greater levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium uptake by grain, straw, and total uptake when compared to the other six wheat genotypes, according to Ram et al. (2018) [34] , who conducted a field experiment on wheat genotypes over the course of two years. Patel et al. (2019) conducted an experiment in Varanasi during the rabi seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15 in order to determine the variety of wheat that would be most suitable for late-sown circumstances in eastern Uttar Pradesh. The results of the experiment revealed that the total amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium that wheat varieties absorbed was greatly influenced by the variety. It was found that cultivar HUW 510 had significantly greater levels of nutrient uptake, namely for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

Effect of varieties on economics

A field experiment was carried out by Kumar et al. (2015) in New Delhi during the winter season of 2011-12 and 2012-13. The experiment was conducted on four different kinds of wheat, namely "HD 2967," "WR 544," "HD 2987," and "HD 2931." Not only did HD 2987 have the highest gross returns, but it also had the highest net returns and the highest B:C ratio among the types.While Kumar et al. (2016) were conducting an experiment on wheat varieties in New Delhi, they discovered that the HD 2967 wheat variety had greater net returns and a benefit:cost ratio than other wheat varieties. Experiments in the field were carried out by Ghasal et al. (2017) in New Delhi during the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 on a variety of wheat cultivars. In comparison to the other six genotypes, the results showed that HD 2967 had the highest net returns and benefit-cost ratio. Kumar et al. (2017) conducted a field experiment in Patna during the winter seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15, using five different genotypes of wheat. They reported that among the wheat varieties, "K 7903" recorded significantly the highest gross returns and net income, as well as the benefit: cost ratio. Following closely behind was "HD 2967." During the course of their two-year field experiment on wheat, Ram et al. (2018) [34] made the observation that, among the genotypes, HD 2967 ended up being the most successful in terms of achieving the highest net returns and B: C ratio. An experiment was carried out by Patel et al. (2019) in Varanasi during the rabi seasons of 2013-14 and 2014-15 in order to determine the variety of wheat that would be most suitable for the conditions of eastern Uttar Pradesh, which are characterised by late sowing. When compared to the other cultivars, the results showed that HUW 510 had the highest gross return, net return, and benefit-to-cost ratio in both of the years that were studied.

Conclusion

Apart from other management high yielding varieties also play an important role in enhancing the production. Number of tillers, number of spikelets, panicle length, grain size, grain yield and other yield contributing characters differ from one variety to another. So, selection of suitable varieties is also of prime importance.

References

1. Abedi T, Alemzadeh A, Kazemeini SA. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on grain yield and protein banding pattern of wheat. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2010;4:384-389.
2. Abou-Aley HE, Mady MA. Complemented effect of humic acid and biofertilizers on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) productivity. Annals of Agricultural Science, Moshtohor. 2009;47(1):1-12.
3. Adnan M, Shah Z, Arif M, Khan MJ, Mian IA, Sharif M, et al. Impact of rhizobial inoculum and inorganic fertilizers on nutrients (NPK) availability and uptake in wheat crop. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 2016;96(2):169-176.
4. Adnan M, Shah Z, Khan A, Khan GA, Ali A, Khan NA, et al. Integrated effects of rhizobial inoculum and inorganic fertilizers on wheat yield and yield components. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2014;5:2066-2073.
5. Afzal A, Bano A. Rhizobium and phosphate solubilizing bacteria improve the yield and phosphorus uptake in wheat (Triticum aestivum). International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2008;10(1):85-88.
6. Afzal A, Saleem S, Iqbal Z, Jan G, Malik MF, Asad SA. Interaction of Rhizobium and Pseudomonas with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in potted soil with or without P2O5. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2014;37(13):2144-2156.
7. Ahmed AMA, Ahmed G, Magda M, Mohamed H, Tawfik MM. Integrated effect of organic and biofertilizers on wheat productivity in new reclaimed sandy soil. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences. 2011;7(1):105-114.
8. Alakhdar HH, Shaban KA, Esmaiel MA, Fattah AKA. Influence of organic and biofertilizers on some soil chemical properties, wheat productivity and infestation levels of some piercing-sucking pests in saline soil. Middle East Journal of Agriculture Research. 2020;9(3):586-598.
9. Amanullah, Kurd AA, Khan S, Ahmed M, Khan J. Biofertilizer-a possible substitute of fertilizers in production of wheat variety zardana in Balochistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research. 2012;25(1).
10. Askary M, Mostajeran A, Amooaghaei R, Mostajeran M. Influence of the co-inoculation Azospirillum brasilense and Rhizobium meliloti plus 2,4-D on grain yield and N, P, K content of Triticum aestivum (cv. Baccros and Mahdavi). American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. 2014;5(3):296-307.
11. Bashan Y, Holguin G, de-Bashan LE. Azospirillum-plant relationships: Physiological, molecular, agricultural and environmental advances. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2004;50:521-577.
12. Bohme L, Bohme F. Soil microbiological and biochemical properties affected by plant growth and different long-term fertilization. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2006;42:112.
13. Devi KN, Singh MS, Singh NG, Athokpam HS. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Crop and Weed. 2011;7(2):23-27.
14. El-Borollosy MA, Heanin SZ, Mohamed FM, Madkor M. Influence of biofertilization with diazotrophs on maize yield and N2-fixation activity in rhizosphere and phyllosphere of the growing plants. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2000;1:609.
15. Elhaissoufi W, Khourchi S, Ibnyasser A, Ghoulam C, Rchiad Z, Zeroual Y, et al. Phosphate solubilizing rhizobacteria could have a stronger influence on wheat root traits and aboveground physiology than rhizosphere P solubilization. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2020;11:979.
16. Goes KCGD, Cattelan AJ, De Carvalho CGP. Biochemical and molecular characterization of high population density bacteria isolated from sunflower. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2012;22:437-447.
17. Guleria V, Shweta. Antitranspirants: An effective approach to mitigate the stress in field crops. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(5):1671-1678. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2020.905.188.
18. Guleria V, Singh G, Shweta. Effect of herbicides in weed management of wheat-chickpea intercropping system. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2020;8(2):21912193. doi:10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i2ag.9076.
19. Gurdeep KA, Reddy MS. Effects of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, rock phosphate and chemical fertilizers on maizewheat cropping cycle and economics. Pedosphere. 2015;25(3):428-437.
20. ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research ICAR-IIWBR. Director's report of AICRP on wheat and barley 2018-19. Singh GP, editor. Karnal, Haryana: ICARIndian Institute of Wheat and Barley Research; 2019. p. 72.
21. Jalili F, Khavazi KE, Pazira A, Nejati H, Asadi RH, Rasuli S, et al. Isolation and characterization of ACC deaminase producing fluorescent pseudomonads, to alleviate salinity stress on canola (Brassica napus L.) growth. Journal of Plant Physiology. 2009;166:667-674.
22. Kachroo D, Razdan R. Growth, nutrient uptake and yield of wheat as influenced by biofertilizer and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2006;51(1):37-39.
23. Khan MA, Khokhar SN, Ahmed R, Afzal A. Wheat growth and yield in response to coinoculation of Rhizobium, Azospirillum and Pseudomonas under rainfed conditions. International Journal of Biology and Biotechnology. 2009;6:257-263.
24. Koopmans C, Goldstein W. Soil organic matter budgeting in sustainable farming with applications to south eastern Wisconsin and northern Illinois. Bulletin No. 7. Michael Fields Agricultural Institute; 2001. p. 39.
25. Medani RA, Taha RS. Improving growth and yield of caraway (Carum carvi L.) plants by decapitation and/or active dry yeast application. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2015;4(9):47-60.
26. Mehnaz S, Baig DN, Lazarovits G. Genetic and phenotypic diversity of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria isolated from sugarcane plants growing in Pakistan. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2010;20:1614-1623.
27. Mohameed SS, Osman AG, Mohammed AM, Abdalla AS, Sherif AM, Rugheim AME. Effects of organic and microbial fertilization on wheat growth and yield. International Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science. 2012;2(4):149-154.
28. Namli A, Mahmood A, Sevilir B, Özkir E. Effect of phosphorus solubilizing bacteria on some soil properties, wheat yield and nutrient contents. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science. 2017;6(3):249-258.
29. Namver A, Khandan T. Response of wheat to mineral nitrogen fertilizer and biofertilizer (Azotobacter sp. and Azospirillum sp.) inoculation under different levels of weed interference. Ekologija. 2013;59(2):85-94.
30. Narula N, Kumar V, Sing B, Bhatia R, Lakshminarayana K. Impact of biofertilizer on grain yield in spring wheat under varying fertility condition and wheat cotton rotation. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 2005;51:79-89.
31. Patel HK, Sadhu AC, Lakum YC, Suthar JV. Response of integrated nutrient management on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and its residual effect on succeeding crop. International Journal of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine. 2014;2(4):48-52.
32. Patera B, Singh J. Effect of priming, biofertilizers and nitrogen levels on yield and nutrient uptake by wheat. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(7).
33. Phillips DA, John GT. Cytokinin production by Rhizobium japonicum. Physiologia Plantarum. 1970;23:1057-1063. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1970.tb08880.x.
34. Ram M, Davari MR, Sharma SN. Direct, residual and cumulative effects of organic manures and biofertilizers on yields, NPK uptake, grain quality and economics of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under organic farming of rice-wheat cropping system. Journal of Organic Systems. 2014;9(1).
35. Ramesh P, Singh M, Subha RA. Organic farming: Its relevance in Indian context. Current Science. 2005;88(4):561-571.
36. Rana A, Joshi M, Prasanna R, Shivay YS, Nain L. Biofortification of wheat through inoculation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and cyanobacteria. European Journal of Soil Biology. 2012;50:118-126.
37. Reynolds M, Bonnett D, Chapman SC, Furbank RT, Manés Y, Mather DE, et al. Raising yield potential of wheat. I. Overview of a consortium approach and breeding strategies. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2011;62:439-452.
38. Rezakhani L, Motesharezadeh B, Tehrani MM, Etesami H, Hosseini HM. Phosphate-solubilizing bacteria and silicon synergistically augment phosphorus (P) uptake by wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plant fertilized with soluble or insoluble P source. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2019;173:504-513.
39. Saxena J, Jha A. Impact of a phosphate solubilizing bacterium and an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus (Glomus etunicatum) on growth, yield and P concentration in wheat plants. CLEAN-Soil, Air, Water. 2014;42(9):1248-1252.
40. Schoebitz M, Ceballos C, Ciamp L. Effect of immobilized phosphate solubilizing bacteria on wheat growth and phosphate uptake. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2013;13(1):1-10.
41. Sharifi RS, Khalilzadeh R, Pirzad A, Anwar S. Effects of biofertilizers and nano zinc-iron oxide on yield and physicochemical properties of wheat under water deficit condition. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2020. doi:10.1080/00103624.2020.1845350.
42. Sharma P, Patel AN, Saini MK, Deep S. Field demonstration of Trichoderma harizianum as plant growth promoter in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Agricultural Science. 2012;4(8):56-73.
43. Shivay YS. Effect of levels and neem (Azadirachta indica Juss) coated urea sources of nitrogen on productivity and nitrogen recovery of rice under Indo-Gangetic plains. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 2007;25(4):1111-1123.
44. Singh V, Singh SP, Singh A, Shivay YS. Growth, yield and nutrient uptake by wheat (Triticum aestivum) as affected by biofertilizers, FYM and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2013;83(3):331-334.
45. Solangi MK, Solangi SK, Solangi NK. Grain yield, phosphorus content and uptake of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as affected by phosphorus fertigation. Pakistan Journal of Biotechnology. 2016;13:205-209.
46. Suleman M, Yasmin S, Rasul M, Yahya M, Atta BM, Mirza MS. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria with glucose dehydrogenase gene for phosphorus uptake and beneficial effects on wheat. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0204408.
47. Tahir M, Mirza MS, Zaheer A, Dimitrov MR, Smidt H, Hameed S. Isolation and identification of phosphate solubilizer Azospirillum, Bacillus and Enterobacter strains by 16S rRNA sequence analysis and their effect on growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2013;7:1284-1292.
48. Vance CP. Biological fixation of N2 for ecology and sustainable agriculture. Springer-Verlag; 1997. p. 179.
49. Vessey JK, Pawlowski K, Bergman B. Root-based N2fixing symbioses: Legumes actinorhizal plants, Parasponia sp., and cycads. Plant and Soil. 2004;266:205-230.
50. Vessey JK. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as biofertilizer. Plant and Soil. 2003;255:571-586.
51. Yanni YG, Rizk RY, Corich V, Squartini A, Ninke K, Philip-Hollingsworth S, et al. Natural endophytic association between Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii and rice roots and assessment of its potential to promote rice growth. Plant and Soil. 1997;194:99-114.
52. Yasmin H, Bano A. Isolation and characterization of phosphate solubilizing bacteria from rhizosphere soil of weeds of Khewra Salt Range and Attock. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2011;43:1663-1668.
53. Yousefi AA, Khavazi K, Moezi AA, Rejali F, Nadian HA. Phosphate solubilizing bacteria and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi impacts on inorganic phosphorus fractions and wheat growth. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2011;15(9):13101318.