Assessment of rice productivity variability in relation to nutrient management practices

Introduction

Yield and Technology gap is a major problem in increasing paddy production in the irrigated ecosystems of the states. Balanced nutrient application is must to meet the growth requirements of a genotype for realizing the yield potential of several contemporary genotypes. So far, not much systematic effort has been made to study the technological gap existing in various components of rice cultivation. With the available improved latest technologies, it is possible to bridge the yield gap and increase the existing production level up to certain extent. The growing concern about impaired soil health, declining / decelerating productivity growth and decreasing factor productivity or efficiency of the nutrients compelling to use increasing levels of fertilizers during the last two decades has raised apprehensions on the productive capacity of the agricultural system. Current fertilizer management practices, in general, are not tailored to site specific soil nutrient supply capacities and crop demand. Blanket fertilizer recommendations are still being followed in large domains with less importance being given to management induced site variations of soil nutrient supply capacities, and crop demand more so when new high yielding cultures with increasing yield potential are being regularly introduced. This has been the major reason for reported nutrient imbalances and un-sustainability in realizing yields. This trial was, therefore, conducted in farmers' fields around few selected centres -Chinsurah, Faizabad and Titabar to assess the variability in nutrient supply, its relationship with rice yields at current recommended and farmers' fertilizer practices in some new farm sites and fine-tune the fertilizer nutrient requirement for specific target yields in a given environment and validation of fertilizer recommendations for targeted yields.The kharif 2016 data received representing the irrigated and shallow lowland rice ecosystems are presented in Tables 5.2.1 to 5.2.11. The test varieties were Sarjoo-52 at Faizabad, Ranjit, Bhadur, Gitesh, Swarna Mahsuri, Aghonibora at Titabar and Shatabdi (IET 4786) at Chinsurah. At Both Titabar and Faizabad 15 farmer sites each were selected for generating information on the field variability in soil fertility and current level of efficiency of farmers' practices. The treatments consisted of nutrient (NPK) omission plots, farmers' fertilizer practice (FFP) and recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF). The details of crop, soil and weather parameters of the experimental sites, presented in the Table 5.2.1, show variation in soil characteristics with reference to pH, organic carbon content, soil texture and available nutrient status.

Methodology

This experiment was, conducted in farmers' fields around few selected centres-Chinsurah, Faizabad and Titabar to assess the variability in nutrient supply, its relationship with rice yields at current recommended and farmers' fertilizer practices in some new farm sites and fine-tune the fertilizer nutrient requirement for specific target yields in a given environment and validation of fertilizer recommendations for targeted yields. The kharif 2016 data received representing the irrigated and shallow lowland rice ecosystems are presented in Tables. Table1 gives information collected in the new farm sites on yields obtained, nutrient uptake and soil test values in nutrient omission plots (-N, -P, -K). Grain yields at Titabar, Faizabad and Chinsurah, soil test values and nutrient uptake showed considerable variation among the farm sites. The test varieties were Sarjoo-52 at Faizabad, Ranjit, Bhadur, Gitesh, Swarna Mahsuri,Aghonibora at Titabar and Shatabdi (IET 4786) at Chinsurah. At Both Titabar and Faizabad 15 farmer sites each were selected for generating information on the field variability in soil fertility and current level of efficiency of farmers' practices. The treatments consisted of nutrient (NPK) omission plots, farmers' fertilizer practice (FFP) and recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF). The details of crop, soil and weather parameters of the experimental sites, presented in the Table 5.2.1, show variation in soil characteristics with reference to pH, organic carbon content, soil texture and available nutrient status.

Experimental details

Identification / selection of farmers were done before the season starts about 25 -50 farm holdings including FLD sites around each location/district/rice growing region covering major rice ecosystem/soil types and representing all strata of farmers (Small, marginal and large) and also on the basis of the farmers applying 90-100%, 70-90%, <70%, >100%, Recommended level of Fertilizer or recommended SSINM practice and on farmers own practice, were carried out. They were grouped on the basis of the quantity of each fertilizer/manure/any other nutrient practices applied, as into Recommended (90%-110%), Less (70%-90% and <70% of recommended) and High (110, 130 and >130% of recommended) for each nutrient management practices. grain and straw yield data under each category were recorded. Collection of grain and soil samples from all the farmers fields were ascertained in at least NPK status in soil samples and grain and straw NPK content. All package of practices followed by the farmer particularly with regard to manures applied (quantity/ha), nutrient (NPK) contents in the manures, fertilizer practices, timing, and plant protection measures followed by each farmer were recorded. Collected information regarding the variety planted/sown, date of sowing nursery, nursery management, date of planting, age of seedlings at transplanting, 50% flowering, harvest date and duration of the crop in each farmer's field. Methods of available nutrient analysis: Available N: Alkaline permanganate distillation (Subbaiah and Asija) [24] , Waring and Bremner (Incubation method), Available P: Olsen's P 0.5 N NaHCO 3 extractable/ Bray 1, Available K: 1 N neutral Ammonium acetate extractable K, pH: 1:2 soil and water, Organic C: Walkley and Black method.

Results and Discussions

In the absence of applied N, the yields ranged from 0.36-0.81 t/ha at Titabar, 4.9 -6. [1] , Kale et al. (2021), [8] Gorlapalli et al. (2022) [6] , Sahoo et al. (2022) [22] and Gobinath et al. (2026) [5] . Table 4 and Table 7 show site variations in rice productivity, nutrient uptake and their efficiency of utilization under farmers' fertilizer practices and recommended fertilizer management (RDF) at the test locations. Rice productivity with recommended fertilizer practice varied from 2.12 -3.5 t/ha at Titabar ,5.05-6.56t/ha at Faizabad,3.91-4.65t/ha at Chinsurah whereas,0.5 -1.4 t/ha in the farmers' fields at Titabar, 4.35-6.05t/ha in the farmers' fields at Faizabad and 4.1-5.2t/ha in the farmers' fields at Chinsurah. While the yields were having considerable variation with the farmers' fertilizer practices, respectively with corresponding variation in nutrient yield, soil test values, uptake and nutrient utilization efficiencies. Strong correlation between yields and nutrient uptake was also recorded for all the nutrients and moderate correlation for P uptake under recommended fertilizer practices and with all the nutrients under farmers practice indicating mismatch of the fertilizer doses. These results are in conformity with earlier reported by Srilatha et al.

(2019) [23] , Kale et al. (2021) [8] , Rathod et al. (2021) [18] , Parmar et al. (2022) [16] and Patel et al. (2025) [14] . Fertilizer prescriptions were worked out for Titabar for all the farm sites for yield target of 6.1 t/ha at both the locations (being the highest yield recorded at the test sites) with reference to grain yields and average uptake of nutrients per ton of grain in nutrient omission plots, and average recovery efficiency and nutrient requirement recorded at the test sites. The target yields were the maximum recorded at the test sites under recommended fertilizer practice (RDF). These results are in conformity with earlier reported by Sharma et al.

(2022) [21] , Patel et al. (2025) [14] and Kumar et al. (2025) [10] , Brajendra et al. (2025) [3] and Zoureen et al. (2025) [27] . The fertilizer recommendations presented in Tables 8 and10 show a range of fertilizer doses of major nutrients to achieve the targeted productivity which has already been harvested. High estimates of P and K fertilizer requirements are due to lower recovery efficiency of applied P and higher accumulation of potassium per ton of grain. The study, thus indicated ample scope for improvement in nutrient use efficiency, and an attempt has been made to refine the current blanket recommended dose of fertilizer based on site specific nutrient supply, nutrient use efficiency and crop demand. These results are in conformity with earlier reported by Sharma et al. (2020) [20] , Sharma et al. (2022) [21] , Patel et al.

(2025) [14] and Kumar et al. (2025) [10] , Tuli et al. (2022) [25] and Brajendra et al. (2025) [3] . Fertilizer recommendations estimated for specific yield targets in the previous years in the farmers' fields around Titabar were validated in comparison with the current recommended and farmers' fertilizer practices. SSNM was superior to the currently recommended blanket fertilizer dose or the farmers' fertilizer practice at Mandya with corresponding improvement in crop nutrition and nutrient use efficiency.

Conclusion

Yield and Technology gap is a major problem in increasing paddy production in the irrigated ecosystems of the states. This trial was conducted in farmers' fields around few selected centres -Chinsurah, Faizabad, Maruteru, Kanpur and Mandya to assess the variability in nutrient supply, its relationship with rice yields at current recommended and farmers' fertilizer practices in some new farm sites and fine-tune the fertilizer nutrient requirement for specific target yields in a given environment and validation of fertilizer recommendations for targeted yields. Rice productivity with recommended fertilizer practices varied from 4.5 -5.9 t/ha at titabar, 3.25-6.87 t/ha at Faizabad, 9.6-.10.8t/ha at Kanpur and 4.05-5.35 t/ha at chinsurah. However, at Farmers' s filed sites a large variations were recorded which varied as 1.4-2.6t/ha at Titabar , 4.06-5.87 t/ha in the farmers' fields at Faizabad, 4.8-5.4t/ha at Kanpur and 4.18-4.59 t/ha in the farmers' fields at Chinsurah. While the yields were having considerable variation with the farmers' fertilizer practices, respectively with corresponding variation in nutrient yield, soil test values, uptake and nutrient utilization efficiencies. Yield gap analysis for all the centres were carried out both for Yield Gap 1 and Yield Gap2. In most of the centres, steep yield gaps were recorded between what is being the RDF and the prevailing FFP. Except at Chinsurah centre, where it was very narrow and, in some locations, even FFP surpassed the current RDF, all the centres need to bridge this gap which is prevailing right now to further boost up rice productivity.

References

1. Bharamappanavara M, Siddaiah AM, Ponnuvel S, et al. Mapping QTL hotspots associated with weed competitive traits in backcross population derived from Oryza sativa L. and O. glaberrima Steud. Sci Rep. 2020;10:22103. DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-78675-7.
2. Black CA, Evans DD. Method of soil analysis. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: American Soc Agron; 1965. p. 131-137.
3. Brajendra M, Prasad Babu BB, Manasa V, Rao KV, Kumar T, Kumar V, et al. Factor productivity, nutrient and harvest status of rice in farmers' fields of Ghagraghat. The Journal of Rural and Agricultural Research. 2025;25(2):57-60.
4. Brajendra, Pati Ram, Singh LS. Soil test crop response-based fertilizer recommendations in Meghalaya. The Journal of Rural and Agricultural Research. 2025;25(2):89-95.
5. Rajendran G, Quadriya H, Shanmugam V, Vakada M, Kuchi S, Durbha SR, et al. Nano zinc oxide (ZnO) foliar nutrition improves yield, antioxidant defence, and zinc content in rice grown under Zn-deficient soil. Discover Nano. 2026;21:222. doi:10.1186/s11671-026-04662-y.
6. Gorlapalli A, Kallakuri S, Sreekanth PD, Patil R, Bandumula N, Ondrasek G, et al. Characterization and prediction of water stress using time series and artificial intelligence models. Sustainability. 2022;14:6690. DOI:10.3390/su14116690.
7. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 1967. p. 205.
8. Kale RR, Anila M, Mahadeva Swamy HK, Bhadana VP, Durga Rani CV, Senguttuvel P, et al. Morphological and molecular screening of rice germplasm lines for low soil P tolerance. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2021;30:275-286.
9. Kale RR, Durga Rani CV, Anila M, Mahadeva Swamy HK, Bhadana VP, Senguttuvel P, et al. Novel major QTLs associated with low soil phosphorus tolerance identified from the Indian rice landrace, Wazuhophek. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0254526. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0254526.
10. Kumar V, Kumar A, Kumar U, Naseem M, Brajendra, Lal M. Field evaluation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes for resistance against brown spot disease (Drechslera oryzae). Acta Scientific Agriculture. 2025;9(10):1-8.
11. Olsen SR. Inorganic phosphorous in alkaline and calcareous soils. In: Pierre WH, Norman AG, editors. Soil and fertilizer phosphorous. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: J Amer Soc Agron; 1953. p. 81-122.
12. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circ. 1954;939.
13. Piper CS. Soil and plant analysis. New York: Inter-Science Publication; 1950.
14. Patel MK, Meena R, Singh YV, Meena R, Lal M, Brajendra. Effect of phosphorus and bio-organics on yield and nutrient uptake by mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] in an Inceptisol of Varanasi. The Journal of Rural and Agricultural Research. 2025;25(2):69-73.
15. Patel MK, Meena R, Singh YV, Meena R, Lal M, Brajendra. Enhancing mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] growth with phosphorus and bio-organics in an Inceptisol. The Journal of Rural and Agricultural Research. 2025;25(2):7477.
16. Parmar B, Vishwakarma A, Padbhushan R, Kumar A, Kumar R, Kumari R, et al. Hedge and alder-based agroforestry systems: potential interventions to carbon sequestration and better crop productivity in Indian Sub-Himalayas. Front Environ Sci. 2022;10:858948. DOI:10.3389/fenvs.2022.858948.
17. Piper CS. Soil and plant analysis. New York: Inter Science Publisher Inc.; 1967.
18. Rathod S, Saha A, Patil R, Ondrasek G, Gireesh C, Anantha MS, et al. Two-stage spatiotemporal time series modelling approach for rice yield prediction & advanced agroecosystem management. Agronomy. 2021;11:2502. DOI:10.3390/agronomy11122502.
19. Walp) and nutrient status in rainfed Alfisol soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2022;53(2):268-280. doi:10.1080/00103624.2021.1993883.
20. Sharma KL, Indoria AK, Srinivas K, Reddy KS, Ravindra Charry G, Lal M, et al. Effect of long-term use of tillage, crop residue and N application on phosphorus fractions in soil under sorghum (Sorghum vulgare (L.)-castor system (Ricinus communis) in rainfed Alfisol soils. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2020;51(1):1-13. DOI:10.1080/00103624.2019.1689252.
21. Sharma KL, Lal M, Reddy KS, Indoria AK, Srinivas K, Singh VK, et al. Long term effect of different levels of surface crop residue application on hydrolyzable and nonhydrolyzable nitrogen fractions in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench)-cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) system in rainfed Alfisols. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2022;53(3):337-345. DOI:10.1080/00103624.2021.2008415.
22. Sahoo S, Mukhopadhyay P, Sinha AK, Bhattacharya PM, Rakesh S, Kumar R, et al. Yield, nitrogen-use efficiency, and distribution of nitrate-nitrogen in the soil profile as influenced by irrigation and fertilizer nitrogen levels under zero-till wheat in the eastern Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Front Environ Sci. 2022;10:970017. DOI:10.3389/fenvs.2022.970017.
23. Srilatha P, Yousuf F, Methre R, Vishnukiran T, Agarwal S, Poli Y, et al. Physical interaction of RTBV ORFI with D1 protein of Oryza sativa and Fe/Zn homeostasis play a key role in symptoms development during rice Tungro disease to facilitate the insect mediated virus transmission. Virology. 2019;526:117-124.
24. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the determination of available nitrogen in soils. Current Science. 1956;25:259-260.
25. Tuti MD, Rapolu MK, Sreedevi B, Bandumula N, Kuchi S, Bandeppa S, et al. Sustainable intensification of a rice-maize system through conservation agriculture to enhance system productivity in southern India. Plants. 2022;11:1229. DOI:10.3390/plants11091229.
26. Walkley A, Black CA. An examination of the degtjareff method for determining the soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science. 1934;37:29-38.
27. Zoureen S, Brajendra, Gobinath R, Tuti MD, Lal M, Rani V, et al. Effect of different growing environments on available macro and micro nutrient in soil under various establishment methods. The Journal of Rural and Agricultural Research. 2025;25(2):64-68.