Advance agro- techniques for yield efficiency and economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum) crop for Chhattisgarh plains

pdf
Số trang Advance agro- techniques for yield efficiency and economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum) crop for Chhattisgarh plains 12 Cỡ tệp Advance agro- techniques for yield efficiency and economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum) crop for Chhattisgarh plains 290 KB Lượt tải Advance agro- techniques for yield efficiency and economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum) crop for Chhattisgarh plains 0 Lượt đọc Advance agro- techniques for yield efficiency and economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum) crop for Chhattisgarh plains 0
Đánh giá Advance agro- techniques for yield efficiency and economics of potato (Solanum tuberosum) crop for Chhattisgarh plains
4.1 ( 14 lượt)
Nhấn vào bên dưới để tải tài liệu
Đang xem trước 10 trên tổng 12 trang, để tải xuống xem đầy đủ hãy nhấn vào bên trên
Chủ đề liên quan

Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 6 Number 2 (2017) pp. 766-777 Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article http://dx.doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.602.085 Advance Agro- Techniques for Yield Efficiency and Economics of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Crop for Chhattisgarh Plains C.K. Chandrakar*, G.K. Shrivastava, S.K. Dwivedi, D. Sharma, K.K. Pandey and S.K. Singh Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.), India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Growth parameters, Herbicide, Irrigation, Organic manure etc. Article Info Accepted: 18 January 2017 Available Online: 10 February 2017 The experiment has been conducted on the experimental field of Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur under split-split plot design along with three replications in the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 during the Rabi season in potato crops (Solanum tuberosum). Irrigation (three treatments) as a main plot, weed management (four treatments) as a sub plot and Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) (four treatments) has been taken as subsub plot in the spacing of 60x20cm on the variety Chipsona-2. Total combined plots were 3x4x4x3=144. The parameters have been taken: growth parameter i.e. CGR, tuberization efficiency, weed parameters: weed index, weed control efficiency, nutrient uptake, yield and yield Attributes i.e. No. of Stolen/plant, no. of tubers/plants, tuber yield/ha and economics. The result revealed that the significantly higher CGR, tuberization efficiency, nutrient uptake by plants, yield has been found under the 75% N (inorganic) + 25% N (poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor in sub-sub plot, the herbicide metribuzin found most efficient and effective than the other herbicide i.e. under sub plot. Drip irrigation has been found significant than other method of Irrigation; on the different parameter of growth, yield and yield attributes as well. The recommendation of the study is potato crop performed better under drip irrigation100 and 125 % of OPE, 75% N (inorganic) + 25% N (poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor with application of metribuzin (500g a.i ha-1) herbicide with the spacing of 60x20 cm for the plains of Chhattisgarh. Introduction Potato (Solanum tuberosum) is the most important food and vegetable cum starch supplying crop of the world. It is one of the most remunerative and profitable crop for the growers due to its higher yield potential within a limited time. India has 2nd rank in production 3rd in area and 4th in productivity in the world with export of 15424 lacks (IIVR-2015). Water is the vital source for crop production and is the most limiting factor in Indian agricultural scenario. Though India has the largest irrigation network, the irrigation efficiency has not been achieved more than 40 per cent. Due to water scarcity, the available water resources should be very effectively utilized through water saving irrigation technologies. Hence, further expansion of irrigation may depend upon the adoption of new systems such as pressurized irrigation methods with the limited water resources. Amongst those pressurized irrigation methods, drip irrigation has proved 766 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 its superiority over other methods of irrigation due to the direct application of water and nutrients in the vicinity of root zone. There are several constraints in potato production, of which weeds often pose a serious problem. Weeds not only compete with crop plants for nutrients, soil moisture, space and sunlight but also serve as an alternative hosts for several insect pest and diseases. Hand weeding and hoeing are common practices followed in India. However, timely weed control may not be possible manually due to non-availability of labours and high rate of wages during peak period of farm operations. Hence, chemical weed control appears to hold a great promise in dealing with effective, timely and economic weed suppression. Similar work has been done by Chandrakar et al., (2012) and reported that same result on the potato crop for Chhattisgarh. The overall strategy for increasing potato yields and sustaining them at a high level must include Main plot Irrigation Sub plot Weed management Subplot Integrated Nutrient Management Sub an integrated approach to the management of soil nutrients, along with other complementary measures. Materials and Methods The field experiment was conducted at Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G) during rabi 2010-11 and 2011-12. The soil of experimental site was clay loam in texture, neutral in soil reaction, low in available N, and low in available P and high in available K status. The climate of the region is sub humid with an average annual rainfall of 1200-1400 mm. The crop received approximately 65.0 mm rainfall during crop period. The experiment on Kufri Chipsona- 2 with the spacing 60cm×20cm and experimental layout has given below: Drip irrigation (125 % of OPE) Drip irrigation (100 % of OPE) Control (furrow irrigation) Weedy check Hand weeding (at 25 and 45 DAP) Metribuzin (500 g a.i. ha-1 PE) Chlorimuron + quizalofop (6 + 50 g a.i ha-1) 100 % RDF, 100 % RDF + Micro nutrient (Zinc sulphate 25 kg ha1 ) 75 % N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N poultry manure + PSB + Azatobactor 50 % N inorganic fertilizer + 50 % N poultry manure + PSB + Azatobactor The observations of different growth parameters and yield parameters in both the years were recorded. A sample consisting of five plants was selected at random from each net plot. The observations on plant height, number of shoots plant-1and number of leaves plant-1 were recorded on these randomly selected plants from each plot of each I1 I2 I3 W0 W1 W2 W3 F1 F2 F3 F4 replication separately (at 20, 40, 60 DAP and at maturity). Per cent emergence was noted by counting the emerged plant at 20 DAP. The observations on fresh weight of shoots plant-1, fresh weight of tubers plant-1, fresh weight of roots plant-1, dry weight of shoots plants-1, dry weight of roots plant-1, number of stolons plant-1, LAI, CGR, number of tubers plant-1, 767 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 fresh and dry weight of tuber plant-1 were recorded from three randomly selected and uprooted plants in each plot in each replication separately. Marketable, unmarketable and total tuber yield were recorded on net plot basis in each replication separately. -1 treatment which received by drip irrigation High solar radiation interception enhanced the plant for high photosynthesis and causes the higher dry matter accumulation in tubers. This result reaffirmed the findings of many earlier workers such as El Saidi et al., (2010) As regards to weed management, Metribuzin (500 g a.i. ha-1PE) showed significantly higher crop growth rate as well as tuberization efficiency as compared to weedy check and rest of the treatments during both the years and on mean basis. The main reason behind this was due to significant impact of Metribuzin (500g a.i ha-1 P.E) which also resulted the maximum weed control efficiency. With the application of this treatment, maximum weeds were controlled timely, leading to utilization of maximum resources by potato plants which was reflected through maximum growth parameters by this treatment. Similar findings were also reported by Ahmed et al., (2011). -1 Crop growth rate (g day plant ) is the rate of dry matter production per unit ground area per unit time and was computed by following formula: W2 – W1 Crop growth rate (CGR) = (g day-1 plant-1) t2 – t1 Where, W1 and W2 are dry weight of plants at time t1 and t2, respectively. Tuberization efficiency was calculated by dividing tuber weight with shoot weight Tuberization efficiency = Fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (g) Application of 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor produced significantly higher crop growth rate and tuberization efficiency than other nutrient management practices during both the years as well as in mean analysis. This may be due to an increased availability of nutrients to the plant in the presence of biofertilizers and organic manure (poultry manure) These findings are in agreement with those reported earlier by Sarkar et al., (2011). Fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (g) Results and Discussion Crop growth efficiency rate and tuberization The finding revealed that crop growth rate and tuberization efficiency (Tuber: Haulm ratio) were significantly influenced due to irrigation schedule, weed and integrated nutrient management (Table 1). The crop growth rate and tuberization efficiency were significantly superior under drip irrigation (125 % of Open pan evaporation) over furrow irrigation but it was at par with drip irrigation (100 % of Open pan evaporation) during both the years and in mean data. This is due to supply of moisture was found sufficient throughout the crop growth stages for the Effect on weed parameters Weed species The field was dominated with broad leaf weeds; the major weed species existed in the experimental area was Chenopodium album, Convolvulus arvensis, Melilotus alba, Medicago denticulata, Cynodon dactylon, and 768 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 others etc., (Table 2). Out of five weed species Cynodon dactylon was in grass group and rests were broad leaf weeds. under Metribuzin (500 g a.i. ha-1PE) was due to better control of weeds, which was also reflected through reduced weed dry weight under this treatment. Similar findings were also reported by Singh et al., (2007) and Roder et al., (2009). Weed index and weed control efficiency The data depicted in table 3 indicate that weed index (WI) was significantly higher when crop was imposed with furrow irrigation as compared to drip irrigation (100 % of OPE) and drip irrigation (125 % of OPE), however both the drip irrigation treatment recorded statistically similar weed index during both the years and also in mean analysis. Among weed management practices, weed index (WI) was observed significantly lowest under Metribuzin (500g a.i ha-1 P.E. followed by two hand weeding (at 25 and 45 DAP). Whereas significantly highest weed index was found under weedy check during both the years and on mean data. Nutrient uptake (N,P,K) (kg ha-1) by potato crop Nutrient uptake (kg ha-1) by potato crop (plant + tuber) is shown in table 4 Significantly higher nutrient uptake (nitrogen(N), phosphorus(P), potash(K)) by crop was found when the crop was imposed treatment with drip irrigation (125 % of OPE) followed by drip irrigation (100 % of OPE) and minimum was noted in furrow irrigation. As regards to weed management practices, the entire major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) uptake was found significantly higher under application of Metribuzin (500 g a.i. ha-1PE) as compared to weedy check and rest of the treatments during both the years and in mean data. The lowest uptake was recorded in weedy check. Among integrated nutrient management practices, application of 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor produced significantly higher uptake of all major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) than other nutrient management practices during both the years and on mean basis. The lowest uptake was obtained by 100% RDF. The maximum uptake by plant and tuber in above treatment might be due to supplemental addition of N through atmospheric N fixation in the soil by Azotobactor, and PSB would have caused more mobilization and solubilization of insoluble P in the soil and improved the availability of P, which may have resulted in an increased uptake of P by plants. The K uptake was also maximum by plant and tuber. Similarly, with the application of 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor also increased Among integrated nutrient management, least weed index (WI) was found under 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor, whereas, maximum weed index (WI) was noted under 100% RDF during both the years and in case of mean data. The data presented in table 3 indicate that weed control efficiency (WCE) was significantly highest when crop was imposed with drip irrigation (100 % 0f OPE) followed by drip irrigation (125 % of OPE), however, furrow irrigation showed significantly least weed control efficiency during both the years and on mean basis. Among weed management practices, weed control efficiency (WCE) was observed maximum under Metribuzin (500g a.i ha-1 P.E. followed by two hand weeding (at 25 and 45 DAP) during both the years and on mean basis. Integrated nutrient management practices and interaction effect did not show significant effect on weed control efficiency during both the years as well as in mean analysis. Higher weed control efficiency 769 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 stolons plant-1 (28.35), number of tubers plant1(14.57) and tuber yield (31.49 t/ha) were significantly higher under drip irrigation (125 % of open pan evaporation) than control (furrow irrigation) but was at par with drip irrigation (100 % of open pan evaporation) during both the years and on mean basis. the NPK content in soil. The results corroborate the findings of Parmar et al., (2007) and Swalin et al., (2008). Yield attributes and yield Irrigation schedule positively influenced the yield attributes and yield. The number of Table.1 Effect of irrigation schedule, weed and integrated nutrient management on Crop Growth Rate CGR (g day-1) and tuberization efficiency CGR (g day-1) Treatment Irrigation schedule I1 – I2 – I3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Weed management W0 – W1 – W2 – W3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Integrated nutrient management F1 – F2 F3 – F4 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Tuberization Efficiency (Tuber: Haulm ratio) 2010-11 2011-12 Mean 2010-11 2011-12 Mean 10.58 11.01 5.90 0.11 0.44 8.57 8.90 4.61 0.22 0.85 9.57 9.95 5.26 0.16 0.63 2.14 2.16 1.80 0.03 0.14 2.11 2.12 1.82 0.03 0.15 2.13 2.14 1.81 0.03 0.14 8.65 9.56 9.71 8.74 0.23 0.68 6.86 7.47 8.03 7.08 0.20 0.60 7.75 8.51 8.87 7.91 0.21 0.62 1.90 2.16 2.17 1.92 0.03 0.09 1.88 2.13 2.17 1.89 0.02 0.08 1.89 2.14 2.16 1.90 0.03 0.08 8.77 8.96 10.04 9.11 0.28 0.80 6.83 7.25 8.05 7.30 0.26 0.73 7.80 8.10 9.04 8.21 0.26 0.73 1.94 2.03 2.13 2.02 0.03 0.09 1.94 1.99 2.13 2.00 0.03 0.09 1.94 2.01 2.13 2.01 0.03 0.08 770 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 Table.2 List of weed flora reported in experimental field S. No. 1 Group Family Vernacular Name Chenopodium album Fabaceae 2 Convolvulus arvensis Convolvulaceae Hirankhuri 3 Melilotus alba Fabaceae Safed senji 4 Medicago denticulate Fabaceae Chinori Cynodon dactylon Poaceae Doob 5 Broad leaf weeds Botanical Name Grasses Bathua Table.3 Effect of Irrigation schedule, weed and integrated nutrient management on weed control efficiency and weed index Treatment Weed control efficiency (%) 2010-11 2011-12 Irrigation schedule I1 – I2 – I3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Weed management W0 – W1 – W2 – W3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Integrated nutrient management F1 – F2 F3 – F4 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Weed index Mean 2010-11 2011-12 Mean 77.9 74.7 50.0 0.67 2.62 81.4 78.7 51.0 1.82 7.11 79.6 76.7 50.6 0.64 2.50 5.80 4.94 15.22 0.23 0.90 5.72 4.95 15.28 0.24 0.94 5.76 4.94 15.25 0.23 0.92 -78.1 85.4 63.4 0.88 2.61 -79.7 87.8 64.5 1.30 3.25 -78.9 86.6 69.7 0.83 2.48 11.15 7.38 6.44 9.63 0.19 0.57 11.27 7.48 6.36 9.48 0.20 0.59 11.21 7.43 6.40 9.56 0.19 0.58 68.1 69.2 69.6 69.0 1.00 NS 68.9 70.7 71.3 71.4 1.03 NS 68.5 70.0 70.3 70.8 0.82 NS 11.11 9.35 5.51 8.65 0.27 0.77 11.14 9.33 5.40 8.73 0.26 0.75 11.12 9.34 5.46 8.69 0.26 0.74 771 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 Table.4 Effect of irrigation schedule, weed and integrated nutrient management on nutrient uptake by potato crop Treatment Irrigation schedule I1 – I2 – I3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Weed management W0 – W1 – W2 – W3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Integrated nutrient management F1 – F2 F3 – F4 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Nitrogen (Kg/ha) 2010-11 2011-12 Mean Phosphorus(Kg/ha) 2010-11 2011-12 Mean Potash(Kg/ha) 2010-11 2011-12 Mean 210.61 218.63 120.79 2.35 9.17 223.23 234.54 129.01 2.40 9.37 216.92 226.58 124.90 2.37 9.26 52.60 56.19 25.95 1.90 7.44 57.49 61.16 28.43 2.33 9.11 55.04 58.67 27.19 2.05 8.03 283.04 292.52 175.05 2.55 9.97 301.64 312.86 190.69 2.80 10.95 292.34 302.69 182.87 2.65 10.36 151.95 197.01 212.22 172.20 3.03 9.00 160.31 208.60 230.55 182.90 3.28 9.77 156.13 202.81 221.39 177.55 3.14 9.34 32.51 49.36 56.66 41.12 1.99 5.92 36.10 54.12 61.54 44.35 2.07 6.15 34.31 51.74 59.10 42.73 1.99 5.92 202.11 271.12 287.92 239.67 3.12 9.28 211.18 286.77 318.09 257.54 3.71 11.03 206.65 278.95 303.01 248.61 3.36 9.99 159.61 174.21 237.54 186.51 3.08 8.70 36.50 39.94 56.72 45.18 1.37 3.87 40.29 44.60 61.53 49.11 1.54 4.35 38.40 42.26 59.12 47.14 1.40 3.95 214.60 233.10 306.69 246.43 3.21 9.06 230.75 249.30 327.65 265.89 3.45 9.73 222.68 241.20 317.17 256.16 3.29 9.28 154.14 168.36 230.36 180.51 2.96 8.34 165.08 180.06 244.72 192.52 3.24 9.14 Table.5 Effect of Irrigation schedule, weed and integrated nutrient management on yield attributes and tuber yield Treatment Irrigation schedule I1 – I2 – I3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Weed management W0 – W1 – W2 – W3 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Integrated nutrient management F1 – F2 F3 – F4 – SEm CD (P = 0.05) Number of stolons plant-1 2010-11 2011-12 Mean Number of tubers plant-1 2010-11 2011-12 Mean Tuber yield (t ha-1) 2010-11 2011-12 Mean 26.47 26.98 24.37 0.13 0.53 29.38 29.72 26.39 0.36 1.41 27.91 28.35 25.37 0.17 0.66 12.43 13.00 9.15 0.23 0.90 15.63 16.13 11.56 0.18 0.72 14.03 14.57 10.35 0.20 0.78 30.16 31.02 20.74 0.23 0.91 31.24 32.01 21.68 0.24 0.93 30.59 31.49 21.21 0.23 0.92 24.44 26.35 26.86 26.11 0.13 0.39 26.19 28.88 30.83 28.10 0.24 0.74 25.30 27.59 28.85 27.10 0.16 0.49 10.14 12.30 12.95 10.71 0.12 0.37 12.90 15.04 16.28 13.54 0.14 0.43 11.52 13.67 14.62 12.13 0.13 0.39 24.81 28.57 29.51 26.33 0.19 0.57 25.68 29.48 30.60 27.47 0.20 0.59 25.25 28.96 29.99 26.87 0.20 0.59 24.82 25.51 27.70 25.73 0.16 0.45 27.17 28.11 30.52 28.19 0.24 0.69 25.97 26.81 29.11 26.95 0.17 0.49 10.50 10.87 13.55 11.18 0.18 0.52 13.49 13.82 16.54 13.91 0.17 0.49 12.00 12.35 15.05 12.55 0.17 0.48 24.85 26.61 30.45 27.31 0.273 0.769 25.82 27.63 31.58 28.23 0.26 0.75 25.30 27.08 30.96 27.73 0.26 0.73 772 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 Table.6 Effect of Irrigation schedule, weed and integrated nutrient management on economics of potato crop Treatment Cost of cultivation (Rs ha-1) 2010-11 2011-12 Mean Net income(Rs ha-1) 2010-11 2011-12 Mean B:C ratio 2010-11 2011-12 Irrigation schedule I1 – 67775 68535 68130 107095 127580 117338 1.58 I2 – 69114 69874 69494 110769 131084 120926 1.60 I3 – 59199 61039 60119 59671 73640 66655 1.00 Weed management W0 – 63936 W1 – 68106 W2 – 64964 W3 – 64444 Integrated nutrient management F1 – 64953 F2 65753 F3 – 65399 F4 – 65345  Mean 1.86 1.87 1.20 1.72 1.73 1.10 65039 69209 66117 65567 64487 68657 65540 65005 79352 97238 105541 89916 95971 115459 125393 106249 87662 106349 115467 97082 1.21 1.41 1.60 1.34 1.45 1.66 1.88 1.60 1.33 1.53 1.74 1.47 66063 66913 66506 66449 65508 66333 65953 65897 78669 88224 110672 92482 95653 106059 131177 110183 87161 97142 120925 101332 1.18 1.31 1.68 1.39 1.42 1.56 1.96 1.63 1.30 1.44 1.82 1.51 Selling price of marketable tuber at Rs 600 q-1 and 650 q-1 (during 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively) and unmarketable tuber at Rs. 400 q-1 and 450 q-1(during 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively) Fig.1 Effect of interaction between irrigation schedule (I) and weed management (W) on total tuber yield of potato (t ha-1) 773 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 Fig.2 Effect of interaction between weed management (W) and integrated nutrient management (F) on total tuber yield of potato (t ha-1) Fig.3 Effect of interaction between irrigation schedule (I) and integrated nutrient management (F) on total tuber yield of potato (t ha-1) 774 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2017) 6(2): 766-777 The higher yield attributing characters and yield was noticed in the above treatment which might be due to availability of water in sufficient quantity. P.E) produced significantly higher total tuber yield as compared to other interactions (Fig. 1). Interaction between Metribuzin (500g a.i ha-1 P.E) and 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor produced significantly higher total tuber yield as compared to other interactions, but it was at par to interaction of two hand weeding (25 and 45 DAP) with75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor (Fig. 2). Similarly, interaction of drip irrigation (125 % of Open pan evaporation) with 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor produced significantly higher total tuber yield as compared to other interactions but it was statistically similar to interaction between drip irrigation (100 % of open pan evaporation) and 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor (Fig. 3). This may be due to the fact that water was applied frequently in optimum amount through drip irrigation compared to uneven distribution through furrow irrigation. Higher moisture content enhanced the plant growth which enhance the photosynthetic rate, enhance dry weight of tuber and finally increased the tuber yield. Badra et al., (2012). Among weed management practices, the number of stolons/plant (28.85), number of tubers/plants (14.62) and tuber yield (29.99 t/ha), were significantly higher under Metribuzin (500 g a.i. ha-1PE) than weedy check and rest of the treatments. Significantly higher number of stolons/plant (29.11), number of tubers/plants (15.05) and tuber yield (30.96 t/ha) was found under treatment 75% N inorganic fertilizer + 25 % N organic (Poultry manure) + PSB + Azotobactor than other nutrient management practices during both the years and on mean basis. Tubers were good quality and size this was due to crop has got the all major and micro nutrients by organic and inorganic fertilizers, weeds were also control timely by herbicides and crop get sufficient moisture due to drip irrigation round the season so nutrients uptake by crops sufficiently which increase the tuber yield (Table 5). These findings are in agreement with those reported earlier by Arora et al., (2009), Bakeer et al., (2009) and Baishya et al., (2010). Economics Economics of potato was as influenced by irrigation schedule, weed management and integrated nutrient management (Table 6). The gross income, net income and benefit: cost ratio (B:C ratio) were maximum under drip irrigation (125 % open pan evaporation) followed by drip irrigation (100 % open pan evaporation). The lowest cost of cultivation, gross income, net income and benefit: cost ratio was recorded under furrow irrigation during both the years and in mean data. Among the weed management practices, Metribuzin (500 g a.i. ha-1PE) registered higher gross income, net income and B:C ratio as compared to other treatments. However, total cost of cultivation was higher The interaction between irrigation schedule with weed management, weed management with integrated nutrient management and irrigation schedule with integrated nutrient management significantly influenced the total tuber yield during both the years and in mean data. The results revealed that interaction of drip irrigation (125 % of Open pan evaporation) with application of Metribuzin (500g a.i ha-1 775
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.