Back to Contents

Table (6) – (7) – (8)

CHAPTER IV

EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS

The results of the investigation are presented below under suitable heads.

I. Growth studies in hybrid rice

1. Plant population

The mean number of plants per plot as influenced by different treatments at 20 days after transplanting and at harvest is presented in Table 6. The data showed that the number of hybrid rice plants per plot was not significantly influenced due to different treatments during both the years. This indicates that the variation in growth and yield was mainly due to different treatments and not due to the variation in plant population.

Table 6. Plant population of hybrid rice as influenced by different treatments.

(Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage)

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

2. Height (cm) of plant

The data regarding mean height of plant (cm) as influenced periodically by different treatments are presented in Table 7 and depicted in Fig. 3. It is seen that the mean height of plant increased with the advancement in the age of crop and was the highest at harvest during both the years.

Table 7. Height (cm) of plant in hybrid rice as influenced periodically by different treatments.

During 2000, height in all the treatments was significantly superior to that of T₁ (Control) at all the stages of crop growth. At 30 DAT, T₆ and T₇ produced significantly taller plants than that of remaining treatments, except T₈, where the differences were not up to the mark. T₈ proved significantly superior to the remaining treatments, except T₂, the differences being of similar order. T₂ and T₃ as well as T₃, T₄ and T₅ behaved similarly with each other. On the other hand, T₆, T₇, T₃ and T₂ did not produce any significant variation in plant height at 60 DAT, but T₆ showed its superiority to that of T₈, T₄, T₅ and T₁. Similarly, the differences between T₂, T₈ and T₄ as well as T₄ and T₅ were not conspicuous. At 90 DAT, T₆ proved in superiority over all the remaining treatments except T₇ were the difference was of the similar magnitude. The differences between T₇, T₃, T₂ and T₈ were of the similar order. T₇ was significantly superior to T₄, T₅ and T₁. T₄ and T₅ behaved similarly with each other. At harvest, T₆ proved significantly superior over the remaining treatments except T₇ and T₃, where the differences were not well marked. Similarly, T₇, T₃, T₂ and T₈ as well as T₂, T₈ and T₄ did not differ with each other. T₇ was significantly superior over T₄, T₅ and T₁.

During 2001, T₆ recorded significantly higher plant height compared to the remaining treatments except T₇ where the differences was not up to the mark at 30 DAT. T₇ also showed its superiority over the remaining treatments except T₃, where the differences was of the similar order. T₃ proved significantly superior to T₄, T₅ and T₁. The differences between T₃, T₂ and T₈ as well as T₂, T₈ and T₄ and also T₄ and T₅ were not conspicuous though these treatments were superior over control. At 60 DAT, T₆ proved significantly superior to the remaining treatments, except T₃ and T₇, where the differences were of the similar magnitude. T₃ also showed its superiority over T₈, T₄, T₅ and control, but it did not show any difference with T₇ and T₂. T₂, T₈ and T₄ were significantly superior to T₅ and T₁, but the differences between T₂ and T₈, as well as T₈ and T₄ were of the similar order. More or less similar trend was also observed at 90 DAT and at harvest except that T₇ and T₃ proved superior to T₄, T₅ and T₁.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

3. Number of tillers per hill

Data regarding mean number of tillers per hill as influenced periodically by treatments are presented in Table 8 and depicted in Fig. 4. Data indicated that the number of tillers increased with the age of the crop up to 60 DAT and then declined gradually.

Table 8. Number of tillers per hill as influenced periodically by different treatments.

During 2000, at 30 DAT, T₇, T₆ and T₈ recorded significantly higher number of tillers per hill compared to those recorded in the remaining treatments, while the differences between former three treatments were not up to the mark. Similarly, T₃ and T₂ proved significantly superior to T₅, T₄ and T₁, but the differences between former two treatments was of the similar order. T₅ and T₄ were also superior to control. At 60 DAT, T₆ and T₇ showed their superiority over the remaining treatments, but both these treatments behaved similarly with each other. T₈ was also superior to the remaining treatments except T₃ where the difference was not conspicuous. T₂ showed its superiority over T₅, T₄ and T₁, while the difference between T₃ and T₂ was not up to the mark. T₅ and T₄ behaved similarly with each other though superior over control. At 90 DAT, T₇ produced significantly higher number of tillers than all the remaining treatments except T₆, where the difference was not significant. T₆, T₈ and T₃ recorded significantly higher number of tillers compared to T₂, T₄, T₅ and T₁, but the differences between former three treatments were not significant. T₂, T₄ and T₅ behaved similarly with each other though superior over control. At harvest, T₇, T₆ and T₈ were significantly superior to all the remaining treatments, but the differences between former three treatments were found to be not significant. T₃ showed its superiority over T₂, T₅, T₄ and T₁.

On the other hand, the trend during 2001 was little different. T₇ constantly showed its superiority over the remaining treatments at all the growth stages except at 60 DAT, where it behaved similarly with T₆. T₆ also proved superior to the remaining treatments at all the stages except at 30 DAT and at harvest, where the difference between T₆ and T₈ were not up to the mark. T₈ was also superior over T₃, T₂, T₄, T₅ and T₁ at all the stages, except at 60 DAT, when the difference between T₈ and T₃ was of the similar magnitude. T₃ also proved its superiority over T₂, T₄, T₅ and T₁ at all the stages, except at 30 DAT, where the difference between T₃ and T₂ was not up to the mark. T₂ was also superior over T₄, T₅ and T₁ at 30, 60 and 90 DAT.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top