Back to Contents

Table (9) – (10) – (11) – (12)

4. Number of functional leaves per hill

Data regarding mean number of functional leaves per hill of hybrid rice as influenced periodically by different treatments are presented in Table 9 and depicted in Fig. 5. Data indicated that the mean number of leaves increased with increase in age of plant till 60 DAT, thereafter there was a gradual decrease during both the years.

Table 9. Number of functional leaves per hill as influenced periodically by different treatments.

During 2000, T₆ constantly produced significantly higher number of tillers per hill at all the stages of crop growth, except at 90 DAT and at harvest, where the difference between T₆ and T₇ was not conspicuous. T₇, T₃, T₂ and T₈ showed their superiority over T₅, T₄ and T₁ at 30 DAT, but the differences between former four treatments were found to be not significant. T₅ and T₄ behaved similarly with each other, though it was superior to T₁ at 30 DAT. While T₇ and T₃ were significantly superior over the remaining treatments except T₂, where the differences were not up to the mark at 60 DAT. T₂ and T₈ were also superior than T₅, T₄ and T₁, while the differences between former two, as well as latter two treatments were of the similar magnitude. T₇ recorded significantly higher number of leaves than the remaining treatments except T₃, where the difference was not significant at 90 DAT. T₃, T₂ and T₈ behaved similarly with each other, but these were significant over T₅ and T₁. The differences between T₈ and T₄ as well as T₄ and T₅ were found to be not significant though superior to control. Exactly the similar trend was observed at harvest in respect of number of leaves per hill.

During 2001, the pattern of results was similar at all the stages of crop growth in respect of number of leaves per hill, except very few minor changes at 60 DAT, where T₈ and T₅ behaved similarly with each other, as well as at harvest, where the difference between T₂ and T₄ was significant.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

5. Dry matter accumulation (g) per hill

Data pertaining to mean dry matter accumulation per hill as influenced periodically by treatments are presented in Table 10 and depicted in Fig. 6. It was evident that dry matter accumulation was influenced significantly by different treatments over control during both the years at all the stages of crop growth.

Table 10. Dry matter accumulation (g) per hill as influenced periodically by different treatments.

During 2000, T₆ produced significantly higher dry matter accumulation per hill compared to all the remaining treatments, except T₇, where the difference was not well marked at 30 DAT. T₇ also showed its superiority over the remaining treatments. T₈ proved significant superiority to T₂, T₃, T₄, T₅ and T₁. T₂ and T₃ behaved similarly with each other, but were superior to T₄, T₅ and T₁. The difference between T₄ and T₅ was of similar order. On the other hand, at 60 DAT, T₃ registered significantly higher dry matter accumulation compared to all the remaining treatments except T₆ and T₂, where the difference was not very conspicuous. T₆ proved significantly superior to T₈, T₄, T₅ and T₁, while the differences between T₆, T₂ and T₇ were not significant. T₂, T₇ and T₈ behaved similarly with each other. Similarly, T₇, T₈, T₄ and T₅ did not show any significant variation in respect of dry matter accumulation at 60 DAT. At 90 DAT, T₆, T₃ and T₂ proved significantly superior over all the remaining treatments, except T₇, where the differences were not up to the mark. T₇, T₄ and T₈, as well as T₄, T₈ and T₅ behaved similarly with each other though these treatments were superior to control (T₁). At harvest, T₆ produced significantly higher dry matter accumulation than all the remaining treatments, except T₃ and T₂, where the differences were not significant. T₃, T₂ and T₇ behaved similarly with each other and were superior to T₈, T₅ and T₁. The difference between T₇ and T₄, as well as T₄, T₈ and T₅ were not up to the mark.

In 2001, T₆ showed its superiority over all the remaining treatments, except T₇ where the difference was not significant. T₇ proved its superiority over the remaining treatments followed by T₈, T₂, T₃, T₄, T₅ and T₁ in that descending order. The differences between T₂ and T₃, as well as T₄ and T₅ were found to be not significant. While at 60 DAT, T₃ and T₆ registered significantly higher dry matter accumulation per hill than all the remaining treatments, but the differences between former two treatments was not up to the level of significance. T₂ and T₇ also showed their superiority over T₈, T₄, T₅ and T₁, while the difference between T₂ and T₇, T₇ and T₈, as well as T₈, T₄ and T₅ were not significant. On the other hand, T₃, T₆, T₂ and T₇ proved significantly superior to T₄, T₈, T₅ and control, but the differences between former four treatments and latter three treatments were of the similar order. Similar trend was also noted at harvest, except that T₃ and T₆ were superior over T₇, T₄, T₈, T₅ and T₁ as well as T₄ showed its superiority over T₅ and T₁.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

II. Studies on yield contributing characters of hybrid rice

The yield contributing characters, namely, number of panicles per hill, length of panicle, number of filled grains, number of unfilled grains per panicle, Weight of filled grains per panicle and Thousand grain weight (g) recorded at harvest are presented in Table 11 and shown in Fig. 7 and 8.

Table 11. Yield contributing characters of hybrid rice as influenced by different treatments.

1. Number of panicles per hill

Data showed that T₆ produced significantly higher number of panicles per hill compared to all the remaining treatments during 2000. Similarly, T₇ and T₈ showed their superiority over the remaining treatments, but the difference between former two treatments was not up to the mark. T₂ and T₃ were significantly superior to T₅, T₄ and T₁, but the differences between T₂ and T₃ as well as T₅ and T₄ were not significant. Latter two treatments were also superior to control. Similar trend was also observed during 2001, except that T₆ and T₇ behaved similarly with each other and the difference between T₇ and T₈ was significant.

2. Length of panicle (cm)

All the treatments produced significantly longer panicles compared to the control. During 2000, T₆ registered significantly higher length compared to all the remaining treatments, except T₇ where the difference was not up to the mark. T₇, T₃ and T₂ behaved similarly with each other. T₇ showed its superiority over T₈, T₄, T₅ and T₁. T₃ and T₂ proved significantly superior to T₄, T₅ and T₁, but the differences between former two treatments and T₈, T₄ and T₅ were not significant. In 2001, T₆ and T₇ recorded significantly higher length of panicle compared to T₂, T₈, T₄, T₅ and T₁. While the differences between former two treatments, T₇ and T₃; T₃, T₂ and T₈; T₂, T₈ and T₄ as well as T₄ and T₅ were not up to the mark. The order of superiority of treatments was T₃, T₂, T₈, T₄ and T₅ over control in that descending order.

3. Number of filled grains per panicle

All the treatments were significantly superior over T₁ (Control) during both years. During 2000, T₆ recorded significantly higher number of grains per panicle compared to all the remaining treatments except T₇ where the difference was not up to the mark. T₇ showed its superiority over T₄, T₈, T₅ and T₁, but the differences between T₇, T₂ and T₃; T₂, T₃, T₄ and T₈ as well as T₄, T₈ and T₅ were not significant. T₂ and T₃ proved significantly superior to T₅ and T₁. On the contrary, during 2001, T₆ showed its superiority over all the remaining treatments except T₃ and T₂, where the differences were found to be not significant. T₃, T₂ and T₇ proved significantly superior than T₄, T₈, T₅ and T₁ in respect of number of filled grains per panicle, while the differences between former three as well as latter three treatments were of the similar magnitude.

4. Number of unfilled grains per panicle (Table 11)

Data showed that the maximum number of unfilled grains was recorded in control treatment during both the years, which were significantly higher compared to the remaining treatments. The order of number of unfilled grains per panicle was T₅, T₄, T₂, T₃, T₇, T₈ and T₆ in decreasing order showing the need of nutrition. The lowest number of grains per panicle was recorded due to T₈ and T₆ during both the years, which did not produce significant variation. This was followed by T₃ and T₇ during 2001.

5. Weight of filled grains per panicle

All the treatments were significantly superior over T₁ (Control) during both years. During 2000, T₆ recorded significantly higher weight of filled grains per panicle in that descending order compared to T₅, T₄ and T₁. The differences between T₆, T₇, T₂, T₈ and T₃ were not up to the mark. The differences between T₈, T₃ and T₅; T₃, T₅ and T₄ as well as T₄ and T₁ were also not significant. Similar trend was also noticed during 2001, except that differences between T₃, T₅ and T₄ as well as T₄ and T₁ were significant.

6. Thousand grains weight (g)

T₇ constantly showed its superiority by recording significantly higher test weight compared to all the remaining treatments, except T₈ in 2000 and T₈ and T₆ in 2001, where the differences were not up to the mark. Similarly, T₈ noted significantly lowest weight than the remaining treatments except T₆, where the differences were of the similar order during both the years. T₆ was also superior to T₂, T₄, T₅ and T₁ during 2000, but it did not show significant variation during 2001. The differences between T₃, T₂, T₄, T₅ and T₁ were found to be not significant during both the years.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

III. Grain and straw yield (q ha^-1) of hybrid rice

The grain and straw yield of hybrid rice (q ha^-1) as influenced by different treatments is presented in Table 12 and depicted in Fig. 9. During 2000, T₆ produced significantly higher grain yield compared to all the remaining treatments except T₇, T₃ and T₈, where the differences were of the similar magnitude. Similarly, T₇, T₃, T₈ and T₂ proved their superiority over T₄, T₅ and T₁, but the differences between former four and latter two treatments were not up to the level of significance.

Table 12. Grain and straw yield (q ha^-1) of hybrid rice as influenced by different treatments.

On the other hand, during 2001, T₆, T₇, T₃, T₈ and T₂ behaved similarly with each other, but showed their superiority over the remaining treatment except that the difference between T₂ and T₄, as well as T₄ and T₅ was not up to the mark. Similar results were noted in the pooled analysis. This clearly indicated that there is possibility of saving fertilizer nutrients by using gliricidia up to the extent of 50%. Similarly, application of UB-DAP is an excellent source, which can reduce the nutrient requirement of hybrid rice without sacrificing the grain yield. The application of 90 kg UB-DAP ha^-1 produced equivalent grain yields (66.09 q ha^-1) to that of Fertilizers 150:75:75 kg ha^-1 (69.36 q ha^-1) resulting in 30% saving of nutrients and recommended dose of 100:50:50 (T₂). Similarly, application of 75:75:75 + 5 t ha^-1 gliricidia (T₇) could produce the equivalent yields with saving of 50% nutrients, when compared with T₆.

In the case of straw yield, T₆ and T₇ out yielded all the remaining treatments except T₃ and T₈ where the differences were not significant during 2000. Similarly, T₃ and T₈ proved their superiority over T₄, T₅ and T₁ while the differences between former two treatments were not up to the mark. T₄ was significantly superior to T₅ and T₁. The differences between T₅ and T₁ were also significant showing supremacy of T₅. In 2001, T₆ and T₇ recorded significantly higher straw yield over T₈, T₂, T₄, T₅ and T₁, while the differences between T₆, T₇ and T₃ as well as T₃, T₈ and T₂ were of the similar order. Latter three treatments proved their superiority over T₄, T₅ and T₁.

Analysis of pooled data indicate that T₆ produced maximum straw yield, which was significantly higher than all the remaining treatments, except T₇ and T₃, where the differences were not up to the level of significance. Similarly, T₇ proved its supremacy over T₂, T₄, T₅ and T₁, but behaved similarly with T₃ and T₈. T₃ proved significantly superior to T₄, T₅ and T₁ while T₃, T₈ and T₂ did not show significant variation in respect of straw yield of hybrid rice.

Back to Contents                                                                                                                                             Back to Top