Back to Contents

Table (28) – (29) – (30)

XI. Chemical studies in mustard

1. Nitrogen content (%) in mustard grain and stover

Data regarding mean nitrogen content in mustard grain and stover as influenced by different treatments are presented in Table 28. It could be seen that mean nitrogen content in grain and stover were 2.87 and 0.46 during 2000-2001 and 2.91 and 0.46 during 2001-2002, respectively.

Table 28. Nitrogen content (%) and uptake (kg ha^-1) in grain and stover of mustard as influenced by different treatments.

i. Nitrogen content in mustard grain

Effect of preceding treatments

T₅ had significant residual effect in increasing the nitrogen content in mustard grain as compared to all the remaining treatments except T₇, where the differences were not up to the mark. T₇ also proved its superiority in respect of residue thereby increasing the nitrogen content in grain of mustard followed by T₃. The remaining treatments did not show marked differences as far as the residual effect in increasing the nitrogen content in grain of mustard during both the years.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 resulted in significant increase in nitrogen content over control, but the differences between Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 and Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 as well as Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 and control were of the similar order.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

ii. Nitrogen content in mustard stover

Effect of preceding treatments

The residual effect due to T₅, T₃ and T₇ was significantly higher than that of the remaining treatments during both the years. The remaining treatments did not show much variation.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 as well as Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 did not influence the nitrogen content in stover during 2000-2001 over control while in 2001-2002, Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 registered significantly higher nitrogen content compared to control, but the differences between Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 and Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 as well as Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 and control were of the similar order.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

2. Nitrogen uptake (kg ha^-1) in mustard grain and stover

The data regarding mean nitrogen uptake in grain and stover of mustard as influenced by different treatments are summarized in Table 28 and depicted in Fig. 23. Data revealed that the mean uptake of nitrogen in mustard grain and stover was 30.05 and 14.13 kg ha^-1 for 2000-2001 and 30.40 and 14.00 kg ha^-1 during 2001-2002, respectively.

i. Nitrogen uptake in mustard grain

Effect of preceding treatments

T₇ had significant residual effect reflecting in increasing the nitrogen uptake in grain compared to all the remaining treatments during both the years. Similarly, T₃ proved significantly superior in residual effect with significantly higher uptake than the remaining treatments followed by T₆ and T₅ though superior than remaining treatments was not conspicuous. T₂, T₈ and T₄ did not produce any marked variation in residue, but were superior to control during both the years.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 recorded the significantly higher uptake than Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1, which in turn was also superior over control during both the years.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

ii. Nitrogen uptake by mustard stover

Effect of preceding treatments

T₇ had significant residual effect resulting in higher uptake of nitrogen by stover compared to the remaining treatments during both the years. T₃ also showed appreciable residual effect thereby increasing the uptake in stover followed by T₆ and T₅>T₂>T₈ and T₄ compared to that of control. The differences between later three treatments in respect of residue were not up to the mark. Similar trend was also noted during 2001-2002 except that the T₂ showed significant variation in residue than T₄.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 recorded the highest value followed by Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 and control during both the years.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

3. Phosphorus content (%) in mustard grain and stover

Data pertaining to mean phosphorus content in mustard grain and stover as influenced by different treatments are presented in Table 29. The mean phosphorus contents in grain and stover were 0.48 and 0.036% during 2000-2001 and 0.44 and 0.035% during 2001-2002, respectively.

Table 29. Phosphorus content (%) and uptake (kg ha^-1) in grain and stover of mustard as influenced by different treatments.

i. Phosphorus content in mustard grain

Effect of preceding treatments

The different preceding treatments failed to show any marked residual effect and variation in phosphorus content in mustard grain during both the years.

Effect of fertilizer levels

The fertilizer levels did not produce significant variation in respect of phosphorus content in grain during first year while Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 registered significant higher phosphorus content in grain compared to Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1, which in turn was also superior to control during 2001-2002.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

ii. Phosphorus content in mustard stover

Effect of preceding treatments

The residual effect due to preceding treatments did not influence the phosphorus content in stover of mustard during both the years.

Effect of fertilizer levels

The effects of fertilizer levels did not influence the phosphorus content in stover during first year. In the second year application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 noted significantly higher phosphorus content over control while the difference between Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 and Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 as well as Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1 and control were of the similar order.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

4. Phosphorus uptake (kg ha^-1) by mustard grain and stover

The data regarding mean phosphorus uptake by mustard grain and stover as influenced by different treatments are presented in Table 29 and depicted in Fig. 24. Data revealed that mean uptake of phosphorus in mustard grain and stover was 5.09 and 1.10 during 2000-2001 and 4.67 and 1.04 kg ha^-1 during 2001-2002, respectively.

i. Phosphorus uptake by mustard grain (kg ha^-1)

Effect of preceding treatments

The fertilization due to T₆ and T₇ to hybrid rice left the significant residue resulting in higher phosphorus uptake by the mustard grain as compared to the residue of other treatments, while the former two treatments behaved similarly with each other in respect of residue. The residue due to T₂, T₅, T₈ and T₄ was not conspicuous though it was superior to that after control during 2000-2001. Similar results were noticed during 2001-2002, except that the residue between T₇, T₃ and T₆ did not differ markedly.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 registered significantly higher phosphorus uptake than that of Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1, which in turn was also superior over control during both the years.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

ii. Phosphorus uptake by mustard stover (kg ha^-1)

Effect of preceding treatments

T₇ had significant residual effect in increasing the phosphorus uptake in mustard stover as compared to that of the remaining treatments except T₆ where the differences were not up to the mark. The differences in residual effect due to T₃, T₂, T₅ and T₄ as well as T₂, T₅, T₄ and T₈ were more or less of similar magnitude during both years. T₆ had an edge over T₂, T₅, T₄ and T₈.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 recorded significantly higher phosphorus uptake in stover than Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1, which in turn was also superior to control.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were not significant.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top

5. Potassium content in mustard grain and stover (%)

Data regarding mean potassium content in grain and stover of mustard as influenced by different treatments are presented in Table 30. It was observed that potassium content in mustard grain and stover was 0.76 and 0.88 during 2000-2001 and 0.78 and 0.85 during 2001-2002.

Table 30. Potassium content (%) and uptake (kg ha^-1) in grain and stover of mustard as influenced by different treatments.

i. Potassium content in mustard grain

Effect of preceding treatments

The residual effect due to preceding treatments did not influence the potassium content in grain of mustard during both the years.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 recorded significantly higher potassium uptake in grain than Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1, which in turn was also superior to control during both the years.

Interaction effect

The interaction effects were found to be not significant.

ii. Potassium content in mustard stover

Effect of preceding treatments

The residual effect due to preceding treatments did not influence the potassium content in stover of mustard during 2000-2001. During 2001-2002, the residual effect due to T₁, T₈, T₃, T₄, T₅ and T₂ was of the similar order. T₁, T₈, T₃, T₄ and T₅ had an edge over T₆.

Effect of fertilizer levels

Application of Fertilizers 90:45:45 kg ha^-1 recorded significantly higher potassium uptake in grain than Fertilizers 45:45:45 kg ha^-1, which in turn was also superior to control.

Interaction effect

Interaction effects were found not significant.

Back to Contents                                                                                              Back to Top