OPTIMIZING IRRIGATION AND NITROGEN USE WITH STRAW MULCHING IN POTATO (Solanum tuberosum L.

Thesis

Submitted to the Punjab Agricultural University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
in

SOILS
(Minor subject: Botany)

By Sukhwinder Singh (L-2008-A-86-M)

Department of Soil Science College of Agriculture PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY LUDHIANA - 141 004 2011

CERTIFICATE I This is to certify that the thesis entitled, Optimizing irrigation and nitrogen use with straw mulching in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) submitted for the degree of Master of Science in the subject of Soils (Minor subject: Botany) of the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, is a bonafide research work carried out by Mr. Sukhwinder Singh (L-2008-A-86-M) under my supervision and that no part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree. The assistance and help received during the course of investigation have been fully acknowledged.

___________________________ Major Advisor [Dr. C B Singh] Senior Soil Scientist Department of Soil Science Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana 141 004 (India).

CERTIFICATE II

This is to certify that the thesis entitled, Optimizing irrigation and nitrogen use with straw mulching in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) submitted by Mr. Sukhwinder Singh (L-2008-A-86-M) to the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the subject of Soils (Minor subject: Botany) has been approved by Students Advisory Committee along with Head of the Department after an oral examination on the same.

____________________ Head of the Department [Dr C J Singh]

______________ Major Advisor [Dr C B Singh]

________________________ Dean Post-Graduate Studies [Dr Gursharan Singh]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I bow my head to AKAL PURKH the ALMIGHTY by whose kindness I have been able to clear another chapter of my life. Though the debt of learning cannot be repaid, it is my sovereign privilege to express my gratitude and moral obligation to my esteemed Major Advisor, Dr CB Singh, Senior Soil Scientist, Department of Soil Science for his enlightened, invaluable and inspiring guidance. I shall remain ever indebted for his care and affection during the course of investigation as well as in the preparation of this manuscript. His multifaceted personality and commitment to work motivated and encouraged me to work, even harder and hence developed right attitude not only for my research work but also as a managed human being. I feel elated in expressing thanks to the members of my advisory committee, Dr (Mrs) Nirmal Kaur Sekhon, Senior Plant Physiologist, Department of Soil Science , Dr VK Arora, Senior Soil Physicists, Department of Soil Science, Dr MS Hadda, Professor of Soil Conservation, Deans Nominee, Department of Soil Science for their expert advice and cooperation from time to time in conducting the research work and for making improvements while going through the manuscript. I am highly thankful to the Head of Department of Soil Science for providing necessary facilities required in lab and field work during my whole Masters Programme. In my opinion, God would not be everywhere; therefore, he made loving parents. A formal acknowledgment of my emotions is inadequate to convey the depth of my feelings of gratitude to Grand father S. Gurbachan Singh Dhillon and my loving parents S. Jagtar Singh Dhillon and Sdn. Harmeet Kaur. I am forever indebted to my parents for their understanding, endless patience and encouragement when it was most required and for providing me the means to learn and understand. I cannot weigh my feelings with words for my dearest brothers and my sister for their motivation, encouragement, everlasting love and affection and moral support. I have been fortunate to come across my funny & good friends without whom life would be bleak. I am happy to acknowledge the shadow support and moral upliftment showered upon me by Gurpreet Singh, Arshdeep, Satnam, DVS Kambo, Rupesh Monga, Sandeep Brar and Mander Sidhu. Thanks are due to the supporting field staff, office staff and lab attendants especially Salwinder Singh, Jaipal Singh, Pawan, Ramkishan Uncle, Satish and Raj Aunty for their help during my research work. Last but not the least, I duly acknowledge my sincere thanks to all those who love and care for me. Every name may not be mentioned but none is forgotten.

(Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon)

Title of the Thesis Name of the student Admission No. Major Subject Minor Subject Name and Designation of Major Advisor Degree to be Awarded Year of award of Degree Total pages in Thesis Name of University

: :

Optimizing irrigation and nitrogen use with straw mulching in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Sukhwinder Singh (L-2008-A-86-M)

: : :

Soils Botany Dr C B Singh Senior Soil Scientist

: : : :

M. Sc. 2011 75+ Appendices+ Vita Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India ABSTRACT

Water and fertilizer are important factors influencing growth, development and tuber yield of potato. Depleting ground water and increasing cost of fertilizers necessitates that these inputs are used efficiently. Straw mulching is likely to enhance tuber yield and conserve irrigation water and fertilizer. A field experiment was conducted at the research farm of the Department of Soil Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana on loamy sand soil to optimize irrigation and fertilizer N use of -1 potato with straw mulching. Two rates of rice straw mulch (0 and 6 t ha ) were imposed in the main plots, three irrigation levels based on IW/PAN-E = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 in sub plot and four levels of N @ 0, -1 135, 180 and 225 kg ha in sub-sub plot. Results revealed that mulching helped to store 5-22 mm more soil moisture in 0-120 cm profile and the differences were larger in top 15 cm layer. Straw mulch lowered maximum soil temperature at 5 cm depth by 0.4 to 7.3C and raised minimum temperature by 0.4 to 2.9C. Irrigation water input with IW/PAN-E = 2.0, 1.5 and 1.0 was 24, 16 and 12 cm, respectively. Mulching recorded 25per cent improvement in tuber yield. The WUE improved with N rate and it was progressively increased with decrease irrigation water inputs. Mulching also -1 -1 improved irrigation water use efficiency (WUE) by 26.2 kg tuber ha mm . Optimum irrigation for maximum tuber yield was IW/PAN-E =2.0 without mulch and 1.5 with mulch. Tuber yield improved -1 -1 with fertilizer N upto 225 kg ha without mulch but only upto 180 kg N ha in mulched plot. Mulching increase nitrogen use efficiency and it decreased with increasing N rate. Mulching reduced weed infestation and recorded larger size (>50mm) tubers. To conclude, mulching improved tuber yield besides saving irrigation water and fertilizer N.

Keywords: Potato, Straw mulching, Irrigation, WUE, N efficiency, Tuber yield ______________________ Signature of Major Advisor ___________________ Signature of the student

CONTENTS

Chapter

Topic

Page

I.

INTRODUCTION

1-2

II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

3-14

III.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

15-24

IV.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

25-62

V.

SUMMARY

63-65

REFERENCES

66-75

APPENDICES

i-v

Grow potato with straw mulch to save water and N fertilizer

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), a member of the nightshade family (Solanaceae), is a major world food crop and by far the most important vegetable crop in terms of quantities produced and consumed worldwide (FAO 2005). It is cultivated in autumn and spring season in Punjab. It is high-yielding short duration crop that requires large amount of nutrients and frequent irrigation due to its shallow root system. Potato is sensitive to drought (Van Loon 1981). Scheduling irrigation at proper time and stages of plant growth has great significance in improving the yield of the crop (Singh et al 1990). Judicious application of fertilizers in conjunction with proper irrigation is the principal factor affecting the crop yield (Padem and Alan 1992; Gupta 1990; Bandel et al 1980; Thomas et al 1970). Thus, water and fertilizer N are important manageable factors influencing tuber growth, development, quality and yield. The response to fertilizer varies with soil and climatic conditions. Recovery of fertilizer N in potato crop is generally low and most of fertilizer N is lost through denitrification, immobilization or by leaching out of the root zone to eventually meet the ground water. Reduction in losses of water and nitrogen will be helpful for efficient utilization of these costly resources. Therefore, optimization of irrigation water and nitrogen use for obtaining better potato crop at the same time maintaining growth and yield is essential. The water and nitrogen use efficiency in potato under conventional furrow irrigation is low that could be increased with minimizing losses of water. This suggests developing an integrated approach for water and nutrients management. Being a temperate crop, potato growth and yield are mostly affected by higher temperature, especially a mean temperature above 17oC (Mendoza and Estarda1979). As a result, potato is grown in countries where the prevailing mean air temperature is around 15-18oC during the growing season and rainfall or irrigation provides ample water (Caldiz et al 2001). Soil temperature is one of the most crucial edaphic factors that affect potato growth and development. Several factors control soil temperature but only soil cover and soil moisture are subjected to manipulation. Optimum temperatures for potato cultivation are around 20oC for maximum and 15oC for minimum (Borah and Milthorpe 1963). Haverkort (1990) pointed out that potato is best adapted to cool climates such as tropical highlands with mean daily temperatures between 15 and 18oC. Higher temperatures favour foliar development and retard tuber growth. In addition, heat stress leads to a higher number of smaller tubers per plant; lower tuber specific gravity with reduced dry matter content. However, such soil temperatures do not exist under natural conditions throughout the potato growing season in the state of Punjab. Autumn crop of potato is recommended for planting in October when it is not very hot in the plains. But farmers prefer to advance the planting of potato in early September and consequently, early harvested tubers fetch higher price in the market. However, high 9

temperature prevailing at the time of planting causes poor tuber germination. Nearly 20.8 million tonnes of rice straw are produced every year in the state of Punjab. A substantial proportion (81%) of mechanically harvested rice straw is burnt in the field, which is a net loss of nutrients besides causing environmental pollution. This can be diverted to use as mulch. Mulching is known to improve soil hydrothermal regime, check weed growth and thus, improve crop growth, yield and water use efficiency (Barker and Bhowmik 2001; Hundal et al 2002). Locally available mulch material can also be applied on soils to reduce soil moisture loss from the profile. Many researchers studied the beneficial role of mulch to conserve soil moisture and to reduce soil temperature (Kar 2003; Kar and Singh 2004). Lowering of soil temperature favoured tuber growth and produced good quality tubers, but a lower rate of mulch application (2-2.5 t ha-1) was not effective for enhancing tuber yield (Doring et al 2005). Straw mulching lowers maximum soil temperature, reduces evaporation of soil water and thus conserves soil moisture besides checking weed growth (Jalota et al 2001; Kar and Kumar 2007; Sekhon et al 2008 ; Singh et al 2010). On the other hand, mulching may raise minimum soil temperature by preventing heat loss from soil. Use of straw mulch in potato may also alter its optimum irrigation and nitrogen requirement. Since high soil temperature limits potato production in hot climates (Midmore 1984), mulches may enhance production in such climates, particularly in non-irrigated or water scare areas. Mulch helped to retain more heat in the soil during night resulting in higher minimum temperature than un-mulched soil. Mulching also reduced wilt and late blight incidence, but not to the extent needed for profitable farming (Rautaray 2010). About 77 per cent of the water resource is used in agriculture. Annual deficit of water in the state of Punjab is about 12-lakh-hactare meter (Hira and Khera 2000). A report by Punjab State Farmers Commission (Singh 2006) shows that in Punjab, rate of fall in water table was 65 cm Y-1 during 1998-2005. This is attributed mainly due to pumping of ground water. Keeping in view the declining ground water level and availability of surplus rice straw, there is a need to evolve a technique for reducing water use in raising potato crop. The crop could provide an alternative as crop diversification to farmers. However, a fewer studies have been conducted in this region regarding efficient use of water and nitrogen with mulching for potato cultivation. Hence, the present study was undertaken to investigate the problems with following objectives: 1. To study the effect of straw mulch on soil hydrothermal properties. 2. To find out the optimum irrigation water and fertilizer N requirement of potato under straw mulch. 3. To study the interactive effects of mulching, irrigation and fertilizer N levels on water use and yield of potato.

10

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Potato crop yield is determined by several factors such as soil temperature, fertilizer application, rainfall and a number of agronomic practices viz. planting density and crop rotation besides the genetic characters. Soil temperature, soil water and fertilizer are important edaphic factors which influence crop growth. Mulch offers an easy means to modify the moisture regime, soil temperature and availability of fertilizer. The literature concerning the problem is reviewed under the following heads: 2.1 Optimum temperature requirement for potato growth Climate is the prime uncontrolled environmental factor causing huge fluctuations in crop yield from year to year. Potato plant growth and development is greatly influenced by soil temperature in addition to many other environmental factors. Studies conducted by Neilson et al (1961) have revealed that the optimum soil temperature for potato varies with the nutrients applied but the maximum uptake of elements and the yield increase is observed at temperature near 19.4oC and reduces at 26.6oC. Since the onset and early phases of tuber growth are important for the further development of potato, Dam et al (1996) conducted an experiment with two photoperiods (12 or 18 h) and four 12-h day/night temperatures (18/12, 22/16, 26/20, and 30/24oC) to analyze photoperiod and temperature effects on early tuber growth for cultivars Spunta and Desiree. They concluded that low mean temperatures (15-19oC) with a short photoperiod (12 h) were most suitable for early tuber growth. Different genotype responses to temperature and photoperiod on tuber growth were also observed by Snyder and Ewing (1989) using potato cuttings. Dry matter partitioning to tubers generally was highly and significantly correlated with optimum temperature, 15 to 20oC for tuber growth. Potato plants lost their ability to allocate dry matter to tubers at higher temperatures. The optimum soil temperature for initiating tubers ranged from 16 to 19oC. Tuber development declined as soil temperatures rose above 20C and tuber growth practically stopped at soil temperatures above 30oC. The number of tubers set per plant was greater at lower temperatures than at higher temperatures, whereas higher temperatures favor development of large tubers (Western Potato Council, 2003). Hay and Allen (1978) reported that soil temperatures between 15 and 18oC were optimal for tuberization of potato. High soil temperature increased stem elongation, branching, haulm weight, foliage development and root growth but decreased the accumulation of dry matter in tubers, leading to small malformed tuber production (Slater 1968). Potato quality is as important as yield. Specific gravity and dry matter content along with shape of tuber have been considered as an important factor for judging the quality of

11

tuber (Shafi 1963). Midmore and Prange (1992) examined the effect of day and night temperatures (33/25oC and 20/10oC) on relative growth rate and dry matter production of various potato cultivars. The highest relative growth rate was obtained at low temperature whereas higher temperature had the opposite effect of producing the lowest net assimilation and relative growth rate. Both number and weight of tubers were markedly reduced by high temperature and produced virtually no tubers. Grewal and Singh (1974) observed that tuber yield during autumn was positively correlated with minimum soil temperature that varied from 7 to 9.4oC. They also observed a significant positive correlation between tuber size and the minimum temperature during autumn season. On the other hand, potato yields were negatively correlated with the maximum soil temperature during spring. Epstein (1966) observed that potato variety Katahdin, which normally produce spherical tubers, produced elongated and pointed tubers at 280 C and also recorded slight increase in specific gravity from 9 to 15oC and then a rapid decline with higher temperature. Kincaid et al (1993) assessed the influence of interaction between water management and soil temperature on potato quality in the Pacific Northwest and observed that the critical period for tuber quality appeared to be from mid-June to mid-July based on measured soil temperature differences. Frequent sprinkler irrigation reduced soil temperatures, along with the incidence of sugar-end tubers. A green house study conducted by Yamaguchi et al (1964) noticed that the optimum soil temperature for tuber formation was between 15.5 - 21.1oC. Shoot emergence was rapid at 21.1-23.8oC and delayed at 10-12.7oC soil temperature. Many stolons were initiated but tuberization was delayed at the lowest soil temperature of 10-12.7oC. 2.2 Effect of irrigation on soil temperature, crop growth and yield 2.2.1 Effect of irrigation on temperature Irrigation moderates soil temperature by increasing evaporative cooling, specific heat of soil and heat flow into soil due to enhanced thermal conductivity. The extent and duration of this effect however, depends upon solar radiation flux, nature and extent of vegetative cover, thermal properties of soil and amount and temperature of irrigation water applied. Dry soil has a specific heat that approximately equals one-fifth of that of water. Hence a given amount of heat from isolation will increase the temperature of a moist soil less than that of a dry soil (Keen 1932). Application of irrigation that maintains a continually moist soil surface is quite effective in cooling the soil (Wharton and Hobart 1931). Smith et al (1931) showed the effect of irrigation on cooling of soil. Under Arizona conditions on the day following irrigation, the temperature at 2.5, 5.0 and 7.5 cm depth was lowered by 4 to 10, 1 to 4 and 0.5 to 20F, respectively. This fact was emphasized by Gregory (1959) suggesting the maintenance of low soil temperature through light but frequent irrigations resulting in lower soil moisture suctions. This practice promoted plant growth and development. Arkhipova (1954) obtained a 12

difference as large as 28oC in maximum temperature of soil surface between the irrigated and the un-irrigated wheat fields during a period of dry winds. The difference reduced to 6-7oC and 4oC at 5 and 20 cm depth, respectively. Dhesi et al (1964) suggested that soil temperature can be maintained at a low level through the application of light but frequent irrigation for better plant growth. Wierenga et al (1971) found that damping effect of an irrigation on soil temperature was large and of short duration in upper soil layers, but small and of longer duration at lower depth. They found that within a few hours after irrigation, temperature at 10 and 30 cm depths dropped by 10.5 and 6.0oC, respectively. The temperature between irrigated and un-irrigated soil at 10 cm depth was reduced to 2.5oC one day after irrigation and was negligible two days after irrigation. Mehta and Prihar (1973) observed an average decrease of 2oC in the maxima soil temperature at 10 cm depth when soil is wetted with 1 cm simulated rain in the summer. Singh and Sandhu (1978) found that the damping effect of irrigation on soil temperature was large and quick particularly in the un-mulched and less frequently irrigated maize when its crop cover was sparse. They reported a temperature decrease of 10 to 3oC in the upper soil layers with irrigation and the effect lasted for 4-6 days. In another study with sugarcane (Sandhu et al 1980) the maximum soil temperature at 10 cm depth in the crop irrigated frequently with IW/PAN-E ratio of 1.0 was about 0 to 6oC lower than that in the crop irrigated with IW/PAN-E ratio of 0.5. 2.2.2 Effect of irrigation on crop growth and yield Water is essential requirement for plants. Thus reduced availability of water to plants is likely to restrict crop growth. As irrigation is a measure to increase water availability to plants and reduce adverse effects of water deficits in crop. On the basis of several years of experiment Steineck (1958) proved that potato is particularly sensitive to faulty irrigation technique. He emphasized that planning of irrigation at higher tensions and withholding water for 2, 4, 6, weeks period induced yields of 78, 58, and 36 per cent, respectively of the yield of highest yielding treatment. Working on the laterite soils of West Bengal, Moolani and Hukkeri (1965) showed that irrigation at lower tension (0.25 to 0.30 atmospheres) increased yield by 6.12 and 34.5 q ha-1 as compared to yield under 0.6 and 0.9 atmosphere soil moisture tensions, respectively. Doorenbos and Kassam (1979) reported that for high yields at a given site, the seasonal water requirements of a potato crop with a phenological cycle varying from 120 to 150 days ranged from 500 to 700 mm, depending on climate. In a field study Sood (1986) observed that during pre-monsoon period. Supplemental irrigation at 0.5 atmosphere moisture tension stimulated growth and increased potato mean yield by 64 q ha-1 under rainfed conditions. Another study by Singh et al (1988) reported that tuber yield of potato variety Kufri chanderamukhi irrigated on the basis of IW/PAN-E ratio of 2.0 was comparable to that irrigated at 0.25 bar soil water tension but saved 12 cm irrigation water, resulting in 20 13

per cent higher irrigation water use efficiency. In field trails, irrigations given at 25, 50 and 70 per cent of available moisture showed significant improvement in potato tuber yield and A grade tuber with irrigation levels (Yadav and Tripathi1972; Sharma et al 1999). Deficient irrigation promoted a reduction of tuber quality and lowered yield due to reduced leaf area and or reduced photosynthesis per unit leaf area (Van Loon 1981). Khera et al (1976) found that as the IW/PAN-E ratio increased from 0.6 to 0.9, the grain yield as well as dry forage yields of maize increased significantly, but declined with further increase in frequency of irrigation. Potato can be sensitive to irrigation less than evapotranspiration that result in soil water deficits. A study in three successive years on silt loam soil in eastern Oregon investigated the effect of water deficit on yield and quality of four potato cultivars grown under four season-long sprinkler irrigation treatments (Shock et al 1998). MacKerron and Jefferies (1986) have shown that increased duration of water stress before tuber initiation reduces tuber set per stem. Perez et al (1961) observed that yield and percent of large size tubers increased by increasing frequency of furrow irrigation. They concluded that available soil moisture at 30 cm depth should not be allowed to fall below 50 per cent of the field capacity. Straw mulching had favorable effects on plant height and yield (Sandhu et al 1980). Cane yield increased by an average of 13.8 per cent with the 1.00 over the 0.50 times pan evaporation. Similarly, yield averaged 13.8 per cent higher with mulch than without mulch. 2.3 Effect of mulch on soil temperature, crop yield and weeds growth Mulching alter hydrothermal regime by conserving water, modifying soil temperature and controls weeds. These effects are reflected on improved yields of field and vegetable crops. However the extent and direction of the mulching effect on soil temperature varies with the types of mulch, its rate and time of application, season and weather conditions, type of soil and nature and extent of crop cover. Depending upon the prevailing conditions, mulch can cool or warm the soil (Jacks et al 1955) and may accelerate or depress plant growth. In order to quantify the effects of organic mulch on soil temperature during the growth of potato, Midmore (1984) reported favorable manipulation of the edaphic environment in early stage of potato crop that led to improved emergence, crop cover and tuber yield. Midmore et al (1986) conducted seven experiments at three contrasting hot tropical sites to evaluate the effect of organic mulch on soil temperature during the growth of the potato crop. Mean maximum and minimum temperatures during the crop seasons ranged from 27 to 30oC and 16 to 21oC respectively. They concluded that daily soil temperature fluctuations at tuber depth were damped by mulch and maximum reduction of daytime soil temperature was recorded immediately following planting, before the crop emerged. Dahiya et al (2007) studied the straw mulching effects on soil temperature of a loess soil during August to September and reported that the application of wheat straw mulch reduced average 14

soil temperature by 0.74, 0.66, 0.58oC at 5, 15 and 30 cm depth respectively as compared with the control. Rathore et al (1998) reported that soil temperature with straw mulch in chick pea was 0.8 to 3oC lower than in un-mulched plots during December to January. Grewal and Singh (1974) observed that mulches like mat (Typha sp. Interwoven into a web) and pennisitum stalks lower the soil temperature maxima at a depth of 10 cm by 1.5 oC during autumn and by 3.5oC during spring on sandy loam soil. During autumn, potato yields were 35 and 25 per cent higher under mat and pennisitum stalks, respectively as compared with the control. Vadi et al (2005) conducted a field experiment on clay soil and reported that wheat straw mulch @ 6 t ha-1 and ground nut shell mulch @10 t ha-1 were found equally effective and produce more plant height, spread as well as grain and straw yield of pigeon pea as compared with control. However during spring season, the effect of these treatments was more pronounced and yield improvement was 53 and 49 per cent. Kar and Kumar (2007) recorded that use of straw mulch @ 6 t ha-1 in potato registered 3.7 t ha-1 higher tuber yield against 11.2 t ha-1 in no mulch treatment. This improvement was due to reduction in soil temperature by 4-6oC and conservation of soil moisture. Sekhon et al (2005) conducted an experiment on loamy sand soil to evaluate the effect of wheat straw mulch on soil temperature, crop growth and seed yield of soybean. Maximum soil temperatures at sowing depth, recorded during the month of June after sowing were high under no-mulch, ranging from 30.6 to 48.6oC while mulching reduced soil temperature by 1.4 to 12.7oC. Mulching increased soybean seed yield by 4.4 to 68.3 per cent in different cropping seasons; it also increased plant biomass by 17 to 122 per cent and nodule mass by 8 to 220 per cent. Field experiment was conducted by Rautaray (2010) to study the effect of mulching on potato in a rainfed rice-potato cropping system. Potato crop grown after rice recorded 1829 per cent higher tuber yield. The proportion of larger size tuber yield increased by 9 per cent under mulching. In second experiment, mulching with dried water hyacinth improved tuber yield of potato by 3.02 t ha-1 from 11.36 t ha-1 and the proportion of large sized tuber yield was higher (60%) under mulching as compared to control. Sood (1986) observed that application of 42 q ha-1 pine-needle mulch increased potato yield by 64 q ha-1 as compared with conventional rain fed practice. Mahmood et al (2002) reported that mulching decreased daily maximum soil temperature at 15 cm depth by 1.5 to 4.5oC, resulting in faster emergence, earlier canopy development and higher tuber yields. Other studies conducted in Asia point out the beneficial effects of mulch in potato production systems as an efficient alternative to obviate heat and water stresses in order to maximize crop yield (Jaiswal1995; Ruiz et al 1999; Sarma and Dutt 1999).The effect of wheat straw mulch on the performance of field-grown soybean Bragg was studied on a well-drained sandy-loam soil by Kaul and Sekhon (1975) and found that mulch had a great effect on reducing the maximum soil temperature, especially when the 15

prevailing air temperatures were quite high, and also helped in preventing crust formation caused by rainfall. The plant population was 104 per cent more in the mulched treatment that resulted in significant increase in seed yield. Sidhu et al 2007 studied the effect of wheat straw mulch @ 0 and 6 t ha-1 and planting methods (flat and channel) on maize grown for four years on sandy loam soil. They observed that maximum soil temperature without mulch ranged from 32.2 - 44.4oC in channel and 31.6 - 46.4oC in flat planting method. Mulching, however, lowered soil temperature by 0.8 - 7.0oC in channel and 0-9.8oC in flat planting. Mulching improved grain yield by 0.24 t ha -1 and biomass by 1.57 t ha-1. In a field study with summer mung bean on a loamy sand soil, Sandhu et al (1992) reported that application of rice straw mulch @ 6 t ha-1 improved edaphic environment of the root zone through soil water conservation and substantial reduction in maximum soil temperature caused 38 per cent increase in seed yield. Mulches prevent soil water evaporation retaining soil moisture. Jamil et al (2005) studied the effect of types of mulch (plastic, straw, sawdust and control) and their duration (one month and whole season) on growth and yield of garlic. They observed that straw and plastic mulches increase the bulb yield irrespective of their duration. Straw mulch is recommended for garlic production based on overall performance than the others and also being cheaper and organic in nature. Under the Punjab conditions, Dhesi et al (1964) concluded that mats prepared from locally available Sarkanda, and placed on the ridges of the potato lowered soil temperature by 5.9oC as compared to control. These mats kept the soil temperature more or less constant at 6 cm depth for one to four days after irrigation. Total as well as early potato germination was higher under sarkanda cover as compared to other treatments. They advocated the use of sarkanda mats for getting quick germination of potato tubers. Wang et al (2009) conducted field experiments to determine the effect of plastic mulch on soil temperature, potato (S. tuberosum L.) growth and evapotranspiration under drip irrigation and reported 2-9oC higher daily mean soil temperature under mulch than without mulch, especially during the early stages. Potato growth was restrained under mulching in the North China plains due to the higher air temperature and thus higher soil temperature. The negative effect of mulching included a lower emergence and fewer marketable tubers per plant. Nimje (1996) reported that mulching with dry grass @ 5 t ha-1 applied immediately after sowing in between soybean rows controlled weeds effectively (23%) and increased seed yield by 9.3 per cent. Aulakh and Sur (1999) observed the effect of four different mulches (black polythene, white polythene, FYM and Basooti) on soil temperature, weed population, growth and yield in pomegranate. The result showed that the Basooti mulch reduces soil temperature by 1.5oC as compared to 22.4oC recorded under control plots. Polythene mulches 16

significantly reduced the weed population by 19.7 to 26.4 per cent as compared to other mulching material and produced the maximum number of fruit per plant. Ramakrishna et al (2006) conducted on-farm trials in North Vietnam to study the effect of three mulching materials on weed infestation, soil temperature and pod yield of groundnut. Polythene and straw mulch suppressed weed infestation. Polythene mulch increased soil temperature by about 6oC at 5 cm depth and by 4oC at 10 cm depth. Polythene and straw mulch increased pod and stover yield of groundnut significantly over chemical and un-mulched plots. Singh et al (2004) conducted experiment on eight year bearing plum trees on sandy loam soil with three mulch material viz. control, plastic mulch, black polythene mulch and hay mulch. The growth and fruit yield of plum trees increase significantly under mulch treatment. Fruit yield in hay mulch was 93.3 q ha-1 that was 41q ha-1 higher in comparison to un-mulched plots and statistically at par to plastic mulch trees. Rahman et al (2005) reported that rice straw mulch @4 t ha-1 had a significant effect on conserving soil moisture and reducing weed growth, promoting root development and consequently improved grain yield of no till wheat. Kohnke and Werkhoven (1963) found that daily temperature fluctuations at 2.5 cm in bare soil were twice as large as in the wheat-straw mulched (@ 3.75 t ha-1) soil in summer, but mulch less in other seasons. Awan (1964) reported that yield of Sebago potatoes increased from 221 bushels/ acre to 283 and 298 by applying 2 and 4 tonnes, respectively of Hypershenia rufa hay as surface mulch when the plants were 4 week old. The effect of mulch was due to reduction in mid-day soil temperature at 5 cm depth by about 100F. Patil et al (1972) found that application of paddy straw mulch in one month old potato crop increased tuber yield by 20.8 per cent over no mulch on black clay loam soil. Singh et al (1988) used rice straw mulch in field trials with autumn potato and found 15 per cent increase in tuber yield. Application of mulch reduced maximum soil temperature at 10 cm depth by 1-6oC, increased minimum temperature by 0.5-2oC and suppressed weed growth. Sekhon et al (2008) observed 2.4 Mg ha-1 increased in chilli fruit yield with rice straw mulch @ 6 t ha-1 on sandy loam soil. They attributed this yield improvement to lowering soil temperature, more so during early part of the growing season. However, response of crops to mulching depends on soil and climatic conditions. In general, crop responses are more on low water retentive loamy sand compared to sandy loam soils; more intense hot and dry summer period than wet and humid conditions and under limited than plentiful irrigation (Prihar and Arora 1980; Jalota et al 2007). 2.4 Soil moisture conservation with mulch Surface applied mulch is known to conserve soil moisture. According to Army et al (1961) and others, mulch offers increased resistance to water vapour flow from soil surface to the atmosphere by increasing the thickness of the relatively stagnant air above the soil and lowering day time temperature, thus reducing vapour pressure gradient. Rajput and Singh 17

(1970) suggested the use of straw mulch for better moisture conservation and proper development of tubers. Reduction in soil water evaporation with straw mulching decreases crop water demands. In a field study, (Singh et al 1988) reported increase in tuber yield of kufri chandermukhi with rice straw mulch and improved irrigation use efficiency by 14.8 per cent in early sown autumn potato. In a field experiment, Dahiya et al (2007) observed that straw mulching decreased soil water loss on an average by 0.39 mm d-1. Vadi et al (2005) also reported higher soil moisture content at different growth stages of pigeon pea under wheat straw mulch @ 5 t ha-1 in clay soil. Pawar et al (2004) observed that percent increase in soil moisture conservation over un-mulched control was maximum in sugarcane trash mulch (13.6%) followed by black plastic mulch (12.3%), transparent plastic mulch (10.7%) and wheat straw mulch (7.0%). As a result of better moisture conservation, the transparent plastic mulch gave the higher water use efficiency of 37.03 Kg ha-1 cm-1, which was 83.68 per cent more than that of control and proved superior over other mulching methods. Chakravarti et al (2005) also observed that water hyacinth mulch conserved more soil moisture than the other mulches. Acharya and Kapur (2001) reported that application of pine needle mulch on silty clay-loam soil saved one irrigation and gave about 50 and 22 per cent higher potato yield in autumn and spring crop. Pine needle mulching maintained higher soil and plant water status, more roots than no mulching treatment. Chandra et al (2002) also recorded 40 per cent higher water use efficiency with pine needle mulch on sandy loam soil than no mulch plot. Sandhu et al (1992) in a field experiment found that, application of rice straw mulch @ 6 t ha -1 on a loamy sand soil enhanced water expense efficiency by 39 per cent in summer moongbean. An extensive review on benefits of straw mulching reported that this practice saved 7-40 cm of irrigation water in different crops such as maize, sorghum, mentha, sugarcane, potato, moong and winter maize (Jalota et al 2007). Rice straw mulching @ 6 t ha-1 saved 12 cm irrigation water besides improving yield and maintaining 12 mm higher profile moisture (Sekhon et al 2008). Rathore et al (1998) observed the effect of rice straw mulch on conservation of soil moisture under rainfed conditions. They noticed that straw mulch conserved more water in the soil profile during the early growth period compared to no mulch. Conserved soil water regulated proper plant water status and lowered soil mechanical resistance, leading to better root growth and higher grain yield of both chickpea and mustard with straw mulch than no mulch plots. Chaudhary et al (2003) evaluated the effectiveness of different mulching materials like Gliricidia leaves, grass and Lantana as in-situ moisture conservation techniques. All the mulches were found to retain sufficient moisture. However, among the

18

mulch treatments, grass mulch conserved highest moisture followed by Gliricidia and Lantana. Sandhu et al (1980) observed that similar yield of sugarcane was obtained with 34 cm less irrigation water in mulch plots than un-mulched, the beneficial effects being attributed to better soil moisture with mulching. Jalota et al (2001) reported that straw mulch treatment stored more moisture under low evaporativity rainy conditions in three coarse to medium textured soils. Mukherjee et al (2010) studied the effect of different mulching material on water use efficiency and evaporation in tomato crop irrigated with cumulative pan evaporation 50mm, 25mm and rainfed. They observed that actual evaporation rate was 1.82 mm d -1 that declined by 15 and 31 per cent, respectively with mulch. The variation of evapotranspiration among different mulches became more prominent under maximum water stressed conditions. Among different mulches, black polythene mulch was responsible for attaining the highest water use efficiency (25.1 kg m-3), which declined by 22, 21 and 39 per cent under white polythene mulch, rice straw mulch and no mulch, respectively. 2.5 Crop response to nitrogen under mulching Straw mulching also saves fertilizer N for comparable crop yields. Patil et al (1972) observed that application of 60 kg N ha-1 along with rice residue mulch in potato recorded yield comparable to 120 kg N ha-1 without mulch. Saving of 60 kg fertilizer N ha-1 in potato crop with pine needle mulch was recorded by Acharya and Kapur (2001). However, Sood (1986) found that potato tuber yield significantly increased with application of up to 80 kg N ha-1, but the higher dose (120 kg N ha-1) depressed tuber yields. Supplemental irrigation, mulching and N levels did not affect the percentage dry matter in tubers but the application up to 80 kg N ha-1 under supplementary irrigation and mulch resulted in higher uptake of N by potato tubers in normal years, which showed a positive interaction of available soil moisture and nutrient uptake in potato. Straw mulching saved 25 kg N ha-1 in Japanese mint, 50 kg N ha-1 in fodder maize and sorghum respectively (Sandhu et al 1989). Studies on efficient use of urea through water management by Upadhayay et al (1994) reported that crop fertilized with increasing rate of N application (0-180 kg N ha-1) and frequency of irrigation (IW/PAN-E of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5) registered increase in tuber yield and yield was higher with pre-sowing irrigation. Sekhon et al (2008) observed the application of 45 kg N ha-1 along with rice straw mulch produced same chilli yield as recorded with 75 kg N ha-1 without mulch thus resulting in net saving of 30 kg N ha-1. Field experiments involving application of 2.5-5 t ha-1 straw mulch to organic seed potatoes (S. tuberosum L.) sown in loamy silt soils were conducted by Doring et al (2005) to determine the effects of straw mulch on soil nitrate dynamics. The results indicated that the undesirable post harvest N leaching 19

was significantly reduced due to the immobilization of nitrate-N after harvest at 6.8-7.0 kg N t-1 straw in two experiments (18-34 kg No3 N ha-1). Ruiz et al (1999) observed that use of white polythene and white-black plastic mulch promoted optimal root temperatures for plant growth (23-27oC), showed the highest efficiency of N utilization and the greatest yield of potato tubers (S. tuberosum var. Spunta). Gao et al (2009) conducted field experiment to evaluate the effects of mulching on residual nitrate and N uptake by wheat. The results showed that N uptake and N use efficiency were higher for plastic film mulch and combined mulching with plastic film and straw compared to no mulch. Under these treatments soil nitrate-N contents in the 0-200 cm soil profile were also higher compared to control. Khera et al (1976) studied the independent and combined effect of straw mulch, nitrogen and irrigation on forage corn (Zea maize) and reported that 50 and 100 kg N ha-1 with straw mulch @ 6 t ha-1 yielded as much as 100 kg and 150 kg N ha-1 without mulch, respectively thus indicating a saving of 50 kg N ha -1 with straw mulching. Rahman et al (2005) conducted a field experiment to evaluate optimum application N rate for no-till wheat in the presence of rice straw and observed higher N uptake and apparent nitrogen recovery of applied N fertilizer in mulch treatments. Application of 120 kg N ha-1 with straw mulch was found to be suitable for no till wheat and 160 kg N ha-1 for without mulch. Hundal et al (2000) studied the effect of a combination of three mulches (black, transparent polythene and rice straw) and two mulching techniques (full plot and half meter wide strip) were applied on tomato. Leaf N content, available soil N, NH4 and NO3-N status of the soil after the harvest of tomato crop increased significantly under mulched treatment. Wheat straw as mulch significantly affected the N concentration in maize shoots (Pervaiz et al 2009). 2.6 Effect of straw mulch on soil temperature, soil moisture, nitrogen and yield Nitrogen, irrigation and soil temperature regimes are major factors influencing crop growth. Khera et al (1976) studied the independent and combined effects of straw mulch, nitrogen rates and irrigation on forage corn grown on sandy loam soil which involves two rates of straw mulch i.e. 0 and 6 Mt ha-1, three rates of nitrogen i.e. 50, 100 and 150 kg N ha-1 and three levels of irrigation based on IW/PAN-E ratios of 0.6, 0.9 ad 1.2 and they found that green and dry forage yields and uptake of N significantly increased with mulching and with each successive increment of nitrogen. The green and dry forage yields and nutrient uptake increased significantly with increase in IW/PAN-E ratio from 0.6 to 0.9, but declined with further increase in irrigation. Mulching increased dry forage yield by 11.8 q ha-1 and showed a significant interaction with nitrogen rates viz. 50 and 100 kg N ha-1 with mulch yielded as much as 100 kg and 150 kg N ha-1 without mulch, respectively. Sandhu et al (1989) reported that straw mulching in summer crops reduced evaporative losses from soil, optimized soil temperature, improved crop yield and ensured 20

efficient utilization of the scarce and costly resources of water as well as fertilizer N. In another study, Kumar and Dey (2011) investigated the effect of mulch on root growth, nutrient uptake, water use efficiency and yield of strawberry cv. Chandlu under drip and surface irrigation system on loamy sand. They observed that black polythene mulch conserves 2.80-12.80 per cent more soil moisture. Hay mulch decreased maximum soil temperature (2.7-5.8oC) and increased minimum soil temperature (2.8-5.2oC). Both the mulching material was effective in enhancing root growth, water use efficiency, yield and nutrient uptake. Application of mulch enhanced the root growth (63%), nutrient uptake (179.2%), WUE (84.4%) and yield (343%) under drip irrigation. However, the respective increased under surface irrigation was 23.6, 83.8, 109.4 and 219 per cent. Tan et al (2009) conducted on-farm trial to evaluate the amount and frequency of irrigation as well as the effect of nitrogen fertilizer and straw mulch applications on the performance of bottle gourd and okra. They observed significant interactive effect of frequency and amount of irrigation on the number of nodes and a significant effect of mulching on the number of primary branches. Both number of nodes and primary branches contributed to higher production of bottle gourd. In Okra, low level of nitrogen application (30 kg N ha-1) with low but daily watering had significantly higher yield than higher level of nitrogen application (90 kg N ha-1). Zhang et al (2009) conducted a field experiment in a winter wheat system and observed that mulching decreased daily mean soil temperature at 10 cm depth in the warmer period by 0-4oC and increased in the colder period by 0-2oC when compared to non mulched soil and also conserved 28 and 20 mm more water, respectively in the upper 100 cm soil layer at the time of wheat sowing. Ossom et al (2003) studied the effects organic materials in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) and reported that grass mulch caused the lowest soil temperatures; coffee husk mulch resulted in the highest K, Mg, Fe, Mn, Cu and Zn concentrations in the tubers; sawdust mulch produced higher dry-matter yield of tubers whereas the grass mulch had the lowest drymatter yield. Kar and Kumar (2007) reported that application of mulch @ 6 t ha-1 helped to conserve more soil moisture and reduce soil temperature by 4-6oC. Higher leaf area index, water use efficiency and intercepted photo-synthetically active radiation were recorded in mulch plots. Gupta and Acharya (1993) studied the effect of mulching material on soil hydrothermal regime, root growth, water use efficiency and yield of strawberry and observed that mulch increased the minimum soil temperature at 5 cm depth, decreased the maximum soil temperature and helped in maintaining high soil moisture. However, total soil-water content up to 60 cm depth, nutrient uptake and WUE was higher with mulch than the unmulched control. Mulch increased strawberry yield by 56 per cent. Study by Sarkar et al (2007) with mulching in yellow sarson (Brassica napus L. var. glauca) reported that morning soil temperature at 0.0-0.2 m depth was 0.1-0.8oC higher under straw mulching and only 0.121

0.4oC at 14:00 hour. Highest (1212 kg ha-1) seed yield was obtained under straw mulching, which was 41 per cent higher when compared with no mulching and WUE was enhanced by 45 per cent. Study by Sarkar and Singh (2006) on a fine loamy soil with barley (Hordigum vulgare L.) observed that straw mulch conserved 19-21 mm of moisture in the 120 cm profile over the un-mulched condition. Both saw dust and rice straw mulching elevated soil thermal status at 07:00 as compared to un-mulched, but this trend was reversed at 14:00. Straw mulching significantly increased grain yield and water use efficiency over un-mulched. In another study Aulakh and Sur (1999) observed that mulch lowered soil temperature by 1.5oC, conserved soil moisture by 4.1 per cent and improved crop growth and yield of pomegranate.

22

CHAPTER III MATERIALS AND METHODS Present investigation was carried out at the research farm of the Department of Soil Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India, during Rabi 2009-10. The details of the materials used and the methods followed are given below: 3.1 Weather and climate Ludhiana is a central district of Punjab, situated at a latitude of 3056 N and longitude of 7552 E at a height of 247 meters above the mean sea level. It is characterized by hot and dry early summers which are followed by a hot and humid monsoon period and cold winters. Mean maximum and minimum temperatures show considerable fluctuations during summer and winter months. Maximum temperature of 45C is common during summer and freezing temperature of 1 to 2C accompanied by frosts is also quite common during December to February. The normal rainfall of the area is 500-750 mm that is mostly received during monsoon period (July to September). The meteorological data for the experimental season were obtained from meteorological observatory of the Punjab Agricultural University located at a distance of about 2 km from the experimental site. The meteorological data of the crop season is given in fig. 3.1a and 3.1b.

40 Maximum Minimum

Air temperature, oC

30

20

10

0 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5

Standard weeks

Fig. 3.1(a) Weekly maximum and minimum temperature during the crop growing season (October 2009 to February 2010)

23

30

Rainfall

PAN-E

RH

100

Rainfall/Evaporation, mm

70 20 40 10 10

0 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5

-20

Standard weeks
Fig. 3.1(b) Weekly total rainfall, pan evaporation and mean relative humidity during crop growing season (October 2009 to February2010) Mean air temperature ranged from 9.1 to 27.6 C during the cropping season (from 1st October 2009 to 4th February 2010). Weekly minimum temperature of 3.8 C was recorded in the last week of December and maximum temperature of 32.9 C was recorded in the first week of October. Total rainfall received during the cropping season was 49.7 mm with maximum rain of 26.2 mm was recorded in the 1st week of October. Highest evaporation was recorded in the 3rd week of October that is 24.3 mm. The relative humidity during cropping season ranged from 53 per cent in the last week of October to 90 per cent in the 2nd week of January. 3.2 Cropping history of the field Summer moong followed by maize was cultivated in the experimental field during the preceding year prior to the commencement of present studies. 3.3 Experimental details A field experiment was conducted on Loamy sand soil with a plot size of 16.56 square meters. The treatments were replicated thrice and laid out in split-split plot design with mulch in the main plots, irrigation in the sub plots and N levels in sub-sub plots. Layout plan of the field experiment is shown in figure 3.2.

24

Mean relative humidity, %

Non Experimental Area 1 N2 2 N0 3 N1 4 N3 5 N2 Water channel 9 N1 17 N3 10 N3 18 N1 11 N2 19 N0 12 Path N0 20 N2 13 N3 21 N0 Water channel 25 Water channel N2 33 N1 26 N3 34 N2 27 N0 35 N0 28 Path N1 36 N3 29 N3 37 N1 Water channel 41 N2 49 N3 42 N0 50 N0 43 N3 51 N2 44 Path N1 52 N1 45 N2 53 N1 Water channel 57 N0 65 N3 58 N2 66 N1 59 N1 67 N0 60 Path N3 68 N2 61 N2 69 N1 Water channel Main Water Channel Fig 3.2 Layout plan Mulch I1- IW/PAN-E =1.0 N0-Control No mulch I2- IW/PAN-E=1.5 N1-135 kg N ha-1 I3-IW/PAN-E=2.0 N2-180 kg N ha-1 N3-225 kg N ha-1 62 N1 70 N3 63 N3 71 N2 64 N0 72 N0 I2 R3 46 N0 54 N0 47 N1 55 N2 48 N3 56 N3 I3 30 N1 38 N2 31 N0 39 N3 32 N2 40 N0 Non Experimental Area I2 14 N0 22 N2 `15 N1 23 N3 16 N2 24 N1 I3 R1 6 N3 7 N0 8 N1 I2

I1

I1

R2

I1

I3

R1, R2 and R3- Replications

25

3.4 Treatments 3.4.1 Main plot treatments: Mulch levels (Two) No mulch and rice straw mulch @ 6 tones ha-1 Rice straw mulch was spread over the soil surface in selected plots after sowing of potato tuber. 3.4.2 Sub plot treatments: Irrigation levels (Three) Irrigation treatments imposed on the basis of IW/PAN E= 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 3.4.3 Sub- sub plot treatments: Fertilizer N levels (Four) 0, 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1 Well rotten farm yard manure (fresh weight basis) @ 50 tonnes per hectare was uniformly spread in the whole field and incorporated 15 days before sowing of the crop. The moisture content of FYM determined at the time of application was 60 per cent. Number of plots: 2 (Mulch rate) x 3 (Irrigation level) x 4 (Nitrogen level) x 3 (Replications) = 72 3.5 Characteristics of soil The composite soil samples were taken before the sowing of the crop from soil profile with a core sampler at the depths of 0-15, 15-30, 30-60, 60-90, 90-120, 120-150 cm from the field. The soil samples of respective depths were separately analyzed for soil mechanical analysis (Table 3.1), chemical properties (Table 3.2) and physical properties (Table 3.3). The mechanical analysis of the soil samples was done by International pipette method (Piper 1966). The soil of experimental site contained average of 81.8 per cent sand, 9.6 per cent silt and 8.3 per cent of clay. The textural class of the soil samples thus analyzed is loamy sand, as evident from the results presented in table 3.1. The summary of the results obtained from detailed chemical analysis is presented in table 3.2 and the results show that the soil was alkaline in reaction. The pH, EC and organic carbon values varied between 8.28 to 8.59, 0.12 to 0.26 dSm-1 and 0.01 to 0.25 per cent, respectively. Average over profile available N, P and K content in soil were 54.9, 17.4 and 129.8 kg ha-1, respectively. The bulk density of the soil was measured from the soil profile at the depths of 0-15, 15-30, 30-60, 60-90, 90-120, 120150 cm on undisturbed soil by core sample method (Bodman 1942) and maximum water holding capacity of all profile was determined by Keens box method given by Richards (1954) which is presented in table 3.3.

26

Table 3.1 Depth wise mechanical analysis of soil

Depth, cm 0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90 90-120 120-150

Sand 79.5 80.0 82.2 83.5 84.5 81.4

% Silt 11.3 12.6 9.5 8.0 7.5 9.1

Clay 9.2 7.4 8.3 8.5 8.0 8.7

Textural class Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Loamy Sand Loamy Sand

Table 3.2 Chemical characteristics of soil

Soil Depth, cm Characteristic 0-15 pH (1:2 soil: water suspension) EC dSm-1 (1:2 soil: water suspension) 15-30 30-60 60-90 90-120 120-150 Beckmans glass electrode pH meter (Jackson 1973) Method employed

8.28

8.45

8.48

8.46

8.56

8.59

0.26

0.23

0.19

0.16

0.17

0.12

Solu bridge (Jackson 1967) Walkley and Black rapid titration method (Walkley and Black 1934) Alkaline permanganate method

Organic carbon (%)

0.25

0.12

0.04

0.03

0.01

0.01

Available N (kg ha-1)

75.2

60.2

56.4

47.6

50.1

40.1 (Subbiah and Asija 1956)

Available P (kg ha-1)

32.9

23.9

18.1

11.1

13.0

5.6

0.5 N NaHCO3 extractable P method (pH: 8.5) (Olsen et al 1954) Ammonium acetate extractable K using Flame Photometer (Helmke and Sparks 1996)

Available K (kg ha-1)

162.4

146.4

117.6

112.0

117.4

123.2

27

Table 3.3 Physical properties of soil Depth, cm 0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90 90-120 120-150 Bulk density (Mg m-3) 1.39 1.43 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.57 Water holding capacity (%, v/v) 42.4 43.2 40.1 41.9 41.2 41.4

3.6 Cultural operations 3.6.1 Preparatory tillage A primary tillage operation was done with a tractor drawn disc harrow. A fine seedbed was prepared by two cultivations with a tractor drawn cultivator each followed by planking. Pre-sowing irrigation was applied before bed preparation. Raised seed beds (55 cm wide) alternating with furrows (30 cm wide) were prepared with the help of tractor drawn bed maker. 3.6.2 Variety, seed size, seed treatment and method of sowing Potato variety Kufri chandramukhi was planted on 7th October, 2009 on 55 cm wide beds. Potato tubers weighing 40-50 g each were selected for sowing. Seeds tubers were allowed to sprout for 8-10 days after taking out of cold storage. Seed rate was about 40 q ha-1. To control black scurf, charcoal rot and common scab, tubers were treated with Emisan @ 2.5 g per liter of water for ten minutes. Seed tubers were planted at 5 cm depth in two rows on both sides of bed with 30 cm spacing between tubers. 3.6.3 Irrigation Irrigations were applied according to the following schedule IW/PAN-E ratio 1.0 1.5 2.0 Common irrigation 25/11/09 17/11/09, 1/12/09 12/11/09, 25/11/09, 9/12/09, 2/1/10 31/10/09, 19/12/09 Irrigation dates

28

First common irrigation was applied at 25 days after planting to facilitate germination. Thereafter, the differential irrigation was started as per treatments based on IW/PAN-E ratio. Measured amount of 4.0 cm irrigation water (IW) was applied through Parshall Flume (Parshall 1950). A second common irrigation was applied on 19th December, 2009 for protecting the crop from frost and low temperature. Different soil moisture regimes were created in the soil profile during crop growing season by applying the irrigation on the basis of IW/PAN-E=1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ratios. These irrigation schedules were maintained in the soil profile during the crop growth period of potato. The treatment on the basis of IW/PANE=2.0 received highest amount of irrigation water 24 cm followed by 16 cm in 1.5 and least amount of water 12 cm in 1.0 ratio besides rainfall. 3.6.4 Fertilizer application The recommended dose of phosphorus (62.5 kg P2O5 ha-1 as single super phosphate), potash (62.5 kg k2O ha-1 as murate of potash) and half dose of nitrogen as per treatment were applied just before the preparation of beds. The remaining half of nitrogen was side dressed as urea before first common irrigation. 3.6.5 Weeding Weeding was done manually on 3rd December and fresh weight of weeds in each plot was recorded. 3.6.6 Plant protection measures. The crop was sprayed thrice at 7 days interval (7/12/09, 15/12/09 and 23/12/09) with a fungicide Indofil M-45 @ 1250 g ha-1 to protect the plant from late blight of potato. 3.6.7 Harvesting The crop was harvested in the third week of January to record fresh weight of both tubers and haulms. Harvesting of tubers was done manually. 3.7 Observations recorded 3.7.1 Soil Temperature Soil temperature was measured with the help of mercury in glass thermometer (soil thermometer) placed at 5 cm depth in mulched and irrigation treatments in triplicate daily at 0730 and 1430 hours. 3.7.2 Soil moisture Moisture content of 0-15, 15-30, 30-60, 60-90, 90-120 cm profile layers was determined at different stages of crop growth by thermo-gravimetric method. Moisture storage in different soil layers was computed as follows: (Mfi Dfi Di) Mi = ---------------------100

29

Where, M = Amount of moisture in the ith layer (cm) Mf = Moisture percentage of the ith layer on dry weight basis Df = Bulk density of the ith layer (Mg m-3) D = Depth of ith layer (cm) The amount of moisture in 0-120 cm soil profile was computed by adding the quantity of moisture in each layer. 3.7.3 Profile water use To estimate the profile water used by the crop, soil water content was measured at the time of sowing and at harvest in 0-120 cm soil profile. The profile water used was calculated by the difference in soil moisture storage at sowing and harvest. Total water use was worked by the sum of the irrigation water applied, profile water used by the crop and rainfall received during the crop growing period. 3.7.4 Water use efficiency (WUE) Water use efficiency of potato crop under different treatments was calculated by the following relationship Potato tuber yield (kg ha-1) WUE (kg ha mm ) = ------------------------------------Water use (mm)
-1 -1

3.7.5 Canopy temperature Canopy temperature (Tc) measurements were made using a non-contact infra-red thermometer (AG-42). The instrument was positioned 50 cm above the crop canopy and observations recorded at different dates from 5 randomly selected sites in a plot were averaged to obtain a mean value of Tc. The measurements of canopy temperature were generally made around 1400 hours on relatively clear days. 3.7.6 Chlorophyll content Chlorophyll content of topmost fully expanded leaves was recorded at 87, 92 and 98 days after seeding using a chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502, MINOLTA CAMERA CO-JAPAN) for recording the SPAD (Soil Plant Analysis development) values.. 3.7.7 Yield and yield attributing parameters 3.7.7.1 Tuber and haulm yield of potato Before digging the tubers, above ground plant parts were harvested and weighed to record fresh weight for each plot. A sub sample from each plot was oven-dried to work out the dry weight of haulm in quintal per hectare. Potato tuber weight was recorded from each plot and expressed as quintals per hectare.

30

3.7.7.2 Grading of potato tubers Tubers from each plot were graded by passing through five different sizes of sieves i.e >50, 45-50, 35-45, 25-35, < 25 mm. Weight as well as number of different grades of potato tubers was recorded from each plot. 3.7.8 Plant analysis The tuber and haulm samples were collected from each plot at maturity and dried in hot air oven at 65C. Dried samples were digested with concentrated H2SO4 in the presence of catalyst mixture containing CuSO 4, K2SO4, Se and Hgo. The plant material is oxidized by the H 2SO4 and N is converted to ammonium sulphate. N is determined by distilling the ammonia with 45 per cent Sodium hydroxide solution in the presence of few pieces of granulated zinc which helps in smooth boiling. The ammonia evolved is absorbed in a known excess volume of a standard acid (0.02N H 2SO4), the excess of which is determined by titrating with a standard alkali (0.02N NaOH) using methyl red as indicator. . 3.7.9 Available soil nitrogen Available soil nitrogen was determined by the method described by Subbiah and Asija (1956). Five gram soil was taken in a Kjeldahal distillation flask and moistened with 20 ml of distilled water. After adding 25 ml of 0.32 per cent KMnO4 and 25 ml of 2.5 per cent NaOH solution. The flask was fitted to Kjeldahal assembly. The NH 3 evolved was absorbed in 10 ml of 0.02 N H2SO4 taken in a conical flask. About 30 ml distillate was collected. Three drops of methyl red indicator were added to conical flask. The excess of H2SO4 in the conical flask was titrated against 0.02 N NaOH with change in colour from pink to yellow. 3.7.10 Total N uptake by the plant Total N uptake by the plant is the sum of tuber and haulm N uptake that were calculated as Tuber N uptake, kg ha -1 = Tuber yield kg ha -1 x tuber N content (%) Haulm N uptake, kg ha -1 = Haulm yield kg ha -1 x haulm N content (%)

3.7.11 N use efficiency The fertilizer N use efficiency was calculated for potato crop as under Yield of N treated plot-Yield of controlled plot N use efficiency (kg of tuber kg-1of N applied) = -----------------------------------------------------Applied N

31

3.7.12 Apparent N recovery efficiency The Apparent N recovery efficiency was calculated for potato tuber yield as under and expressed in per cent.

`Apparent N recovery efficiency (kg of tuber kg-1of N applied)

Total N uptake of N treated plot- Total N uptake of controlled plot = Applied N

3.7.13 Statistical Analysis The experimental data was analyzed using analysis of variance technique. The significance of treatment effects was judged with the help of F test (Variance ratio). The critical difference (CD) was used to compare the treatments effects at P <0.05.

32

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The present study was carried out to observe the effect of mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels on the autumn potato during the Rabi 2009 -10. The experimental results as per different objectives of the study have been reported and discussed under the following heads. 4.1 Soil temperature 4.2 Soil moisture profile 4.3 Weed biomass 4.4 Canopy temperature 4.5 Leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD) 4.6 Water Use 4.6.1 Profile Water Use 4.6.2 Total water use 4.7 N content 4.8 Yield and yield attributes 4.8.1 Potato tuber yield 4.8.2 Haulm yield 4.9 Water use efficiency 4.10 N uptake 4.11 Fertilizer-N use efficiency 4.12 Apparent nitrogen-recovery efficiency 4.13 Residual soil nitrogen 4.14 Per cent contribution of tuber sizes towards yield of potato 4.14.1 Weight basis 4.14.2 Number basis 4.15 Canopy temperature, tuber and haulm relationship 4.16 Chlorophyll, tuber and haulm relationship

33

4.1 Soil temperature Surface straw mulching favorably modified the soil temperature at 5 cm depth throughout the growing season. The soil temperature recorded at 0730 (Minimum) and 1400 hours (Maximum) under different mulch and irrigation treatments during crop growing season of potato is given in figure 4.1. Application of rice straw mulch @ 6 t ha-1 influenced both the mean daily minimum and maximum soil temperature during growing season. Data revealed that the use of the rice straw as surface mulch lowered the maximum and raised the minimum soil temperature at seeding depth. Mulching mean maximum soil temperature during growing season was 0.4 to 7.3oC lower compared to no mulch plots. Maximum soil temperature ranged from 11.1 to 32.3oC in mulched plots and 11.9 to 37.8oC in no mulch plots. On the other hand mulch application increased mean minimum soil temperature by 0.4 to 2.9oC over the no mulch plot during the growing season. Minimum soil temperature recorded ranged from 8.4 to 25.4oC in mulched plots and 5.7 to 22.9oC in no mulch plots (Figure 4.1). The daily soil temperature amplitude at 5 cm depth was narrowed down by 1.5 to 9.8oC. The optimum soil temperature for growth and tuberization of potato is 15-20oC (Borah and Milthorpe 1963 and Synder and Ewing 1989). Compared to the mulched plots, the maximum soil temperature observed in no mulch plots was much higher than the optimum observed by the previous workers and thus, detrimental for germination and emergence of seedling as well as roots and shoot growth of crop. Average of maximum and minimum daily soil temperature during growing season varied from 10.3 to 28.9oC in mulched plots and corresponding value for no mulch was 9.4 to 30.2oC, respectively. This shows that seasonal fluctuation of soil temperature was 20.8 oC in no mulch plot against the 18.6oC under mulched plot. The variation in maximum and minimum soil temperature was higher during early part of growing season and later on variation diminished due to canopy cover. The favorable modification in soil temperature under mulched plot is likely to improve the crop growth and yield of autumn potato. Singh et al (1988) observed that rice straw mulching @ 6 t ha-1 reduced the maximum soil temperature at 10 cm depth by 1-6oC, increased the minimum soil temperature by 0.5 to 2oC in autumn potato. Similar observations were also recorded by Singh et al (2010) for potato crop grown on sandy loam soils. Organic mulches cover intercept solar radiations, partly reflect back the solar radiations and provide a continuous shed to the soil. During night these covers acts as a barrier to the release of soil heat, there by maintaining soil at a high temperature. Lowering of maximum soil temperature in autumn potato due to mulching was also observed by Grewal and Singh (1974). Sekhon et al (2005) also observed that mulching substantially reduced the soil temperature by 1.4 to 12.7oC in chilli crop during Kharif season.

34

40

Minimum temp-Mulch Maximum temp-Mulch

Minimum temp- No mulch Maximum temp-No mulch

Soil temperature, oC

30

20

10

0 DAS 3 5 7 9 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 30 32 34 36 38 40 43 48 53 58 62 67 72 80 84 92 98 Days after sowing

Fig 4.1 Soil temperature as affected by mulch application during growing season

24.0

Minimum temp-IW/PAN-E=1.0 Minimum temp-IW/PAN-E=1.5 Minimum temp-IW/PAN-E=2.0

Maximum temp-IW/PAN-E=1.0 Maximum temp-IW/PAN-E=1.5 Maximum temp-IW/PAN-E=2.0

Soil Temperature, oC

16.0

8.0 48 50 67 70 72 92 95 98

Days after sowing

Fig 4.2 Soil temperature as affected by irrigation levels during growing season

35

Soil temperature was recorded at different days after seeding in various irrigation treatments after imposing the differential irrigation (Figure 4.2). Maximum soil temperature at 5 cm depth in the crop irrigated on the basis of IW/PAN-E ratio of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 ranged from 11 to 22.9, 11.2 to 20.0 and 10.8 to 20.1oC, respectively and corresponding values for minimum temperature ranged from 9.8 to 12.9, 10.1 to 12.5 and 9.9 to 13.0oC, respectively. In the plots irrigated on the basis of IW/PAN-E=1.0, diurnal variation in soil temperature during the early growing period ranged from 6.1 to 12.7oC while in frequently irrigated plots based on 1.5 and 2.0 ratio, this variation was 4.8 to 9.8oC. As the plant canopy enlarged, more soil surface was covered and the soil temperature differences between the irrigation treatments narrowed. Thus, irrigation mainly affected the maximum soil temperature during the early growing period. The moderation effect of irrigation on soil temperature lasted for two to six days only (Sandhu et al 1992). 4.2 Soil moisture profile Figure 4.3(a and b) and 4.4 (a and b) shows volumetric soil moisture profile at time of sowing, harvest and in between under different irrigation and mulch treatments averaged across fertilizer treatment. Generally profile moisture increases with increase in soil depth. At time of sowing moisture content at various depths varied from 15.6 to 18.1 per cent. The moisture was nearly uniform in different treatments at time of seeding. At harvesting, mulched plots possesed higher soil moisture content in the profile (0-120 cm) ranging from 0.7 to 1.3 per cent over the 7.4 to 16.9 per cent in the no mulch plots. This shows that mulching plot had 1.3 cm more residual soil moisture storage in the profile compared to the no mulch plots (Figure 4.3 a). Singh et al (2010) reported better soil moisture under mulched potato grown on sandy loam soil. Dahiya et al (2007) observed that mulching decreased soil water loss on an average by 0.39 mm d -1. Similar results of higher soil moisture content at various growth stages of pigeon pea were found under wheat straw mulch @ 5 t ha-1 in clay soil (Vadi et al 2005). As expected moisture content at the time of harvest under different irrigation treatments (Figure 4.3 b) revealed that highest moisture content was recorded in frequently irrigated plot (9.6 to 17.8%) on the basis of IW/PAN-E=2.0 followed by 1.5 (7.4 to 16.8%) and lowest in 1.0 ratio (7.1 to 16.2%). Figure 4.3 (b) also shows that soil moisture depletion was observed in 0-120 cm profile in the treatment of 1.0 and 1.5 ratios, while in case of 2.0 ratio it was depleted from 0-70 cm only as compared to soil moisture at the time of sowing.

36

Soil moisture (%, v/v)

5.0 0 10.0 15.0 20.0

30

Soil depth, cm

60

90

At sowing Mulch No Mulch

120

(a)

Soil moisture(%, v/v) 5.0 0 10.0 15.0 20.0

30 Soil depth, cm

60

90

At sowing IW/PAN-E=2.0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 IW/PAN-E=1.0

120

(b)

Fig 4.3 Soil moisture distribution at sowing and at harvesting as affected by mulch and irrigation

37

Soil moisture (%, v/v)

0.0 0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

30 Soil depth, cm

30

60

60

90

Mulch No mulch

90

Mulch No Mulch

120

120

(a)

0.0 0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

0.0 0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

30 Soil depth, cm

30

60

60

90

90 IW/PAN-E=1.0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 IW/PAN-E=2.0

IW/PAN-E=1.0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 IW/PAN-E=2.0

120

120

50 Days after sowing (b)

56 Days after sowing

Fig 4.4 Soil moisture distribution as affected by mulch and irrigation treatment

38

Figure 4.4 (a) and (b) shows the soil moisture profile distribution at 50 and 56 days growth stages of potato under mulch and irrigation treatments. Data revealed that soil moisture status in the whole profile was higher in the mulched crop. The soil moisture storage in the mulched plot at 50 and 56 days after sowing (DAS) was higher by 1.2 and 1.4 cm, respectively over no mulch plot (Figure 4.4 a). Benefits of straw mulching reported that the this practice saved 7 to 40 cm of irrigation water in maize, sorghum, menthe, sugarcane, potato, moong and winter maize (Jalota et al 2001). Rice straw mulching @ 6 t ha-1 maintained 12 mm higher profile moisture and saved 12 cm irrigation water (Sekhon et al 2008). At 50 DAS soil profile moisture was higher (10.5 to 17.8%) due to application of irrigation water in the treatment receiving irrigation on the basis of 1.5 IW/PAN-E ratio. Lowest amount of soil moisture was recorded in plot which is less frequently irrigated on the basis of 1.0 ratio (Figure 4.4 b). The treatment receiving irrigation on the basis of 2.0 ratio, soil moisture content was remains in between these two. At 56 days after seeding the soil profile moisture was similar in the treatment 1.0 and 2.0 ratio because of irrigation water input in both whereas, in 1.5 ratio it was lowest. The profile moisture storage in 120 cm profile at 50 days after seeding was 14.8, 16.6 and 17.8 cm in the treatment receiving irrigation on basis of 1.0, 2.0 and 1.5 ratios, respectively. Corresponding value of water storage at 56 days after seeding was 17.7, 18.3 and 15.3 cm, respectively. Soil moisture sampling was done at various growth stages under different irrigation regimes. In frequently irrigated, it was observed that application of mulch possessed higher soil moisture status throughout the profile than no mulch plots. The observation on 37, 50, 64 and 97 DAS represents the moisture profile before irrigation and moisture content varied from 8.4 to 18.6 per cent in mulch plots as compared to 6.5 to 17.6 per cent under no mulch plots. The observation on 44, 56, 70 and 88 DAS shows the soil moisture distribution after irrigation which ranged from 11.4 to 18.6 per cent and 10.5 to 18.4 per cent in mulch and no mulch plots, respectively. It is evident from the data in figure 4.5 (a) that soil moisture profile was 1.0 to 1.9 and 0.2 to 10.4 per cent higher in mulch plots before and after irrigation, respectively. It is clear from the table 4.1 that mulch recorded 12 to 16 mm and 5 to 14 mm more soil water storage in 2.0 ratio before and after irrigation, respectively. Similarly the treatment receiving irrigation water on basis of IW/PAN-E=1.5 also possessed higher soil moisture 1.1 to 1.4 per cent before irrigation (40 and 56 DAS) and 0.4 to 1.3 per cent after irrigation (50 and 63 DAS) in mulch plot over no mulch plot. It is obvious from the figure 4.5 (b) that rice straw mulch possesses 10 to 22 mm more soil water storage before irrigation and 8 to 9 mm after irrigation (Table 4.1). A similar result of higher soil moisture in the profile was observed under mulched treatments in restricted irrigation on the

39

basis of 1.0 ratio (Figure 4.5 c). Under this treatment mulched plot had 6 and 12 mm more (Table 4.1) soil moisture storage after and before irrigation, respectively. Table 4.1 Effect of mulch on soil moisture storage at various growth stages Profile moisture storage, cm IW/PAN-E= Irrigations Before irrigation Mulch 1.0 Ist Ist 1.5 IInd Ist IInd 2.0 IIIrd IVth 17.2 17.9 15.8 16.7 18.1 19.3 17.6 18.4 16.4 16.1 17.0 14.2 14.7 15.4 18.4 18.7 18.6 17.5 17.3 17.3 16.4 15.1 No mulch 15.2 14.1 After irrigation Mulch 18.1 18.1 No mulch 17.5 17.3

40

Soil moisture (%, v/v)

5.0 0 9.0 13.0 17.0 21.0 0 5.0 9.0 13.0 17.0 21.0

Soil depth, cm

30 60 90 120 Mulch No mulch

Before irrigation 37 DAS

30 60 90 120 mulch No mulch

After irrigation 44 DAS

5.0 0 Soil depth, cm 30 60 90 120

9.0

13.0

17.0

21.0 0

5.0

9.0

13.0

17.0

21.0

Before irrigation 50 DAS

30 60

After irrigation 56 DAS

Mulch No mulch

90 120

Mulch No mulch

5.0 0 Soil depth, cm 30 60 90 120

9.0

13.0

17.0

21.0

5.0 0 30 60

9.0

13.0

17.0

21.0

Before irrigation 64 DAS

After irrigation 70 DAS

Mulch No mulch

90 120

Mulch No Mulch

5.0 0 Soil depth, cm 30 60 90 120

9.0

13.0

17.0

21.0 0

5.0

9.0

13.0

17.0

21.0

Before irrigation 88DAS

30 60

After irrigation 97DAS

Mulch NO mulch

90 120

Mulch No Mulch

Fig 4.5 (a) Effect of mulch on soil moisture distribution before and after irrigation based on IW/PAN-E=2.0

41

Soil moisture (%, v/v)

0.0 0 30 60 Mulch 90 120 No mulch 90 120 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Soil depth, cm

Before irrigation 40 DAS

30 60 Mulch No Mulch

After irrigation 50 DAS

0.0 0 30 60 90 120

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0 0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Soil depth, cm

Before irrigation 56 DAS

30 60

After irrigation 63 DAS

Mulch No Mulch

Mulch No Mulch

90 120

Fig 4.5 (b) Effect of mulch on soil moisture distribution before and after irrigation based on IW/PAN-E=1.5

0.0 0 30 Soil depth, cm 60

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0 0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

Before irrigation 50 DAS

30

After irrigation 56 DAS

60 90 120 Mulch No Mulch 90 Mulch No Mulch

120

Fig 4.5 (c) Effect of mulch on soil moisture distribution before and after irrigation based on IW/PAN-E=1.0

42

14 Soil moisture(%, v/v) 12 10 8 6 4 37 44 50

No mulch

Mulch

56 Days after sowing

64

70

88

97

Fig. 4.5 (d) Effect of mulch on soil moisture distribution in top 15 cm soil profile ( indicates days of irrigation) during cropping season Straw mulching had favorable effect on soil moisture conservation. The larger difference in soil moisture content was observed in top 15 cm soil. Therefore, straw-mulched top 15 cm soil under IW/PAN-E=2.0 ratio is given in figure 4.5 (d) for the growing season. Similar trend was also observed for other two irrigation treatments. The moisture content in mulched plot was higher by 0.9 to 2.4 per cent over no mulch plots. Such beneficial effects of straw mulching and irrigation were also evident in the deeper layer up to 120 cm profile as shown by soil water profile at harvest (Figure 4.3 b). Singh et al (1988) observed that the top 15 cm soil contain more water (0.5 to 2.5% by weight basis) in the mulched crop. 4.3 Weed biomass Visual observations reveald that where rice straw mulch was applied as surface mulch in autumn potato weed infestation was negligible. Therefore weed biomass recorded from no mulch plots under various irrigation and N levels are given in figure 4.6 and appendix V. The data revealed that various levels of N significantly influenced the weed biomass observed at 58 DAS. Each successive increase in the N rate progressively decreased the weed biomass. Weed biomass was 4.21, 3.33, 2.76 and 2.29 q ha-1 with 0, 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha -1, respectively. However, weed biomass could not reach at level of significance due to irrigation treatments. Barker and Bhowmik (2001) and Hundal et al (2002) also reported the control of weed growth by crop residue mulches in tomato. Similarly Daisley et al (1988) and Ossom et al (2001) also observed significant differences in weed control between mulched and un-mulched plots of eggplant, cowpea and sweet potato.

43

5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 135 Nitrogen level 180 225

Fig. 4.6 Weed biomass as influenced by various N rates

Table 4.2 (a) Canopy temperature as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels at 60 DAS Canopy temperature, oC Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean 24.5 23.2 21.4 20.1 22.3 20.5 19.9 19.1 18.8 19.6 23.1 21.6 20.7 19.4 21.2 21.0 Mulch 23.5 22.6 21.0 19.8 21.7 20.0 19.3 18.9 18.4 19.2 22.1 20.6 20.7 19.0 20.6 20.5 Mean 24 22.9 21.2 19.9 22.0 20.2 19.6 19.0 18.6 19.4 22.6 21.1 20.7 19.2 20.9

Weed biomass, q ha-1

44

Table 4.2 (b) Canopy temperature as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels at 85 DAS Treatment N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean Canopy temperature, oC No mulch 25.2 24.6 23.1 22.9 23.9 24.8 23.8 22.9 22.3 23.5 23.1 22.7 22.0 21.4 22.3 23.2 Mulch 24.0 24.1 23.0 22.7 23.4 24.5 22.8 22.7 22.1 23.0 21.9 22.0 21.7 21.1 21.7 22.7 Mean 24.6 24.4 23.0 22.8 23.7 24.6 23.3 22.8 22.2 23.2 22.5 22.3 21.8 21.2 22.0

4.4 Canopy temperature Canopy temperature (Tc) recorded at 60 and 85 DAS under various mulch, irrigation and N levels are pressented in table 4.2 (a and b). Data revealed that rice straw mulched crop recorded 0.5oC lower temperature over no mulch crop. Irrigation schedule also influenced the Tc recorded on two stages. At 60 days stage, Tc was highest in the restricted irrigation IW/PAN-E=1.0 (22oC) followed by frequent irrigation 2.0 ratio (20.9oC) and lowest under 1.5 ratio (19.4oC). At 85 DAS, Tc increased with decreasing irrigation frequency. It was also observed that Tc was 1.2 and 1.7oC higher with 1.5 and 1.0 irrigation ratio, respectively over frequently irrigated plot (22oC). Canopy temperature decreased with increase in N level at both stages. Higher levels of fertilizer N inputs are known to improve plant growth and leaf area expansion (Maheswari et al 2008). Thus resulting in higher transpiration rate that may be responsible for lower canopy temperature. Canopy temperature of potato crop recorded at 60 DAS was 22.3, 21.2, 20.3 and 19.2oC with application of 0, 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1, respectively. The corresponding values for 85 DAS was 23.9, 23.3, 22.5 and 20oC. Chandra et al (2002) reported lowered Tc in mulch treated plots during early phase of the crop growth and

45

also observed that irrigation levels greatly influenced the Tc. The lower Tc in irrigation treatment may be credited to better soil moisture, where crop transpired freely. Similarly Yuan et al (2003) also reported that potato receiving more irrigation water had significantly lower Tc. 4.5 Leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD value) Time course in chlorophyll content (SPAD) value of the top most fully expanded potato leaves at different levels of mulch, irrigation and N is given in table 4.3 (a, b and c) and figure 4.7. On an average SPAD value with mulch was significantly higher than that without mulch and the difference between these two treatments was 1.16, 1.32 and 1.98 at 87, 92 and 98 DAS, respectively (Figure 4.7 a). Increase in SPAD value was recorded with the increase in irrigation water input. Highest SPAD value was observed in plots irrigated with IW/PAN-E=2.0 followed by 1.5 and 1.0 at all stages (Figure 4.7 b). The increase in SPAD value with 2.0 ratio was 4.05, 5.22 and 4.98 at 87, 92 and 98 DAS, respectively over restricted irrigation of 1.0 ratio. The corresponding increase with 1.5 ratio was 1.6, 2.52 and 2.18, respectively. The SPAD value increased with each increment of nitrogen rate at all stages. The application of 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1 in potato improved the SPAD values by 16.3, 27.6 and 34.1 per cent at 87 DAS, 23.0, 33.9 and 47.2 per cent at 92 DAS and 25.4, 31.0 and 41.4 per cent at 98 DAS, respectively over their respective control value of 27.5, 25.6 and 25 per cent (Figure 4.7 c). Nitrogen is a component of chlorophyll molecule and its improved availability in the rhizosphere increases N uptake that increase chlorophyll synthesis which is evident from increase in chlorophyll content with N application rate, mulching and irrigation frequency. Mulching as well as frequent irrigation improves soil moisture content that is a vehicle for uptake of nitrogen. Thus, improved N uptake with mulch and irrigation increases N uptake leading to higher chlorophyll synthesis. Interaction between various factors was also found to be significant. SPAD values decreased with plant age i.e highest at 87 DAS and lowest at 98 DAS. Mulched crop recorded higher SPAD reading than no mulch. However, effect of irrigation levels on SPAD values was in the order of 1.0 < 1.5 < 2.0 ratio, irrespective of mulching (Figure 4.8 a). Nitrogen application along with mulching recorded higher SPAD value (Figure 4.8 b). Average of three stages shows that with each increment of N and irrigation there was increase in SPAD value (Figure 4.8 c). The functional relationship between leaf chlorophyll content and N content was linearly. Kulsum et al (2007) studied a positive linear functional relationship between leaf chlorophyll and leaf N content with different N levels. Our finding is consistent with the finding of Mitra et al (1988) and Maiti and Das (2006). Similarly Janos (2010) found a closer relationship between fertilization and SPAD values in irrigated plots and concluded that due to fertilization the average of SPAD values in the irrigated plots was greater than in the non-irrigated plots. Maheswari et al (2008) reported that irrigation treatments did not affect the chlorophyll content. However, N levels increase the chlorophyll content. 46

Table 4.3 (a) Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N application on SPAD values at 87 DAS Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) 26.33 29.23 31.80 34.23 30.40 26.86 30.40 34.53 36.10 31.97 28.13 33.50 36.90 39.56 34.52 32.20 Chlorophyll content Mulch 26.65 30.50 33.90 34.95 31.55 27.95 32.10 35.30 37.13 33.12 29.00 35.30 38.40 39.20 35.48 33.36 Mean 26.49 29.87 32.85 34.59 30.95 27.41 31.25 34.92 36.62 32.55 28.57 34.90 37.65 39.38 35.00

M= 0.31, I=0.22, N=O.79, M x I=NS, M x N=NS, I x N=NS and M x I x N=NS

47

Table 4.3 (b) Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N application on SPAD values at 92 DAS Chlorophyll content Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) 23.13 28.83 31.13 33.50 29.15 24.70 30.16 33.70 37.66 31.56 26.90 33.40 36.16 40.13 34.15 31.61 Mulch 23.23 29.86 32.46 35.26 30.20 28.23 32.33 34.16 37.00 32.93 29.00 34.60 38.03 40.96 35.65 32.93 Mean 23.18 29.35 31.80 34.38 29.68 26.47 31.25 33.93 37.33 32.2 27.95 34.00 37.10 40.55 34.90

M= 0.99, I=0.41, N=O.46, M x I=NS, M x N=NS, I x N=0.80 and M x I x N=1.13

48

40.0 Mulch 35.0 SPAD No mulch

30.0

25.0

20.0 85 90 95 100

(a)
40.0 I1 35.0 SPAD I2 I3

30.0

25.0

20.0 85 90 95 100

(b)

40.0 35.0 SPAD 30.0 25.0 20.0 85

N0

N135

N180

N225

90 Days after sowing

95

100

(c) Fig 4.7 Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N application on SPAD values at different DAS 49

M0 40.0 30.0 SPAD 20.0 10.0 0.0 1.0

M6

1.5 IW/PAN-E Ratio

2.0

(a)

N0 40.0 30.0 SPAD 20.0 10.0 0.0 No mulch

N135

N180

N225

Mulch

(b)

N0 40.0 30.0 SPAD 20.0 10.0 0.0 1.0

N135

N180

N225

1.5 IW/PAN-E Ratio

2.0

(c) Fig.4.8 Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N application on average SPAD values

50

Table 4.3 (c) Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N application on SPAD values at 98 DAS Chlorophyll content Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) 22.53 29.56 29.63 31.83 28.39 24.56 30.66 31.00 34.46 30.17 25.36 33.80 33.86 35.76 32.20 30.25 Mulch 23.01 30.06 31.10 33.06 29.31 25.20 31.86 34.66 35.86 31.90 29.66 33.26 37.36 41.56 35.46 32.23 Mean 22.77 29.81 30.37 32.45 28.85 24.88 31.26 32.83 35.16 31.03 27.51 33.53 35.61 38.66 33.83

M= 0.90, I=0.48, N=O.35, M x I=0.68, M x N=.49, I x N=0.60 and M x I x N=0.86

4.6 Water Use 4.6.1 Profile Water Use Profile water use (PWU) in various treatments was estimated by the difference of soil moisture storage at sowing and harvesting given in table 4.4. The data revealed that in case of mulched plots the PWU was 1.4 cm lower as compared to no mulched plots, consequently more residual profile water is left in mulched crop. Averaged across the nitrogen level, irrigation water depletion showed that the mulched plots depleted less water by 0.73, 1.7 and 1.43 cm over the no mulch plots with irrigation treatments based on IW/PAN-E=2.0,1.5 and 1.0 ratio, respectively. But in case of irrigation treatments the PWU was lowest where irrigation water application was maximum and highest under less frequently irrigated plots. The profile water depletion under 1.5 and 1.0 ratio was more by 1.97 and 2.15 cm over 51

frequently irrigated plots based on IW/PAN-E=2.0 (2.33 cm) as shown in table 4.4. Sandhu et al (1992) also observed PWU, in general, inversely related to the irrigation water applied. The profile water depletion was also influenced by various levels of nitrogen. The average values showed that as the level of nitrogen increased from 0 to 225 kg ha-1, there was an increase in PWU from 3.4 to 4.0 cm with increasing nitrogen level. Table 4.4 Profile water use as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels during cropping season Profile water use, cm Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean 4.87 4.97 5.37 5.57 5.20 4.87 4.97 5.27 5.47 5.15 2.47 2.57 2.77 2.97 2.70 4.4 Mulch 3.37 3.77 3.87 4.07 3.77 3.07 3.27 3.57 3.87 3.45 1.77 1.97 1.97 2.17 1.97 3.0 Mean 4.12 4.37 4.62 4.82 4.48 3.97 4.12 4.42 4.67 4.30 2.12 2.27 2.37 2.57 2.33

4.6.2 Total water use Total water use (TWU) was estimated by adding the irrigation water input, rainfall and PWU under various mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels and the data are given in table 4.5. The trend in TWU was reversed as obtained in case of PWU among various treatments. As expected the TWU was highest in IW/PAN-E=2.0 followed by 1.5 and lowest value was recorded with 1.0 ratio. The treatments irrigated on the basis of 2.0 and 1.5 ratio consumed 50 and 19.4 per cent more irrigation water over the treatment receiving irrigation on the basis of 1.0 ratio. The variation in TWU was due to variation in irrigation water input and in order of 52

2.0 >1.5 >1.0 ratio. Data in table 4.5 showed slightly lower under mulched plots TWU while with nitrogen level, TWU increased marginally. The water use increased with the increase in number of irrigations and in case of mulch, water use was lower as compared with no mulch (Chandra et al 2002). Sandhu et al (1992) also reported water expense of the crop increased with increase in irrigation frequency Table 4.5 Total water use as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels during cropping season Total water use, cm Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean 20.07 20.17 20.57 20.70 20.40 24.07 24.17 24.47 24.67 24.35 29.67 29.77 29.97 30.17 29.90 24.89 Mulch 18.57 18.97 19.07 19.27 18.97 22.27 22.47 22.77 23.07 22.65 28.97 29.17 29.17 29.37 29.53 23.71 Mean 19.32 19.57 19.82 20.02 19.68 23.17 23.32 23.62 23.87 23.50 29.32 29.47 29.57 29.77 29.53

4.7 N content N content in tuber and haulm of potato was determined at harvest of the crop under mulch, irrigation and N treated plots (Appendix I and II). The N content of tuber and haulm were significantly influenced by the mulching and nitrogen treatments as given in figure 4.9 (a and b) whereas, affect of irrigation scheduling was noticed in haulm only. In general haulm had more content of N than the tubers of potato. Haase et al (2007) also noticed same trend and reported that N concentrations were significantly influenced by fertilization. The value of N content in haulm and tuber were 2.79 and 1.35 per cent with application of rice straw mulch 53

while, it was 2.63 and 1.14 per cent with no mulch plots, respectively. The N content varied from 2.51, 2.67, 2.77 and 2.89 per cent, respectively with application of 0, 135, 180 and 225 Kg N ha-1 in haulm. The corresponding values for tuber were 0.92, 1.26, 1.38 and 1.41 per cent, respectively. Irrigation schedule on the basis of IW/PAN-E=1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 recorded N content by 2.55, 2.75 and 2.78 per cent, respectively in case of haulm. Jamati-e-Somarian et al (2010) also recorded the highest nitrogen percent of tuber by applying 80 kg N ha-1 and decrease as the level of fertilizer increases.

2.00 No mulch Mulch

N content, %

1.00

0.00 0 135 Nitrogen level 180 225

Fig 4.9(a) N content (%) in potato tuber as influenced by mulch and N levels at harvest

3.00

No mulch

Mulch

N content, %

2.00

1.00

0.00 0 135 Nitrogen level 180 225

Fig 4.9(b) N content (%) in potato haulm as influenced by mulch and N levels at harvest 54

4.8 Yield and yield attributes 4.8.1 Tuber yield Mulching with rice straw significantly influenced the tuber and haulm yield of potato (Table 4.6 a and b). Application of mulch @ 6 t ha-1 enhanced potato tuber yield by 49.3 q ha-1 (25%) over no mulch plots. Singh et al (1987) also reported 26 per cent increase in yield of potato owing to mulch. Similarly, Chandra et al (2002) also observed that pine needle mulch increased the tuber yield by 35 per cent over no mulch. Tuber yield of potato was also significantly affected by irrigation and N levels. irrigation based on IW/PAN-E ratio of 2.0 and 1.5 significantly enhanced average tuber yield of potato by 25.8 and 19.1 q ha-1 over the restricted irrigation with 1.0 ratio (206.7 q ha-1). Singh et al (1988) also observed that irrigation with 0.25 bar tension increased tuber yield by 22 per cent compared with irrigation applied at 0.5 bar tension. Similarly Kar and Kumar (2007) also recorded a drastic reduction of potato tuber yield when the number of irrigation was reduced. Sandhu et al (1980) observed an increase in cane yield by an average of 13.8 per cent for 1.00 over the 0.50 times pan evaporation. Tuber yield of potato at harvest under various level of nitrogen is given in table 4.6 (a). Nitrogen applied @ of 135, 180 and 225 kg ha-1 improved the tuber yield by 58.4, 73.3 and 86.5 per cent, respectively over 143.4 q ha-1 obtained in control. It is explicitly clear from the table that the tuber yield improved with increasing rate of application of N and attained highest value with 225 kg N ha-1 at all the levels of irrigation over their respective control. Significant interaction between mulching and nitrogen levels revealed that tuber yield of potato increased with increase in nitrogen levels up to 225 kg ha-1 in no mulch plots (Table 4.6 b). However in mulched plots significant improvement in tuber yield was recorded up to 180 kg N ha-1 only. Lower level of nitrogen (135 kg ha-1) with straw mulching produced the higher yield than the yield obtained with 225 kg N ha-1 without mulch. This indicates that mulching can save nitrogen fertilizer in autumn potato grown in loamy sand soil. Khera et al ( 1976) found a significant interaction of mulch N and observed 26 per cent increase in the dry forage yield and also revealed that 50 and 100 kg N ha-1 with mulch yielded as much as 100 and 150 kg N ha-1 without mulch, respectively. The interactive effect of irrigation schedule and mulching revealed that potato tuber yield improved with increase in irrigation frequency up to IW/PAN-E=2.0 while in mulched plots, enhancement was observed upto 1.5 ratio only. This shows that with use of mulch the optimum irrigation schedule is 1.5 for obtaining maximum yield. Perusual of data in table 4.6 (a) depict that restricted irrigation with 1.0 ratio in mulched plots register higher yield compared to yield obtained in frequently irrigated plots (IW/PAN-E=2.0) with no mulch treatment. This indicates that use of rice straw mulch can save substantial amount of irrigation water in autumn potato. Interaction between irrigation and fertilizer-N in (Table 4.6 a) was significant indicating that improvement in tuber yield recorded with increasing nitrogen 55

varied at different irrigation levels. Improvement in tuber yield with application of 135,180 and 225 kg N ha-1 was lower (82.4, 91.0 and 110.1 q ha-1) in 1.0 ratio compared to 83.9, 110.3 and 133.5 q ha-1 in 1.5 and 85.2, 114.5 and 128.9 q ha-1, respectively in 2.0 ratio over their respective control value of 135.9, 143.9 and 150.4 q ha-1. Interaction between mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels revealed that with no mulch, tuber yield enhanced with nitrogen levels from 0 to 225 kg N ha-1 and at all the levels of irrigation. However, with mulching, the improvement up to 225 kg N ha -1 was observed only in optimum irrigation schedule on the basis of 1.5 ratio whereas, under restricted or frequently irrigation, tuber yield increased up to 180 kg N ha-1 only. This indicates that for obtaining potential yield, both irrigation and nitrogen should be supplied at optimum proportion. Straw mulching improved the growth, development and yield of potato through moderation of soil temperate (Dhesi et al 1964), conservation of soil water and reduction in weeds growth. The improvement in growth and yield with mulch may be attributed to the lowering of daytime soil temperature and increase in moisture supply to the crop. This is supported by the studies of Singh et al (2010), Maurya and Lal (1981) and Midmore et al (1986) who indicated soil moisture conservation and reduction in soil temperature by mulching may cause yield improvement in various crops. 4.8.2 Haulm yield A similar trend was observed with respect to dry weight of potato haulm as was observed in case of tuber yield of potato. Dry weight of haulm was significantly influenced by mulch, irrigation and N levels (Table 4.7 a and b). Application of mulch enhanced weight of haulm yield by 2.29 q ha-1 (26.8%) over the no mulch plots. Whereas irrigation on the basis of 2.0 and 1.5 ratio increased the haulm yield by 18.7 and 6.2 per cent over the value of 8.92 q ha-1 in 1.0 ratio. The application of N @ 135, 180 and 225 kg ha-1 also improved significantly the haulm weight by 5.1, 6.9 and 8.7 q ha-1, respectively over the control plots. Dry weight of haulm indicated significant interaction between mulch and nitrogen level (Table 4.7 b). Application of 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1 increased dry matter yield by 5.5, 8.7 and 9.8 q ha-1 in mulch plot and 4.6, 5.1 and 7.6 q ha-1 in no mulch plots, respectively over their respective control values of 4.8 and 4.2 q ha-1. Improvement in dry matter production with application of nitrogen was more in mulch plots as compared to no mulch. Khera et al (1976) also observed that straw mulch @ 6 t ha-1 increases the dry forage yield by 11.8 q ha-1 and shows a significant interaction with N rates. They also observed that irrigation based upon IW/PAN-E ratio from 0.6 to 0.9 green and dry forage yield of maize increased significantly. Similar observation on chilli biomass was recorded by Sekhon et al (2008) that increase in biomass ranged from 29 to 35 per cent during different cropping seasons due to mulch. They also observed chilli biomass was also significantly affected by N level. Wien et al (1993) reported that the increased above ground growth of tomato with mulching. 56

Table 4.6 (a) Tuber yield influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels Tuber yield, q ha-1 Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) 124.2 186.6 200.3 238.3 187.4 123.2 199.2 215.7 244.6 195.7 135.0 211.2 229.1 256.9 208.0 197.0 Mulch 147.5 249.9 253.4 253.6 226.1 164.6 256.3 292.6 310.1 255.9 165.7 260.0 300.7 301.6 257.0 246.3 Mean 135.9 218.3 226.9 246.0 206.7 143.9 227.8 254.2 277.4 225.8 150.4 235.6 264.9 279.3 232.5

M= 8.05, I= 4.03, N= 5.62, M x I= 5.70, M x N= 7.95, I x N= 9.74 and M x I x N= 13.77

Table 4.6 (b) Interaction between mulch and nitrogen in tuber yield Tuber yield, q ha-1 Nitrogen level No mulch N0 N135 N180 N225 Mean CD (0.05) 127.5 199.0 215.0 246.6 197.0 Mulch 159.3 255.4 282.2 288.4 246.3 M x N= 7.95 Mean 143.4 227.2 248.6 267.5

57

Table 4.7(a)

Dry weight of potato haulm as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels at harvest Dry haulm yield, q ha-1 Treatment No mulch N0 3.5 8.4 8.9 10.8 7.9 N0 4.0 8.7 9.2 11.4 8.3 N0 5.2 9.4 9.7 13.3 9.4 8.52 Mulch 4.1 9.3 12.5 14.0 10.0 4.5 10.4 13.3 14.4 10.7 5.9 11.3 14.7 15.3 11.8 10.81 Mean 3.8 8.9 10.7 12.4 8.92 4.3 9.6 11.3 12.9 9.48 5.6 10.4 12.2 14.3 10.59

IW/PAN-E=1.0

N135 N180 N225

Mean

IW/PAN-E=1.5

N135 N180 N225

Mean

IW/PAN-E=2.0

N135 N180 N225

Mean G. Mean CD (0.05)

M= 0.92, I= 1.00, N= 0.73, M x I= NS, M x N= 1.03, I x N=NS and M x I x N= NS

Table 4.7(b) Interaction between mulch and nitrogen in potato haulm yield at harvest Dry haulm yield , q ha-1 Nitrogen level No mulch N0 N135 N180 N225 Mean CD (0.05) 4.2 8.8 9.3 11.8 8.5 Mulch 4.8 10.3 13.5 14.6 10.8 M x N= 1.03 Mean 4.5 9.6 11.4 13.2

58

4.9 Water use efficiency (WUE) The water use efficiency is an index to quantify the use efficiency of water resources towards crop production. The WUE of the crop under various treatments of mulch, irrigation and Nitrogen levels is presented in table 4.8 (a and b). Though mulch application had marginal effect on profile water use, its application with various irrigation and nitrogen levels improved the tuber yield substantially and thus, recorded significantly higher WUE of potato. It reflects that stored water was more efficiently used by crop with application of mulch to these treatments. It is evident from the data that rice straw mulch significantly increased WUE by 26.2 kg tuber ha-1 mm-1 over no mulch plots. Sarkar et al (2007) also observed 0.8-1.2 kg ha-1 mm-1 higher WUE by straw mulching over the un-mulch conditions. Application of 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1 also registered higher WUE (57.3, 69.7 and 80.9%, respectively) over without N plot. Contrary to TWU, WUE was progressively decreased with each increment in irrigation water inputs. The data explicitly shows that the improvement of WUE with IW/PAN-E= 1.5 and 1.0 was 17.6 and 26.4 kg tuber ha-1 mm-1, respectively higher than the frequently irrigated 2.0 (78.8 kg ha-1 mm-1) plot. The interactive effect of irrigation and mulching revealed that improvement in WUE of crop with mulch was 28 and 35 per cent more in 1.5 and 1.0 ratio over the 2.0 ratio, whereas the corresponding value in no mulch plots was 15.2 and 31.6 per cent, respectively. Higher WUE due to mulching over no mulch plot have been reported by many workers (Chandra et al 2002, Singh et al 1987 and Singh et al 1988) that was attributed to the reduction in evaporation loss through organic mulch (Aggarwal et al 1992 and Aggarwal and Sharma 2002). Significant interaction between mulch nitrogen levels revealed that improvement in WUE was up to 180 kg N ha-1 in mulch plots while under no mulch improvement recorded up to 225 kg N ha-1. Per usual of data indicate that application of rice straw mulch can save 45 kg N ha-1 for obtaining similar WUE (Table 4.8 b). Interaction between irrigation fertilizer N was also found significant and increase in WUE under restricted and medium irrigation level was observed up to 225 kg N ha-1 whereas, with frequently irrigated plots it was noticed only up to 180 kg N ha-1. Interaction between mulch irrigation nitrogen revealed that mulching along with optimum irrigation level of IW/PAN-E=1.5, improvement in WUE was recorded up to 225 kg N ha-1 where as in restricted and frequent level of irrigation was noticed only up to 180 kg N ha -1. In no mulch plots WUE increased with each successive increment in nitrogen level at all levels of irrigation (Table 4.8 a).

59

Table 4.8(a) Water use efficiency of potato as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels WUE, kg ha-1 mm-1 Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) 61.9 92.5 97.4 114.7 91.6 51.0 82.4 88.1 99.1 80.2 46.0 70.9 76.4 85.1 69.6 80.4 Mulch 79.0 131.7 132.9 131.6 118.8 74.0 114.0 128.4 134.4 112.7 57.0 89.1 103.0 102.6 88.0 106.5 Mean 70.4 112.1 115.1 123.2 105.2 62.5 98.2 108.3 116.8 96.4 51.5 80.0 89.8 93.9 78.8

M= 3.7 I=2.0, N=2.3, M x I=2.1, M x N=3.3, I x N=4.1 and M x I x N=5.7

Table 4.8(b) Interaction between mulch and nitrogen in water use efficiency of potato WUE, kg ha-1 mm-1 Nitrogen level No mulch N0 N135 N180 N225 Mean CD (0.05) 52.9 81.9 87.3 99.7 80.45 Mulch 70.2 111.6 121.5 122.9 106.55 M x N=3.3 Mean 61.5 96.8 104.4 111.3

60

4.10 Total N uptake The N uptake by potato haulm and tuber were estimated separately by multiplying the N content in haulm and tuber with their respective yield obtained on dry weight basis. Total N uptake was obtained by sum of the N uptake by tuber and haulm of potato is given in table 4.9(a). Total N uptake in potato was found to be significant with the application of mulch and it was increased by 41.4 per cent over the N uptake of 76.4 kg ha-1 in no mulch plots. Sekhon et al (2008) also observed an increase in total N uptake by 18.7 per cent with mulching. Average N uptake increased significantly by 13 and 24.9 per cent with irrigation on the basis of IW/PAN-E= 1.5 and 2.0 ratio over the 1.0 ratio (81.8 kg ha-1). Application of N at various rates also influenced significantly the N uptake of potato and it was found to be enhanced by 47.6, 68.1 and 84.9 kg ha-1, respectively with 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1 over the uptake of 42.1 kg ha-1 in without N plots. Acharya and Sharma (1994), Rahman et al (2005) and Pervaiz et al (2009) also reported an increase in N uptake in mulched plots and also increase with increment in N levels. Similarly Kumar and Dey (2011) observed positive and significant effect of mulch as well as irrigation methods on the N uptake. Total N uptake in potato shows significant interaction between mulch and nitrogen (Table 4.9 b). Data reveals that uptake of N in mulch crop was more by 82.4, 84.1 and 93.8 kg ha-1 with application of 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1, respectively over the N uptake of 50.5 kg ha-1 in control plots, while in no mulch plots corresponding increase was 42.8, 52.2 and 66.8 kg ha-1, respectively over the 33.7 kg ha-1 in control plots. Khera et al (1976) also observed significant increase in N uptake with mulching and with each successive increment of nitrogen in forage corn. They also observed significant increase in nutrient uptake as the irrigation level increase from 0.6 to 0.9 IW/PAN-E ratio, but declines with further increase in irrigation. 4.11 Fertilizer-N use efficiency Similar to water use efficiency agronomic fertilizer-N use efficiency (NUE) was also improved by mulching. The data in table 4.10 shows that with application of mulch, 26 per cent improvement in NUE was recorded compared to 51.5 kg tuber kg-1 N with no mulch plots. The highest NUE 61.1 kg tuber kg
-1

N was recorded under 135 kg N ha-1 followed by

58.5 kg tuber kg-1 N in 180 kg N ha-1 and 55.2 kg tuber kg-1 N in 225 kg N ha-1. In general NUE was decreased with increase in N rate at all levels of irrigation schedules irrespective of mulch. Irrigation schedules also influence the fertilizer N use efficiency. The lowest value was recorded in least frequently irrigated plots (IW/PAN-E=1.0) 52.2 kg tuber kg-1 N where as in other two irrigation schedules on the basis of 1.5 and 2.0 ratio , the value of N use efficiency was similar (61.1 and 61.4 kg tuber kg-1 N).

61

Table 4.9(a) Total N uptake as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels at harvest N uptake, kg ha-1 Treatment No mulch N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) 27.3 66.4 77.4 101.9 68.2 35.1 77.9 85.4 109.6 77.0 39.3 83.9 95.4 117.3 84.0 76.4 Mulch 40.8 91.4 120.5 129.5 95.6 51.8 104.7 131.6 144.6 108.2 58.9 112.8 151.3 159.2 120.5 108.08 Mean 34.1 78.9 99.0 115.7 81.8 43.5 91.3 108.5 127.1 92.5 49.1 98.4 123.4 138.3 102.2

M= 6.03, I= 3.71, N=2.96, M x I= NS, M x N= 4.18, I x N= NS and M x I x N= NS

Table 4.9(b) Interaction between mulch and nitrogen in total N uptake at harvest N uptake, kg ha-1 Nitrogen level No mulch N0 N135 N180 N225 Mean CD (0.05) 33.7 76.5 85.9 109.6 70.4 Mulch 50.5 102.9 134.6 144.3 108.0 M x N= 4.18 Mean 42.1 89.7 110.2 127.0

62

Table 4.10 Fertilizer-N use efficiency (NUE) as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen levels NUE, kg tuber kg-1 N Treatment No mulch N135 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N180 N225 Mean N135 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N180 N225 Mean N135 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean 46.2 42.3 50.7 46.4 56.3 51.4 54.0 53.9 56.4 52.3 54.2 54.3 51.5 Mulch 78.3 58.8 47.1 61.4 68.0 71.1 64.7 67.9 69.9 75.0 60.4 68.4 65.9 Mean 62.3 50.6 48.9 53.9 62.2 61.3 59.4 60.9 63.2 63.7 57.3 61.4

Table 4.11 Apparent N-recovery efficiency as influenced by mulch, irrigation and nitrogen level N recovery, % Treatment No mulch N135 N180 N225 Mean N135 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N180 N225 Mean N135 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean 29.7 28.0 33.0 30.2 31.8 27.9 33.2 30.9 33.7 31.1 35.1 33.3 31.5 63 Mulch 37.6 44.4 39.7 40.6 39.6 44.5 41.0 41.7 39.3 51.3 44.3 45.0 42.4 Mean 33.7 36.2 36.4 35.4 35.7 36.2 37.1 36.3 36.5 41.2 39.7 39.2

IW/PAN-E=1.0

4.12 Apparent nitrogen-recovery efficiency Apparent N recovery (ANR) efficiency was estimated by N uptake of N treated plots minus N uptake without N plots divided by N added expressed in percentage. The N recovery efficiency at various levels of N, irrigation and mulching is given in table 4.11. It indicates that with application of rice straw mulch higher N recovery efficiency (34.6%) was recorded over the value of 31.5 per cent in no mulch plots. It showed that mulching helped to improve fertilizer N recovery efficiency substantially. Irrigation regime on the basis of IW/PAN-E=2.0 recorded the higher N recovery efficiency 39.2 per cent followed by 36.3 per cent in 1.5 ratio and lowest 35.4 per cent under 1.0 ratio. Mean of N recovery efficiency over irrigation and mulch recorded that N recovery efficiency was increased up to 180 kg N ha-1 only. Rahman et al (2005) also observed decrease in ANR per cent with increase in N level from 80 to 160 kg N ha -1. Sieling et al (1988) and Raun et al (1999) also reported similar trend of apparent nitrogen-recovery. 4.13 Available soil nitrogen at harvest Available soil N was determined at harvest in each treatment and found to be significantly affected by mulch, irrigation and N levels (Table 4.12 a and b). Surface applied mulch having 64 kg ha -1 lower N at the time of potato harvest against the 104.4 kg N ha-1 in un mulch plots. It shows that mulched crop consume more N as a consequence lower value of available N under this treatment. Available N content of soil at time of harvest also influence by the irrigation levels imposed on the basis of IW/PANE ratio. The highest available soil N was observed in 1.0 ratio (104.4 kg ha -1) followed by 1.5 (101.1 kg ha -1) and lowest in 2.0 ratio (97.9 kg ha -1). It indicates that as the irrigation frequency increased, it improves N uptake by crop as a results decrease in the soil N status of the soil. An increase in the N rate application to the soil there was increased in the available N at harvest. The improvement in left over N was 14.3, 43.6 and 60.6 kg ha -1, respectively with application of 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha -1 over 71.5 kg ha-1 without N treatment. The interactive effect of mulch and nitrogen was also found to be significant shown in table 4.12 (b). Interaction shows that the improvement in available N with 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1 was 23, 63 and 90 per cent, respectively in no mulch plots over the control (72.4 kg ha -1). The corresponding increase was 17, 58 and 79 per cent, respectively in mulch plots.

64

Table 4.12 (a) Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N application on soil available nitrogen at harvest Available soil N, kg ha-1 Treatment No mulch N0 N135 N180 N225 74.4 94.6 121.9 141.2 108.0 N0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) 73.3 87.7 119.7 138.6 104.8 69.5 84.8 112.6 132.9 99.9 104.4 Mulch 72.1 83.6 116.4 130.7 100.7 70.3 82.7 111.3 125.3 97.4 69.6 81.1 108.6 123.7 95.7 98.0 Mean 73.2 89.1 119.1 135.9 104.4 71.8 85.2 115.5 132.0 101.1 69.6 83.0 110.6 128.3 97.9

IW/PAN-E=1.0

Mean

IW/PAN-E=1.5

IW/PAN-E=2.0

M= 4.04, I= 2.61, N= 2.73, M x I= NS, M x N= 3.86, I x N= NS and M x I x N= NS

Fig 4.12(b) Interaction between mulch and nitrogen on soil available nitrogen at harvest Available soil N, kg ha-1 Nitrogen level No mulch N0 N135 N180 N225 Mean CD (0.05) 72.4 89.0 118.1 137.6 104.2 M x N= 3.86 Mulch 70.6 82.5 112.1 126.6 97.9 Mean 71.5 85.8 115.1 132.1

65

>50 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

45-50

35-45

25-35

<25

% contribution

No mulch

Mulch

>50 100% % contribution 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1.0

45-50

35-45

25-35

<25

1.5 IW/PAN-E Ratio

2.0

>50 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0

45-50

35-45

25-35

<25

% contribution

135 Nitrogen level

180

225

Fig.4.10 Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N level on contribution of different tuber sizes towards yield of potato (weight basis).

66

>50 100% 80% % contribution 60% 40% 20% 0%

45-50

35-45

25-35

<25

No mulch

Mulch

>50 100% 80% % contribution 60% 40% 20% 0% 1.0

45-50

35-45

25-35

<25

1.5 IW/PAN-E Ratio

2.0

>50 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0

45-50

35-45

25-35

<25

% contribution

135 Nitrogen level

180

225

Fig.4.11 Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N level on contribution of different sizes of potato towards yield (count basis)

67

4.14 Per cent contribution of different tuber sizes towards yield of potato 4.14.1 Weight basis Mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N application influenced the tuber weight recorded at time of harvesting (Figure 4.10). Application of mulch produced larger sized tubers as compared to no mulch. Rautaray (2010) also reported proportion of large sized tuber yield was higher (60%) under mulching as compared to no mulching. Similarly Wang et al (2009) also observed that mulch treated plots had more jumbo (W >300 g) tubers by weight than the non-mulched treatment. Per cent contribution of larger size (>50 mm diameter) tubers towards yield was 39.6 as compared to 26.6 under no mulched plots. However the contribution of medium sizes (25 to 45 mm diameter) of tubers was more in no mulch plots. The diameter of 50-45 mm and <25 mm size of tuber contribution was similar by both mulch and no mulch crop. The contribution of >50 mm weight of potato tuber was lowest while 35-50 mm diameter of tubers contribution was higher with crop irrigated on the basis of IW/PAN-E=1.0. Irrigation schedule on the basis of 1.5 and 2.0 ratio produce similar per cent tuber (Appendix III). The contribution of different grades of potato tubers was also influence by N application. The contribution of >50 mm diameter tuber weight increased with increase in rate of fertilizer N up to 225 kg ha-1. The contribution of this size tuber towards total yield at harvest was 15.6, 33.0, 39.7 and 43.9 per cent, respectively with 0,135, 180 and 225 kg N ha -1. The tuber diameter of <25, 25-35 and 35-45 mm contributed towards yield was in order of 0 >135 >180 >225 kg N ha-1. The contribution of 35-45mm diameter was identical in different N treatments except in 135 kg N ha -1 where it was slightly higher. The interaction between mulch, irrigation and nitrogen were also found to be significant for contribution in yield from more than 35 mm diameter of potato tuber. Yuan et al (2003) also reported highly significant increase in total marketable (>85 g) and jumbo (>400 g) tuber yields as the irrigation level increase from 0.25 to 1.25 EP, which is similar to the results obtained by Hang and Miller (1986) and Meyer and Marcum (1988). Increase in the yield of large tuber size increased with increase in N levels confirming the results of Singh (1952), Gupta and Saxena (1976) and Grewal et al (1979). Production of higher proportions of large sized tubers may be attributed to higher availability of soil moisture and increased favourable soil temperature (Edwards et al 2000). 4.14.2 Number basis Number of potato tuber was also affected by mulch, irrigation and N levels (Figure 4.11 and Appendix IV). Mulching enhanced the number of larger size tuber (>50 mm diameter) by 17.9 per cent as compared to no mulch 10.2 per cent, whereas, <45 mm diameter sizes of tuber decreases in mulch plots. Various irrigation schedules show that contribution of larger size (>50 mm) and smaller (<25 mm) size was contributed towards 68

yield significantly. The smaller size tuber <25 mm contributed towards yield is more in less frequently irrigated crop and it was decreases with increase in water inputs however, contribution of >50mm tuber size gave the lowest value in less frequently irrigated crop than the other two irrigation treatments which were at par. While in between of these two sizes contribution was almost similar. The contribution of different size of potato tubers was also influenced by fertilizer N. Goffart et al (1993) and Thind et al (2007) also reported an increase in the proportion of larger size (>60 mm) tubers with increase in fertilizer N rate. Results showed that in general increasing rate of fertilizer N increased the count number of >45 mm sizes however; decrease with increasing N rates in 25 -45 mm diameter of tuber size was noticed. Table 4.13 Regressions relating canopy temperature (oC) with tuber and haulm yield of potato (N=24) DAS 60 85 Average 60 85 Average Dependent Variable (Y) Tuber yield -do-doHaulm yield -do-doIndependent Variable (X) Tc -do-do-do-do-doRegression equation Y = 694.0-22.8X Y = 1055.1-36.3X Y = 1007.8-35.9X Y = 313.0-11.5X Y = 198.4-7.2X Y = 297.7-11.4X r2 0.45** 0.51** 0.61** 0.50** 0.45** 0.60**

**Significant at 1 per cent level of probability

4.15 Canopy temperature, tuber and haulm relationship Regression models were developed to relate the tuber and haulm yield of potato with Tc. The mean value of Tc in various treatment combinations recorded around mid day at 60 and 85 day stage of crop was correlated with tuber and haulm yield. The Tc at 60 day stage explained 45 and 50 per cent variation in tuber and haulm yield, respectively and those at 85 day stage explained 51 and 45 per cent variation (Table 4.13). The average of these two days explained 61 and 60 per cent variation in tuber and haulm yield. Sandhu et al (1988) and Khera et al (1992) also found similar relationship between grain yield of wheat and maize and mean Tc values. Thus this technique may serve as a useful tool for forecasting crop yield of an area and evaluating yield potential of crop cultivars.

69

Table 4.14 Regressions relating SPAD with tuber and haulm yield in potato (N=24) r2 Regression equation

DAS

Dependent Variable (Y) Tuber yield do-do-doHaulm yield -do-do-do

Independent Variable(X) Chlorophyll -do-do-do-do-do-do-do-

87 92 98 Average 87 92 98 Average

Y = -179.3+12.2X Y = -101.6+10.0X Y = -122.0+11.0X Y = -141.3+11.3X Y = -81.5+3.97X Y = -55.9+3.25 X Y = -60.0+3.48 X Y = -68.0+3.64 X

0.78** 0.76** 0.82** 0.81** 0.82** 0.80** 0.81** 0.83**

**Significant at 1 per cent level of probability

4.16 Chlorophyll, tuber and haulm relationship Regression equation was developed with chlorophyll (SPAD) to tuber and haulm yield of potato. The mean SPAD values in different mulch, irrigation and N combination was recorded at specific time at 87, 92, and 98 DAS of potato crop and was correlated with tuber and haulm yield (Table 4.14). The SPAD value recorded at different stages explained 76 to 82 per cent variation in tuber yield and 80 to 82 per cent variation in haulm yield. Average of SPAD value across the stages explained the 81 and 83 per cent variation in tuber and haulm yield of potato, respectively.

70

CHAPTER V SUMMARY Huge amount of rice straw (20.8 million tonnes) are produced every year in the state of Punjab. A substantial proportion (81%) of mechanically harvested rice straw is burnt in the field, which is a net loss of nutrients, causing environmental pollution. This can be diverted to use as mulch. Beneficial role of mulch include more favourable soil temperature, reduced evaporation and consequently conserving soil moisture, increased mineralization of soil and applied N and check in weed infestation. Improved soil physico-chemical conditions with mulching provide favorable environment for crop growth and are likely to improve water and N use efficiency of crops. To test this hypothesis, the present investigation was carried out at the research farm of the department of Soil Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India, during Rabi 2009-10. Potato crop was raised with mulch in the main plots and irrigation in sub plots and N levels in sub-sub plots. Effects of various treatments on soil temperature, soil moisture, yield, water use and fertilizer N use efficiency etc. are summarized as under: Rice straw mulch lowered the maximum soil temperature at seeding depth by 0.4 to 7.3oC and raised the minimum by 0.4 to 2.9oC. As a result, soil temperature amplitude was narrowed down by 1.5 to 9.8oC. Diurnal variation in soil temperature ranged from 6.1 to 12.7oC with restricted irrigation while the variation was 4.8 to 9.8oC in frequently irrigated plots. Profile water use was lower in mulched plots as compared to no mulched plots. Profile water use was the lowest with most frequent irrigation and highest under less frequently irrigated plots. Increase the N rate also increased profile water use. Total water use was also lower in mulched plots as compared to no mulch plots. The crop irrigated on the basis of 2.0 and 1.5 IW/PAN-E ratio consumed 50 and 19.4 per cent more irrigation water than 1.0 ratio. Each successive increment in N level increased total water use. Mulching recorded 5 to 22 mm more moisture storage in the soil profile during cropping season. The larger difference in soil moisture content (0.9 to 2.4%) was observed in top 15 cm soil. Highest moisture content at the time of harvest was observed in plots irrigated on the basis of IW/PAN-E= 2.0 followed by 1.5 and lowest in 1.0 ratio. The N content in haulm and tuber was 2.79 and 1.35 per cent, respectively under mulch and it was 2.63 and 1.14 per cent without mulch. Irrigation based on IW/PANE=1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 recorded 2.55, 2.75 and 2.78 per cent N content, respectively in haulm. Haulm N content varied from 2.51, 2.67, 2.77 and 2.89 per cent, respectively with application of 0, 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1. The corresponding values for tuber 71

were 0.92, 1.26, 1.38 and 1.41 per cent. Haulm had more concentration of N than tubers of potato. Optimum irrigation for maximum potato tuber yield on loamy sand soils, was found to be based on IW/PAN-E=2.0 without mulch and 1.5 with mulch. Potato tuber yield increased with fertilizer-N application up to 225 kg N ha-1 without mulch, but the significant response was observed only up to 180 kg N ha-1 in mulched crops. Rice straw mulch enhanced potato tuber yield by 25 per cent over no mulch. Irrigation based on IW/PAN-E =1.5 and 2.0 enhanced tuber yield of potato by 9.2 and 12.4 per cent, respectively over the plot receiving restricted irrigation (IW/PAN-E =1.0). Restricted irrigation with mulch registered higher tuber yield compared to that obtained in frequently irrigated plots (IW/PAN-E=2.0) without mulch. Lower level of Nitrogen (135 kg ha-1) with straw mulching produced higher tuber yield than that obtained with 225 kg N ha-1 without mulch. Mulching enhanced dry weight of haulm. Irrigation applied on the basis of 2.0 and 1.5 ratio increased the haulm yield by 18.7 and 6.2 per cent, respectively over the 1.0 ratio. The application of N also improved the dry weight of haulm. Application of mulch increased water use efficiency by 26.2 kg tuber ha -1 mm-1 .The water use efficiency improved by 57.3, 69.7 and 80.9 per cent with the application of 135, 180 and 225 kg N ha-1, respectively over control. Water use efficiency progressively increased with decrease in irrigation water inputs and was 17.6 and 26.4 kg tuber ha-1 mm-1 more with 1.5 and 1.0 ratio over the frequently irrigated plot. Total N uptake by potato crop was 41.4 per cent higher under mulch than un-mulched plots. Irrigation based on 1.5 and 2.0 ratio increased N uptake by 13 and 24.9 per cent, respectively over 1.0 ratio. Application of N @ 135, 180 and 225 kg ha -1 enhanced N uptake by 47.6, 68.1 and 84.9 kg ha-1, respectively as compared to the N uptake of 42.1 kg ha-1 under without N fertilizer plots. Nitrogen use efficiency increased by 26 per cent with mulching and decreased with increase in N rate at all levels of irrigation, irrespective of mulch. The highest nitrogen use efficiency of 61.1 kg tuber kg-1 N was recorded under 135 kg N ha-1 followed by 58.5 kg tuber kg-1 N in 180 kg N ha-1 and 55.2 kg tuber kg-1 N in 225 kg N ha-1. The lowest nitrogen use efficiency was recorded in least frequently irrigated plots. Mulching substantially improved fertilizer N recovery efficiency (34.6%) over no mulch plots (31.5%). Irrigation on the basis of IW/PAN-E=2.0 recorded the highest N recovery efficiency (39.2%) followed by 36.3 per cent in 1.5 ratio and 35.4 per cent under 1.0 ratio. On an average, N recovery efficiency increased with fertilizer N application up to 180 kg N ha-1 only. 72

Mulched crop utilized more N and as a consequence recorded lower value of available N. i.e. 64 kg ha-1 at harvest. Available N of soil was the highest with IW/PAN E= 1.0 (104.4 kg ha-1) followed by 1.5 (101.1 kg ha-1) and lowest with 2.0 ratio (97.9 kg ha-1). Increase in fertilizer N application increased the available N at harvest of potato.

Mulch produced more weight of larger size tubers (>50 mm diameter) and their contribution towards yield was 39.6 per cent as compared to 26.6 per cent under no mulch plots. The contribution of >50 mm diameter potato tubers towards tuber yield increased with increase in rate of fertilizer N up to 225 kg ha-1. Mulching also enhanced the number of larger size tubers by 17.9 per cent as compared to 10.2 per cent without mulch whereas, <45 mm diameter tubers decreased in mulched plots. Various irrigation schedules and fertilizer N levels also significantly influenced the contribution of larger size and smaller (<25 mm) size tubers towards yield. Weed infestation was negligible under rice straw mulch. Weed biomass recorded without mulch at various levels of N revealed that each successive increase in the N rate progressively decreased weed biomass. Canopy temperature was 0.5oC lower under rice straw mulched than no mulch crop. Canopy temperature was highest in restricted irrigation (22oC) and lowest in frequent irrigation with 2.0 ratios (20.9oC). Canopy temperature decreased with increase in N level. Mulched crop recorded higher SPAD values than no mulch crop. With each increment of N and irrigation levels, there was an increase in SPAD value

73

REFERENCES Acharya C L and Kapur O C (2001) Using organic wastes as compost and mulch for potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in low water-retaining hill soils of north-west India. Indian J Agri Sci 71: 306-09. Acharya C L and Sharma P D (1994) Tillage and mulch effect on soil physical environment, root growth, nutrient uptake and yield of maize and wheat on an Alfisol in north-west India. Soil Tillage Res 4: 291-02. Aggarwal P and Sharma P (2002) Water uptake and yield of rainfed wheat in relation to tillage and mulch. Indian J Soil Conserv 30: 155-60. Aggarwal P, Bharadwaj S P and Khullar A K (1992) Appropriate tillage system for rainfed wheat in Doon valley. Ann Agri 13: 166-73. Agriculture Food and Rural Development Department. 2005. Botany of the potato plant. Accessed on 17 March 2005.Available at http://www.agric.gov.ab.ca Arkhipova E P (1954) Soil temperature in forest strips and open fields. Trudy GGO 44: 106 Army T J, Wiese A F and Hanks R J (1961) Effect of tillage and chemical weed control practices on soil moisture losses during the fallow period. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 25: 410-13. Aulakh P S and Sur H S (1999) Effect of mulching on soil temperature, soil moisture, weed population, growth and yield in pomegranate. Prog Hort 31:131-33. Awan A B (1964) Influence of mulch on soil moisture, soil temperature and yield of potatoes. Am Potato J 41: 337-39. Bandel V A, Dziemia S and Stanford G (1980) Comparison of nitrogen fertilizer for no-till corn. J Agron 72: 334-37. Barker A V and Bhowmik P C (2001) Weed control with crop residues in vegetable cropping systems. J Crop Prod 4: 163-83. Bodman G B (1942) Monograph for rapid calculation of soil density, water content and total porosity relationship. J Am Soc Agron 34: 885-03. Borah M N and Milthorpe (1963) Growth of potatoes as influenced by temperature. Indian J Plant Physiol 5: 53-72. Caldiz D O, Gaspari F J, Haverkort A J and Stuik P C (2001) Agro-ecological zoning and potential yield of single or double cropping of potato in Argentina. Agri Forest Meteorol 109: 311-20. Chakravarti A K, Chakraborty P K and Chakraborty A (2005) Study on the efficacy of some bio resources as mulch for soil moisture conservation and yield of rain fed groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Arch Agron Soil Sci 51: 247-52.

74

Chandra S, Singh R D, Bhatnagar V K and Bisht J K (2002) Effect of mulch and irrigation on tuber size, canopy temperature, water use and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Indian J Agron 47: 443-48. Dahiya R, Ingwersen J and Streck T (2007) The effect of mulching and tillage on the water and temperature regimes of a loess soil: Experimental finding and modelling. Soil Tillage Res 96: 52-63. Daisley L E A, Chong S K, Olsen F J, Singh L and George C (1988) Effects of surfaceapplied grass mulch on soil water content and yields of cowpea and eggplant in Antigua. Trop Agric (Trinidad) 65: 30004. Dam J V, Kooman P L and Struik P C (1996) Effects of temperature and photoperiod on early growth and final number of tubers in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.). Potato Res 39: 51-62. Dhesi N S, Nandpuri K S and Singh A (1964) Effect of mulching and irrigation on the soil temperature for potato culture. Indian J Agron 9: 277-80. Doorenbos J and Kassam A H (1979) Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage. Paper No. 33 Pp 193. FAO, Rome. Doring T F, Brandt M, Heb J, Finckh M R and Saucke H (2005) Effects of straw mulch in soil nitrate dynamics, weeds, yield and soil erosion in organically grown potatoes. Field Crops Res 94: 238-49. Edwards M L, Volk A and Burney J R (2000) Mulching potatoes: Aspect of mulching management system and soil erosion. Am J Potato Res 77: 225-32. Epstein E (1966) Effect of soil temperature at different growth stages on growth and development of potato plants. Agron J 58: 169-71. Gao Y, Li Y, Zhang J, Liu W, Dang Z, Cao W and Qiang Q (2009) Effects of mulch, N fertilizer and plant density on wheat yield, wheat nitrogen uptake, and residual soil nitrate in a dryland area of China. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 85: 109-21. Goffart J P, Guiot J, Fragoso MAC (ed) and Beusichem van M L (1993) Nitrogen fertilization of potato and maize in relation to yield, quality of the production and risks to the environment. Optimization of plant nutrition: Dev Plant Soil Sci. Vol 53, Pp 614-49. Referred paper from the eighth international colloquium for the optimization of plant nutrition, August 31-September 8, 1992, Lisbon, Portugal. Gregory J S (1959) Growing potatoes of quality. Potato Utilization Conf Proc 10: 32. Grewal J S, Verma R S and Bist B S (1979) Method, time and level of nitrogen to potato grown on acid brown hill soils of Shimla. Indian J Agri Sci 49: 683-85. Grewal S S and Singh N T (1974) Effect of organic mulches on the hydrothermal regime of soil and growth of potato crop in northern India. Plant Soil 40: 33-47. Gupta A (1990) Response of spring planted okra to varying levels of irrigation and plant spacing. J Veg Sci 17: 16-19. 75

Gupta A and Saxena M C (1976) Effect of nitrogen and phosphorous fertilization on potato. Indian J Agron 21: 233-36. Gupta R and Acharya C L (1993) Effect of mulch induced hydrothermal regime on root growth, water use efficiency, yield and quality of Strawberry. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 41: 17-25. Haase T, Schuler C and Heb J (2007) The effect of different N and K sources on tuber nutrient uptake, total and graded yield of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) for processing. European J Agron 26: 18797. Hang A N and Miller D E (1986) Yield and physiological response of potatoes to deficit, high frequency sprinkler irrigation. Agron J 78: 43. Haverkort A J (1990) Ecology of potato cropping systems in relation to latitude and altitude. Agri Sys 32: 251-72. Hay R K M and Allen E J (1978) Tuber initiation and bulking in potato under tropical condition: The importance of soil and air temperature. Trop Agri (Trinidad) 55: 28995. Helmke P A and Sparks D L (1996) Lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium and cesium. In: Sparks D L (ed) Methods of soil analysis part 3, chemical methods. Pp 551-74. Am Soc of Agron, Soil Sci Soc Am, Madinon, Wis. Hira G S and Khera K L 2000. Water resource management in Punjab under rice-wheat production system. Res Bull Punjab Agri Univ Ludhiana, India, pp. 84. Hundal I S, Sandhu K S, Singh D and Sandha M S (2000) Effect of different types of mulching and herbicidal treatments on nutrient uptake in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Harayana J Hort Sci 29: 242-44. Hundal I S, Sandhu K S, Singh D and Sandhu M S (2002) Effects of different types mulching and herbicidal treatments on weed management in tomato (Lycopersicon esculantum L.). J Res Punjab Agri Univ 39: 41-45. Jacks C V, Brind V D and Smith R (1955) Mulching. Tech. Communication No.49. Common wealth Bureau of Soil Sci, Common wealth Agric Bureau, Fanham, Royals Buck, England. Jackson M L (1967) Soil Chemical analysis: 234-46. Prentice Hall of India, Private Ltd., New Delhi. Jackson M L (1973) Soil Chemical analysis: 38-56. Prentice Hall of India, Private Ltd., New Delhi. Jaiswal V P (1995) Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to date of planting and mulching under warm temperature condition. Indian J Agron 40: 660-64. Jalota S K, Khera R and Chahal S S (2001) Straw management and tillage effects on soil water storage under field conditions. Soil Use Manage 17: 1-6.

76

Jalota S K, Khera R, Arora V K and Beri V (2007) Benefits of straw mulching in crop Production. J Res Punjab Agri Univ 44: 104-07. Jamati-e-Somarian S, Tobeh A, Hashemimajd K, Hassanzadeh M, Saeidi M and Zabihi-eMahmoodabad R (2010) Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and plant density on N-P-K uptake by potato tuber. Indian J Hort 67: 329-33. Jamil M, Munir M, Qasim M, Baloch J and Rehman K (2005) Effect of different types of mulches and their duration on the growth and yield of garlic (Allium Sativum L.). Int J Agric Biol 7: 588-91. Janos N (2010) Impact of fertilization and irrigation on the correlation between the soil plant analysis development value and yield of maize. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 41:1293-05. Kar G (2003) Tuber yield of potato as influenced by planting dates and mulches. J Agrometerols 5: 60-70. Kar G and Kumar A (2007) Effect of irrigation and straw mulch on water use and tuber yield of potato in eastern India. Agri Water Mange 94:109-16. Kar G and Singh R (2004) Soil water retention-transmission studies and enhancing water use efficiency of winter crops through soil surface modification. Indian J Soil Conser 8: 18-23. Kaul J N and Sekhon H S (1975) Effect of straw mulch on the performance of soybean. Indian J Agric Sci 45: 291-93. Keen B A (1932) Soil physics in relation to meterology. Quart J Roy Met Soc 58: 229-50. Khera K L, Khera R, Prihar S S, Sandhu B S and Sandhu K S (1976) Mulch, nitrogen, and irrigation effects on growth, yield and nutrient uptake of forage corn. Agron J 68: 937-41. Khera K L, Sandhu B S, Singh C B and Kumar K (1992) Water stress, radiation and plant temperature relationship in maize grown in sub tropical reason of Northern India. Trop Ecol 33: 63-71. Kincaid D C, Westermann D T and Trout T J (1993) Irrigation and soil temperature effects on Russet Burbank quality. Am Potato J 70: 711-23. Kohnke H and Werkhoven C H (1963) Soil temperature and soil freezing as affected by an organic mulch. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 27: 13-17. Kulsum M U, Baque M A and Karim M A (2007) Effect of different nitrogen levels on the leaf chlorophyll content nutrient concentration and nutrient uptake pattern of blackgram. Pakistan J Biol Sci 10: 250-57. Kumar S and Dey P (2011) Effect of different mulches and irrigation methods on root growth, nutrient uptake, water use efficiency and yield of strawberry. Scientia Horticulrae 127: 317-24.

77

MacKerron D K L and Jefferies R A (1986) The influence of early soil moisture stress on tuber numbers in potato. Potato Res 29: 299-312. Maheswari J, Bose J, Sangeetha S P, Sanjutha S and Priya R S (2008) Irrigation regimes and N levels influence chlorophyll, leaf area index, proline and soluble protein content of aerobic rice(Orzya sativa L.). Int J Agri Res 3:307-16. Mahmood M M, Farooq K, Hussain A and Sher R (2002) Effect of mulching on growth and yield of potato crop. Asian J Plant Sci 1: 132-33. Maiti D and Das D K (2006) Management of nitrogen through the use of Leaf Colour Chart (LCC) and Soil Plant Analysis Development (SPAD) in wheat under irrigated ecosystem. Arch Agron Soil Sci 52: 105-12. Maurya P R and Lal R (1981) Effect of different mulch materials on soil properties and on the root growth and yield of maize (Zea maize) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Field Crops Res 4: 33-45. Mehta A P and Prihar S S (1973) Seedling emergence in soyabean and cotton as affected by seed bed characteristics and surface mulches. Indian J Agric Sci 43: 45-49. Mendoza H A and Estarda R N (1979) Breeding potato for tolerance to stress: Heat and Frost. In: mussel, Staples H, RC (ed) Stress Physiology in crop. Pp 227-262. John Willey and Sons. Meyer R D and Marcum D B (1988) Potato yield, petiole nitrogen and soil nitrogen response to water and nitrogen. Agron J 90: 420-29. Midmore D J (1984) Potato in hot tropics I. Soil temperature effect on emergence, plant development and yield. Field Crops Res 8: 255-71. Midmore D J and Prange R K (1992) Growth responses of two Solanum species to contrasting temperatures and irradiance levels: relations to photosynthesis, dark respiration and chlorophyll fluorescence. Ann Botany 69: 13-20. Midmore D J, Berrios D and Roca J (1986) Potato (Solanum spp.) in the hot tropics II. Soil temperature and moisture modification by mulch in contrasting environments. Fields Crops Res 15: 97-108. Mitra R, Pawar S E and Bhatia C R (1988) Nitrogen: The major limiting factor for mungbean yield. Proc.Second Intl. Mungbean Symposium, AVRDC, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan, pp: 244-51. Moolani M K and Hukkeri S B (1965) Investigations on irrigation requirement of potato crop in lateritic soils of West Bengal. Indian Agriculturist 9: 41-52. Mukherjee A, Kundu M and Sarkar S (2010) Role of irrigation and mulch on yield, evapotranspiration rate and water use pattern of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Agri Water Manage 98: 182-89. Neilson K K, Halstead R L and Maclean A J (1961) The influence of soil temperature on growth and mineral composition of corn, bromegrass and potato. Proc Am Soil Sci 25: 369-72. 78

Nimje P M (1996) Effect of row spacing, mulching and weed control on weed growth and yield of soybean (Glycine max). Indian J Agron 41: 427-32. Olsen S R, Cole C V, Watanabe F S and Dean L A (1954) Estimation of available phosphorous by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. U.S Deptt Agric Circ 939: 1-19. Ossom E M, Pace P F, Rhykerd R L and Rhykerd C L (2001) Effect of mulch on weed infestation, soil temperature, nutrient concentration and tuber yield in Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. In Papua New Guinea. Trop Agric (Trinidad) 78: 14451. Ossom E M, Pace P F, Rhykerd R L and Rhykerd C L (2003) Influence of mulch on soil temperature, nutrient concentration, yield components and tuber yield of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Indian J Agri Sci 73: 57-59. Padem H and Alan R (1992) The effect of N rates and irrigation levels on growth, yield and nutrient content of cabbage. J Veg Sci 19: 121-25. Parshall R L (1950) Measuring irrigation water in channels with parshall flumes and small weir. Soil Conser Survey U.S. Deptt Agric Circ 843: 62. Patil R V, Singh C B, Yadahalli Y H and Prabhakar A S (1972) Effects of straw mulching and application of fertilizers on soil moisture conservation and yield of potato. Indian J Agron 17: 17-19. Pawar S N, Divekar S P, Ghule S B and Kadale A S (2004) Effect of mulching on moisture conservation and yield of summer groundnut crop. J Soils Crops 14: 410-13. Perez P L, Garia G A and Galzada B J (1961) Irrigation of potato in costa central of peru. Field crop Abst 16: 1354. Pervaiz M A, Iqbal M, Shahzad K and Hassan A U (2009) Effect of mulch on soil physical properties and N, P, K concentration in Maize (Zea mays) shoots under two tillage systems. Int J Agric Biol 11: 119-24. Piper C S (1966) Soil and plant analysis. Pp 368. Hans publishers, Bombay. Prihar S S and Arora V K (1980) Crop response to mulching with crops. Res Bull Department of Soils, PAU, Ludhiana. Rahman M A, Chikushi J, Saifizzaman M and Lauren J G (2005) Rice straw mulching and nitrogen response of no-till wheat following rice in Bangladesh. Field Crops Res 91: 71-81. Rajput R K and Singh M (1970) Effect of straw mulch and application of fertilizers on soil moisture conservation and the yield of potato. Indian J Agron 15: 41-45. Ramakrishna A, Tam H M, Wani S P and Long T D (2006) Effect of mulch on soil temperature, moisture, weed infestation and yield of groundnut in northern Vietnam. Field Crops Res 95: 115-25.

79

Rathore A L, Pal A R and Sahu K K (1998) Tillage and mulching effects on water use, root growth and yield of rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice. J Sci Food Agri 78: 149-61. Raun W R, Johnson G V and Westerman R J (1999) Fertilizer nitrogen recovery in long term continuous winter wheat. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63: 645-48. Rautaray S K (2010) Benefits of mulching with fried water hyacinth or paddy straw. Potato J 37: 32-36. Richards L A (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. Pp 107-08. U.S.D.A. Agricultural Hand book 60. Ruiz J M, Hernandez J, Castilla N and Romero L (1999) Potato performance in response to different mulches, 1.Nitrogen metabolism and yield. J Agri Food Chem 47: 2660-65. Sandhu B S, Khera K L, Bhatnagar V K, Singh B and Kumar K (1988) Canopy temperature as an index of water stress and grain yield in wheat. Proc National Symp on Management of irrigation system held at CSSRI, Karnal, India Pp 107-14. Sandhu B S, Khera K L and Ranjan M S (1992) Response of summer mung bean to irrigation and straw mulching on a loamy sand soil in northern India. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 40: 240-45. Sandhu B S, Khera K L and Singh C B (1989) Straw mulch effects on evaporation, soil temperature and crop growth. Proc Evaporation from Open Water Surfaces. Pp: 155159.Varoda 7-14 Nov. Sandhu B S, Prihar S S and Khera K L (1980) Sugarcane response to irrigation and straw mulch in a subtropical region. Agri Water Manage 3: 35-44. Sarkar S and Singh S R (2006) Interactive effect of tillage depth and mulch on soil temperature, productivity and water use pattern of rainfed barley (Hordium vulgare L.). Soil Tillage Res 92: 79-86. Sarkar S, Paramanick M and Goswami S B (2007) Soil temperature, water use and yield of yellow sarson (Brassica napus L. var. glauca) in relation to tillage intensity and mulch management under rainfed lowland ecosystem in eastern India. Soil Tillage Res 93: 94-101. Sarma A and Dutta T C (1999) Effect of mulching technique with black plastic film on potato crop under rainfed condition. Crop Res 18: 383-86. Sekhon N K, Hira G S, Sidhu A S and Thind S S (2005) Response of Soyabean (Glycine max Mer.) to wheat straw mulching in different cropping seasons. Soil Use Manage 21: 422-26. Sekhon N K, Singh C B, Sidhu A S and Thind S S, Hira G S and Khurana D S (2008) Effect of straw mulching, irrigation and fertilizer nitrogen levels on soil hydrothermal regimes, water use and yield of hybrid chilli. Arch Agron Soil Sci 54: 163-74. Shafi M (1963) Cooking quality in potato. Agri Pakistan 14: 258-65. 80

Sharma R, Dubey Y P, Kaistha B P and Sharma R (1999) Influence of irrigation and nitrogen on yield total water expense efficiency of potato in lahaul valley of Himalayas. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 47: 19-25. Shock C C, Feibert E B G and Saunders L D (1998) Potato yield and quality response to deficit irrigation. Hort Sci 33: 655-59. Sidhu A S, Sekhon N K, Thind S S and Hira G S (2007) Soil temperature, growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) as affected by wheat straw mulch. Arch Agron Soil Sci 53: 95102. Sieling K, Schroder H, Finch M and Hanus M (1988) Yield, N uptake and apparent N use efficiency of winter wheat and winter barley grown in different cropping systems. J Agric Sci 131: 375-87. Singh B and Sandhu B S (1978) Growth response of forage maize (Zea mays L.) to hydrothermal regime of soils as influenced by irrigation and mulching. Indian J Ecol 5: 181-91. Singh B, Aujla T S, Sandhu B S and Khera K L (1988) Response of autumn potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to irrigation and straw mulching in Northern India. Indian J Agric Sci 58: 521-24. Singh CB, Arora VK and Sekhon NK (2010) Optimizing irrigation and fertilize N use in potato with straw mulching. Paper Presented in National Symp on Food security in context of changing climate, held at Kanpur during Oct 30 to Nov 1, 2010 Pp 122 (Abst). Singh J, Pandey U C and Kohli V P (1990) Response of vegetable pea to irrigation. J Veg Sci 17: 11-15. Singh K 2006. Fall in water table in central Punjab how serious? The Punjab State Farmers Commission. Chandigarh pp.13. Singh M (1952) The influence of cultural and manorial factors on plant development and yield of potato. Empire J Exp Agri 20: 301-15. Singh PN, Joshi BP and Singh G (1987) Effect of mulch on moisture conservation, irrigation requirement and yield of potato. Indian J Agron 32: 452-54. Singh R, Bhandari A R and Thakur B C (2004) Effect of mulching on in-situ soil moisture, growth, yield and economics of plum fruit trees under rainfed condition in mid hills of Himalayas. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 52: 411-14. Slater J W (1968) The effect of night temperature on tuber initiation of the potato. European Potato J 11: 14-22. Smith G P E, Kinnison A F and Corns A G (1931) Irrigation investigation in young grape fruit orchards. Ariz Agri Exp Sta Tech Bull 37: 414-419. Sood M C (1986) Effect of supplemental irrigation, mulching and nitrogen levels on growth yield and nutrient uptake of potatoes in Shimla hills. Indian J Agric Sci 56: 47-55. 81

Steineck O (1958) Irrigation of potato. Field CropAbstr 12. Subbiah B V and Asija G L (1956) A rapid procedure for estimating of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci 25: 259-60. Snyder R G, and Ewing E E (1989) Interactive effects of temperature, photoperiod, and cultivar on tuberization of potato cuttings. Hort Sci 24: 336-38. Tan Y C, Lai J S, Adhikari K R, Shakya S M, Shukla A K and Sharma K R (2009) Efficacy of mulching, irrigation and nitrogen applications on bottle gourd and okra for yield improvement and crop diversification. Irri Drain Sys 23: 25-41. Thind S S, Sidhu A S, Sekhon N K and Hira G S (2007) Integrated nutrient management for sustainable crop production in potato- sunflower sequence. J Sust Agri 29: 173-88. Thomas J R, Mamken L N and Brown R G (1970) Yield of cabbage in relation to nitrogen and water supply. J Am Soc Hort Sci 95: 732-35. Upadhayay N C, Sharma N L, Sharma R C, Shekhawal G S, Khurana S M P, Pandey S K and Chandla U K (1994) Efficient use of urea through water management in potato production. Potato; present and future. Proc of National Symp pp 134-138. Modipuram. Vadi H D, Kachot N A, Shekh M A, Khafi H R and Kikani V L 2005. Tillage practices and mulching for improving moisture conservation and yield of pigeonpea. Crop Res 30: 19-22. Van Loon C D (1981) The effect of water stress on potato growth, development, and yield. Am Potato J 58: 51-69. Walkley A and Black C A (1934) An examination of the Digtjareff method for determination of soil organic matter and a proposed modification of chornic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37: 29-39. Wang F X, Feng S Y, Hou X Y, Kang S Z and Han J J (2009) Potato growth with and without plastic mulch in two typical regions of Northern China. Field Crops Res 110: 123-9. Western Potato Council (2003) Botany of the potato plant. Adaptation from Guide to Commercial Potato Production on the Canadian Prairies. Accessed on 14 April 2005. Available at http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/docs/crops/horticulture/PotatoManual_Botany. pdf Wharton M F and Hobart C (1931) Studies in lettuce seedbed irrigation under high temperature conditions. Tech Bull Ariz Agric Exp Stn 33: 283-03. Wien H C, Minotti P L and Grubinger V P (1993) Polythene mulch stimulates early root growth and nutrient uptake of transplanted tomatoes. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 118: 20711 Wierenga P J, Hagan R M and Gregory E J (1971) Effect of irrigation water temperature on soil temperature. Agron J 63: 33-36. 82

Yadav S C and Tripathi B R (1972) Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) to soil moisture regime and fertilization. Indian J Agri Sci 42: 488-92. Yamaguchi M, Timm H and Spurr A R (1964) Effect of soil temperature on growth and nutrition of potato plants and tuberization, composition and perioderm structure of tubers. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 84: 412-23. Yuan B Z, Nishiyama S and Kang Y (2003) Effects of different irrigation regimes on growth and yield of drip-irrigated potato. Agric Water Manage 63: 153-67. Zhang S, Lovadahl L, Grip H, Tong Y, Yang X and Wang Q (2009) Effects of mulching and catch cropping on soil temperature, soil moisture and wheat yield on the Loess Plateau of China. Soil Tillage Res 102: 78-86.

83

VITA

Name of the student Fathers name Mothers name Nationality Date of birth Permanent home address

: : : : : :

Sukhwinder Singh S. Jagtar Singh Sdn. Harmeet Kaur Indian 10-03-1986 VPO Mehmuana Teh and Distt-Faridkot, Punjab. e-mail: sukhadhillon86@yahoo.com

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Bachelors degree University Year of award

: : : : : : : : :

B.Sc. Agriculture (Hon's) Punjabi University, Patiala 2008 6.7/10.00 M.Sc. (Soils) Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 2011 7.32/10.00 Optimizing irrigation and nitrogen use with straw mulching in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

OCPA Masters degree University Year of award OCPA Title of Masters Thesis

84

85

APPENDIX I N content (%) in potato tuber as influenced by mulch, irrigation and N levels during autumn potato Treatment N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) % N in tuber No mulch 0.66 1.10 1.20 1.33 1.07 0.90 1.20 1.26 1.33 1.17 0.76 1.23 1.33 1.36 1.17 1.14 Mulch 0.90 1.26 1.43 1.46 1.26 1.13 1.36 1.53 1.50 1.38 1.20 1.43 1.56 1.46 1.41 1.35 Mean 0.78 1.18 1.31 1.39 1.16 1.01 1.28 1.39 1.41 1.27 0.98 1.33 1.44 1.41 1.29

M= .13, I= NS, N= .107, M x I= NS, M x N=NS, I x N= NS and M x I x N= NS

APPENDIX II N content (%) in potato haulm as influenced by mulch, irrigation and N levels during autumn potato Treatment N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) % N in haulm No mulch 2.23 2.36 2.53 2.56 2.48 2.50 2.83 2.76 2.90 2.83 2.66 2.73 2.76 2.73 2.74 2.63 Mulch 2.33 2.63 2.76 3.03 2.81 2.70 2.70 2.90 3.06 2.89 2.66 2.76 2.90 3.06 2.91 2.79 Mean 2.28 2.50 2.65 2.80 2.65 2.60 2.77 2.83 2.98 2.86 2.66 2.75 2.83 2.90 2.82

M= .131, I= .138, N= .114, M x I= NS, M x N= NS, I x N= NS and M x I x N= NS

ii

APPENDEX III Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N levels on contribution (%) of different sizes of potato (weight basis) IW/PANE= N0 N135 No Mulch N180 N225 Mean N0 N135 Mulch N180 N225 Mean

>50 mm 1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05) 12.2 15.3 12.7 13.4 25.1 25.7 25.8 25.5 28.9 27.9 36.4 31.1 35.5 39.9 33.3 36.2 25.4 27.2 27.1 26.5 17.1 16.2 20 17.8 42.2 39.7 40.1 40.7 37.1 53.4 54.5 48.3 44.4 59.6 50.6 51.5 35.2 42.2 41.3 39.5

M= 3.7, I= 1.2, N= 1.5, M x I= 1.7, M x N= 2.1, I x N=2.6 and M x I x N=3.7 50-45 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

14.4 14.8 11.1 13.4

18.8 18.8 17.9 18.5

20.9 19 16 18.6

17.6 17.8 18 17.8

17.9 17.6 15.8 17.0

17.6 17.3 19.7 18.2

18 19.9 18.2 18.7

17.1 11.7 12.3 13.7

20 11.8 17 16.3

18.2 15.2 16.8 16.7

M= NS, I= 1.1, N= 1.4, M x I= 1.6, M x N= 1.4, I x N=2.4 and M x I x N=3.4 45-35 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

45.6 44 46.9 45.5

39.3 37.9 37.9 38.4

34.4 34.4 32 33.6

32.8 29.6 37.1 33.2

38.0 36.5 38.5 37.6

43.6 43.1 39.3 42.0

27.8 30.3 30.3 29.5

33.1 24.8 24.7 27.5

26.3 20.9 22.8 23.3

32.7 29.8 29.3 30.5

M= 1.8, I= 1.0, N= 1.5, M x I= 1.4, M x N= 2.2, I x N=2.7 and M x I x N=3.8 35-25 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

23.9 21.9 25 23.6

13.9 14.7 16 14.9

13 16.1 13.2 14.1

11.3 10.2 10 10.5

15.5 15.7 16.1 15.7

18.5 20.2 18.2 19.0

10.1 8.5 9.9 9.5

10.3 8 7.2 8.5

7.8 6.3 7.8 7.3

11.7 10.8 10.8 11.0

M= 2.5, I= NS, N= 1.1, M x I= NS, M x N= NS, I x N=NS and M x I x N=2.8 <25 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

4 4.2 4.3 4.2

2.9 2.8 2.4 2.7

2.8 2.6 2.4 2.6

2.7 2.5 1.6 2.3

3.1 3.0 2.7 2.9

3.2 3.3 2.8 3.1

1.8 1.7 1.5 1.7

2.3 2.2 1.3 1.9

1.6 1.4 1.8 1.6

2.2 2.2 1.9 2.0

M= NS, I= NS, N= 0.41, M x I= NS, M x N= NS, I x N=NS and M x I x N= NS

iii

APPENDIX IV Effect of mulch, irrigation and fertilizer N levels on contribution (%) of different sizes of potato (Number basis) IW/PANE= N0 N135 No Mulch N180 N225 Mean N0 N135 Mulch N180 N225 Mean

>50 mm 1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05) 3.5 2.6 3.3 3.1 9.6 10.8 11.4 10.6 11.5 10.9 13.1 11.8 13.4 15.1 17.5 15.3 9.5 9.9 11.3 10.2 5.9 5.7 7.8 6.5 18.1 24.9 17 20.0 15.8 22.1 24.2 20.7 23.3 27.7 22.3 24.4 15.8 20.1 17.8 17.9

M= 3.9, I= 1.6, N= 1.2, M x I=2.2, M x N=1.7, I x N=2.1 and M x I x N=3.0 50-45 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

7.4 4 5.2 5.5

11.5 12.1 12.8 12.1

11.9 11.8 10.3 11.3

11.6 15.4 13.1 13.4

10.6 10.8 10.4 10.5

8.7 8.9 9.8 9.1

11.8 12.6 11 11.8

11.9 8.4 11.9 10.7

14.4 13.2 14.1 13.9

11.7 11.4 12.3 11.3

M= NS, I=NS, N=O.96, M x I=NS, M x N=1.3, I x N=NS and M x I x N=2.3 45-35 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

33.5 36.1 31.3 33.6

33.5 30.2 33.4 32.4

34.8 33.6 34.2 34.2

31.7 31.1 32.6 31.8

33.4 32.8 32.9 33.0

36.3 35.3 34.7 35.4

30.5 30.8 34.4 31.9

29.9 27 33.2 30.0

30.5 29.8 28.2 29.5

31.8 30.7 32.6 31.7

M= 2.1, I=NS, N=1.1, M x I=1.3, M x N=NS, I x N=1.9 and M x I x N=2.7 35-25 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

35.8 42.5 38.3 38.9

28 29.5 28.8 28.8

24.3 27 27.2 26.2

23 24 24.3 23.8

27.8 30.8 29.7 29.4

32 33.5 34.3 33.3

23.6 18.7 25.6 22.6

24.9 19 19.5 21.1

20 17.5 21.7 19.7

25.1 22.2 25.3 24.1

M= 2.1, I=NS, N=1.1, M x I=1.3, M x N=NS, I x N=1.9 and M x I x N=2.7 <25 mm

1.0 1.5 2.0 Mean CD (0.05)

19.9 14.8 21.9 18.9

17.7 17.4 13.7 16.3

17.6 16.7 15.1 16.5

20.8 14.3 12.5 15.9

19.0 15.8 15.8 16.8

17.1 16.7 13.3 15.7

16 12.9 12.1 13.7

17.5 23.5 11.3 17.4

11.8 11.9 15 12.9

15.6 16.3 12.9 14.9

M= 0.81, I=1.13, N=1.01, M x I=1.6, M x N=1.4, I x N=1.7 and M x I x N=2.4

iv

APPENDIX V Weed biomass (fresh weight) as influenced by irrigation and N levels at 58 DAS Treatment N0 IW/PAN-E=1.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=1.5 N135 N180 N225 Mean N0 IW/PAN-E=2.0 N135 N180 N225 Mean G. Mean CD (0.05) Weed biomass, q ha-1 No mulch 4.06 3.10 2.50 2.35 3.00 4.00 3.24 2.65 2.42 3.08 4.58 3.67 3.13 1.90 3.32 3.13 I=NS, N=O.57, I x N=NS