Indian J. Fert., Vol. 9 (4), pp.80-94 (15 pages) …sap.ipni.net/ipniweb/region/sap.nsf/0...Fertiliser Best Management Practices for Maize Systems M. L. Jat International Maize and

Fertiliser Best Management Practicesfor Maize Systems

M. L. JatInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), NASC Complex, Pusa, New Delhi

T. Satyanarayana and Kaushik MajumdarInternational Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), South Asia Program, Gurgaon, Haryana

C. M. Parihar and S. L. JatDirectorate of Maize Research, Pusa, New Delhi

J. P. TetarwalMaharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, ARS, Kota, Rajasthan

R. K. JatBorlaug Institute for South Asia (BISA)-CIMMYT-India, Pusa, Bihar

andY. S. Saharawat

Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Pusa, New Delhi

Maize is an important crop for food and nutritional security in India. Strong marketdemand and resilience of maize to abiotic and biotic stresses have increased the area andproduction of maize in the country over the past decade. Productivity of maize, however,has not increased proportionately and significant yield gaps are evident across maizegrowing areas in the country. Maize is an exhaustive crop and removes large amounts ofplant nutrients from the soil to support high biomass production. The 4R Principles ofapplying right source of nutrients, at the right rate, at the right time and at the right placeis expected to increase nutrient use efficiency, productivity and farm profit from maizeproduction and provides opportunity for better environmental stewardship of nutrients.Adaptation of 4R Principle-based site-specific nutrient management decision support toolsprovides the opportunity for large-scale adoption of improved nutrient managementacross maize ecologies.

Indian J. Fert., Vol. 9 (4), pp.80-94 (15 pages)

Maize, a crop ofworldwide economicimportance, providesapproximately 30% of

the food calories to more than 4.5billion people in 94 developingcountries. The demand for maize isexpected to double worldwide by2050. Maize is considered as thethird most important food cropamong the cereals in India andcontributes to nearly 9% of thenational food basket (7). Grown inan area of 8.55 mha with an averageproductivity of 2.5 t ha-1, maizecontributes to more than half of thecoarse cereal production of thecountry. The annual maizeproduction in India is about 21.7

mt with an annual growth rate of3 to 4 % (1). Maize yields in Indianeed to be increased significantlyto sustain this growth rate to meetIndia’s growing food, feed andindustrial needs.

Area, production and productivityof maize grew impressively duringXIth plan at a growth rate of 2.6, 8.2and 4.9%, as a result ofcommendable response both fromthe producers and industries (12).Historically, the area, productionand productivity growth of maizeduring pre-green revolution era(upto 1970) was in increasing orderbut it remained slow and staticduring for almost 2 decades of post-

green revolution era. However,during past one decade (2003-2011), there has been quantumincrease in area, production andproductivity of maize in India(Figures 1, 2 and 3). Introductionof single cross hybrids in Indianmaize programme since 2006resulted in productivityenhancement of 134 kg ha -1

annum -1 in the last five yearsalthough the extent of coveragewas less than 25%. Growingmarket demand by the feed andstarch industry and increase inminimum support price from Rs.540 q-1 in 2006-07 to Rs. 1175 q-1 in2012-13 led to make maize as amore competitive crop and

Indian Journal of Fertilisers, April 2013 80

encouraged farmers to grow maizeto a large extent. Also, the exportcompetitiveness of Indian maizeespecially for East Asian economiesdue to low freight charges madethis crop more versatile with nocarryover stocks and Indiaexported a record 4.6 mt of maizeduring 2012-13 (12) and furtheropens the avenues for more

demand of maize in India.

Consequently, maize is rapidlyemerging as a favourablecomponent crop in the major cerealbased cropping systems of India.Development of high yieldingmaize hybrids with lesser waterrequirement, resilience to bioticand abiotic stresses, high resource

use efficiency under various agro-climatic conditions, have led todevelopment of new maize basedcropping systems adapted tovarious farm typologies. With thecurrent and projected challengesfor natural resources such aswater scarcity, temperaturestresses etc, maize has emerged asa potential alternative for

Indian Journal of Fertilisers, April 2013

Figure 1 – Decadal trends in maize area in India during 1950-2011

Figure 2 – Decadal trends in maize production in India during 1950-2011

8 1

diversification of rice-rice systemwith rice-maize and maize-ricesystems; and rice-wheat systemwith rice-maize cropping systemsin many ecologies of the country.Also, the market drivenagriculture of specialty corn inperi-urban interface has openedanother avenue for diversifyingintensive cereal systems (13). High-yielding maize hybrids, with veryhigh biomass production, extractshigher amounts of mineralnutrients from the soil than byother major cereals like rice orwheat. Biotechnology, breeding,and agronomic advancementshave propelled maize yields to newhighs with little guidance aboutfertilisation strategies for thesemodern maize hybrids to achievetheir maximum yield potential.Being an emerging crop in manynon-traditional ecologies andseasons, grown under differentcropping systems andmanagement practices, there existlarge information gap onappropriate nutrient managementstrategies for maize in contrastingcropping systems andmanagement practices. The

fertiliser best managementpractices (FBMPs) for maize undersuch scenarios are still not welldeveloped to help realize thesustainable benefit of thesealternative maize based croppingsystems. Application of existingfertilisation practices, developeddecades ago, may not match uptakerequirements of modern hybridsthat are now grown at populationdensities higher than ever before.Nutrient requirement of maizevaries from field to field due to highvariability in soil fertility acrossfarmer fields, and singlehomogenous nutrientrecommendations may not be veryuseful in improving maize yields.Increasing fertiliser prices andescalating fuel prices ininternational market will makefertiliser input one of the costliestin agriculture. Fertiliser bestmanagement practices, with dueimportance to indigenous sourcesof nutrients such as organicmanures, biofertilisers, cropresidues, inclusion of legumes, useof nutrient efficient genotypes etc.,will be required for sustainablemanagement of emerging maize

systems in the country. This paperprovides a synthesis of currentinformation on maize productionsystems, pros and cons of existingnutrient management strategiesand the fertiliser best managementpractices for bridging yield gaps incurrent and emerging maizesystems in the country.

Maize-based Cropping Systems inIndia

Maize is a versatile crop adaptedto range of ecologies, seasons andregions in the country, and isgrown in sequence or as companioncrop with a range of crops underdifferent production systems.However, the geographical spreadof different maize-based rotationsvaries primarily with adaptabilityfor a cropping window underprevailing ecology, landtopography, soil type, moistureavailability, and markets.Traditionally being a monsoonseason crop, maize-wheat is stillthe predominant maize basedsystem (1.8 mha) and is 3rd majorcrop-rotation in India andcontributes ~3.0 % in national food


Figure 3 – Decadal trends in maize productivity in India during 1950-2011

Pro

du

ctiv

ity

(k

g/h

a)

8 2

basket. The other major maize-based systems are maize-fallow,maize-mustard, maize-chickpea,maize-maize, maize-potato, etc. Inrecent past, the challenges ofwater shortages, temperaturestresses in rice primarily in ricesystems and to some extent inwheat systems, andopportunities of higherproductivity of maize under theseconstrained environments as wellas market opportunities for maizehave led to evolution of severalmaize systems in non-traditionalmaize ecologies. For examplerice-maize (~0.5 mha) has emergedas a potential maize systemreplacing winter rice in waterscarce areas of double riceecologies and wheat in terminalheat prone shorter wheat seasonecologies. Introduction of highyielding maize hybrids for springseason and its adaptability tointensive rice systems have alsoled to evolution of rice-potato-maize system in larger areas ofIGP. Emerging challenges ofwater scarcity and availability ofvery high yield potential hybridsfor monsoon season coupledwith improved agronomicmanagement practices are leadingto opportunities for re-evolutionof maize-wheat-mungbeanrotation in non-traditionalintensive rice-wheat systems inwestern Indo-Gangetic Plains(IGP). Also, the emerging marketopportunities for specialty cornand green cobs, high valueintercropping systems involvingmaize are also emerging aspotential maize systems in peri-urban regions of the country.

Yield Gaps in Maize

Fundamentally, yield gaps arecaused by deficiencies in thebiophysical crop growthenvironment that are notaddressed by agriculturalmanagement practices. Yieldpotential (Yp) of any crop cultivar/hybrid for a site and for a givenplanting date is the yield achievedwhen grown in environments to

which it is adapted, with nutrientsand water non-limiting and pestsand diseases effectively controlled(10). Timsina et al. (37) using hybridmaize models, estimated yieldpotential of four maize hybrids inIndia that ranged from 7.1 to 19.7 tha -1 and reported that plantingduring August to November gaveexceptionally high yields due tolow temperature during grainfilling, long growth duration, andlarge receipts of solar radiation atsome of the locations.

Attainable yield (Yat), generally setat 80–90% of Yp, is average grainyield in farmers’ fields with bestmanagement practices and withoutmajor limitations of water andnutrients. Attainable yield can belimited by variety, plantingdensity, water and nutrientmanagement, soil-relatedconstraints (acidity, alkalinity,salinity, etc.), and climate-relatedconstraints (flooding, drought,etc.). Actual yield (Yac) is the yieldfarmers receive with their averagemanagement under all possibleconstraints. The differencebetween attainable yield (Yat) andactual yield (Yac) of crop speciesand varieties can be quite large.Attainable yield of maize infarmers’ fields, achieved underoptimal conditions, can varysignificantly across the agro-ecologies mainly due to genotype xenvironment interactions but alsodue to confounding influence ofbiotic and abiotic stresses andagronomic management. Dass et al.(6) reported Yat and Yac of maizefrom experiments conducted in 13representative locations in variousagro-environments for 9 years(1995–2003) under the All IndiaCoordinated Research Project(AICRPM) on maize. The selectedlocations were first divided intotwo categories: locations havinglower productivity than thenational average (Banswara,Udaipur, Godhra, Varanasi,Kanpur and Chhindwara) andlocations (Mandya, Arbhavi,Ludhiana, Dhaulakuan, Bajaura,Dholi and Hyderabad) with greater

productivity as compared tonational average. Data indicatedthat the Yac is always less than Yatunder all the agro-environmentsdue to limited availability ofagronomic inputs and theirscheduling. Potential forimproving Yat was more at thelocations of the first group ascompared to the locations of thesecond group. Except Banswara,other locations of the first groupshowed the potential for achievingYat of 4–6 t ha-1, while Yac at all thelocations of this group was lessthan half (1-2 t ha-1) of the Yat. Ithas also been reported that presentaverage Yac at farmers’ fields isonly about 50% of the Yat, whichcould be increased throughadoption of improved technology.On the other hand, Yat for mostlocations was about 4.0 t ha -1

except for Arbhavi (5.9 t ha-1) in thehigh productivity group, whereas,Yac at most of the locations of thisgroup was more (1.2–3.4 t ha-1) ascompared to the low productivitygroup (6). The data reveal that Yatof maize can be quite large, and soyield gap between Yp and Yat,between Yat and Yac, and thatbetween Yp and Yac can beminimized.

Systematic analysis of the role ofgeneral and location specificdeterminants of maize yields mayhelp to narrow down the yield gapat various levels and improvingactual yields. Potential, attainableand actual yields of maize wereevaluated at seven representativelocations in South Asia undervarious agro-environments togenerate the productivity scenarioof maize under these ecolologies.The analysis of the simulated,attainable and actual maize yieldsin major maize growing ecologiesacross South Asia (Figure 4)revealed wide ‘management yieldgaps’ ranging from 36 to 77% (30).These gaps are ascribed mainly tothree major factors, (i) low yieldinggenotypes, (ii) poor cropestablishment due to randombroadcasting and (iii) inadequateand inappropriate fertiliser

Indian Journal of Fertilisers, April 2013 8 3

nutrient applications as 15-45%maize acreage remains un-fertilised and the rest of the acreagehas imbalanced nutrientapplications (6, 15).

Nutrient Use in Maize

Nutrient removal is far excess oftheir replenishment underintensively cropped cereal systemsin India, which has led towidespread multi-nutrientdeficiencies in soils, consistentlyincreasing response of crops tonutrient application (21). As aresult of improved agronomic,breeding, and biotechnologicaladvancements in maize systems,yields have reached far higherlevels than achieved ever before.However, greater yields of maizehave always been accompanied bya significant removal of macro andmicronutrient from the soil. Thelatest summary on soil test levelsin North America by IPNI reportedthat an increasing percentage ofU.S. and Canadian soils havedropped to levels near or belowcritical P, K, S, and Zn thresholdsduring the last 5 years (11). Soilswith decreasing fertility levels,coupled with higher yielding

hybrids, suggest that farmers havenot sufficiently matched nutrientuptake and removal with accuratemaintenance fertiliserapplications. Timsina andMajumdar (36) indicated thatmaize grain yields in Bangladeshhave been decreasing where maizewas grown on the same land forthe last 5 to 10 years. The authorsattributed the yield decline toimbalanced and inadequatenutrient application by farmers.

Maize with the yield potential ofless than one t/ha removes about90-100 kg/ha of nutrients from thesoil (Table 1). With the introductionof improved cultivars, theproductivity has increased up to4.0 t/ha with nutrient removal ofaround 220 kg/ha. Introduction ofsingle cross hybrids, theproductivity further increased to7.0 t/ha and total nutrient removalhas also increased to 420 kg/ha.

In several states of the countryparticularly hill ecologies (NorthEastern Himalayas, Uttarakhand,Himachal Pradesh) and rainfedand tribal states (Madhya Pradesh,Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Orissa,and West Bengal), large area under

maize production still remaineduntreated with fertilisers. Theextent of area was up to 90 %especially in areas where farmersare not sure to harvest their cropdue to abiotic stresses, particularlyduring monsoon season. Besides,the current nutrient use in the highinput maize systems indicatesimbalance plant nutrition withvery high use of N and less use of Pand negligible use of K fertilisersand micro nutrients. This has ledto nutrient imbalances in soils andlower nutrient use efficiency andeconomic profitability. Thiswarrants adequate and balanceduse of plant nutrients not only forspecific farm and ecology but alsoin production systems usingfertiliser best managementpractices adapted to localsituations and farm typologies toachieve better efficiency andnutrient stewardship.

Nutrient Response of Maize

While managing plant nutrients inmaize systems, nitrogen (N),phosphorus (P), and potassium (K)remain the major ones forincreased and sustainedproductivity. However, cultivation


Figure 4 – Potential, attainable and actual yields and management yield gaps under different ecologiesacross South Asia

8 4

of high yielding maize systems willlikely exacerbate the problem ofsecondary and micronutrientdeficiencies, not only because largeramounts are removed, but alsobecause the application of largeamounts of N, P, and K to achievehigher yield targets oftenstimulates the deficiency ofsecondary and micronutrients(17). However, for determiningright rates of nutrients,information on crop yield responseto fertiliser application, agronomicefficiency and return on investment(ROI) to fertiliser application is alsoessential. Soils of the major maizegrowing areas in India areinherently low in soil organicmatter and nitrogen is the majorlimiting plant nutrient, with Navailability being routinelysupplemented through applicationof fertilisers. Though the yieldincrease in maize due to Nfertilisation was substantial (92%),the average agronomic efficiency ofN (kg grain kg-1 N) in maize wasonly 12.5 (28), indicating low N useefficiency. Satyanarayana et al. (32)reported variable maize yieldresponse to N fertiliser application,ranging from 400-5160 kg ha-1 withan average response of 2154 kgha-1. Though N plays an importantrole in governing the yield of crops,

lack of awareness on improvedstrategies of N management,coupled with relatively lowerprices of N fertilisers (especiallyurea), encourages imbalanced useby farmers. Therefore, Nmanagement strategies thatconsider the yield response,agronomic efficiency of N (AEN),coupled with appropriate timingand splitting, may be used not onlyfor minimizing the losses of Nfrom agricultural fields but also forincreasing the yield andprofitability from N use. A recentstudy (3) reported that increasingN levels from 130 to 390 kg N ha-1

resulted in increasing maize yieldfrom 4.3 to 9.02 t ha-1 in the maize-wheat cropping system (MWCS) ofnorthern Karnataka. However,they also reported that in additionto crop response, AEN and ROI alsoneed to be considered whiledeciding N application rate in theMWCS.

P response is highly variable andis influenced by soil characteristicsand growing environment of thecrop. P application rate, therefore,must be based on expectedresponse of a particular location.An average maize P response of 853kg ha-1 across 36 locations in Biharand West Bengal was reported (14),

which also indicated that theaverage P responses were higher inwinter maize (1070 kg/ha) than inspring maize (513 kg/ha). However,P application based on yieldresponse alone does not take intoaccount the nutrient removal bycrops where response is low ornegligible. In such scenarios,nutrient removal by the cropwould not be replenishedadequately by external application,which may lead to nutrient miningand decline in soil fertility. Oneway to counter that would be toapply a maintenance dose thatreplenishes part of the nutrientexported out of the field withharvested crop part (grain andstraw). This will ensure that soilfertility levels that can supportintensive production systems aremaintained. Finally, managementof P fertiliser for maize systemsmust take account of residue andorganic amendments applied to thesoil.

Indian soils, despite often havingrelatively large total K content,resulted in variable yield andeconomic loss to the farmers withskipping application of K. Long-term use of N and P in the absenceof K illustrates the seriousness ofnutrient imbalance of a region. Li


Table 1 – Major nutrient removal from the soil by the maize plant

Plant part Yield (t/ha) Nutrient extraction (kg/ha) TotalN P K Ca Mg Zn

Traditional cultivars

Grain yield 1.0 25 6 15 3.0 2.0 0.023 51.0

Stover 1.5 15 3 18 4.5 3.0 0.040 43.5

Total 2.5 40 9 33 7.5 5.0 0.063 94.5

Improved cultivars

Grain yield 4.0 63 12 30 8.0 6.0 0.093 119.1

Stover 4.0 37 6 38 10.0 8.0 0.108 99.1

Total 8.0 100 18 68 18.0 14.0 0.201 218.2

Hybrid cultivars

Grain yield 7.0 128 20 37 14.0 11.0 0.163 210.2

Stover 7.0 72 14 93 17.0 13.0 0.189 209.2

Total 14.0 200 34 130 31.0 24.0 0.352 419.4

Source: (41).

8 5

et al. (19) demonstrated the effect ofK fertilisation on maize productionwithin a region that has typicallyrelied on N and P alone. Theyreported that balanced use of N, P,and K fertiliser generated anaverage yield increase of 1.2 t/haand improved farm income by USD300/ha when compared to commonfarmer practice. Grain yieldresponse to fertiliser K is highlyvariable and is influenced by soil,crop and management factors.Majumdar et al. (21) reported thatthe average yield loss of maize inIndo-Gangetic Plains due toomission of K application was 700kg ha-1. These observations were incontrary to the general perceptionthat omitting potash for a seasonwill not adversely affect maizeproduction in the country. Theresults also demonstrate clearlythe low K supply levels of mostmaize growing soils in India.Therefore, improved Kmanagement will have greatpotential for improving the overallproductivity of maize systems inIndia.

A systematic approach of nutrientmanagement (22) indicated that N,P, K, and Zn were the most limitingnutrients for maize growth inTamil Nadu and relative yieldswere 57, 63, 71, and 75% of theoptimum when N, P, K, and Znwere omitted. Also, maize yieldsand responses to applied nutrientsvaries considerably across farmerfields, mainly because of small andmarginal landholdings that resultin high variability in soil nutrientavailability over small distances(33). The generally high variabilityin maize nutrient responses acrossfields and establishment practicessuggests that spatial and temporaldifferences of nutrient availabilityneeds to be accounted for whileformulating nutrient managementstrategies in maize. Besides, largevariability in crop response to allnutrients indicates the need todevelop fertiliser recommendationtools that consider more than justa soil test (19). In other words, best-bet approaches for nutrient

management like site-specificnutrient management and decisionsupport tools like Nutrient Expertfor Hybrid Maize, based onrealistic estimates of indigenousnutrient supply and nutrientrequirements for a targeted cropyield for individual farmers’ fields,will be required to improve yieldand nutrient use efficiencies inmaize production systems.

Fertiliser Best ManagementPractices for Maize

Nutrient management in multiplecropping systems is a complexprocess. Maize and maize-basedsystems involving cereals, extractlarge amounts of mineral nutrientsfrom the soil due to large grain andstover yields. Proper nutrientmanagement of exhaustive maize-based systems should aim tosupply fertilisers adequate for thedemand of the component cropsand apply in ways that minimizeloss and maximize the efficiency ofuse. The amount of fertiliserrequired depends on many factorsincluding the indigenous supply ofeach nutrient which can be ofappreciable quantities (5).Phosphorus inputs from irrigationand rain waters are negligible but1,000 mm irrigation throughsurface water may provide up to30 kg K ha-1 yr-1 (8, 9) and up to 1,100kg S ha-1 yr-1 (27). In Rice-Maize(RM) systems, K inputs may bemuch larger than 30 kg ha-1 wheregroundwater is used. Thus,emphasis must be upon thenutrient requirements for targetyields and nutrient supply byintegrated use of indigenoussources, soil organic matter (SOM),farm yard manure (FYM),composts, crop residues, andincreasingly, fertilisers to achieveand sustain high yields andnutrient use efficiencies of intensivemaize-based systems. Fertiliser isthe dominant source of nutrientsand is required to increase yield ofcrops but should be applied in sucha quantity that it becomesprofitable and will have leastadverse effect on environment.

Improving our understanding ofuptake timing and rates,partitioning, and remobilization ofnutrients by maize plantsprovides opportunities to optimizefertiliser rates, sources, andapplication timings. Optimizingnutrient management in maizesystems includes using the rightsource at the right rate, at the righttime, and at the right place - the 4Rapproach (4). While developingfertiliser recommendations formaize, two major aspects of plantnutrition are important tounderstand for managing highyielding maize productionsystems. This includes: 1) theamount of a given mineral nutrientthat needs to be acquired by theplant during the growing season,referred to as “total nutrientuptake,” or nutrients required forproduction, and 2) the amount ofthe nutrient transported out of thefield with grain and straw/stover,referred to as “removed withharvested product”. Providing thenutrients as and when required bythe crop and replenishing theexported nutrient out the field withharvested products ensuressustainability of productionsystems. Further improvement offertility practices require matchingin-season nutrient uptake withavailability, a component of theright source, which isinterconnected with the othercomponents of 4R Principle. Themaximum rate of nutrient uptakecoincides with the greatest periodof dry matter accumulation duringvegetative growth for mostnutrients. Unlike the othernutrients, P, S, and Znaccumulation are greater duringgrain-filling than vegetativegrowth; therefore, season-longsupply is critical for balanced cropnutrition. Similarly,micronutrients demonstrate morenarrow periods of nutrient uptakethan macronutrients, especially Znand B. Therefore, fertiliser sourcesthat supply nutrients at the rateand time that match maizenutritional needs are critical foroptimizing nutrient use


efficiencies.

Effectively minimizing nutrientstress requires matching nutrientsupply with plant needs, especiallyin high-yielding conditions.Sulphur and N, for example, aresusceptible to similarenvironmental challenges in theoverall goal of improving nutrientavailability and uptake. However,the timing of N uptake incomparison to S is surprisinglydifferent (2), suggesting practicesthat are effective for one but maynot improve uptake of the other. Incase of Nitrogen, two-thirds of thetotal plant uptake is acquired byVT/R1 crop physiological stage ofmaize, whereas S accumulation isgreater during grain-filling stageswith more than one-half of Suptake occurring after VT/R1.Similarly, potassium, like N,accumulates two-thirds of totaluptake by VT/R1 and greater thanone-half of total P uptake occursafter VT/R1 (2), suggesting thatseason-long supply of P and S iscritical for maize nutrition whilethe majority of K and N uptakeoccurs during vegetative growth.Unlike N, P, K, and S, which have arelatively constant rate of uptake,micronutrients exhibit moreintricate uptake patterns. Uptakeof Zn and B, for example, begins inthe early vegetative stages andreaches a plateau at VT/R1 stage ofthe crop. Thereafter, Zn exhibits aconstant uptake rate similar to thatof P and S, while B uptake follows amajor sigmoidal uptake phaseconcluding around R5 stage ofmaize. Zinc and B follows shorterperiods of more intense uptake incomparison to macronutrients.Late vegetative and reproductivegrowth, constituting only one-third of the growing season,accounts for as much as 71% of Znuptake by maize. A similar trendis also noticed for B where, as muchas 65% of B uptake occurred overonly one-fifth of the growingseason (2). This also indicates thatmatching micronutrient needs ofmaize in highyielding conditionsclearly requires supplyingnutrient sources and rates that can

meet crop needs during key growthstages. Therefore, the 4R approach(right source, right time, rightamount and right place) holdsmerit not only attaining higheryields but efficiency, profitabilityand environmental stewardship.

Integrated Nutrient ManagementIncluding Crop Residues

Intensified and multiple croppingsystems require judiciousapplication of fertiliser, organic andbio-fertilisers for yieldsustainability and improved soilhealth. Integrated plant nutrientsupply (IPNS) system encompassesa combined use of different sourcesof plant nutrients for maintainingand improving the soil fertility forsustainable crop productionwithout degrading the soilresource on long-term basis. Itrelies on a combined use of organicmanures including green manures,recycling of crop residues, bio-fertilisers, vermicompost and ajudicious and need based use offertilisers. A summary of multi-location trials on integratednutrient management in maize (16)under partially irrigatedconditions (Table 2), comprising of

different combinations and levelsof organic and fertiliser sources ofnutrients {without organic manure(O

0) and application of FYM @ 6 t/

ha (O1) with four levels of fertiliser

nutrients i.e., 100:40:30 (N1),

150:60:40 (N2), 187:75:50 (N

3) and

225:90:60 N: P2O

5: K

2O kg/ha (N

4)},

showed that application of FYM @6 t/ha at N

4 level resulted in highest

grain yield during both the yearswhich was at par with solefertiliser application at N

3 level in

the second year. The application ofO

1N

4 resulted in 21.5 & 25.2; 14.4

&13.6; 9.2 & 11.6; 20.0 & 16.8 and11.1 & 9.0 per cent increase overO

0N

1 , O

0N

2 , O

0N

3 , O

1N

1 , and O

1N

2 in

the pooled grain yield of all thelocations during 2007 and 2008,respectively. Pooled analysis ofnutrient productivity acrosslocations during both the yearsshowed that it was highest withthe application of O

0N

1 treatment

as the application level producedmaximum yield response oftenobserved at the lower part of yieldresponse curves.

While managing maize residues inIPNS, it is important to understandnutrient distribution within themaize crop. Of the total nutrient


Table 2 – Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and nutrientproductivity (kg/ha) of quality protein maize in different agro-ecologies(pooled data of 7 locations across different ecologies in India)

Treatment Yield (kg/ha) Nutrient productivity (kg grain/kg nutrient applied)

2007 2008 2007 2008

O0N

14226f 4395f 28.1a 26.1a

O0N

24735e 4930de 20.8b 20.5b

O0N

35136cd 5173cd 17.7bcd 16.8c

O0N

45482b 5512bc 15.4cd 14.7cd

O1N

14482ef 4766ef 19.9bc 20.1b

O1N

25069d 5333c 16.6bcd 16.6c

O1N

35433bc 5745ab 14.9d 14.6cd

O1N

45839a 6099a 13.5d 13.2d

p value <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Means with at least one letter common are not statistically significant usingFisher’s Least Significant Difference

8 7

uptake in maize, nearly 80% of P isremoved in maize grain comparedto K and B, which are retained to agreater percentage in stover. Foreach nutrient, the fraction that isnot removed with the grainremains in leaf, stalk, andreproductive tissues andconstitutes the stover contributionthat is returned to the field if theresidues are returned back into thefield. Returning the stover recyclesback about 25% of N and P, 50 % ofS and 75 % K uptake by cereal cropsand replenishes large part ofnutrient off-take from the field.Effective stover managementthrough conservation agriculturebased management practices canensure almost 50% nutrient andmost of the potassium andmicronutrients back to the soilwhich will ensure sustainability ofmaize production in future.However, the availability of suchnutrients, immediately afterrecycling of the straw, is influencedby microbial immobilization andmineralization processes and maynot meet the nutrient demands ofhigh yielding maize at the time ofrapid growth stages.

Site-specific NutrientManagement (SSNM)

Precision Agriculture is anemerging concept wherein theinput variables such as fertilisersare applied in right amount, at theright place and at the right time(variable rate application) as perdemand of the crop-plants, ratherthan prophylactic application. Ithelps to improve input useefficiency, economy, and ensuressustainable use of naturalresources, as it minimizes wastage.Site-specific nutrient management(SSNM) is one such approach thatutilizes FBMPs for optimizingnutrient management in crops,including maize.

Site-specific nutrient managementis a widely used term in all parts ofthe world, generally with referenceto addressing nutrient differences,which exist within and between

fields, and making adjustments innutrient application to matchthese location or soil differences(17). In brief, the use of anydiagnostic tool to evaluate soilfertility status, and subsequentprediction of external nutrientsupply based on a specific cropyield goal, became the practiceassociated with the use of the termSSNM. It describes nutrientmanagement recommendationsthat take into account the soil, cropto be grown and growingconditions of a specific location.SSNM recommendation mayvaries significantly, from a fieldspecific soil test to output ofdecision support models based onpredictive equations supported bySSNM principles. Ultimately, thesuccess of a SSNM recommendationcan be judged based on itsperformance relative to either astate recommendation, or theexisting farmers’ practice. Whetherwe have increased productivityand profitability to the farmer ascompared to existing practices, andaddressed the efficienciesnecessary to support thesustainable use of fertilisernutrients, defines the success of anSSNM approach. The SSNMapproach was successfullyimplemented by the InternationalPlant Nutrition Institute (IPNI)that improved field specificrecommendation to a farmer, in acost effective and timely fashion(18).

An experiment was conducted inrice-maize system at AICRP onmaize centre Hyderabad,comparing SSNM with that of staterecommendation andrecommendation based on AICRPresults, showed that highest yieldof both rice and maize and also thehighest system productivity wereobtained with SSNM (35). Thisstudy further indicated thatapplication of SSNM principles,aided by nutrient balance studies,can help improve nutrientmanagement in rice-maize systemstowards improving yield andprofitability (Figure 5). Another

field experiment on SSNM,conducted under AICRP on Maizein two major maize-basedcropping systems, i.e. maize-wheatat 8 locations (Delhi, Bajaura,Udhampur, Dholi, Ludhiana,Pantnagar, Banswara and Ranchi)and rice-maize at 3 locations( Jorhat, Banswara, Hyderabad)during Kharif 2008 (Figure 6),indicated a significantly higheryield of maize under SSNMcompared to staterecommendations at most of thelocations.

Nutrient Expert Decision SupportSystem for SSNM in MaizeSystems

SSNM is, however, a knowledge-intensive technology in whichoptimum fertiliser managementfor a crop field is tailored to specificlocal condition, growth duration ofthe variety, crop residuemanagement, past fertiliser use,and input of nutrients fromexternal sources. Such knowledgerequirements have slowed thewide-scale promotion andadoption of SSNM by the farmers.Development of tools thatconsolidate the complex andknowledge-intensive SSNMinformation into simple deliverysystems is the key for enablingfarmers and their advisors torapidly implement this technologyon a large scale. IPNI incollaboration with CIMMYT hasrecently developed NutrientExpert (NE), a new nutrientdecision support system (DSS) formaize, based on SSNM principles.Nutrient Expert, while providingfertiliser recommendations,considers yield response andtargeted agronomic efficiency inaddition to the contribution ofnutrients from indigenous sources.It also considers other importantparameters of the growingenvironment affecting nutrientmanagement recommendations ina particular location and enablescrop advisors to provide farmerswith fertiliser guidelines that aresuited to individual farming



Figure 5 – Grain yield of maize and system productivity of an SSNM experiment in rice-maize system

Figure 6 – Effect of nutrient management practices on grain yield of maize at different locations in India

8 9

conditions. The tool uses asystematic approach of capturingsite information that is importantfor developing a location-specificrecommendation (24). The tool hasbeen successfully used to providefarmer specific fertiliserrecommendations in the majormaize growing ecologies across thecountry and improved yield andfarmer profit as compared toexisting fertiliser managementpractices. A recent study using theNE tool for maize in South India (31)revealed that the N, P

2O

5, and K

2O

use by farmers varied from 80 to550, 38 to 230, and 23 to 352 kg/ha,with an average of 193, 89, and 114kg/ha, respectively. Thecorresponding NPK use based onNE recommendations varied from110 to 230, 17 to 81, and 18 to 104kg/ha, with an average of 161, 39,and 48 kg/ha, respectively. The NE-based fertiliser recommendationsreduced N, P

2O

5, and K

2O use by

32, 50, 66 kg/ha indicating 17, 56,


and 58% reductions in fertiliser useover farmers’ practice (FP). Data inTable 3 for nutrient use in Kharifmaize further revealed that thelowest N use in FP has increasedfrom 80 to 110 kg/ha in NE,whereas, the maximum N use in FPhas decreased from 550 to 230 kg/ha in the NE basedrecommendations. Data pertainingto relative performance of NE oversate recommended fertiliser dose(SR) and FP for grain yield of maize,fertiliser cost, and GRF in the samestudy are given in Table 4. Acrossall sites (n=32) during the Kharifseason, NE-Maize increased yieldand economic benefit (i.e. grossreturn above fertiliser costs orGRF) over FP and SR (Table 4).Compared to FP, it increased yieldby 1.06 t/ha and GRF by 12,902INR/ha with a significantreduction in fertiliser cost of 3,239INR/ha. Recommendations fromNE-Maize also increased yield (by0.9 t/ha) and GRF (by 8,033 INR/ha)

over SR with a moderate reductionin fertiliser cost (-1,041 INR/ha).This indicates that NE, in additionto suggesting the right rate ofnutrients sufficient to meet theattainable yield targets, also helpsin optimising nutrient use throughappropriate reductions in fertiliserapplication. In contrast to SR,which gives one recommendationper state (e.g. 150 kg N, 75 kg P

2O

5,

and 75 kg K2O per ha in Andhra

Pradesh), NE recommended a rangeof N, P

2O

5, and K

2O application

rates depending on attainableyield and expected responses tofertiliser at individual farmers’fields. Further, the estimated maizeyield response by NE to applicationof N, P

2O

5 and K

2O fertilisers across

the growing seasons varied from 2to 8, 0 to 1.8, and 0 to 2 t/ha with amean response of 5.02, 0.69, and0.77 t/ha (data not shown), andcaptured the temporal variabilityof nutrient requirement betweenseasons along with the spatialvariability between farmers’ fields.The varied yield response to N, P,and K application suggests thatsingle homogenous staterecommendations may becomeinadequate for improving maizeyields in the region. Thus, fertiliserN, P

2O

5, and K

2O requirements

determined by NE, varied amongfields or locations, proved to becritical in improving the yield andeconomics of maize farmers in theregion. In effect, use of the NEactually increased yields andprofit, while reducing economicrisk to the farmer, simply by

Table 3 – Comparison of nutrient use in maize between NE and FP insouthern India during Kharif 2011

Parameter Unit FP NE NE-FP Southern India (n = 32)

Fertiliser N kg/ha 80-550 (193) 110-230 (161) -32 Ns

Fertiliser P2O

5kg/ha 38-230 (89) 17-81 (39) -50 ***

Fertiliser K2O kg/ha 23-352 (114) 18-104 (48) -66 ***

***Significant at p < 0.001; Ns = non-significant.FP, and NE = FarmerPractice, and Nutrient Expert. Values in parenthesis represent meanvalues

Table 4 – Performance of NE based recommendations for yield and economics of maize in southern India

Parameter Unit Kharif 2011 (Monsoon season) FP SR NE NE-FP

Southern India (n = 32)

Grain Yield kg/ha 6874 7033 7936 1062 ***

Fertiliser Cost INR/ha 7214 5016 3975 -3239 ***

GRF INR/ha 61484 66353 74386 12902 ***

*** Significant at p<0.001, GRF = gross return above fertiliser cost;SR-State Recommendation Prices (in INR/kg): Maize = 10.00; N = 11.40; P

2O

5 = 32.2; K

2O = 18.8

9 0


providing some direction in themost appropriate fertiliser rate.

Yield improvement with NE-basedfertiliser recommendation couldprimarily be attributed to abalanced application of nutrientsbased on SSNM principles. The NEprogram recommendedapplication of secondary andmicronutrients especially S, Zn,Mn, Fe, and B at 24 out of 32locations in the study area (datanot shown). This clearly explainshow NE helped in promotingbalanced use of all the essentialnutrients thereby improvingyields and optimising nutrient usein the maize growing areas ofSouthern India.

Other Precision Tools andTechniques for Real-time NutrientApplication

Blanket recommendations basedon fixed-time application offertiliser N doses at specifiedgrowth stages do not consider thedynamic soil nutrient supply andcrop nutrient requirements, andlead to untimely application offertiliser nutrients. Therefore, needbased fertiliser management inmaize can help to improverecovery efficiency and to reducenutrient losses. In-season Napplication adjustments of maizecan be accomplished using leafcolour charts (LCC), SPAD andGreen-Seeker sensors. Improved Nmanagement using the LCC hasconsistently shown to increaseyield and profit as compared toFFP (29). Applying right rate of N(240 and 150 kg/ha in maize andwheat), coupled with the righttiming for N fertiliser (3-splitapplications) using LCC-based realtime N management proved to bebeneficial in increasing the yieldand profitability of maize-wheatfarmers of Northern Karnataka (3).Singh et al. (34) evaluated differentneed based fertiliser Nmanagement strategies in maizeand confirmed the usefulness ofLCC 5 as threshold duringvegetative growth stages for

improving fertiliser N recoveryefficiency and for obtaining highyields. They also observed thatthere was no response to fertiliserN application at R1 stage followingdifferent LCC threshold values.The authors further recorded thatusing LCC 5 as threshold of Napplication led to equivalent grainyield achieved with fixed timeapplication of 150 kg N ha -1 butwith the application of only 90 kgN ha-1. The recovery efficiency wasincreased by 19.8–22.8 along withgrain yield productionimprovement by 7.1–8.5 kg grainper kg applied fertiliser N.

Other Issues

There are other important cropmanagement strategies that havepositive influence on FBMPs.

Cropping System OptimizationIncluding Legumes in MaizeSystems

Optimizing cropping systems isone of the best-bet managementstrategies not only for improvingproductivity but also profitabilityand resource use efficiency andnutrient economy. In India, severalbest-bet maize based leguminoussystems have been identified (forexample, maize- wheat-greengram, maize-maize-cowpea/greengram), which provides boththe economic produce as well asstover for incorporation, as a viablemeans for N economy. Direct andresidual effects of different legumesand sesbania green manuring onproductivity, profitability, N-useefficiency and residual soil fertilityin four maize based croppingsystems (maize–wheat-moongbean, maize-mustard-moongbean, maize-maize-sesbaniaand maize-chickpea-sesbania)under conservation agriculturepractices is under investigation atthe Directorate of Maize Research(DMR), New Delhi, since Kharif2008. The legumes were grownduring summer (April/May toJune), followed by maize in rainyseason (July to October) and wheat/

maize/mustard/chickpea in winterseason following recommendedpackage of practices. Besidesproducing grains, green gramadded significant amount of N (30-40 kg/ha) into the soil. Maximumamount of biomass on dry weightbasis and highest N input in the soilwas from Sesbania (126-135 kg Nha”1). Remarkable improvement inthe growth and yield of maize,following summer legumes, wasalso observed in addition to savingof N to the extent of 50–60 kg ha”1

with Sesbania, and 35–40 kg ha”1

with green gram. The succeedingcrops grown in winter season alsobenefited by residual effect ofsummer legumes and showed Neconomy of 15–25 kg ha”1 aftergreen gram, and 25- 29 kg ha”1 afterSesbania. There was a significantimprovement in soil organic C andnutrient status after six croppingcycles with summer legumes.Results revealed that dual-purpose summer legumes werebetter options for improvingproductivity, profitability, Neconomy and soil fertility of maizebased cropping system.

Tillage/Crop Establishment xNutrient Interactions

Globally, research evidencesuggests that adoption ofconservation agriculture basedmanagement practices underdifferent maize based productionsystems and ecologies can addressthe emerging challenges of naturalresource degradation, energy,water and labour crises, lownutrient use efficiency and climatechange effects. The variable soilenvironment under contrastingtillage and residue managementpractices have important bearingon dynamics of nutrients in the soiland influence the nutrienteconomy and use efficacy.Therefore, understanding nutrientdynamics under contrasting soilmanagement practices isimportant for managing nutrientsin an efficient way. Conservationtillage (CA) practices areincreasingly becoming popular in

9 1

maize systems in India. A nutrientomission study in winter maize (20)under zero- and conventionaltillage showed that (Figure 7) N, Pand K omission plot yields arehigher under zero-till situationssuggesting higher nutrientavailability. Several researchers(23, 39) comparing CT and no-tillproduction systems, suggestedthat more efficient utilization offertiliser with no-till productionproduced higher yields. Pampolinoet al. (25) also reported similarobservations while evaluating NE-Wheat in different tillage optionsunder varied growingenvironments. This suggests thattillage has a strong influence onnutrient dynamics and theiravailability to crops, and tillage Xnutrient interactions must beaddressed while developingnutrient management strategiesfor maize grown under variabletillage environments.

Nutrient Management ResearchGaps

Traditionally, the nutrientmanagement research wasprimarily focused on developinggeneralized prescriptions for

larger domains and forconventional crop managementpractices. However, during recentpast, conservation agriculturebased crop management practiceshave emerged as one of thepotential alternate to conventionaltillage based maize productionsystems. But, still most researchadvances in nutrient managementincluding SSNM caters toconventional tillage based cropmanagement systems. Thecontrasting tillage managementpractices (conventional andconservation agriculture) will haveimplications on soil moistureregime and nutrient dynamics thatin turn will influence nutrientresponse and economicprofitability of nutrientapplication. Therefore, there is aneed to develop prescriptions andapplication strategies in line withthe 4R principles (right source,right rate, right time and rightplace) for conservation agriculturebased maize systems. Therefore, toimplement best managementpractices for plant nutrients atdifferent scales our future nutrientmanagement research in maizesystems should focus on thefollowing:

• Crop physiological processesand efficiency under contrastingmanagement practices will bevariable that will lead to variablenutrient responses. Basicunderstanding of such processeswill allow designing appropriatenutrient management decisiontools/prescriptions.

• Nutrient availability underenhanced moisture availabilityunder conservation agriculturescenarios needs to be understoodproperly to determine appropriaterate and time of nutrientapplication.

• Scientific basis of attainableyield targets need to be establishedunder contrasting managementpractices for tillage and residues invarious cropping systems underdiverse ecologies (rainfed,irrigated).

• Calibrating sensors fornutrients not only for N but also P,K, Zn, etc.

• Establish relationships for on-the-go remote sensing sensorsand satellite remote sensing forSSNM.

• Use of remote sensing and GISfor mapping fertility variabilityand making nutrient prescriptionsat different scales.

• Geo-referencing/mapping oflarge domains for developinghomologous regions for nutrientprescriptions.

• Develop, validate, and bring toscale decision support tools(Nutrient Expert) and farmerfriendly simple practices forsystem based SSNM for smallholder precision.

• Develop and deploy regionalrecommendations that can bedistributed through ICT solutions

• Development of appropriatemachinery for nutrient application(surface application, drilling, bandplacement, fertigation) underdifferent management scenarios(no-till with and without surface

Figure 7 – Average yields of winter maize in omission plot trials underzero-till (ZT) and conventional till (CT) systems


residues, conventional till withand without residueincorporations) is urgentlyrequired.CONCLUSION

In India, maize has traditionallybeen grown as subsistence crop inunfavourable ecologies and hencethere exist large management yieldgaps in maize systems underdifferent ecologies. Largeproportion of these managementyield gaps are contributed byimbalance and inappropriate plantnutrition and multiple nutrientdeficiency. However, under theemerging resource constrained andvariable climatic conditions, therehas been a growing realization formaize to feed the future. Therefore,the technological advancements inmaize systems needs twin shiftsfrom subsistence to commercialmaize farming and fromproduction oriented to profitoriented sustainable farming.Therefore, defining preciserecommendation domains forfertiliser best managementpractices for plant nutrients inmaize systems and theirimplementation using moderntools, techniques and approacheshave to play major role not onlyfor bridging yield gaps but also forimproving nutrient use efficiency,economic profitability andreducing losses and to addressclimate change issues.

REFERENCES

1. ASG. Directorate of Economics andStatistics, Govt. of India, New Delhi(2011).

2. Bender, R. R., Haegele, J. W.,Ruffo, M. L. and Below, F. E. BetterCrops with Plant Food, 97(1): 7-10(2013).

3. Biradar, D. P., Aladakatti, Y. R.,Shivamurthy, D., Satyanarayana,T. and Majumdar K. Better Crops-South Asia, 6(1): 19-21(2012).

4. Bruulsema, T.W., Fixen, P. E.and Sulewski, G.D. 4R Plant Nutrition

Manual: A Manual for Improving theManagement of Plant Nutrition, NorthAmerican Version. InternationalPlant Nutrition Institute,Norcross, GA, USA (2012).

5. Cassman, K. G., Peng, S., Olk, D.C., Ladha, J. K., Reichardt, W.,Dobermann, A. and Singh, U. FieldCrops Res., 56:7–38 (1998).

6. Dass, S., Jat, M. L., Singh, K. P.and Rai, H. K. Indian J. Fert., 4 (4): 53-62 (2008).

7. Dass, S., Jat, S. L., Chikkappa, G.K., Kumar, B., Kaul, Jyothi, Parihar,C. M. Kumar, A., Kumar, R.,Kamboj, M. C., Singh, V., Yatish, K.R., Jat, M. L. and Singh, A. K. MaizeJ., 1(1): 7-12 (2012).

8. Dobermann, A., Cassman, K. G.,Cruz, P. C. S., Adviento, M. A. A. andPampolino, M. F. Nutr. Cyc.Agroecosy., 46:11–21 (1996).

9. Dobermann, A., Cassman, K. G.,Mamaril, C. P. and Sheehy, J. E. FieldCrops Res., 56:113–138 (1998).

10. Evan, L. T., and Fischer, R. A.Crop Sci., 39:1544–1551 (1999).

11. Fixen, P. E., Bruulsema, T. W.,Jensen, T.L., Mikkelsen, R. L.,Murrell, T. S., Phillips, S. B., Rund,Q. and Stewart, W. M. Better Crops,94(4): 6-8 (2010).

12. Indexmundi, http://w w w . i n d e x m u n d i . c o m /a g r i c u l t u r e /? c o u n t r y = i n & c o m m o d i t y -corn&graph=exports, March(2013).

13. Jat, M. L., Gupta, R. K., Erienstin,Olaf, Ortiz, and Rodomiro. ChronicaHort., 46 (3): 27-31 (2006).

14. Jat, M. L., Kumar, D., Majumdar,K., Kumar, A., Shahi, V.,Satyanarayana, T., Pampolino, M.,Gupta, N., Singh, V., Dwivedi, B. S.,Singh, V. K., Singh, V., Kamboj, B.R., Sidhu, H. S. and Johnston, A.Indian J. Fert., 8(6): 62-72 (2012).

15. Jat, M. L., Saharawat, Y. S.,Majumdar, K. and Gupta, R. In:Addressing Climate Change effects andMeeting Maize Demand for Asia, Book

of extended summaries for the eleventhAsian Maize Conference (Eds Zaidi etal), Nanning, China, November 7-11, p 370-372 (2011).

16. Jat, S. L., Parihar, C. M., Singh,A. K., Jat, M. L., Sinha, A. K., Mishra,B. N., Meena, H., Paradkar, V. K.,Singh, C. S., Singh, D. and Singh, R.N. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 83(4): (2013).(Accepted for publication).

17. Johnston, A. M., Khurana, H. S.,Majumdar, K. and Satyanarayana,T. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 57 (1): 1-10(2009).

18. Johnston, A. M., Majumdar, K.and Satyanarayana, T. Indian J. Fert.,SII-4:1-8 (2011).

19. Li, S., Jin, J., Duan, Y., Guo, T.,Zhang, Y. and Li, Y. Better Crops PlantFood, 96(4): 18-20 (2012).

20. Majumdar, K., Jat, M. L. andShahi, V. B. Better Crops-South Asia,6(1): 8-10 (2012).

21. Majumdar, K., Jat, M. L.,Pampolino, M., Kumar, A., Shahi, V.,Gupta, N., Singh, V.,Satyanarayana, T., Dwivedi, B.S.,Singh, V.K., Kumar, D., Kamboj,B.R., Sidhu, H.S., Meena, M.C. andJohnston, A. Indian J. Fert., 8(5): 44-53 (2012).

22. Malarvizhi, P., Thiyageshwari,S., Paramasivan, M., Geetha, R.,Kasthuri Thilagam, V., NagendraRao, T. and Satyanarayana, T. BetterCrops-India, 3(1): 22-24 (2009).

23. Moschler, W. W. and Martens,D.C. Agron. J., 65: 781-778 (1975).

24. Pampolino, M., Majumdar, K.,Jat, M. L., Ocampo, A., Zaini, Z.,Satyanarayana, T., Bana, A., Gupta,N., Pasuquin, J. M. andKartaatmadja, S. Paper presented atthe 12th Congress of the EuropeanSociety for Agronomy, Helsinki,Finland, 20-24 August https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/36048 (2012a).

25. Pampolino, M., Majumdar, K.,Jat, M. L., Satyanarayana, T., Kumar,A., Shahi, V. B., Gupta, N. and Singh,V. Better Crops with Plant Food,

Indian Journal of Fertilisers, April 2013 9 3

96(3):29-31 (2012b).

26. Parihar, C. M., Jat S. L., Singh,A.K., Jat, M. L., Jat, R. K., Singh, D.K. and Sai Kumar, R. DMR TechnicalBulletin 2011/3, Pusa Campus, NewDelhi, pp 36 (2011).

27. Pasricha, N. S. In: Proceedings ofthe 16th World Congress Soil Sciences.ISSS/CIRAD, Montpellier, France(1998).

28. Prasad, R. Indian J. Fert., 7(12):66-76 (2011).

29. Rajendran, R, Stalin, P.,Ramanathan, S. and Buresh, R.J.Better Crops-South Asia, 4(1):7-9(2010).

30. Saharawat, Y. S., Singh, B.,Malik, R. K., Ladha, J. K., Gathala,M. K., Jat, M. L. and Kumar, V. FieldCrop Res., 116: 260-267 (2010).

31. Satyanarayana, T., Majumdar,K., Pampolino, M., Johnston, A. M.,Jat, M. L. Kuchanur, P., Sreelatha,

D., Sekhar, J. C., Kumar, Y.Maheswaran, R., Karthikeyan, R.,Velayutahm, A., Dheebakaran, Ga.,Sakthivel, N., Vallalkannan, S.Bharathi, C., Sherene, T., Suganya,S., Janaki, P., Baskar, R., Ranjith, T.H., Shivamurthy, D. Aladakatti, Y.R., Chiplonkar, D., Gupta, R.,Biradar, D. P., Jeyaraman, S. andPatil, S. G. Better Crops-South Asia,6(1): 4-7 (2012).

32. Satyanarayana, T., Majumdar,K., Shahi, V., Kumar, A., Pampolino,M., Jat, M. L., Singh, V. K., Gupta, N.Singh, V., Dwivedi, B. S., Kumar, D.,Malik, R. K., Singh, V., Sidhu, H. S.and Johnston, A. Indian J. Fert., 8(8):62-71 (2012).

33. Sen, P., Majumdar, K. andSulewski, G. Indian J. Fert., 4 (11): 43-50 (2007).

34. Singh, V., Singh, Y., Singh, B.,Thind, H. S., Kumar, A. andVashistha, M. Field Crops Res., 120:276–282 (2011).


35. Sreelatha, D., Sivalakshmi, Y.,Anuradha, M., and Rangareddy, R.Maize J., 1(1): 58-60 (2012).

36. Timsina, J. and Majumdar, K.Better Crops-South Asia, 6(1): 25-26(2012).

37. Timsina, J., Buresh, R. J.,Dobermann, A., Dixon, J., Tabali, J.IRRICIMMYT Alliance Project“Intensified Production Systems inAsia (IPSA)”, IRRI-CIMMYT JointReport, IRRI, Philippines (2010).

38. Timsina, J., Jat, M.L. andMajumdar, K. Plant and Soil, 335:65–82 (2010).

39. Wells, K. L. In Nitrogen in CropProduction, Hauck et al., (eds.),ASACSSA-SSSA, Madison,Wisconsin, USA (1984).

40. Yadav, R. L., Subba Rao, A. V.M. PDCSR Bulletin No 2001-2,Modipuram, Meerut, pp. 96 (2001).

41. Zaidi, P.H. and Singh, N.N.Directorate of Maize Research, NewDelhi, pp. i-vi + 1-145 (2005).

THE FERTILISER (CONTROL) ORDER, 1985(As amended upto November 2012)

Just Published

For your requirement please write to :

THE FERTILISER ASSOCIATION OF INDIA

FAI House, 10 Shaheed Jit Singh Marg , New Delhi - 110 067Tel : 26567144 Fax : 26960052 E.mail : [email protected] Website : www.faidelhi.org

Copies are also available at FAI Regional Offices :

FAI-Southern Region: Module 16, BIock G-1, Garment Complex, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy,Chennai - 600 032; Tel: 22501862; Fax:22501240 E.mail : [email protected]

FAI-Eastern Region: 3, Kavi Bharati Sarani, (Lake Road), Ganpati Building, Flat 1R, Kolkata -700029 ;Tel : 24638256; Fax: 24638257 ; E.mail : [email protected]

FAI-Western Region: New Commonwealth Society, 229, Linking Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050;

Tel : 26518162; Fax : 26416174; Email : [email protected]

Revised edition of FCO, including all the updated amendments notified by Govt. ofIndia, is now available for sale. This edition assumes significance as it includesrecently notified new fertiliser products in FCO, 1985.

Price Rs.200+ Rs.50 extra for packing, handling and postage

Book sellers and Bulk buyers are allowed 25% discount provided their order is fora minimum of 25 copies.

9 4

Documents

Indian J. Fert., Vol. 9 (4), pp.80-94 (15 pages) …sap.ipni.net/ipniweb/region/sap.nsf/0...Fertiliser Best Management Practices for Maize Systems M. L. Jat International Maize and