National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS)
|
PRINT ISSN : 2319-7692
Online ISSN : 2319-7706 Issues : 12 per year Publisher : Excellent Publishers Email : editorijcmas@gmail.com / submit@ijcmas.com Editor-in-chief: Dr.M.Prakash Index Copernicus ICV 2018: 95.39 NAAS RATING 2020: 5.38 |
The present investigation, “Productivity of Kharif maize (Zea mays L) as influenced by sub soiling and planting methods” was carried out at Students’ Research Farm, Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana during Kharif 2016. The soil of the experimental field was sandy loam. The experiment comprised of fifteen treatments viz., minimum tillage flat planting (without sub soiling, sub soiling at 1 m, sub soiling at 1x1 m, sub soiling at 1.5 m, sub soiling at 1.5x1.5 m). Conventional tillage flat planting (without sub soiling, sub soiling at 1 m, sub soiling at 1x1 m, sub soiling at 1.5 m, sub soiling at 1.5x1.5 m). Conventional tillage ridge planting (without sub soiling, sub soiling at 1 m, sub soiling at 1x1 m, sub soiling at 1.5 m, sub soiling at 1.5x1.5 m). All the three planting methods (minimum tillage flat planting, conventional tillage flat planting, conventional tillage ridge planting) did not show any significant difference in relation to yield attributes like cob length, thousand grain weight and grain yield. Cob yield and grain yield was statistically at par in sub soiling treatments but significantly better than no sub soiling treatment. Bulk density was not influenced by any of the planting methods while sub soiling effect the bulk density of soil and results were significant at 15-30 cm and 30-45 cm depth. Infiltration rate (cm hr-1) was higher in minimum tillage treatment at various time intervals. Penetration resistance was lowest in the treatment where is sub soiling is done at 1x1 m while highest resistance was noticed where no sub soiling is done. As all the planting methods results were at par in relation to productivity of crop the minimum tillage flat planting is better as residues were retained and less mechanical interference is involved. Similarly sub soiling done at various distances show similar results but better than no sub soiling. So, sub soiling at 1.5 m distance is good as less ploughing is involved.
Citations |
 |
 |
 |
 |
