Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
29
1Tea Research Association, North Bengal Regional Research
and Development Centre, Nagrakata, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal;
2ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana; 3S. V.
Agricultural College (Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University,
Guntur, Andhra Pradesh), Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh; 4University of
Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot, Karnataka; 5The Rubber Board
of India, Kolasib, Mizoram; 6Tocklai Tea Research Institute, Tea
Research Association, Jorhat, Assam; 7ICAR-Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. *Corresponding author
email: magansingh07@gmail.com
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 94 (12): 1305–1310, December 2024/Article
https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v94i12.140994
Biostimulants based nutrient management on growth and yield of spring maize
(Zea mays) under legume based cropping sequence
B R PRAVEEN1,2, MAGAN SINGH2*, R T CHETHAN BABU3, SANJEEV KUMAR2,
RUXANABI NARAGUND4, K S SACHIN5, PRASANNA S PYATI6,
RAKESH KUMAR2 and KASHINATH GURUSIDDAPPA TELI7
ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001, India
Received: 17 August 2023; Accepted: 18 September 2024
ABSTRACT
The study was carried out during 2020–21 and 2021–22 at ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana
to evaluate biostimulants based nutrient management practices in spring maize (Zea mays L.) under legume based
cropping sequence. Experiment was conducted in a randomized block design (RBD) with 9 treatments of biostimulant
based nutrient management, viz. T1, Absolute control; T2, 100% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer); T3, 75%
RDF + Azotobacter; T4, 50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR (Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria); T5, 75% RDF +
Azotobacter + PGPR; T6, 50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + Humic acid (HA); T7, 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR
+ HA; T8, 50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA + Seaweed extract (SWE); and T9, 75% RDF + Azotobacter +
PGPR + HA + SWE, replicated thrice. Results showed that the growth parameters, viz. plant height, leaf length, leaf
width and number of leaves/plant
with 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + Humic acid (HA) + Seaweed extract (SWE) and 75% RDF + Azotobacter
+ PGPR Azotobacter + PGPR
+ HA + SWE which was statistically on par with RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA and 100% RDF. Similarly, grain
in 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA + SWE which was statistically on par to RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR +
HA and 100% RDF during 2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively. Hence, the treatment 75% RDF + Azotobacter +
PGPR + HA + SWE found better and can replace up to 25% RDF as comparable to conventional practice without
compromising the crop yield.
Keywords: Biostimulants, Biological yield, Humic acid, Seaweed extract, Spring maize
Maize (Zea mays L.) is the most adaptable and high
yield potential crop grows in a variety of agro-climatic
situations (Chaudhary et al. 2012). It is generally grown
during rainy (kharif) season across the country. However, it
is grown as a spring or summer crop in north-western parts
of India particularly in Haryana, Punjab and western Uttar
Pradesh. Introducing legume into cereal based cropping
sequence enhance the productivity of cereals as legume is
promoting microbial activity, replenishing organic matter
and solubilizing insoluble nutrients in the soil. In particular,
fodder legumes are typically more effective at raising the
yield of cereals (Tufail et al. 2018). Unlimited and imbalance
use of chemical fertilizers deteriorated the soil health, crop
soil pollution over the period (Chakraborti and Singh 2004).
In respect, organic and inorganic nutrient management
together is the effective approach towards minimizing the
risk of chemical hazards.
Among biostimulants, humic acid (HA) positively
affects the crop productivity, root growth and soil quality
upon foliar or soil application along with improving physico-
chemical and biological attribute of the soil (Jardin 2015).
The next emerging biostimulant is seaweed extract (SWE),
fertilizers if used in appropriate quantities (Craigie 2011,
1306 [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 94 (12)
30
Hernandez-Herrera et al. 2014). Biofertilizers are another
category of biostimulants that contains living cells of
various microbes colonizes the rhizosphere and stimulate
growth by transforming unavailable mineral nutrients to
available form through a biological process (Rokhzadi
et al. 2008). Rhizosphere bacteria namely Acetobacter,
Achromobacter, Agrobacterium, Azotobacter, Bacillus,
Micrococcus, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium etc. can saturate
insoluble nutrients and helps in their availability to plants
which are together referred as plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR). Particularly Azotobacter which is
crops but also releases plant hormones namely naphthalene
acetic acid and gibberellins and vitamin-B complex that act
pathogens (Mathivanan et al. 2015). Keeping these points
in view, an experiment was planned to study the effect of
biostimulants based nutrient management on growth and
yield of spring maize under legume based cropping sequence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental site: The study was carried out during
2020–21 and 2021–22 at ICAR-National Dairy Research
Institute, Karnal (Latitude of 29°43' N and Longitude
of 76°58' E; 245 m amsl) Haryana. The experimental
20.97% silt and 34.71% clay. Medium organic carbon, low
available nitrogen, medium available phosphorus and high
available potassium with neutral to alkaline in reaction were
Experimental design, treatments and crop management:
The experiment was conducted under randomized block
design (RBD) with three replications and nine treatments of
biostimulant based nutrient management, viz. T1, Absolute
control; T2, 100% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer);
T3, 75% RDF + Azotobacter; T4, 50% RDF + Azotobacter
+ PGPR (Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria); T5, 75%
RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR; T6, 50% RDF + Azotobacter
+ PGPR + Humic acid (HA); T7, 75% RDF + Azotobacter
+ PGPR + HA; T8, 50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA
+ Seaweed extract (SWE); and T9, 75% RDF + Azotobacter
+ PGPR + HA + SWE. The maize hybrid Dekalb 9108 Plus
was sown in late spring season after third cut of berseem
using seed rate of 20 kg/ha with 60 cm × 25 cm spacing.
The seeds were treated with Azotobacter and PGPR at the
rate of 50 ml/10 kg seeds or 125 ml/ha as per treatment
rate of 120:60:30:25 kg/ha (N:P2O5:K2O:ZnSO4) through
urea, Diammonium phosphate (DAP), Muriate of potash
(MOP) and ZnSO4. Monohydrate as per the requirement
being 1/3rd of N and full of P, K and ZnSO4 were basally
applied, 1/3rd N was top-dressed at knee high stage and
remaining 1/3rd at pre-tasselling stage. Two sprays of humic
acid and seaweed extract at the rate of 3 ml/litre and 2 ml/
litre of water, respectively were given at knee high and
pre-tasselling stage as per the treatments. Pre-emergent
application of Atrazine @1.0 kg a.i./ha by 2–3 days after
sowing and post-emergent application of Tembotrione 42%
@115 ml a.i./acre at 25–30 DAS were done to maintain
weed free condition. Around eight irrigations were given
during critical growth stages at an interval of 10–12 days.
Measurement of growth attributes and yield: The
plant height, leaf length, leaf width and number of leaves/
plant were recorded from 10 randomly selected plants of
maize at 30, 60 DAS and harvest and then worked out the
average. After harvesting of cobs from each of net plots,
the cobs were allowed to dry for few days in the yard to
reduce moisture content and facilitate shelling process.
Immediately after shelling of cobs, the grains were dried to
get the moisture content of around 14% and the grain yield
from each treatment was recorded and expressed in t/ha.
Thereafter, maize stover was harvested and the weight of
stover from each net plot was recorded after few days of sun
drying and expressed in t/ha. Similarly, the biological yield
was recorded by adding grain and stover yield from each
treatment along with weight of shelled cobs after shelling.
Statistical analysis: Experimental data were processed
in Microsoft Excel-2019 and analyzed by using Analysis
of Variance (ANOVA) technique as per randomized block
treatments was tested using an F test with a 5% level of
P
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant height: Biostimulants based nutrient management
higher in T2 (187.1 and 190.3 cm) at 60 DAS over remaining
treatments except T9, T7 and T5 where in it showed on par
results during both 2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively.
9 (242.7
and 246.8 cm, respectively) which was on par with T2 and
T7 over remaining treatments during successive years.
Leaf length: Results revealed that the leaf length was
years at 60 DAS and harvest stage (Table 1). However,
2 (92.42 and 93.46 cm) over
remaining treatments except T9, T7 and T5 where in it showed
on par results at 60 DAS during 2020–21 and 2021–22,
higher in T9 (107.86 and 109.56 cm) which was on par with
T2 and T7 over other treatments of interest during 2020–21
and 2021–22, respectively.
Leaf width
during both 2020–21 and 2021–22 at 60 DAS and harvest
2 (10.25 and 10.32
cm) over remaining treatments except T9, T7, T5 and T3
PRAVEEN ET AL.
1307December 2024]
31
where in it showed on par results at 60 DAS during 2020–21
and 2021–22, respectively. However at harvest stage, it
was higher in T9
was on par to T2 and T7 over other treatments of interest.
Number of leaves/plant: Results (Table 2) revealed that
plant
was recorded at 60 DAS and harvest stage by biostimulant
based nutrient management during both the studied years.
The treatment T2 (15.32 and 15.52) witnessed higher number
9,
T7, T5 and T3 at 60 DAS over remaining treatments during
2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively. However, the number
9 (17.38 and 17.59)
at harvest which were on par with T2 and T7 over remaining
treatments during 2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively.
Grain yield: The grain yield data (Table 2) revealed
the studied years. During 2020–21 and 2021–22, the grain
yield was maximum in T9 (7.81 and 8.00 t/ha) which was
7
(7.25 and 7.30 t/ha) and T2 (7.11 and 7.20 t/ha), respectively
where in statistically similar results were observed.
Stover yield: Similar to grain yield, the stover yield
by biostimulants based nutrient management (Table 2).
9 (12.18 and 12.48 t/ha)
which was statistically similar to T7 (11.28 and 11.36 t/ha)
and T2 (11.06 and 11.19 t/ha) over remaining treatments
during both the successive years, respectively.
Biological yield
among the treatments of biostimulants based nutrient
management during the years 2020–21 and 2021–22
(Table 2). Similar to grain and stover yield, maximum
biological yield was witnessed in T9 (22.47 and 22.92 t/ha)
except T7 (20.95 and 21.06 t/ha) and T2 (20.78 and 20.70 t/ha)
where in statistically on par results were observed during
the successive years, respectively. However, absolute control
recorded biological yield (12.99 and 12.20 t/ha) which was
minimum in comparative to remaining treatments.
Inoculation of Azotobacter and PGPR to maize seeds
with basal application of chemical fertilizers enhanced
the nutrient availability and uptake which improves plant
growth and yield. These microbial biostimulants might
have produced vitamins, amino acids and growth promoting
substances namely IAA and GA could have improved
nutrient availability, uptake and translocation and also
synthesise photosynthetic assimilates which in turn enhanced
the crop growth and yield. These results were in accordance
et al. (2013) and Tiwari et
al. (2017). Additionally, humic acid foliar application had
positive relation with the growth as cited by Celik et al.
(2011) in maize that growth enhancement was due to its
stimulating effect on respiration, photosynthesis, protein
and nucleic acid synthesis and enzyme activity modulation.
Thereby, it regulated the plant hormone level, increased
Table 1 Effect of biostimulants based nutrient management on plant height, leaf length and leaf width of spring maize
Treatment Plant height (cm) Leaf length (cm) Leaf width (cm)
30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22
T149.7 47.7 128.6 122.7 167.8 163.3 36.32 35.62 70.85 68.69 78.35 77.69 5.31 5.42 6.59 6.48 7.65 7.45
T265.3 65.2 187.1 190.3 231.4 235.4 51.37 50.23 92.42 93.46 104.75 104.67 7.18 7.25 10.25 10.32 11.86 11.89
T355.5 54.4 163.4 165.3 201.7 203.8 45.56 44.38 81.28 81.95 90.72 91.34 6.08 6.05 8.66 8.65 9.86 9.71
T453.2 54.6 148.7 149.3 175.9 176.9 42.53 42.86 76.59 77.62 82.29 84.65 5.53 5.45 7.39 7.35 8.11 8.04
T558.2 59.0 168.5 170.3 209.3 212.3 46.55 47.01 82.13 82.31 93.28 93.95 6.17 6.25 8.72 8.86 10.04 10.16
T653.5 54.1 156.4 157.3 189.7 191.4 42.76 43.13 79.36 82.05 87.96 88.96 5.47 5.62 7.42 7.48 8.53 8.71
T758.3 58.1 176.3 179.6 225.7 228.2 46.72 47.62 84.67 86.48 102.74 103.45 6.35 6.32 9.15 9.23 11.59 11.68
T854.9 55.2 160.8 161.8 200.5 203.4 43.22 43.68 80.76 81.71 92.42 94.26 5.62 5.76 7.68 7.79 8.96 9.46
T958.7 59.3 181.8 183.7 242.7 246.8 46.46 47.09 87.78 88.74 107.86 109.56 6.22 6.38 9.39 9.45 12.28 12.39
SEm ± 2.96 3.31 7.01 7.33 9.61 10.22 2.75 2.75 3.58 3.75 4.33 4.71 0.42 0.42 0.6 0.61 0.64 0.58
LSD
(P
NS NS 21.01 21.96 28.81 30.64 NS NS 10.74 11.24 12.99 14.13 NS NS 1.79 1.84 1.93 1.74
DAS, Days after sowing. T1, Absolute control; T2, 100% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer); T3, 75% RDF + Azotobacter; T4, 50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR (Plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria); T5, 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR; T6, 50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + Humic acid (HA); T7, 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA; T8, 50% RDF +
Azotobacter + PGPR + HA + Seaweed extract (SWE); T9, 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA + SWE.
BIOSTIMULANTS BASED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN SPRING MAIZE
1308 [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 94 (12)
32
stages along with reduced RDF resulted in improved growth
of maize which in turn enhanced the yield as witnessed in
present investigation.
Correlation studies: The correlation between growth
attributes (plant height, number of leaves/plant, leaf length
and leaf width) and biological yield of spring maize (Table 3)
revealed that the plant height (r = 0.956 and 0.956), number
of leaves/plant (r = 0.990 and 0.990), leaf length (r = 0.956
and 0.963) and leaf width (r = 0.915 and 0.928) showed
during 2020–21 and 2021–22, respectively in increasing
trend of biological yield with growth attributes of maize.
Regression studies: The regression analysis exhibited
and biological yield of spring maize during both the studied
year 2020–21 and 2021–22 (Fig. 1 and 2). The R2 value
between biological yield and plant height, number of leaves/
plant, leaf length and leaf width were 0.934, 0.986, 0.947
leaf water retention, enhanced plant stress tolerance and
antioxidant metabolism that contributed to better plant
growth response which ultimately enhances the economic
crop yield (Tejada and Gonzalez 2003). Similarly, foliar
supply of seaweed extract also contributed in growth
enhancement of maize, in turn improving the yield might
be owing to good nutrient availability (Pramanick et al.
2013), presence of micronutrients (Sridhar and Rengasamy
2011) and some growth promoting substances lead to
enhance growth attributes of the plant (Layek et al. 2017).
Identical outcome was in agreement with the present
investigation as highlighted by Pal et al. (2015) in sweet
corn that seaweed extract foliar spray with reduced RDF
increased the plant metabolic activity and act as stimulator
for growth and development. Thus, combination of microbial
and non-microbial biostimulants comprising inoculation
of Azotobacter and PGPR at sowing time and humic acid
and seaweed extract foliar application at later crop growth
Table 2 Effect of biostimulants based nutrient management on number of leaves/plant, grain, stover and biological yield of spring maize
Treatment Number of leaves/plant Grain yield
(t/ha)
Stover yield
(t/ha)
Biological yield
(t/ha)
30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22 2020–21 2021–22
T15.13 5.09 9.26 9.23 10.39 10.24 4.26 3.97 6.49 6.03 12.99 12.20
T27.25 7.22 15.32 15.52 16.39 16.45 7.11 7.20 11.06 11.19 20.61 20.78
T36.27 6.29 13.12 13.15 14.16 14.29 6.23 6.28 9.65 9.73 18.20 18.30
T45.38 5.42 11.86 11.92 12.79 12.86 5.63 5.66 8.69 8.74 16.58 16.65
T56.32 6.35 13.56 13.68 14.69 14.78 6.57 6.62 10.19 10.27 19.12 19.21
T65.42 5.45 12.08 12.27 13.27 13.45 6.04 6.09 9.35 9.43 17.72 17.84
T76.35 6.41 14.18 14.29 15.95 16.23 7.25 7.30 11.28 11.36 20.95 21.06
T85.43 5.49 12.55 12.63 13.96 14.14 6.35 6.42 9.85 9.95 18.58 18.71
T96.38 6.45 14.64 14.76 17.38 17.59 7.81 8.00 12.18 12.48 22.47 22.92
SEm ± 0.46 0.46 0.82 0.85 0.72 0.80 0.25 0.28 0.42 0.44 0.81 0.86
LSD
(P
NS NS 2.47 2.56 2.14 2.39 0.76 0.83 1.25 1.32 2.43 2.56
DAS, Days after sowing. T1, Absolute control; T2, 100% RDF (recommended dose of fertilizer); T3, 75% RDF + Azotobacter; T4,
50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR (Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria); T5, 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR; T6, 50% RDF +
Azotobacter + PGPR + Humic acid (HA); T7, 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA; T8, 50% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA +
Seaweed extract (SWE); T9, 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA + SWE.
management during 2020–21 and 2021–22
Pearson
correlation
2020–21 2021–22
BY PH NL LL LW BY PH NL LL LW
BY 1 1
PH 0.956** 1 0.956** 1
NL 0.990** 0.978** 1 0.990** 0.982** 1
LL 0.956** 0.995** 0.975** 1 0.963** 0.991** 0.984** 1
LW 0.915** 0.982** 0.955** 0.976** 1 0.928** 0.992** 0.967** 0.985** 1
Leaf length; LW, Leaf width.
PRAVEEN ET AL.
1309December 2024] BIOSTIMULANTS BASED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN SPRING MAIZE
33
and 0.873 during 2020–21 and 0.939, 0.989, 0.967 and
0.901 during 2021–22, respectively. This indicated that
that plant height, number of leaves/plant, leaf length and
leaf width of spring maize accounted 93.4, 98.6, 94.7 and
87.3% of variation in biological yield during 2020–21 and
93.9, 98.9, 96.7 and 90.1% during 2021–22, respectively.
Based on findings of two-year investigation, the
treatment comprising 75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR
+ HA + SWE was found better as growth and yield of
spring maize was concerned over 100% RDF. So, these
Fig. 1 Relationship between growth attributes and biological yield of spring maize under biostimulants based nutrient management
during 2020–21.
Fig. 2 Relationship between growth attributes and biological yield of spring maize under biostimulants based nutrient management
during 2021–22.
y =² + 0.3967x - 32.471
R² = 0.9343
-0.0007x
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
160 180 200 220 240 260
Biological yield (t/ha)
a. Plant height (cm)
Poly. (Biological yield)
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
10 12 14 16
18
b. Number of leaves/plant
Poly. (Biological yield)
Biological yield (t/ha)
y =² + 2.5853x - 8.8557
R² = 0.9867
-0.0459x
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
75 85 95 105 115
c. Leaf length (cm)
Poly. (Biological yield)
Biological yield (t/ha)
y =² + 1.3348x - 55.61
R² = 0.9472
-0.0057x
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
78910111
213
d. Leaf width (cm)
Poly. (Biological yield)
Biological yield (t/ha)
y =² + 6.6285x - 21.177
R² = 0.8731
-0.2567x
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
160 180 200 220 240 260
Biological yield (t/ha)
a. Plant height (cm)
Poly. (Biological yield)
y = -0.0007x² + 0.3911x - 32.279
R² = 0.9392
Biological yield (t/ha)
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
10 12 14 16
18
b. Number of leaves/plant
Poly. (Biological yield)
y = -0.0512x² + 2.8171x - 11.17
R² = 0.9895
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
78910111
213
d. Leaf width (cm)
Poly. (Biological yield)
Biological yield (t/ha)
y = -0.2547x² + 6.7229x - 22.338
R² = 0.9012
Biological yield (t/ha)
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
75 85 95 105 115
c. Leaf length (cm)
Poly. (Biological yield)
y = -0.006x² + 1.4173x - 61.241
R² = 0.9671
1310 [Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 94 (12)
34
Layek J, Das A, Ghosh A, Sarkar D, Idapuganti R G, Borangohain
J, Yadav G S and Lal R. 2017. Foliar application of seaweed
sap enhances growth, yield and quality of maize in eastern
Himalayas. Journal of Biological Sciences 10: 11–17.
Mathivanan R, Umavathi S, Ramasamy P K and Thangam Y. 2015.
regulators in the leaves of the Indian butter bean plant (Dolichos
lablab L.). International Journal of Advanced Research in
Biological Sciences 2(1): 84–89.
Pal A, Dwivedi S K, Maurya P K and Kanwar P. 2015. Effect of
seaweed saps on growth, yield, nutrient uptake and economic
improvement of maize (Sweet corn). Journal of Applied and
Natural Science 7(2): 970–75.
Pramanick B, Brahmachari K and Ghosh A. 2013. Effect of seaweed
saps on growth and yield improvement of greengram. African
Journal of Agricultural Research 8(13): 1180–86.
Rokhzadi A, Asgharzadeh A, Darvish F, Nour-Mohammadi G
rhizobacteria on dry matter accumulation and yield of chickpea
(Cicer arietinumAmerican-Eurasian
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science 3(2):
253–57.
Sridhar S and Rengasamy R. 2011. Effect of seaweed liquid
fertilizer on growth, pigment concentration and yield of
Amaranthus rosburghinus and Amaranthus tricolour
trial. International Journal of Current Research 3: 131–34.
Tejada M and Gonzalez J L. 2003. Effects of foliar application of
a by-product of the two-step olive oil mill process on maize
yield. Agronomie 23: 617–23.
Tiwari S, Chauhan R K, Singh R, Shukla R and Gaur R. 2017.
Integrated effect of Rhizobium and Azotobacter cultures on
the leguminous crop blackgram (Vigna mungo L.). Advances
in Crop Science and Technology 5(3): 289.
Tufail M S, Krebs G L, Ahmad J, Southwell A, Piltz J W and
Wynn P C. 2018. The effect of Rhizobium seed inoculation
on yields and quality of forage and seed of berseem clover
(Trifolium alexandrinum L.) and its impact on soil fertility
and smallholder farmer’s income. The Journal of Animal and
Plant Sciences 28(5): 1493–1500.
biostimulants combination can replace up to 25% RDF
without compromising the yield. Hence, the treatment
75% RDF + Azotobacter + PGPR + HA + SWE can be
recommended as an alternative to conventional fertilizer
application in spring maize under legume based cropping
sequence.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors are grateful to ICAR-National Dairy Research
Institute, Karnal, Haryana
throughout the course of present investigation.
REFERENCES
Beyranvand H, Farina A, Nakhjavan S and Shaban M. 2013.
Response of yield and yield components of maize (Zea mays
L.) to different biofertilizers. International Journal of Advanced
Biological and Biomedical Research 1(9): 1068–77.
Celik H, Katkat A V, Asik B B and Turan M A. 2011. Effect of foliar
applied humic acid to dry weight and mineral nutrient uptake
of maize under calcareous soil conditions. Communications in
Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42: 29–38.
Chakarborti M and Singh N P. 2004. Bio-compost: A novel input
to organic farming. Agrobios Newsletter 2(8): 14–15.
Chaudhary D P, Kumar A, Sapna S, Mandhania, Srivastava P and
Kumar R S. 2012. Maize as fodder? An alternative approach.
Directorate of Maize Research, Pusa Campus, New Delhi.
Technical Bulletin 04: 32.
Craigie J S. 2011. Seaweed extract stimuli in plant science and
agriculture. Journal of Applied Phycology 23: 371–93.
Gomez K A and Gomez A A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for
Agricultural Research, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New
York, USA.
Hernandez-Herrera R M, Santacruz-Ruvalcaba F, Ruiz-Lopez M
A, Norrie J and Hernandez-Carmona G. 2014. Effect of liquid
seaweed extracts on growth of tomato seedlings (Solanum
lycopersicum L.). Journal of Applied Phycology 26(1): 619–28.
categories and regulation. Scientia Horticulturae 196: 3–14.
PRAVEEN ET AL.
