Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp9 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Effect of fertility levels and mulching on nutrient mobilisation in soil and plants of short duration rainfed sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata (Sturtev.) L.H.Bailey)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13495
Submitted
2 January 2026
Published
04-11-2026

Abstract

India has a huge potential for rice residue, which if burnt causes a substantial environmental loss. Similarly, the rainfed sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata (Sturtev.) L.H.Bailey) cultivation often faces the problem of nutrient deficiency, especially phosphorus (P). Therefore, the present study was conducted at agriculture research form, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India and in the years 2013 and 2014. To evaluate the effects of nutrient levels and mulch are helpful in enhancing crop and soil nutrient status and balance. Therefore, an experiment was conducted keeping three fertility levels (F1: 75 % recommended dose of fertiliser (RDF), F2: 100 % RDF and F3: 125 % RDF) and two mulches (M1: soil mulch and M2: rice straw mulch at 6 t ha-1) in main plots while three P levels (P1: recommended dose of phosphorus (RDP) (100 % P2O5), P2: 150 % RDP and P3: 200 % RDP) in sub-plots. The highest level of RDF (125 % RDF) though recorded better crop nutrient status (kernel N 1.619–1.632 %, P 0.240–0.246 %, K 0.184–0.191 % and Zn 30.250–30.449 mg kg-1) and total nutrient uptake in various plant parts (N 2.9–5.3 %, P 9.5–9.6 %, K 7.1–7.7 % and Zn 2.0–2.1 %) but that could not differ from 100 % RDF. Residual nutrients (N 7.1–7.2 %, P2O5 9.0–7.5 %, K2O 7.0–6.2 % and Zn 3.4–1.8 %) in soil were also higher in 125 % RDF. Similarly, 200 % RDP recorded better nutrient status and uptake in plants except Zn content which was higher at the least P rate (65 kg ha-1). Rice residue mulch (6 t ha-1) was superior to soil mulch in terms of plant nutrient status, uptake and residual soil nutrients. However higher fertiliser rate created successive apparent negative nitrogen (N) and zinc (Zn) balance. Similarly, successive application of phosphorus revealed more Zn loss from soil (5.2–5.5 %).

References

  1. 1. Meena CR, Singh BB, Gadag RN. Evaluation of crosses between field and sweet corns for productivity and kernel biochemical composition. Maize Genet Corpor Newslett. 2005;79.
  2. 2. Nath K, Nepalia V, Singh D. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of sweet corn (Zea mays L. sp. saccharata). Ann Agric Res. 2009;30(1-2):73–6.
  3. 3. Najeeb S, Sheikh FA, Ahangar MA, Teli NA. Popularization of sweet corn (Zea mays L. Saccharata) under temperate conditions to boost the socioeconomic conditions. Maize Genet Cooper Newslett. 2011;85:1–6.
  4. 4. Sahoo SC, Mahapatra PK. Yield and economics of sweet corn (Zea mays) as affected by plant population and fertility levels. Indian J Agron. 2007;52(3):239–42. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v52i3.4932
  5. 5. FAI. Fertilizer Statistics. New Delhi: Fertilizer Association of India; 2006. p. 232–64.
  6. 6. Dayanand. Principles governing maize cultivation during rainy season. Indian Farming. 1998;48:84–7.
  7. 7. Kumar MAA, Gali SK, Patil RV. Effect of levels of NPK on quality of sweet corn growth on vertisol. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2007;20(1):44–6.
  8. 8. Tizan G, Kang BT, Brussaard L. Mulching effect of plant residues with chemically contrasting compositions on maize growth and nutrients accumulation. Plant Soil. 1993;153:179–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00012990
  9. 9. Kumar A. Productivity, economics and nitrogen-use efficiency of speciality corn (Zea mays) as influenced by planting density and nitrogen fertilization. Indian J Agron. 2008;53(4):306–9. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v53i4.4878
  10. 10. Singh Y, Sidhu HS. Management of cereal crop residues for sustainable rice-wheat production system in the Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad. 2014;80(1):95–114. https://doi.org/10.16943/ptinsa/2014/v80i1/55089
  11. 11. Kumar S, Sharma DK, Singh DR, Biswas H, Praveen KV, Sharma V. Estimating loss of ecosystem services due to paddy straw burning in North-west India. Int J Agric Sustain. 2019;17(2):146–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2019.1581474
  12. 12. Sarkar S, Singh SR. Interactive effect of tillage depth and mulch on soil temperature, productivity and water use pattern of rainfed barley (Hordium vulgare L.). Soil Tillage Res.2007;92(1-2):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2006.01.014
  13. 13. Rathore AL, Pal AR, Sahu KK. Tillage and mulching effects on water use, root growth and yield of rainfed mustard and chickpea grown after lowland rice. J Sci Food Agric. 1998;78(2):149–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199810)78:2<149::AID-JSFA94>3.0.CO;2-U
  14. 14. Paustin K, Collins HP, Paul EA. Management controls of soil carbon. In: Paul EA, Paustian K, Elliott ET, Cole CV, editors. SOM in Temperate Agroecosystems, Long term experiments in north America. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press Inc; 1997. p. 15–49. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367811693-2
  15. 15. Duiker SW, Lal R. Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon sequestration in a Luvisol in central Ohio. Soil Tillage Res. 1999;52(1-2):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-1987(99)00059-8
  16. 16. Saroa GS, Lal R. Soil restorative effects of mulching on aggregation and carbon sequestration in a miamian soil in central Ohio. Land Degrad Dev. 2003;14(5):481–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.569
  17. 17. Singh Y, Singh B, Timsina J. Crop residue management for nutrient cycling and improving soil productivity in rice-based cropping systems in the tropics. Adv Agron. 2005;85:269–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)85006-5
  18. 18. Chen B, Liu E, Tian Q, Yan C, Zhang Y. Soil nitrogen dynamics and crop residues: A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2014;34:429–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0207-8
  19. 19. Mohanty M, Sinha NK, Reddy KS, Chaudhary RS, Rao AS, Dalal RC, et al. How important is the quality of organic amendments in relation to mineral N availability in soils? Agric Res. 2013;2:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-013-0052-z
  20. 20. Ghosh HP, Preiss J. Adenosine diphosphate glucose pyrophosphorylase - a regulatory enzyme in the biosynthesis of starch in spinach leaf chloroplasts. J Biol Chem. 1966;241:4491–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)99747-4
  21. 21. Heldt HW, Chon CJ, Maronde D, Herold A, Stankovic ZS, Walker DA. Role of orthophosphate and other factors in the regulation of starch formation in leaves and isolated chloroplasts. Plant Physiol. 1977;59(6):1146–55. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.59.6.1146
  22. 22. Kaiser WM, Bassham JA. Light-dark regulation of starch metabolism in chloroplasts. II. Effect of chloroplast metabolite levels in the formation of ADP glucose by chloroplast extracts. Plant Physiol. 1979;63(1):109–13. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.63.1.109
  23. 23. Kaiser WM, Bassham JA. Light-dark regulation of starch metabolism in chloroplasts. I. Levels of metabolites in chloroplasts and medium during light-dark transition. Plant Physiol.1979;63(1):105–8. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.63.1.105
  24. 24. Sanwal GG, Greenberg E, Hardie J, Cameron EC, Preiss J. Regulation of starch biosynthesis in plant leaves, activation and inhibition of ADPglucose pyrophorylase. Plant Physiol. 1968;43(3):417–27. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.43.3.417
  25. 25. Seto R, Moritsuka N, Fujisao K, Toriumi A, Homma K, Tajima R, et al. Mild drying of sandy soil can physically limit the uptake of phosphorus by rainfed lowland rice in northeast Thailand. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2018;64(6):677–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2018.1506251
  26. 26. Black CA. Methods of soil analysis, Part II. Madison (WI): American Society Agronomy, Inc.; 1965. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.1
  27. 27. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Ltd; 1973. p. 183–204.
  28. 28. Walkley A, Black CA. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and proposed modification of chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934;37(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  29. 29. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956;25:259–60.
  30. 30. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Walanable FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939. 1954:19–23.
  31. 31. Lindsay WL, Norveil WA. Development of DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1978;42(3):421–8.https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x
  32. 32. Rietra RPJJ, Heinen M, Dimkpa CO, Bindraban PS. Effects of nutrient antagonism and synergism on yield and fertilizer use efficiency. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2017;48(16):1895–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2017.1407429
  33. 33. Alloway BJ. Zinc in soils and crop nutrition. 2nd ed. Brussels (Belgium) and Paris (France): International Zinc Association and International Fertilizer Association; 2008. p. 223–5.
  34. 34. Arya KC, Singh SN. Effect of different levels of phosphorus and zinc on yield and nutrients uptake of maize (Zea mays) with and without irrigation. Indian J Agron. 2000;45(4):717–21. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v45i4.3434
  35. 35. Baskaran S, Kandasamy P, Manickam TS. Effect of N levels and soils on the N, P and K uptake by maize. Madras Agric J. 1992;79:623–7. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.A01800
  36. 36. Kar PP, Barik KC, Mahapatra PK, Garnayak LM, Rath BS, Bastia DK, et al. Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen on yield, economics and nitrogen uptake of sweet corn (Zea mays). Indian J Agron. 2006;51(1):43–5. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v51i1.4964
  37. 37. Suryavanshi VP, Chavan BN, Jadhav VT, Kadam GL. Effect of different spacings, nitrogen and phosphorus levels on yield and nutrients uptake of maize. Adv Plant Sci. 2010;23(1):113–7.
  38. 38. Uwah DF, Iwo GA. Effectiveness of organic mulch on the productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) and weed growth. J Anim Plant Sci. 2011;21(3):525–30.
  39. 39. Gosavi SP. Effect of mulches, fertilizer and levels of organic manure on the performance of rabi sweet corn (Zea mays saccharata) [master's thesis]. Dapoli, Dist. Ratnagiri (M.H.): Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2006.
  40. 40. Singh K, Singh UN, Singh V, Singh SR, Chandel RS, Singh KK. Effect of tillage, inter terrace and mulching on yield and nutrient uptake by maize (Zea mays) and chick pea (Cicer arietinum) cropping system. Indian J Agric Sci. 2002;72(12):728–30.
  41. 41. Kumaresan M, Shanmugasundaram VS, Balasubramanian TN. Influence of phosphorus management on soil available phosphorus and uptake of NPK in a maize-sunflower-cowpea cropping system. Indian J Agric Sci. 2003;37(1):34–8.
  42. 42. Venkatesh MS, Majumdar B, Kumar K, Patiram. Effect of phosphorus and lime on yield and P uptake by maize and forms of soil acidity in Typic hapludalf of Meghalaya. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 2002;50(3):254–8.
  43. 43. Zende NB, Chavan SA, Bhagat SB, Dahiphale AV, Pawar PP. Dry matter and nutrient partitioning in sweet corn as influenced by integrated nutrient management. Ann Plant Physiol. 2007;21(1):99–102.
  44. 44. Clark RB. Differential response of maize inbreeds to Zn. Agron J. 1978;70(6):1057–60. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1978.00021962007000060039x
  45. 45. Mahdi SS, Hasan B, Singh L. Influence of seed rate, nitrogen and zinc on fodder maize (Zea mays L.) in temperate conditions of western Himalayas. Indian J Agron. 2012;57(1):85–8. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v57i1.4604
  46. 46. Soltangheisi A, Ishak CF, Musa HM, Zakikhani H, Rahman ZA. Phosphorus and zinc uptake and their interaction effect on dry matter and chlorophyll content of sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata). J Agron. 2013;12(4):187–92. https://doi.org/10.3923/ja.2013.187.192
  47. 47. Abunyewa AA, Quarshie M. Response of maize to magnesium and zinc application in the semi-arid zone of West Africa. Asian J Plant Sci. 2004;3(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2004.1.5
  48. 48. Kumar A, Chhillar RK, Gautam RC. Nutrient requirement of winter maize (Zea mays L.) based intercropping system. Indian J Agric Sci. 2006;76(5):315–8.
  49. 49. Paramasivan M, Kumarsesan KR, Malarvizhi P. Effect of balanced nutrition on yield, nutrient uptake and soil fertility of maize (Zea mays) in vertisol of Tamil Nadu. Indian J Agron. 2011;56(2):133–7.
  50. 50. Siam HS, Kader EMGA, Alia EHI. Yield and yield component of maize as affected by different sources and application rates of N fertilizers. Res J Agric Biol Sci. 2008;4(5):399–412.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.