Author:
C.H. Raval1*, B.N. Satodiya2, A.J. Patel3 and D.D. Parekh4
Journal Name: Biological Forum – An International Journal, 16(1): 319-322, 2024
Address:
1Assistant Professor and Head, Department of NRM, COH, AAU, Anand (Gujarat), India.
2Associate Professor and Head, Department of Vegetable Science, COH, AAU, Anand (Gujarat), India.
3Research Associate, College of Horticulture, AAU, Anand (Gujarat), India.
4Assistant Professor and Head, Department of Fruit Science, COH, AAU, Anand (Gujarat), India.
(Corresponding author: C.H. Raval*)
DOI: -
An experiment was conducted at Horticulture Research Farm, College of Horticulture, AAU, Anand during the three consecutive years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 on onion cv. GAWO 3. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design with three replications and ten treatments viz., T1: RDF 100:75:75 NPK kg ha-1 (control), T2: 100 % N from FYM, T3: 100 % N from Vermicompost, T4: 100 % N from Castor cake, T5: 75 % N from FYM + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T6: 75% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T7: 75% N from CC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T8: 50% N from FYM + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T9: 50% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T10: 50% N from CC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1. The observations were recorded on different growth and yield attributes. The treatment T6 (Soil application of 75% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1) recorded significantly, higher bulb weight (87.91g), bulb volume (90.75 cm3), bulb yield (467 q/ha) and “A” grade bulbs (325.64 q/ha) in pooled analysis. Whereas, plant height at 40 and 80 DAP as well as yield of “B and C” grade bulbs were found non-significant.
Onion (Allium cepa L.) is one of the most important commercial bulbous vegetable crops grown extensively throughout the country. It is popularly referred as "Queen of Kitchen" or "Poor Man's Kasturi" because of indispensable item in every kitchen as vegetable and condiment. It is one of the most important cash vegetable crop, among bulb crops with higher market demand and price due to its culinary, dietary and medicinal values. India is the second largest producer of onion in the world with a prominent production and export. Now-a-days white onion is widely used in dehydrated form (Hanley and Fenwick 1985). In addition to being consumed uncooked, onion serves as a very excellent raw material for the food preparation industries and it can be manufactured into rings, shreds, powder, or onion in vinegar or brine. India produces about 26,830 MT of onion from an area of 1,639 Mha with productivity of 16.36 metric tones (Anonymous, 2021). Maharashtra is the leading onion growing state and other important states are Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Bihar, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Gujarat produces about 2109 MT of onion from an area of 821 Mha with productivity of 25.67 metric tonnes (Anonymous, 2021).
Fertilizer application proved to be a great success and production of vegetables crops. Continuous and liberal use of inorganic fertilizer alone affects soil health and thus resulting in lower yield with poor quality produce (Mamatha, 2006; Singh et al., 2017). Use of organic manures and bioferilizers to meet the nutrient requirement of crop would be an inevitable practice in the years to come for sustainable agriculture. Organic manures and bio fertilizers generally improve the soil physical, chemical and biological properties along with conserving the moisture holding capacity of soil and thus resulting in enhanced crop productivity along with maintaining the quality of crop produce (Maheswarappa et al., 1999). Therefore, keeping in view the production of onion with judicial application of organic substances along with bio fertilizers is an integrated way to reduce health hazards, to protect environment as well as enhancing production of onion.
The field experiment was laid out during the three consecutive years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 at Horticultural Research Farm, College of Horticulture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India, during the Rabi season. The experiment was laid out with ten treatments i.e.,T1: RDF 100:75:75 NPK kg ha-1 (control), T2:100 % N from FYM, T3:100 % N from Vermicompost, T4: 100 % N from Castor cake, T5:75 % N from FYM + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T6: 75% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T7: 75% N from CC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1,T8: 50% N from FYM + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1,T9:50% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1, T10: 50% N from CC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1 in a Randomized Block Design with three replications with plot size of 3.0 × 2.0 m. The experiment was conducted in organic plot and the soil was light alluvial having sandy loam texture with pH of 7.11, organic carbon 0.65%, available N 240.00 kg/ha, available P2O5 87.10 kg/ha, available K 241.00 kg/ha. About six week old seedlings of white onion variety GAWO 3 was transplanted at spacing of 15 × 10 cm. The organic manures (FYM and Vermicompost) and bio-fertilizer (NPK consortium@1 L ha-1) were applied at the time of field preparation. Observation were recorded for different traits.
For growth observations randomly five plants per plot was selected and tagged. Plant height was measured by measuring scale from ground level to tip of tallest leaf. Bulb diameter at centre portion was measure by vernier callipers. Five bulbs from randomly chosen tagged plants were weighed by weighing balance and after that the average value was calculated. All the data were analysis statically for individual years and pooled.
Growth parameters of onion
Plant height (cm) at 40 and 80 DATP: The data revealed that the plant height at 40 and 80 DATP was found non-significant during the 2016-17, 2017-18, and 2018-19 and in pooled analysis (Table 1).
Yield parameters of onion
Bulb weight (g): The data pertaining to average bulb weight (g) is presented in Table 2. The result showed that the effect of different treatments on average bulb weight (g) after harvest of crop was found significant during 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 as well as in pooled analysis. In pooled analysis treatment T6 (75% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1) recorded significantly, higher bulb weight (87.91g) which, was statistically at par with treatment T1 [RDF 100:75:75 NPK kg ha-1 (control)] and T5 (75 % N from FYM + NPK consortium 1 L ha1). It might be due to from vermicompost nutrients are easily available and application bio fertilizer (NPK consortium) made nutrients available from the soil as well as it is free nitrogen photosynthates fixer, thereby increase nitrogen level thus increase growth of the plant and photosynthesis, ultimately more food storage resulted increase bulb weight. The present results are in conformity with the findings of Patil et al. (2005); Singh et al. (2015); Rabari et al. (2016) in onion.
Bulb volume (cm3): The data presented in Table 2 revealed that the effect of different organic nutrient treatments on bulb volume was found significant during the 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and in pooled analysis. In pooled analysis treatment T6 recorded significantly, higher bulb volume (90.75 cm3) which was at par with treatment T1 [RDF (100:75:75) NPK kg ha-1] and T5 (75 % N from FYM + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1). It might be due to application of vermicompost and bio fertilizer supplies macro and micro nutrient to the plant which involved in cell division and elongation as well as metabolism of carbohydrates. Macro nutrients regulates proper translocation of photosynthesis and enzyme activity which might have hasten the rate of growth and bulb volume. Similar result were also reported by Chetna et al. (2015); Shah et al. (2016) in onion.
Bulb yield (q/ha): The data on bulb yield as influenced by different organic nutrient treatments is presented in Table 2. The results indicated that significantly higher bulb yield was noted with treatment T6 during 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and in pooled analysis. In pooled analysis treatment T6 (75% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1) recorded significantly, higher bulb yield (467 q/ha) which was at par with treatment T1 [RDF (100:75:75) NPK kg ha-1] and T5 (75 % N from FYM + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1). It might be due to application of vermicompost and bio fertilizer (NPK consortium) there is increase in the vegetative growth of the plant. Hence, the leaf surface area increase resulting in high photosynthetic activity and chlorophyll synthesis which in turn increase the bulb size and weight as the carbohydrate are transported to the underground bulb ultimately increased yield. Similar result were also reported by Kumar et al. (2011); Mandal et al. (2013); Singh et al. (2015); Rabari et al. (2016); Vaghela et al. (2019) in onion.
Grade of bulb: The data presented in Table 3 showed the effect of different treatments on grade of bulb during the 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and in pooled analysis. The results indicated that only “A” grade bulb shows the significant effect during three years as well as in pooled analysis. Treatment T6 (75% N from VC + NPK consortium 1 L ha-1) recorded significantly, higher number of A grade bulbs during 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and in pooled analysis. This might be due to bigger size bulb and more volume of bulb. The result of “B and C” grade bulbs was found non-significant during three years as well as in pooled analysis.
Table 1: Effect of different treatment on growth parameter of onion.
Treatments | Plant height at 40 DATP | Plant height at 80 DATP | |||||||
2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | ||
T1 | 28.10 | 26.24 | 25.68 | 26.67 | 60.10 | 56.51 | 57.58 | 58.06 | |
T2 | 26.17 | 24.31 | 25.25 | 25.24 | 56.80 | 53.21 | 55.58 | 55.20 | |
T3 | 26.53 | 24.68 | 25.28 | 25.50 | 60.10 | 56.51 | 54.58 | 57.06 | |
T4 | 25.17 | 23.31 | 24.62 | 24.37 | 56.17 | 52.58 | 56.91 | 55.22 | |
T5 | 25.50 | 23.64 | 24.43 | 24.52 | 58.83 | 55.24 | 55.58 | 56.55 | |
T6 | 27.67 | 25.81 | 23.20 | 25.56 | 60.90 | 57.31 | 59.25 | 59.15 | |
T7 | 26.50 | 24.65 | 25.54 | 25.56 | 58.50 | 54.91 | 55.58 | 56.33 | |
T8 | 24.13 | 22.28 | 25.68 | 24.03 | 56.47 | 52.87 | 54.58 | 54.64 | |
T9 | 25.50 | 23.64 | 24.91 | 24.68 | 59.63 | 56.04 | 58.58 | 58.09 | |
T10 | 24.07 | 22.21 | 25.48 | 23.92 | 55.40 | 51.81 | 49.92 | 52.37 | |
SEm (T) | 1.15 | 1.41 | 1.28 | 0.69 | 3.04 | 4.73 | 3.30 | 1.69 | |
SEm (Y × T) | - | - | - | 1.80 | - | - | - | 4.02 | |
F Test (T) | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
F (Y × T) | - | - | - | NS | - | - | - | NS | |
C V % | 7.67 | 10.11 | 8.87 | 12.50 | 9.04 | 14.98 | 10.25 | 12.39 | |
Table 2: Effect of different treatment on yield parameters of onion.
Treatments | Bulb weight (g) | Bulb volume (cm3) | Bulb yield (q/ha) | |||||||||
2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | |
T1 | 82.13abc | 73.14abc | 89.82abc | 81.70abc | 84.20a | 80.20ab | 93.48ab | 85.96a | 401ab | 381abc | 510a | 431bc |
T2 | 81.07abc | 71.98abc | 84.73abc | 79.26bcd | 77.13ab | 73.14abc | 85.83ab | 78.70b | 373bc | 352abcd | 497a | 408bcd |
T3 | 81.73abc | 72.70abc | 81.90abcd | 78.78bcd | 79.67ab | 75.67ab | 82.78ab | 79.37b | 390abc | 371abc | 468ab | 410bcd |
T4 | 71.73cd | 61.83cd | 80.08abcd | 71.21ef | 62.33b | 58.34c | 80.89abc | 67.19d | 314c | 290d | 439ab | 348f |
T5 | 84.67ab | 75.89ab | 92.29a | 84.28ab | 85.20a | 81.21ab | 94.95a | 87.12a | 417ab | 415ab | 513a | 448ab |
T6 | 90.03a | 81.73a | 91.96ab | 87.91a | 91.07a | 87.07a | 94.11a | 90.75a | 459a | 429a | 511a | 467a |
T7 | 80.53abc | 71.40abc | 79.13bcd | 77.02cde | 62.60b | 58.61c | 80.08abc | 67.10d | 362bc | 341bcd | 427ab | 377def |
T8 | 78.80abcd | 69.51abcd | 79.77abcd | 76.03cde | 72.43ab | 68.44bc | 80.04abc | 73.64c | 370bc | 350bcd | 430ab | 383def |
T9 | 77.23bcd | 67.81bcd | 78.63cd | 74.56de | 75.73ab | 71.74abc | 76.38bc | 74.62bc | 387abc | 366abc | 427ab | 393cde |
T10 | 68.67d | 58.49d | 70.20d | 65.79f | 61.93b | 57.94c | 65.54c | 61.80e | 355bc | 333cd | 399b | 362ef |
SEm (T) | 3.59 | 3.75 | 3.84 | 2.041 | 5.88 | 4.98 | 5.11 | 2.50 | 23.43 | 22.47 | 25.25 | 13.27 |
SEm (Y × T) | - | - | - | 4.157 | - | - | - | 5.91 | - | - | - | 35.20 |
F Test (T) | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. |
F (Y × T) | - | - | - | NS | - | - | - | NS | - | - | - | NS |
C V % | 7.82 | 9.22 | 8.04 | 9.27 | 13.54 | 12.10 | 10.62 | 13.83 | 10.59 | 10.71 | 9.45 | 15.13 |
Note: Treatment means with the letter/letters in common are not significant by Duncan’s New Multiple Rang Test at 5% level of Significance
Treatments | ‘A’ Grade bulbs (q/ha) | ‘B’ Grade bulbs (q/ha) | ‘C’ Grade bulbs (q/ha) | |||||||||
2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | 2016-17 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | Pooled | |
T1 | 245.56ab | 238.33abc | 362.67abc | 282.19bc | 110.55 | 113.33 | 125.77 | 116.55 | 45.00b | 30.00 | 22.33 | 32.44 |
T2 | 218.33bc | 213.89bcd | 363.63abc | 265.28bcd | 112.22 | 115.00 | 110.43 | 112.55 | 42.67b | 23.89 | 23.83 | 30.13 |
T3 | 221.67bc | 212.22bcd | 351.10abc | 261.66cd | 124.44 | 126.11 | 93.20 | 114.58 | 44.44b | 32.78 | 24.03 | 33.75 |
T4 | 157.22c | 153.89d | 324.17bcd | 211.76ef | 107.22 | 108.89 | 93.40 | 103.17 | 50.00ab | 27.78 | 22.20 | 33.33 |
T5 | 260.56ab | 260.56ab | 376.10ab | 299.07ab | 116.67 | 117.78 | 114.20 | 116.22 | 40.55b | 37.22 | 23.23 | 33.67 |
T6 | 301.67a | 295.00a | 380.27a | 325.64a | 116.67 | 107.78 | 106.20 | 110.21 | 40.56b | 26.67 | 24.73 | 30.65 |
T7 | 197.22bc | 194.44cd | 317.90cd | 236.52de | 115.00 | 116.11 | 85.97 | 105.69 | 50.55ab | 31.11 | 23.70 | 35.12 |
T8 | 196.11bc | 193.89cd | 317.07cd | 235.69de | 123.89 | 123.89 | 89.73 | 112.50 | 50.55ab | 32.22 | 24.03 | 35.60 |
T9 | 210.56bc | 208.33bcd | 317.20cd | 245.36d | 131.11 | 132.78 | 86.57 | 116.82 | 45.67b | 25.56 | 23.83 | 31.69 |
T10 | 160.55c | 160.55d | 281.30d | 200.80f | 136.67 | 138.89 | 91.23 | 122.26 | 58.33a | 34.44 | 26.77 | 39.85 |
SEm (T) | 19.59 | 19.17 | 16.26 | 10.10 | 8.39 | 8.37 | 9.98 | 4.63 | 3.52 | 6.15 | 2.23 | 2.18 |
SEm (Y × T) | - | - | - | 24.26 | - | - | - | 11.71 | - | - | - | 5.73 |
F Test (T) | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | Sig. | NS | NS | NS | NS | Sig. | NS | NS | NS |
F (Y × T) | - | - | - | NS | - | - | - | NS | - | - | - | NS |
C V % | 15.64 | 15.58 | 8.31 | 16.39 | 12.17 | 12.07 | 17.34 | 17.95 | 13.01 | 35.33 | 16.18 | 29.52 |
Table 3: Effect of different treatments on weight of ‘A, B and C’ grade bulbs (q/ha).
Note: Treatment means with the letter/letters in common are not significant by Duncan’s New Multiple Rang Test at 5% level of Significance
Anonymous (2021). Directorate of Horticulture, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar (2018).
Anonymous Horticultural Statistics at a Glance. (2021). Horticulture Statistics Division, Department of Agriculture, Co-operation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
Chetna, B., Shukla. N., Sharma, K. P., Patanwar, M. and Chandravanshi, D. (2015). Effect of organic substrates on yield and quality of onion. Int. J. of Farm Sci., 5(1), 30 -35.
Hanley, A. B. and Fenwick, G. (1985). Cultivated Alliums. Journal of Plant Foods, 6(4), 211-238.
Kumar, S., Anoop Kumar and Yadav Y. C. (2011). Efficacy of biofertilizers with NPK on growth and yield of onion (Allium cepa L.) cv. Nasik Red. Asian J. Hort., 6(1), 256-258.
Maheswarappa, N. P., Nan, H. V. and Hegde, M. R. (1999). Influence of organic on yield of arrow root, soil physical, chemical and biological properties when grown as inter crop in coconut garden. Annals of Agricultural Research, 20, 318-323.
Mamatha, H. N. (2006). Effect of organic and inorganic sources of nitrogen on yield and quality of onion (Allium cepa L.) and soil properties in Alfisol. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, India.
Mandal, J., Ghosh, C. and Chattopadhyay, G. N. (2013). Proportional substitution of chemical fertilizers with vermicompost on growth and production potential of onion (Allium cepa L.). International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, 4(2), 356-357.
Patil, P. V., Chalwade, P. B., Solanke, A. S. and Kulkarni, V. K. (2005). Effect of fly ash and FYM on nutrient uptake and yield of onion. J. of Soils and Crops, 15(1), 187-197.
Rabari, K. V., Patel, M. V. and Umale, A. A. (2016). Effect of nutrient management on growth, TSS content, bulb yield and net realization from onion bulb. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia, 13(1), 557-559.
Shah, K. N., Singh, V. and Rana, D. K. (2016). Effect of organic and in organic manures on growth, yield and quality of onion cv. Pusha Madhvi. J. Hort. Flora Res. Spectrum, 5(3), 233-237.
Singh, A., Ram, R. B. and Meena, M. L. (2015). Efficacy of different sources of nutrient and biofertilizer on growth, yield, quality of onion. International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, 2(10), 64-70.
Singh, V., Sharma, K. C. and Sharma, H. R. (2017). Effect of bioinoculants and graded level of fertilizers on nutrient uptake in garlic. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 6(5), 1200-1209.
Vaghela, K. S., Patel, K. M. and Nadoda, S. R. (2019). Effect of organic, inorganic and biofertilizer on growth and yield of onion cv. GJRO-11. Int. J. Chem. Studies, 7(4), 2358-2361.
C.H. Raval, B.N. Satodiya, A.J. Patel and D.D. Parekh (2024). Influence of Organics Nutrient Management on Growth and Yield Attribute of Onion (Allium cepa L.). Biological Forum – An International Journal, 16(1): 319-322.