4.7 Article

Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer Application on Growth, Yield, and Grain Quality of Rice

期刊

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture10110544

关键词

amyloplast; fertilizer; manure; physicochemical properties; quality; rice

类别

资金

  1. Higher Education Development Program (HEDP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nutrient management and fertilizer application are influential elements for high yield and preferred grain quality. Negligible information is available regarding fertilizer application in the paddy fields in Afghanistan. This research elucidates the efficacy of different fertilizers' application on growth attributes, yield potential, and grain quality of rice. The treatments included the traditional application rate of nitrogen and phosphorus (RD), animal manure (AM), animal manure with 50% nitrogen and phosphorus of the traditional application rate (AMRD), sawdust (SD), and sawdust with 50% nitrogen and phosphorus of the traditional application rate (SDRD). Growth parameters, grain yield and its components, physicochemical properties, and morphological observation using scanning electron microscopy were recorded. The results revealed that the greatest panicle number, spikelet number, and grain yield were recorded in AMRD and SDRD treatments. Both AMRD and SDRD treatments increased the percentage of protein, amylose, and lipid contents, as well as the percentage of perfect grain compared to the RD treatment. Rice grain in RD treatment had very few protein bodies and their traces (pits), as well as the formation of amyloplasts and starch granules, were normal. However, AMRD and SDRD increased the number of protein bodies and their pits in the rice endosperm. The shapes of the amyloplasts were round and polyhedral with diverse sizes. Starch granules were polygonal with sharply defined edges. This research encourages farmers to adopt the combined application of manures and fertilizers to decrease the dependence on inorganic fertilizers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据