## I. INTRODUCTION Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) constitutes staple food in many countries worldwide. It possesses inbuilt genetic potential to yield huge biomass in short time/unit land. In India, farmers have been regularly growing this crop even under acute price fluctuation and shortage of cold storage facilities. Potato allows the farmer to harvest up to $80\%$ of dry matter as edible nutritious food, as compared to only $50\%$ of the cereals as grain (Pandey et al., 2005). Besides being nutritionally superior and highly productive than most food crops, it has a relatively short duration and therefore amenable for inclusion in the intensive cropping system. Continuous use of inorganic fertilizers cause detrimental effects on soil physical health and thus reduces crop yields drastically (Guar 2002). A promising method to counteract these emerging threats is to switch on to organic farming practices which involves use of organic manures like FYM, vermicompost, poultry manure, neem cake, etc. and biofertilizers like Azotobacter and Phosphobacteria. Numerous works have been done on the integrated use of nutrients on potato, however, information regarding use of strictly organic manure alone and its effect on dry matter accumulation and nutrients uptake by potato is still lacking. Assessment of dry matter accumulation, uptake of nutrients and its distribution to various parts of the plant is essential for understanding the nutrient requirement also to estimate the nutrient removal by the crop. Accumulation and uptake of nutrients in a plant depends on many factors such as physico-chemical characteristics of soil, cultivar and agro-climatic situation. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted in Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka to know the effect of integrated use of different organic and inorganic biofertilizer sources of nutrients on tuber dry matter accumulation and uptake of nutrient by potato variety Kufri jyoti. ## II. MATERIAL AND METHODS The field trail was carried out in sandy loam soil at Post Graduate Centre, University of Horticultural Sciences, Campus, Gandhi Krishi Vignana Kendra, Bangalore during Rabi 2011. There were 1o treatment combinations of organic, inorganic and biofertilizers viz., $100\%$ recommended dose of fertiliser (125:100:125 kg NPK $\mathrm{ha^{-1}}$ $(T_{1})$. $100\%$ RDF $+100\%$ FYM $(25t\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{2})$ Soil Test Crop Response targeted yield (155:150:129 kg NPK $\mathrm{ha^{-1}}$ $(T_{3})$. $50\%$ RDF $+100\%$ FYM $^+$ Azotobacter $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1}) +$ Phosphobacteria $(\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{4})$. $75\%$ RDF $^+$ VC $(1.5t\mathrm{ha}^{-1}) +$ Azotobacter $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})+$ Phosphobacteria $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{5})$. $50\%$ RDF $^+$ Azotobacter $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})+$ Phosphobacteria $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{6})$. $50\%$ RDF $+50\%$ FYM $^+$ VC $(1.5t\mathrm{ha}^{-1})+$ Azotobacter $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})+$ Phosphobacteria $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{7})$. $100\%$ FYM $^+$ $50\%$ Nitrogen supplied through neem cake $(62.5\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1}) +$ Azotobacter $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{8})$. $100\%$ FYM $^+$ $50\%$ nitrogen supplied through poultry manure $(1.5t\mathrm{ha}^{-1}) +$ Azotobacter $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{9})$ and $100\%$ FYM $^+$ $50\%$ FYM supplied through vermicompost $(1.5t\mathrm{ha}^{-1}) +$ Azotobacter $(12\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ $(T_{10})$. The experiment was laid out in RCBD and the treatments were replicated three times. The dry matter production was estimated on over dry weight basis on five randomly selected plants. Uptake of major nutrients and available NPK in the soil were also assessed. The content of nutrients was estimated by following standard procedures as outlined by Jackson (1973).[^560] The uptake of nutrients was calculated by multiplying their content with dry weight expressed as kg/ha. ## III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Data pertaining to dry matter accumulation in different plant parts at harvest of potato differed significantly during rabi 2011 due to varying fertility levels (Table1). Application of $50\%$ RDF + $50\%$ FYM + Azotobacter + PSB $(T_{7})$ recorded significantly higher dry weight in shoot ( $50.7\mathrm{g}$ plant $^{-1}$ ), leaves ( $62.3\mathrm{g}$ plant $^{-1}$ ), roots ( $15.0\mathrm{g}$ plant $^{-1}$ ), tuber ( $127.3\mathrm{g}$ plant $^{-1}$ ) and total dry weight ( $255.3\mathrm{g}$ plant $^{-1}$ ) which was on par with the treatments $T_{3}$ and $T_{4}$. Table 1: Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Dry Weight in Different Plant Parts at Harvest <table><tr><td rowspan="2">Treatments</td><td colspan="4">Dry weight (g/plant)</td><td rowspan="2">Total dry weight (g)</td></tr><tr><td>Leaves</td><td>Shoots</td><td>Roots</td><td>Tubers</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_1\)</td><td>31.7</td><td>24.3</td><td>10.7</td><td>86.3</td><td>153.0</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_2\)</td><td>34.0</td><td>27.7</td><td>11.3</td><td>95.3</td><td>168.3</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_3\)</td><td>51.0</td><td>46.0</td><td>14.3</td><td>121.7</td><td>233.0</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_4\)</td><td>51.3</td><td>44.0</td><td>14.0</td><td>118.3</td><td>227.6</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_5\)</td><td>43.0</td><td>32.3</td><td>13.3</td><td>111.3</td><td>199.9</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_6\)</td><td>40.3</td><td>31.0</td><td>12.7</td><td>104.0</td><td>188.0</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_7\)</td><td>62.3</td><td>50.7</td><td>15.0</td><td>127.3</td><td>255.3</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_8\)</td><td>24.7</td><td>22.3</td><td>9.7</td><td>83.3</td><td>140.0</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_9\)</td><td>36.7</td><td>29.3</td><td>12.0</td><td>101.0</td><td>179.0</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_{10}\)</td><td>27.0</td><td>25.3</td><td>11.0</td><td>92.3</td><td>155.6</td></tr><tr><td>SE m ±</td><td>1.88</td><td>2.16</td><td>0.73</td><td>5.17</td><td>6.54</td></tr><tr><td>CD at 5%</td><td>3.95</td><td>4.54</td><td>1.52</td><td>10.87</td><td>13.74</td></tr><tr><td>CV (%)</td><td>5.73</td><td>7.95</td><td>7.16</td><td>6.09</td><td>4.21</td></tr></table> The increased dry weight could be attributed to better vegetative growth and also more of fresh weight. Increased dry weight is also related to better uptake of nutrients due to the influence chemical fertilizers $(T_{3})$. The better absorption and accumulation of nutrients promotes growth and metabolism. This in turn resulted in production of more dry weight accumulation. The growth attributes due to application of bio-fertilizer in conjunction with vermicompost $(T_{7})$ were enhanced by production of bio active substances having similar effects as that of growth regulators besides nitrogen fixation through bio-fertilizer leading to greater dry matter production. The higher dry matter production is attributed to the cumulative effect of progressive increase in growth attributes viz., plant height, number of stems per plant, stem girth and number of leaves per plant. Similar results were also reported by Kumar Manoj et al. (2011), Zaman et al. (2011), Sarkar et al. (2011) in potato, Ramanandam et al. (2008) in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz), Nedunchezhian and Srinivasulureddy (2002) in sweet potato. Data pertaining to total nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake as influenced by integrated nutrient management practices (Table 2). The plants provided with $50\%$ $\mathrm{RDF} + 50\% \mathrm{FYM} + \mathrm{AZT} + \mathrm{PSB}$ ( $T_{7}$ ) recorded higher total nitrogen uptake ( $97.17 \mathrm{~kg} \mathrm{ha}^{-1}$ ) which was on par with $T_{3}$ ( $96.40 \mathrm{~kg} \mathrm{ha}^{-1}$ ), $T_{4}$ ( $95.20 \mathrm{~kg}$ ha $^{1)}$ and $\mathrm{T}_{5}$ (94.47 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) during rabi 2011 respectively. This could be attributed to better availability of nutrients when plants received in combination of inorganic, organic and biofertilizers. It is also related to application of biofertilizers especially Azotobacter which helped in fixation of atmospheric nitrogen while the applied FYM improve the soil physical and chemical properties which aid in uptake of nitrogen. The increased uptake could be due to higher availability of nutrients and increased absorptive area, which resulted in higher tuber yield. Similar results were noticed by Parmar et al. (2007) in potato, Alfred Hartemink et al. (2000) in taro, Ramanandan et al. (2008) in cassava, Patil (1998) in chilli, Murukumar and Patil (1996) in capsicum. Maximum total phosphorus uptake (21.76 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) during rabi 2011 was observed in the plants treated with 50% RDF + 50% FYM + AZT + PSB $(T_7)$ which was on par with $T_3$ (21.43 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) and $T_4$ (21.07 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) respectively. The maximum total phosphors uptake (21.767 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) was observed in plants fertilized with 50% RDF + 50% FYM + VC + AZT + PSB $(T_7)$ and it was on par with the treatments of $T_3$ (21.43 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) and $T_4$ (21.07 kg ha $^{-1}$ ). This could be attributed to improved physical and chemical properties of soil due to applications of organic manures and biofertilizers especially phosphobacteria which enhanced the inorganic phosphorus in available form. Increased phos phorous uptake is also due to solubilization of insoluble form of phosphors into soluble form by phosphobacteria there by increased uptake of phosphorus (Olsen et al., 1999). These results are in the line of Mahendran et al. (1996) who have reported that application of NPK fertilizers with bio-fertilizers viz., Azospirillum and phosphobacterium significantly influenced N and P content and uptake of NPK by different plant parts. This is in conformity with the findings of Nandekar et al. (1992) in potato crop. Total potassium uptake was also highest $(159.63\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{ha}^{-1})$ during rabi 2011 with application of $50\%$ RDF + $50\%$ FYM + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria $(T_{7})$ which was on par with $T_{4}$ (153.90 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) (Table 3). This could be attributed to the pronounced improvement in soil fertility through the addition of FYM and the substitution of NPK nutrients supplied through Azotobacter and PSB facilitated effective utilization of available nutrients. Hoda Habib et al. (2011) reported that uptake of nutrients NPK may be due to the increase of enzymatic activities which affect on absorption of mineral nutrients by plant and in turn increase its concentration in plant parts. The results are in the conformity with the findings of Parmar et al. (2007), Singh et al. (1996) and Shambhavi and Sharma (2008a) in potato. Table 3: Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Total Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Uptake by Potato <table><tr><td>Treatments</td><td>Nitrogen Uptake (kg ha-1)</td><td>Phosphorus Uptake (kg ha-1)</td><td>Potassium Uptake (kg ha-1)</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_1\)</td><td>90.50</td><td>18.80</td><td>138.33</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_2\)</td><td>93.33</td><td>19.13</td><td>147.30</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_3\)</td><td>96.40</td><td>21.43</td><td>147.30</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_4\)</td><td>95.20</td><td>21.07</td><td>153.90</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_5\)</td><td>94.47</td><td>20.13</td><td>145.06</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_6\)</td><td>91.56</td><td>19.33</td><td>149.83</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_7\)</td><td>97.17</td><td>21.76</td><td>159.63</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_8\)</td><td>83.40</td><td>16.13</td><td>108.23</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_9\)</td><td>93.10</td><td>19.97</td><td>144.53</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_{10}\)</td><td>89.00</td><td>18.53</td><td>127.36</td></tr><tr><td>SE m ±</td><td>1.53</td><td>0.52</td><td>4.18</td></tr><tr><td>CD at 5%</td><td>3.22</td><td>1.09</td><td>8.79</td></tr><tr><td>CV (%)</td><td>2.03</td><td>3.26</td><td>3.64</td></tr></table> It can be concluded that application of $50\%$ $\mathrm{RDF} + 50\%$ FYM + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria $(T_{7})$ recorded highest dry weight of shoot (50.7 g plant $^{-1}$ ) during rabi 2011 which was followed by $T_{3}$ (46.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ), $T_{4}$ (44.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ) and $T_{6}$ (32.3 g plant $^{-1}$ ); highest dry weight of leaves (62.3 46.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ) which was on par with $T_{4}$ (51.3 46.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ) and $T_{3}$ (51.0 46.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ) respectively. Application of $75\%$ RDF + $75\%$ FYM + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria $(T_{7})$ recorded higher root dry weight (15.0 46.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ) which was on par with $T_{3}$ (14.3 g plant $^{-1}$ ) and $T_{4}$ (14.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ) respectively, highest tuber dry weight (127.3 46.0 g plant $^{-1}$ ) which was on par with $T_{3}$ (121.7 g plant $^{-1}$ ) and $T_{4}$ (118.3 g plant $^{-1}$ ) and total dry weight (255.3g plant $^{-1}$ ). Similarly the maximum N uptake (97.17 kg ha $^{-1}$ ), P (21.76 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) and K (159.63 kg ha $^{-1}$ ) was found with the plants provided with $50\%$ RDF + $50\%$ FYM + Azotobacter + Phosphobacteria $(T_{7})$ which was on par with $T_{3}$ and $T_{4}$ during rabi 2011. Table 2: Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Accumulation of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium in Different Plant Parts of Potato at Harvest <table><tr><td rowspan="2">Treatments</td><td colspan="3">Nitrogen Accumulation (%)</td><td colspan="3">Phosphorus Accumulation (%)</td><td colspan="3">Potassium Accumulation (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Stem</td><td>Leaf</td><td>Tuber</td><td>Stem</td><td>Leaf</td><td>Tuber</td><td>Stem</td><td>Leaf</td><td>Tuber</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_1\)</td><td>1.29</td><td>1.14</td><td>1.08</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.93</td><td>2.03</td><td>2.61</td><td>4.24</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_2\)</td><td>1.31</td><td>1.18</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.94</td><td>2.09</td><td>2.75</td><td>4.31</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_3\)</td><td>1.80</td><td>1.30</td><td>1.27</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.58</td><td>1.08</td><td>2.17</td><td>3.35</td><td>4.39</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_4\)</td><td>1.76</td><td>1.29</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.56</td><td>1.05</td><td>2.17</td><td>3.43</td><td>4.35</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_5\)</td><td>1.72</td><td>1.26</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.99</td><td>2.15</td><td>3.08</td><td>4.34</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_6\)</td><td>1.66</td><td>1.25</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.97</td><td>2.12</td><td>2.99</td><td>4.34</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_7\)</td><td>1.85</td><td>1.33</td><td>1.28</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.59</td><td>1.12</td><td>2.22</td><td>3.93</td><td>4.52</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_8\)</td><td>1.15</td><td>1.11</td><td>1.04</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.91</td><td>2.03</td><td>2.42</td><td>4.19</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_9\)</td><td>1.33</td><td>1.20</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.95</td><td>2.11</td><td>2.79</td><td>4.31</td></tr><tr><td>\(T_{10}\)</td><td>1.26</td><td>1.16</td><td>1.07</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.94</td><td>2.06</td><td>2.72</td><td>4.26</td></tr><tr><td>SE m ±</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>CD at 5%</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td>CV (%)</td><td>4.67</td><td>1.65</td><td>1.64</td><td>6.40</td><td>3.06</td><td>3.26</td><td>1.43</td><td>7.31</td><td>0.99</td></tr></table> [^560]: 065. _(p.1)_

Generating HTML Viewer...