4.3 Article

Bioavailability of Silicon from Different Sources and Its Effect on the Yield of Rice in Acidic, Neutral, and Alkaline soils of Karnataka, South India

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00103624.2018.1563096

关键词

rice; Bioavailability; fertilizer; rice; silicon; soil pH,yield; soil pH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several silicon (Si) sources have been reported to be effective in terms of their effectiveness on rice growth and yield. Apart from that, it is crucial to understand the bioavailability of silicon from different silicon sources for adequate plant uptake and its performances in varying types of soils. In this point of view, a pot experiment was conducted to assess the bioavailability of silicon from three Si sources and its effect on yield of rice crop in three contrasting soils. Acidic (pH 5.86), neutral (pH 7.10), and alkaline (pH 9.38) soils collected from different locations in Karnataka were amended with calcium silicate, diatomite, and rice husk biochar (RHB) as Si sources. Silica was applied at 0, 250, and 500 kg Si ha(-1), and the pots were maintained under submerged condition. There was a significant increase in the yield parameters such as panicle number pot(-1), panicle length pot(-1), straw dry weight pot(-1), and grain weight pot(-1) in acidic and neutral soils with the application of Si over no Si treatment, whereas only straw dry weight pot(-1) increased significantly with the application of Si sources over control in alkaline soil. Higher Si content and uptake was noticed in neutral soil followed by acidic and alkaline soils. The bioavailability of Si increased with the application of Si sources but varied based on the types of soil. Application of calcium silicate followed by diatomite performed better in acidic and neutral soils whereas RHB was a better source of Si in alkaline soil. A significant difference in plant-available silicon status of the soil was noticed with the application of Si sources over control in all three studied soils.

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

4.3
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