See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/297295607

Phosphorus Fertility Status and Strategies to Improve its Use Efficiency in

Indian Soils

Article · January 2015

CITATION READS

1 256

5 authors, including:

Srinivasrao Ch. Girija Venati

National Academy of Agricultural Research Management Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, India
370 PUBLICATIONS   2,271 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sharma K.L. B.M.K Raju

Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, India Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, India
233 PUBLICATIONS   1,340 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adoption of Natural Farming and its Effect on Crop Yield and Farmers' Livelihood in India View project

Rainfed Agriculture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Srinivasrao Ch. on 08 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indian J. Fert., Vol. 11 (3), pp. 22-36 (15 pages)

Phosphorus Fertility Status and Strategies to Improve

its Use Efficiency in Indian Soils
Ch. Srinivasarao, V. Girija Veni, K. L. Sharma and B. M. K. Raju
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad
N.S. Pasricha
Formerly Potash Research Institute of India, Gurgaon, Haryana
and
Rajbir Singh
Natural Resource Management Division, ICAR, KAB-II, New Delhi

In India, three main reasons which call for immediate need to improve the use efficiency of fertiliser phosphorus (P)
are: i) rock phosphate being a non renewable resource is becoming scarce, ii) increase in fertiliser P prices and iii)
to meet the food grain production for fast growing population. This review is mainly focused on the strategies to
improve the phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) of fertiliser and soil as P is equally important for its contribution in aiding
the native soil fertility and hence sustainability. A critical appraisal of soil fertility in India with changing time trends
reveals that Indian soils do not have enough P to meet the demands of existing high yielding crops of this era. The
phosphorus use efficiency can be improved by following ‘4R nutrient management approach’ through selection of
right fertiliser of right amount to be applied at right time to meet the crop demand by right application method. Although
there exists 250 cropping systems in India, it is of paramount importance to know P requirement of major cropping
systems. The application of P on the basis of cropping sequence instead of individual crop needs to be taken into
consideration for improving P use efficiency. There are simple agronomic techniques like crop rotation and intercropping
by which P use efficiency may be enhanced. Use of cheaper P sources such as P biofertilisers, organic manures, and
low grade rock phosphates available in India can better be used to improve PUE. Identification and breeding of P
efficient genotypes could be a cheaper and most sustainable approach to address the efficient use of P fertilisers.

INTRODUCTION there is a need to meet the to exhaustion of global rock

Phosphorus (P) is the most essential
macro-nutrient next to nitrogen
required by plants (105) and a key
nutrient for higher and sustained
agriculture productivity (83), is
also indispensable. It is one of the
major elements in terrestrial
ecosystems for carrying their
biological activity (123). Since
independence, adoption of green
revolution technologies (high
yielding varieties, increased use of
chemical fertilisers and expansion
in irrigated areas) changed the
India’s situation from begging bowl
to self sufficiency and our current
food grain production is around 258
million tonnes on a 2.5% of the
world’s total geographical land
share. However, India’s population
is expected to be 1.4 billion with a
food grain demand of 300 million
tonnes by 2025 where the per
capita arable land is expected to
shrink to 0.08 ha in 2025 and to 0.07
ha in 2030. So, with an increasing
pressure of growing population
and a decreasing per capita
availability of cultivable land,
additional food grain demand with
the efficient use of high yielding
varieties and fertilisers suggesting
a huge demand for fertilisers
including phosphorus in future. It
is important to note that Indian
agriculture is already running at
‘net negative nutrient balance’ of
8-10 million tonnes per year (114)
which is set to reach around 15
million tonnes by 2025. Moreover,
it is reported that the world’s
phosphorus reserve- rock
phosphate is going to decline and
likely to threaten the growing food
production with high demand and
less supply. India is next to china
in P fertiliser consumption where
the P fertiliser demand is met
through expensive imports.
Already the price of phosphate
fertilisers has increased due to hike
in production cost as phosphorus
reserve is not only declining in
quantity but also in quality.
Although, total P content in soils is
large, there are several factors that
limit its availability for biological
utilization in crops. Hence, PUE has
received significant attention due
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
22
phosphate reserves and also due
to increase in the price of P
fertilisers (74). Indian agriculture
with heavy financial burden of
fertiliser P import and subsidy and
consequences of climate change on
food security necessitates the
identification of strategies that
improves the PUE as it can be
improved by identifying
promising technologies such as
agronomic measures and crop
traits that has high P-acquisition
efficiency (76).
Status of Phosphate Fertiliser Use
in India
In India, there was tremendous
increase in fertiliser consumption
during last 60 years and the
fertiliser consumption has
increased from 70,000 t in 1951 to
about 23 mt in 2007-08 (6). Out of
56 large size fertiliser plants in our
country manufacturing a wide
range of nitrogenous, phosphatic
and complex fertilisers, only 21
units produce DAP and complex
fertilisers in addition to about 72
medium and small-scale units in most of the Indian soils are low to
operation producing SSP. The rock medium in P with about 98% of
phosphate reserves in our country crop land deficit in soil available P
are found in Jharkhand (36%), and only 1.9% has high soil
Rajasthan (29.7%), Madhya phosphorus status (39). P include Diffusive Gradients in
Pradesh (16.7%), Uttar Pradesh dynamics in the soil-plant system
(8.7%) and in Uttarakhand (8.2%). is a function of the integrative
In case of phosphates, the paucity effects of P transformation,
of domestic raw material has been availability, and utilization caused
a major constraint in our country by soil, rhizosphere and plant
due to poor quality of Indigenous processes (94). The abundances of
rock phosphate with an ability to the principal P compounds,
meet only 5-10% of the total expressed as percentages of total
requirement of P 2 O 5 . Hence, P P in the soil, are typically in the
imports have risen from 307.3 ranges: orthophosphates 60 – 80%;
thousand tonnes in 2004-05 to pyrophosphate 0.5 – 4%; P-
4263.6 thousand tonnes in 2011-12. monoesters 16 – 38%; and P-
The consumption of phosphatic diesters 1.2 – 4% (72). Both
fertilisers shown decline in 2011- inorganic P (Pi) and organic P (Po)
12 and thereafter compared to species interact extensively with
2010-11 (Table 1). The decrease in soil components and are subject to
consumption of P 2O 5 is due to various chemical transformations;
increase in MRP (31). This is due hence these two P forms differ in
to dependence on phosphorus their behavior and fate in soils (34,
derived from phosphate rock 116). It is generally considered that
where the quality of phosphate plants obtain their P largely from
rock is decreasing and production the soil solution as inorganic
cost is increasing. It is reported that phosphate anions (35) as H 2 PO 4 -
phosphate rock may be depleted in (pH<7.0) and HPO 42- (>7.0) and its
next 50-100 years and hence, this concentration in the soil solution
price seems to further increase is much lower and ranges from
inevitably (14). 0.001 mg/L to 1 mg/L (9). Various
chemical tests can measure the
Phosphorus Dynamics and Its amount of P in soils and estimate
Availability in Indian Soils the amount potentially available to
plants. Common tests that use
India, being a tropical country, the different chemicals to extract the P
deficiency of N is universal and from soil samples include the Olsen
Table 1 – P consumption and food production in India
Years P consumption Food production
(million tonnes) (Mt)
2000-01 4.2 181.0
2001-02 4.4 212.9
2002-03 4.0 174.8
2003-04 4.1 213.2
2004-05 4.6 198.4
2005-06 5.2 208.6
2006-07 5.5 217.3
2007-08 5.5 230.7
2008-09 6.5 239.4
2009-10 7.2 218.2
2010-11 8.0 244.5
2011-12 7.9 259.3
2012-13 6.7 257.1
2013-14 5.6 264.8
Source : 21 and Fertiliser Statistics, FAI, New Delhi, 2013-14
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
23
P and Colwell P (using bicarbonate
extraction) but there are others
such as Mehlich 3 and CaCl 2 (59).
More recently developed tests
Thin-films (DGT) (54) and
sparingly soluble P reserves
(BSES).
Phosphorus deficiency was
critical in three districts with 60-
84 % in rainfed semi-arid tropics
of Andhra Pradesh (11). There is an
increasing trend in P fertility status
in Assam; however, in Karnataka
and Kerala and in the rest of the
states (Figure 1), it remained
unchanged (62). Recently,
majority of the 40 districts rated
as high in available P were from
Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and
Madhya Pradesh. The critical level
refers to soil test value below
which an economic crop response
to the added nutrient is expected.
The critical limits of P
availability are quite often
employed for a wide variety of soils
and crops, even though these
critical limits may be different not
only for soils and crops (Table 2)
but also for different varieties of a
given crop (101,113). The P
availability estimated using olsen
P method in farmers fields in
different watersheds in AP,
Karnataka, TN, Rajasthan, MP
and Gujarat showed that most of
the fields were low to medium in
available P (Table 3). Several
factors can influence both the rate
and amount of P taken up by
plants. These factors include; the P
concentrations in the soil solution,
soil pH and the phosphorus
buffering capacity of the soils (rate
at which P in the soil solution is
replenished, which is faster in soil
with a high-buffering capacity)
(111). Phosphorus accumulated in
soil as organic P is released to
plants by several processes
including mineralization of
organic matter and desorption
from several fractions of inorganic
P, but these processes are not yet
well understood or quantified (57,
122). The soil mechanisms that
makes the P unavailable to crops
is (i) adsorption and fixation (low
pH soils), (ii) precipitation
reactions as Fe-P, Al-P & Ca-P (High
 pH soils) (iii) P gets occluded with
Table 2 – Critical limits of available P in soils for different crops and soils oxides. The greater amounts P is
fixed in 1: 1 clays probably due to
Crop Soil type Critical limit (mg P kg-1 soil) the higher amounts of Fe and Al
oxides, associated with kaolinite
Rice Alluvial 10.6-11.8 clays that are predominant in
Red 2.9-3.5 highly weathered soils.
Black 5.8-6.5
Laterite 13.6 Strategies to Improve P Use
Wheat Alluvial 3.3-7.9 Efficiency in Different Soil Types
Black 9.4-16.3 of India
Pearlmillet Alluvial 4.8
Black 7.7 For economic, environmental
Maize Alluvial 12.3 issues and also for long life of
Groundnut Black 6.5 limited resources, it is important
Alluvial 16.6 to use P in an efficient way.
Raya Alluvial 5.1-6.5 Moreover in India, grain crop
Cotton Alluvial 11.9 productivity is limited due to poor
Sugarcane Alluvial 4.8 PUE. Although there are number of
Potato Alluvial 8.6-11.5 factors that affect the P use
efficiency, P application that
Source: 108 matches the nutrient requirement
of a crop is expected to improve P
Table 3 – Available P status as measured by Olsen method in semiarid tropics use efficiency. The economic
of India challenges associated with
increasing P fertiliser prices are
State Soil samples pH Olsen-P (mg per kg) driving the interest in improving
collected from P use efficiency. Hence, strategies
farmer’s fields Range Mean Range Mean that enhance the P use efficiency are
discussed below.
AP 1926 5.4-9.7 7.7 0.20-61.0 7.5
Strategy I
Karnataka 1260 4.5-10.1 7.2 0.2-126.0 9.7
Tamil nadu 119 4.8-9.4 7.6 0.20-67.2 9.2 Improving P Use Efficiency by Adopting
Rajasthan 179 6.2-9.0 7.4 0.9-41.0 8.6 Best Management Practices (BMPS)
Gujarat 82 6.2-8.3 7.5 0.4-42.0 6.9 The efficiency of fertiliser P use by
MP 55 7.0-8.7 8.1 0.20-14.1 2.4 crops ranges from 10 to 30% during
Source: 78 a crop season. Sub-optimal P
nutrition can lead to yield losses in
the range of 10% to 15% of the
maximal yields (95). The partial
factor productivity of fertilisers,
which is an important measure to
evaluate the performance of
production system and
sustainability of its growth
pattern, is declining in intensive
cropping systems of India. The
decline in partial factor
productivity and low nutrient use
efficiency are signs of deterioration
in soil quality. Also, there exists
imbalanced consumption ratio of
6.2:4:1 (N: P: K) during 1990-91
which has now became 5:2:1 in
2009-10 as against favourable ratio
of 4:2:1. For producing one tonne of
cereal grain, nearly 8-9 kg P 2O5 is
Figure 1 – P nutrient index of agricultural soils in different states required and the requirement is
of the country still higher for pearlmillet.
Source: 62 Although, P removal is more in
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
24

Figure 2 – P consumption by different crops
pulses than in cereals consumption
of P in some of the crops is given in
Figure 2, and P fertilisation in
legumes enhances nodule number
and mass, as well as greater N 2
fixation activity per plant (84), but
pulses are grown in soils with low
fertility or with application of low
quantities of organic and inorganic
plant nutrients, which has
resulted in deterioration of soil
health and low crop productivity
(48). Ganeshamurthy et al. (2001)
reported the response of different
pulse crops (pigeon pea,
greengram, blackgram, chickpea
and lentil) grown in soils of
divergent characteristics to P
fertilization in different parts of
India. The responses were up to 105
kg P2O5 ha-1 in pigeonpea, 60 kg in
chickpea and mungbean, 90 kg in
urdbean and 40 kg in case of lentil.
Hence, knowledge of nutrient
removal under intensive cropping
systems is important for
developing efficient P management
strategies. Wheat grown under
elevated CO 2 (650 ppm) and
temperature (ambient vs. ambient
+3°C) superimposed with three
levels of P fertilisation: 0, 100 and
200% of recommended dose
resulted in overall increase of
17.4% of P uptake, signifying higher
P requirements by plants (52).
Although recovery efficiency of
applied P fertiliser increased by
27%, any possible benefit of this
increase was negated by the
reduced physiological P efficiency
Source: 22
(PPE) and P utilization efficiency
(PUtE) under elevated CO 2 and
temperature. Thus, increase in
plant P requirement will, therefore,
be important for sustaining crop
productivity under the future
elevation of atmospheric CO 2 and
temperature in India. There are
different ways to enhance the P
uptake in intensive cropping
systems, one among them is
intercropping. In cotton cropping
systems, intercropping with onion
recorded highest cotton equivalent
yield of 2052 kg ha-1 and 1852 kg
ha -1 which was on par with
dhaincha intercropping in cotton
with cotton equivalent yield of
2010 kg ha-1 and 1894 kg ha-1 in both
the seasons suggesting that
intercropping enhanced the
nutrient uptake (N, P & K) (53).
Also, plants must have adequate P
applied at the right time and the
right form in order to complete
production cycles without
compromising yield potential. One
of the perceived advantages of
matching fertiliser P release with
crop demand is that it could
increase yield and recovery of
applied P. Hence, it is reported that
the 4R’s are the foundation and
guiding principles of fertiliser best
management practices (BMPs) (75).
Fixen (2007) introduced the
concept of a global framework for
fertiliser BMPs. As mentioned in
the previous section, the 4R’s
include right source, right rate,
right time and right method/place.
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
25
The right source is to ensure the
balance supply of nutrients in
different soil types, right rate to
ensure the proper supply of
nutrient to meet the crop demand,
right time to match the dynamics
of crop uptake and soil supply and
right method to ensure maximum
supply of nutrients near root zone.
Right Source
There are different sources of P
fertilisers viz. single super
phosphate (SSP), triple super
phosphate (TSP), monoammonium
phosphate (MAP), diammonium
phosphate (DAP), ammonium
polyphosphate (APP) and
phosphate rock-fluorapatite for
meeting P requirement in crops.
Among two sources of P
fertilisation (DAP and SSP) in long
term field trials with four cropping
system, Aulakh (2003) showed that
application of SSP resulted in
additional yield as soils were
fertilised with both S and P when
compared to DAP (Figure 3). Water
soluble sources of phosphatic
fertilisers (Single super phosphate,
Diammonium phosphate, Urea
ammonium phosphate) were found
superior over partially water
soluble (nitrophosphate) and
mineral acid soluble (RP) sources
in terms of grain yield and P uptake
in pearl millet –wheat cropping
system (77). The P fertlisers viz.
SSP, DAP, TSP and nitrophosphate
applied at the rate of 110 kg P 2O5
ha -1 along with recommended N
and K doses significantly
improved grain and straw yield of
wheat (58).
In calcareous soils, the maximum
P uptake was recorded in case of
SSP followed by UAP, DAP,
nitrophosphates and rock
phosphate (RP) in wheat with the
highest grain yield in SSP applied
at the rate 120 kg P 2O5 ha -1 under
cumulative mode (29.3 q ha -1) and
the lowest was in case of RP at the
rate 60 kg P2O5 ha-1 under residual
mode (9.87 q ha -1 ) (77). Nandini
Devi et al. (2013) compared two
sources (SSP and DAP) in an acid
soil and showed higher agronomic
P use efficiency with SSP and
higher soybean grain yield when

Increase in yield (q/ha)
Figure 3 – Application of SSP and DAP as P fertiliser source in
increasing the crop yield Source : 3
SSP was applied along with PSB
(1529 kg ha-1). A fertiliser with N-
P 2O 5-K-S composition of 13-33-0-
15, with 50% S present in elemental
form and rest as SO 4, in highly
intensive irrigated agriculture
systems of the Indo-Gangetic
alluvial soils at similar doses of P
(N-compensated), gave higher
grain yields of soybean, maize and
wheat than DAP in several field
experiments conducted across
Indo-Gangetic plains at research
farms and farmer ’s fields (61).
Sharma et al. (2010a) reported that
in long term rice-rapeseed-
mungbean cropping system of
north western India, the use of
mussoorie rock phosphate along
with phosphorus solubilizing
bacteria can be made as an
alternative to DAP. In rice-potato-
mungbean cropping system, P
requirement can be met with 76-
79% higher dose of mussoorie rock
phosphate campared to DAP (92).
In acidic laterite soil (pH 5.0,
organic matter content 1.31% of
Karnataka, application of rock
phosphate has increased the rice
yield compared to water soluble P
fertilisers as the acid soils favoured
solubilization of P from rock
phosphate thus supporting steady
availability of P to rice, while the
soluble fertilisers registered
reversion to insoluble P forms (97).
The P fixing capacity of acid soils
was found higher with 59.60 %
and 64.64% for the surface and
subsurface soils in acidic soils of
Jharkhand (28). In these soils, the
use of rock phosphate or higher
dose of P fertilisers was found
promising for increasing the crop
yields. The major P fertilisers used
in India are water soluble and their
use in acid and alkaline soils
reduces the agronomic efficiency
due to rapid conversion of water
soluble to water insoluble forms.
Recently, a technology of coating
the P fertilisers (13) with polymers
resulted in enhancing the PUE of
water soluble fertilisers in acidic
and alkaline soils and a new
Figure 4 – P application rates (kg/ha) in different states of India
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
26
fertiliser product ‘AVAIL’ used this
technology was released in
international markets. Damon et al.
(2009) studied its effectiveness in
P sorbing soil. Another
intervention could be
nanotechnology as nano-P has no
coordination with H 4 SiO 4 , no
fixation with CaCO 3 etc. Nine
organisms have been developed in
CAZRI, Jodhpur that can efficiently
synthesize nano-particles of 1-47
nm size from respective salt
solution (calcium phosphate or
phytin at a concentration of 0.1mM
(115) and reported that foliar
application of nano-phosphorus
@640 mg ha -1 has increased the P
uptake between 17 and 27% . Hence,
this seems another promising
technology to solve the problem of
P nutrition in plants in future.
Right Rate
The overall P application rates in
India fall in the range 0-25 and 25-
50 kg ha-1 and very few states has
application rates of 50-75 kg ha-1. It
has to be noticed that in very
limited area, there is over use of
phosphate fertiliser with
application rates of 100 kg ha -1
(Figure 4) where P fertiliser use
needs to be reduced. Hence, soil test
based fertiliser recommendation
approach is economically viable
 use of biofertilisers like PSB
resulted in P sufficiency in 50% of
Karnataka soils (Figure 5). With
soil test based reports, it is possible
to cut down the amount of P
fertilisers (saves nearly 50% of
DAP), time and cost of cultivation.
Soil test reports from groundnut
growing regions of Andhra
Pradesh having 7.43 lakh ha area,
indicated that about 3.7 – 4.65 lakh
ha area is under high P 2 O 5
category due to continuous and
excess use of DAP by the farmers,
which otherwise requires no P
fertiliser application for a
minimum of 3 years. So, it is
important to rationalize the use of
P fertiliser in different cropping
systems through soil testing. With
soil test based P management in the
alluvial tract of West Bengal (29),
jute fibre yield was reported to
increase along with yield increase
in Kharif. Soil test crop response
(STCR) correlation studies help
location specific fertiliser
recommendations for soils of
varying fertility considering the
resource conditions of farmers
Figure 5 – P fertility status of soils of different districts of and levels of targeted yield. Field
Karnataka Source : 120 trials based on application of
fertilisers on soil test crop response
within the agro-ecological zone to application of higher quantities
basis in paddy (Table 4) has
with relatively uniform cropping of phosphatic fertilisers. For
resulted in higher yields with
practices and socio-economic instance, due to continuous
higher B:C ratio (7). Optimum
conditions as there is P build up due application of P2O5 @ 50 kg ha-1 and
Table 4 – Field verification trials of STCR based fertiliser adjustment on paddy in Inceptisols of Barddhaman
Soil series (farmer) Treatments Fertiliser doses (kg/ha) Yield Increased Yield deviation B:C
(t/ha) over control (%) ratio
N P 2O 5 K 2O (t/ha)
Syamsundar-pur I FP 100 80 40 6.0 3.5 1.54
GRD 120 50 50 6.1 3.6 1.61
7 t/ha target 104 61 70 6.6 4.1 -4.7 1.72
8 t/ha target 126 73 84 7.2 4.7 -9.6 1.81
Control 0 0 0 2.4
Syamsundar-pur II FP 100 80 40 6.1 3.5 1.56
GRD 120 50 40 6.2 3.6 1.62
7 t/ha target 100 57 46 6.8 4.2 -2.6 1.75
8 t/ha target 121 70 59 7.5 5.0 -5.5 1.89
Control 0 0 0 2.4
Naopara FP 100 80 40 6.2 3.5 1.59
GRD 100 40 40 6.3 3.7 1.66
7 t/ha target 84 46 40 6.8 4.1 -2.6 1.75
8 t/ha target 106 59 53 7.6 4.9 -4.6 1.89
Control 0 0 0 2.6
Kantia FP 100 80 40 6.1 3.5 1.56
GRD 120 40 50 6.2 3.6 1.64
7 t/ha target 100 54 62 6.8 4.2 -2.1 1.76
8 t/ha target 120 66 76 7.5 4.9 -5.1 1.89
Control 0 0 0 2.6
Soil test values of N-P2O5-K2O (kg/ha) of soil series 1, 2, 3 & 4 is 245-70-162; 272-80-340; 345-110-385 and 275-90-220 respectively
Source: 7
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
27
 phosphorus @40 kg ha-1 along with
Table 5 – Phosphorus requirement
nitrogen @100 kg ha-1 is required for
of french bean varieties in different
sustainable yield production in
regions of India
barley (89). Acid soils of
Northeast India require 60 kg P 2O5
Region/state P 2O5(kg ha-1) ha-1 to attain higher yield in mung
bean (5). Site specific nutrient
Palampur, H.P 65 management (SSNM) is a set of
75 scientific principles for
Solan, H.P 80 determining the optimal N, P and
K fertilisation for specific fields.
79.5 Field experiments were conducted
Delhi 25 for 3 years during 2003-04 to 2005-
Varanasi, U.P 90 06 to evaluate the effect of SSNM
towards breaking yield stagnation
Faizabad, U.P 60
in rice-wheat cropping system at
Lakhaoti, U.P 50 9 locations (Sabour, Palampur,
Bulandshahr, U.P 100 Ranchi, R.S. Puram, Ludhiana,
Pantnagar, U.P 60 Faizabad, Kanpur, Modipuram and
Varanasi) of north-west India
Samisthipur, Bihar 60 (102) and found that the
Kalyani, W.B 80 productivity of the entire rice-
Meghalaya, NEH region 28 wheat system was highest under
SSNM (12.79 t/ha), which was 35%
Pune, Maharastra 75
more than farmer’s practice (9.49
50 t/ha).
Bangalore 80
100 Another technique for balanced
fertilisation is soil test based
Source : 96 integrated plant nutrition. This
approach mainly uses the
utilization of residual P in crop equations developed by
rotations is another way to Ramamoorthy et al. (1967) and
enhance PUE and P recovery as it these equations will be test verified
reduces the fertiliser application so with a view to demonstrate the
also the cost. In subtropical validity of fertiliser prescription
semiarid soils of Punjab, equations under IPNS by
monoculture of soyabean and conducting verification trials in
wheat requires an application of 80 farmers fields and to suggest the
and 60 kg P2O5 ha-1 but soyabean- target yield that gives the highest
wheat rotation requires only 60 benefit cost ratio and response
kg P 2O 5 ha -1 in both the crops to ratio to farmers. Soil test based
meet their P requirements (4). In integrated plant nutrition for
wheat-rice cropping system of onion (80) and ashwagandha (81)
Ludhiana, Punjab, application of resulted in build up and
32 kg P ha-1 to wheat and 15 kg P maintenance of soil fertility with
ha -1 to rice was optimal for higher response ratio and
achieving short term economic resulted in higher crop yields.
goals (103). Vertisols having high The studies conducted to
to very high available P can determine optimum P level in
support two rotations of sorghum (CSH-6) in rainfed Alfisol
soyabean-wheat system without P of Hyderabad indicated that P
application and after two application to Kharif grain
rotations without P application; sorghum beyond 23 kg P ha-1 might
the available P status (20-22 ppm) not be much economical and
declined to below critical limit desirable. It was also reported
(7.3 ppm) and needed P that a maximum grain yield of
application (79). Amount of P 87% could be achieved at a leaf
requirement varies with crop, soil P concentration of 0.39% at boot
type, soil reaction, oxides and leaf or flag leaf stage and 0.30%
hydroxides content etc (Table 5). In at 50% flowering. In this study,
cold arid region of Ladakh, the agronomic efficiency of 19.42
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
28
kg grain kg-1 P was obtained
with 20 kg P/ha -1 (88). Plants
deficient in phosphorus show
stunted growth and often have an
abnormal dark-green colour.
Sugars can accumulate and cause
anthocyanin pigments to develop,
producing a reddish-purple
colour which is the indication of
severe phosphorus deficiency
symptom. These symptoms
usually persist on extremely low
phosphorus soils as shown in
Figures 6 & 7.
Right Time
For an arid zone of India with
Dalbergia sisso L. cultivation,
phosphorus application of 20 mg
kg -1 soil was profitable during
sufficient water availability and
application of 10 mg kg -1 during
drought as it enhanced the
drought tolerance in plants (98).
Delayed application of P in
wheat followed by recommended
P through FYM in sorghum proved
beneficial due to higher fodder
yields in Jammu (25). Also
researchers created spatial
fertiliser recommendation system
using available validated fertiliser
adjustment equations (generated
by AICRP on soil test crop response
correlation) and geographic
information system (GIS) for
different districts of Andhra
Pradesh (AP) and the
recommendation system suggested
varied applications of nutrients for
same targeted yields in different
districts of AP (99).
Right Method
Literature shows positive reports
of applying phosphatic fertiliser to
a localized area as opposed to
broadcasting which includes row,
band or strip placement. Band
application reduces the contact of
fertiliser with soil and reduces the
P sorption and precipitation
reaction in soils and thus found
advantageous in high P fixing soils.
Also, band placement reduces the
amount of fertiliser to be applied.
However, it is not a viable strategy
for crops having high P
requirement and application of
insoluble P sources such as rock

Figure 6 – P deficiency symptoms in Fruit crop (Guava)
phosphate. Banding P is best
method to be followed in soils
with low soil-test phosphorus
levels as it enhances the PUE.
Many factors influence the
placement of P including soil
fertility levels, crop root
morphology, length of crop
growing season, soil chemical and
physical characteristics and crop
cultural practices. There are
studies showing that drilled
method P placement is effective
and resulted in higher grain
Figure 7 – P deficiency symptoms in maize crop
yields than broadcasting (Table 6).
Foliar spray application is not
widely accepted as crops did not
show a profound respond to it and
same is the case of fertigation as P
being a immobile nutrient.
Nevertheless, there are few studies
reporting that fertigation can be
viable and economical solution
for meeting the P requirement in
crops. Fertigation of P produced
higher grain yields over the
broadcasting in maize (40) and
mungbean (85).
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
29
Strategy II
Improving P Use Efficiency by Selection
of Efficient Crop Cultivars
Phosphorus (P) is an essential plant
macronutrient, making up about
0.2 to 0.4% of a plant’s dry weight
(10). Recently, knowledge about
the efficient P acquisition
mechanisms adopted by plants
has increased substantially (64,
117). In order to improve the PUE
in crop plants, it is important to
explore genetic variation for all its
associated traits. Seetharama et al.
(1988) have reported large
variation in P uptake and
utilization pattern of sorghum
genotypes grown in South India.
The varietal difference for N and P
uptake is deemed to be due to
additive gene action for N and non
additive gene action for P (45, 46,
47). Varietal differences in P uptake
were reported in sorghum (49),
wheat (19), chickpea (107), and
lentil (106). It was reported that the
P uptake capacity of rainy season
crops grown in Vertisol soil varied
with maximum uptake in maize
(0.09g), followed by sorghum
(0.04g), pearl millet (0.04g), rice
(0.03g), soybean (0.03g) and finger
 Table 6 – Comparison of methods of P application for grain yield
improvement of dry land crops
Method of P Fingermillet
application
Broadcast 100
Drilled 132
Mixed with seed 129
A*: 40 kg P2O5 ha-1; B**: 80 kg P2O5 ha-1
Source : 36, 100, 118
millet (0.02g) (18). Low molecular
weight oxalic acid exudation plays
an important role in the soil P
mobilization (121), a mechanism in
plants to adapt to P deficiency (56).
Wheat varieties of India exuded
only oxalic acid which increased
when no P was supplied to the
plants (19). A variety of root
properties (root morphology, root
diameter, root hairs), mycorrhizal
symbiosis, P uptake kinetic
parameters and rhizosphere
processes (rhizos-phere pH,
phosphatase activity and root
released organic acids) cause
variation in P uptake among the
plant species and their genotypes
(24). Phosphorus has an important
role in improving the water use
efficiency due to its favourable
effect on root development. Rao et
al. (1992) reported that urdbean
root length and root mass
increased by 70% due to
application of 50 kg P ha -1. Three
criteria were followed for
evaluating P efficiency in twenty
chickpea genotypes such as shoot
Figure 8 – Chickpea genotypic response with same amount of P application
Chickpea Soybean
A* B**
100 100 100
137 123 169
118 123 135
dry matter yield without P, P
uptake efficiency (PUPE) and P
utilization efficiency (PUSE) (107)
and found BG-256 best under P
deficient condition and it can be
good source of genetic material for
chickpea breeding programme in
evolving high P efficient genotypes
(Figure 8). In case of lentil, when
two genotypes are grown on P
deficient field, genotype DPL-62
shown normal growth whereas
DPL-15 showed P deficiency
symptoms (Figure 9).
Strategy III
Improving P Use Efficiency by Use of
Organics and INM
Organic matter is an important
reservoir of immobilized P that
accounts for 20–80% of P in soils
(73). Hence, organic supplements
have been reported to increase P
availability in P-fixing soils (1, 30,
32, 41) and humic substances
enhance the bioavailability of P
fertilisers in acidic soils (37). Yield
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
30
of sunflower and groundnut in red
soil with 30-60 tonnes FYM ha -1
was increased by 10-26 %. The
different sources of organic inputs
available for crop growth includes
vermicompost, green leaf manures,
FYM, compost, bulky organic
manures like bone meal, oil cakes
and biofertilisers, etc. In India,
estimated total amount of crop
residues surplus is 91-141 Mt with
58% cereal crops, 23% fibre crop
residues and rest 19% from other
crops (38). There is huge potential
of rice crop residues that can be
used to recycle the nutrients in soils
(Table 7) which is mostly burnt
on-farm. Annually, about 100 Mt
of crop residue is available from 80
million ha of rainfed regions (105)
that can be better utilized for crop
growth. Ma et al. (2010) reported
that addition of straw during
cultivation reduces P adsorption
in red and paddy soils, but has a
smaller effect on Latosol.
Application of 10 tonnes of FYM to
winter season crops along with
100, 75 and 50% recommended
dose (RD) of NPK fertilisers to rice
based cropping systems (potato-
sesame-rice, wheat-sesame-rice
and mustard-sesame-rice)
improved P uptake on an average
by 5.8, 7.9 and 11.3% in all the crops
over respective RD of NPK
fertilisers (43). Among the green leaf
manuring crops, gliricidia adapts
very well in a wide range of soils
ranging from eroded acidic (pH
4.5-6.2) soils, fertile sandy soils,
heavy clay, calcareous limestone
and alkaline soils (119) and
application of gliricidia leaf
manure @ 1t ha-1 provides 2.5 kg P
Source: 107
 farming or integrated nutrient
management rather than short
term benefits (20, 44, 69).

In four cropping systems

Figure 9 – Lentil genotypic response grown on P deficit soil
Source : 106
besides considerable quantities of
N, K, Zn, Mn, Cu, Fe, S, Ca, Mg, B,
Mo etc. Relative soil quality index
(RSQI) was found to be highest
with 3 t gliricidia ha-1 and 25% RDF
+ 1.5 t gliricidia ha -1 in cotton +
blackgram (1:1) and green gram –
rabi sorghum system on
Vertisols of Parbhani (15).
Conservation agriculture (CA) is a
concept for optimizing crop yields
with key elements of no-tillage,
adequate retention of crop
residues on the soil surface for
mulching and innovative cropping
systems. CA aids in residue
management by avoiding straw
burning, improves soil organic
carbon and recycles the nutrients
in addition to reduction of GHGs
emission (63).
The concept of integrated nutrient
management (INM) using both
organic and inorganic source of
nutrients, can ensure the crop
productivity (12, 86) with
enhanced organic matter in
tropical and subtropical countries
(27), hence sustaining the soil
heath. Long term studies of INM
were evaluated in various
production systems of India under
AICRPs (All India Coordinated
Research projects) and found that
INM was successful in recording
highest economic yields besides
enhancing soil quality. Promising
INM practices for rainfed crops
across the country are shown in
the Table 8.
Recently, use of organic sources
such as vermicompost and
phosphate biofertilisers has gained
momentum. Vermicompost
prepared from different feed
materials (cattle dung, sugarcane
bagasse, sorghum stover, subabul,
fruit waste, vegetable waste and
mixed feed) consisted of 6.7 to 21.0
g kg -1 phosphorus content and
among all the feed materials,
mixed feed material showed the
highest phosphorus content of 21.0
g P2O5 kg-1 followed by fruit waste
(19.3 g P 2O5 kg-1) while sugarcane
bagasse showed the least P 2 O 5
content of 6.7 g kg-1 (87). Long term
benefits are to be considered in
organic farming over conventional
Table 7 – Addition of nutrients (kg/ha) through crop residues
available in India
Crop Stubble added
(kg/ha)
Rice 4200
Sorghum 2889
Maize 667
Ragi 3111
Sesame 778
Cowpea 448
involving soybean, durum wheat,
mustard, chickpea and isabgol
with organic manures (cattle dung
manure, poultry manure and
vermi-compost) in different
combinations improved the soil
quality and produced the grain
yields at par with mineral
fertilisers at the end of 3 years
cropping cycle (66, 67, 68). PSB
bofertilisers can be an eco-
friendly option to enhance the
crop productivity (17, 90). The use
of phosphate solubilizing bacteria
(PSB) has increased the plant
available P status in soils and
recorded higher yields in crops like
sugarcane (110), potato (109),
maize (33), groundnut (51),
chickpea (112), maize and wheat
(42). PSB strains are associated
with the release of low molecular
weight organic acids (LMWOAs),
of which gluconic and 2-
ketogluconic acids help in mineral
P solubilization. The inoculation of
PSB and plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR) together
could reduce 50% of P fertiliser
application without any
significant decrease in crop yield
(93). Phosphocompost application
recorded the highest soil
available P 2 O 5 (32.08 kg ha -1 ) in
maize-linseed cropping system
(66). Also, combined effect of
vermicomposting and addition of
P. hysterophorus and E. Crassipess
resulted in conversion of sludge
into a useful soil amendment in
Addition of nutrients (kg/ha)
Organic N P K
matter
1764 17.6 2.9 25.2
462 6.1 2.6 9.5
93 0.6 0.2 2.7
899 43.5 3.8 20.5
56 5.5 0.2 1.3
36 3.1 0.3 3.1

Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015

31
 Table 8 – Effective INM practices for rainfed crops grown in India

Location Cropping system Fertiliser (kg ha -1) Practices

N P 2O5 K 2O

Jhansi Cluster bean 15 60 0 Inoculation with Rhizobium

Sorghum+Dolichos 60 20 0

Rajkot Sorghum 90 30 0 FYM@ 6 t ha-1

Pearlmillet 80 40 0 FYM @ 6 t ha-1

Solapur Sorghum 50 0 0 FYM @ 6 t ha-1

Cotton 40 0 0 FYM @ 6 t ha-1

Solapur Sorghum 80 40 0 9-10t/ha subabul loppings

can substitute 25 kg N /ha -1

Indore General (N plus P) 4-6 t ha-1 FYM in alternate years

Soybean 20 13 0 FYM@ 6 t ha-1

Bijapur (NP or NPK) Mulching with tree lopping

@ 5 t ha-1
Arjia Corn – pigeonpea 50 30 0 50 % N through organics
Safflower and 30 15 0 Reduction in N by half if these
rapeseed-mustard crops follow legumes such as
greengram/chickpea

Agra Barley 60 30 0 Use of FYM plus Azotobacter

Ranchi Soybean 20 80 40 Inoculation with Rhizobium

Groundnut 25 50 20 Inoculation with Rhizobium
Pulses 20 40 0 Inoculation with Rhizobium

Dantiwada Greengram 0 20 0 Inoculation with Rhizobium

Jodhpur Pearlmillet 10 0 0 Addition of 10 t ha -1 FYM
Hoshiarpur Corn 80 40 20 Addition of FYM
Wheat 80 40 0
Chickpea 15 40 0
Akola Cotton + greengram 25 25 0 Along with FYM to meet
25 kg N ha-1
Source: 106

place of fertilisers to enhance the
soil quality and increase the plant
growth (71).
Strategy IV
Improving P Use Efficiency in
Problematic Soils
Phosporus deficiency is more
critical in highly weathered (acid)
soils as well as in calcareous and
alkaline soils. Salt-affected soil is
one of the serious abiotic stresses
that cause reduced plant growth,
development and productivity. In
India, acid soils occur in the
Himalayan region, the Eastern and
North-eastern plains, peninsular
India and coastal plains under
varying topography, geology,
climate and vegetation. Most of
these soils belong to the soil order,
Ultisols, Alfisols, Mollisols,
Spodosols, Entisols and Inceptisol
distributed in Assam, Manipur,
Tripura, Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland, Sikkim, Arunachal
Pradesh, West Bengal, Jharkhand,
Orissa, Madhya Pradesh,
Himachal Pradesh, Jammu &
Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Kerala, Maharastra
and Tamilnadu. It is estimated that
about 12 % soils are strongly acidic
(pH < 5.0), 48 % moderately acidic
(pH 5.0-5.5) and 40 % mildly acidic
(pH 5.6-6.5), having low nutrient
use efficiency and crop
productivity. Common problem of
acid soils is high P fixation due to
presence of high Fe, Al, and Mn in
these soils. Additions of phosphatic
fertilisers are economically and
ecologically unsound as the
efficiency of added phosphatic
fertilisers is very low. Liming
enhances PUE and productivity of
crops (especially pulses and oil
seeds). In India, several studies in
past indicated that the application
of basic slag at 1-1 ½ times the lime
requirement of acid soils resulted
in higher yield of paddy. In a field

Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015

32
experiment with application of
basic slag resulted in higher pH
and higher total and extractable P
at Palampur with soil pH 5.2 in
rice-wheat cropping system. The
beneficial effect of basic slag on
maize, wheat, gram and groundnut
in Bihar has been well documented.
Tata Steel Industry, Jamshedpur
generates about 6 lakh tonnes of
basic slag annually and that could
be used in acid soils. Results of field
experiments with soil pH 4.8-5.5 in
Jharkhand revealed that percent
yield increase with basic slag @ 4 q
ha -1 over farmer ’s practice was
from 11.2 to 23.8 in wheat, from 8.15
to 42.5 in gram, from 5.9 to 8.1 in
mustard and 6.42 to 8.56 in rai.
Lime requirement of acid soils of
India varied from 2.6 to 24.0 t
CaCO3 ha-1 and was closely related
to soil pH and organic matter
content. But, liming @ full LR dose
is often not economical. In
Phulbani, application of lime @
20% of lime requirement along
with FYM @ 5t ha-1 and with P & K
resulted in higher mean grain yield
(531kg/ha) of green gram (2).
Application of 90 kg P 2O 5 ha -1 to
iron toxic soil at Barapani farm of
Meghalaya resulted in reduction of
Fe 2+ from 3.60 to 1.63 mg kg -1 .
Dipping rice seedling in boronated
SSP and FYM slurry before
transplanting helped to increase
rice yield by reducing Fe toxicity.
Udaipur rock phosphate
containing dolomite and calcite
was found beneficial for maize-
mustard cropping system in
Alfisols of Odisha. Several workers
have successfully attempted to
reduce the cost of P fertilisation in
acid soils by direct use of rock
phosphates to soil having pH < 5.5
or use of rock phosphates and
single super phosphate mixture in
1:1 ratio to mild acidic soil (pH 5.6-
6.5) or to apply rock phosphates to
green manure crops prior to rice
crops taken in sequence or use of
compacted products of
Jhamarkotra rock phosphates
( JPR). Further, it has been
recommended to apply the entire
P requirement of the cropping
sequence, particularly for
groundnut-rice cropping system in
the form of rock phosphates to the
groundnut crop grown during
Rabi season and the residual effect
be realized in rice crop during
Kharif season. This is because the
rock phosphate applied to dry
season groundnut gets solubilized
to greater extent and the portion
that gets fixed during dry season
becomes available to rice crop due
to waterlogged conditions. It was
reported that fly ash plays an
important role in P availability in
acid soils as individually, P fixing
capacity of the fly ash and acid soil
of Jamadoba of Dhanbad, India was
75.6 and 65.68%, respectively but
when both were mixed (1:1), the P
fixing capacity decreased to 52.94%
due to the synergistic interaction
between soil and fly ash (55).
Addition of fly ash @ 10-15 t ha-1 in
black soil increased the yield of
cotton, sorghum, gram, soyabean,
groundnut and wheat by 10-46 %.
Integrated use of FA + lime +
pressmud + vermicompost further
increased the cabbage and maize
cob yield by 17 and 36 %,
respectively in acid soils of
Bhubaneswar.
A variety of organic materials have
been used to ameliorate sodic and
alkali soils including crop straw, fly
ash, FYM, slaughter house wastes,
poultry excreta and green manures
and found that organic
amendments has improved the
sodic and alkali soils at a slow rate.
Acidifying fertilisers such as SSP
or ammonium sulphate help in
maintaining soil fertility by
decreasing the soil pH. In case of
alkali soils, green manuring with
dhaincha along with gypsum
application was effective in
enriching soil nutrient status and
resorting physical condition. Also,
use of molasses and press mud
helped in reducing alkalinity by
reducing exchangeable sodium and
enhancing P solubilisation.
CONCLUSION
India experiences problems of both
overuse and under use of P. In large
tracts of North east Ecosystems
with strong acid soils and P
fixation and low productivity
levels, P application and
promotion of P fertilisers need lot
of attention and caution. The
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
33
growth in fertiliser use in the
underuse areas can be offset by
more efficient use in overuse areas
including the recycling of
nutrients lost from other sources.
Rainfed Alfisols of Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka and
Maharashtra have lot of fixed P
reserves resulting from regular
addition of DAP and hence, policy
interventions with the
collaboration of state agriculture
departments, ATMA and
watershed programmes in terms
of monitoring soil fertility
programme on regular basis can
help in rationale use of P fertiliser.
The recent Indian policy of
nutrient-based subsidy for
fertilisers is important in providing
incentive to develop and adopt use-
efficient and balanced fertilisers,
including each of chemical,
biological and organic fertiliser
sources. Strong policy incentives
are required to recycle the
nutrients from intensive animal
husbandry, aquaculture, poultry,
etc. into agriculture. Also, the roles
of stakeholders (UN’s, FAO and
UNEP) should be strong towards
ensuring phosphorus security.
Also, the policy established should
not be only to national level but
also at global level so that
imminent depletion of phosphate
reserves can be saved worldwide.
REFERENCES
1. Agbenin, J.O., Igbokwe, S.O.
Geoderma, 133: 191-203 (2006).
2. AICRPDA, Annual Report. All
India Coordinated Research Project
on Dryland Agriculture, CRIDA,
Hyderabad (2008).
3. Aulakh, M.S., In Sulphur in plants
(Abrol, Y.P. and Ahmad, A. ed), pp.
341-358 (2003).
4. Aulakh, M.S., Paasricha, N.S.
and Bahl, G.S., Field crop Res. 80: 99-
109 (2003).
5. Awomi, T.A., Singh, A.K., Kumar,
H. and Borboloi, L.J., Indian J. Hill
Farming 25: 22-26 (2012).
6. Benbi, D.K. and Brar, M.S., In:
proceedings IPI-OUAT-IPNI
international symposium,
Bhubaneswar, Orrisa, India, pp:
499-518 (2009).
7. Bera, R., Seal, A.,
Bhattacharyya, P., Das, T.H., Sarkar,
D. and Kankjoo, K. J., Zhejiang univ.
sci. B. 7: 963-968 (2006).
8. Bisoyi, R.N., Biofertiliser
production technology: state-of-
the-art. In Science for society (Chand,
P.K. and Patro, S.N. eds). Indian
Science Congress Association,
Bhubaneswar chapter,
Bhubaneswar, pp: 87-92 (2003).
9. Brady, N. C. and Weil, R. R. Soil
phosphorus and potassium. In:
The Nature and Properties of Soils
.13th ed. Pearson Education
Ltd, New Jersey, pp 449-495
(2002).
10.Brady, N.C. and Weil, R. R. In:
The Nature and Properties of Soils, 14th
edition, Prentice Hall, NJ, USA
(2007).
11.Chander, G., Wani, S.P.,
Sahrawat, K.L., Dixit, S.,
Venkateswarulu, B., Rajesh, C.,
Narasimha Rao, P. and
Pardhasaradhi, G., Arch. Agron. Soil
Sci., 60: 1051-1066 (2014).
12.Chattopadhyay, G.N., In:
Biotechnology in environmental
management (Ghosh, T.K.,
Chakrabarti, T. and Tripathi, G.
eds), A.P.H. Publishing
Corporation, New Delhi, pp 135-
145 (2005).
13.Chien, S.H., Prochnow, L.I. and
Cantarella, H., Adv. Agron, 102: 267-
322 (2009).
14.Cordell, D., Drangert, J. and
White, S., Global environ. Change, 19:
292-305 (2009).
15.CRIDA, Annual Report (2007-
08).
16.Damon, P., Rengel, Z. and Easton,
J., Report prepared for Simplot,
Boise, ID (2009).
17.Dhankhar, R., Sheoran, S.,
Dhaka, A. and Rajbala soni. Int J
develop Res., 3: 31-36 (2013).
18.Dotaniya, M.L. and Kushwah,
S.K., Afr. J. Agric. Res., 8: 5592-5598
(2013b).
19.Dotaniya, M.L., Datta, S.C.,
Biswas, D.R. and Meena, B.P., Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. India, Sect. B Biol. Sci.,
83(3):305–309 (2013a).
20. Dubey, R., Sharma, R.S. and
Dubey, D.P., Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. 38.IARI, Indian Agricultural Research
Sci., 3:381-389 (2014). Institute, New Delhi, pp. 32 (2012).
21.Economic Survey, Union budget 39.ICAR Agribiotech Digest, vol. 3,
& economic survey, Ministry of issue 4 (2013).
Finance, Government of India
40.Iqbal, Z., Latif, A., Ali, S. and
(2010-11).
Iqbal, M.M., Songklanakarin J. Sci. and
22.FAI. Fertiliser Statistics (2010- Technol. 25: 697-702 (2003).
2011 and 2011-2012).
41.Iyamuremye, F. and Dick, R.P.,
23.Fixen, P.E., In: Fertiliser Best Adv. Agron., 56: 139-185 (1996).
Management Practices. IFA
42.Kaur, G. and Reddy, M.S., Arch.
International Workshop on
of Agron. and Soil Sci., 60: 549-564
Fertiliser Best Management
(2014).
Practices (FBMPs) Brussels,
Belgium, pp7786 (2007). 43.Khanda, C.M., Mandal, B.K. and
Garnayak, L.M., Indian J. Agron.,
24.Gahoonia, T.S. and Nielsen, N.E.,
50:1-5 (2005).
Plant and Soil., 260: 47-57 (2004).
44.Krishna kumar, S., Saravanan,
25.Ganai, M.A., Bali, A.S., Bhat, M.A.
A., Ramesh, K., Natarajan, S.K.,
and Bhat, I.A., Afr. J. Agric. Res., 5:
Veerabadran, V. and Mani, S., Asian
380-383 (2010).
J. Plant Sci. 4: 510-512 (2005).
26.Ganeshamurthy, A.N.,
45. Krishna, K. R., In: Accomplish-
Srinivasarao, Ch. and Singh, R.N.,
ments and future challenges in Dry
In: Proceedings of National Workshop
land soil fertility research in the
on Phosphorus in Indian Agriculture,
Mediterranean area (ed. J. Ryan).
Issues and Strategies. Potash &
International centre for Agricultural
Phosphate Institute of Canada. pp
Research in Dry areas. Syria, pp 343-
152-158 (2001).
363 (1997).
27.Gaur, A.C., Directorate of
46.Krishna, K.R., Science
Information and Publications of
publishers Inc. Enfield, New
Agriculture, ICAR, New Delhi. pp.
Hampshire, USA, pp. 465 (2002).
288 (2006).
47.Krishna, K.R., Science
28.Ghosal, P., Chakraborty, T. and
publishers Inc., New Hamshire,
Banik, P., Agric. Sci., 2: 487-490 (2011).
USA, pp. 348 (2003).
29.Ghosh, S., Chatterjee, S. and
48.Kumpawat, B.S., Indian J Agric
Sanyal, S.K., Better Crops, India
Sci., 80 (1): 76-79 (2010).
pp:23-25 (2008).
49.Leiser, W.L., Rattunde, H.F.W.,
30.Gichangi, E.M., Mnkeni, P.N.S.,
Piepho, H.P., Weltzien, E., Diallo, A.,
Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. Anal., 40:
Melchinger, A.E., Parzies, H.K. and
3335-3347 (2009).
Haussmann, B.I.G., Crop Sci., 52;
31.Government of India (GOI). 2517-2527 (2012).
Department of Fertilizers, Ministry
50.Ma, L. and Xu, R. J. Ecol. Rural
of Chemicals and Fertilizers (2013).
Environ., 26: 596-599 (2010).
32.Guppy, C.N., Menzies, N.W.,
51.Maheswar, N.U. and
Moody, P.W. and Blamey, F.P.C. Aust.
Sathiyavani, G. J. , Chem. Pharm. Res.,
J. Soil Res., 43, 189-202 (2005).
4(8): 4007-4011 (2012).
33.Hameeda, B., Harini, G., Rupeela,
52.Manoj-kumar, Swarup, A.,
O.P., Wani, S.P. and Gopal Reddy.,
Patra, A.K., Chandrakala, J.U. and
Microbiol. Res., 163: 234-242 (2008).
Manjaiah, K.M. Plant Soil and
34.Hansen, J.C., Cade-Menun, B.J. Environ. 58: 230-235 (2012).
and Strawn, D.G., J Environ Qual.,
53.Marimuthu, S., Surendran, O.
33: 1521–1527 (2004).
and Subbian, P. , Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.,
35.Hart, M.R. and Cornish, P.S., 60: 87-101 (2014).
Aust. J. Soil Res., 47: 742-746 (2009).
54.Mason, S, McNeill, A.,
36.Hegde, B.R. and Reddy, M.J., McLaughlin, M.J. and Zhang, H.
Indian Farming, 33:9-11 (1984). Plant Soil, 337: 243-258 (2010).
37.Hua, Q., Li, J. and Zhou, J. 55.Masto, R.E., Mahato, M., Selvi,
Pedosphere. 18(4), 533-538 (2008). V.A. and Ram, L.C., Energ Source part
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
34
A. 35: 2274-2283 (2013).
56.McDowell, R.W, Condron, L.M.
and Stewart, I., Biol Fertil Soils
44:707–716 (2008).
57.McLaughlin, M.J., McBeath, T.M.,
Smernik, R., Stacey, S.P., Ajiboye, B.
and Guppy, C., Plant and Soil, 349:
69-87 (2011).
58.Mehdi, S.M., Sajjad, N., Sarfraj,
M., Hassan, B.Y.K.G. and Sadiq, M.,
Pak. J. Appl. Sci., 3(7): 474-480 (2003).
59.Moody, P.W., Soil Res, 49: 247-252
(2011).
60.Nandini Devi, K., Khomba Singh,
L.N., Sunanda Devi, T., Nanita Devi,
H., Basanta Singh, T., Khamba
Singh, K. and Mohendro Singh, W.
J. Agric. Sci. 4 (6): 44–53 (2013).
61.Pasricha, N.S. In: 18 th world
congress of soil science, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA (2006).
62.Pathak, H., Current Adv. Agric. Sci.,
2: 10-12 (2010).
63.Pathak, H., Saharawat, Y.S.,
Gathala, M. and Ladha, J.K.
Greenhouse Gas Sci. Technol., 1: 261-
277 (2011).
64. Raghothama, K.G. Ann Rev Plant
Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 50:665–693
(1999).
65. Ramamoorthy, B., Nara-
simham, R.L. and Dinesh, R.S. Indian
Farming, 17: 43-45 (1967).
66.Ramesh, P., Panwar, N.R., Singh,
A.B. and Ramana, S., Indian J. Agric.
Sci., 78: 35-354 (2008).
67.Ramesh, P., Panwar, N.R., Singh,
A.B., Ramana, S. and Rao, A.S.,
Indian J. Agri. Sci. 12: 1033-1037
(2009).
68.Ramesh, P., Panwar, N.R., Singh,
A.B., Ramana, S. and Rao, A.S. J.
Plant Nutr. Soil Sci., 172: 577-585
(2009).
69. Ramesh, P., Panwar, N.R.,
Singh, A.B., Ramana, S., Sushil
Kumar Yadav, Rahul Shrivastava
and Subba rao A., Curr. Sci. India,
98:1190-1194 (2010).
70. Rao, K.P.C., In: Dryland
agriculture-state of art of research
in India (Somani, L.L., Vittal, K.P.R.
and Venkateswarlu, B. eds)
Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, 374-
394 (1992).
71.Reddy, S.A., Akila, S. and Kale,
R.D., Global J. Biotech. and Biochem.,
7(1): 13-18 (2012).
72.Rheinheimer, D.S., Anghononi, I.
and Flores F., Commun. Soil Sci. Plant
Anal., 33:1853-1871 (2002).
73.Richardson AE, In: Soil biota:
management in sustainable
farming systems (Pankhurst, C.E.,
Doubeand, B.M. and Gupta,
V.V.S.R., eds). CSIRO, Victoria,
Australia, pp 50–62 (1994).
74.Richardson, A.E. and Simpson,
R.J., Plant Physiology, 156 (3): 989-
996 (2011).
75.Roberts, T.L., In: Fertiliser Best
Management Practices., IFA
International Workshop on
Fertiliser Best Management
Practices (FBMPs) Brussels,
Belgium pp 2932 (2007).
76.Rose, T.J., Rose, M.T., Pariasca-
Tanaka, J., Heuer, S. and Wissuwa
M., Front. Plant Sci., 2: 73 (2011).
77.Saha, S., Saha, B., Murmu, S.,
Pati, S. and Roy, P.D. , Afr. J Agric.
Res., 9: 607-612 (2014).
78.Sahrawat, K.L., Wani, S.P., Rego,
T.J., Pardhasaradhi, G. and Murthy,
K.V.S., Curr Sci. India 93: 1428-1432
(2007).
79.Sammi Reddy, K., Subba Rao, A.,
Singh, S. and Reddy, D.D., J Mah.
Agric. Univ., 28: 12-16 (2003).
80.Santhi, R., Natesan, R. and
Selvakumari, G., Agropedology, 12:
141-147 (2002).
81.Santhi, R., Saranya, S., Appavu,
K., Natesan, R. and Bhaskaran, A.,
In: Soil solutions for a changing
world, 19 th world congress of soil
science, Brisbane, Australia. pp
285-288 (2010).
82.Scervino, J.M., Papinutti, V.L.,
Godoy, M.S., Rodriguez, J.M.,
Monica, I.D., Recchi, M., Pettinari,
M.J., Godeas, A.M. J. Appl. Microbiol.,
110:1215–1223 (2011).
83.Seetharama, N., Krishna, K.R.,
Rego, T.J. and Burford, J., In:
Proceedings of a workshop on
evaluating sorghum for tolerance
to aluminium toxic, tropic soils in
latin America. Centro
international agricultural
tropicale (CIAT), Cali, Columbia,
pp.229-249 (1988).
84.Serraj, R. and Gyamfi, J.A., West
Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015
35
African J. Appl. Ecol., 6: 95-109 (2004).
85.Shah, K.H., M. Aslam, P. Khan,
M.Y. Memon, M. Imtiaz, S.H.
Siddiqui and Nizamuddin., Soil
Environ., 25(1): 55-58 (2006).
86.Sharma, K.L., Mandal, U.K.,
Srinivas, K., Vittal, K.P.R., Mandal,
B., Grace, J.K. and Ramesh, V. Soil
and Tillage Research 83: 246-259
(2005).
87.Sharma, K.L., Neelaveni, K.,
Srinivas, K., Katyal, J.C., Srinivasa,
Raju,A., Kusuma Grace, J. and
Madhavi , M., Indian J. Dryland Agric.
Res. & Development, 22(2):189-196
(2007).
88.Sharma, K.L.,Padamja, K.V.,
Srinivas, K., Kusuma Grace, J.,
Korwar, G.R., Venkateswarlu, B.,
and Mandal,U.K., Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 35: 854-873 (2012).
89.Sharma, S., Kumar, V. and
Tripathi, R.B., The J Microbiol. Biotech.
Res., 1:90-95 (2011).
90.Sharma, S.B., Sayyed, R.Z.,
Trivedi, M.H. and Gobi, T.A.,
Springerplus, 2: 587 (1-14) (2013).
91.Sharma, S.N., Prasad, R., Shivay,
Y.S., Dwivedi, M.K., Sandeep
kumar, Davari, M.R., Moola Ram,
Dinesh Kumar., Nutr. Cycl.
Agroecosyst, 86: 199-209 (2010a).
92.Sharma, S.N., Shivay, Y.S.,
Prasad, R., Dwivedi, M.J., Davari,
M. and Kumar, S., Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 33: 998-1015 (2010b).
93.Sharma, V.K., Ahmed, S.B.,
Singhal, S.K. and Pandey, R.N.,
Agric. Sci. Digest, 31: 301-304
(2011).
94.Shen J, Yuan, L., Zhang, J., Li, H.,
Bai, Z., Chen, X., Zhang, W. and
Zhang, F., Plant Physiology, 156: 997-
1005 (2011).
95.Shenoy, V.V. and Kalaqudi, G.M.
Biotechnol. Adv., 23: 501-513 (2005).
96.Shivananda, T.N. and Iyengar,
B.R.V., In: Production Practices and
Quality Assesment of Food Crops,
(Dris, R.D and Jain, S.M. eds),
Kluwer Acdemic publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands., pp.
79-109 (2004).
97.Siddaramappa, R., Jagadish,
N.R. and Srinivasamurthy, C.A.,
Developments in Plant and Soil
Sciences 45: 307-312 (1991).
 98.Singh, B. and Singh, G., Journal
of Sustainable Forestry, 30: 480-
495 (2011).
99.Singh, K.N., Raju, N.S.,
Subbarao, Abhishek rathore,
Sanjav srivastava, Samanta, R.K.
and Maji, A.K., J. I. Soc. Agril. Statist.,
57: 131-140 (2005).
100. Singh, M. and Singh, S.R.,
Proc. IMPHOS-FAI Seminar, New
Delhi (1986).
101. Singh, V.K. and Agarawal, H.P.,
J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 55: 294-303
(2007).
102. Singh, V.K., Tiwari, K.N., Gill,
M.S., Sharma, S.K., Dwivedi, B.S.,
Shukla, A.K. and Mishra, P.P., Better
Crops, 92: 28-30 (2008).
103. Singh, Y., Dobermann, A.,
Singh, Bijay, Bronson, K.F., Khind,
C.S., Soil Science Society of America
Journal, 64: 1413-1422 (2000).
104. Srinivasan, R.,Alagawadi, A.
R., Mahesh, S., Meena, K. K.,
Saxena, A.K., Ann. Microbiol., 62: 93–
105 (2012).
105. Srinivasarao, Ch,
Venkateswarlu, B., Veeraiah, R.,
Rammohan, S. and Vijay S.
Jakkula, Sreenath Dixit,
Rammohan, R.V., and
Shivarudrappa, B., Central
Research Institute for Dryland
Agriculture, Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh. pp.40 (2013).
106. Srinivasarao, Ch., Ganesha-
murthy, A.N. and Masood. Bulletin,
Indian Institute of Pulses
Research, Kanpur, India pp 1-50
(2003).
107. Srinivasarao, Ch., Ganesha-
murthy, A.N., Ali, M. and
Venkateswarlu, B., Journal of
Plant Nutrition, 29: 747-763 (2006).
108. Subba Rao, A. and Sammi
reddy, K., In: Methods of analysis
of soils, plants and fertilisers
(Tandon, H.L.S. ed), Fertiliser
Development and Consultation
Organization, New Delhi, pp., 21-
59 (2006).
109. Sud, K.C., and Jatav, M.K.,
Potato Journal, 34: 109-110 (2007).
110. Sundara, B., Natarajan, V.
and Hari, K., Field Crops Res., 77(1):
43-49 (2002).
111. Syers, J.K., Johnston, A.E. and
Curtin, D., FAO Fertiliser and Plant
Nutrition Bulletin no. 18, Rome, Italy,
(2008).
112. Tagore, G.S., Namdeo, S.L.,
Sharma, S.K. and Narendra Kumar,
International Journal of Agronomy.
Article ID 581627: 1-8 (2013).
113. Tandon, H.L.S., FDCO; New
Delhi, pp.142 (1992).
114. Tandon, H.L.S., Fertilisers in
Indian agriculture from 20 th to 21st
century. FDCO, New Delhi
(2004).
115. Tarafdar, J.C., Phosphorus-A
bright future ahead. In: The 40 th
Dr. R.V. Tamhane memorial lecture
at 78th Annual convention of Indian
Society of Soil Science at Jodhpur,
Rajasthan (2013).
116. Turner, B.L., Richardson, A.E.
and Mullaney, E.J., CAB
Internatioal, Wallingford, UK, pp.
304 (2007).
117. Vashista, P., Chaudhary, N.
and Sharma, C.B., Proc Natl. Acad.
Sci, India Sect, B Biol Sci, 76(3): 207–
215 (2006).
118. Venkateswarlu, J. Proc.
IMPHOS-FAI Seminar, New Delhi
(1986) .
119. Wani, S.P., Sreedevi, T.K.,
Rockström, J. and Ramakrishna,
Y.S., In: Rainfed agriculture:
Unlocking the Potential (Wani,
S.P., Rockström, J. and Oweis, T.
eds). Comprehensive Assessment
of Water Management in
Agriculture Series. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK, pp.
1-3 (2009).
120. Wani, S.P., Sahrawat, K.L.,
Sarvesh, K.V., Baburao Mudbi and
Krishnappa K., International
Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
(2011).
121. Wei, L.L., Chen, C.R. and Xu,
Z.H., Biol Fertil Soils, 45: 775–779
(2009).
122. Wong, M.T.F., Grundy, M.,
Barson, M. and Walcott, J., Report
to Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Forestry, by CSIRO
Sustainable Agriculture Flagship
(2012).
123. Yang, X., Post, W.M., Thornton,
P.E. and Jain, A., Biogeosciences, 10:
2525-2537 (2013).

SPECIALITY FERTILISER STATISTICS

DECEMBER 2014
The Fertiliser Association of India has released the 3rd edition of the publication Speciality Fertiliser Statistics in December
2014. The publication covers the details of fertility status of soil, nutrient uptake efficiency in particular reference to secondary
and micro nutrients, policy guidelines, details of capacity, production, import, sale, consumption of specialty fertilisers including
slow release, fortified/coated, water soluble and customized fertilisers. The book also presents comprehensive statistics of
use and production of various micro nutrients. Additional information on organic manure and bio fertilisers are also covered in
the publication. A directory of selected companies dealing with speciality fertilisers and micro nutrients is also given in the
publication.
The price per copy of the publication

Indian : Rs.600 + 80 extra for packing, handling and postage

Foreign : US $100
For your copies please write to:
THE FERTILISER ASSOCIATION OF INDIA
FAI House, 10, Shaheed Jit Singh Marg, New Delhi-110067
Tel:011-46005215, 91-11-26567144 FAX: 91-11-26960052/46005213
Email: acctt@faidelhi.org Website: www.faidelhi.org

Indian Journal of Fertilisers, March 2015

36

View publication stats