Estimation of border effect on yield of rice and nutrient uptake

The experiment was conducted at Agronomy Research Field of Bangladesh Agricultural Institute, Gazipur during 2019 to quantify the border effect on rice. The experiment was set in a randomized complete block design with twelve replications. The treatment was non border (T1) and border (T2). Border treatment (T2) had significant and positive influence on different parameters of rice. Grain yield and associated yield components improved in border treatment. Border effect was estimated at 8% in respect of grain yield. Increased tillers/hill (18%), filled grains/panicle (47%), grain weight/panicle (45%), grain growth (12%) weight of 1000-grain (0.97%), biological yield (4%) and harvest index (4.5%) were observed in border rows. Rice plant both flowered and matured 3 days earlier in border rows. Carbon input and uptake of N, P, K, S and Zn by rice were found higher values in border treatment. Carbon accumulation increased about 4.4% in border rice. Two lines/rows of rice hill should be excluded for harvesting of plot yield. Otherwise 8% yield will be deducted in actual yield calculation for eliminating the border area effect/border effect (for 2 lines/rows of hills around the plot).

Introduction

Border is the outer margin or side of a plot or crop field. Outer margin of crop field is exposed more as compared to inner side or centre of the plot. Plants in the outermost row next to the unplanted alley showed a general increase in yield and growth as compared to the center row [1]. This phenomenon has been referred to as ‘border effect’. Main causes of border effect are considered to be advantageous environmental factors on above the ground, such as higher solar energy, air circulation etc. Consequently, crop plants of border row get more light and more opportunity for gaseous exchange like carbon di oxide intake and release of oxygen [1]. Transpiration of crop plant is also influenced by border. Crop plants of border get more aeration as compared to inner side or centre of the plot. Consequently, the rate of transpiration decreases in a canopy due to density of foliage, shading effect and decrease of air movement inside of the rows [2,3]. More light interception enhanced total photosynthesis of crop plants of border. Leaf Area Index (LAI) in border rice increases as compared to centre due to more tillering. More tillering occurs due to advantageous environment of the outermost row [1]. As Leaf Area Index (LAI) increases so does light interception, causing increases in photosynthesis up to a critical LAI value [4]. Thus, a greater number of tillers of outer rows increased LAI resulting higher photosynthesis. More photosynthesis results in more dry matter production in the plant system ultimately contributes to higher yield of crop [5]. The greater rate of Net Assimilation Rate (NAR), Relative Growth Rate (RGR) and carbohydrate accumulation during grain ripening stage resulted in higher grain yield of rice in border [1]. They also mentioned that nutritional supply from alley and wider unplanted distance also increased yield in border rice. Hereby physiological process of yield formation of crop plant is influenced by border effect. There are scientific evidences of border effect on crop yield. A significant difference in yield (21.9 to 69.6%) and yield components was observed between outermost rows and inner rows of experimental plots, 2017) [6]. Rice plants grown in outmost first and second rows in paddy field produced averaged 30% more grain yield than that in center rows [7]. The first and the second row next to the unplanted alley consistently gave significantly higher grain yields than the centre rows but no evidence was found that border effect reach beyond the second outermost row. If the increase was very large, yield of the second outermost row were significantly decreased as compared to first row [8]. A significant border effect on grain yield was observed in the outmost row, but not in the second and third outmost rows in comparison with the center rows. Higher biomass production, more panicles per m2 and spikelets per panicle, and higher grain-filling percentage were responsible for the border effect [9]. The two external rows yielded up to 40% more than the two innermost in wheat [10]. Analysis of yield components in border rows indicated that the number of kernels per ear, 1000-kernel weight and yield per plant of corn increased in border row and stopped decreasing after the second row of the border [11]. No more than three border rows of all the cultivars had marginal superiority (border effect) under high density, but about 90% of all the cultivars had border effect no more than two border row in maize [12]. Higher number of cobs per plant in border rows of maize was also observed by Mian [5]. Border row effect was estimated at 16% in soybean in single row soybean (4.88 m long and 11.80 cm between rows) [13]. Yield of cucurbit (cv. ‘M 21’) was reduced 13% in central rows from that of bordered row [14]. Rice plants grown in border rows had higher number of panicles per hill and a higher number of spikelet per panicle [7]. Plants in border rows performed differently producing higher tillering from those in the centre of plots tending to depress the performance of adjacent plants [9]. Nutrient uptake also varied in borders as compared to center rows [1]. Outer rows got more nutrients facility due to unplanted alley of the border. But research on border effect of crop as well rice in Bangladesh is scanty. Therefore, the study was undertaken to quantify the border effect on rice.

Materials and method

The experiment was conducted at Agronomy Research Field of Bangladesh Agricultural Institute, Gazipur during 2019 to quantify the border effect on rice. The experiment was set in a randomized complete block design with twelve replications. The treatment was non border (T1) and border (T2). Unit plot size was 5 m×5 m. Plant spacing was maintained as 25 cm×15 cm (row to row 25 cm and hill to hill 15 cm). The land was prepared well by power tiller. Twenty eight day old seedling of BRRI dhan71 was transplanted on 28 July 2019 and the crop was harvested on 25 October (border) and 28 October (non border). The crop was fertilizer as per recommendation of BRRI [15]. Other intercultural operations were done as and when necessary (BRRI [15]. Date of anthesis and maturity was recorded. Data was recorded of border (2 lines around the plot) and non border (excluding 2 lines around the border) treatment. Sixty hill per treatment was cut randomly at the base of rice plant for yield component. Hundred panicles were selected for number of grains/panicle and length of panicle measurement. Grain growth was calculated on the basis of 1000-grain weight. Duration of maturity required after anthesis was recorded. Yield was recorded of border (2 lines around the plot) and non border (excluding 2 lines around the border) area of each plot. Grain yield of rice was adjusted at 12% moisture level. Dry weight of grain and straw also recorded for estimation of nutrient concentration. Nutrient concentration (C, N, P, K, S, Zn and B) was determined following the standard laboratory procedures (Organic C was determined by wet digestion method by Nelson and Sommers 1982 [16], Nitrogen through semi micro-Kjeldhal method by Bremner and mulvaney 1982 [17], P through Molybdate ascorbic acid method by Olsen and Sommers 1982 [18], K directly through flame photometer from digest, S by turbidmetric method by Tabatabi 1982, Zn through Atomic absorption spectrophotometer and Calcium chloride extraction method). Each nutrient was measured by 5 repeated number of each replication. Nutrient uptake was also computed on the basis of nutrient concentration (both grain and straw). Collected data was subjected to statistical analysis. Hence, no need of LSD value because of only two treatments since F test significance about parameters, off course indicated the variation (only higher and lower) in two treatments.

Results and Discussion

Crop character

Plant height, tillers/hill, length of panicle, total grains/panicle, filled grains/panicle and unfilled grains/panicle of rice significantly varied between non border and border treatment (Table 1). Plant height increased in non border (122 cm) rows as compared to border rows (117 cm). Plant height increased in non border rows due to inter tiller competition for receiving light. Tall plant is advantageous in light competition [19], this is why the increased plant height in the dense treatments is depicted by Gruntman, et al. [20]. Shading effect in central rows enhanced to produce taller plant due to variation of hormonal activities. Number of tillers/hill increased (18%) in border row due to getting more space (Table 1). Advantageous environment, more available nutrient near alley helped to produce more number of tillers/hill in the outermost row [1]. Plants in border rows produced higher number of tillers from those in the centre of plots was also found by Wang, et al. [9]. Similar trend was followed in the case of length of panicle where higher value (27.92 cm) was observed in border row (Table 1). Total number of grains (193) per panicle and filled grains (179) per panicle were noticed higher in border rows but unfilled grains per panicle showed higher value (42) in central row (non border). Possibly favourable microclimatic factors (near alley), more nutrient supply from alley and higher crop growth helped in better grain filling of border rice resulting higher number filled grains per panicle. More spikelets per panicle in border rows was also reported by Wang, et al. [9]. Weight of 1000-grain (26.03 g), grain growth (0.96 g/grain/day) and grain weight per panicle (4.47 g) were observed higher in border rows (Table 2). Better dry matter partitioning into grain and grain filling possibly enhanced 1000-grain weight. Similarly, 1000-kernel weight increased in border row of corn [11]. Grain yield (6.61 t/ha), straw yield (8.89 t/ha) and biological yield (14.50 t/ha) gave higher values in border rows of rice (Table 2). Better crop growth helped in production of higher dry matter as well as higher biological yield which ultimately contributed to higher grain yield in border rows (Table 2). The results are in agreement with the report of Wang, et al. [19]. Higher harvest index (46) was calculated in border rows that was possibly happened due to higher dry matter partitioning in grain as compared to non border rows. Dry weight of grain (5.81 t/ha) and straw (6.98 t/ha) were also found higher in border rows due to corresponding higher weight of grain and straw before oven dry (Table 3). Better growth at border rice plant increased dry matter of grain and straw. Flowering of rice plant occurred three days earlier in border rows possibly due to advantageous micro environment. Border rows of rice plant got advantageous environmental factors like higher solar energy and air circulation as stated by Sato and Takahashi [1]. The results also have been supported by the findings of Rezazadeh, et al. [21]. They found earlier flowering (7.5 days and 46.6 days earlier) in full sunlight as compared to shading (45% and 65% shading respectively) in firespike (Odontonema strictum). Central rows of rice got mutual shading as compared border rows. Hence, earlier flowering occurred in border rows as influenced by more light availability than in central rows. Moreover, better growth of rice plant might have enhanced early flowering. Three to four days early flowering of Bt. brinjal (eggplant) in higher plant growth has been reported [22,23]. As the earlier flowering resulted in earlier maturity (3 days earlier) of rice in the border whereas grain filling duration (30 days) was static both in border and non border (Table 3). Better growth also enhanced earlier flowering of rice plant has been described by Mian [5]. However, the results finally reveal that grain yield increased 8% due to border effect having some advantageous influences.

Carbon input and uptake of other nutrient

Carbon input and uptake of N, P, K, S and Zn by rice grain showed higher values in border treatment as compared to non-border treatment (Table 4). Higher dry matter rendered higher C input and other nutrients uptake in plant system [5,24]. Higher C input observed in border rows possibly happed due to higher photosynthesis in more light availability and interception of it in border rows as compared to central rows where mutual shading occurred [21]. Higher dry matter production resulted in higher C input indicating more carbon accumulation through photosynthesis from the atmospheric carbon di oxide (CO2) in the plant system in the border rows. Similarly, higher trend of C input and uptake of N, P, K, S and Zn by rice straw was noticed in borer rows (Table 5). Total C input (4805 kg/ha), total uptake of N (114 kg/ha), P (28 kg/ha), K (128 kg/ha), S (11.05 kg/ha) and Zn (0.455 kg/ha) noticed higher values in border rows as compared to non border rows (Table 6). The results are in agreement with the findings of Mian, et al. [24]. Similar pattern of N (91.23-133.62 kg/ha), P (17.17-21.49 kg/ha), K (66.38-106.30 kg/ha), S (7.73-12.06 kg/ha) and Zn (0.288-0.618 kg/ha) uptake was observed by other investigators [25-29]. The results concluded that higher C input and nutrients uptake improved yield components of rice in border rows, contributed to higher grain yield (8%).

Conclusion

Yield components and grain yield of rice improved in border rows. Border effect was estimated at 8% in grain of border rice. Two lines/rows of rice hills should be excluded for harvesting of plot yield. Otherwise 8% yield will be deducted in actual yield calculation for eliminating the border area effect/border effect (for 2 lines/rows of hills around the plot).

I would like to thank the Hawassa Agricultural Research Center for preparing the sweet potato genotypes that were used in the experiments and Intra-Africa academy project.

1. Sato K, Takahashi K (1983) An Analysis of the Border Effect in the Rice Paddy Fields. Japanese Journal of Crop Science 52: 168-176. Link: https://bit.ly/3gxpgff
2. Moore R, Clark WD, Vodopich DS (2003) Botany. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 496-520. Link: https://bit.ly/3ygWQw3
3. Manisha M (2019) Factors Affecting Transpiration: 10 Factors.
4. Pearce RB, Brown RH, Blaser RF (1965) Relationship between leaf area index, light interception and net photosynthesis in orchardgrass. Crop Sci 5: 553-555. Link: https://bit.ly/3BbswVu
5. Mian MAK (2008) Performance of maize oriented cropping patterns under different nutrient management. Ph.D. Dissertation. Agronomy Div. Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 54-155.
6. Anonymous (2017) Modification of planting geometry to exploit border effect for yield improvement in rice. Environmental Science 62. Link: https://bit.ly/3sKQHqz
7. Kim K, Yang H (1984) Varietal difference and growth analysis of border effect in rice plant. Agris 29: 321-327. Link: https://bit.ly/3B9sc9x
8. Gomex KA, Datta SKD (2008) Border Effects in Rice Experimental Plots I. Unplanted Borders. Experimental Agriculture 7: 87-92. Link: https://bit.ly/3Dj1YDm
9. Wang K, Zhou H,  Wang B,  Jian Z,  Wang F, et al. (2013) Quantification of border effect on grain yield measurement of hybrid rice. Field crops Research 141: 47-54. Link: https://bit.ly/2Wm12h3
10. Romani M,  Borghi B,  Alberici R,  Delogu G,  Hesselbach J, et al. (1993) Intergenotypic competition and border effect in bread wheat and barley. Euphytica 69: 19-31. Link: https://bit.ly/3B7ygzu
11. Liu G, Zhang G, Hou P, Liu Y, Li J, et al. (2020a) Weak border effect and great uniformity increase yield of maize (Zea mays) under dense population. Crop and Pasture Science 71: 653-659. Link: https://bit.ly/2ULxlFr
12.  Liu G, Liu W, Yang Y,  Guo X,  Zhang G, et al. (2020b) Marginal superiority of maize: an indicator for density tolerance under high plant density. Scientific Reports10: 15378. Link: https://go.nature.com/3mthAhR
13. Anonymous (2013) AGRIS. Border effect in soybean nursery plots. 35: 662-666.
14. Wehner TC, Miller CH (1983) Effect of Unequal Competition from Bordering Rows on Pickling Cucumber Yield Trial Results. Cucurbit Genetics Cooperative Report 6:38-39. Link: https://bit.ly/38bV4BC
15. BRRI (Bangladesh Rice Res. Inst.) (2013) Production technique of modern rice (Adunik Dhaner Chas: in Banglee). Gazipur 1701. 80.
16. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney (Eds.) Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin 539-577. Link: https://bit.ly/3Dg1huI
17. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen Total. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney (Eds.) Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin 595-622. Link: https://bit.ly/3jeDbbF
18. Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. A. L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney (Eds.) Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin 403-427.
19. Nagashima H, Hikosaka K (2011) Plants in a crowded stand regulate their height growth so as to maintain similar heights to neighbours even when they have potential advantages in height growth. Ann Bot 108: 207-2014. Link: https://bit.ly/3sK1K3m
20. Gruntman M, Grob D, Májeková M, Tielbörger K (2017) Decision-making in plants under competition. Nat Commun 8: 2235. Link: https://bit.ly/3zsy79a
21. Rezazadeh A, Harkess RL, Telmadarrehei T (2018) The Effect of Light Intensity and Temperature on Flowering and Morphology of Potted Red Firespike. Horticulture 4: 36. Link: https://bit.ly/3mzsAds
22. Mian MAK (2018) Effect of fertilizer managementon fruit yield of Bt. brinjal. In: Annual Research Report. Agronomy division, Bangladesh Agril. Res. Inst. (BARI), Gazipur 28-33.
23. Mian MAK, Begum AA, Saha RR (2019) Requirement of different nutrients for yield maximization of Bt. brinjal. Bangladesh J Agril Res 44: 591-598. Link: https://bit.ly/3mqjD6i
24. Mian MAK, Begum AA, Saha RR (2019) Carbon sequestration through residue management and crop productivity in Potato-Maize-T. aman rice cropping pattern in long term basis. In: 18th Confer. of Bangladesh Soc. Agronomy. KIB. Dhaka 44-45.
25. Rahman GK, Ashrafi MMR, Hossain MB, Rahman ML (2007) Response of T. Aman Rice (Oryza sativa L.) to S, Mg, Zn, B, Mo and Organic Amendments in Tista Meander Floodplain Soil. The Agriculturists 5: 14-19. Link: https://bit.ly/3zlm79C
26. Rahman MT, Jahiruddin M, Humauan MR, Alam MJ, Khan AA (2008) Effect of Sulphur and Zinc on growth, yield and nutrient uptake of boro rice (cv. BRRI dhan29). J Soil Nature 2: 10-15. Link: https://bit.ly/3gvz4X1
27. Parvin S, Islam MM, Mondal MK, Quddus KG, Mahmud AM (2014) Effect of spacing on P and Zn uptake of local T. aman rice varieties in Khulna area. Bangladesh Agron J 17: 81-88. Link: https://bit.ly/3kt1IcG
28. Rahman GKM, Ashrafi MR, Hossain MB, Rahman ML (2007) Response of T. Aman Rice (Oryza sativa L.) to S, Mg, Zn, B, Mo and Organic Amendments in Tista Meander Floodplain Soil. Agriculturists 5: 14-19. Link: https://bit.ly/3zlm79C
29. Tabatabai MA (1982) Sulphur. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. 2nd ed. A.L. Page, R.H.Miller and D.R. Keeney (Eds.) Amer. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin 501-534.