Open Journal of Soil Science, 2012, 2, 133-145
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2012.22019 Published Online June 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojss) 133
Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen
and Wheat Plant Response
Sutapa Bose1,2*, Asim K. Bhattacharyya1
1School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India; 2Department of Earth Sciences, Indian Institute
of Science Education and Research (IISER) Kolkata PO: BCKV Main Campus, Mohanpur Nadia, India.
Received January 5th, 2012; revised February 10th, 2012; accepted February 23rd, 2012
ABSTRACT
Wazirpur industrial area of Delhi generates a huge quantity of sludge per day, which is highly acid ic in nature (pH 2.7
to 4.4) and contains macronutrients, micronutrients as well as toxic metals. A pot-culture experiment was conducted by
taking the two soils (JNU and Chhattarpur) amended with sludge (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%), pretreated with lime (0%,
0.5% and 1%). Two wheat seedlings were planted per pot containing 3 kg sludge amended or control soil and the
experiment was carried out till harvesting (four months) in a glass house. Lime treatments enhanced the N content in
wheat plant in almost all cases. Sludge and lime treatments enhanced dry weight in wheat plants grown in Chhattarpur
soil and dry weight increased with time. Maximum growth was observed in 0.5 lime treated and 20% sludge amended
soils. But we have to take an account about any kind of metal toxicity before disposal of this waste to land.
Keywords: Industrial Sludge; Lime Treatment; Land Disposal; Soil Nitrogen; Wheat Plant
1. Introduction
Like many countries in South Asia, India is regarded as
an agricultural country. Indian agricultural soils have
been used extensively for crop production for extended
period of time and are usually low in soil organic matter
and essential plant nutrients fo r crop. Addition of chemi-
cal fertilizers is most commonly used, which increased
the cost of crops. To re duce such expenditure an d to ma-
nage the soil quality o f land, sludge app lication (which is
considered an organic fertilizer) is an alternative source
of plant nutrients for crops.
Land application of industrial sludge is an option for
safe and economic methods for waste disposal. The ap-
plication of urban industrial sludge mixed with sewage
sludge to agricultural soil is generally most economic
outlet for waste disposal, in this way it is possible to re-
cycled the plant nutrients such as N, P and organic matter
and many more macro and micro nutrients. On the other
hand it can affect the soil fertilit y, food safety and natural
ecosystem in general. Many researches have been carried
out on the effect of applying sewage to agricultural soil
as regards both the potential effects due to sewage toxic
components [1-11]. Sewage sludge provides labile or-
ganic matter in sufficient quantities to stimulate soil mi-
croorganisms. This kind of organic residue improves the
soil physical characteristics: increasing soil’s water hold-
ing capacity and percentage of stable aggregates and en-
hanced the nutritional quality of soils [12]. It can im-
prove the physical properties of soils [13] by increasing
soil porosity, and the stability of soil aggregation [14]. So,
sludge can be used as soil fertilizer provided that pre-
treatments have done for its metal contents. Liming to
soil offers a mean of minimizing the risk of food chain
contamination by reducing the plant uptake of sludge-
born heavy metals [15-17]. Urban sludge application on
land increased the dry matter yield of maize over control
[18]. According to several studies the effectiveness of
liming varies depending on the soil, metal, pH value of
the limed soils and crop species [19,20]. Matula and
Pechová [21] studied that application of lime in lower pH
value increased nitrification in soil. Nitrogen supply in
plants mainly depends on soil available nitrogen so be-
fore cultivation it is necessary to estimate N release from
mineralization. In a field experiment the shoot dry weight
of lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) increased with the in-
crease in shoot N uptake up to flowering stage of plant
growth. At harvest, N uptake in the shoot decreased due
to translocation to th e grain.
The aim of the present study is to investigate the be-
havior of sludge amended soil in respect to available ni-
trogen in soils and response of wheat p lants in context of
root shoot length, dry weight and nitrogen content in it.
The industrial sludge, which was used for the experiment,
*Corresponding a uthor.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 134
was acidic in nature, so that, sludge was treated with dif-
ferent dosages of lime and then the sludge was mixed
with soils collected from two different parts of Delhi. A
pot culture experiment was conducted in a glass house to
see the response of wheat plants grown in lime treated or
untreated industrial sludge amended soils.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Samples Collection
Samples were collected from different location of of
Wazirpur industrial area, Delhi (Figure 1) for each sea-
son (summer, monsoon and winter) from road-side
dumps by following the standard methods. Soil samples
were collected from 5 different spots from JNU as well
as from Chhattarpur and were homogenized separately.
Soil sampling was done once during the study period.
Soon after the collection of sludge and soils, the pH
Electrical Conductivity (EC), Water Holding Capacity
(WHC) and Moisture Content (MC) were measured [22]
and remaining samples were kept for drying. Then air-
dried sludge samples were grinded and pass through 2
mm sieve and homogenized to make a representative
sample. Soil samples were also processed by following
the same methods.
2.2. Preparation for Glass House Experiment
The homogenized sludges were treated with three diffe-
rent dosages of lime (0%, 0.5% and 1%) separately. Then
the lime treated and untreated sludges were mixed with
two soils (Chhattarpur and JNU) separately at the rate of
0%, 10% 20% and 30% (dry weight basis). Then the
sludge amended and control soils were put in new ear-
then pots (3 kg/pot).
The wheat grains (HD1553) were collected from Na-
tional Seed Corporation (NSC), Pusa, New Delhi. The
plants were grown in two trays with two different soils.
Two wheat seedlings of 10 days old were transferred per
pots containing 3 kg sludge amended soil or control soil.
Figure 1. Showing the sampling sites (Wazirpur industrial area in NCT De lhi).

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 135
Distilled water was given to plants to maintained 50%
moisture of WHC in sludge amended and control soils
throughout the experiment. Whole experiment was car-
ried out in a glass house maintaining the temperature at
20˚C - 30˚C. The experiment was performed with three
replicates and was continued from January to April 2004.
2.3. Collection and Preservation of Soil and Plant
Samples
Plants and soils samples were taken out from the pots in
different stages of plant growth, viz. planting, tillering,
flowering, grain formation and harvesting respectively.
At each harvest plants were removed carefully and
washed first with tap water followed by de-ionized water.
Root and shoot were separated and lengths were mea-
sured. Then folded it in brown paper and kept in oven at
80˚C for 48 hrs. After drying root and shoot weights
were taken separately. Wheat grains were also measured
after harvesting stage of wheat plant growth. The soil
samples were air-dried at ambient room temperature, and
passed through 2 mm sieve for chemical analysis. The
available (mineralizable) nitrogen analyzed by following
Subbian and Asija [23] method. The soil samples were
stored in an airtight polythene bags and kept at 4˚C to
prevent any kind of microbial degradation. The total ni-
trogen of plant samples was an alyzed through acid diges-
tion followed by Kjeldahl method [24]. The parameters
were carried out in triplicate for better results.
2.4. Data Analysis
In the present study, the plant total nitrogen and soil
available (mineralizable) nitrogen (amended with differ-
ent proportion of lime treated sludge) were monitored on
five growth stages of plants (days). Similarly, plant’s
nitrogen was also monitored on four growth stages of
plants. These parameters were studied for root and shoot
separately. Each set of data was arranged to accomplish
two sets of 2-factor ANOVA as follows:
1) Keeping sludge treatment constant, growth period
and lime treatment were taken as two factors.
2) Keeping lime treatment constant, growth period and
sludge amendment were taken as two factors.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Available (Mineralizable) Nitrogen in Soils
The available nitrogen of Chhattarpur control soil (49 ±
2.9 ppm) was higher than JNU control soil (42 ± 2.2
ppm). Sludge application increased the available nitrogen
in both soils. Sludge amendment enhanced the available
nitrogen in alkaline so il than acidic soil [25]. Lime treat-
ment (0.5%) decreased the available nitrogen in Chhat-
tarpur soil, whereas 1% lime application enhanced the
available nitrogen in sludge amended Chhattarpur soil. In
JNU soil lime treatment gradually and slowly increased
and got stabilized the available nitrogen concentration in
sludge amended JNU soil, in most of the cases. ANOVA
results show the variation in available nitrogen, were
highly significant. With the successive stages of plant
growth the changes in available (mineralizable) nitrogen
in soils were also highly significant. It is clear that higher
amount of lime application had neutralized the acidity of
amended soil. Hence, there was an increase amount of
available nitrogen in those soils. Lime treatment gradu-
ally, but slowly increased (or stabilized in some cases)
the available (mineralizable) nitrogen concentration in
waste amended JNU soil. Both mineralization and im-
mobilization take place simultaneously and may not be
quantified separately. Gaseous N loss would also depend
on pH and temperature regimes of soil. The pH inhibits
mineralization only at the levels whose pH is below 5
and higher than 8. Nitrogen mineralization dynamics are
predominantly determined by the soil properties such as
total C, total N, soil texture and water holdidg capacity
[26]. A sufficiently long latent time (8 weeks) was
needed for tolerant microorganisms to release or to start
nitrogen minerilazation. The nitrogen mineralization was
positive in the presence of metals in most of the cases
[27].
Figures 2 and 3 showing that available (mineralizable)
nitrogen in soils increased till flowering stage and the
gradually decreased with the successive stages of wheat
plant growth which indicated that the rate of release of
available (mineralizable) N was higher than the uptake or
immobilization on nitrogen in waste amended soil till
flowering stage of wheat plant growth. The changes in
available (mineralizable) nitrogen were significant with
lime treatments, sludge amendment as well as with
growth periods (P < 0.05).
3.2. Dry Weight of Wheat Plant’s
Root-Shoot-Grain
Sludge amendments increased plant growth significantly
as compared to the control soil and the growth was
higher in the plant grown in Chhattarpur pure soil than
JNU soil. Lime amendment showed a positive effect on
plant growth at each sludge amendment, which is likely
due to neutralizing pH, reducin g the availability o f heavy
metals. The dry wt. of crops increased with increasing
soil pH [4] which was also observed in th e present study.
The control soils were alkaline in nature viz. pH of
Chhattarpur soil was 8.66 and JNU soil was 8.37 whereas,
the sludge was very acidic (pH 3.05) in nature [17,28].
The dry weights of harvested grains were higher in wheat
plants grown in JNU soil than Chhattarpur soil. Sludge
application increased the dry weight of grains in all cases.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 136
Lime treatment increased the dry weight of grain. The
changes in shoot dry weight were significant with lime
treatments, sludge amendment as well as with growth
periods (P < 0.05). (Table 1) The changes in root dry
weight were significant with lime treatments as well as
with growth periods while these were insignificant with
sludge amendment (P < 0.05).
3.3. Lengths of Wheat Plant’s Root-Shoot
The length of wheat plant’s shoot was higher in plants
grown in JNU control soil than Chhattarpur control soil
(Table 2). 10% sludge application reduced the shoot
length as compared with control one. But 20% and 30%
sludge application increased the shoot length. The
changes in root-shoot length were almost insignificant
with lime treatments, sludge amendment as well as with
growth periods (P < 0.05). Lime treatment increased the
shoot length slightly. Length of wheat plant’s root in-
creased with increasing percent of sludge (10% and 20%)
but decreased at 30% sludge amendment, which showed
that application of sludge had some, limiting factors,
which prevents the growth of plants. Lime treatments in-
creased the root length. Over the time (i.e. stages of plant
growth) the root length increased significantly.
3.4. Total Nitrogen in Wheat Plant
The total nitrogen in wheat plant’s shoot and root were
0.44% ± 0.02% and 0.15% ± 0% of dry weight at the d ay
of plantation respectively. The nitrogen concentration in
wheat plant’s shoot increased with the successive stages
of plants growths in most of the cases. It was observed
that the available nitrogen in sludge amended soil de-
creased during grain formation to harvesting, which may
be due to higher uptake of nitrogen in wheat plants (Fig-
ures 2, 3). Sludge application (20% and 30%) decreased
the N content in wheat plants, which might be due to
toxic effects of heavy metals. But, the total nitrogen in-
creased in wheat plants shoots grown in 10% sludge
amended Chhattarpur soil. The changes in total nitrogen
in wheat shoot were almost insignificant with lime treat-
ments, sludge amendment as well as growth periods (P <
0.05). The changes in total nitrogen in wheat root were
largely significant with lime treatments as well as sludge
amendment while insignificant with growth periods (P <
0.05). The sludge contained higher concentration of
heavy metals, which caused the stress of nutrients to the
plants [17,28,29]. Sludge application in Chhattarpur soil
enhanced the total nitrogen in wheat plant’s root, except
30% sludge amended Chhattarpur soil (Figure 4). The
Table 1 . Dry weight (g/P ot) of wheat plant’s shoot and root grown in s ludg e amended soils in different stages of plant growth.
Stages of plant growth
Tillering Flowering Grainform Harvesting
Sample code Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root
C-0-0 1.22 ± 0.02 0.34 ± 0.02 3.1 ± 0.06 0.52 ± 0.04 3.85 ± 0.04 0.92 ± 0.05 5.21 ± 0.02 1.25 ± 0.03
C-10-0 1.04 ± 0.03 0.31 ± 0.01 2.8 ± 0.05 0.48 ± 0.04 3.42 ± 0.05 0.68 ± 0.05 5.34 ± 0.07 0.95 ± 0.05
C-10-0.5 1.15 ± 0.06 0.35 ± 0.02 3 ± 0.04 0.53 ± 0.03 3.66 ± 0.05 0.72 ± 0.06 5.56 ± 0.07 1.08 ± 0.05
C-10-1.0 1.21 ± 0.05 0.33 ± 0.03 3.2 ± 0.02 0.55 ± 0.04 3.79 ± 0.02 0.75 ± 0.04 5.84 ± 0.05 1.15 ± 0.05
C-20-0 1.54 ± 0.06 0.34 ± 0.04 3.6 ± 0.03 0.42 ± 0.05 3.91 ± 0.03 0.75 ± 0.06 5.92 ± 0.04 0.95 ± 0.04
C-20-0.5 1.68 ± 0.03 0.38 ± 0.04 3.8 ± 0.04 0.46 ± 0.04 4.16 ± 0.04 0.81 ± 0.06 6.13 ± 0.06 1.02 ± 0.05
C-20-1.0 1.98 ± 0.02 0.41 ± 0.02 3.86 ± 0.02 0.51 ± 0.03 4.28 ± 0.02 0.85 ± 0.07 6.28 ± 0.05 1.05 ± 0.06
C-30-0 1.86 ± 0.06 0.44 ± 0.05 4.3 ± 0.05 0.5 ± 0.01 4.76 ± 0.05 0.71 ± 0.07 6.11 ± 0.06 0.89 ± 0.06
C-30-0.5 2.05 ± 0.05 0.49 ± 0.06 4.1 ± 0.07 0.53 ± 0.02 4.55 ± 0.08 0.82 ± 0.07 6.42 ± 0.07 0.95 ± 0.07
C-30-1.0 2.21 ± 0.08 0.51 ± 0.05 4.5 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.04 4.62 ± 0.09 0.88 ± 0.07 6.44 ± 0.08 0.99 ± 0.03
J-0-0 1.14 ± 0.05 0.27 ± 0.05 2.54 ± 0.05 0.33 ± 0.02 2.75 ± 0.05 0.73 ± 0.07 4.88 ± 0.04 1.11 ± 0.03
J-10-0 1.08 ± 0.02 0.24 ± 0.02 2.33 ± 0.03 0.28 ± 0.03 2.55 ± 0.04 0.57 ± 0.07 4.73 ± 0.05 0.86 ± 0.05
J-10-0.5 1.28 ± 0.02 0.28 ± 0.03 2.62 ± 0.02 0.31 ± 0.02 2.75 ± 0.03 0.59 ± 0.07 4.95 ± 0.03 0.97 ± 0.05
J-10-1.0 1.34 ± 0.03 0.27 ± 0.04 2.6 ± 0.02 0.33 ± 0.01 2.76 ± 0.07 0.63 ± 0.08 5.06 ± 0.02 0.99 ± 0.07
J-20-0 1.35 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.03 2.91 ± 0.03 0.35 ± 0.03 2.99 ± 0.07 0.68 ± 0.05 5.16 ± 0.07 0.79 ± 0.07
J-20-0.5 1.45 ± 0.05 0.34 ± 0.05 3.12 ± 0.04 0.37 ± 0.03 3.22 ± 0.03 0.73 ± 0.05 5.37 ± 0.08 0.82 ± 0.06
J-20-1.0 1.49 ± 0.02 0.35 ± 0.04 3.05 ± 0.04 0.39 ± 0.04 3.29 ± 0.05 0.77 ± 0.05 5.52 ± 0.09 0.88 ± 0.04
J-30-0 1.38 ± 0.02 0.38 ± 0.05 3.15 ± 0.02 0.43 ± 0.04 3.29 ± 0.08 0.56 ± 0.06 5.11 ± 0.08 0.77 ± 0.07
J-30-0.5 1.55 ± 0.03 0.4 ± 0.03 3.36 ± 0.03 0.46 ± 0.04 3.54 ± 0.08 0.64 ± 0.06 5.38 ± 0.06 0.81 ± 0.08
J-30-1.0 1.67 ± 0.06 0.42 ± 0.04 3.45 ± 0.04 0.5 ± 0.02 3.62 ± 0.06 0.68 ± 0.05 5.49 ± 0.08 0.85 ± 0.05
[C = Chhattarpur soil, J = JNU soil; 0, 10, 20, 30 (% of sludge amendments); 0, 0.5, 1 (% of Lime treatments). All the values are mean of three replicates].

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 137
Table 2. Length (cm) of wheat plant’s shoot and root grown in sludge amended soils in different stages of plant growths.
Stages of plant growths
Tillering Flowering Grainform Harvesting
Sample code Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root Shoot Root
C-0-0 33.2 ± 1.2 5.4 ± 0.3 48.35 ± 3.2 7.1 ± 0.5 64.2 ± 4.5 8.2 ± 0.5 72.9 ± 5.5 8.5 ± 0.8
C-10-0 28.3 ± 2.3 6.3 ± 0.5 46.2 ± 2.5 8.5 ± 0.6 61.5 ± 4.6 9.1 ± 0.4 70.5 ± 5.4 9.4 ± 0.5
C-10-0.5 29.7 ± 2.1 6.8 ± 0.4 49.3 ± 3.2 8.9 ± 0.8 65.5 ± 4.2 9.8 ± 0.6 75.3 ± 5.1 10.5 ± 0.6
C-10-1.0 30.1 ± 2.5 7.2 ± 0.5 51.8 ± 4.2 9.1 ± 0.7 67.9 ± 5.7 10.5 ± 0.6 77.5 ± 5.2 11.6 ± 0.7
C-20-0 35.8 ± 2.6 6.1 ± 0.6 50.2 ± 4.2 7.3 ± 0.5 64.3 ± 5.2 8.9 ± 0.6 75.6 ± 4.2 9.3 ± 0.9
C-20-0.5 37.3 ± 3.3 6.4 ± 0.6 55.6 ± 4.5 7.8 ± 0.6 68.9 ± 5.4 8.5 ± 0.8 79.2 ± 4.1 9.5 ± 0.9
C-20-1.0 39.5 ± 3.4 6.9 ± 0.6 58.3 ± 3.8 8.4 ± 0.4 72 ± 5.8 9.3 ± 0.7 80.5 ± 5.7 9.9 ± 0.8
C-30-0 34.2 ± 3.5 4.9 ± 0.2 48.1 ± 3.7 6.9 ± 0.5 55.2 ± 5.4 7.8 ± 0.4 62.9 ± 4.1 8.1 ± 0.8
C-30-0.5 37.2 ± 2.8 5.4 ± 0.3 50.6 ± 4.5 7.5 ± 0.7 59.2 ± 5.2 8.4 ± 0.8 66.2 ± 4.2 8.7 ± 0.8
C-30-1.0 38.1 ± 4.2 5.9 ± 0.5 52.3 ± 4.6 7.8 ± 0.5 62.1 ± 4.2 8.2 ± 0.7 69.2 ± 3.8 8.9 ± 0.7
J-0-0 35.2 ± 2.5 6.2 ± 0.4 52.9 ± 4.2 8.2 ± 0.6 67.3 ± 4.3 8.9 ± 0.8 74.6 ± 3.3 9.7 ± 0.8
J-10-0 28.3 ± 3.4 6.8 ± 0.4 51.3 ± 4.1 8.9 ± 0.7 64.8 ± 4.3 9.7 ± 0.8 74.3 ± 4.2 10 ± 0.7
J-10-0.5 30.5 ± 3.1 7.3 ± 0.6 55.2 ± 4 9.3 ± 0.8 68.2 ± 4.2 10.5 ± 0.8 76.3 ± 3.8 11.5 ± 1.0
J-10-1.0 30.8 ± 3.2 7.1 ± 0.5 57.8 ± 3.8 9.5 ± 0.8 70.2 ± 4.3 10.6 ± 0.5 78.4 ± 3.3 11.4 ± 1.0
J-20-0 35.8 ± 3.2 7.5 ± 0.5 52.3 ± 3.9 8.9 ± 0.9 65.3 ± 5.7 9.7 ± 1.0 74.6 ± 4.2 9.9 ± 0.9
J-20-0.5 39.1 ± 2.5 7.9 ± 0.4 55.2 ± 4 9.5 ± 0.9 70.2 ± 5.1 10.5 ± 0.8 78.5 ± 4.1 10.9 ± 0.5
J-20-1.0 38.5 ± 3.6 8.1 ± 0.4 57.4 ± 4.7 9.9 ± 0.7 74.3 ± 4.9 11.2 ± 1.0 81.6 ± 5.0 11.6 ± 0.8
J-30-0 36.8 ± 3.5 5.8 ± 0.6 45.3 ± 4.1 7.8 ± 0.5 58.3 ± 5.5 8.6 ± 0.5 62.7 ± 3.6 8.8 ± 0.7
J-30-0.5 39.2 ± 3.7 6.4 ± 0.3 49.6 ± 3.8 8.4 ± 0.6 62.1 ± 5.8 9.5 ± 0.6 66.3 ± 3.3 9.8 ± 0.8
J-30-1.0 40.1 ± 3.6 6.6 ± 0.2 49.5 ± 4.5 8.9 ± 0.6 63.5 ± 5.5 9.9 ± 0.6 68.9 ± 3.1 10.1 ± 0.8
[C = Chhattarpur soil, J = JNU soil; 0, 10, 20, 30 (% of sludge amendments); 0, 0.5, 1 (% of Lime treatments). All the values are mean of three replicates].
wheat- shoot N and a v - N in 10% was t e am e nded Chha t t a rpur soil
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting
stages of plant growths
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A v -N con c (p pm)
C-0-0PN
C-10-0PN
C-10-0.5PN
C-10-1.0PN
C-0-0AN
C-10-0AN
C-10-0.5AN
C-10-1.0AN

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 138
wheat-shoot N and av-N in 20% waste amended Chhattarpur soil
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting
stages of plant growths
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Av-N conc (ppm)
C-0-0PN
C-20-0PN
C-20-0.5PN
C-20-1.0PN
C-0-0AN
C-20-0AN
C-20-0.5AN
C-20-1.0AN
wheat-shoot N and av-N in 30% waste amended Chhattarpur soil
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
tilleringfloweringpodf ormharv esting
stages of p l an t g r o wths
N c onc(% )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Av -N c onc (ppm)
C-0-0PN
C-30-0PN
C-30-0.5PN
C-30-1.0PN
C-0-0AN
C-30-0AN
C-30-0.5AN
C-30-1.0AN
Figure 2. Available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended Chhattarpur soil in different stages of wheat plant growth.
wh eat-sh o o t N an d av-N i n 10% waste amen d ed JN U so i l
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
tilleringfloweringpodformharvesting
s tages of plant growths
N c onc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Av -N c onc (ppm )
J -0-0PN
J -10-0PN
J -10-0.5PN
J -10-1.0PN
J -0-0AN
J -10-0AN
J -10-0.5AN
J -10-1.0AN
wh eat-sh o o t N an d av-N i n 20% waste amen d e d JN U soil
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting
stag es o f p l an t g r o wth s
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A v-N co n c (p p m)
J-0-0PN
J-20-0PN
J-20-0.5PN
J-20-1.0PN
J-0-0AN
J-20-0AN
J-20-0.5AN
J-20-1.0AN

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 139
wheat-shoot N and av-N in 30% waste amended JNU soil
0. 0
0. 5
1. 0
1. 5
2. 0
2. 5
3. 0
3. 5
4. 0
4. 5
tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting
stages of plant growths
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A v-N co n c (p p m)
J-0-0PN
J-30-0PN
J-30-0. 5PN
J-30-1. 0PN
J-0-0AN
J-30-0AN
J-30-0. 5AN
J-30-1. 0AN
Figure 3. Available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended JNU soil in different stages of wheat plant growth.
wheat-root N and av-N in 10% waste amended Chhattarpur
so il
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
tilleringfloweringpodf ormharv esting
stag es o f p l an t g rowth s
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A v-N co n c (p p m)
C-0-0 PN
C-10-0PN
C-10-0.5PN
C-10-1.0PN
C-0-0AN
C-10-0AN
C-10-0.5AN
C-10-1.0AN
wh eat-r o o t N and av-N i n 20% waste amend ed C h h attar p u r
soil
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting
stag es o f p l an t g r o wth s
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A v-N c o n c (p p m )
C-0-0PN
C-20-0PN
C-20-0.5PN
C-20-1.0PN
C-0-0AN
C-20-0AN
C-20-0.5AN
C-20-1.0AN
wheat-root N and av-N in 30% waste amen ded Chhattarpu r
soil
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
tilleringfloweringpodformharv esting
stag es o f p l an t gro wth s
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A v-N co n c (p p m )
C-0-0PN
C-30-0PN
C-30-0.5PN
C-30-1.0PN
C-0-0AN
C-30-0AN
C-30-0.5AN
C-30-1.0AN
Figure 4. Wheat root Nitrogen and available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended Chhattarpur soil in different stages of
wheat plant growth.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 140
nitrogen content of root in wheat plants grown in sludge
amended JNU soil increased than control soils (Figure
5).
wheat plants at harvesting stage. The nitrogen concentra-
tion in wheat grains increased in the plants grown in 10%
sludge amended soil, but it decreased in other sludge
amendments (20% and 30%). Lime treatment did not
make any significant changes in grain nitrogen concen-
tration. The nitrogen in shoot was always >80% of the
total nitrogen concentration in wheat plants in all cases
At harvesting stage the nitrogen was almost 90% in
above ground part of wheat plants as compared to the
total nitrogen co ncentration in plants (Figure 6).
Lime treatment did not make any significant changes
in nitrogen content in wheat plant’s shoots. The total
nitrogen in root in creased till grain formation stage, after
that reduced slightly. The available nitrogen in sludge
amended soil had decreased continuously from grain
formation to harvesting stage, where nitrogen concentra-
tions in root increased in grain formation stage and
slightly decreased in harvesting stag e (Figure 6). At har-
vesting stage the uptake of available nitrogen may be
same or more but the nitrogen were used in grain matura-
tion. So, there was a slight decrease of total nitrogen in
4. Conclusion
Available nitrogen in both the so ils increased with sludge
wh eat-r oo t N an d av-N i n 10% waste amend ed JN U
soil
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting
stag es of p l an t g r o wth s
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Av-N conc (ppm)
J -0-0 PN
J-10-0PN
J-10-0.5PN
J-10-1.0PN
J-0-0AN
J-10-0AN
J-10-0.5AN
J-10-1.0AN
wh eat-r o o t N an d av-N i n 20% waste amen d ed JN U
soil
0. 0
0. 2
0. 4
0. 6
0. 8
1. 0
tilleringfloweringpodf ormharv esting
stag es o f p l an t g r o wth s
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Av-N conc (ppm)
J-0-0PN
J-20-0PN
J-20-0. 5PN
J-20-1. 0PN
J-0-0AN
J-20-0AN
J-20-0. 5AN
J-20-1. 0AN
wh eat-ro o t N an d av-N i n 30% waste amend ed JN U
soil
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
tilleringfloweringpodform harvesting
stages of plant growths
N conc(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
A v-N co n c (p p m)
J-0-0PN
J-30-0PN
J-30-0.5PN
J-30-1.0PN
J-0-0AN
J-30-0AN
J-30-0.5AN
J-30-1.0AN
Figure 5. Wheat root Nitrogen and available N in 10%, 20% and 30% waste amended JNU soil in different stages of wheat
plant growth.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 141
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
C-0-0C-10-0 C-10-
0.5
C-1 0-
1.0
C-20-0 C-20-
0.5
C-20-
1.0
C-30-0 C-30-
0.5
C-3 0-
1.0
tr e atments
Percentage of total Nitrogen in shoot-root-grain of wheat plants
grown in Chhattarpur soil at harvesting sta ge
Grain
shoot
root
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
J-0-0J-10-0J-10-0.5 J-10-1.0J-20-0J-20-0.5J-20-1.0J-30-0J-30-0.5 J-30-1.0
treatments
Percentag e of total Nitrogen in shoot-root-grain of wheat plants
grown in JNU soil at harvesting stage
Grain
shoot
root
Figure 6. The percentage of wheat root-shoot-grain Nitrogen concentration in Chattarpur and JNU soil at harvesting stage.
addition and lime treatment. Wheat plants observed in-
crease in plant biomass as well as grain yields with the
both sludge and lime amendments except 30% sludge
amendment. The nitrogen content in both root and shoot
increased with 10% sludge amendment but continuously
decreased with other amendments i.e., 20% and 30%
sludge amendments. Total nitrogen in root increased till
grain formation and onward decreased which indicated
that during grain filling an d maturation the nitro gen con-
tent was utilized by upper part of the wheat plants.
Available nitrogen was also continuously decreased dur-
ing grain formation and harvesting stage. At harvesting
stage the total nitrogen in shoot was 90% of the whole
plant nitrogen. So, from this study, it seems that 20%
sludge can be disposed off the land after 0.5 lime treat-
ment. But, before make any final suggestion the heavy
metal content in the consumable part of the wheat plant
should be taken into an account pursued by field trial by
following USEPA land application of sewage sludge
[30].
5. Acknowledgements
Authors are thankful to Dean of School of Life Sciences,
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, for pro-
viding glass house during the pot-culture experiment and,
Sutapa Bose is thankful to University Gran t Commission
(UGC), India to provide fund in the form of Junior Re-
search Fellowship (JRF) followed by Senior Research
Fellowship (SRF) du ri ng period o f he r work.
REFERENCES
[1] A. C. Chang, A. L. Page and F. T. Bingham, “Heavy
Metal Absorption by Winter Wheat Following Termina-
tion of Cropland Sludge Application,” Journal of Envi-
ronmental Quality, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1982, pp. 705-708.
doi:10.2134/jeq1982.00472425001100040030x
[2] E. Witter and J. Lopez-Real, “Nitrogen Losses During
Composting of Sewage Sludge and the Effectiveness of
the Clay Soil, Zeolite and Composting the Volatilized
Ammonia,” Biological Wastes, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1988, pp.
279-294. doi:10.1016/0269-7483(88)90016-X
[3] S. R. Wild, M. L. Berrow and K. C. Jones, “The Persis-
tence of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Pahs) in
Sewage Sludge Amended Agricultural Soils,” Environ-
mental Pollution, Vol. 72, No. 2, 1991, pp. 141-157.
doi:10.1016/0269-7491(91)90064-4
[4] S. R. Smith, “Effects of Sewage Sludge Application on
Soil Microbial Processes and Soil Fertility,” In: B. A.
Stewart, Ed., Advances in Soil Science, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1991, pp. 191-212.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-3144-8_4
[5] B. J. Alloway and A. P. Jackson, “The Behavior of Heavy
Metals in Sewage Sludge-Amended Soils,” Science of the
Total Environment, Vol. 100, 1991, pp. 151-176.
doi:10.1016/0048-9697(91)90377-Q
[6] M. E. Mesquita, J.-M. Vieira, E. Silva and H. Domingues,
“Copper Adsorption by a Schistic Soil. Application of

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 142
Sewage Sludge,” Environmental Technology, Vol. 15, No.
11, 1994, pp. 1089-1094.
doi:10.1080/09593339409385518
[7] H. Hani, A. Siegenthaler and T. Cardinas, “Soil Effects
Due to Sewage Sludge Application in Agriculture,” Nu-
trient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Vol. 43, No. 1-3, 1996,
pp. 149-156.
[8] M. Pietrantonio, A. Liberatori, B. M. Petronio and M.
Pietrolett, “Change in Soil’s Metal Carrying Capacity as a
Result of Urban Sludge Addition,” Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution, Vol. 132, No. 1-2, 2000, pp. 141-151.
doi:10.1023/A:1012044202829
[9] J. J. Kelly, M. Haggblom and R. L. Tate, “Effects of the
Land Application of Sewage Sludge on Soil Heavy Metal
Concentrations and Soil Microbial Communities,” Soil
Biology and Biochemistry, Vol. 31, No. 10, 1999, pp.
1467-1470. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00060-7
[10] I. Walter and G. Cuevas, “Chemical Fractionation of
Heavy Metals in a Soil Amended with Repeated Sewage
Sludge Application,” Science of the Total Environment,
Vol. 226, No. 2-3, 1999, pp. 113-119.
doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00374-X
[11] P. Parkpain, K. Klanrong, R. DeLaure and A. Jugsujinda,
“Metal Leachability from Sewage Sludge Amended Thai
Soils,” Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Vol.
37, No. 5, 2002, pp. 765-791.
doi:10.1081/ESE-120003588
[12] I. Marcote, T. Hernandez, C. Garcia and A. Polo, “Influ-
ence of One or Two Successive Annual Application Or-
ganic Fertilizers on the Enzyme Activity of a Soil under
Barley Cultivation,” Biores Tecnnology, Vol. 79, No. 2,
2001, pp. 147-154. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00048-7
[13] P. Parkpian, K. Klankrong, R. DeLaune and A. Jugsu-
jinda, “Metal Leachability from Sewage Sludge-Amended
Thai Soils,” Journal of Environmental Science and
Health, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2002, pp. 765-791.
doi:10.1081/ESE-120003588
[14] M. Pagliai, G. Guidi, M. La Marca, M. Giachelti and G.
Lucamante, “Effects of Sewage Sludges and Compost on
Soil Porosity and Aggregation,” Journal of Environ-
mental Quality, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1981, pp. 556-561.
doi:10.2134/jeq1981.00472425001000040028x
[15] I. C. Smith and B. L. Carson, “Trace Metals in the Envi-
ronment,” Vol. I, Thallium, Ann Arbor Science Publish-
ers, Ann Arbor, 1977, p. 394.
[16] D. E. William, J. Vlamis, J. Pukite and J. E. Corey,
“Metal Movement in Sludge-Amended Soil: A Nine-Year
Study,” Soil Science, Vol. 143, No. 2, 1987, pp. 124-131.
doi:10.1097/00010694-198702000-00007
[17] S. Bose and A. K. Bhattacharyya, “Heavy Metal Accu-
mulation in Wheat Plant Grown in Soil Amended with
Industrial Sludge,” Chemosphere, Vol. 70, No. 7, 2008,
pp. 1264-1272. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2007.07.062
[18] K. J. Rao and M. V. Santaram, “Effects of Urban Solid
Wastes on Dry Matter Yield, Uptake of Micronutrients
and Heavy Metal by Maize Plant,” Journal of Environ-
mental Biology, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1996, pp. 25-32.
[19] T. D. Hinsley, D. E. Alexander, H. E. Redborg and E. L.
Zielger, “Differential Accumulations of Cadmium and
Zinc by Corn Hybrids Grown on Soil Amended with
Sewage Sludge,” Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 74, No. 3,
1982, pp. 469-474.
doi:10.2134/agronj1982.00021962007400030017x
[20] I. L. Pepper, D. F. Bezedicek, A. S. Baker and J. M. Sims,
“Silage Corn Uptake of Sludge-Applied Zn and Cd as
Affected by Soil pH,” Journal of Environmental Quality,
Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983, pp. 270-275.
doi:10.2134/jeq1983.00472425001200020024x
[21] M. Jiríand and M. Pechová, “A Simplified Approach to
Liming and Its Evaluation,” Communications in Soil Sci-
ence and Plant Analysis, Vol. 33. No. 15-18, 2002, pp.
15-18.
[22] P. R. Hess, “A Text Book of Soil Chemical Analysis,”
Chemical Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1972, pp. 197-
299.
[23] B. V. Subbiah and G. L. Asija, “A Rapid Procedure for
the Determination of Available Nitrogen in Soils,” Cur-
rent Science, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1956, pp. 259-260.
[24] J. M. Bremner, “Détermination of Nitrogen in Soil by the
Kjeldahl Method,” Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol.
55, No. 1, 1960, pp. 11-33.
doi:10.1017/S0021859600021572
[25] D. R. Morris and D. J. Lathwell, “Anaerobically Digested
Dairy Manure as Fertilizer for Maize in Acid and Alka-
line Soils,” Communications in Soil Science and Plant
Analysis, Vol. 35, No. 11-12, 2004, pp. 1757-1771.
[26] F. Amlinger, B. Gotaz, P. Dreher, J. Geszti and C. Weis-
steiner, “Nitrogen in Biowaste and Yard Waste Compost:
Dynamics of Mobilization and Availability—A Review,”
European Journal of Soil Biology, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2003,
pp. 107-116. doi:10.1016/S1164-5563(03)00026-8
[27] H. Abdennaceur, N. Jedidi, A. Mohamed Cherit, A.
M’Hiri, A. Boudabous and O. van Cleemput, “Minerali-
zation of Nitrogen in a Clayey Loamy Soil Amended with
Organic Wastes Enriched with Zn, Cu And Cd,” Biore-
source Technology, Vol. 64, No. 1, 1998, pp. 39-45.
doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(97)00153-3
[28] S. Bose, S. Chandrayan, V. Rai, A. K. Bhattacharyy a and
A. L. Ramanathan, “Translocation of Metals in Pea Plants
Grown on Various Amendment of Electroplating Indus-
trial Sludge,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 99, No. 10,
2008, pp. 4467-4475. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.08.020
[29] S. Bose, A. Jain, V. Rai and A. L. Ramanathan, “Chemi-
cal Fractionation and Translocation of Heavy Metals in
Canna indica L., Grown on Industrial Waste Amended
Soil,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 160, No. 1,
2008, pp. 187-193.
[30] United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), “Process Design Manual: Land Application of
Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage,” EPA/625/R-95
/001, Washington DC, 1995.

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 143
Appendix
The ANOVA results sh ow ed that there was no significant
variation with shoot length with lime treatments but sig-
nificant with waste treatments with growth periods (Ta-
bles 3-4). There were significant variations of root length
with growth periods vs. lime treatments (Tables 5-6).
There were significant variations in shoot and root dry
weight with lime treatment as well as waste treatments
with time (Tables 7-10).
Table 3. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in shoot length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. lime-
treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. W.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
3.862548358 3.862548358
1 10 Chhattarpur 2.80089534 I 0.10085409 1.36952767 I 0.31327613
2 20 Chhattarpur 1.04325427 I 0.4194115 1.77487315 I 0.22174935
3 30 Chhattarpur 1.08555646 I 0.40359894 3.28148057 I 0.07247967
4 10 JNU 3.59780665 I 0.05900359 3.42628045 I 0.06589362
5 20 JNU 2.34824843 I 0.14068319 5.09836706 S 0.02473357
6 30 JNU 4.45204426 S0.03526918 16.2355516 S 0.00056451
[S = Significant, I = Insignificant, L.T = Lime Treatment, W.T = Waste Treatment].
Table 4. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in shoot length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. waste
treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
5.14325285 4.757062664
1 0 Chhattarpur 2.90301471 I 0.13126295 4.06873986 S 0.06787549
2 0.5 Chhattarpur 2.23234569 I 0.18848399 2.15438156 I 0.19459993
3 1.0 Chhattarpur 0.64899014 I 0.55570678 1.1870683 I 0.39087041
4 0 JNU 2.40100834 I 0.17137175 2.20585797 I 0.188207
5 0.5 JNU 1.97041866 I 0.21987956 6.06722174 S 0.03006147
6 1.0 JNU 2.66796403 I 0.14827998 0.9644555 I 0.468265
Table 5. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in root length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. lime-
treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. W.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
3.862548358 3.862548358
1 10 Chhattarpur 7.68367347 S0.00747719 3.64285714 I 0.05734072
2 20 Chhattarpur 11.1152263 S0.0022114 2.04526749 I 0.17805747
3 30 Chhattarpur 46.6595745 S8.2566E–06 14.3829787 S 0.00088341
4 10 JNU 5.97297297 S0.01592064 2.02702703 I 0.18066299
5 20 JNU 15 S0.00075721 8.3553719 S 0.00573319
6 30 JNU 92.2173913 S4.4661E–07 10.826087 S 0.00242189

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 144
Table 6. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in root length of wheat plants due to growth period vs. waste
treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
5.14325285 4.757062664
1 0 Chhattarpur 2.95184591 I 0.12805859 0.70786517 I 0.58156322
2 0.5 Chhattarpur 30.9130435 S0.00069225 2.47826087 I 0.15858281
3 1.0 Chhattarpur 12.6521739 S0.00704109 3.83524027 I 0.07584365
4 0 JNU 30.1 S0.00074453 1.425 I 0.3249824
5 0.5 JNU 16.6470588 S0.00356017 3.82352941 I 0.07627518
6 1.0 JNU 16.0851064 S0.00388401 2.40425532 I 0.16598793
Table 7. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s shoot due to growth period vs. lime-
treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. W .T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
3.8625387 3.8625387
1 10 Chhattarpur 4.20874228 S0.04060626 621.723262 S 9.5143E–11
2 20 Chhattarpur 21.8091038 S0.00018257 632.987198 S 8.7795E–11
3 30 Chhattarpur 36.2245354 S2.3701E–05 440.704479 S 4.433E–10
4 10 JNU 27.8083333 S6.9627E–05 4693.825 S 1.0879E–14
5 20 JNU 45.5981364 S9.0945E–06 2163.11448 S 3.5401E–13
6 30 JNU 41.6209744 S1.3323E–05 947.602808 S 1.4397E–11
Table 8. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s shoot due to growth period vs. waste
treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
5.1432494 4.7570552
1 0 Chhattarpur 29.2108183 S0.0008079 224.023777 S 1.5105E–06
2 0.5 Chhattarpur 163.399597 S5.8601E–06 1783.92552 S 3.0709E–09
3 1.0 Chhattarpur 34.4543499 S0.00051387 375.318959 S 3.2512E–07
4 0 JNU 18.6513872 S0.00266015 382.00769 S 3.0844E–07
5 0.5 JNU 18.8861997 S0.00257545 421.615483 S 2.298E–07
6 1.0 JNU 16.6040024 S0.00358368 319.740553 S 5.2421E–07
Table 9. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s root due to growth period vs.
lime-treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (lime treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. W.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
3.8625387 3.8625387
1 10 Chhattarpur 3.88824826 S0.04921775 109.643717 S 2.1007E–07
2 20 Chhattarpur 4.13899921 S0.04231368 118.920572 S 1.4725E–07
3 30 Chhattarpur 1.22792023 I 0.35508087 29.9721674 S 5.1446E–05
4 10 JNU 4.94354839 S0.02686225 213.58871 S 1.1143E–08
5 20 JNU 0.80088735 I 0.52403263 50.4266854 S 5.9525E–06
6 30 JNU 0.47305089 I 0.70860701 19.9606418 S 0.00025753

Effect of Industrial Sludge Application on Soil Nitrogen and Wheat Plant Response 145
Table 10. Two-factor ANOVA to test significance of difference in dry wt of wheat plant’s root due to growth period vs. waste
treatment (0.05 level of significance).
Sl Sample Type Diff. due to rows (waste treat.) Diff. due to columns (growth period)
No. L.T. Types of soil F-value S/IP-value F-value S/I P-value
5.1432494 4.7570552
1 0 Chhattarpur 0.3559322 I 0.71437168 74.0550847 S 3.9385E–05
2 0.5 Chhattarpur 0.25141777 I 0.78549864 51.8941399 S 0.00011023
3 1.0 Chhattarpur 0.32450936 I 0.7348202 41.4472843 S 0.00020966
4 0 JNU 0.56346927 I 0.59668444 33.5778288 S 0.00038031
5 0.5 JNU 0.24285139 I 0.79174007 26.6129682 S 0.00072719
6 1.0 JNU 0.53441802 I 0.6115191 30.6032541 S 0.0004932