agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize (zea … · 2018-12-15 · agronomic...
TRANSCRIPT
Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea mays)-wheat (Triticum aestivam)
cropping system
Dileep Kumar
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
NEW DELHI-110 012 2013
Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea mays) ─ wheat (Triticum aestivam)
cropping system
By
Dileep Kumar
A Thesis
Submitted to the Post-Graduate School Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi
in partial fulfillment of requirements for the award of degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN
AGRONOMY 2013
Approved by the Advisory committee: Chairman : __________________________ (Shiva Dhar) Co-Chairman : __________________________ (D.S. Rana) Member : __________________________ (Anju M. Singh) Member : __________________________ (Shiva Prasad)
DIVISION OF AGRONOMY
INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE NEW DELHI-110 012, INDIA
Dr. Shiva Dhar Senior Scientist
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Agronomic biofortification through zinc
nutrition in maize (Zea mays) ─wheat (Triticum aestivam) cropping system” submitted to
the Post-Graduate School, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Agronomy,
embodies the results of bona fide research work carried out by Mr. Dileep Kumar under
my guidance and supervision. No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other
degree or diploma.
All the assistance and help received during the course of the investigation have
been duly acknowledged by him.
(Shiva Dhar) New Delhi 110 012 Chairman Date: 19. 01. 2013 Advisory Committee
ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT I express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Shiva Dhar, Senior Scientist Division of Agronomy,
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi and Chairman of my advisory committee for
his valuable guidance, constant encouragement and constructive criticism during the course of
investigations which enabled me to achieve this accomplishment.
I esteem it a privilege to record my profound sense of gratitude to the members of my
advisory committee Dr. D.S. Rana, Principal Scientist Division of Agronomy; Dr. Anju M. Singh,
Sr. Scientist Division of Genetics and Dr. Shiva Prasad, Sr. Scientist, Division of Environmental
Sciences for providing enthusiastic support, valuable guidance, suggestions and ready help
during the entire course of investigation.
I am grateful to Dr. A.K. Vyas, Head, Division of Agronomy and also thanks to Dr. K.S.
Rana, Professor of Agronomy, and former Professor of Agronomy Dr. A. R. Sharma IARI, New
Delhi for providing valuable guidance and necessary facilities during my Ph.D. programme.
I sincerely acknowledge from heart soul thanks to all my friends and seniors especially
Digvijay Kumar, V Karunakaran, Sanjeev Kumar, Kiran, Sant Ram, Bipin, Moolaram,
Lakshman, Ram Lal Choudhary, Asha Ram, Kiran Kumar, Gagan Deep, Suresh, Janak Raj,
Dashrath and Kamlesh whose co-operation and help in various ways brought this task to
completion.
I am void of words to express my sense of profound reverence and indebtedness to my
mother Smt. Bhanumati, father Shri Dhani Ram, brother Ram Audh, sister-in-law Sunita and all
three sisters whose consistent motivation, dedicated efforts and ever-lasting inspirations were the
great strength for me to achieve this zenith.
I am thankful to Sh. R. B. Bharati, Dalchand Technical Officer, Sukhram Pal Manoj,
Hari Ram and other field staff of wheat section, Division of Agronomy for assisting for
conducting experiment. I am also thankful to Dr. Arvind Ahlawat, Technical Officer Division of
Genetics, Dr. Pragat Singh working as RA in Division of Genetics IARI, New Delhi for their kind
help in every form during the preparation of manuscript.
I sincerely acknowledge IARI, New Delhi for awarding Fellowship (IARI, SRF) and
providing me necessary facilities during the course of my Ph. D programme.
Last but not least, a million thanks to goddess Sarawathi, who made me this task and
made every job a success.
New Delhi - 110 012 (Dileep Kumar) Dated: 19.01. 2013
ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA : Analysis of variance
DAS : Days after sowing
DMA : Dry Matter Accumulation
LAI : Leaf area index
ha : Hectare
N : Nitrogen
P : Phosphorus
K : Potassium
Zn : Zinc
Mn : Manganese
Fe : Iron
Cu : Copper
B:C : Benefit: Cost
HI : Harvest index
i.e. : That is
viz. : Namely
DM : Dry matter
CONTENTS
S. NO. CHAPTER PAGE NO.
1 INTRODUCTION 1-5
2 BACKGROUND 6-18
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 19-32
4.1 RESEARCH PAPER – I 33 -56
4.2 RESEARCH PAPER – II 57-85
4.3 RESEARCH PAPER – III 86-112
5 DISCUSSION 113-122
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 123-128
ABSTRACT 129-133
REFERENCES 134-157
ANNEXURE I-XXII
LIST OF TABLES Table no.
Particulars Between page
3.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site 18-20
3.2 Allocation of treatments in kharif and rabi seasons 21-23
3.3 The details of field operation carried out during the period of experimentation.
23-25
4.1.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site 34-36
4.1.2 Effect of zinc application on plant height of maize at different growth stages
36-38
4.1.3 Effect of zinc application on leaf area index of maize at different growth stages
37-39
4.1.4 Effect of zinc application on dry matter accumulation of maize at different growth stages
38-40
4.1.5 Effect of zinc application on yield attributing character of maize 39-41
4.1.6 Effect of zinc application on yield attributing character of maize 39-41
4.1.7 Effect of zinc application on yield and harvest index of maize 40-42
4.1.8 Effect of zinc application on leaf area index of wheat on different growth stage
42-44
4.1.9 Effect of zinc application on plant height of wheat on different growth stages
44-46
4.1.10 Effect of zinc application on dry matter accumulation of wheat on different growth stages
46-48
4.1.11 Effect of zinc application on yield attributing characters of wheat
48-50
4.1.12 Effect of zinc application on yield and harvest index of wheat 51-53
4.2.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site 60-62
4.2.2 Effect of zinc application on protein content and concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium of maize grain
63-65
4.2.3 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in maize grain 64-66
4.2.4 Effect of zinc application on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in maize stover
65-67
4.2..5 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in maize stover 66-68
LIST OF TABLES (contd….)
Table
no.
Particulars Between
page
4.2.6 Effect of zinc application on protein content, flour recovery, water
absorption capacity, hardness and sedimentation of wheat grain
68-70
4.2.7 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration wheat grain 72-74
4.2.8 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration of wheat straw 75-77
4.2.9 Effect of zinc application on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in wheat grain
77-79
4.2.10 Effect of zinc application on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in wheat straw
79-81
4.3.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site 87-89
4.3.2 Effect of zinc application on uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in maize
90-92
4.3.3 Effect of zinc application on uptake of zinc and iron in maize 92-94
4.3.4 Effect of zinc application on uptake of copper and manganese in maize 92-94
4.3.5 Effect of zinc application on gross returns, net returns and benefit cost
ratio of maize
93-95
4.3.6 Effect of zinc application on uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in wheat
98-100
4.3.7 Effect of zinc application on uptake of zinc and iron in wheat 103-105
4.3.8 Effect of zinc application on uptake of copper and manganese in wheat 105-107
4.3.9 Effect of zinc application on gross returns, net returns and benefit cost
ratio of wheat
107-109
LIST OF FIGURES Fig. No.
Particulars Between page
3.1 Weather conditions at during the crop growing period in 2009-10 and 2010-11
19-22
3.2 Layout of the experiment 1 22-24
3.3 Layout of the experiment 2 22-24
4.1.1 Effect of zinc application on yield of maize 40-42
4.1.2 Effect of zinc application on yield of Wheat var. ‘DBW 17’ 52-54
4.1.3 Effect of zinc application on yield of Wheat var. ‘PBW 343’ 52-54
4.2.1 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in maize grain 65-67
4.2.2 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in maize stover
67-69
4.2.3 Effect of zinc application on Protein content, hardness and Sedimentation of ‘DBW 17’
68-70
4.2.4 Effect of zinc application on Protein content, hardness and Sedimentation of ‘PBW 343’
68-70
4.2.5 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in grain of ‘DBW 17’
72-74
4.2.6 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in wheat variety ‘PBW 343’
72-74
4.2.7 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in straw of ‘DBW 17’
75-77
4.2.8 Effect of zinc application on micronutrients in straw of ‘PBW 343’ 75-77
4.3.1 Effect of zinc application on economics of maize 94-96
4.3.2 Effect of zinc application on economics of wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’ 108-110
4.2.3 Effect of zinc application on economics of wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’ 108-110
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Wheat (Triticum spp.) is the second most important winter cereal in India after rice,
contributing substantially to the national food security by providing more than 50 % of the
calories to the people who mainly depend on it. The country has witnessed a significant
increase in total food grain production to the tune of 244.78 million tonnes in 2010-11, with a
major contribution of rice with 104.32 million tonnes and wheat with 93.90 million tonnes
during 2011-12 (GOI, 2012) and the major portion of the production of wheat crop comes
from North western plain zones (Mohan and Gupta, 2011). The scenario for the past ten years
has clearly indicated that the wheat production in the country has soared ahead despite area
remaining the same. Wheat is the major staple food crop in many parts of the world in terms
of cultivated area and food source, contributing 28 % of the world edible dry matter and up to
60 % of the daily calorie intake in several developing countries (Gao et al., 2011).
Although the ability to give high yields under a range of conditions has contributed to
the success of wheat, the most important factor has been the unique properties of wheat dough
that allow it to be processed into a range of foodstuffs, notably bread, other baked products
and pastas (Shewry et al., 2002). Maize crop regard as a queen of cereals occupies a pride
place among cereal crops in India. It has emerged as third most important food crop after rice
and wheat as it contribute around 24 per cent of total cereal production (Singh et al., 2011).
However, because they are staple crops with high consumption, any increase in mineral
nutrient content might have significant effect on human nutrition throughout the world (Gunes
et al., 2007). Micronutrient malnutrition is one of the attention drawing problems in the
developing world. In India, about 230 million people are estimated to be undernourished, that
account for more than 27 % of the world’s undernourished population (Chakraborti et al.,
2011). This is especially true in developing countries where cereals are a predominant portion
of the diet. The concentrations of some minerals, especially iron, zinc, iodine, and selenium,
are inherently low in the grains of cereals as opposed to animal derived foods. As a result,
more than 3 billion people worldwide suffer from micronutrient malnutrition. Hence, there is
a need to improve the mineral concentrations of important seed crops such as rice, wheat, and
maize. During the post-green revolution period, the productivity of wheat has increased
tremendously but is still far below the potential yield of 11.2 tonnes ha-1 (Sharma and Singh,
2011).
Biofortification is a recent approach aimed at increasing the bio-available nutrients,
such as Fe and Zn, in these staple crops rather than using fortificants or supplements (Waters
and Sankaran, 2011; White and Broadley, 2005). Being the major staple, wheat contributes
more than two-thirds of iron and almost one-third of calcium required by adult humans in low
socio-economic groups of the population in northern India (Nitika et al., 2008). Therefore, the
composition and nutritional quality of the wheat grain has a significant impact on human
2
health and well-being, especially in the developing world. Producing micronutrient enriched
cereals (biofortification), either agronomically or genetically and improving their
bioavailability are considered promising and cost-effective approaches for diminishing
malnutrition. Varieties of maize and wheat developed through biofortification process must
have the trait combinations which encourage adoption such as high yield potential, disease
resistance, and consumer acceptability. When defining breeding strategies and targeting
micronutrient levels, researchers need to consider the desired micronutrient increases, food
intake and retention and bioavailability as they relate to food processing, anti-nutritional
factors and promoters (Ortiz-Monasterio et al., 2007). Bioavailability can be defined as the
proportion of the total amount of mineral element that is potentially absorbable in a
metabolically active form (Simic et al., 2009). There is growing concern of climate change-
induced reduction in food production has ultimately effect on food security across the world.
The intellectuals around the world reported that evidences of elevated CO2-induced reduction
in grain micronutrients content, particularly Zn and Fe, which further aggravate vital aspect of
human nutrition particularly ‘bioavailability’ of micronutrients ( Zn and Fe) in food grains
(Kumar, 2011). In India, 230 million people were reported to be undernourished, accounting
for more than 27 % of the world’s undernourished population (Prasanna et al., 2011).
Deficiencies of micronutrient drastically affect the growth, metabolism and
reproductive phase in plants, animal and human beings (Rattan et al., 2009). Deficiencies of
vitamin A, iron, and zinc affect over one-half of the world's population. Zinc deficiency is
currently listed as a major risk factor for human health and cause of death globally (Salunke
et al., 2012; Cakmak et al., 1998). According to a WHO report on the risk factors responsible
for development of illnesses and diseases, Zn deficiency ranks 11th among the 20 most
important factors in the world and 5th among the 10 most important factors in developing
countries. It is reported that Zn deficiency affects, on average, one-third of world’s
population, ranging from 4 to 73 % in different countries. Zinc deficiency is responsible for
many severe health complications, including impairments of physical growth, immune system
and learning ability, combined with increased risk of infections, DNA damage and cancer
development.
Zinc deficiency not only affect the Indian population but it also affect the
neighbouring countries as well, according to a national nutritional survey, approximately 24
% of all Chinese children suffer from a serious deficiency of iron (Fe) (anaemia), while over
50 % show a sub-clinical level of zinc deficiency (Yang et al., 2007). From a nutritional
perspective, adequate utilization of food may be regarded as the ability of the human body to
ingest and metabolize food. Nutritious and safe diets, an adequate biological and social
environment, and proper nutrition ensure the adequate utilization of food and better healthy
live long. This, in turn, helps to promote health and improve immunity (Shetty, 2009). Zn is
3
an essential trace element that has a wide range of functions in the organism due to its role as
a co-factor of many enzymes (Oury et al., 2006). Zinc deficiency in Indian soils is expected to
increase from 42 % in 1970 to 63 % by 2025 due to continuous depletion of soil fertility
(Singh, 2010). A direct yield loss is estimated US $1.5 billion/yr besides huge loss due to
disease burden in the country. Only about one third of the country is consuming adequate zinc
sulphate which has increased zinc concentration in soil, grain and fodders but much focus is
needed in central and southern India (Singh and Sampath, 2011).
Progress has been made to control micronutrient deficiencies through
supplementation and food fortification, but new approaches are needed, especially to reach the
rural poor. Micronutrient deficiencies in soils are also a critical problem for cereals
productions causing severe reductions in yield and nutritional quality of the grains. Thus, in
the context of reducing micronutrient malnutrition and ensuring better health of crops, animal
and human, biofortification of micronutrients in staple food crops is urgently needed.
Soils formed under different agro-climatic conditions differ in their Zn
bioavailability. Total Zn content in soil is not a true indicator of its bioavailability to the
growing plants. Zinc may have the binding capacity with various organic and inorganic soil
components (CaCO3, Fe, Mn and Al oxides, organic matter, etc.) present in different agro-
ecological zones of the world. Nearly half of the world’s cereal-growing area is affected by
soil Zn deficiency, particularly in calcareous soils of arid and semiarid regions suffering also
from water deficit (Peleg, 2008; Imtiaz et al., 2010; Erenoglu et al., 1999; Manzeke et al.,
2012). Zinc deficiency is limiting crop production in ±30 % of the world’s soils. Most of
these soils are calcareous in nature. In these areas, Zn deficiency is often caused by low total
soil Zn contents along with low bioavailability of Zn. Zinc deficiency often found with P
deficiency, because the bioavailability of both elements decreases with increase in pH
(Duffner et al., 2012). In India, analysis of 2.52 lakhs surface soil samples collected from
different parts of the country revealed the predominance of zinc deficiency in divergent soils
(Vasuki, 2010). Of these samples 49, 12, 4, 3, 33 % and 41 % soils are tested to be deficient
in available zinc (Zn), iron (Fe) manganese (Mn), copper (Cu) boron (B) and sulphur (S),
respectively.
The magnitude of zinc deficiency varied widely among soil types and within the
various states. Coarse textured, calcareous, alkaline or sodic soils having sandy texture, high
pH and low in organic matter are generally low in available zinc. Zinc deficiency develops in
plants because of various causes’ viz. antagonistic effect of copper, iron and manganese on
absorption and translocation of zinc may be the one reason. Studies investigating this aspect
have left many controversies, which need further comprehensive investigation (Brar and
Sekhon, 1976). The concentration of micronutrient (Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn) often does not vary
significantly within plant parts; however, application of deficient nutrients may increase or
4
decrease the concentration of other micronutrients to some extent which may affect their
critical level in the plant parts (Kumar et al., 2009). The normal concentration of zinc in
wheat plant tissue is 8-12 mg kg-1 and in maize 20 mg kg-1, respectively, below which
deficiency symptom occurs (Prasad, 2007) and when soil zinc content is < 0.6 mg kg-1of soil,
regarded as soil is deficient in zinc. For a better Zn nutrition of human beings, cereal grains
should contain around 40-60 mg Zn kg-1, current Situation: 10-30 mg kg-1. In Turkey, grain
Zn concentrations of wheat grown on Zn-sufficient soils range, generally, between 20 and 30
mg kg-1, whereas on the Zn-deficient soils this range is between 5 and 12 mg kg-1 (Cakmak,
2008).
Based on a range of reports and survey studies, the average concentration of Zn in
whole grain of wheat in various countries is between 20 to 35 mg kg-1. Zn efficiency is
defined as the ratio of plant growth under deficient and adequate Zn supply, and is an
indicator of genotypic tolerance to low supplies of Zn. Zn is a vital element for wheat growth
and it activates some enzymes such as carbonic anhydrase, dehydrogenase, proteinase and
peptidase (Seilsepour, 2006; Hosseiny and Maftoun, 2008). Zinc plays a key role in the
maintenance of photosynthetic activity, the maintenance of cell membrane integrity and
continuance of enzymatic activity, as well as it also play significant role in plant defence
against free reactive oxygen species. Zn fertilization can improve the photosynthetic activity
of a Zn inefficient wheat genotype under heat stress conditions. However, supplementary Zn
did not prevent the decline in kernel weight or grain yield of thermo sensitive genotypes
under high temperature (Graham and McDonald, 2001).
The controversy over interaction of zinc with other macro and micro nutrient reported
by several investigations but there is very limited agreement on the definite behaviour. Li et
al., (2007) reported that excessive application of P have the antagonistic effect with soil Zn
and resulted in less availability of Zn in maize, due to possible precipitation of Zn3(PO4)2.
However, when applied P to soil was at optimum level, it significantly reduced the content of
carbonate, organic and Fe oxide-bound soil Zn, and increased the content of exchangeable
and amorphous iron oxide-bound soil Zn, similar to soil Mn (Gao et al., 2011). In contrary to
that they also found that the effects of soil P on soil micronutrients are also related to soil
water content. Several studies have shown that zinc can be applied either in soil as basal
application through broadcast and mixed or foliar feeding of crops with application of 0.5 to
2.0 % ZnSO4.7H2O solution is the supplement of soil application but it is not a substitute, best
time of zinc addition is prior to sowing or transplanting of crops because maximum zinc
absorption by plants takes place up to tillering or pre flowering stages (Singh, 2004). There is
increasing evidence showing that foliar or combined soil + foliar application of Zn fertilizers
under field conditions are highly effective and very practical way to maximize uptake and
accumulation of Zn in whole wheat grain, raising concentration up to 60 mg Zn kg−1(Cakmak,
5
2009). Two foliar sprays of 0.5 % zinc sulphate at blooming and milk stages increased the
zinc enrichment by 3 to 4 times higher compared to zinc in seed found in zinc deficient sites
or had basal application alone (Singh, 2009). In another study found that four levels of Zn soil
applications of 0, 40, and 80 kg ha-1 and foliar application of 0.5 % zinc sulphate (ZnSO4)
solution as foliar application.
With the progress of time and advancement in all around there is need to maximize
awareness regarding health and nutrition sectors at both national and international level.
Emphasis should be given on social, economic, and health consequences of micronutrient
deficiencies, and provide significant funding opportunities for t he devel op ment of
sus ta inab le , agr icu l tur e-based appr oach es t o prevent micronutrient deficiencies
(Cakmak et al., 2011). With the increase in high intensive cropping system practices, there is
increasing demand of information on the most effective way to supply the crop with trace
element. The aim of this study is to compare the grain yield and quality response of wheat
genotype to various Zinc levels and methods of application in maize- wheat cropping system.
Keeping in the view the above facts this study was initiated on of “Agronomic biofortification
through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea mays) ─ wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system”
with the following objectives:
I. To workout comparative response of wheat and maize to zinc nutrition.
II. To determine the effect of zinc on wheat and maize grain quality.
III. To find out the most effective method of zinc application in maize and wheat cropping
system.
6
2. BACKGROUND
An attempt has been made in this chapter to review the published literature pertaining
to this investigation entitled “Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize
(Zea mays) ─wheat (Triticum aestivam) cropping system”. Maize – wheat is an important
cropping system of northern and central India and it covers near about 1.8 million ha (Kumar
and Shiva Dhar 2010; Singh et al., 2011). Wheat is important cereal crop in the world and
most of people rely on it for their daily calorie requirement. Developing countries contribute a
major share in the world cultivated land of maize which is nearly 67 % but their share in
production is only about 46 %, where approximately 60 % of the world maize is produced by
USA and China collectively (Ghaffari et al., 2011). Maize is one of the most important
cereals next to rice and wheat, in the world as well as in India and it has highest yielding
potential among cereals (Mehta et al., 2011; Sekar et al., 2010).
Micronutrient deficiency mainly zinc is getting widespread in field crop due to
intensive cropping through use of high yielding variety as well as non addition of zinc during
fertiliser application to crop (Behera et al., 2008). Zinc (Zn) is an essential micronutrient for
crop growth and development. It has many important physiological functions in wheat plants;
it involves the synthesis of auxin and catalyzes the photochemical reaction of chlorophyll
(Kai et al., 2010). Foliar application of micronutrient is highly effective in increasing
micronutrient concentration in grain of wheat and maize (Lungu et al., 2011). Cereals are
important sources of protein for human nutrition but have low quality due to limitations in the
amounts of essential amino acids, notably lysine (Shewry, 2007). Zinc, iron and vitamin A
deficiency in human being is now became major health risk factors in the developing
countries (Hussain et. al., 2010; Singh et. al., 2005; Akhtar et al., 2011; Johns and Eyzaguirre
2007; Stein 2010; Moore et al., 2012). Zinc deficiency, is affecting billions of people,
hampering growth and development, and destroying immune systems as reported by Cakmak
et al., 2010 and Prasanna et al., 2001. Billions of people in the world relying largely on
cereals, roots and tubers as staple food suffer from disorders related to micronutrient iron and
zinc deficiencies. Further, processing of some cereals like rice and wheat reduces the already
limited content of the micronutrients (Rawat et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2007; Gomez-Becerra et
al., 2010).
Earlier our focus was mainly to increase the production of major staple food crop
especially wheat, rice and maize but now time has come to pay more attention towards quality
aspect to remove the nutritional deficiency from developing world (Malik et al., 2009).
Producing Zn enriched wheat grains at the farmers’ fields is the best solution against human
Zn deficiency. Biofortification approach includes selection, improvement and management of
cultivated wheat and maize crop to ensure optimum grain Zn concentration.
7
2.1 Effect of zinc on maize
2.1.1 Effect of zinc on growth and yield of maize
Effect of Zn on maize, studied by different researcher and most of work was on
growth and development, yield and quality of maize. Hossain et al. (2011) reported that the
growth and yield contributing characters of maize except the cob breadth, all other characters,
plant height, cob length, number of seeds cob-1, and 1000 seed weight responded to Zn
fertilization. Especially, the Zn treatment influenced the seed set and seed weight which
resulted in higher seed yield. The number of seeds cob-1 for composite varieties varied from
507 to 613 in the Zn treated plots against 432 to 527 in the Zn control plots. Duarte et al.
(2011) reported that zinc concentration increases in maize leaf due to foliar application of
zinc twice. They also found that foliar spray is more effective in increasing zinc concentration
in leaf as compared to soil application. Hong and Ji-yun (2007) reported that application of
different levels of zinc (0, 3.0, 9.0, 27.0, and 81.0 mg Zn kg-1 soil) has effect on dry mater
accumulation, enhancement on biomass by Zn nutrition improvement was in stems, next in
leaves, and the smallest was in roots.
Omotoso and Falade (2007) reported that plant height, stem girth and leaf area were
significantly higher with the application of 30 mg kg-1 of ZnSO4, as compared to control
treatment at 28 days after sowing (DAS).In a greenhouse experiment Singh et al., (1979)
studied the effect of different levels of Zn supplied through Zn-amended poultry manure and
ZnSO4 on corn and reported that both the sources significantly increased the dry matter yield
and uptake of zinc. Cakmak et al., (1996) compared the genotypes of bread wheat and durum
wheat and reported that under Zn deficiency condition, shoot dry matter production was
decreased in all genotypes, but more distinctly in durum wheat genotypes. Interestingly
severe decreases in shoot growth, root growth of all genotypes was observed in deficiency.
Comparatively, shoot/root dry weight ratios were lower in Zn-deficient plant than in Zn-
sufficient plants. In relation to shoots, the Zn content in roots did not differ significantly
between genotypes. They also found that shoot/root ratios and total Zn content was therefore
greater for genotypes with lesser deficiency than genotype with severe deficiency symptoms.
Balai et al., (2011) reported that weight of cob, cob length, weight of grains cob-1, test weight
and shelling percent and grain yield increased with the application of zinc over control
treatment. Karki et al., (2005) reported that zinc application at the rate of 5 kg zinc ha-1
recorded higher dry matter accumulation, plant height at different growth stages; grain and
stover yield were more as compared to control. Verma and Minhas (1987) conducted a field
experiment using of 20 and 40 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and found that both doses has increased the
grain and straw yield of maize in maize- wheat cropping system. Zinc application in soil as
well as foliar has less effect on concentration of iron, copper, zinc and manganese in maize
8
grain concentration. However, slightly higher iron concentration was recorded due to
application of zinc in maize (Aref, 2012). Root and shoot biomass increases at different
growth stages with increasing level of zinc applied to maize crop. Its application also
increases the grain yield as compared to control treatment (Subramanian et al., 2008).
Shanmugasundaram and Savithri (2005) observed that treatment maize crop received
50 kg ha-1 zinc registered statistically highest yield than other treatment. Shanmugasundaram
and Savithri (2006) conducted field experiment using different levels of zinc on maize and
reported than zinc concentration in grain and stover increased due to application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1. Uptake of zinc also found more with zinc applied treatment. Kar et al., (2007)
conducted greenhouse experiment on maize with various level and sources of zinc and
reported among all treatment combinations, the maximum height was 56.50 cm when 5.0 mg
Zn was applied kg-1 soil as Zn-HA. In Zn-HA treatment, the dry matter production increased
up to the level of 5.0 mg Zn kg-1 soil with a maximum of 5.53 g.
Kanwal et al. (2010) reported that the zinc application to soil had a significant effect
on grain yield of the maize hybrid and maximum increase (21%) in grain yield of hybrid was
observed when the Zn was applied @ 18 kg ha-1 Vasconcelos et al. (2011) observed that the
height of maize plants recorded higher with higher doses for Zn applied both in soil and in the
foliage, but the values were more effective when Zn doses were applied in soil. Singh and
Abrol (1985) conducted an experiment to evaluate the direct and residual effect of six levels
of zinc i.e. 0, 2.25, 4.5, 9.0, 18.0 and 27.0 kg Zn ha-1 and reported that zinc applications
increased the availability of zinc in the soil and its content in the plants. Dwivedi et al.,
(2002) compared different level of zinc (0, 2.5, 5 & 10 kg Zn ha−1) and reported that
application of Zn up to 5 kg ha−1 increased the maize grain yield by 19 per cent over control
and the optimum dose for zinc was found to be 7.1 kg ha−1 giving maximum grain yield of
2.98 t ha−1.The uptake and protein content increases significantly with the same level of zinc
over control. Tariq et al., (2002) reported that yield and yield component and zinc
concentration in soil, leaves and total uptake in maize also increased significantly with the
application of zinc over control.
Potarzycki and Grzebisz (2009) reported that optimal rate of foliar spray of zinc in
maize crop was 1-1.5 kg ha-1. The application of zinc recorded 18% increase in grain yield as
compared to control treatment zinc fertilization with 1.0 kg ha-1 also significantly increased
yield forming structure elements. Wang et al., (2009) conducted a pot experiment and
observed that zinc application increased the dry shoot biomass of the maize plant and total
biomass by 78 and 52%, respectively. Zinc addition also increases photosynthetic rate,
stomata conductance, and increase in carbonic anhydrase activity. Badiyala and Chopra
(2011) reported that application of 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1 gave significantly higher yield attributes,
9
grain yield and economics of maize. Abunyewa and Quarshie (2004) reported that zinc
application of 5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 10 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 significantly increased the grain yield of
maize as compared no zinc application. There was 84 to 108% increase in grain yield
recorded due to application of 5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1and 10 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, respectively.
Application of Zn significantly increased plant height, dry matter production, cobs/plant and
number of grains/cob and test weight (233.3 g). This also recorded higher grain and biological
yields over rest of the treatments (Tetarwal et al., 2011).
2.1.2 Effect of zinc on wheat
Nawab et al. (2011) conducted a field experiment and reported that the application of
zinc to wheat crop in different rotation viz. rice-wheat, maize-wheat, sunflower-wheat,
sorghum-wheat and pigeon pea-wheat showed pronounce effect on yield attributes spikes
number m-2 and 10 kg Zn ha-1 increased grain yield of wheat by 4 to 9%. Zn applied to the soil
had a significant effect on thousand seed weight and protein content of wheat. Application of
Zn fertiliser 20 kg ha-1 produced higher protein percentage in seed than other Zn treatments.
Oliver et al. (1997) reported that zinc concentrations in wheat grain showed that added Zn
significantly increased Zn concentration in grain only when Zn was applied as a foliar spray
late in the season or when applied both early and late in the season. Grain Zn concentration
(mg/kg) for the control treatment (0 Zn) was 11.10 ± 1.25 and it was 17.33 ± 3.08 for the late
spray treatment, and 14.69 ± 1.11 for the early and late treatment. Cakmak et al. (2010a)
reported that foliar application of ZnSO4 was realized at stem elongation, boot, milk and
dough stages. Soil Zn applied at a rate of 50 kg of ZnSO4·7H2O ha-1 was effective in
increasing grain Zn concentration in the Zn-deficient location. In all locations, foliar
application of Zn significantly increased Zn concentration in whole grain and in each grain
fraction. In Zn-deficient soil grain Zn concentration increased from 11 mg kg-1 to 22 mg kg-1
with foliar Zn application and to 27 mg kg-1 with a combined application of ZnSO4 to soil and
foliar.
Khan et al., (2009) reported that grain yield of wheat was significantly increased by
the direct application of 5 and 10 kg Zn kg-1. Highest grain yield of wheat (5467 kg ha-1) was
recorded with the direct application of 10 kg Zn ha-1
while 4994 kg ha-1
was recorded with the
cumulative application of 10 kg Zn ha-1
but the yield increase due to residual effect of Zn was
statistically lower than the cumulative effect of Zn. McDonald et al. (2007) reported that
phosphorus and Mg in the grain are mainly found in phytate, and their consistent correlation
with Zn suggests that high grain-Zn may be associated with high phytate in wheat, as occurs
in rice. The correlation between sulphur and Zn may reflect the sulphur status of a genotype
and its influence on nicotianamine production and transport to the grain. Morshedia and
Farahbakhsh (2010) found that the 1000-grain weight of both genotypes showed a significant
10
response to Zn fertilizer and represented an increase of 3.5 g, more grains per spike, Zinc
application increased grain yield and also increases the protein content when compared to the
control by applying 20 kg of Zn. Mohammad et al., (2009) compared different doses of
micronutrients (Zn, Fe and Mn) and two methods of application and find out that the effect of
Zn was significant on yield, spike number m-2, and 1000-grain weight. The weight of 1000
grains in 40 and 80 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 treatments was 43.7gram in both of them, which was more
than the control treatments without Zn. The effect of Zn x Mn interactions was significant on
grain number per spike. Zinc concentration in plants without Zn was 31.2 mg kg-1 but with
foliar application increased to 62.1 mg kg-1.
In wheat, a high zinc supply caused no major increase in the zinc content of the grains
in intact plants or detached shoots, while the zinc levels in the vegetative parts of these plants
were markedly higher than in control plants (Herren and Feller, 1997). Prasad et al., (2010)
reported that highest wheat grain (3.5t ha-1) and straw yield (5.10 t ha-1) was recorded with the
application 10 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 as compared to control treatment (3.35 t ha-1). Physiology and
yield attributes of wheat crop were improved with the application of zinc. Highest leaf area
index, grains spike-1 and yield were recorded with 15 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 (Nadim et. al., 2011).
Cakmak (2010) reported that foliar application of zinc sulphate significantly increases the
grain yield and zinc concentration in grain. But they also reported that maximum increase in
concentration was reported with combined application of both soil (control, 7, 14 and 21 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1) and foliar in wheat grain. Mohammad et al. (2009) reported that application of
different levels of zinc increase number of grain spike-1(43.2), 1000 grain weight (36.3), spike
m-2(539) and yield (5.09 t ha-1) obtained with the application of 80 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than the
control treatment. Gul et al. (2011) reported that foliar application of zinc @ 0.5%
significantly increases number of tillers (527) m-2, plant height (100.50cm) and number of
spikes (238) m-2
as compared to control plots. Zhao et al. (2011) conducted pot experiment
and reported that zinc application has effect on growth of wheat plant. They noted that leaf
chlorophyll contents were 1.2 to 2.7 times larger in the zinc applied than non applied pot.
Zinc supply also increases the zinc concentration in wheat plant root concentration found 38.2
times larger and stem concentration were 4.6 to 8.6 times larger than control treatment.
Narwal et al. (2010) reported that application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded maximum
grain yield as compared to other treatment. They concluded that reproductive phase of wheat
growth is more important than vegetative regarding the sensitivity of crop towards zinc
application. Soil applied zinc also increases the zinc concentration in wheat grain. Zinc
fertilisation has significant effect on number of tillers m-2, spike length and 1000-grain weight
and grain yield of wheat (Pooniya and Shivay 2011). Soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
recorded significantly more leaf area index, crop growth rate, net assimilation rate, relative
11
growth rate, dry matter accumulation, grain yield, and harvest index as compared to control
treatment (Shukla and Warsi, 2000). Ebrahim and Aly (2004) conducted a pot experiment on
wheat plants, grown in sandy soil and two times applied with Zn at concentrations of 25 and
50 mg L-1. This treatment significantly increased the photosynthetic criteria (Chlorophyll a
and b concentration and PS II activity) as well as the metabolite (soluble sugars,
polysaccharides and total-soluble proteins) accumulation in shoots. In contrast, elevated foliar
Zn levels (100 and 200 mg L-1) decreased these characteristics. The maximum stimulation and
inhibition of photosynthesis and metabolite accumulation occurred at 50 and 200 mg L-1,
respectively. Yassen et al. (2010) observed that application of zinc either singly or in
combination with other nutrient significantly increases the yield attributes such as 1000 grain
weight, grain, straw and biological yield of wheat crop. Shivay et al. (2008) reported that all
the treatment with Zn-enriched urea were at par among them and produced significantly more
tillers than control (no Zn). A significant increase in spike length and 1,000-grain weight of
wheat over control (no Zn) was recorded with 1.5 and 2.0 % Zn-enrichment of urea with
ZnSO4 or ZnO, while a significant increase in number of grains spike-1 was recorded only
with 1.5 or 2.0 % Zn-enrichment of urea with ZnSO4.
Shaheen et al. (2007) reported that the number of tillers per hill, grain and straw yield of
wheat, zinc concentrations and zinc uptake both in grain and straw and zinc concentrations of
pre-sowing and post-harvest soils were significantly increased due to the application of zinc
in soils. Grain and straw yield were 8.62 g and 14.84 g per pot respectively when zinc 10 g of
ZnO was given as compared to 7.27 g and 12.98 g per pot respectively, with no zinc
treatments. Ranjbar and Bahmaniar (2007) applied zinc fertilizer as foliar and soil and
reported that using zinc has increasing effect on number of tillers, total dry matter yield, plant
height, number of node, 1000 grain weight, grain yield, grain zinc content and flag leaf zinc
content. Khan et al. (2008) conducted experiment with 0 (control), 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 kg
zinc sulphate ha–1. Result revealed that leaf area index increased with each of the zinc
applications. Maximum LAI’s obtained were in the range 2.0 to 2.5 at ear emergence with the
application of 30 kg zinc sulphate ha-1. Abbas et al. (2010) laid out an experiment with
different levels of ZnSO4 .H2O (0, 7.5, 15, 22.5 and 30 kg ha-1) on wheat and found that the
successive increase in grain yield (4077 kg ha-1) was witnessed with each incremental dose of
Zn reaching the threshold level of 22.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Singh et al. (2009) reported that 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 significantly increased total chlorophyll content in flag leaf at anthesis over
control. They also found that 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 significantly increased zinc content in flag leaf
at different crop growth stage, i.e. tillering, anthesis, dough and physiological maturity, over
rest of treatments. Khan et al. (2009) reported that wheat grain yield was significantly
increased by the zinc (Zn) application over control which ranged from 2620 to 5467 kg ha-1
.
12
The highest grain yield of 5467 kg ha-1
was obtained with the direct application of 10 kg Zn
ha-1
followed by cumulative application of 10 kg Zn ha-1. All the treatments differed
significantly from one another (Nawab et al. 2006). Khan et al. (2008) applied different level
of zinc sulphate (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 kg zinc sulphate ha-1) and found that 30 kg zinc
sulphate ha-1 increased the Leaf Area Index, the total number of fertile tillers m–2, number of
spikelet spike-1, spike length, grain spike-1, 1000 grain weight, grain yield, straw yield and
biological yield and decreased harvest index. Zinc supplied in solution affected the plant
growth. The greater shoot dry mass was recorded in treated plant than non treated plant. Two
foliar applications have significant effect on the shoot dry weight (Haslett et al., 2001).
Gul et al., (2011)b conducted an experiment on foliar spray of zinc and reported that
number of plants emerged m-2, number of tillers m-2 and plant height (cm) were significantly
affected while number of days to anthesis was not affected significantly by foliar spray. They
observed that maximum emergence m-2
(309), number of tillers (527) m-2, plant height
(100.50cm) and number of spikes (238) m-2
were recorded in 0.5% Zn solutions two times.
Talliee and Abedi (1999) conducted field experiment to observe the effect of zinc on quality
and quantity of wheat they reported that the zinc application significantly increases grain
yield. The grain yield increases significantly with the application of 10 kg Zn ha-1 than check
treatment. Raj and Gupta (1986) conducted a pot experiment and found that the dry matter
yield of wheat increased considerably with the application of zinc. They also reported that
improvement in Zn concentration and uptake increases with increased rates of Zn application.
Sharma et al., (1988) revealed that effectiveness of soil application of zinc sulphate and zinc
oxide on wheat at 0, 15, 45, 60, 75 and 90 days after sowing; yield and zinc uptake increased
significantly with the application of zinc. Late application of both zinc sulphate and zinc
oxide up to 45 days of sowing did not adversely affect the zinc nutrition of wheat. Zinc
applied within 60 days of sowing as zinc sulphate found better than zinc oxide.
2.2 Effect of zinc on quality of maize and wheat
2.2.1 Effect of zinc on quality of maize
The protein content and amino acid composition of maize kernels are mainly
determined genetically, but they may be modified by ecological and agronomic factors.
Among the latter, the effect of nutrient supplies on quality is the most pronounced. Different
level of fertilizer application has significant effect on protein content of maize. The maximum
protein content (ten percent) was recorded with the application of 15 kg Zn ha-1 as compared
to control (Rafiq et al., 2010). Grain and straw quality of maize crop improved with the
application of zinc to maize crop as compared to control treatment. Zinc concentration in
maize grain also increased significantly due to applied zinc in maize crop (Sahrawat et al.,
2008). Arif (2011) conducted field experiment with different levels of zinc application to
13
maize crop and reported that zinc concentration in leaf increased (from 32.8 to 45.2 ppm, total
38% in relation to no zinc levels) significantly in zinc receiving treatment as compared to
control treatment. Kaya et al. (2002) compared different level of zinc with various cultivar of
wheat and found that zinc application significantly increased the grain yield and thousand
kernels weight on an average of 184 and 17 %, respectively, while resulting marginal
decrease in grain protein and gluten content. Shafea and Saffari (2011) conducted a field
experiment with three levels of zinc and reported that zinc concentration in maize leaf and
grain increased significantly with the application of 30 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
2.2.2 Effect of zinc on quality of wheat
Seadh et al. (2009) conducted experiment on micronutrient application and their
effect on grain quality of wheat and enunciated that application of zinc foliar spray @500ppm
resulted in the highest value of protein content, carbohydrate and chemical composition i.e.,
N,P and K concentration in the grain and straw. Foliar application of micronutrient also
influenced seed quality parameter significantly (germination percentage, speed of
germination, shoot length, root length and seedling dry weight). Both foliar (0.5%) and soil
application of 20 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 effectively increases the zinc concentration in wheat grain
(ranged from 19-30 ppm). Its application also increases the zinc concentration in tissue of
wheat plant at boot stage (Gupta, 1989). Concentration of zinc in the whole shoot and grain in
control treatment was about 10 ppm. Different level of zinc applied to crop has significantly
increased the zinc concentration by two fold in shoot and grain. Increases in grain yield also
associated with yield components and greatest increase due to Zn treatments was on spike
number m-2, particularly with soil application of Zn. Increases in spike number m-2 was 81%
for soil application and 33% by foliar application (Yilmaz et al., 1997). Grain yield (1.21t
ha-1) and concentration of zinc in grain (20 ppm) increased significantly due to application of
zinc @ 7.6 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 as compared to control treatment (McDonald et al., 2007). Ranjbar
and Bahmaniar (2007) conducted pot experiment on wheat and reported that application of
zinc increased the concentration of zinc in grain from 45.45-67.27 microgram gram-1. Further
application of zinc is effective in increasing wheat grain protein content from 17.94-18.97 %.
Amount of accumulated Fe in grain has also been increased due to zinc fertilisation.
Field tests in Central Anatolia, where Zn deficiency is widespread, showed that soil and
foliar-applied ZnSO4 significantly enhanced grain Zn concentration in wheat. The largest
increase in grain Zn concentration was found in the case of combined application of soil and
foliar Zn fertilizers that caused more than threefold increase in grain Zn. However,
irrespective of soil Zn status, foliar Zn applications resulted in significant increases in grain
Zn, especially in the case of late-season foliar Zn application (Cakmak, 2010b). Ananda and
Patil (2005) studied the effect of 25 kg ha-1 zinc sulphate on grain quality of durum wheat and
14
found that protein per cent (13.25%), β-carotene content (8.26 ppm), sedimentation value
(42.57 ml) were higher as compared to control. Maximum grain appearance score (5.83) and
lower incidence of yellow berry (2.86%) were recorded in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
Wheat grain quality traits, namely the amount of SDS sedimentation and protein
content, showed some decreases with Zn application, possibly due the dilution effects caused
by marked increases in grain yield. Application of Zn enhanced grain Zn concentration; but
simultaneously reduced grain P concentration. As expected, decreases in grain P were
associated with decreases in grain phytate (Bagci et al., 2007). Zeidan et al., (2010) reported
that foliar application of micro elements significantly increased protein, Fe, Mn and Zn
contents in grains of wheat compared to control treatments. The plants which treated with Zn
gave the highest grain protein (11.10%) as compared to control (9.80%). Sharma et al.,
(2008) recorded protein content at the time of harvest and indicated that all micronutrient
treatments significantly increase the grain protein (16.01) content of wheat as compared to
control (11.90). Habib (2009) conducted field experiment and reported that seed-Zn
concentration affected more than other characters and increased in all treatments. The highest
Zn concentration obtained by applying Zn. Zn application increased grain-Zn approximately
up to threefold comparison with control (from 18.7 to 50.9 mg kg-1). Mishra and Abidi (2010)
reported that the chemical composition of wheat flour such as protein content and amino acid
such as lysine, tryptophan and methionine were significantly affected by the doses of zinc
application. The sedimentation value ranged from 31.53 to 36.21 and water absorption
capacity in the range of 65.62-72.48 were also affected significantly.
Kutman et al., (2011) conducted green house experiment and reported that high soil
Zn supply increased the Zn concentration in whole grains (75 ppm) and in grain fractions
(endosperm, 36 ppm, Bran, 213 ppm and embryo, 169 ppm) tremendously. Plants grown with
high soil Zn supply had higher straw dry weights than the plants grown with low soil Zn
supply. Soil application of Zn increased grain Zn concentrations in various cereal crops. The
maximum Zn concentration achieved in wheat grain was 71 mg Zn kg-1 even with high soil
Zn fertilization of 27 mg Zn kg-1 (Rengel et al., 1999). Peck et al. (2008) conducted several
field experiments on zinc fertiliser and wheat varieties and found that applying Zn as a foliar
spray caused significant changes in grain protein composition (less gliadin ca. 3% units and
slightly higher polymeric protein ca. 1% units). There were significant changes in relative
proportions of SDS-soluble and SDS-insoluble polymeric protein when grain Zn increased.
The foliar application of Zn significantly decreased the proportion of unextractable polymeric
protein and increased the proportion of extractable polymeric protein.
Ram et al. (2011) reported that application of zinc either through soil or foliar or both
have significant effect on increasing zinc concentration in wheat grain. The grain Zn
15
significantly increased (from 29.36 to 224% higher) with Zn application (soil + foliar) over
no Zn application. Zhao et al. (2011a) conducted field experiment comprising of different
levels of zinc and they found that the utilization rate of Zn fertilizer was only 0.98%, 0.64%,
0.29%, and 0.14% with treatments of 7.5, 15, 30, and 45 mg Zn ha-1, respectively but showed
no significant effect on zinc content in grain. A field experiment was conducted to assess the
effect of foliar application of zinc on the concentration zinc in wheat grain. The concentration
of zinc increased with foliar application of ZnSO4 at different growth stages of wheat and
maximum concentration was found at early seed development stage (Ozturk et al., 2006).
Ali et al. (2009a) reported that foliar application of zinc @ 20mg L-1 showed
significant increase in number of spikes m-2, grains spike-1, thousand grain weight, biological
yield and grain yield as compared to control treatments. Kharub and Gupta (2003) conducted
a green house experiment and reported that there was significant increase in protein content
and 1000 grain weight up to 4 and 4.8 %, respectively and sedimentation value increase 8.3%
at 10 mg kg-1soil of zinc application as compared to control. Zhang et al. (2012) reported that
both soli and foliar application of zinc has significant effect on enrichment of wheat grain
with zinc. More increase in zinc concentration i.e. 58% increase in whole grain 60, 76 and 76
percent in wheat flour due to foliar application of 0.2, 0.4 and 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively. A
field experiment showed that application of 23 kg ha-1 added as ZnSO4 recorded significantly
higher grain zinc concentration as compared to control treatment. Zinc fertilisation increased
zinc concentration ranging from 71 to 116% (Kalayci et al., 1999).
Zinc application to wheat crop improved the protein content up to 40 % and
maximum protein content and leaf zinc content was recorded with the application of 60 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 (Kelarestaghi et al., 2007) Ekiz et al. (1998) studied the effects of zinc (Zn)
fertilization (0, 7, 14, 21 kg Zn ha‐1 as ZnSO47.H2O) on grain yield and concentration and
content of Zn and observed that decreases in yield due to Zn deficiency was more pronounced
under dry conditions. Though significant differences in grain yield were observed between
treatments with and without Zn, no significant difference was obtained between the Zn doses
applied (7–21 kg ha‐1), indicating that 7 kg Zn ha‐1 would be sufficient to overcome Zn
deficiency. With increase in doses of Zn application, significant increases in concentration of
Zn in shoot and grain was obtained.
Studies on zinc efficient and inefficient wheat genotype was found that plants
derived from the high-Zn seed had bigger grains and produced more grains than plants grown
from the low-Zn seed no Zn was applied. Plants grown from high-Zn seed produced more
grain dry matter per unit of Zn absorbed by the above-ground parts, transported a larger
proportion of absorbed Zn to the grain, and recorded the maximum harvest index with the
fertilisation rate of 0.05 mg Zn kg-1 compared to 0.2 mg Zn kg-1 soil required for plants
16
derived from the low-Zn seed (Rengel and Graham, 1995). Grewal and Graham (1997)
compared the effect of zinc on Brassica and wheat and reported that plants derived from the
high-Zn seed had better seedling vigour, increased root and shoot growth, more leaf area and
chlorophyll concentration in fresh leaf, and higher Zn uptake in shoot compared to those from
low-Zn seed at low Zn supply. The results showed that though oilseed rape has very small
seeds size (about 3 mg per seed weight) compared to wheat (30 mg per seed weight), Zn
reserves present in this very small seed still have a strong impact on early vegetative growth
as well as on Zn uptake of plants in Zn-deficient soils. Zinc applied either on surface or sub
surface has effect on growth and yield of wheat crop. Subsoil applied Zn significantly
improved the root growth, yield attributes, grain and straw yield of wheat. Grain Zn
concentration was four times higher in Zn applied subsoil residual than under non Zn
application to subsoil. Zinc uptake per wheat plant (grain + shoot + root Zn uptake) was about
4 times higher in treated subsoil residual than untreated subsoil (Grewal and Graham, 1999).
2.3 Effect of zinc on uptake of nutrient and economics of maize and wheat
2.3.1 Effect of zinc on uptake of nutrient and economics of maize
Aref (2010) conducted a farm experiment with different level of zinc including foliar
spray in maize and revealed that the effect of Zn on Fe uptake in the grain was insignificant
and application of 16 kg ha-1 Zn increased Fe uptake in the grain. Application of 24 kg ha-1 Zn
increased Mn concentration in the grain from 3.67 to 4.75 mg kg-1. Application of Zn to the
soil and spraying increased Mn uptake in the grain. Ziaeyan and Rajaie (2009) conducted an
experiment consisted of five levels of Zn (soil application of zinc sulphate at the rates of 0, 8,
16 and 24 kg ha-1 and foliar spray of Zn solutions containing 0.3 weight percent of zinc
sulphate) and found that application of zinc significantly increased plant biological yield,
grain yield, thousand grain weight, number of grains per stalk, grain protein content and the
concentration of zinc in corn tissues as well and recommended that soil application of 16- 24
kg ha-1 of zinc sulphate may be applied for enhancement of grain yield and reduction of partly
grain-free ear in corn. Marwat et al (2007) compared different method of zinc application and
reported that Seed priming in 0.01, 0.02 and 0.03% Zn solutions produced 33, 34 and 36%
more grain yield than control. Foliar spray of 0.01% Zn solution and soil application of 5 kg
Zn ha-1 produced 30 and 41% greater grain yield than control.
Soil application of 5 kg ha-1 along with foliar spray of 0.01% Zn solution resulted in
the maximum grain yield which was 44% higher than the control. Soil applied Zn resulted in
higher grain yield of maize as compared to seed priming and foliar spray. Jain and Dahama
(2006) reported that, application of 6 kg Zn/ha significantly increased all the growth and yield
attributes (except test weight), protein content and Zn uptake by wheat over no-use of Zn
(control). Application of graded levels of zinc up to 9 kg Zn/ha, remained at par with12 kg
17
Zn/ha, significantly increased Zn uptake by wheat crop over other levels. Similar results were
also indicated by Karimian and Yasrebi (2008).
Sharma et al. (1988) compared different sources and found that yield and zinc uptake
of wheat increased significantly with the application of zinc. Delaying the application of both
zinc sulphate and zinc oxide up to 45 days of sowing did not adversely affect the zinc
nutrition of wheat. Zinc sulphate, when applied within 60 days of sowing performed better
than zinc oxide. Ali et al. (2008) compared different micronutrient application especially zinc
and boron and reported that foliar application of micronutrients (zinc and boron) improved
yield over two years. Significant increase was recorded in number of spikes m-2, grains spike-
1, thousand grain weight, biological yield and grain yield for foliar application of nutrients as
compared to control treatments. Three foliar applications of nutrients resulted in maximum
number of spikes m-2, grains spike-1, thousand grains weight and biological yield. Maximum
grain yield was recorded for two foliar sprays which was statistically similar to that of the
three foliar sprays.
Shen et al. (2006) reported that application of zinc has less effect on concentration
and uptake of phosphorus in maize plant whereas its application increases the uptake of zinc
in maize. Chandrapala et al., (2010) recorded that higher nutrient uptake recorded with the
application of 50 kg ZnO. Zinc uptake was also found higher with this level of zinc.
2.3.2 Effect of zinc on uptake of nutrient and economics of wheat
Arif et al., (2006) reported that foliar application of zinc significantly increased the
yield attributing characters of wheat viz. number of spike, grain spike-1, 1000 grain weight and
yield. Maximum grain yield was produced by two sprays (2751.7 kg ha-1) and three sprays
(2641 kg ha-1) while minimum grain yield was produced by control (1695 kg ha-1). Both two
and three sprays were found beneficial as compared to control (water spray) and single spray.
Zinc concentration in wheat grain and straw was affected significantly by the application of
Zinc enriched urea in both the years. Application of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2 % ZEU significantly
increased zinc concentration in wheat grain and straw. Zinc uptake in wheat grain was
significantly increased by 1.5 % Zinc enriched urea over prilled urea alone. However, the
highest Zn accumulation in grain was recorded with 3.5 % Zinc enriched urea (Shivay et al.,
2008b). Abbas et al., (2009) conducted field experiment on different rate of zinc application
and their influence on wheat and found that the application of Zn increased the NPK uptake
by wheat crop over control. In year-1, maximum N uptake (7.98% more than control) was
observed in case of treatment receiving 16 kg Zn ha-1 along with recommended NPK, while in
year-2, treatment receiving 12 kg Zn ha-1 along with recommended NPK gave maximum N
uptake (9.09% more than control). Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and micronutrient
18
content and uptake both increased significantly with the foliar application of zinc in wheat
grain and straw as compared to control treatments as reported by Yassen et al., (2011).
Uptake of zinc and nitrogen increased with the application of 10 mg kg-1 ZnSO4
showed in green house study. It also increases the concentration of zinc and nitrogen in root,
shoot and straw of wheat crop (Verma and Bhagat, 1990). Zinc application @ 10 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 significantly increases the nitrogen (92.99 kg ha-1), potassium (77.60 kg ha-1) and zinc
(220.60 g ha-1) uptake in wheat as compared to control. The application of 10 kg ZnSO4ha-1
recorded significantly higher grain protein content (12.34%) in wheat, when it compared with
the application of 15 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 (11.87%) and was on par with control (12.28%) (Razvi et
al., 2004). Application of 10 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded significantly higher concentration of
zinc in flag leaf and uptake of zinc by wheat grain and straw during period of experiment
(Chaube et al., 2007).
Jain and Dahama (2006a) conducted a field experiment and reported that there was
significant increase in net return and benefit: cost ratio with the application of zinc up to 6 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1. Net return increased up to magnitude of 33.5% over control. Spray of zinc
significantly affected the growth, yield and quality traits. Significantly tallest plants were
observed under 0.6% zinc sulphate at 60 days after planting. However, at 90 days after
planting under 0.4% zinc sulphate it was at par with the control at both the stages but
significantly superior to 1.2 % spray (Srivastava et al., 2005 ). Kumar et al ., (2011) reported
that N and Zn content of grain and straw increased significantly with the application of
increasing levels of Zn and the highest contents were observed with the application of 30 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1, it was at par with the application of 20 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Crude protein content of
grain increased significantly with the application of 30 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Increased availability
of Zn in soil due to its application probably improved the content of these nutrients in grain
and straw. It might be due to better functioning of physiological processes that has helped in
increased absorption of other nutrients too.
Zhu et al. (2001) argued that P concentration did not vary significantly due to Zn
supply, and it affects the phosphorus when high Zn supply. High Zn supply caused a
significant increase in total Zn uptake and concentration of Zn in shoots and roots. Rengel and
Graham (1996) conducted experiment on wheat varieties and enunciated that linear increase
in the net Zn uptake rate with an increase in solution Zn2+ activities. Uptake of Fe, Mn and Cu
was decreased by continuous Zn deficiency. Application of zinc increased the DTPA
extractable zinc in soil and hence zinc uptake by plants (Singh and Abrol, 1986).
19
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2009-10 and
2010-11 to study the effect of “Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize
(Zea mays) ─ wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system”. The details of materials used
and methods followed during the course of investigation are given in this chapter.
3.1 General details
3.1.1 Experimental site, soil and location
The field experiment was conducted during Kharif and Rabi 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the
main block 3B of the research farm of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-
110012 situated at 28.4Latitude and 77.1Longitude and at an altitude of 228.6 meters above
mean sea level. Soil samples were taken before the start of the experiment which were
analysed for physical and chemical properties of the soil (Table 3.1). The field was well
levelled, and soil was sandy loam in texture and normal in reaction.
Table 3.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site
Particulars Value
Mechanical composition: (Hydrometer method, Bouyoucos, 1962)
1. Sand (%) 61.7
2. Silt (%) 11.9
3. Clay (%) 26.4
4. Textural class Sandy clay loam
Chemical composition
1. pH (1:2.5; soil: water ratio) (Elico pH meter, Piper, 1950) 7.8
2. Electrical conductivity (dS m-1) (Solubridge method, Piper, 1950) 0.32
3. Organic C (%) (Walkley and Black method, Piper, 1950) 0.38
4. Available N (kg ha-1) (Subbiah and Asija, 1956) 165.3
5. Available P (kg ha-1 )(Olsen et al., 1954) 12.2
6. Available K(kg ha-1) (Jackson, 1973) 239.5
7 Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.72
3.1.2 Climate and weather
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi 2009-10 and 2010-11 at
the research farm of Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi, situated at 28.40N latitude and 77.10E longitude and at an altitude of 228.6 meters
above mean sea level. Soil samples were taken before the start of the experiment which were
analysed for physical and chemical properties of the soil (Table 3.1). The field was well
levelled, and soil was sandy loam in texture and slightly alkaline in reaction. The climate of
site is semi-arid to sub-tropical with extreme cold and hot situations; the hottest months are
20
May and June with the mean maximum temperature ranging from 41 0C to 44 0C, whereas the
mean minimum of the coolest months are December and January falls in the range of 20C to
50C. The daily maximum and minimum temperature tend to rise from first fortnight of
February and maintain the trend till the month of June and decreases from July onwards. The
evapo-transpiration rate also follows similar pattern of temperature during crop period.
Average annual rainfall of the site is about 652 mm, 84 % of which is received during south-
west monsoon. July and August are the wettest months. The relative humidity increases from
June to September. The mean annual evaporation of Delhi is about 850 mm. The
meteorological data for the cropping season as recorded as meteorological observatory of the
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi are graphically presented in Figure 3.1. The
weekly averages were presented in Annexure II and III
Figure 3.1 Weather conditions during crop growing period 2009-10 and 2010-11
21
Cropping history of the experimental field
The cropping patterns followed at the experimental field during the preceding years of
commencement of this investigation are given below.
Year Crop Season
Kharif Rabi
2006-07 Mungbean Wheat
2007-08 Soybean Wheat
2008-09 Maize Wheat
3.2 Experimental details
3.2.1 Treatments
The experiment was conducted in split plot design with three replications in a fixed
lay out. The main plot treatments consisted of four levels of zinc and two method of zinc
application both maize viz. Control, control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at four leaf stage and one week later after previous spray. Whereas the
sub plot treatments were four Zn levels viz. control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4(one spray at anthesis another one week later) two wheat
varieties ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’. The maize variety ‘PEHM-2’ was sown with row
spacing of 60 cm apart during kharif (June to October) and wheat varieties ‘PBW 343’ and
‘DBW 17’ were sown in lines at 22 cm apart during rabi (November to April).
22
3.2.2 Layout
The plan of the layout is shown in Fig. 2 and the details are given below:
Experimental design : RBD
Replications : 3
Gross plot
Maize : 18.4 m x 8.4 m
Wheat : 3.6 m x 3.6m
Net plot:
Maize : 16.0 m x 7.0 m
Wheat : 3.0 m x 2.7 m
Experimental details:
Total number of treatment combinations : 32
Replication : 3
Total number of Plots : 96
Experimental design : Split-Plot Design
Plot size : 3.6m X 3.6 m = 12.6 m2
Cultivar used : Maize-PEHM 2
: Wheat-‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’
Table 3.2 Allocation of treatments in kharif and rabi seasons
Sr.
No.
Kharif (Maize) Varieties-PEHM-2 Rabi
(Wheat)
Varieties
‘DBW-17’ ‘PBW 343’
1 Control (No Zn either soil or foliar) (M1) (M1) V1 V2
(M2) V1 V2
(M3) V1 V2
(M4) V1 V2
2 Soil applied pre plant incorporated in the soil at
the rate of 12.5 kg ha-1 ZnSO4 (M2)
(M1) V1 V2
(M2) V1 V2
(M3) V1 V2
(M4) V1 V2
3 Soil applied pre plant incorporated in the soil at
the rate of 25 kg ha-1 ZnSO4(M3)
(M1) V1 V2
(M2) V1 V2
(M3) V1 V2
(M4) V1 V2
4 No soil applied Zn with a foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 (One spray at the 4 leaf stage and one
week after first spray in maize and in wheat at
anthesis and one week later)(M4)
(M1) V1 V2
(M2) V1 V2
(M3) V1 V2
(M4) V1 V2
23
Spacing between rows (both the experiments)
Maize : 60 cm
Wheat : 22 cm
Varieties (both the experiments)
Maize : ‘PEHM 2’
Wheat : ‘DBW 17’, ‘PBW 343’
3.3 Description of materials used
3.3.1 Particulars about the maize variety ‘PEHM 2’
The maize variety was released for cultivation in the year of 1997 from IARI, New Delhi. It
is suited for maize growing zones of central and south India. It is early maturing 85-90 days
variety. Its grain colour is orange and flint in size with average yield of 5.0 t ha-1. It is tolerant
to moisture stress.
3.3.2 Particulars about the wheat variety
‘DBW 17’: Average plant height ranges 90-95 cm. Yield can be up to 4.5-5.0 t ha-1 under
optimum conditions. It can be harvested at 130-135 days after sowing. Optimum sowing time
is 3rd week of November to 1st week of December.
‘PBW 373’: Plant height ranges 90-100 cm. Suited for cultivation in the northern plains of
Punjab, Western U.P., Uttarakhand and irrigated plains of Haryana. Suggested period of
sowing is from 2nd week of November to 3rd week of December. Reach to maturity in
approximately 130 days. Under optimum conditions, estimated yield is 5.5-6.0 t ha-1. Grain is
symmetrically shaped and yellowish white in colour.
3.4 Field operations
3.4.1 Land preparation
In the experimental field, before starting of experiment maize was grown during rabi
2008-09 in a maize – wheat cropping system. The Field was suitably divided into three blocks
(replications). In each block four main plots were marked to accommodate the zinc treatment.
Each main plot was further divided into eight sub-plots to accommodate four zinc treatments
in combination with two varieties. After the harvest of previous crop the plots were ploughed
with a disc harrow twice. Further, cultivator was run twice followed by planking before
sowing of maize. Then sowing of maize was done. The details of operations made during the
study are presented in Table 3.3.
24
Table 3.3 The details of field operation carried out during the period of experimentation.
Operation Date
2009-10 2010-11
A. Maize
Field preparation 27.07. 2009 08.07. 2010
Layout 28.07. 2009 10.07. 2010
Fertilizer application 28.07. 2009 10.07.2010
Sowing 30.07. 2009 11.07. 2010
Irrigation 15.08.2009 20.07.2010
Weeding 19.08. 2009 05.08. 2010
Irrigation 03.09.2009 --
Sampling of plants 30.08.2009 11.08.2010
Weeding 19.08. 2009 05.08. 2010
Irrigation 24.09.2009 --
Sampling of plants 30.09.2009 10.09.2010
Harvesting 25.10.2009 13.10. 2010
Threshing 03.11.2009 20.10.2010
B. Wheat
Pre-sowing irrigation 12.11. 2009 04.11. 2010
Disking, planking and layout 23.11. 2009 15.11. 2010
Layout of the field 25.11.2009 16.11.2010
Fertilizer application 25.11.2009 16.11.2010
Sowing 25.11. 2009 18.11. 2010
Bund making 01.12.2009 25.11.2010
Irrigation 20.12.2009 09.12.2010
weeding 10.1. 2010 21.12. 2010
Irrigation 23.01.2010 12.01.2011
Irrigation 20.02.2010 10.02.2011
Irrigation 10.03.2010 --
Harvesting 08.04.2010 12.04.2011
Threshing 15.04.2010 18.04.2011
25
3.4.2 Fertilizer application
The recommended dose of fertilizers was applied at the time of sowing. The N, P and K
were given in the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively.
Maize : 100:60:40 N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1
Wheat : 120:60:40 N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1
3.4.3 Sowing
Seeds of maize and wheat were sown with the help of seeds drill using a seed at a rate
of 20 kg ha-1 and 100 kg ha-1and at row to row spacing of 60 cm and 20 cm, respectively.
3.4.4 Gap filling
Gap filling in maize and wheat was done at 8 and 10 days, after sowing respectively
wherever it was necessary.
3.4.5 Plant protection
In wheat one hand weeding was done at 25 DAS, while for controlling termite in maize
one application of chlorpyriphos was done at 40 DAS @ 3 l ha-1.
3.4.6 Irrigation
Maize crop was irrigated thrice one after 15 DAS and 2nd and 3rd applied at an interval
of 20 days in the first year (2009) but in the second year of experimentation rains were well
distributed and only one irrigation was given. The irrigation was stopped 10 days before
harvesting. Besides rainfall, irrigation was applied to meet the water demand of the crop.
Irrigation was applied to wheat at critical stages as per requirements of the crop.
3.4.7 Harvesting and threshing
The crop was harvested at dried ripening stage. First the plants from two border rows
were harvested and border material was removed from the field. Thereafter, net plots were
harvested and produce was left in the field for 2-3 days to get dried. Threshing was done
manually. Grains were cleaned and weighed. The yield per plot was adjusted at 14% moisture
and finally expressed in t ha-1. The weight of maize straw was also recorded separately. The
straw yield was adjusted at oven dry weight and expressed as t ha-1. The net plot after leaving
borders on all four sides were harvested and dried for 3-4 days in the field, threshing of the
produce was done manually in case of maize, whereas ALMACO Pullman thresher was used
for threshing of wheat.
3.5 Biometric observations
For sampling and recording plant growth observations two rows (second from either
side) were selected. In maize five plants and in case of wheat two spots of half meter running
row were randomly selected and marked for recording biometrical observations.
26
3.5.1 Maize
Plant height
Height of 10 plants were selected randomly from each plot and measured from base
level to the tip of the largest branch, at 30 and 60 DAS and at maturity. The average of
randomly selected plants was calculated and expressed as height of the plant in centimetre
(cm)
Dry matter accumulation
Five plants of maize were selected from the rows meant for sampling from each plot and
plants were cut from ground level. These plants were first sun dried and then dried in oven at
70 0C till a constant weight and the weight was recorded and dry matter production hectare-1
was calculated with the help of following formula.
Dry weight of five plant x No. of plants in a hectare
Dry matter production (t ha-1) =
5
Leaf area index (LAI)
Leaf area was measured at 30 and 60 DAS using leaf area meter (1/2 – MDL-1000,
LICOR Ltd, USA), leaf area was calculated using the formula.
Total leaf area per plant (cm2)
LAI =
Land area per plant (cm2)
Number of cob per plant
The total cobs of five randomly selected plants from each plot were counted at
harvest and average was expressed as number of cob per plant.
Number of grain per cob
Five plants were randomly selected from the sampled plants threshed and total
number of grain was counted, and averaged to record number of grains per cob.
1000-grain weight (test weight)
Grains were drawn randomly from the total produce of each plot and 1000 grains
were counted with seed counter, weighed and expressed as 1000–grains weight in grams (g).
Biological yield
The weight of total produce harvested from each net plot was recorded after sun
drying for about a week expressed as biological yield in tonne per hectare.
Grain yield
The weight of grains obtained from each plot was recorded and expressed as grain
yield tonne per hectare.
27
Shelling percentage
Sun-dried maize samples of 100 g of all plots were hulled in a mini “Satake Maize
Medium” and weight of maize grain was recorded and hulling percentage was calculated.
Harvest index (HI)
The economic produce (grain yield) was divided by the biological yield (grain +
stover) and relationship was expressed as harvest index
Economic Yield Harvest Index (HI) = Biological Yield
3.5.2 Wheat crop
Plant height
Height of 10 shoot selected randomly from each plot was measured from base level
to the tip of the longest leaf at 30, 60 and 90 days after sowing (DAS) and at maturity. The
average of 10 randomly selected shoot was calculated and expressed as height of the plant in
centimetre (cm).
Number of tillers m-2
Number of tillers m-2 was counted from an area of 0.5m x 0.5 m quadrate at maturity
and were converted into m2.
Number of spikes m-2
Number of spikes m-2 was counted from an area of 0.5 m x 0.5 m quadrate at
maturity (harvest) and were expressed in terms of m2.
Number of grains per ear
The numbers of grains were counted from ten selected ears for each plot and finally
means were calculated.
Test weight
Weight of 1000 wheat grain was recorded using automatic seed counter (Perton,
SKCS 4100 from Perten, Australia) and the weight was expressed as test weight in gram (g).
Grain yield
After harvesting the wheat crop from net plot, it was bundled out and left over for
drying. After weighing the bundle, it was threshed and grains were cleaned, dried and
weighed.
Straw yield
Straw yield was obtained by subtracting the grain yield from the weight of total
biological yield for individual plots
Harvest index (HI)
The economic produce (grain yield) was divided by the biological yield (grain +
straw) and relationship was expressed as harvest index.
28
3.6. Chemical analysis
3.6.1 Plant analysis
3.6.2 NPK concentration in grain and straw
Grain and stover/straw samples of both maize and wheat were dried in hot air oven at
60C for 6 hours and ground in a Macro-Wiley Mill to pass through 40 mesh sieve. A
representative sample of 0.5 g grain and stover/straw was taken for determination of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium.
The nitrogen concentration in grain and straw samples was determined by modified
Kjeldahl method (Jackson, 1973) and total phosphorus, by Vanadomolybdo phosphoric acid
yellow colour method and potassium by flame photometry method, as described by Prasad et
al. (2006).
3.6.3 Micronutrient analysis
Grain iron, zinc, copper and manganese content were determined with open air
digestion followed by atomic absorption spectrometry method using AAS (Perkin Elmer
model 400) available in the Grain Quality Laboratory, Division of Genetics, I.A.R.I. New
Delhi.
3.6.4 Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy
In the analysis employing Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS), the sample
in the form of a homogenous liquid is aspirated in to a flame where free atoms of the element
to be analysed are created. A light source (e.g. hollow cathode lamp) is used to excite the free
atoms formed in the flame by absorption of the electromagnetic radiation. The decrease in
energy is then measured which follows the Lambert law, i.e. the absorbance is proportional to
the number of free atoms in the ground state.
Tri – acid digestion
Reagents- Conc. HNO3 (AR grade) Merck
60% HClO4 (AR grade) Merck
2N HCl (AR grade) Merck
Procedure
1. 0.5 to 1.0 gm of dried and powdered sample was weighed in a 100ml conical flask.
2. 10ml conc. HNO3 was added and samples were left for about 6-8 hrs or overnight for pre-
digestion 10ml conc. HNO3 and 2-3ml of HClO4 were added.
3. The samples were heated to about 100 o C for first 1hr and then temperature was raised to
about 200 o C
4. Digestion was continued until the contents become colourless and white dense fumes
appeared.
5. The acid contents were allowed to reduce to about 2-3 ml by continuing heating at the
same temperature
29
6. Flasks were removed from hotplate, cooled and 30 ml of distilled water was added.
7. Solutions were filtered through Whatman No. 42 filter paper into 100 ml volumetric flask
and volume was made up to 100ml.
Spectroscopy
Procedure
1. The liquid trap was filled with the solvent used for the analysis
2. The instrument was allowed to warm for at least 30 minutes
3. The Deuterim lamp was switched on for background correction.
4. Wavelength and the band pass width or slit width was selected.
5. The compressor was started to get air supply.
6. The main gas supply from the cylinder was turned on followed by fuel control knob and
flame was immediately lighted.
7. The fuel control (acetylene) and support control knobs (air or nitrous oxide) were
adjusted.
8. The instrument was set to zero against a reagent blank solution.
9. A standard was fed and fuel, oxidant and sample flow rates were optimized. Calibration
curve was prepared by recording absorbance of a series of working standards.
10. Sample was fed and the reading was recorded in a file.
3.6.5 N, P and K uptake by grain and straw
The N, P and K uptake in grain or straw was worked out by multiplying their per cent
concentrations with the corresponding yield. The total uptake of N, P and K was obtained by
adding up their respective uptake in grain and straw. This was expressed in kg ha-1.
3.6.6 Crude protein content in grain of maize and wheat
Crude protein content in maize grains was obtained by multiplying N concentration in
grain with a factor 5.95 (Juliano, 1985). This factor is based on the nitrogen content (16.8 per
cent) of the major maize protein (Glutelin). The protein content in wheat grain was
determined by NIR method. The measurements are based on the fact that the main
constituents in the grain such as protein, moisture, fat and others absorb electromagnetic
radiation in the near infrared region of the spectrum. This method have several advantages
such as rapid screening of large number of samples, non- destructive nature of the test and the
feasibility of carrying out the test on farmer’s field or procurement site for fast trading etc.
3.7 Physical quality parameters of wheat grain
3.7.1 Hardness index
Kernel hardness index was determined using Single Kernel Characterization system 4100
from Perten Instruments, Australia. All dockage was removed from the sample using seed
cleaner and 200 g of seed was used for analysis. Using sample scoop, seed was placed in the
30
inlet hopper and sample hopper knob was turned clockwise to the hopper door. The values of
kernel hardness, moisture and grain weight were recorded for 100 seeds of each sample.
3.7.2 SDS-sedimentation test
SDS-sedimentation test is based on the method given by Dick and Quick (1983) (cited in
Mishra et al., 1998). The principle involve in the ability of gluten protein to absorb water and
swells considerably when treated with lactic acid in the presence of Sodium Dodecyl Sulphate
(SDS). The sedimentation value can be correlated with the gluten strength. More is the
strength of gluten more is the swelling and so more is the SDS sedimentation value.
The following reagents were prepared and used for the sedimentation test:
1. Lactic acid sodium: Lactic acid was diluted by adding one part of lactic acid to eight parts
of water. 10 ml lactic acid was added to 80 ml of water (total volume was 90 ml).
2. Sodium Lauryl Sulphate solution (2%): 80 g of SDS was dissolved in 4 litres of water.
3. SDS – Lactic acid solution: To each 50 ml SDS solution, 1 ml of diluted lactic acid was
added, i.e. 80 ml (out of 90 ml prepared in first step) of diluted lactic acid solution was
added to 4 litres of SDS solution.
Procedure
This test was carried out for four samples at a time. The 50 ml of distilled water was taken in
each of the four measuring cylinder with stoppers. 6 g of the flour was added into first
cylinder and stop clock was started. 15 seconds of shaking was done in first cylinder. The
same was repeated for other three samples also. The times for commencement of the other
operations were taken, in minute as given in the Table 3.9.
3.7.3 Moisture content of the flour
Accurately weigh 5g wheat flour in an aluminium box having a close fitting lid. The
uncovered box with its lid was kept in a well -ventilated oven maintained at 105oC for 6
hours. After cooling, it was weighed and loss in weight due to moisture was recorded and
expressed as percentage moisture.
3.7.4 Flour Recovery Percentage
Quadrumat Senior mill (Brabender, Germany) was operated as per the manual for milling of
100 g sample of grain to obtain flour.
1. Thoroughly cleaned grain samples were used for milling.
2. Samples selected for milling were moistened so that it can have proper brittleness, which is
important for good separation of bran and endosperm during the milling process (moisture
should not exceed 17% and 16% for hard and soft wheat, respectively)
3. Then it was allowed to temper for 24 hours.
4. For the purpose of milling, the feed hopper the feed gate of the mill was closed turning the
knurled control knob with graduation to the right to stop before filling the grain sample
into the feed hopper.
31
5. The sample was poured into the hopper
6. The mill was started turning the control knob to the left, milling is done automatically.
7. After the last grain has passed through the break head, the feed gate was closed and the
break head was turned off.
8. Milling was allowed for five minutes and then flour and bran were collected from the
corresponding pans.
9. The weight of flour and bran was taken separately and flour recovery percentage was
calculated using the formula.
Flour recovery percentage = A
X 100, where, A+B
A = Wt. of Flour
B = Wt. of Bran
3.8 Soil analysis
Initial soil sample were collected from four locations in each replication using a tube
auger from 0-15cm soil layer one day before the start of the experiment. The subsequent soil
samples after the crop harvest were taken randomly from each plot, one day after harvesting
of each plot, were composited plot-wise. There were dried, ground and passed through 0.2
mm sieve for the purpose of chemical analysis. Soil samples collected from individual plots
were separated for content of organic carbon by wet digestion method (Walkley and Black,
1934), available nitrogen by alkaline KMnO4 method (Subbiah and Asija, 1956), available
phosphorous by 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate extraction (Olsen et al, 1954) and available
potassium by Flame photometry (Jackson, 1973).
3.9 Determination of available zinc, iron, manganese and copper
Available Zn, Fe, Mn and Cu were determined using DTPA extract. The extractant
consists of 0.005M DTPA (diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid), 0.1M triethanolamine, and
0.01M CaCl2, with a pH of 7.3. The soil test consists of shaking 10 g of air-dry soil with 20 ml
of extractant for 2 hours. The leachate is filtered, and Zn, Fe, Mn, and Cu are measured in the
filtrate by atomic absorption spectrophotometer as described by Lindsay and Norvell (1978).
3.10 Economic analysis
The economic analysis in terms of gross and net returns and benefit: cost ratio
(returns per rupee invested) was worked out on the basis of existing rate of inputs and output.
Total variable cost included in the cost of input such as seeds, fertilizers, irrigation and
various cultural operations such as ploughing, sowing, weeding, harvesting, threshing etc.
The rental value of land was also considered in the cost of cultivation. Returns were
calculated by using the following formula expression
Gross returns = Value of the grain/seed + Value of straw/stover
32
Net returns = Gross returns – Total variable costs
Benefit: cost ratio = Net returns/Total variable cost
3.11 Statistical analysis
The data recorded for different parameters were analysed with the help of analysis of
various (ANOVA) technique for a split plot design using MSTAT-C software. Source of
variation and corresponding degrees of freedom used in the ANOVA are given in Annexure-I.
The result are presented at 5% level of significance (P=0.05).
33
4.1 RESEARCH PAPER –I
Effect of zinc application on growth parameter, yield attribute and yield of maize and
wheat in maize-wheat cropping system
Dileep Kumar and Shiva Dhar
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012, India
ABSTRACT
An experiment was conducted during 2009-10 and 2010-11 at research farm of
division of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, to study the effect of various doses and methods of
zinc application on maize and wheat. The treatment consisted of control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and two wheat Varieties ‘DBW 17’ and
‘PBW 343’. The results of two year experimentation reveals that different growth attributes
did not vary much significantly due to zinc application. However, these varied significantly
during second year in relation to first year and more growth attributes were recorded during
second year of study. The grain, stover and biological yield of maize were significantly
influenced by application of zinc during first year and the maximum yields were recorded
with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year. During first year application of
25 kg ZnSO4, 12.5 ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 increased grain yield by
22.81, 18.63 and 8.36 percent respectively over control, while 4.10, 2.41 and 1.69% increase
in grain yield was recorded during second year. In wheat, application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
significantly increased 1000 grain weight during both the years while during second year
effective tiller m-2, grain spike-1 and grain diameter; as compared to the remaining treatment .
This treatment increased the number of effective tillers by 6, 10 and 11 percent over the
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray and control, respectively, during second year.
Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties i.e. ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ showed
significant variation in grain, straw and biological yield and harvest index during both the
years. The yield advantage of 0.35, 0.26 and 0.28 and 0.43, 0.13 and 0.29 t ha-1 was recorded
with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray,
respectively during both the years ‘PBW 343. Highest straw and total biological yields were
obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
Keywords: Zinc, harvest index, yield, maize-wheat cropping system
INTRODUCTION
Maize and wheat is the main source of world’s food energy and also contains significant
amounts of proteins; minerals and vitamins which are essential nutrients for human health.
Wheat is a major important crop with other staple cereals supplies the bulk of calories and
nutrients in the diets of a large proportion of the world billions population (Water et al., 2009;
Chatzav et al., 2010). Globally, India ranks as second largest wheat producing nation and
34
contributes approximately 11.9 % to the world wheat production from about 12 % area of
world (Singh et al., 2010). Several study conducted across the country and reports of
stagnating or declining rice and wheat yields in the IGP, which have presumably been related
to soil fertility and frequent appurtenance of micronutrient deficiency especially zinc (Benbi
et al., 2012). Maize is considered a promising option for diversifying agriculture in upland
areas of India and it is now considered as the third most important food grain crop in India.
The maize area has slowly expanded over the past few years to about 6.2 million ha (3.4% of
the gross cropped area) in 1999/2000 (Joshi et al., 2005). It also predicted that this area would
grow further to meet future food, feed, and other demands, especially in view of the booming
livestock and poultry producing sectors in the country. It is not only in our country, but also in
our neighbouring country China wheat-maize rotation is a predominant cropping system,
covering up to 60% of arable land in this area (Liang et al., 2012). Since opportunities are
limited for further expansion of maize area, future increases in maize supply will be achieved
through the intensification and commercialization of current maize production system. Zinc
content and capacity of agricultural soils to supply Zn for optimal crop growth vary widely.
Deficiency of zinc hampers the yield and quality of crops over large areas of the world's
cultivable land (Genc et al., 2004; Coventry et al., 2011; Misra et al., 2005). Soils deficient in
their ability to supply Zn to crops are alarmingly widespread across the globe. Micronutrients
play an active role in the plant metabolism process starting from cell wall development to
respiration, photosynthesis, chlorophyll formation, enzyme activity and nitrogen fixation and
reduction. Micronutrient requirements of the maize and wheat crops are relatively small and
ranges between their deficiencies and toxicities in plants and soils are rather narrow. The
main causes for the wide-spread emergence of Zn deficiency in India; after the Green
Revolution high nutrient exhaustive crop rotations followed such as rice–wheat accompanied
by imbalanced fertilization with high doses of nitrogen and nutrient removal by both grain
and straw from the field and little application of organic manures (Suri et al., 2011). Zinc
deficiencies are corrected in most cases by applying a granular Zn fertilizer or applying it
with the starter macronutrient (NPK) fertilizer either as a coating or incorporated into the
macronutrient granule and zinc sulfate (ZnSO4) has been the Zn source of choice. Therefore
an attempt has been made to assess the effect of zinc on maize and wheat.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2009-10 and
2010-11 to study the effect of levels of zinc application (control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 ha-1 for improving productivity of maize (Zea
mays) -wheat (Triticum aestivam) cropping system.
35
Experimental site, soil and weather
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi 2009-10 and 2010-11 at
the research farm of Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi, situated at 28.40N latitude and 77.10E longitude and at an altitude of 228.6 meters
above mean sea level. Soil samples were taken before the start of the experiment which were
analysed for physical and chemical properties of the soil (Table 4.1.1).
Table 4.1.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site
Particulars Value
Mechanical composition: (Hydrometer method, Bouyoucos, 1962)
1. Sand (%) 61.7
2. Silt (%) 11.9
3. Clay (%) 26.4
4. Textural class Sandy clay loam
Chemical composition
1. pH (1:2.5; soil: water ratio) (Elico pH meter, Piper, 1950) 7.8
2. Electrical conductivity (dS m-1) (Solubridge method, Piper, 1950) 0.32
3. Organic C (%) (Walkley and Black method, Piper, 1950) 0.38
4. Available N (kg ha-1) (Subbiah and Asija, 1956) 165.3
5. Available P (kg ha-1 )(Olsen et al., 1954) 12.2
6. Available K(kg ha-1) (Jackson, 1973) 239.5
7 Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.72
The field was well levelled, and soil was sandy loam in texture and slightly alkaline
in reaction. The climate of site is semi-arid to sub-tropical with extreme cold and hot
situations; the hottest months are May and June with the mean maximum temperature ranging
from 41 0C to 44 0C, whereas the mean minimum of the coolest months are December and
January falls in the range of 2 0C to 5 0C. The daily maximum and minimum temperature tend
to rise from first fortnight of February and maintain the trend till the month of June and
decreases from July onwards. The evapo-transpiration rate also follows similar pattern of
temperature during crop period. Average annual rainfall of the site is about 652 mm, 84 % of
which is received during south-west monsoon. July and August are the wettest months. The
36
relative humidity increases from June to September. The mean annual evaporation of Delhi is
about 850 mm.
Experimental details
The experiment was conducted in split plot design with three replications in a fixed
lay out. The main plot treatments consisted of four levels of zinc and two method of zinc
application both maize viz. Control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 at knee high stage and one week later after previous spray. Whereas the sub plot
treatments were four Zn levels viz. control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4(one spray at anthesis another one week later) two wheat varieties
‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’. The maize variety ‘PEHM-2’ was sown with row spacing of 60
cm apart during kharif (June to October) and wheat varieties ‘PBW 343’ and ‘DBW 17’ were
sown in lines at 22 cm apart during rabi (November to April).
Field operations
In the experimental field, before starting of experiment maize was grown during
kharif 2008-09 in maize – wheat cropping system. The Field was suitably divided into three
blocks (replications). In each block four main plots were marked to accommodate the zinc
treatment. During rabi, each main plot was further divided into eight sub-plots to
accommodate four zinc treatments in combination with two varieties. After the harvest of
previous crop the plots were ploughed with a disc harrow twice. Further, cultivator was run
twice followed by planking then sowing of maize was done.
The recommended doses of 120:40:40 and 120:60:40 N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1 were
applied to maize and wheat respectively. The N, P and K were given in the form of urea,
single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. In maize, to control weeds two
hand weeding at 20 DAS and 40 DAS and in wheat one hand weeding-cum-intercultural
operation was done at 30 DAS. Chlorpyriphos @ 3.0 l ha-1 was applied during first irrigation
with irrigation water to control termite infestation in wheat during both the year.
Observations
Leaf area index, plant height and for dry matter accumulation sample were taken
from one square m area from each plot and finally converted into t ha-1.These observations
were recorded at 30, 60 and 90 days after sowing (DAS) of the crop using the standard
procedures. Leaf area of the crop was estimated using leaf area meter (1/2- MDL-1000,
LICOR Ltd, USA). Leaf area index was calculated as the ratio of total leaf area plant-1 and
ground area covered by the plant. Yield attributes, viz. number of grain cob-1, number of grain
row cob-1, 1000-grain weight, cob girth, and cob length were recorded for maize whereas for
wheat number of spikes m-2, grains spike-1, spike length,1000-grain weight from the
representative samples taken from each plot. Maize and wheat crops were harvested manually
37
and threshed with the help of corn sheller and Pullman thresher, respectively. The biological,
grain and stover/straw yields were recorded by weight plot wise. The harvest index was
calculated as the ratio of economic produce (grain yield) and the biological yield (grain +
stover or straw).
Statistical analysis
The data recorded for different parameters were analysed with the help of analysis of
variance (ANOVA) technique for a split plot design using MSTAT-C software. Source of
variation and corresponding degrees of freedom used in the ANOVA are given in Annexure-I.
The results are presented at 5 % level of significance (P=0.05).
RESULTS
Effect of Zinc levels on maize
Growth parameters
Plant height did not vary significantly due to application of Zn at all the growth stages
during both the years. Leaf area index and dry matter accumulation differ significantly with
the application of different levels of zinc. Leaf area index was significantly increased with Zn
application up to 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year while higher dry matter accumulation
at harvest was obtained during first year (Tables 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4and 4.1.5).
Plant height
Relatively higher plant height was recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
at all the growth stages during both the years. This treatment was closely followed by
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Treatment with foliar application of 0.5 % ZnSO4 gave
almost similar plant height as obtained from control. This trend was observed at all the stages
during both the years (Table 4.1.2).
Table 4.1.2 Effect of zinc application on plant height of maize at different growth stages
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Plant height (cm)
30 DAS 60DAS At harvest
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 52.0 87.9 155.4 178.3 159.2 184.5
12.5 kg ha-1 54.7 90.7 156.3 181.8 160.3 186.6
25 kg ha-1 54.9 94.1 160.1 182.2 166.5 190.9
Foliar spray of (0.5%)* 52.5 89.4 155.2 179.9 158.6 186.6
SEm ± 1.10 4.40 2.3 9.0 2.4 7.2
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
* One spray at the knee high stage and one week after first spray
38
Leaf area index
Leaf area index of maize was relatively higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 than the other treatment during both the year. During first year at 60 days after sowing it
was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray. Application of 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray remained significantly higher than control treatment, whereas,
foliar spray and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 were at par with respect to LAI (Table 4.1.3).
Table 4.1.3 Effect of zinc application on leaf area index of maize at different growth stages Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Leaf Area Index (LAI)
30 DAS 60 DAS
2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 0.90 1.20 1.78 2.83
12.5 kg ha-1 0.91 1.20 2.50 3.00
25 kg ha-1 1.07 1.40 3.07 3.51
Foliar spray of (0.5 %)* 0.94 1.33 2.47 3.02
SEm ± 0.32 0.11 0.12 0.2
CD(P=0.05) NS NS 0.44 NS
* One spray at the knee high stage and one week after first spray
Dry matter accumulation
Relatively higher DM was obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during
both the year at different growth stages. During first year it was higher than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray at harvesting stage. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found
similar as control and foliar spray treatment. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
at 30 DAS and at harvesting stage. Control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 found at par among them (Table 4.1.4).
39
Table 4.1.4 Effect of zinc application on dry matter accumulation of maize at different growth stages
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Dry matter accumulation (t ha-1)
30DAS 60DAS At harvest
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 1.05 4.92 5.23 12.26 6.26 14.78
12.5 kg ha-1 1.15 5.37 5.43 12.90 6.56 16.12
25 kg ha-1 1.13 7.23 5.90 13.23 7.01 16.69
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 1.06 4.95 5.26 12.70 6.32 14.88
SEm ± 0.11 0.27 0.34 0.6 0.14 0.29
CD(P=0.05) NS 0.95 NS NS 0.48 0.10
* One spray at the knee he stage and one week after first spray
Yield attributes
The application of different levels of zinc to maize crop did not show any significant
effect on yield attributing character viz. weight of cob plant-1, grains cob-1, grain rows cob-1,
cob length, test weight, shelling percentage and cob girth during both the year. Although
relatively higher weight of cob plant-1, grains cob-1, grain rows cob-1, length of cob, test
weight, shelling percentage and girth of cob were recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed
by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both the year (Table
4.1.5 and 4.1.6)
40
Table 4.1.5 Effect of zinc application on yield attributing character of maize Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Cob wt. plant-1 (g) Grains cob-1 Grain rows cob-1
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 91.5 99.0 371 385 13 13
12.5 kg ha-1 96.7 102.0 375 392 14 15
25 kg ha-1 97.8 103.6 384 394 14 15
Foliar spray of (0.5 %)* 94.3 99.7 377 385 14 14
SEm ± 1.7 4.5 9.5 8.7 0.9 0.4
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
* One spray at the knee high stage and one week after first spray
Shelling percentage
Relatively higher Shelling percentage of maize was recorded with the application of
25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, and
control treatments during both the year(Table 4.1.6).
Table 4.1.6 Effect of zinc application on yield attributing character of maize
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Cob length
(cm)
Test weight
(g)
Cob girth
(cm)
Shelling
(%)
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 12.5 14.1 223.2 230.1 12.5 13.8 77.5 80.5
12.5 kg ha-1 13.0 14.5 228.5 237.3 13.7 14.3 80.9 82.0
25 kg ha-1 13.1 15.1 229.9 243.8 14.6 15.9 82.7 83.9
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 12.9 14.3 227.2 233.8 13.3 14.3 79.3 80.7
SEm ± 0.61 0.4 1.3 4.2 0.61 0.6 1.8 2.5
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
* One spray at the knee high stage and one week after first spray
41
Effect of zinc application on yield of maize
Significant difference in grain, stover and biological yield of maize were observed
during first year due to application of different levels of zinc while these yields did not differ
significantly during second year. Harvest index of maize was not affected significantly due to
Zn application during both the year (Table. 4.1.7).
Grain Yield
The higher grain yield was obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and it
was significantly higher than the control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but remain at par
with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. No significant differences in
grain yield were recorded among application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 control and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4. During second year relatively more grain yield was obtained with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
and control(Table 4.1.7 and fig 4.1.1).
Stover Yield
The maximum stover yield was obtained with application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. It was
significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 0.5 % ZnSO4foliar spray and control. The yield
obtained with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control but
remain at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. During second year the highest stover yield
was recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and it was closely followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control (Table 4.1.7 and fig 4.1.1).
Table 4.1.7 Effect of zinc application on yield and harvest index of maize
Treatment Grain yield
(t ha-1)
Stover yield
(t ha-1)
Biological yield
(t ha-1)
Harvest Index
(%)
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 2.03 3.97 4.4 8.32 6.43 12.29 31.7 32.3
[email protected] kg/ha 2.41 4.07 5.54 8.45 7.95 12.52 30.3 32.5
ZnSO4@25 kg/ha 2.63 4.14 6.44 8.55 9.07 12.69 29.0 32.5
Foliar spray of
2.14 4.04 5.38 8.37 7.52 12.41 28.5 32.4
SEm ± 0.11 0.37 0.11 0.87 0.34 0.35 1.5 2.1
CD(P=0.05) 0.38 NS 0.38 NS 1.18 NS
* One spray at the knee high stage and one week after first spray
Fig 4.1.1 Effect of zinc application on yield of maize
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Yie
ld (
t ha
-1)
ZnSO4 levels
2009
Grain Stover Biological
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Yie
ld(t
ha-1
)
ZnSO4 levels
2010
Grain Stover Biological
42
Biological yield
The highest biological yield was obtained with the application at 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
which was significantly higher than 12.5 ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray 0.5 % and control.
Biological yield obtained with application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 found statistically higher than
control but similar as obtained from foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
remain at par with control. During second year relatively higher biological yield was
obtained with application at 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than remaining treatment (Table 4.1.7 and Fig
4.1.1).
43
Table 4.1.8 Effect of zinc application on leaf area index of wheat on different growth stages Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Leaf area index (LAI)
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 0.35 0.61 1.62 2.95 3.33 3.97
12.5 kg ha-1 0.36 0.61 1.64 3.01 3.37 4.03
25 kg ha-1 0.37 0.61 1.66 3.04 3.43 4.06
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.36 0.61 1.64 2.97 3.37 3.99
SEm± 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.03
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 0.33 0.58 1.56 2.78 3.15 3.80
12.5 kg ha-1 0.33 0.61 1.61 2.85 3.30 3.87
25 kg ha-1 0.41 0.62 1.72 2.92 3.65 3.94
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.34 0.58 1.62 2.82 3.32 3.84
‘PBW 343’
Control 0.32 0.59 1.59 3.10 3.19 4.12
12.5 kg ha-1 0.41 0.62 1.65 3.14 3.38 4.17
25 kg ha-1 0.41 0.67 1.76 3.23 3.66 4.24
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.33 0.61 1.60 3.12 3.36 4.14
SEm± 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.08
CD(P=0.05) 0.06 NS 0.13 0.21 0.26 0.21
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
44
Harvest index
During first year the lowest harvest index was observed with 0.5 % foliar spray of
zinc followed by 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and control. The highest harvest
index was found with control treatment. During second year almost similar harvest index was
recorded among various level of zinc applied to crop.
Effect of zinc application on wheat
Growth attributes
Leaf area index, plant height and dry matter accumulation did not differ significantly
due to application of zinc to preceding maize crop during both the year at different growth
stages (Table 4.1.8, 4.1.9 and 4.1.10).
Leaf area index
Leaf area index of wheat was relatively higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 to previous maize crop than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during both the year at different growth stages.
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to wheat variety ‘DBW 17’ recorded higher
LAI than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year at 30
DAS. Leaf area index at 60 and 90 DAS was higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than control; however, it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during first year. During second year no significant differences were observed between 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded
statistically similar leaf area index with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. In ‘PBW
343’ significantly higher leaf area index was observed with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 at 30
DAS and at 60 DAS during first year. During second year at 60 DAS no significant
differences were observed among these treatments. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
also found similar to control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. At 90 DAS higher LAI
recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1; however it was at par
with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. During second year no significant
differences were observed among these treatments. Differences among application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 with control and foliar treatment were found non significant during first year
(Table 4.1.8).
Plant height
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop recorded relatively taller plants than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at different growth stages of
wheat. Significantly taller plants were observed with application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than
control and foliar spray but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 at 60 and 90 DAS during first year.
45
Table 4.1.9 Effect of zinc application on plant height of wheat on different growth stages Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Plant height (cm)
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS At harvest
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 9.6 16.0 21.8 31.1 49.08 56.42 62.3 81.8
12.5 kg ha-1 9.7 16.1 23.2 30.5 50.48 55.90 63.6 83.8
25 kg ha-1 9.5 16.2 23.5 31.0 50.80 56.41 64.8 82.2
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 9.4 16.0 21.6 32.0 48.91 57.33 63.2 83.3
SEm± 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.33 0.61 0.5 1.0
CD(P=0.05) NS NS 1.2 NS 1.15 NS NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 10.0 15.0 21.0 29.7 48.31 55.06 65.9 77.6
12.5 kg ha-1 9.4 16.0 22.5 30.1 49.88 55.50 66.4 78.9
25 kg ha-1 10.4 16.1 23.9 31.7 51.23 57.07 68.6 80.8
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 9.1 15.1 21.3 30.0 48.66 55.36 66.5 78.1
‘PBW 343’
Control 9.3 16.1 21.6 30.8 48.98 56.15 58.4 85.2
12.5 kg ha-1 9.2 16.8 23.1 32.2 50.42 57.56 59.0 87.6
25 kg ha-1 9.4 16.9 23.9 33.1 51.26 58.49 64.0 88.1
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 9.4 16.6 22.5 31.6 49.83 56.96 58.9 85.8
SEm± 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.55 0.75 1.3 1.8
CD(P=0.05) NS 1.1 1.6 2.1 1.55 2.13 3.6 5.0
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
46
The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 also resulted taller plants than control and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Direct application of zinc in ‘DBW 17’ gave significantly taller plants with the application of
25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. However, it was at par with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 at 60 DAS during first year. Plant height did not affected significantly due
to Zn application during 60 and 90DAS and at harvest during both the year except the
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control while at par with
foliar spray at 60 DAS during first year. In wheat ‘PBW 343’ application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
found significantly superior to control and it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at 60 and 90 DAS during both the year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was found statistically similar with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at 60 and 90
DAS during both the year. At harvest plant height was higher with the application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray during first year while these
treatments were at par among themselves during second year (Table 4.1.9).
Dry matter accumulation
Total dry matter accumulated at different growth stages was relatively higher with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar
spray and control treatment during both seasons (Table 4.1.10).
In ‘DBW 17’ significantly higher DM was recorded with the application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 at
30 DAS, whereas at 60 DAS this treatment was higher than control but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 produced higher DM than control and at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at 30 DAS,
whereas, at 60 DAS application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was similar as obtained from control
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
relatively higher than other treatment at 30 DAS during first year, at 60DAS during second
year, at 60 and 90DAS during both the years. Dry matter accumulation in variety ‘PBW 343’
was significantly higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray at 30DAS during second year. It was also higher than control but at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray at 90 DAS during first year. Application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar with control and foliar spray at 30 and 90DAS during second
year.
Effect of zinc application on yield attributes
The zinc application to preceding maize did not affect the effective tiller m-2 and
grain diameter of wheat during both the year. However, grain weight spike-1, during first year
and 1000 grain weight, did not differ significantly during second year.
47
Table 4.1.10 Effect of zinc application on dry matter accumulation of wheat on different growth stages Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Dry matter accumulation (t ha-1)
30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS At harvest
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 0.32 0.89 1.97 3.54 5.17 6.84 10.58 12.09
12.5 kg ha-1 0.33 0.93 2.05 3.57 5.25 6.87 11.14 12.93
25 kg ha-1 0.35 0.95 2.04 3.69 5.23 6.98 11.31 13.00
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.32 0.91 2.00 3.56 5.19 6.86 10.80 12.72
SEm± 0.16 0.24 0.15 0.86 0.09 0.09 0.37 0.38
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 0.31 0.82 1.93 3.42 5.13 6.72 10.81 11.80
12.5 kg ha-1 0.33 0.87 2.15 3.54 5.34 6.84 11.22 12.54
25 kg ha-1 0.36 0.90 2.19 3.73 5.38 7.03 11.71 13.67
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.32 0.86 1.99 3.47 5.18 6.77 11.05 11.92
‘PBW 343’
Control 0.32 0.91 1.85 3.53 5.04 6.83 10.18 12.53
12.5 kg ha-1 0.34 0.95 1.97 3.67 5.16 6.97 10.70 12.85
25 kg ha-1 0.36 1.09 2.09 3.77 5.28 7.07 11.39 13.44
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.32 0.95 1.95 3.60 5.15 6.90 10.59 12.74
SEm± 0.20 0.03 1.42 1.36 0.07 0.14 0.52 0.74
CD(P=0.05) NS 0.09 NS NS 0.20 NS NS NS
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
48
Zinc application influenced grain weight spike-1 and grain spike-1 during second year while
1000 grain weight during first year. Direct application of zinc to wheat crop recorded
significant variation in effective tiller m-2, grains spike-1, and grain diameter during second
year and 1000 grain weight during both the year (Table 4.1.11).
Effective tillers m-2
During first year direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to varieties i.e. ‘DBW 17’ and
‘PBW 343’ gave the maximum effective tillers (Table 4.1.10). During second year
significantly higher number of effective tiller were obtained from application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 as compared to control and foliar spray in ‘DBW-17’. Remaining treatments were at par
among themselves in ‘DBW-17’. In ‘PBW 343’ significantly higher effective tiller were
recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 as compared to control and it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 during second year. However, application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 also showed
significantly higher value over control while it was at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 found similar with control.
Grain weight spike-1
Grain weight spike-1 was relatively higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than other levels in maize during first year. During second year significantly higher grain
weight observed with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 over control but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was significantly superior over control (Table 4.1.10).
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in both the varieties i.e. ‘DBW17’ and ‘PBW-
343’ observed marginally higher grain weight spike-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
1000 grain weight spike-1
Zinc levels applied to preceding maize crop had significant effect on 1000 grain
weight of wheat during first year and the highest grain weight was observed with application
of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 it was significantly than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.1.11). During second year relatively more 1000 grain weight recorded
with the highest levels of zinc application than the other treatments.
The maximum 1000 grain weight recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
which was significantly superior than control but at par with foliar spray and 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 in variety ‘DBW 17’ during first year; remaining treatments control and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 were at par among themselves during second year. In variety ‘PBW 343’ the 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher 1000 grain weight than control but remained at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray during first year. During second year all the zinc
levels applied to variety ‘PBW-343’ was significantly higher over all the treatments applied to
49
Table 4.1.11 Effect of zinc application on yield attributing characters of wheat
Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Effective tillers (m-2)
Grain weight spike-1 (g)
1000 grain weight (g) Grain spike-1 Grain diameter (mm)
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 299 335 2.03 1.99 35.1 36.5 44 52 2.03 2.80
12.5 kg ha-1 304 356 2.04 2.09 35.5 38.9 45 54 2.04 2.79
25 kg ha-1 306 354 2.19 2.11 37.2 39.3 45 55 2.19 2.86
Foliar spray (0.5 %)*
300 351 2.02 2.09 35.2 37.0 44 53 2.02 2.88
SEm± 4.23 5.93 0.08 0.02 0.37 0.9 0.43 0.50 0.08 0.03
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.08 1.28 NS NS 1.75 NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 302 332 2.01 2.00 35.5 35.7 43 51 2.01 2.76
12.5 kg ha-1 305 350 2.20 2.08 35.3 36.6 45 53 2.20 2.78
25 kg ha-1 307 372 2.22 2.15 36.9 37.2 46 54 2.22 2.79
Foliar spray (0.5 %)*
303 336 2.04 2.06 35.5 36.1 45 53 2.04 2.81
‘PBW 343’
Control 295 317 1.89 2.03 34.9 39.3 43 53 1.89 2.88
12.5 kg ha-1 302 366 2.05 2.11 35.9 39.4 45 55 2.05 2.88
25 kg ha-1 306 373 2.11 2.12 36.8 39.7 44 57 2.11 2.87
Foliar spray (0.5 %)*
299 346 2.03 1.99 35.2 39.7 43 53 2.03 2.90
SEm± 4.86 10.6 0.08 0.06 0.49 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.08 0.02
CD(P=0.05) NS 30.1 NS NS 1.41 1.7 NS 2.2 NS 0.06
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
50
the variety ‘DBW17’ and maximum 1000 grain weight was obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
followed by foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Grain diameter
The grain diameter was relatively higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than other treatment during first year and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year
(Table 4.1.11). During second year the highest grain diameter was recorded with the foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 in both the varieties. However, it was significantly higher in variety
‘PBW 343’compared to all zinc levels applied to ‘DBW 17’ but at par among than control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. The variety ‘PBW 343’ produced more bold grain
as compared to ‘DBW 17’ due to zinc levels.
Grain spike-1
The maximum grains spike-1 were recorded when 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was applied to
preceding maize during both the year but significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 , foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
found significantly higher than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 while foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was at par with control (Table 4.1.11).
Direct application of zinc produced relatively more grains spike-1 with the application
of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in ‘DBW17’ and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in variety ‘PBW 343’ during first
year whereas during second year the highest values were observed with the application at 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in both the varieties. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
significantly higher than control with respect to grains spike-1 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray; 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with control and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 in variety ‘DBW 17’. In ‘PBW 343’ the highest grains spike-1 were recorded due to
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and it was significantly higher than foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 and control; while 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
and control.
Effect of zinc on yield of wheat
The zinc applications to previous maize crop did not show any significant variation in
wheat grain, straw, biological yield and harvest index. However, relatively higher grain,
straw, biological yield and harvest index was found with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-
1of zinc to maize crop. Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties viz. ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW
343’, showed significant variation in grain, straw, biological yield and harvest index during
both the year (Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.2, 4.1.3).
Grain yield
Grain yield was relatively higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop during (Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.2, 4.1.3).
51
Variety ‘DBW17’ gave maximum yield with the applied 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 which was
significantly higher over foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
during first year (Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.2,). During second year this treatment was higher
than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Application
of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during
first year. In ‘PBW 343’ significantly higher grain yield was obtained with the application of
25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than remaining treatments during first year (Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.3).
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control but statistically at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control treatments with respect to
grain yield during second year.
Straw yield
Straw yield of wheat obtained relatively more due to application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control treatment applied to
previous maize crop(Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.2, 4.1.3)..
The highest yield was recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in both the
varieties followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. In variety ‘DBW 17’ application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1gave significantly higher yield than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray and control treatment
during second year (Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.2). Straw yield obtained with the application of
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found significantly superior over control but at par with foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4. However, in ‘PBW 343’ yield obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was superior
over control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during
second year. The application of12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 obtained at par with foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 but relatively higher than the control (Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.3).
Biological yield
No significant influence of zinc levels applied to maize was observed on biological
yield of wheat during both the year however; relatively higher yield obtained with the
application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than the 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, control and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 (Table 4.1.12 and Fig 4.1.2, 4.1.3).
Maximum biological yield was recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in
both the varieties during both the year. This treatment was significantly higher than foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during first year and significantly higher than 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year in ‘DBW 17’. In ‘PBW 343’ application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
gave significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
during first year while at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. In both varieties
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
during both the year.
52
Table 4.1.12 Effect of zinc application on yield and harvest index of wheat Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Grain yield (t ha-1)
Straw yield (t ha -1)
Biological yield (t ha-1)
Harvest index
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 4.14 4.48 6.76 6.93 10.89 11.41 38.1 39.5
12.5 kg ha-1 4.21 4.84 6.81 7.38 11.02 12.22 38.6 39.8
25 kg ha-1 4.28 4.96 6.98 7.66 11.25 12.62 38.1 39.5
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 4.18 4.61 6.79 7.19 10.97 11.80 38.1 39.1
SEm± 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.23 0.08 0.24 0.5 0.98
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 4.07 4.39 6.74 6.79 10.81 11.18 37.7 39.6
12.5 kg ha-1 4.23 4.79 6.92 7.66 11.15 12.45 38.1 38.7
25 kg ha-1 4.43 4.85 7.13 8.41 11.56 13.26 38.5 36.5
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 4.17 4.54 6.81 7.20 10.98 11.73 38.0 38.6
‘PBW 343’
Control 4.05 4.59 6.53 6.32 10.58 10.91 38.3 42.2
12.5 kg ha-1 4.14 4.89 6.82 7.23 10.96 12.12 37.8 40.4
25 kg ha-1 4.40 5.02 7.06 7.71 11.46 12.73 38.5 39.4
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 4.12 4.73 6.66 7.01 10.77 11.73 38.2 40.3
SEm± 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.17 0.24 0.6 0.9
CD(P=0.05) 0.20 0.38 NS 0.57 0.47 0.67 NS 2.7
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
Fig 4.1.2 Effect of zinc application on yield of Wheat var. ‘DBW 17’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Yie
ld (
t ha
-1)
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Grain Straw Biological
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Yie
ld (
t ha
-1)
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Grain Straw Biological
Fig 4.1.3 Effect of zinc application on yield of Wheat var. ‘PBW 343’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Yie
ld (
t ha
-1)
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Grain Straw Biological
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Yie
ld (
t ha
-1)
ZnSO4 levels
2010-11
Grain Straw Biological
53
Harvest index
The harvest index was relatively higher with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied in preceding
maize than the control, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 however, it was almost similar in remaining
treatments. Relatively higher harvest index was recorded with direct application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year in both varieties that control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4. During second year the maximum harvest index was observed with control
treatment which was significantly higher than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 but at par with remaining
treatments in variety ‘DBW 17’. Similar was trend also observed in variety ‘PBW 343’ during
both the year
DISCUSSION
Weather Parameter
During experimental period from 2009-10 and 2010-11, weather condition varied
greatly with respect to rainfall, temperature and other parameters. The weather conditions
were more favourable during kharif season of 2010, while slightly unfavourable during kharif
of 2009 and maize crop was greatly affected by the prevailing weather situations. The maize
sowing should have completed during June in the north zone of the country region. But the
delayed rain in 2009 affected the sowing of maize and crop was sown during last week of
July. However, due to late sowing of the crop, the crop dry matter production and overall
productivity of maize was lower during first year in comparison to the 2nd year. The rainfall
during kharif 2010 started during the first week of July which resulted timely sowing of maize
in first fort night. Further, during 2009 frequent dry spells occurred due to which the growth
of crop hampered. In contrast during 2010 the rains were comparatively well distributed
which increased overall growth attributes, yield attributes and yield. Meanwhile the weather –
conditions during wheat growing period were similar for both the years. However, at the
wheat sowing time, during 2010-11the weather situations was quite favourable, which
resulted in comparatively better crop establishment and vegetative growth. Also, rainfall
during boot stage provided slightly better conditions to wheat crop. Due the above prevailing
weather variations maize yield varied greatly however wheat crop gave stable and almost
similar yield during both the years.
Growth parameters
The different growth attributes viz. plant height, dry matter accumulation and leaf
area index of both the crops did not vary significantly due to zinc application either foliar or
soil (Table 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4). But it varies significantly during second year in relation to first
year and higher values of growth attributes; yield attributes and yield were recorded in maize
during second year (Table 4.1.5, 4.1.6). Zinc has lesser role in the vegetative growth of plant
54
while its requirement is more during reproductive phase in comparison to vegetative growth
stage the same was reflected in present investigations.
The uniformity in the growth attributes of both the crops might be due to equal plant
population exerting similar magnitude of competition amongst plants for resources like
nutrients, moisture, light and space. The plant height, dry matter accumulation and leaf area
index were considerably influenced due to zinc application, besides favourable weather
condition during 2010. However, within year the differences in these parameters were not
significant. However, differences in plant height, leaf area index and dry matter accumulation
were about 30 cm, 0.3-1, and 4-6 t ha-1 respectively at different growth stages between both
the years. This might be due to the fact that during second year, the cumulative effect of
better rainfall distribution and timely availability of nutrient to the plant, better moisture and
zinc application produced more yield. Zinc application improves the growth because zinc
involved directly and indirectly as co-enzyme in photosynthetic process which provide
substrate for growth and development. These factors might have contributed for the overall
growth and development and yields of both the crop increased with the application of zinc.
Yield attributes and yield
In present study, yield attributes viz. number of grain cob-1, 1000-grain weight,
number of grain row cob-1, cob length and cob girth of maize and grain weight spike-1 of
wheat were not affected significantly with the application of zinc (Table 4.1.6). However,
these parameters were slightly better with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to both the
crops during the course of study. This might be due to the better role of Zn during
reproductive phase of crop growth. The maize grain, stover and biological yields were
significantly influenced by zinc application during first year (Table 4.1.7 and fig 4.1.1). And
maximum yields were recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year.
During first year grain yield due to application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher by 22.81,
18.63 and 8.36 percent and 4.10, 2.41 and 1.69 percent was higher over control , foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year, respectively. This might be
due to more yield attributing character recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
more source translocated towards sink. The overall performance of yield attributes was better
during second year in comparison to first year because the most important weather parameter
i.e. rainfall distribution and quantity was more during second year which helped in better crop
growth that ultimately reflected in the yield of crop. The yield attributing character of wheat
such as 1000 grain weight during first year and grain weight spike-1 were higher with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop. This might be due to uptake of
residual zinc applied to previous maize crop and not fully utilized due to less moisture stress
during crop growing season.
55
In wheat varieties the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher
effective tiller m-2, grain spike-1 and grain diameter during second year; 1000 grain weight
during both the year than the control, 12.5 and foliar spray. The effective tillers were
increased b due to application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 by 6, 10 and 11 percent over 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control, respectively during second year.
However, 1000 grain weight was 2, 3 and 4 percent higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control, respectively during second year. The effective tiller In
variety ‘PBW 343’ were found higher with the application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1than control, 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 by 15, 2 and 7 percent and 1000 grain by 5, 2
and 4 during first year, respectively. The increase in these parameters might be due to
involvement of zinc in various enzymatic processes which helps in catalyzing reaction for
growth finally leading to development of more yield attributing character. The results were in
close conformity with Jakhar et al., (2006).
Response to zinc of both varieties regarding effective tiller m-2, 1000 grain weight
grains spike-1, and grain diameter was better during second year, because during ear head
initiation period light rainfall occurred, which helped in providing favourable growing
conditions and better mobilisation of zinc. Another most important factor that zinc play
crucial role especially at blooming stage which is required for good grain setting in spike. The
variety ‘PBW 343’produced bolder grain during both the year than ‘DBW 17’ this may be
due better response of zinc application and inherent character of variety.
The grain, straw and biological yields recorded marginally higher with the application
of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to previous maize but it did not show significant variations. All these
parameters were recorded more during first year in comparison to second year due to better
growing conditions. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 grain yield was
higher by eight, 13 and 14 percent than the 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar and control treatment of
first year, respectively. The grain yield recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha- was
higher by 0.36, 0.20 and 0.26 t ha-1 during first year while 0.46, 0.06 and 0.31 t ha-1 during
second year than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha- and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively.
The yield advantage with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 0.35, 0.26 and
0.28 during first year and 0.43, 0.13 and 0.29 t ha-1 during second year as compared to control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively in variety ‘PBW 343.
Highest straw yield 7.13 in first year and 8.41 t ha-1second year in variety was obtained with
the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. While in variety ‘PBW 343’ straw yield was 7.06 in first
year and 7.71 t ha-1 during second year. The total biological yield follows the similar trends as
it depends upon the output of both grain and straw yield. This increase in yield might be due
to better growth and yield attributing character with zinc fertilization.
56
The grain, straw and biological yield were higher in variety ‘PBW 343’ than ‘DBW
17’ due to its more responsiveness to zinc application which was reflected in the form of
superior yield attributes. The harvest index recorded maximum with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during
first year and with control during second year in variety ‘DBW 17’. This effect might be due
to relatively more straw yield during first year with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 while
less grain yield in control during second year. Similar trend was also observed in variety
‘PBW 343’. Hossain et al., (2008) reported that the grain yield increases significantly as 7.4,
10.1 and 10.6 t ha-1 with increasing Zn rates from 0, 2 and 4 kg ha-1, respectively. Likewise
the straw yield due to 2 and 4 kg Zn ha-1 were found statistically similar particularly for the
second and third year, and the yields were significantly different as recorded on the first year
trial. Singh, (2011) reported that zinc application at the rate of 5‐10 kg ha‐1 increased the grain
yield response by 0.2‐2.6 t ha‐1 in various prominent cropping systems in India including
maize-wheat or rice‐pulse cropping systems.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of present study, following conclusions can be drawn:
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to maize and wheat in system is equally effective
as 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to the growth and yield attributes and yield of both crops.
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found similar in most of growth parameter with
two foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at knee height (30DAS) and at tasseling in maize
and at anthesis and one week after first spray in wheat.
Both the crop responded significantly with the application of zinc levels as compared
to control.
Adverse weather conditions particularly uneven distribution of rainfall and high
temperature had significant affect on growth and yield of maize crop.
Response of maize to zinc application greatly reduced under adverse weather
conditions and moister stress during vegetative phase.
57
4.2 RESEARCH PAPER –II Effect of agronomic biofortification on grain quality of maize and wheat in maize-wheat
cropping system Dileep Kumar and Shiva Dhar
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
ABSTRACT
An experiment was conducted during 2009-10 and 2010-11 at research farm of
division of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, to study the effect of various doses and methods of
zinc application on quality parameter of maize and wheat. The treatment consisted of control
(no ZnSO4), soil applied 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1; and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 at knee height stage and second spray one week later in case of maize whereas at the
time of anthesis and one week after previous one in case of wheat and two wheat varieties
‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’. These treatments were tested in randomised block design in
maize and in wheat treatment were splitted to accommodate two varieties keeping maize as
main plot with three replications. Application of various levels of zinc sulphate on maize and
wheat did not show any significant effect on protein concentration in grain and other grain
quality parameters. Concentration of nitrogen and potassium in grain did not differ
significantly due to application of zinc sulphate during both the year. However, phosphorus
concentration affected significantly during both the year. Relatively higher protein content
was obtained from soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both the year. Concentration of iron and
manganese in grain did not vary significantly due to zinc application during both the year.
However, during second year significant difference were observed in zinc and copper
concentration due to application of zinc. During first year relatively higher zinc
concentration was obtained due to soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. During second year the highest concentration of Zn
recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 which was significantly higher than the
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control but at par with the 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Relatively
higher iron concentration was recorded with the soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both the year. Nitrogen
concentration during first year and phosphorus concentration during second year in which
grain showed significant variation due to different levels of zinc sulphate. Marginally higher
phosphorus concentration was recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than
foliar spray 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during first year in wheat. Zinc applied directly to
wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW343’ showed that protein content, flour recovery and
58
water absorption capacity did not vary significantly during both the year. During second year
significant differences were observed in hardness and during first year sedimentation values
varied significantly. Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ recorded relatively higher
protein content than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during first
year. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray gave
comparatively higher protein content than control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Sedimentation
value recorded in ‘DBW 17’ due to direct zinc application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in wheat was
found significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
In ‘PBW 343’ significantly higher sedimentation value was observed with the application of
25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4
concentration of iron, zinc, copper and manganese during first year differ significantly due to
application of zinc sulphate to preceding maize crop but no significant changes were
observed during second year. The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 significantly increased zinc
concentration during both the year in ‘PBW 343’ while in ‘DBW 17’ during first year. Higher
zinc concentration recorded in ‘DBW 17’ with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than
control but it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during
second year. Zinc concentration obtained with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found
almost similar to foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during both the year; however it was similar to
control during first year and significantly higher than control during second year. Application
of zinc to preceding maize crop significantly influenced concentration of iron, copper and
manganese concentration, while zinc concentration remained unaffected during both the year.
Zinc applied directly to wheat varieties showed significant effect on micronutrient
concentration during both the year.
Keywords: Zinc, protein, water absorption capacity, sedimentation value, micronutrient
concentration
INTRODUCTION
Wheat ranks first in dietary consumption in Northern part of the country and as a
major crop in Indo -Gangetic plains where rice-wheat or maize-wheat cropping system
followed (Joshi et al., 2010). Micronutrients are mineral elements that are very essential for
the proper physical and metabolic functioning of the body and are required in low
concentration. Most of these are predominantly constituents of enzyme molecules and also
have roles as the signalling molecules. Malnutrition as well reported in the form of
insufficient energy intakes that affects millions of people worldwide and the consequences of
this kind of hunger is well acknowledged (Stein, 2010). Humans require at least 49 nutrients
(macro and micro) to fulfil their metabolic needs. Insufficient intake of even one of these
macro or micro nutrients will have adverse effect on metabolic disturbances resulting to
59
sickness, poor health, stunted development in children, and huge economic costs to society
(Welch and Graham 2004; Scrimgeour et al., 2011). Micronutrient deficiencies are common
problems in food crops and soils, causing decrease in crop yield and nutritional quality of
grain.
Producing micronutrient enriched crop would have to take many factors in
consideration including bioavailability, grain quality and most importantly, grain yield.
Genotypes of staple food crops requires the combined traits of stable, high micronutrient
status and high grain yield because if biofortified genotypes give less grain yield than existing
genotypes will not be adopted by farmers (Shi et al., 2010). Fortification of staple foods is an
effective strategy that can be used to overcome these nutrient deficiencies. In view of the
multiple mineral deficiencies, it seems appropriate to fortify the food with two or more
minerals simultaneously. It is also necessary to ensure that the forms of the added nutrient are
adequately bio-available. Moreover, this is a challenging task as physical mixture of these
minerals to staple foods may produce unacceptable organoleptic changes and thus result in
the rejection of the product by concerned population (Tripathi et al., 2012). It’s not only
increasing the concentration of mineral but also maintains mineral balance, it is not the intake
of a mineral that is important, but rather the amount that is available to be absorbed.
However, biofortification of staple food with selected micronutrients of special public health
importance is recognized as a strategy that has the potential to advance global welfare at
relatively low cost (Rosado et. al., 2009). This strategy is expected to be of special benefit to
poor rural populations. Fortification of foods, typically wheat flour, and diet diversification
can alleviate the problem for consumers with adequate and consistent access to these foods,
but young children or rural poor households may not be well served by these strategies
(Pixley et al., 2011).
Biofortification, or the development and popularization of staple crop varieties with
enhanced micronutrient content has been proposed as an effective and sustainable strategy to
alleviate malnutrition, particularly of rural families with limited access to markets and
healthcare facilities. Zinc is one of the key micronutrients for which adequate enhancement in
major food staples would be most valuable. Deficiency of dietary Zn is now recognized to be
a major cause of early childhood morbidity and mortality (Palmgren et al., 2008). The
physical and chemical constituents of the grain are the determinants of the end-product
quality of wheat. The role of micronutrients in determining end use quality has not been
studied nor do they apparently appear to be important in defining end-use quality. Grain
quality is essentially a relative term and should be defined in context of the purpose e.g. a
particular type of wheat grain may be very suitable for preparing biscuits but the same grain
is not suitable for producing good breads thus grain ‘X’ gives high quality biscuits but bad
60
quality bread and so on. In fact, the simplest definition of the quality of a grain or plant
product is in terms of its suitability. Physical constituents include kernel hardness,
virtuousness, hectolitre weight, etc. while the chemical constituents include the protein
content, protein quality, carbohydrates, lipids, sugars, micronutrients, etc.
There are as many as 46 technological parameters to judge the quality of wheat. The
genetic control of the quality traits in wheat has been well studied. Proteins are best studied
bio molecules and shown to have the largest effect on end use quality. Along with this,
several other physical and chemical properties also must be studied due to its importance in
end- use quality. Considering the above facts in mind this study was undertaken to give
answer to some of the burning issues of quality food.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2009-10 and
2010-11 to study the effect of levels of zinc application (control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 on productivity of maize and quality –wheat
cropping system.
Experimental site, soil and weather
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2009-10 and
2010-11 at the research farm of Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi, situated at 28.40N latitude and 77.10E longitude and at an altitude of
228.6 meters above mean sea level. Soil samples were taken before the start of the
experiment which were analysed for physical and chemical properties of the soil (Table
4.2.1). The field was well levelled, and soil was sandy loam in texture and slightly alkaline in
reaction. The climate of site is semi-arid to sub-tropical with extreme cold and hot situations;
the hottest months are May and June with the mean maximum temperature ranging from 41
0C to 44 0C, whereas the mean minimum temperature of the coolest months are December
and January falls in the range of 20C to 50C. The daily maximum and minimum temperature
tend to rise from first fortnight of February and maintain the trend till the month of June and
decreases from July onwards. The evapo-transpiration rate also follows similar pattern of
temperature during crop period. Average annual rainfall of the site is about 652 mm, 84 % of
which is received during south-west monsoon. July and August are the wettest months. The
relative humidity increases from June to September. The mean annual evaporation of Delhi is
about 850 mm.
Experimental details
The experiment was conducted in split plot design with three replications in a fixed
lay out. The main plot treatments consisted of four levels of zinc and two method of zinc
61
application to maize viz. control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5% ZnSO4 at knee height stage and one week later after previous spray.
Table 4.2.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site Particulars Value
Particle composition: (Hydrometer method, Bouyoucos, 1962)
1. Sand (%) 61.7
2. Silt (%) 11.9
3. Clay (%) 26.4
4. Textural class Sandy clay loam
Chemical properties
1. pH (1:2.5; soil: water ratio) (Elico pH meter, Piper, 1950) 7.8
2. Electrical conductivity (dS m-1) (Solubridge method, Piper, 1950) 0.32
3. Organic C (%) (Walkley and Black method, Piper, 1950) 0.38
4. Available N (kg ha-1) (Subbiah and Asija, 1956) 165.3
5. Available P (kg ha-1 )(Olsen et al., 1954) 12.2
6. Available K(kg ha-1) (Jackson, 1973) 239.5
7 Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.72
Whereas the sub plot treatments applied to wheat were four Zn levels viz. control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, and two foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 at anthesis one
week after previous two wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’. The maize variety
‘PEHM 2’ was sown with row spacing of 60 cm apart during kharif and wheat varieties
‘PBW 343’ and ‘DBW 17’ were sown in lines at 22 cm apart during rabi season. Each cycle
of maize-wheat cropping system was taken at different sites.
Field operations
In the experimental field, before starting of experiment maize was grown during
kharif 2008-09 in maize – wheat cropping system. The Field was suitably divided into three
blocks (replications). In each block four main plots were marked to accommodate the zinc
treatment. During rabi, each main plot was further divided into eight sub-plots to
accommodate four zinc treatments in combination with two varieties. After the harvest of
previous crop the plots were ploughed with a disc harrow twice. Further, cultivator was run
twice followed by planking then sowing of maize was done.
The recommended doses of 120:40:40 and 120:60:40 N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1 were
applied to maize and wheat respectively. The N, P and K were given in the form of urea,
single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. In maize, to control weeds two
62
hand weeding at 20 DAS and 40 DAS and in wheat one hand weeding-cum-intercultural
operation was done at 30 DAS. Chlorpyriphos @ 3.0 l ha-1 was applied during first irrigation
with irrigation water to control termite infestation in wheat during both the year.
Observations
Leaf area index, plant height and for dry matter accumulation sample were taken
from one square m area from each plot and finally converted into q ha-1.These observations
were recorded at 30, 60 and 90 days after sowing (DAS) of the crop using the standard
procedures. Leaf area of the crop was estimated using leaf area meter (1/2- MDL-1000,
LICOR Ltd, USA). Leaf area index was calculated as the ratio of total leaf area plant-1 and
ground area covered by the plant. Yield attributes, viz. number of grain cob-1, number of grain
row cob-1, 1000-grain weight, cob girth, and cob length were recorded for maize whereas for
wheat number of spikes m-2, grains spike-1, spike length,1000-grain weight from the
representative samples taken from each plot. Maize and wheat crops were harvested manually
and threshed with the help of corn sheller and Pullman thresher, respectively. The biological,
grain and stover/straw yields were recorded by weight plot wise. The harvest index was
calculated as the ratio of economic produce (grain yield) and the biological yield (grain +
stover or straw).
Grain protein content
Samples were analysed by Near Infrared Spectroscopy for grain protein. The
measurements are based on the fact that the main constituents in the grain such as protein,
moisture, fat and others absorb electromagnetic radiation in the near infrared region of the
spectrum.
Protein (gluten) strength
To estimate gluten strength, sedimentation test Zeleny (1947) was used. It gives the
extent of swelling of gluten protein thus indicating its quantity and quality. Further modified
method with the addition of the sodium dodecyl sulphate was used for testing gluten strength.
This test is based on the fact that gluten protein absorbs water and swells considerably when
treated with lactic acid alone or in the presence of sodium dodecyl sulphate (Pinckney et al.,
1957).
Hardness index
The Single Kernel Characterization System (SKCS model 4100) developed by Perten
instruments, Australia, is one such versatile instrument. This provides a rapid, objective
measurement of uniformity using measurements made on many grains. The instrument
automatically singulates kernels and determines individual kernel weights, diameter, moisture
and crushing force profiles (hardness). The hardness index of individual kernel is calculated
63
from these measurements using a hardness algorithm developed by USDA Grain Marketing
Research Laboratory.
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy for micronutrients
Micronutrient in the cereal crops grain and other parts of the plant varies
considerably. In wheat, 20 percent of iron and 70 percent zinc that is taken up by the plant is
translocated to the grain. The grain and straw sample of 0.5 to 1.0 gm dried and powdered
was weighed in a 100ml conical flask. After that 10ml conc. HNO3 was added and samples
were left for about 6-8 hrs or overnight for pre-digestion 10ml conc. HNO3 and 2-3ml of
HClO4 were added. The samples were heated to about 100 o C for first 1hr and then
temperature was raised to about 200 o C. Digestion was continued until the contents become
colourless and white dense fumes appeared. The acid contents were allowed to reduce to
about 2-3 ml by continuing heating at the same temperature. Flasks were removed from
hotplate, cooled and 30 ml of distilled water was added. Solutions were filtered through
Whatman No. 42 filter paper into 100 ml volumetric flask and volume was made up to 100
ml. Then concentration of Zn, Fe, Cu and Mn were recorded using AAS (Perkin Elmer model
400) available in the Grain Quality Laboratory, Division of Genetics, I.A.R.I. New Delhi.
Statistical analysis
The data recorded for different parameters were analysed with the help of analysis of
variance (ANOVA) technique for a split plot design using MSTAT-C software. Source of
variation and corresponding degrees of freedom used in the ANOVA are given in Annexure-
I. The result are presented at 5 % level of significance (P=0.05).
RESULTS
Effect of zinc levels on protein content in maize
Varying levels of zinc applied to maize did not give any significant effect on protein
content in grain. However, relatively higher protein content was observed with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
and control during both the year (Table 4.2.2).
Effect of zinc sulphate levels on concentration of NPK in maize grain
Concentration of nitrogen and potassium in maize grain obtained due to application
of zinc did not differ significantly, however, phosphorus concentration significantly affected
during both the year (Table 4.2.2).
Nitrogen
Relatively higher nitrogen concentration in grain recorded due to application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and control during both the
year.
64
Phosphorus
Significantly higher phosphorus concentration observed with the application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 than the foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control treatment. However, it was par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second
year was statically superior over the 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control. Foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and control were statistically similar with respect to P
concentration in grain.
Potassium
Relatively higher potassium concentration was recorded when 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
applied in comparison to 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during
both the year.
Table 4.2.2 Effect of zinc application on protein content and concentration of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium of maize grain
Treatment
Application of
ZnSO4
Protein content
(%)
Concentration in grain (%)
N P K
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 7.9 6.9 1.26 1.11 0.18 0.16 0.45 0.49
12.5 kg ha-1 8.1 6.8 1.29 1.09 0.21 0.17 0.45 0.44
25 kg ha-1 8.9 7.2 1.42 1.15 0.22 0.22 0.52 0.59
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 7.8 6.7 1.25 1.08 0.17 0.16 0.47 0.43
SEm ± 0.64 0.16 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS 0.03 0.02 NS NS
* One spray at the four leaf stage and one week after first spray
Effect of zinc sulphate levels on Zn, Fe, Cu and Mn concentration in maize grain
Micronutrient concentration i.e. iron and manganese in grain did not vary
significantly due to zinc application during both years, whereas zinc and copper
concentration differ significantly after application of zinc sulphate during second year. Zinc
and copper concentration did not vary significantly during first year (Table 4.2.3).
Zinc
The concentration of zinc recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year was
relatively higher than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. During second
year significantly higher zinc concentration was obtained due to application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 as compared to control but statistically similar with application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with the foliar
65
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 while foliar spray was found similar with control (Table 4.2.3 and fig
4.2.1).
Iron
Iron concentration did not vary significantly due to application of ZnSO4 levels. However,
marginally higher iron concentration recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both the year(Table
4.2.3 and fig 4.2.1).
Table 4.2.3 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in maize grain
Treatment
application of ZnSO4
Micronutrient concentration in grain (ppm)
Zn Fe Cu Mn
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 16.92 19.04 13.70 12.09 2.58 2.68 8.55 8.63
12.5 kg ha-1 18.46 25.41 14.66 14.56 2.20 2.99 8.10 8.59
25 kg ha-1 19.70 26.35 17.08 15.03 2.63 3.21 8.57 8.70
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 19.70 24.99 14.85 13.55 2.68 2.67 8.18 8.50
SEm ± 1.44 1.43 1.04 0.25 0.15 0.10 0.22 0.22
CD(P=0.05) NS 4.91 NS NS NS 0.36 NS NS
*One spray at the knee high stage and one week after first spray
Copper
Application of zinc sulphate levels did not show significant effect on Cu
concentration in maize grain during first year. During second year significantly higher
concentration was recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 and control but it was at par with the 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. The treatment applied
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found statistically similar with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control. Control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 were also found at par (Table 4.2.3 and fig
4.2.1).
Manganese
No significant differences were recorded in grain Mn concentration during both the
year. However, concentration of Mn in grain was relatively higher with the application of 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than remaining treatment during both the year (Table 4.2.3 and fig 4.2.1).
Effect of zinc sulphate levels on concentration of NPK maize stover
Data recorded on evident that nitrogen concentration during first year and
phosphorus concentration during second year show significant variation due to different
levels of zinc. However, zinc application did not give any effect on nitrogen during second
year, phosphorus in first year and potassium concentration during both years (Table 4.2.4).
Fig 4.2.1 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in maize grain
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on (
ppm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2009
Zn Fe Cu Mn
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(p
pm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2010Zn Fe Cu Mn
66
Nitrogen
The concentration of N recorded from the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
significantly higher than the foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control; however it was at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. No significant effect differences were recorded
among application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control (Table
4.2.4).
Phosphorus
Concentration of P significantly varied during second year, no significant differences
were observed during first year. Marginally higher phosphorus concentration obtained from
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control during first year. Phosphorus concentration obtained due to applied 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was significantly superior over 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was remain at par with foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 and control (Table 4.2.4).
Potassium
Application of zinc sulphate did not affect significantly the concentration of K in
grain during both the year. Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave the relatively higher
potassium concentration than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
during both the year (Table 4.2.4).
Table 4.2.4 Effect of zinc application on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in maize stover
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
% Concentration
N P K
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 0.25 0.28 0.18 0.16 1.62 1.38
12.5 kg ha-1 0.30 0.23 0.20 0.17 1.64 1.37
25 kg ha-1 0.36 0.32 0.20 0.22 1.85 1.58
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.16 1.59 1.36
SEm ± 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.11
CD(P=0.05) 0.07 NS NS 0.02 NS NS
*One spray at the four leaf stage and one week after first spray
Effect of zinc levels on micronutrient concentration in maize stover
Zinc application to maize crop has shown the significant effect on iron concentration
in stover during second year and manganese concentration during first year. Micronutrient
nutrient like zinc, copper did not vary significantly during both year and manganese during
first year due to application of various levels of zinc sulphate (Table 4.2.5 and fig 4.2.2).
67
Zinc
Concentration of zinc recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
marginally higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, followed by foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control during both the year (Table 4.2.5 and fig 4.2.2).
Iron
Iron concentration found with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was relatively
higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during first year.
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly superior to foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
and control, but remains at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 with respect to iron concentration.
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 also found significantly superior to foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 and control. Almost similar concentration of iron was found in the treatment with
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control treatment (Table 4.2.5 and fig 4.2.2).
Copper
Relatively higher Cu concentration was obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control treatment during both
the year (Table 4.2.5 and fig 4.2.2).
Manganese
During first year Mn concentration obtained from application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was significantly higher than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control, but remain at par with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Treatments with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4, foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 and control were at par among themselves. During second year the trend was almost
similar but differences in Mn concentration were non significant (Table 4.2.5 and fig 4.2.2).
Table 4.2.5 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in maize stover
Treatment application of ZnSO4
Micronutrient concentration (ppm) Zn Fe Cu Mn
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 100.7 105.9 166.0 144.23 76.01 70.73 54.05 58.69
12.5 kg ha-1 102.9 107.8 168.7 164.40 80.20 78.74 59.59 61.20
25 kg ha-1 106.7 109.9 169.3 167.73 84.67 81.60 63.03 67.20
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 102.4 107.3 167.7 146.97 77.28 74.48 56.69 60.34
SEm ± 3.9 6.9 4.71 4.68 2.71 3.02 1.66 2.23
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS 16.2 NS NS 5.75 NS
*One spray at the four leaf stage and one week after first spray
Fig 4.2.2 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in maize stover
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(p
pm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2009
Zn Fe Cu Mn
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(p
pm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2010
Zn Fe Cu Mn
68
Wheat
Effect of zinc levels on grain quality of wheat
Zinc applied to preceding maize crop did not show any significant effect on protein
content, flour recovery, water absorption capacity, hardness and sedimentation value during
both the year of experimentation.
Sedimentation and hardness differ significantly during first and second year
respectively due to direct application of zinc levels in wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW
343’. However, protein content, flour recovery and water absorption capacity did not vary
significantly during both the years (Table 4.2.6 and Fig 4.2.3 and 4.2).
Protein content
The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop recorded relatively
higher protein content than the 12.5 kg ZnSO4, foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and control during
first year. However, during second year relatively higher protein content recorded with
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control (Table 4.2.6
and Fig 4.2.3 and 4.2).
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ recorded relatively higher
protein content than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during first
year. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
gave comparatively higher protien concentration than control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. In
variety ‘PBW 343’ application of 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1 recorded relatively higher content than
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during first year.
Flour Recovery
Relatively more flour recovery obtained from application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to
preceding maize crop than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
during both the year. Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties showed non-significant
effect on flour recovery. Almost similar flow recovery was obtained from all the levels of
zincs applied during both the years and in both the varieties.
Water Absorption Capacity
The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize recorded relatively higher
water absorption capacity during first year while control treatment during second year. Direct
application of zinc to wheat varieties i.e. ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ did not show significant
variation in water absorption capacity during both the year.
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ recorded relatively more water
absorption capacity during both year in comparison to 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 and control. There was almost similar water absorption recorded during both the
year. In variety ‘PBW 343’ the control treatment recorded comparatively higher
69
Table 4.2.6 Effect of zinc application on protein content, flour recovery, water absorption capacity, hardness and sedimentation of wheat grain
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Protein content
(%)
Flour Recovery
(%)
Water Absorption
Capacity
Hardness Sedimentation
(ml)
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 12.2 11.4 68.1 67.9 56.9 57.5 90.7 77.5 34.2 27.5
12.5 kg ha-1 12.3 11.5 68.2 68.3 56.9 57.3 90.1 76.7 33.8 27.2
25 kg ha-1 12.4 11.2 68.9 68.8 57.1 57.3 89.8 74.7 33.5 27.5
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 12.3 11.2 68.3 68.4 57.1 57.3 89.7 73.2 33.4 27.8
SEm± 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 2.3 0.3 0.2
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 12.1 11.1 68.6 68.1 56.9 57.0 89.8 77.6 33.7 28.0
12.5 kg ha-1 12.3 11.5 68.4 67.7 56.6 57.1 89.8 77.5 33.9 27.3
25 kg ha-1 12.4 11.7 68.0 69.0 57.1 57.7 89.4 77.2 34.8 27.1
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 12.3 11.7 68.0 68.6 56.7 57.3 89.3 76.5 34.0 27.6
‘PBW 343’
Control 12.2 11.6 68.1 68.0 57.3 57.3 88.7 74.2 33.3 27.2
12.5 kg ha-1 12.2 10.9 69.0 68.4 57.0 57.6 90.4 73.3 33.2 27.3
25 kg ha-1 12.6 11.2 68.9 68.4 57.2 57.2 91.4 72.9 33.4 27.5
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 12.2 11.0 68.2 68.7 57.2 57.5 91.7 75.0 33.6 27.9
SEm± 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.3 0.3
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 3.1 0.7 NS
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
Fig. 4.2.3 Effect of zinc application on Protein content, hardness and Sedimentation of ‘DBW 17’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Val
ues
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Protein content (%) Hardness Sedimentation (ml)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Val
ues
ZnSO4 levels
2010-11
Protein content (%) Hardness Sedimentation (ml)
Fig. 4.2.4 Effect of zinc application on protein content, hardness and sedimentation of ‘PBW 343’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
valu
es
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Protein content (%) Hardness Sedimentation (ml)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
valu
es
ZnSO4 levels
2010-11
Protein content (%) Hardness Sedimentation (ml)
70
water absorption capacity than other treatment during first year while during second year 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave relatively more water absorption capacity followed by foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 and control and least was found in treatment with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
Grain Hardness
Least hardness value obtained from foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 to preceding maize
crop was lowest during both the year in comparison to 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and control. Hardness value recorded with control was higher and decreased by application of
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 (Table 4.2.6 and Fig 4.2.3 and 4.2).
Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 to ‘DBW 17’ gave the minimum hardness value during both the
year. During first year hardness recorded with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
found lower than control. Relatively higher value of hardness was measured in ‘PBW 343’
during first year with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and it was closely followed by 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and control. During second year foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
gave significantly higher hardness value than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1.
During first year almost similar hardness values were recorded with different level of
zinc in both the varieties. Hardness recorded during second with control treatment in ‘DBW
17’ was significantly higher than the value obtained from the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and control treatment in ‘PBW 343’. Control treatment was found at par
with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 however, foliar spray in variety
‘DBW 17’ and foliar spray in variety in ‘PBW 343’ was found with higher values of
hardness.
Sedimentation
During first year relatively higher sedimentation value observed with control
treatment to preceding maize crop than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year gave higher value than
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and control (Table 4.2.6 and Fig 4.2.3
and 4.2).
Sedimentation value in ‘DBW 17’ due to direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during
first year. This treatment was significantly higher than all the treatment applied to variety
‘PBW 343’. In ‘PBW 343’ highest value was recorded from foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but
it was at par with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. During
second year highest value were obtained from control in ‘DBW 17’ and from foliar spray of
0.5% ZnSO4 in ‘PBW 343’ although these treatments were at par with each other.
71
Effect at zinc levels on micronutrient concentration in wheat grain
Micronutrient iron, zinc copper and manganese concentration differ significantly due
to application of zinc to preceding maize crop during first year but it did not vary
significantly during second year. Direct application of zinc to varieties showed evidently
significant differences in micronutrient concentration during both the year (Table 4.2.7 and
fig 4.2.5 and 4.2.6).
Iron
The iron concentration recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize
crop was significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control during first year. Fe concentration was significantly higher when12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
applied than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control, while foliar was significantly superior
to control. During second year relatively higher iron concentration was recorded from 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control (Table 4.2.7 and
fig 4.2.5 and 4.2.6).
The direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ found statistically superior
over foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control but remained at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
During first year application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was superior over control but at par with
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded
higher Fe concentration than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 however; it was at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave higher concentration than
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control. In ‘PBW 343’ iron concentration obtained during
first year due to 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5
% and during second year it was higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
and control. Iron concentration with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 and control during both years. Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was found similar with
control during first year but this treatment was higher than control during second year with
respect to iron concentration.
Zinc
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize was significantly higher in zinc
concentration than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
during first year. The concentration of zinc in 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 treatment remained at par
with control and foliar spray. During second year relatively higher zinc found with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control (Table
4.2.7 and fig 4.2.5 and 4.2.6).
The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to wheat gave significantly higher zinc
concentration during both years in ‘PBW 343’ and during first year in variety ‘DBW 17’.
72
During second year ‘DBW 17’ recorded higher zinc concentration with 25.0 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
over the control but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar with control and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year. During second year it was higher than control but similar with foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. In ‘PBW343’ significantly higher zinc concentration recorded with the
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4
during both the year. Fe concentration due to foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was significantly
higher than control during first year and it was at par during second year.
Copper
During first year Cu concentration from the treatment with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied
to preceding maize, was significantly higher than control but remains at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. The Cu concentration due to application of 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 remained at par with control (Table 4.2.7 and
fig 4.2.5 and 4.2.6).
The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher copper concentration
in ‘DBW 17’ than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during
second year. Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found higher than control and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in ‘PBW 343’.
In both varieties concentration obtained from 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher
than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. During second year the
maximum concentration recorded with application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and it was statistically
superior over 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control in ‘PBW 343’.
Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 showed almost similar concentration of Cu as recorded in
control during both the year.
Manganese
Grain Mn concentration during first year obtained from25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
preceding maize crop was significantly higher than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. During second year relatively higher concentration found
with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and control
(Table 4.2.7 and fig 4.2.5 and 4.2.6). The highest Mn concentration recorded in ‘DBW 17’
with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and it was significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of
0.5% ZnSO4 and control during both the year. Similar trend was also observed in ‘PBW 343’
during first year. However, application f 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was statistically superior over
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control treatments while at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
during second year. In the both varieties application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly
higher manganese than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
73
Table 4.2.7 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration wheat grain
Treatment
Application of
ZnSO4
Micronutrient concentration in grain (ppm)
Fe Zn Cu Mn
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 28.7 34.2 39.3 41.3 4.1 4.7 41.9 38.9
12.5 kg ha-1 31.3 34.9 40.3 43.4 4.2 4.8 44.0 39.3
25 kg ha-1 33.2 35.5 41.3 44.2 4.3 4.9 45.5 39.3
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 29.7 34.2 39.6 43.3 4.2 4.5 42.6 38.7
SEm± 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.03 0.1 0.5 0.7
CD(P=0.05) 0.6 NS 1.2 NS 0.1 NS 1.8 NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 28.8 28.5 37.9 42.4 4.1 4.3 41.6 35.6
12.5 kg ha-1 30.7 36.3 39.2 45.5 4.1 4.2 44.1 43.2
25 kg ha-1 32.3 37.2 43.9 46.8 4.4 5.7 46.0 47.4
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 29.9 29.9 38.6 44.6 4.1 4.6 42.9 37.6
‘PBW 343’
Control 28.9 30.8 37.2 39.4 4.1 3.9 41.7 33.5
12.5 kg ha-1 31.4 37.4 40.3 40.9 4.4 4.9 43.3 39.2
25 kg ha-1 33.2 42.6 44.1 44.0 4.4 4.2 45.5 40.2
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 30.6 34.2 39.7 40.8 4.3 4.1 42.8 35.4
SEm± 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.2
CD(P=0.05) 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.0 0.3 0.3 1.4 3.4
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
Fig 4.2.5 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in grain of ‘DBW 17’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(p
pm)
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Zn Fe Cu Mn
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(p
pm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2010-11
Zn Fe Cu Mn
Fig 4.2.6 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in wheat variety ‘PBW 343’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on (
ppm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2009
Zn Fe Cu Mn
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on (
ppm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2010
Zn Fe Cu Mn
74
Effect of zinc levels on micronutrient concentration in straw
The iron, copper and manganese concentration in straw showed significant variation
due to application of zinc to preceding maize crop, while zinc concentration did not vary
significantly during both the year. Zinc applied directly to wheat varieties has shown
significant effect on micronutrient concentration during both the year (Table 4.2.8 fig 4.2.7
and 4.2.8).
Iron
Iron concentration in straw varied with different levels of zinc applied to previous
maize crop. Significantly higher concentration of Fe was obtained with application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the
year.
Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties showed that 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave
maximum Fe concentration than other levels of zinc applied to both varieties. It was
significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 in both
the varieties during both the year. The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded
significantly higher concentration than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was at par with control treatment during both the year in variety
‘DBW 17’. In variety ‘PBW 343’ concentration obtained with the application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but higher than control during both
the year. Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was found almost similar with control during first year
but higher than control during second year (Table 4.2.8 fig 4.2.7 and 4.2.8).
Zinc
During first year relatively higher concentration was found with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
applied to preceding maize and with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. In ‘DBW 17’zinc
concentration with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year while this treatment of zinc was higher in
foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 than control during second year. Markedly higher zinc
concentration recorded with application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control during first year but
it was at par with control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year (Table 4.2.8 fig 4.2.7
and 4.2.8).
In ‘PBW 343’ the highest Zn concentration was found with foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during both the year. During first year foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 found significantly
superior over control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 but at par with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. While during
second year it was significantly higher than control but found at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Significantly higher concentration was recorded from 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 than control during first year but it was at par with control during second year.
75
Copper
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize gave relatively higher Cu
concentration than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first
year. During second year applications of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found significantly higher
over control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 while remain at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
In ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ significantly higher Cu concentration was observed with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year. During second year 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found superior over
control and it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. In both the
varieties application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar Cu concentration with control
and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during first year. During second year it was higher than
control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 (Table 4.2.8 fig 4.2.7 and 4.2.8).
Manganese
Relatively higher Mn concentration recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
preceding maize crop during both the year. However, during second year it was significantly
higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.2.8 fig 4.2.7
and 4.2.8).
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ was significantly higher than control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. The application of
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher concentration than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
and control. However, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 zinc recorded higher concentration of Mn
than control during both the year. In ‘PBW 343’ concentration of Mn recorded with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during both years. Higher concentration of Mn was recorded due to application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 over control and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. Similar Mn concentration recorded
from foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was at par with control.
Effect of Zn levels on percent concentration of N, P and K in grain
Effect of zinc applied to preceding maize crop on nitrogen and potassium
concentration in grain was found non significant during both the year. Moreover, zinc
application showed significant variation in phosphorus concentration during both years.
Direct application of zinc to wheat ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ recorded significant effect on
nitrogen and potassium during first year while phosphorus during both years (Table 4.2.9).
Nitrogen
Zinc applied to preceding maize crop recorded relatively higher nitrogen with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4and control during both years(Table 4.2.9).
76
Table 4.2.8 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration of wheat straw
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Micronutrient concentration (ppm)
Fe Zn Cu Mn
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 384.8 429.2 62.7 64.8 58.4 56.7 49.0 50.7
12.5 kg ha-1 408.3 465.3 64.5 68.7 58.4 63.7 49.2 51.9
25 kg ha-1 429.8 508.3 64.1 71.9 59.7 66.5 49.3 54.9
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 383.8 443.1 63.4 67.3 58.2 59.4 49.3 53.7
SEm± 4.5 3.9 0.5 1.6 0.4 1.4 0.3 0.7
CD(P=0.05) 15.6 13.4 NS NS NS 4.9 NS 2.6
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 371.4 387.1 59.0 63.8 57.8 56.5 46.6 42.6
12.5 kg ha-1 412.8 477.4 61.1 66.9 58.0 63.4 49.0 52.1
25 kg ha-1 442.4 563.2 62.7 67.6 61.3 64.1 51.0 57.8
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 392.2 402.2 69.0 71.9 58.0 59.6 48.9 46.9
‘PBW 343’
Control 383.6 338.9 58.7 65.0 56.1 57.1 47.9 50.6
12.5 kg ha-1 401.5 492.7 64.3 69.4 58.8 64.1 49.5 56.6
25 kg ha-1 421.2 559.7 67.2 69.6 61.2 65.8 51.4 64.3
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 388.4 470.5 67.2 71.3 58.5 61.8 49.2 51.5
SEm± 7.3 10.6 1.0 1.9 0.6 2.1 0.5 1.4
CD(P=0.05) 20.8 29.9 2.8 5.3 1.8 5.9 1.3 4.1
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
Fig 4.2.7 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in straw of ‘DBW 17’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(m
g kg
-1)
ZnSO4 levels
2009
Zn Cu Mn
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(m
g kg
-1)
ZnSO4 levels
2010
Zn Cu Mn
Fig 4.2.8 Effect of zinc application on micronutrients in straw of ‘PBW 343’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on(p
pm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Zn Cu Mn
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
Con
cent
rati
on (
ppm
)
ZnSO4 levels
2010-11
Zn Cu Mn
77
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’, The N concentration was at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and control. During first year it was
significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 applied to ‘PBW 343’. The
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found significantly superior to control but remain at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was at par with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. During second year relatively more N
concentration recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in both the
varieties.
Phosphorus
Phosphorus concentration recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding
maize crop was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4 during both years. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found superior over control
and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during both the year (Table 4.2.9).
In ‘DBW 17’ the highest P concentration was observed with direct application of 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both years. This treatment was at par with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 in ‘DBW 17’ during both the year, but during first year
significantly higher than control in ‘PBW 343’. The concentration of P in ‘PBW 343’
recorded with the application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during both the year. The application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 gave the significant more concentration than control but at par with foliar spray of
0.5% ZnSO4 during both the year.
Potassium
The potassium content recorded due to application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding
maize crop was relatively more than other treatment during both the year. In general no
significant differences were recorded in K concentration due to levels of zinc applied to
preceding maize crop during both the year (Table 4.2.9).
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 resulted in significantly higher in ‘DBW 17’ K
content over foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 but remain at par with control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1. Potassium concentration from the application 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was statistically
similar with control during first year. In ‘PBW 343’ K concentration observed during first
year with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly superior over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. Foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 gave higher K concentration than
control but almost equal with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. During second year marginally higher K
content recorded in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4 and control in both the varieties.
78
Table 4.2.9 Effect of zinc application on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in wheat grain
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
Effect of zinc levels on nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentration in straw
There was significant variation in nitrogen concentration during first year and in phosphorus
during second year due to zinc application to preceding maize crop. No significant variation
in nitrogen concentration observed during second year, phosphorus concentration during first
year and potassium concentration during both the year. Direct application of zinc to wheat
varieties also played significant role in concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in straw
during both year and on potassium concentration during first year (Table 4.2.10).
Nitrogen
Nitrogen concentration in straw obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
applied to previous crop was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Concentration (%)
N P K
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 1.88 1.77 0.38 0.27 0.55 0.59
12.5 kg ha-1 1.91 1.85 0.41 0.31 0.54 0.60
25 kg ha-1 1.94 1.90 0.43 0.33 0.56 0.62
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 1.90 1.78 0.40 0.28 0.55 0.59
SEm± 0.02 0.04 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.019
CD(P=0.05) NS NS 0.003 0.01 NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 1.90 1.77 0.40 0.29 0.54 0.58
12.5 kg ha-1 1.93 1.83 0.41 0.30 0.56 0.61
25 kg ha-1 1.96 1.86 0.41 0.31 0.57 0.62
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 1.90 1.81 0.40 0.29 0.53 0.58
‘PBW 343’
Control 1.85 1.79 0.38 0.25 0.51 0.55
12.5 kg ha-1 1.90 1.84 0.40 0.30 0.54 0.62
25 kg ha-1 1.94 1.87 0.42 0.34 0.59 0.63
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 1.88 1.84 0.40 0.30 0.55 0.58
SEm± 0.02 0.03 0.002 0.01 0.01 0.02
CD(P=0.05) 0.06 NS 0.01 0.02 0.03 NS
79
spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during first year. The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found
similar with control and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. During second year slightly more
concentration was observed in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to previous crop than control, 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 (Table 4.2.10).
In ‘DBW 17’concentration of N recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was superior over
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during both the year.
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found at par with control and foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4 during first year and it was higher than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4 during second year. In ‘PBW 343’ N concentration recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
during first year was significantly higher than control but remained at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. However, during second year it was superior over
control and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. N concentration
recorded due to application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control but at
par with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 in both the varieties during both the year.
Phosphorus
Phosphorus concentration during first year due to 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
preceding maize crop was recorded significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4 whereas it was higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4d during second year (Table 4.2.10). .
In ‘DBW 17’ the highest P concentration obtained from application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 during both the year, and it was found similar to control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during first year. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4.
During first year application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with control and foliar spray of
0.5% ZnSO4. However, it was higher than control but similar to foliar spray during second
year. In ‘PBW 343’ P content was superior with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 over
control but remained at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during
both the year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave statistically equal concentration as
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. During second year it was higher
over control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4.
Potassium
During first year potassium concentration obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
preceding maize crop was marginally higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and control during
second year (Table 4.2.10). In ‘DBW 17’ significantly higher concentration observed from 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control but at par with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1and foliar
spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during first year.
80
Table 4.2.10 Effect of zinc application on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium in wheat straw
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Concentration (%)
N P K
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Maize
Control 0.42 0.47 0.15 0.11 1.59 1.58
12.5 kg ha-1 0.42 0.46 0.17 0.13 1.61 1.55
25 kg ha-1 0.44 0.47 0.17 0.15 1.62 1.59
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 0.42 0.47 0.16 0.13 1.59 1.56
SEm± 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.002 0.031 0.04
CD(P=0.05) 0.003 NS 0.004 0.008 NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 0.42 0.42 0.16 0.10 1.50 1.45
12.5 kg ha-1 0.43 0.50 0.16 0.13 1.62 1.57
25 kg ha-1 0.44 0.53 0.17 0.16 1.71 1.66
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 0.42 0.49 0.16 0.12 1.60 1.66
‘PBW 343’
Control 0.41 0.38 0.15 0.11 1.49 1.56
12.5 kg ha-1 0.42 0.45 0.16 0.13 1.60 1.60
25 kg ha-1 0.43 0.52 0.17 0.14 1.72 1.57
Foliar spray (0.5%)* 0.42 0.44 0.16 0.13 1.57 1.49
SEm± 0.002 0.025 0.003 0.003 0.041 0.05
CD(P=0.05) 0.006 0.071 0.009 0.010 0.117 NS
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found at par with control and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4.
During first year K content recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than
control but similar with12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. During second
year relatively higher content was obtained with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 ‘DBW 17’. Whereas, in ‘PBW 343’ marginally more content recorded with 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4.
DISCUSSION
Weather Parameter
Weather parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, rainfall etc. have
significant impact on quality aspect of maize and wheat. During experimental seasons of
2009 and 2010, weather conditions were not similar with respect to rainfall, temperature and
81
other parameters. The weather conditions were more favourable during rainy season of 2010
for maize crop, while the weather was slightly unfavourable during 2009. Due to late arrival
of rainfall at the end of July resulted in the late sowing of the maize crop. As per the
recommendation the maize sowing should be completed during June in this region.
Moreover, due to late sowing of the crop, the crop biomass production and overall
productivity of maize was inferior during first year in comparison to the 2nd year. The overall
growth attributes, yield attributes and yield, net returns and nutrient uptake of maize were
inferior in 2009 in comparison to 2010 due to comparative unfavourable weather conditions.
However, the weather parameters for wheat crop were almost similar during both the year. At
the sowing time of wheat crop, the field situations were quite favourable resulting in a
comparatively better crop establishment and rainfall during booting stage provided slightly
better condition during 2010. However, in comparison to maize crop overall yield
performance of wheat crop was similar during both the year.
Quality of maize
Maize protein
Protein content due to application of zinc did not give any significant change but it
was 11, 9 and 12 per cent higher with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively during first season while in next season it was 4, 6
and 7 per cent higher. The increase in protein content with highest level of zinc application
might be due to directly involvement of zinc in the metabolism of plant and increases overall
growth of plant. The difference between first year and second year ranges from 1.1 to 1.7 per
cent. This is because of less crop growth during first year so that contributed more nitrogen
concentration in grain as compared to second year. In contrary to this during second year the
luxurious crop growth might have some dilution effect on the concentration of nitrogen to
sink from different part of the plant.
NPK concentration in grain
Nitrogen concentration in maize grain did not vary significantly, but its concentration
was more with highest level of zinc application during both seasons. It may be due to more
carbonic anhydrase activity which enhances the photosynthetic rate (Zinc deficiency
adversely affects net photosynthesis rate and stomatal conductance Wang and Jin, 2005) and
it helps in nitrogen metabolism. Pervaiz et al., (2002) reported that zinc application enhances
nitrate reductase activity. Zinc has a critical role in synthesis of protein and metabolism of
DNA and RNA. There were differences in nitrogen concentration between first and second
year in grain this might be due to more dilution effect during second year. The nitrogen
concentration difference with in year ranges from 0.7- 0.27 per cent. Moinuddin and Imas
(2010) reported that applying zinc levels increasingly enhanced the content of N, K and Zn of
82
the crop progressively. Zinc application @ 10 kg ZnSO4 proved always better than no zinc
application, but the differences with the application were not much conspicuous in case of N
and K content. He also reported that, the P content decreased with zinc application compared
to no zinc application. In case of phosphorus, significant difference was observed due to
application of different level of zinc. The phosphorus concentration obtained with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 18, 5 and 23 per cent more than control, 12.5 and foliar
spray of 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively during first year while 27, 23 and 27 during second year.
The yearly difference was very meagre regarding phosphorus concentration. Khan et
al., (1980) reported that the soil zinc application increases the nitrogen and phosphorus
concentration but at high level of zinc application reduces the concentration of phosphorus.
Potassium concentration also followed the same trend and very less difference was observed.
But slightly more content recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 this might be due
to synergism between zinc and potassium. The zinc content in wheat leaves, stem and roots
increased significantly with increased levels of zinc, similarly, residual effect on zinc content
in succeeding maize leaves, stem and roots.
Micronutrient
Micronutrient concentration in grain did not differ significantly with the application
of varied levels of zinc application. Cui and Zhao, 2011 reported that Zn concentration in the
shoots of maize significantly increased corresponding to the application of the Zn treatment.
Although slightly increase in Zn, Fe, Mn, and Cu recorded with increase in zinc levels and
highest was reported with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of
0.5% ZnSO4 and control treatment. However, iron, copper and manganese concentration
decreases with increasing zinc application as reported by Adiloglu, (2006).
Quality of wheat
Micronutrient concentration in wheat grain
Zinc, Iron and copper content slightly increase with the application of zinc to
preceding crop during 2009-10. The content of these nutrients were more during 2010-11 in
comparison to 2009-10. This might be due to residual effect of zinc applied to maize crop.
More manganese content recorded during first year but less during second year in the present
investigation. Zinc, iron, copper and manganese content increases with the zinc levels. The
increase in iron content in ‘DBW 17’ was 11, 5 and 7 percent more with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spay of 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively during first year
while 23, 2 and 20 percent during second year. In ‘PBW 343’the iron concentration obtained
with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 13, 5 and 8 percent more than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 respectively, during first season; 28, 12 and 12.5
percent, during second year. Zinc concentration also increases significantly with the
83
application of zinc. Erenoglu et al., (2002) also reported enhanced concentration of Zn in
shoot and root dry matter by zinc application. The proportion of Zn translocation was higher
in shoots than roots, particularly in the case of plants supplied adequately with Zn. The
maximum concentration found with highest level of zinc application during both year.
In ‘DBW 17’ application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave 17, 11 and 12 percent more zinc
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively, during first
year whereas it was nine, three and five percent more during second year. Application of
adequate Zn to wheat genotypes achieved a 4-7 fold increase in Zn concentration when
compared with control treatments. While the grain Zn concentration in control treatment was
14.28 mg Zn kg-1, the value was 24.67 mg Zn kg-1 in Zn 5 kg treatment and it increased by
38.47%. Zinc concentration in ‘PBW 343’ the highest level i.e. 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1 recorded
16, 9 and 10 percent more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4
respectively, during first year whereas during second year it was 10, 7 and 7 per cent. Copper
and manganese concentration was also more with highest level of zinc applied to ‘DBW 17’
and ‘PBW 343’. However, zinc application might have enhanced synthesis of auxin from
tryptophan and thereby enhanced growth, which might have naturally required more iron
content for chlorophyll synthesis and other metabolic activities. The result shows the increase
in concentration, which might be due to better root growth and enzymatic activity led to more
catalyzing effect helps to retain more of these nutrients in grain.
Concentration of all four micronutrient i. e. zinc, iron, copper and manganese was
higher during second season in relation to first seasons. This might be due to better climatic
condition and occurrence of rainfall during reproductive phase which helped in better
flowering and grain filling. Micronutrient concentrations in grains affected due to play crucial
role played by zinc during reproductive stage
Protein, flour recovery, water absorption capacity, sedimentation and grain hardness
Protein content, flour recovery, water absorption capacity, sedimentation and
hardness of wheat grains did not vary due to zinc application to preceding maize crop during
2009-10 and 2010-11 which indicate that residual zinc did not affect these parameters. The
value of these parameters in ‘DBW 17’and ‘PBW 343’ did not vary significantly except
hardness during second year. Slightly higher value of protein, water absorption capacity,
sedimentation, flour recovery and hardness was obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1. These
parameters were higher during first year in comparison to second year. The less variations
might be due to zinc which has little role to play in respect to these quality characters.
Another important factor for discussion is that hardness and sedimentation value
might be associated with protein content in grain. Cakmak et al., (1989) reported that the role
of Zn in protein synthesis is well acknowledge and demonstrate that the decrease in IAA
84
level in Zn-deficient plants is not brought about by impaired synthesis of tryptophan. It is also
unlikely that in Zn-deficient plants the conversion of tryptophan to IAA is specifically
inhibited. As protein content was more during 2009-10 the sedimentation and hardness values
were also higher in contrary to the low protein content in 2010-11due to that sedimentation
and hardness value also recorded less. The difference between first year and second year in
protein content, hardness and sedimentation value ranges from 11.1-12.1 percent, 72.9-91.7
and 27.1-33.2, respectively.
Micronutrient concentration in wheat straw
Iron, copper and manganese concentration shows significant variation due to
application of zinc to previous maize crop. Shoot Zn concentration showed significant
differences between wheat cultivar and it significantly increased the shoot Zn concentrations
by 1.6 and 2.5 times (Tarighi et al., 2012).The higher zinc, iron, copper and manganese
concentration in wheat obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1 applied to maize. This increase in
concentration of these micronutrients might be due to residual zinc in soil which improves the
growth of wheat. Chen et al. (2010) compared different genotypes of wheat and reported that
significant differences in the Zn concentration of roots and shoots among genotypes. In the
Zn applied treatment, Zn concentrations in wheat shoots ranged from 12.3 to 26.9 mg kg-1
while Zn concentrations in wheat roots ranged from 29.1 to 61.1 mg kg-1.
In ‘DBW 17’and ‘PBW 343’ more concentration recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. The increase in
concentration was more during second year. This might be due to better climatic conditions
specifically rain during grain filling period leading to better uptake of nutrient during
respective seasons. In ‘PBW 343’ the concentration was more with respect to variety ‘DBW
17’ this might be due varietal character and ‘PBW 343’ more efficient regarding storage of
these particular nutrient in straw. Kovacevic et al., (2004) reported that zinc, manganese and
iron status in genotype under considerable influences of heredity therefore under similar
environmental conditions considerable differences were found among tested hybrids.
NPK in wheat Grain
Nitrogen and potassium concentration in grain did not vary significantly during both
the seasons due to application of zinc to previous crop while phosphate differs significantly.
The nitrogen concentration was slightly higher during first year, similar trend also observed
in phosphorus concentration whereas potassium was almost similar with all the treatment
during both the seasons. In ‘DBW 17’and ‘PBW 343’the highest nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium concentration was recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1 and it was almost similar with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. However, control treatment remained equal with foliar spray of 0.5%
85
ZnSO4. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentration was slightly higher during first year. But
potassium remained equal during both the year.
NPK in wheat Straw
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentration recorded almost equal during both
the year due to zinc application to previous crop. Genc et al., (2006) reported that shoot Zn
concentration of bread wheat at Zn0 ranged from 7to 10 mg kg-1, which was well below the
generally accepted range of 15–20 Zn kg-1, it shows that plants were severely deficient
without Zn application. In wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’and ‘PBW 343’ the nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium concentration was highest with the application of the 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1. Sarwar (2011) reported that Zn did not show any significant effect on P contents in
straw. Nitrogen content was almost similar during both the year due to zinc levels, whereas
regarding phosphorus concentration slightly higher during first year. Similar trend was also
observed with potassium. The phosphorus concentration during first year was 37.5, 18.7 and
12.5 percent more over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4
respectively, in ‘DBW 17’. Aref, (2012a) reported zinc application has significant effect on
NPK concentration in maize leaf. Highest N concentration in leaves (2.33 %) and leaf K
concentration was recorded with 24 Kg ZnSO4 ha-1 while P uptake by plant unchanged.
Concentration of NPK in the leaf increases with increase zinc levels application as compared
to control treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of present study, following conclusions can be drawn:
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to maize and wheat increases the micronutrient
concentration in maize and wheat grain and straw during both the year in maize-wheat
system.
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found significantly superior to control but at par with
foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 with respect to concentration of most of the micronutrients.
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave slightly higher protein content in maize and wheat, and
higher water absorption capacity, sedimentation, hardness and flour recovery in wheat
followed by application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
treatment.
Keeping in the view the above findings application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 or 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
to maize and wheat were found better for higher quality of maize and wheat in maize wheat
cropping system.
86
4.3 RESEARCH PAPER –III
Effect of method and levels of zinc application on economics, nutrient uptake of maize
and wheat in maize wheat cropping system
Dileep Kumar and Shiva Dhar
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted during 2009-10 and 2010-11 at Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, New Delhi to find out the most effective method of zinc application in
maize and wheat cropping system to study the effect of various doses and methods of zinc
application on quality parameter of maize and wheat. Nitrogen and potassium uptake in
grain, stover and total in maize and wheat were significantly affected by application of Zn in
these crops during first year, whereas, phosphorus uptake during both the year. Zinc applied
to preceding maize has significant effect on N uptake in grain and total uptake during second
year while uptake of phosphorus during both the year. Nitrogen uptake in grain during first
year and in straw during second year and uptake of potassium did not differ significantly
during both the year. The uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in grain, straw and
total shows great variation in ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ during both years due to direct
application of zinc. The uptake of NPK in grain, stover and total recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was significantly higher in foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control but at par with 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. In grain the uptake did not differ significantly, but
significantly higher uptake was recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Direct application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly superior over control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during
both the year whereas at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during subsequent year with respect to
Zn uptake in ‘DBW 17’. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than
control but similar with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. Significantly
higher Zn uptake in ‘PBW 343’ was recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was than control and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. Maximum gross returns were obtained with
the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year. Significantly higher net returns was
obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control. Directly
applied zinc to ‘DBW 17’ recorded significantly higher gross returns with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. The highest gross returns were
obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year in ‘PBW 343’. In
‘DBW 17’ net returns from application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher to
control but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year.
Direct application of zinc to wheat recorded slightly more B: C ratio with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
87
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year in both
the varieties.
Keywords: Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, iron, copper, manganese, gross returns,
net returns, uptake, B: C ratio.
INTRODUCTION
Maize (Zea mays L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.emend Fiori & Paol.) is an
important cropping system in the hills and foothills of North-Western India. Wheat is mostly
grown in north and north western part of country during Rabi season. One sustainable
agricultural approach for reducing micronutrient malnutrition among resource-poor women,
infants and children at higher risk globally is to enrich major staple food crops like rice,
wheat, maize, beans and cassava with micronutrients either through plant breeding or
agronomic strategies (Kant et al., 2010; Velu et al., 2011). In Northern part of country maize-
wheat is prominent cropping system and it covers 60 % of area of rainy season maize. The
contribution of this cropping system to total cereal production is considerably large, being 31
% of wheat and 6 % of maize (Jat et al., 2010). The continuous application of higher amount
of inorganic fertilizers leads to deterioration of soil heath with reduction in organic matter and
multiple nutrient deficiencies. The transition metal zinc plays several essential roles in the
metabolism of plants, animals and fungi. While necessary as a minor nutrient, an excessive
accumulation of this element in living tissues leads to toxicity symptoms. Its deficiency
reduces the yield as well as nutritional quality of grains Hidden Zn deficiency is a major
problem, which could reduce crops yields up to 40 % showing no visible symptoms on the
foliage. Areas with Zn deficiency are increasing over time. Within biological systems, Zn is
involved in more than 300 enzymes, and it is imperative for the synthesis of protein,
metabolism of DNA and RNA, and even in gene expression. These observations lead to
undertake the proposed study.
Material and Method
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi seasons of 2009-10 and
2010-11 to study the effect of four levels of zinc application (control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 ha-1 for improving productivity of maize-
wheat cropping system.
Experimental site, soil and weather
The field experiments were conducted during kharif and rabi 2009-10 and 2010-11 at
the research farm of Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi, situated at 28.40N latitude and 77.10E longitude and at an altitude of 228.6 meters
above mean sea level. Soil samples were taken before the start of the experiment which were
analysed for physical and chemical properties of the soil (Table 4.3.1).
88
Table 4.3.1 Physico-chemical properties of soil at the experimental site
Particulars Value
Particle composition: (Hydrometer method, Bouyoucos, 1962)
1. Sand (%) 61.7
2. Silt (%) 11.9
3. Clay (%) 26.4
4. Textural class Sandy clay loam
Chemical composition
1. pH (1:2.5; soil: water ratio) (Elico pH meter, Piper, 1950) 7.8
2. Electrical conductivity (dS m-1) (Solubridge method, Piper, 1950) 0.32
3. Organic C (%) (Walkley and Black method, Piper, 1950) 0.38
4. Available N (kg ha-1) (Subbiah and Asija, 1956) 165.3
5. Available P (kg ha-1 )(Olsen et al., 1954) 12.2
6. Available K( kg ha-1) (Jackson, 1973) 239.5
7 Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.72
The field was well levelled, and soil was sandy loam in texture and slightly alkaline
in reaction. The climate of site is semi-arid to sub-tropical with extreme cold and hot
situations; the hottest months are May and June with the mean maximum temperature ranging
from 41 0C to 44 0C, whereas the mean minimum of the coolest months are December and
January falls in the range of 20C to 50C. The daily maximum and minimum temperature tend
to rise from first fortnight of February and maintain the trend till the month of June and
decreases from July onwards. The evapo-transpiration rate also follows similar pattern of
temperature during crop period. Average annual rainfall of the site is about 652 mm, 84 % of
which is received during south-west monsoon. July and August are the wettest months. The
relative humidity increases from June to September. The mean annual evaporation of Delhi is
about 850 mm.
Experimental details
The experiment was conducted in split plot design with three replications in a fixed
lay out. The main plot treatments consisted of four levels of zinc and two method of zinc
application both maize viz. Control, control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at four leaf stage and one week later after previous spray. Whereas the
sub plot treatments were four Zn levels viz. control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4(one spray at anthesis another one week later) two wheat
varieties ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’. The maize variety ‘PEHM-2’ was sown with row
89
spacing of 60 cm apart during kharif (June to October) and wheat varieties ‘PBW 343’ and
‘DBW 17’ were sown in lines at 22 cm apart during rabi (November to April).
Field operations
In the experimental field, before starting of experiment maize was grown during rabi
2008-09 in a maize – wheat cropping system. The Field was suitably divided into three blocks
(replications). In each block four main plots were marked to accommodate the zinc treatment.
Each main plot was further divided into eight sub-plots to accommodate four zinc treatments
in combination with two varieties. After the harvest of previous crop the plots were ploughed
with a disc harrow twice. Further, cultivator was run twice followed by planking before
sowing of maize. Then sowing of maize was done.
The recommended doses of fertilizers in maize 120:40:40 N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1
and in wheat 120:60:40 N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1were applied. The N, P and K were given in
the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. In maize, to
control weeds two hand weeding at 20 DAS and 40 DAS and in wheat one hand weeding cum
intercultural operation done at 30DAS. Chlorpyriphos @ 3.0 l ha-1 was applied during first
irrigation with irrigation water to control termite infestation in wheat during both the year.
Observations
Observations on growth parameter i.e. leaf area index, plant height and for dry matter
accumulation sample were taken from one square m area from each plot and finally converted
into q ha-1 .These observations were recorded at 30, 60 and 90 days after sowing (DAS) of the
crop using the standard procedures. Leaf area of the crop was estimated using leaf area meter
(1/2- MDL-1000, LICOR Ltd, USA). Leaf area index was calculated as the ratio of total leaf
area/plant and ground area covered by the plant. Yield attributes, viz. number of grain/cob,
number of grain row/cob, 1000-grain weight, girth of cob, and length of cob were recorded
for maize whereas in wheat number of spikes/m2, grains/spike, length of spike,1000-grain
weight representative samples were taken from each plot. Crops were harvested manually and
threshed with the help of maize corn sheller in case of maize while in case of wheat crop was
harvested manually and threshed with the help of Pullman thresher. The biological yield,
grain yield and stover yields were recorded. The harvest index was calculated as the ratio of
economic produce (grain yield) and the biological yield (grain + stover or straw).
Economic analysis
The economic analysis in terms of gross and net returns and benefit: cost ratio
(returns per rupee invested) were made out on the basis of existing rate of inputs and output in
the local market. Total variable cost included in the cost of input such as seeds, fertilizers,
irrigation and various cultural operations such as ploughing, sowing, weeding, harvesting,
90
threshing, etc. The rental value of land was also considered in the cost of cultivation. Returns
were calculated by using the following formula expression
Gross returns = Value of the grain/seed + Value of straw/stover
Net returns = Gross returns – Total variable costs
Benefit: cost ratio = Net returns/Total variable cost
Statistical analysis
The data recorded for different parameters were analysed with the help of analysis of
various (ANOVA) technique for a split plot design using MSTAT-C software. Source of
variation and corresponding degrees of freedom used in the ANOVA are given in Annexure-I.
The result are presented at 5 % level of significance (P=0.05).
RESULTS
Effect of Zinc levels on uptake of N, P and K in maize
Zinc applied to maize crop has significant effect on nitrogen and potassium uptake in
grain, stover and total uptake during first year whereas phosphorus uptake during both year.
Nitrogen and potassium uptake in grain, stover and total did not vary significantly during
second year (Table 4.3.2).
Nitrogen
The N uptake in grain, stover and total recorded from the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was significantly superior to foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control but at par with 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found at par with control
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 in grain and stover, but higher than control regarding total
uptake. Relatively higher uptake in grain, stover and total recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during second
year(Table 4.3.2).
Phosphorus
The P uptake in grain was significantly higher in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control but remain at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year.
Uptake in stover and total was significantly higher in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 but remain at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control. During second year
relatively higher uptake in grain was recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Uptake in stover and total uptake was
significantly higher in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4. The P uptake in stover and total uptake with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found
statistically similar with the foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control (Table 4.3.2).
91
Table 4.3.2 Effect of zinc application on uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in maize
Treatment
Application of
ZnSO4
Total uptake (kg ha-1)
N P K
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Grain Stover Total Grain Stover Total Grain Stover Total Grain Stover Total Grain Stover Total Grain Stover Total
Control 25.5 11.3 36.8 43.9 19.2 63.1 3.6 9.1 12.8 15.3 13.1 28.4 5.6 71.0 80.1 19.4 114.7 134.1
12.5 kg ha-1 31.2 16.7 47.9 44.2 24.0 68.2 4.9 20.1 25.0 19.2 14.1 33.2 6.7 90.9 101.7 17.6 115.3 132.9
25 kg ha-1 37.3 23.3 60.6 47.5 27.8 75.3 5.2 23.9 29.1 21.6 18.8 40.4 9.1 119.0 132.6 24.4 135.5 159.9
Foliar spray
(0.5 %)* 26.7 13.8 40.5 43.0 21.3 64.3 3.9 16.0 19.9 17.2 13.4 30.7 6.5 86.0 96.0 17.2 113.9 131.1
SEm ± 2.1 1.8 2.7 3.6 3.6 2.1 0.4 1.4 1.5 2.3 0.6 2.2 0.4 7.5 7.8 1.6 9.2 10.1
CD(P=0.05) 7.3 6.2 9.3 NS NS NS NS 4.7 5.2 NS 2.2 7.5 1.5 25.9 26.9 NS NS NS
*One spray at the four leaf stage and one week after first spray
92
Potassium
Potassium uptake in grain, stover and total uptake was significantly higher with the
application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control during first year. The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 was at par with foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 and control treatments. During second year maximum grain, stover and total uptake
obtained with highest level of zinc application than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.3.2).
Effect of zinc levels on micronutrient uptake in maize
The uptake of micronutrient zinc, iron, copper and manganese in grain, stover and
total varied significantly during first year whereas iron and zinc during both the year.
However, copper and manganese did not differ significantly during second year (Table 4.3.3).
Zinc
The uptake of zinc in straw and total uptake was found significant with varying levels
of zinc applied to maize during first year. However, in grain, relatively higher uptake was
recorded with highest levels of zinc application followed by control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. . Zn in stover and total uptake observed with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control.
During first year application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found at par with foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 with respect to total uptake. During second year slightly higher zinc uptake in grain,
stover and total was obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 as compared to
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.3.3) .
Iron
During first year significantly higher Fe higher uptake was observed in 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1, which was significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control. During second year the uptake in grain did not differ significantly but total uptake
showed great variation. The maximum in grain and stover uptake was found with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1. The total uptake was significantly higher with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than the foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control and it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Application of
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
(Table 4.3.3).
Copper
The uptake of Cu with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was relatively more followed by control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Uptake in stover and total uptake was
recorded significantly higher in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control but remain similar with 12.5kg ZnSO4 ha-1. The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
93
Table 4.3.3 Effect of zinc application on uptake of zinc and iron in maize Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Total uptake(kg ha-1) Zn Fe
2009 2010 2009 2010 G S T G S T G S T G S T Control 0.03 0.44 0.48 0.076 0.56 0.64 0.028 0.73 0.76 0.048 1.21 1.26
12.5 kg ha-1 0.04 0.57 0.61 0.103 0.59 0.69 0.035 0.93 0.97 0.059 1.39 1.45
25 kg ha-1 0.05 0.69 0.74 0.110 0.61 0.72 0.045 1.09 1.14 0.062 1.43 1.50
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.04 0.55 0.59 0.102 0.58 0.68 0.031 0.91 0.94 0.054 1.23 1.28
SEm ± 0.004 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.002 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.04 0.04
CD(P=0.05) NS 0.11 0.12 NS NS NS 0.01 0.21 0.21 NS 0.22 0.14
Table 4.3.4 effect of zinc application on uptake of copper and manganese in maize Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Total uptake (kg ha-1) Cu Mn
2009 2010 2009 2010 G S T G S T G S T G S T
Control 0.005 0.34 0.342 0.011 0.59 0.600 0.017 0.24 0.26 0.034 0.489 0.524
12.5 kg ha-1 0.005 0.44 0.449 0.012 0.66 0.677 0.019 0.33 0.35 0.035 0.516 0.551
25 kg ha-1 0.007 0.55 0.553 0.013 0.70 0.711 0.023 0.41 0.43 0.036 0.575 0.611
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.006 0.42 0.421 0.011 0.62 0.635 0.017 0.30 0.32 0.034 0.505 0.540
SEm ± 0.001 0.03 0.03 0.001 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.001 0.02 0.02
CD(P=0.05) NS 0.11 0.11 NS NS NS 0.002 0.073 0.073 NS NS NS
*One spray at the four leaf stage and one week after first spray G-Grain, S-Straw and T-Total
94
found at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and with control in case of stover and total
uptake (Table 4.3.4).
Manganese
Uptake of manganese in grain, stover and total uptake differ significantly during first
year. The uptake with highest level of zinc was significantly higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control. In grain, the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
found at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control. In stover, application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was found at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. During second year,
manganese uptake obtained from the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was relatively more
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 in grain, stover and total
uptake (Table 4.3.4).
Effect of zinc levels on economics of maize
Gross returns was found significantly higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. Foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 was at par with control. During second year relatively higher gross returns was
computed with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control (Table 4.3.5).
Table 4.3.5 Effect of zinc application on gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio of
maize
Treatment Application of ZnSO4
Cost of cultivation
Gross returns Net returns Benefit: cost ratio
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
Control 14.35 16.95 23.65 41.83 7.50 24.88 0.46 1.5
12.5 kg ha-1 16.90 17.70 28.55 42.92 11.65 25.22 0.69 1.4
25 kg ha-1 17.65 18.45 31.75 43.66 14.10 25.21 0.80 1.4
Foliar spray
(0.5 %)*
16.30 17.10 26.03 42.53 9.73 25.43 0.60 1.5
SEm ± 1.11 3.07 1.11 3.07 0.6 0.17
CD(P=0.05) 3.84 NS 3.84 NS NS 0.6
*One spray at the four leaf stage and one week after first spray
The maximum net returns obtained with the 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year and it
was significantly higher than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control and at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 treatment remains at par with control during first year. During
second year highest net returns obtained from foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, it was almost
Fig 4.3.1 Effect of zinc application on economics of maize
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
`(' 0
00)
ZnSO4 levels
2009
Cost of cultivation Gross return Net return
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
`(' 0
00)
ZnSO4 levels
2010
Cost Gross return Net return
95
similar in case of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and higher than control. The benefit
cost ratio was found non-significant during both the year but the maximum benefit: cost ratio
was found with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control.
Wheat
Effect of zinc levels on uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
Zinc application to preceding maize crop had significant effect on uptake of nitrogen
in grain and total uptake in wheat during second year and uptake of phosphorus during both
the year. Nitrogen uptake in grain during first year, in straw during second year and potassium
uptake during both the year did not differ significantly. The uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium in grain, straw and total showed great variation during both the year due to
direct application of zinc to wheat varieties (Table 4.3.6).
Nitrogen
Grain
The N uptake from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop was
significantly superior to control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly
higher N in grain than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year (Table
4.3.6).During first year direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in ‘PBW 17’ recorded
significantly higher uptake than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
This treatment was higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. However, uptake in ‘PBW 343’ obtained due to
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. Whereas during second year application of 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than control but remains at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. During first year application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave almost equal
uptake with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but it was higher than control and at par
with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year.
Straw
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to previous during first year maize and from 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year gave relatively more uptake followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control treatments.
In ‘DBW 17’ direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found significantly higher
over control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first
year. During second year 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar with foliar
96
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during first year but higher than control and at par with
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. In variety ‘PBW 343’ uptake with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4during
first year. However, it was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. N uptake due to application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was found higher than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year.
Total N uptake
During first year relatively higher uptake was obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied
to previous maize crop than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. The
total uptake obtained in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year.
Direct application of zinc to ‘DBW 17’ recorded statistically higher uptake with 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4, and higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. Total uptake due to application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found
higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. In ‘PBW 343’ total
uptake with application of 25 kg ZnSO4 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Phosphorus
Grain
The P uptake in grain was found significantly higher with control than foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding
maize crop during first year. However, during second year uptake recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but similar with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1. Uptake obtained with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was observed higher over control and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.3.6).
In ‘DBW 17’ P uptake due to direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year; during second
year it was higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave the higher uptake than control but similar to
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year whereas during second year it was at par with
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. The uptake obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in
‘PBW-343’ was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 during both the year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 observed higher uptake
than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Straw
97
P uptake in straw was found higher in foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 to previous crop
than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 but at par with control during first year.
During second year P uptake in straw was superior with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 over control, 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
In ‘DBW 17’ direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave higher P uptake than
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year.
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar to
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year while higher than control and foliar
spray during second year. During first year uptake recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in ‘PBW
343’ was significantly higher over control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. During second year it was higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. However, uptake due to application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
found at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Total P uptake
Total uptake obtained in control treatment was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 but
higher than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 applied in preceding maize
crop. During first year uptake with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found at par with 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. However, during second year total uptake with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding crops was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave higher uptake
than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Significantly higher uptake was recorded due
to direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ recorded than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. The total uptake due to application
of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than control but almost equal to foliar spray during first
year. Similar trends were also observed during second year. In ‘PBW 343’ the total uptake
was statistically superior from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. The higher uptake was recorded with the
application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 over control and at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during both the year.
Potassium
Grain
Zinc application to preceding maize crops recorded relatively higher potassium
uptake with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both the year (Table 4.3.6). Direct application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW’ was significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
98
but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year; whereas during second year it was higher
than control and at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
The uptake recorded in ‘PBW 343’ from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly superior over
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year; and higher than
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 recorded higher K uptake than control during both years while it was at par with foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year.
Straw
Relatively higher uptake of K in straw was recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
previous maize crop followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
during both the year (Table 4.3.6).
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1to ‘DBW 17’ was significantly higher than
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year, whereas higher than control, 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Uptake recorded from
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year
and higher than control but similar to foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year.
In ‘PBW 343’ uptake observed in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found statistically higher than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. This treatment
was significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. Uptake recorded from 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than
control but similar with foliar spray during year of experimentation.
Total K uptake
Total K uptake as affected by application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in preceding maize
crop was relatively higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control
during both the year (Table 4.3.6).
The K uptake in ‘DBW 17’ obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year and higher than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded significantly higher uptake than control but at par with foliar spray
during both the year. In ‘PBW 343’ total uptake recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 remain
higher than control 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 first year. Whereas it
was found higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded higher total K uptake
than control but almost similar to foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
99
Table 4.3.6 Effect of zinc application on uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in wheat
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Total uptake (kg ha-1)
N P K
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total Grain Straw Total
Maize
Control 78.6 28.3 106.9 79.5 32.9 112.4 17.6 11.2 28.8 12.2 7.7 19.9 23.1 107.7 130.7 26.4 109.6 134.3
12.5 kg ha-1 79.4 29.8 109.2 90.0 34.0 123.9 17.3 10.7 28.0 15.0 9.6 24.6 23.0 109.7 132.7 29.0 113.8 142.8
25 kg ha-1 81.6 29.5 111.1 93.9 34.3 129.9 16.9 10.7 27.6 16.3 11.3 27.6 23.3 113.7 137.0 30.6 123.0 153.6
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 80.9 28.4 109.3 81.6 34.2 115.8 15.9 11.6 27.5 13.1 9.1 22.2 22.8 107.7 130.5 27.1 112.2 139.3
SEm± 1.4 0.4 1.3 2.2 1.8 3.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.3 2.4 2.2 0.8 4.3 4.5
CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS 7.8 NS 12.0 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.8 NS NS NS NS NS NS
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 77.2 27.9 105.0 77.7 28.1 105.8 14.3 10.6 26.7 12.8 6.4 19.2 22.0 101.8 123.7 25.8 98.4 124.2
12.5 kg ha-1 81.6 30.2 111.8 87.6 37.6 124.9 17.3 11.3 28.6 14.5 10.2 24.7 23.7 112.8 136.5 29.2 120.4 149.4
25 kg ha-1 86.7 31.5 118.2 90.0 44.8 134.7 18.2 12.2 30.5 15.3 13.6 28.9 25.2 121.8 147.0 29.9 138.8 168.7
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 79.2 29.3 108.4 82.5 35.4 117.8 16.8 10.9 27.7 13.5 9.1 22.6 22.0 108.5 130.5 24.3 119.3 145.6
‘PBW 343’
Control 74.7 27.7 102.3 81.9 24.6 106.5 15.4 9.9 25.3 11.3 7.1 18.5 20.6 97.4 118.0 25.5 99.0 124.6
12.5 kg ha-1 78.8 27.5 106.2 89.5 33.0 122.4 16.6 11.0 27.6 14.6 9.3 24.0 22.2 109.4 131.5 30.2 115.6 146.0
25 kg ha-1 85.5 29.4 114.9 93.8 40.4 134.2 18.6 11.9 30.5 17.1 10.6 27.6 24.3 121.8 147.9 31.8 121.0 152.8
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 77.5 28.5 106.0 87.1 30.6 117.7 16.3 10.6 26.9 14.3 9.0 23.3 22.7 104.2 126.9 27.7 104.6 132.3
SEm± 1.5 0.7 1.6 2.8 2.2 4.0 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.5 3.9 3.9 1.2 5.0 5.0
CD (P=0.05) 4.3 1.9 4.6 7.8 4.3 11.3 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.0 2.2 1.5 11.1 11.0 3.5 14.2 14.3
*Two foliar spray one at anthesis and another one week later
100
Effect of zinc levels on uptake of micronutrient in grain
Application of zinc to preceding maize crop had significant effect on uptake of zinc in grain
during first year and total uptake during both the year. Iron uptake varied significantly during
both the year except in grain uptake during second year was unaffected.
Uptake of copper in grain, straw and total during first year and uptake in grain during
second year did not show significant variation. Uptake of manganese due to zinc application
showed significant variation in grain and total uptake during first year and straw and total
during second year. Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties has recorded significant
variation in uptake of zinc, iron, copper and manganese in grain, straw and total during both
the year except uptake of copper during first year (Table 4.3.7).
Zinc
Grain
The Zn uptake recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop was
significantly higher than control but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar with control
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Relatively more uptake was obtained with the application of
25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during
second year (Table 4.3.7).
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to wheat was found superior over control, 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1, and foliar spray during first year in ‘DBW 17’. This treatment gave higher
uptake than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 in the subsequent year. Application of
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found significantly higher over control but at par with foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. In ‘PBW 343’ uptake of Zn observed from 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during first year. It was higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded higher
uptake than control but equal to foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Straw
The zinc uptake in straw was relatively higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 to preceding maize crop more than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and
control during both the year (Table 4.3.7).
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher uptake than control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 in ‘DBW 17’ during first year. During
second year uptake in 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found higher than control but at par with foliar
spray. The application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was at par with control and foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 during first year, but higher than control and at par with foliar spray of 0.5 %
101
ZnSO4 during next year. The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher uptake
than control but remained at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year in ‘PBW 343’.
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded higher zinc uptake than control but at with foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Total uptake
Uptake obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop was
significantly superior to control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year; while higher than control but remained at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded
almost equal uptake with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year (Table
4.3.7).
Zinc applied directly to ‘DBW 17’ gave significantly superior uptake from 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during first year. Similarly during second year higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 and at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. In ‘PBW 343’ total uptake recorded from 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year. However, during second year it was higher than control and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was found superior over control but similar as foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the
year.
Iron
Grain
Application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop recorded higher Fe iron uptake
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, during first year.
Relatively higher uptake recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year (Table 4.3.7).
Iron uptake obtained with the application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 directly to ‘DBW 17’ was
significantly superior over control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 also showed similar
uptake with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year whereas in subsequent
year higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. The uptake recorded in ‘PBW 343’
from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. Iron uptake observed with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was higher than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year
(Table 4.3.7).
Straw
102
Iron uptake obtained with application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop
was significantly superior over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during both the year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 also showed similar uptake in
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 treatment during first year, while in second year
higher uptake than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.3.7).
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 directly to ‘DBW 17’ found that gave significantly
higher uptake than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both
the year. During first year application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded significantly higher
uptake than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Whereas higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Statistically
superior Fe uptake in ‘PBW 343’, recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. Uptake due to application
of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found significantly higher uptake than control but at par with foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Total uptake
Total uptake recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop was
higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Applications of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar with control and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year while it was higher than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during second year.
In ‘DBW 17’ direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded significantly higher
uptake than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
The total uptake obtained with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was superior over control but at par with
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year while higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 during second year. In variety ‘PBW 343’ total uptake observed with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was statistically superior over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. Total uptake due to application of 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control and at par with foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during both the year.
Copper
Grain
The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop recorded relatively
higher uptake than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both
the year (Table 4.3.8).
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ was found significantly higher
over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Uptake
103
obtained with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. In ‘PBW 343’ Cu uptake observed from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
relatively higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first
year. However, it was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. Straw
The uptake of Cu in straw was significantly higher with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
previous maize crop than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year (Table 4.3.8).
In ‘DBW 17’ direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded significantly higher Cu uptake
over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year, whereas
higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Application of 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher Cu uptake than control but remained at par with foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. In ‘PBW 343’uptake of Cu recorded in 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. The application of 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded higher uptake than control but similar with foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during both the year.
Total Cu uptake
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop recorded maximum copper
uptake and it was significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par
with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year (Table 4.3.8).
During first year in ‘DBW17’ Cu uptake from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than
control, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found at par with control and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 treatment during first year, whereas during second year it was
significantly higher than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control. In ‘PBW 343’ Cu uptake
observed with the 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year while higher than control and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly
higher uptake than control but similar with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Manganese
Grain
Manganese uptake due to application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to previous maize crop was
significantly higher than control but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray during
first year. However, relatively more uptake was recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year (Table 4.3.8).
104
Table 4.3.7 Effect of zinc application on uptake of zinc and iron in wheat
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Total uptake (kg ha-1)
Zn Fe
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
G S T G S T G S T G S T
Maize
Control 0.16 0.42 0.59 0.19 0.45 0.64 0.12 2.61 2.73 0.15 2.98 3.14
12.5 kg ha-1 0.17 0.44 0.61 0.21 0.51 0.72 0.13 2.78 2.91 0.17 3.46 3.63
25 kg ha-1 0.18 0.45 0.63 0.22 0.55 0.77 0.14 3.00 3.14 0.18 3.96 4.13
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.17 0.43 0.60 0.20 0.49 0.69 0.12 2.61 2.73 0.16 3.19 3.35
SEm± 0.003 0.008 0.008 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.002 0.05 0.05 0.005 0.10 0.10
CD(P=0.05) 0.010 NS 0.027 NS NS 0.08 0.006 0.18 0.18 NS 0.34 0.35
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 0.15 0.40 0.55 0.19 0.43 0.62 0.12 2.50 2.62 0.12 2.62 2.75
12.5 kg ha-1 0.17 0.42 0.59 0.22 0.52 0.74 0.13 2.87 3.00 0.17 3.58 3.75
25 kg ha-1 0.19 0.45 0.64 0.23 0.57 0.80 0.14 3.16 3.30 0.18 4.76 4.94
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.16 0.47 0.63 0.20 0.52 0.72 0.12 2.67 2.80 0.14 2.91 3.05
‘PBW 343’
Control 0.15 0.38 0.53 0.18 0.41 0.59 0.12 2.50 2.62 0.14 2.15 2.29
12.5 kg ha-1 0.17 0.44 0.61 0.20 0.50 0.70 0.13 2.74 2.87 0.18 3.55 3.73
25 kg ha-1 0.19 0.47 0.67 0.22 0.54 0.76 0.15 2.98 3.12 0.21 4.35 4.56
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.16 0.45 0.61 0.19 0.50 0.69 0.13 2.58 2.71 0.16 3.27 3.43
SEm± 0.004 0.013 0.012 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.003 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.12
CD(P=0.05) 0.011 0.036 0.035 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.010 0.23 0.24 0.02 0.35 0.35
*Two foliar spray- one at anthesis and another one week later G-Grain, S-Straw and T-Total
105
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ was found superior over control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year. Application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 also gave higher uptake than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during both the year. Grain Mn uptake in ‘PBW 343’ obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
significantly superior over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during first year while during second year it was higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave similar
uptake with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year whereas in second year
significantly higher than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Straw
During first years relatively more uptake recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
previous crop than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. Significantly
higher uptake recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 but at par
with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year (Table 4.3.8).
In ‘DBW 17’ Mn uptake in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but similar with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. It was higher than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. In wheat
‘PBW 343’ uptake of Mn with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly superior over control, 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 ZnSO4 during both the year. Zinc application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was found similar with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the
year.
Total Mn uptake
Total uptake recorded in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize was
significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year.
Direct application of zinc to ‘DBW 17’ recorded significantly higher uptake from 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both
the year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave higher uptake than control but equal with
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year, whereas higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. In ‘PBW 343’ total uptake due to
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was significantly higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray during both the year. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded significantly
higher uptake than control but remained at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first
year. However, 12 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
during second year (Table 4.3.8).
106
Table 4.3.8 Effect of zinc application on uptake of copper and manganese in wheat
Treatment
Application of ZnSO4
Total uptake (kg ha-1)
Cu Mn
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
G S T G S T G S T G S T
Maize
Control 0.017 0.39 0.41 0.021 0.39 0.41 0.17 0.33 0.51 0.17 0.35 0.53
12.5 kg ha-1 0.018 0.40 0.42 0.023 0.47 0.50 0.19 0.33 0.52 0.19 0.38 0.58
25 kg ha-1 0.019 0.42 0.44 0.024 0.51 0.54 0.19 0.34 0.54 0.19 0.43 0.62
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.018 0.40 0.41 0.021 0.43 0.45 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.18 0.39 0.56
SEm± 0.001 0.006 0.006 0.001 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS 0.05 0.05 0.01 NS 0.02 NS 0.04 0.05
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 0.017 0.39 0.41 0.019 0.38 0.40 0.17 0.31 0.48 0.16 0.29 0.45
12.5 kg ha-1 0.017 0.40 0.42 0.024 0.50 0.52 0.19 0.34 0.53 0.21 0.40 0.61
25 kg ha-1 0.020 0.44 0.46 0.028 0.54 0.57 0.20 0.36 0.57 0.23 0.49 0.72
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.017 0.40 0.41 0.021 0.43 0.45 0.18 0.33 0.51 0.17 0.34 0.51
‘PBW 343’
Control 0.017 0.37 0.38 0.018 0.36 0.38 0.17 0.31 0.48 0.15 0.32 0.47
12.5 kg ha-1 0.018 0.40 0.42 0.024 0.46 0.49 0.18 0.34 0.52 0.19 0.41 0.60
25 kg ha-1 0.020 0.43 0.45 0.026 0.51 0.53 0.20 0.36 0.56 0.20 0.50 0.70
Foliar spray (0.5 %)* 0.018 0.39 0.41 0.020 0.43 0.45 0.18 0.33 0.50 0.17 0.36 0.53
SEm± 0.001 0.010 0.010 0.001 0.02 0.02 0.003 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
CD(P=0.05) NS 0.028 0.028 0.002 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.05
*Two foliar spray- one at anthesis and another one week later G-Grain, S-Straw and T-Total
107
Effect zinc levels on gross returns, net returns and B: C ratio
Gross returns, net returns and B: C ratio did not show significant variation due to
application of zinc in preceding maize crop during first year. However, it differs significantly
during second year of experimentation. Direct application of various levels of zinc to wheat
varieties viz. ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ recorded significant variation in gross and net returns
while B: C ratio did not vary significantly during both the year (Table 4.3.9).
Gross returns
Gross returns computed for 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop was
relatively higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first
year. However, it was significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at
par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. Gross returns recorded with 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 were higher than control but similar with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.3.9).
Direct application of zinc to ‘DBW 17’ recorded significantly higher returns with 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first
year. Whereas during second year higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at
par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded similar gross returns
with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 however it was higher than control but at par
with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. The highest gross returns was obtained
due to application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year in variety ‘PBW 343’ and this
treatment was statistically superior over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year but remain at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second year. Gross
returns obtained due to application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 found similar with
Net returns
Net returns obtained due to application of zinc to preceding maize crop was relatively
more with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during first year. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded
significantly higher net returns than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Net returns obtained from the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
significantly superior to control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Table 4.3.9).
Net returns obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to ‘DBW 17’ was higher than
control but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year.
Net returns computed during second year were higher with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 gave similar returns with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year.
However, during second year it gave higher returns than control but at par with foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. In ‘PBW 343’ higher returns recorded in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
108
significantly higher than control, but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 during both the year. Net returns obtained with the application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
was found similar with control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year whereas
higher than control but equal with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year.
B: C Ratio
B: C ratio calculated for 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to previous crop was higher than
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second
year (Table 4.3.9).
Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ recorded slightly
more ratio with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year.
Table 4.3.11 Effect of zinc application on gross returns, net returns and benefit cost ratio of wheat Treatment
Application
of ZnSO4
Cost of
cultivation
(000’`)
Gross returns
(000’`)
Net returns
(000’ `)
B: C ratio
2009-
10
2010-
11
2009-
10
2010-
11
2009-
10
2010-
11
2009-
10
2010-
11
Maize
Control 21.97 22.91 60.89 69.78 38.92 46.87 2.8 3.0
12.5 kg ha-1 21.97 22.91 61.82 75.11 39.85 52.20 2.8 3.3
25 kg ha-1 21.97 22.91 62.95 77.16 40.97 54.25 2.9 3.4
Foliar spray
(0.5 %)*
21.97 22.91 61.46 71.92 39.49 49.01 2.8 3.1
SEm± 0.59 1.36 0.59 1.36 0.03 0.1
CD(P=0.05) NS 4.72 NS 4.72 NS 0.2
Wheat ‘DBW 17’
Control 21.36 22.29 60.15 68.39 38.79 46.09 2.8 3.1
12.5 kg ha-1 22.13 23.07 62.29 75.19 40.17 52.13 2.8 3.3
25 kg ha-1 22.90 23.84 64.99 77.75 42.10 53.92 2.8 3.3
Foliar spray
(0.5 %)*
21.51 22.45 61.40 71.08 39.89 48.63 2.9 3.2
‘PBW 343’
Control 21.36 22.29 59.36 69.46 38.01 47.17 2.8 3.1
12.5 kg ha-1 22.13 23.07 61.11 75.24 38.98 52.17 2.8 3.3
25 kg ha-1 22.90 23.84 64.51 77.98 41.61 54.14 2.8 3.3
Foliar spray
(0.5 %)*
21.51 22.45 60.43 72.85 38.92 50.40 2.8 3.2
SEm± 0.86 1.64 0.86 1.64 0.04 0.1
CD(P=0.05) 2.43 4.64 2.43 4.64 NS NS
*Two foliar spray -one at anthesis and another one week later
Fig 4.3.2 Effect of zinc application on economics of wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
`(' 0
00)
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Cost of cultivation Gross return Net return
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
`(' 0
00)
ZnSO4 levels
2010-11
Cost Gross return Net return
Fig 4.3.3 Effect of zinc application on economics of wheat variety ‘PBW 343’
Error bar in the graph denotes the CD value
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
`(' 0
00)
ZnSO4 levels
2009-10
Cost of cultivation Gross return Net return
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Control 12.5 kg 25 kg Foliar 0.5%
`(' 0
00)
ZnSO4 levels
2010-11
Cost Gross return Net return
109
DISCUSSION
Weather Parameter
During experimental seasons i.e. 2009 and 2010, weather condition was not similar
with respect to rainfall, temperature and other parameters. The weather condition was more
favourable during rainy season of 2010 for maize crop, while the crop-weather was slightly
unfavourable during 2009. The rainfall in 2009, started at the end of July, resulting in late
sowing of the maize crop.
Nutrient uptake
Maize
Uptake of N, P, and K
Uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium vary significantly with various levels
of zinc application. Uptake of these nutrients in grain, straw and total uptake was reported
higher during 2010. This might be due to fact that higher grain, straw and biological yield
attributed to significantly more uptake. The highest nitrogen uptake was obtained with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. The
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 treatment found equal regarding the uptake during
both the seasons. The highest N uptake might be due to the higher utilization of N, highest
total P uptake (77.38 kg ha-1), highest values (219.47 kg ha-1) of total K and the highest total
Zn uptake (1.787 kg ha-1) from soil, The total uptake obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 40,
20.9 and 35 per cent more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
respectively, during first year while during second year it was higher by 16, 9.4 and 14
percent. Similarly, in case total phosphorus uptake obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 remained
higher by 16.3, 4.1 and 9.2 kg than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 respectively, in 2009 whereas in 2010 it was 12, 7.3 and 10.3 kg.
Effect on uptake of micronutrient
Grain, straw and total uptake of zinc, iron, copper and manganese vary markedly with
different levels of zinc application. Total uptake of zinc from the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was higher by 35.1, 17.5 and 20 percent than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively during 2009; while 11.1, 4.1 and 5.5 percent during 2010. Total
iron uptake recorded with highest level of zinc application was 33.3, 14.9 and 17.5 percent
more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively during
first year whereas during second season it was higher by 16, 3.33 and 14.7 percent. Total
copper uptake with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher by 38.1, 18.2 and 23.6 percent more than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, in 2009 whereas in
2010 it was higher by 15.5, 4.2 and 23.6 percent. However, manganese uptake obtained in 25
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 remained higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
110
ZnSO4 by 39.5, 27.9 and 30.2 percent, respectively, in 2009 and 14.8, 9.8 and 11.5 percent
during 2010.
Wheat
Micronutrient uptake in wheat
Total uptake of zinc, iron, copper and manganese differs markedly with the
application of zinc to preceding maize crop as well as directly to wheat varieties ‘DBW
17’and ‘PBW 343’. Total uptake of zinc recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding
maize crop was 6.3, 3.2 and 4.8 percent more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively in 2009-10 while in 2010-11 it was higher by 16.9, 6.5
and 10.4 percent. Zinc uptake in ‘DBW 17’ found 14.1, 7.8 and 1.6 percent less with control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in
2009-10. It was 22.5, 7.5 and 10 percent less as obtained during 2010-11. However, total zinc
uptake from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher by 20.1, 8.9 and 8.9 percent than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, during first year while 22.4, 7.9
and 10.4 percent during second year in ‘PBW 343’. Iron uptake recorded with highest level of
zinc application was higher by 13.1, 7.3 and 13.1 percent during first year; and 23.9, 12.1 and
18.9 in second year than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4,
respectively. In ‘DBW 17’ the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave the highest uptake and it
was 20.1, 9.1 and 15.2 percent less in control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4, respectively than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year. Whereas, during second year it
was 44.3, 24.3 and 38.3 percent less as compared to control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
In ‘PBW 343’ uptake of Fe obtained with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was less by 16.8, 8 and 13.1 respectively than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in 2009-10
and less by 49.8, 18.2 and 24.8 percent in 2010-11. Total copper and manganese uptake was
highest with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop during both the seasons. Total
copper uptake differ significantly during second year while manganese during both the year.
In ‘DBW 17’ total copper uptake was obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year. It
was 10.4, 8.7 and 10.9 percent more with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and foliar spray respectively, during first year and 29.8, 8.8 and 21.9 percent during second
year in variety ‘DBW 17’. However, in ‘PBW 343’ the uptake of copper recorded with
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was less by 14.6, 6.7 and 8.8
percent respectively, than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year whereas during second year less
by 28.3, 7.5 and 15 percent. Mn uptake in ‘DBW 17’ was higher with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and it
was higher by 15.8, 7 and 10.5 percent than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively during 2009-10 and higher by 37.5, 15.3 and 29.2 percent during
111
2010-11. Total manganese uptake obtained from control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was less by 15.6, 6.7 and 8.9 percent, respectively than obtained with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year; while during second year less by 32.8, 14.3 and 24.3 percent.
Economics
Maize
Gross and net returns obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 8100,
3200 and 5700 Rs more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4,
respectively, during first year; while in 2010 the difference was very less i.e. ` 1830, 740 and
1130. Higher net returns obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to maize crop. However, it
was ` 6600, 2450 and 4370 less with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4, respectively, than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during 2009. In contrary to the above almost
equal amount of net returns obtained during 2010 with all treatment except control. The
variation in accruing the benefit from zinc application is might be due to less grain and stover
yield during first year while more during second year. The variation in yield ranges from 7.5
to 14.1 q ha-1 in 2009 and 24.88 to 25.43 q ha-1 in 2010. Weather parameter rainfall affected
the crop during first year in comparison to second season might be another reason for
variation in the yield. The overall growth of crop was more uniform in 2010, due to adequate
and equal distribution of the rainfall throughout the growing season.
Wheat
Gross and net returns observed due to application of zinc to preceding maize crop
was not significant during first year. The gross returns obtained due to application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was Rs. 2060, 1130 and 1490 more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively during first year and Rs 7380, 2050 and 5240 during
second year. Gross returns obtained with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5
% ZnSO4 was less by ` 4840, 2700 and 3590 respectively, than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first
year in variety ‘DBW 17’ whereas ` 9360, 2560 and 6670 during second year. Net returns
obtained in ‘DBW 17’ with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 remains higher by ` 3310, 1930 and 2210 than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, during 2009-10
while ` 7830, 1790 and 5290 more with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
Net returns recorded in variety ‘PBW 343’ computed from the application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was more by ` 3600, 2720 and 2690 Rs than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, during first year. However, in 2010-11 recorded higher by
` 6970, 1970 and 3740. The gross and net returns were more during 2010-11 as compared to
2009-10. It might be due to more crop growth, yield and minimum support price in 2009-10.
112
Slightly higher gross and net returns recorded from variety ‘PBW 343’ than ‘DBW 17’, it
might be due to more yield resulted by superior attributes of varietal character.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of present study the following conclusions can be drawn:
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 recorded significantly higher nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium uptake in grain, straw and total uptake in maize and wheat during both the year in
maize-wheat system.
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 also gave significantly higher micronutrient uptake than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 significantly higher nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
uptake in grain, straw and total uptake in maize and wheat than control but similar in most of
micronutrient concentration with foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4.
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave slightly higher gross returns, net returns than control,
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during period of experimentation.
113
5. DISCUSSION
Maize – wheat is an important emerging cropping system in Indo-gangetic plains of
India. There is potential for increasing its area in northern India, particularly in northern plain
zone, to replace rice-wheat system, which has resulted in resource degradation and
unsustainable form of agriculture. With increasing micronutrient deficiency particularly in
soil and human being it is now becoming important for taking care of malnutrition and soil
micronutrient hunger. Considering the fact, studies entitled “Agronomic biofortification
through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea mays) ─wheat (Triticum aestivam) cropping system”
were cariedout at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi during kharif and the
following rabi seasons of 2009-10 and 2010-11. The important findings of this study have
been discussed with the following headings with possible scientific reasoning, and providing
a logical analysis for these findings with cause and effect relationship.
5.1 Weather and crop
5.2 Growth parameter
5.3 Yield attributes and yield
5.4 Quality
7.5 N, P and K uptake
5.6 Micronutrient uptake
5.7 Economics
5.1 Weather and crop
Growth and development of crop is highly dependent on the weather elements. Maize
crop performance was severely affected due to low and erratic rainfall coupled with high
temperature during 2009 (Fig.3.1) However, its performance was good due to favourable
weather parameters during second year (Fig 3.1).Wheat crop had suitable weather conditions
which resulted in better performance during both the years. During experimental period from
2009-10 and 2010-11, weather condition, varied greatly with respect to rainfall, temperature
and other parameters. The maize sowing should have completed during June in the north zone
of the country region. The delayed rain during 2009 frequent dry spells affected the sowing
of maize and the crop was sown during last week of July resulted in lower dry matter
production and overall productivity of maize during first year. The rainfall during kharif 2010
started during the first week of July which resulted timely sowing of maize in first fortnight.
In contrast during 2010 the timely and comparatively well distributed rains given chance to
sow the in time and increased overall growth attributes, yield attributes and yield. Meanwhile
the weather conditions during wheat growing period were similar for both the years except
during 2010-11the weather situations were more favourable, which resulted in comparatively
better crop establishment and vegetative growth. Rainfall during boot stage provided slightly
114
better conditions to wheat crop during 2010-11. Due the above prevailing variations in
weather maize yield varied greatly, however, wheat crop gave stable and almost similar yield
during both the year.
5.2 Growth parameters
The different growth attributes viz. plant height, dry matter accumulation and leaf
area index of both the crops did not vary significantly due to zinc application either foliar or
soil (Table 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.8, 4.1.9, 4.1.10) during first year. It varies significantly and
higher values of growth attributes; yield attributes and yield were recorded in maize during
second year (Table 4.1.5, 4.1.6). Zinc has lesser role in the vegetative growth of plant while
its requirement is more during reproductive phase in comparison to vegetative growth stage
the same was reflected in present investigations. The uniformity in the growth attributes of
both the crops might be due to equal plant population exerting similar magnitude of
competition for resources like nutrients, moisture, light and space.
The plant height, dry matter accumulation and leaf area index were considerably
influenced due to zinc application, besides favourable weather condition during 2010.
However, within year the differences in these parameters were not significant. However,
differences in plant height, leaf area index and dry matter accumulation were about 30 cm,
0.3-1, and 4-6 t ha-1 respectively at different growth stages between both the years. This
might be due to the fact that during second year, the cumulative effect of better rainfall
distribution and timely availability of nutrient to the plant, better moisture and zinc
application produced more yield. Zinc application improves the growth because zinc involved
directly and indirectly as co-enzyme in photosynthetic process which provide substrate for
growth and development (Vallee and Falchuk, 1998). These factors might have contributed
for the overall growth and development and yield of both the crops and yields of both the crop
increased with the application of zinc.
5. 3 Yield attributes and yield
In present study, yield attributes viz. number of grain cob-1, 1000-grain weight;
number of grain row cob-1, cob length and cob girth of maize and grain weight spike-1 of
wheat were not affected significantly with the application of zinc (Table 4.1.5 and 4.1.6).
However, these parameters were slightly better with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to
both the crops during the course of study. This might be due to the better role of Zn during
reproductive phase of crop growth. Wheat seedling grown from seed with high Zn content
produced more tillers and had better growth than seedlings grown from seed with low Zn
content (Moussavi-Nik et al., 1997).The maize grain, stover and biological yields were
significantly influenced by zinc application during first year (Table). Patil et al. (2006)
reported that application of irrigation with zinc sulphate 25 kg ha-1 in maize recorded
115
maximum grain yield. And maximum yields were recorded with the application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year. During first year grain yield due to application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher by 22.81, 18.63 and 8.36 per cent and 4.10, 2.41 and 1.69 per cent
was higher over control , foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during second
year, respectively. Yield components, grain yield increased with the application of Zn as
reported by Morshedi and Farahbakhsh (2010) and Bashir et al., (2012).This might be due to
superior yield attributes with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and more translocation of
photosynthate towards sink. The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 increases the yield of wheat
as compared to control. However, Singh (2009) found better response of ‘PBW 343’
application of 15 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Zinc application significantly increases yield of maize
(Sajedi et al., 2010).
The yield attributing character of wheat such as 1000 grain weight during first year
and grain weight spike-1 were higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding
maize crop. This might be due to uptake of residual zinc applied to previous maize crop and
not fully utilized due to moisture stress during crop growing season. In wheat varieties the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher effective tillers m-2, grain spike-1
and grain diameter during second year; 1000 grain weight during both the year than the
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray. The effective tillers were increased due to
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 by 6, 10 and 11 per cent over 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control, respectively during second year. However, 1000 grain
weight was 2, 3 and 4 per cent higher than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
and control, respectively during second year. The effective tillers In variety ‘PBW 343’ were
found higher with the application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 by 15, 2 and 7 per cent and 1000 grain by 5, 2 and 4 during first year,
respectively.
The increase in these parameters might be due to involvement of zinc in various
enzymatic processes which helps in catalyzing reaction for growth finally leading to
development of more yield attributing character. Shukla and Warsi (2000) also reported that
zinc application increased the different growth parameters and yield of wheat. Response to
zinc of both varieties regarding effective tiller m-2, 1000 grain weight grains spike-1, and grain
diameter was better during second year, because during earhead initiation period light rainfall
occurred, which helped in providing favourable growing conditions and better mobilisation of
zinc. Arya and Singh, (2000) reported that significantly higher grain and straw yields,
nutrients uptake and protein yield of maize were obtained with 30 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than 15 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 after application of irrigation water. Another most important factor that zinc play
crucial role especially at blooming stage which is required for good grain setting in spike. The
variety ‘PBW 343’produced bolder grain during both the year than ‘DBW 17’ this may be
116
due better response of zinc application due to inherent character of variety. Zinc‐efficient
genotype had higher grain Zn concentration than inefficient genotype when grown in Zn
fertilised conditions (Regmi et al., 2011).
Increasing levels of zinc up to 6 kg Zn ha-1 significantly enhanced grain and straw
yields of wheat (Jain and Dahama, 2006b). In present study grain, straw and biological yields
recorded marginally higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to previous
maize. All these parameters were recorded more during first year in comparison to second
year due to better growing conditions. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
grain yield was higher by eight, 13 and 14 per cent than the 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar and
control treatment of first year, respectively. The grain yield recorded with the application of
25 kg ZnSO4 ha- was higher by 0.36, 0.20 and 0.26 t ha-1 during first year while 0.46, 0.06 and
0.31 t ha-1 during second year than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha- and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4, respectively. The yield advantage with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 0.35,
0.26 and 0.28 during first year and 0.43, 0.13 and 0.29 t ha-1 during second year as compared
to control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively in variety ‘PBW
343. Highest straw yield 7.13 during first year and 8.41 t ha-1 during second year in variety
‘DBW 17’ was obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. While in variety ‘PBW
343’ straw yield was 7.06 in first year and 7.71 t ha-1 during second year.
The total biological yield follows the similar trends as it depends upon the output of
both grain and straw yield. This increase in yield might be due to better growth and yield
attributing character with zinc fertilization. The grain, straw and biological yield were higher
in variety ‘PBW 343’ than ‘DBW 17’ due to its more responsiveness to zinc application
which was reflected in the form of superior yield attributes. The harvest index recorded
maximum with soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year and with control during
second year in variety ‘DBW 17’. Srinivas, (2002) reported that soil application of zinc
recorded the highest grain yield of 33.8 q ha-1. This might be due to relatively higher straw
yield during first year with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 while less grain yield in
control treatment during second year. Similar trend was also observed in variety ‘PBW 343’.
5.4 Quality
Protein content in maize due to application of zinc did not have any significant
change but it was 11, 9 and 12 per cent higher with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively during first year while in next year it
was 4, 6 and 7 per cent higher. The increase in protein content with highest level of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 may sufficient for crop need and its direct involvement in the metabolism of plant
increases overall growth. These findings are in close conformity with the report of Slaton et
al. (2009) application of zinc increases the protein concentration (Soleymani and
Shahrajabian, 2012). The difference in protein between first year and second year ranges
117
from 1.1 to 1.7 per cent. This is because of less crop growth during first year, which increases
nitrogen concentration in grain as compared to second year. In contrary to this during second
year the luxurious crop growth might have some dilution effect on the concentration of
nitrogen to sink from different part of the plant.
Nitrogen concentration was higher with highest level of zinc application during both
crop seasons. It may be due to more carbonic anhydrase activity which enhances the
photosynthetic rate and it helps in nitrogen metabolism. Rahimi et al., (2012) reported that Zn
micronutrient plays critical role in crop growth, specifically in the processes of
photosynthesis, respiration and other biochemical and physiological activities in plants. There
were differences in nitrogen concentration between first and second year in grain this might
be due to more dilution effect during second year. The nitrogen concentration difference with
in year ranges from 0.7- 0.27 per cent. Zinc deficiency adversely affects net photosynthesis
rate and stomatal conductance and P content decreased with zinc application compared to no
zinc application. In present investigation phosphorus concentration significantly differ due to
application of different level of zinc. The phosphorus concentration obtained with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 18, 5 and 23 per cent more than control, 12.5 and foliar
spray of 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively during first year while 27, 23 and 27 per cent during
second year. Slightly more K concentration was recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 this might be due to synergism between zinc and potassium. The zinc content in wheat
leaves, stem and roots increased significantly with increased levels of zinc, similarly, residual
effect on zinc content in succeeding maize leaves, stem and roots. Wheat grain, straw yield
and grain Zn concentrations increased from 27.4 mg kg-1 to 48.0 mg kg-1 by foliar Zn
application, with an increase of 83.5 % (Zou et al., 2012).
Micronutrient concentration in grain did not differ significantly with the application
of varied levels of zinc application. Increase in Zn, Fe, Mn, and Cu recorded with increase in
zinc levels and highest was reported with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1,
foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and control treatment. Waters and Sankaran (2011) reported that
with increasing Zn supply adequate to increase Zn grain concentrations in grain sink strength
or translocation to grains that simply increasing Zn uptake. The content of these nutrients
were more during 2010-11 in comparison to 2009-10. This might be due to contribution of
residual zinc applied to maize crop. Pahlavan‐Rad and Pessarakli, (2009) reported that foliar
application of Zn had a significant effect on Zn and Fe and it application increased 99% of Zn
and 8% of Fe in grain of wheat. Higher manganese concentration was recorded in wheat
during first year but less during second year in the present investigation. Zinc, iron, copper
and manganese content increases with the increase in zinc levels. The increase in iron content
in ‘DBW 17’ was 11, 5 and 7 per cent more with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg
118
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spay of 0.5% ZnSO4, respectively during first year while 23, 2 and 20
per cent during second year.
In ‘PBW 343’the iron concentration obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-
1 was 13, 5 and 8 per cent more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4, respectively during first year and 28, 12 and 12.5 per cent, during second year. Zinc
concentration also increased significantly with the application of zinc in wheat. Ahmad et al.
(2011) reported that biomass production and concentrations of zinc were increased in plant
parts with the application of zinc. The maximum concentration was found with highest level
of zinc application during both the year. In ‘DBW 17’ application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave
17, 11 and 12 per cent more zinc than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4, respectively, during first year whereas it was nine, three and five per cent more during
second year. Zinc concentration in ‘PBW 343’ the highest level i.e. 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
recorded 16, 9 and 10 per cent more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5%
ZnSO4 respectively, during first year whereas during second year it was 10, 7 and 7 per cent.
Lu et al. (2011) also reported that zinc fertilization increased grain Zn concentration in grain
by 13-15 %. They also found that combined application of zinc and phosphorus also increased
DTPA acid zinc and loose organic matter bound Zn but rate of P2O5 should be less than 100
kg ha-1. However, Zhang et al., (2012a) reported increase in zinc concentration in grain by
foliar spray. Copper and manganese concentration was also more with highest level of zinc
applied to ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’. The result shows the increase in concentration, which
might be due to better root growth and enzymatic activity led to more catalyzing effect, which
helps to retain more of these nutrients in grain.
Concentration of all four micronutrient i. e. zinc, iron, copper and manganese was
higher during second season in relation to first seasons. This might be due to better climatic
condition and occurrence of rainfall during reproductive phase which helped in better
flowering and grain filling. Micronutrient concentrations in grains affected due to role played
by rain during reproductive stage which enhanced translocation of Zn towards sink.
Protein content, flour recovery, water absorption capacity, sedimentation and
hardness of wheat grains did not vary due to zinc application to preceding maize crop during
2009-10 and 2010-11 which indicate that residual zinc of preceding maize did not affect these
parameter. The value of these parameters in ‘DBW 17’and ‘PBW 343’ did not vary
significantly except grain hardness during second year. Slightly higher values of protein,
water absorption capacity, sedimentation, flour recovery and hardness were obtained with the
25 kg ZnSO4ha-1. These parameters were higher during first year in comparison to second
year. The less variations in these quality characters indicate zinc has very little role to play to
in future these parameters. Another important factor for discussion is that hardness and
sedimentation value might be associated with protein content in grain. As protein content was
119
more during 2009-10 the sedimentation and hardness values were also higher. Further, low
protein content in 2010-11 resulted in lower sedimentation and hardness values. The values of
protein content, hardness and sedimentation were 12.1 per cent, 91.7 and 33.2 during first
year while 11.1 per cent, 72.9 and 27.1 during second year, respectively.
Iron, copper and manganese concentration shows significant variation due to
application of zinc to previous maize. The higher zinc, iron, copper and manganese
concentration in wheat obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1 applied to maize. This increase in
concentration of these micronutrients might be due to residual zinc in soil which improves the
growth of wheat. In ‘DBW 17’and ‘PBW 343’ more concentration recorded from 25 kg
ZnSO4ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4. The increase in
concentration was more during second year. Due to rain, during grain filling period leads to
better uptake of nutrient during respective seasons. In ‘PBW 343’ the concentration was
more with respect to variety ‘DBW 17’ this might be due varietal character and ‘PBW 343’
more found efficient in uptake of these nutrients in straw. Khoshgoftarmanesh et al. (2010)
reported that shoot dry matter varied significantly with the application of zinc among the
wheat genotypes and Zinc deficiency significantly decreased shoot dry matter in the
genotypes. Nitrogen and potassium concentration in wheat grain did not vary significantly
during both the seasons due to application of zinc to previous crop while phosphate differs
significantly. The nitrogen and phosphorus concentration was slightly higher during first year
whereas potassium was almost similar with all the treatment during both the seasons. In
‘DBW 17’and ‘PBW 343’the highest nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentration was
recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4ha-1 and it was closely followed by application of 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1. However, control treatment was equal with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4.
5.5 N, P and K uptake Maize
Uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in maize vary significantly with levels
of zinc application. Uptake of these nutrients in grain, straw and total uptake was higher
during 2010. This might be due to fact that higher grain, straw and biological yield attributed
to significantly more uptake. The highest nitrogen uptake was obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
followed by control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4. The control and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 treatment were at par for the uptake of these nutrients during both
the year. The total uptake obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was 40, 20.9 and 35 per cent more
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, during first
year while during second year it was higher by 16, 9.4 and 14 per cent. Similarly, in case total
phosphorus uptake obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 remained higher by 16.3, 4.1 and 9.2 kg
than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, in 2009
whereas in 2010 these values were 12, 7.3 and 10.3 kg ha-1.
120
5.6 Micronutrient uptake
Grain, straw and total uptake of zinc, iron, copper and manganese vary markedly with
different levels of zinc application. Sanaeiostovar et al. (2011) observed that increasing Zn
dose in the nutrient solution significantly increased Zn concentration in root and shoots of
wheat genotypes, although the magnitude of increase was dependent on the genotype.
Application of Zn fertilizers significantly increased Zn concentrations in shoots and roots
(Zhang and Song, 2006). Total uptake of zinc from the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
higher by 35.1, 17.5 and 20 per cent than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively during 2009; while 11.1, 4.1 and 5.5 per cent during 2010. Total
iron uptake recorded with highest level of zinc application was 33.3, 14.9 and 17.5 per cent
more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively, during
first year whereas during second season it was higher by 16, 3.33 and 14.7 per cent. Zinc
application at booting stage recorded higher uptake of Fe and potassium in wheat (Bhmanyar
and Piradsht, 2008). Total copper uptake with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was higher by 38.1, 18.2 and
23.6 per cent more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4
respectively, in 2009 whereas during 2010 it was higher by 15.5, 4.2 and 23.6 per cent.
Manganese uptake obtained in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 remained higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 by 39.5, 27.9 and 30.2 per cent, respectively, during
2009 and 14.8, 9.8 and 11.5 per cent during 2010 in maize.
Total uptake of zinc, iron, copper and manganese differs markedly with the
application of zinc to preceding maize crop as well as directly to wheat varieties ‘DBW
17’and ‘PBW 343’. Ozkutlu et al. (2006) reported that concentration of Fe, Mn and Cu in
wheat shoot increased by ZnSO4 supply. In the case of the total content of Cu per shoot, Zn
application had increasing effect in wheat plants.
Total uptake of zinc in wheat from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize was
6.3, 3.2 and 4.8 per cent higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4, respectively in 2009-10 while in 2010-11 it was higher by 16.9, 6.5 and 10.4 per cent.
Prasad et al., (2002) noted that total zinc uptake was varying from 554 to 872 g per ha-1, due
to applications of zinc. They also revealed that zinc application increased the uptake of zinc in
all treatments however; it was highest in 25 kg ZnSo4 ha-1 due to increased grain yield. Zinc
uptake in ‘DBW 17’ was found 14.1, 7.8 and 1.6 per cent less from control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively as compared to 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in 2009-
10 and it was 22.5, 7.5 and 10 per cent less as obtained during 2010-11. Maqsood et al.
(2009) reported that zinc concentration in wheat straw ranges from 29.80 to 51.2 μg g-1. An
18.1 per cent increase in Zn concentration was observed by Zn application in wheat grain and
straw. Chaab et al., (2010) reported that Zn uptake enhanced with application of zinc and
ranged from 100.80 to 231.91 g pot-1. However, total zinc uptake from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
121
higher by 20.1, 8.9 and 8.9 per cent over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4, respectively during first year while 22.4, 7.9 and 10.4 per cent during second year in
‘PBW 343’. Iron uptake was higher in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 by 13.1, 7.3 and 13.1 per cent during
first year; and 23.9, 12.1 and 18.9 during second year than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively.
In ‘DBW 17’ the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 gave the highest uptake and it was
20.1, 9.1 and 15.2 per cent during first year and 44.3, 24.3 and 38.3 per cent during second
year was higher than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4,
respectively. In ‘PBW 343’ uptake of Fe obtained with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was less by 16.8, 8 and 13.1 during 2009-10 and by 49.8, 18.2 and 24.8
per cent during 2010-11 respectively than application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Total copper and
manganese uptake was highest with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop during
both the seasons.
Total copper uptake differ significantly during second year while manganese during
both the year. In ‘DBW 17’ total copper uptake was obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during
both the year. It was 10.4, 8.7 and 10.9 per cent more with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5
kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray respectively, during first year and 29.8, 8.8 and 21.9 per cent
during second year in variety ‘DBW 17’. In ‘PBW 343’ uptake of Cu was higher by 14.6, 6.7
and 8.8 percent during first year and 28.3, 7.5 and 15 percent during second year from the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 in comparison to control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively. Mn uptake in ‘DBW 17’ was higher with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
it was higher by 15.8, 7 and 10.5 per cent than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively during 2009-10 and higher by 37.5, 15.3 and 29.2 per cent during
2010-11. Total manganese uptake obtained from control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray
of 0.5 % ZnSO4 was less by 15.6, 6.7 and 8.9 per cent, respectively than obtained with 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year; while during second year less by 32.8, 14.3 and 24.3 per cent,
respectively. Mohammad et al. (2006) reported that concentration of zinc was significantly
increased in straw and grain by increase in ratio of zinc application.
5.7 Economics
Gross and net returns obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was ` 8100,
3200 and 5700 more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4,
respectively, during first year; while in 2010 the differences were very less i.e. ` 1830, 740
and 1130. Higher net returns obtained from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to maize crop. However,
it was ` 6600, 2450 and 4370 less with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4, respectively, than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during 2009. In contrary to the above almost
equal amount of net returns obtained during 2010 with all treatment except control. Sheraz et
al., (2012) reported that Net returns and B: C ratio was increased with increase in levels of
122
zinc and highest was recorded with 10 kg Zn ha-1. The variation in accruing the benefit from
zinc application is might be due to less grain and stover yield during first year while more
during second year. The variation in yield ranges from 0.75 to 1.41 t ha-1 in 2009 and 2.48 to
2.54 t ha-1 during 2010. Rainfall affected the crop during first year in comparison to second
season might be another reason for variation in the yield. The overall growth of crop was
more uniform in 2010, due to adequate and equal distribution of the rainfall throughout the
growing season.
Gross and net returns from wheat observed due to application of zinc to preceding
maize crop was not significant during first year. The gross returns obtained due to application
of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was `. 2060, 1130 and 1490 more than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4, respectively during first year and ` 7380, 2050 and 5240 during
second year. Gross returns obtained with control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 was less by ` 4840, 2700 and 3590 respectively, than 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during
first year in variety ‘DBW 17’ whereas ` 9360, 2560 and 6670 during second year.
Net returns obtained in ‘DBW 17’ with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 remains higher by Rs `3310,
1930 and 2210 than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 respectively,
during 2009-10 while 7830, 1790 and 5290 more with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1. Net returns recorded
in variety ‘PBW 343’ computed from the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was more by ` 3600,
2720 and 2690 Rs than control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4,
respectively during first year. However, during 2010-11 it was higher by ` 6970, 1970 and
3740. The gross and net returns were higher during 2010-11 as compared to 2009-10. It might
be due to more crop growth, yield and minimum support price in 2009-10. Slightly higher
gross and net returns recorded from variety ‘PBW 343’ than ‘DBW 17’, it might be due to
more yield resulted by superior attributes of varietal character.
123
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Field experiments were carried out during 2009-10 and 2010-11 at the research farm
of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi on sandy loam soil, slightly alkaline
in reaction (pH 7.6), low in organic C (0.38 %), and available N (165.3 kg ha-1), medium in
available P (12.2 kg ha-1) and high in available K (239.5 kg ha-1) and medium in available Zn
(0.72 mg kg-1). The objectives of study were (i) to workout comparative response of wheat and
maize to zinc nutrition (ii) to determine the effect of zinc on wheat and maize grain quality.
(iii) to find out the most effective method of zinc application in wheat and maize. The field
experiment consisted of four levels of zinc (control,12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and
foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4) imposed to maize in randomised block design during kharif and
the same plot considered as main plot and each plot splitted into eight subplot using same
levels of zinc and two wheat variety during rabi season. Thus, 32 treatment combinations of
treatment were laid out in split plot design and replicated thrice, keeping zinc treatments in
main plots and zinc treatments and variety in sub-plots. The gross plot size of the sub plot was
12.96 m2, while the gross size of the main plot was 154.56 m2. Land preparation was done as
per treatment and sowing was done using ‘PEMH 2’ during kharif (June to October) and
‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ during rabi (November to April) with a seed rate of 25 and 100 kg
ha-1, and a recommended fertilizer dose of 120:40:40 and 120:60:40 kg N, P2O5 and K2O kg
ha-1 were followed for maize and wheat, respectively. The sowing of maize at spacing of 60
cm X 20 cm and for wheat 22 cm from row to row was done with the help of seed cum ferti-
drill.
Observations were recorded on various growth and yield parameters, nutrient uptake, soil
physical and chemical properties, quality parameters and economics of cultivation of maize
and wheat under various treatments. Statistical analysis of the data was done using standard
ANOVA technique.
The findings of various observations are summarized as follows:
Growth attributing character showed mixed response to soil and foliar zinc application.
Maximum plant height, leaf area index and dry matter accumulation in maize and wheat
observed higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
Relatively higher weight of cob plant-1, grains cob-1, grain rows cob-1, length of cob, test
weight, shelling percentage and girth of cob were recorded with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed
by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both the year.
The maximum grain (2.63 t ha-1 and 4.14 t ha-1), straw (6.44 and 8.55 t ha-1) and biological
yield (9.07 and 12.69 t ha-1) was obtained with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed
by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray and control. Grain yield was significantly higher than the
124
control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but remain at par with the application of 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 during first year, however, stover and biological yields were significantly higher
than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control.
Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to wheat variety ‘DBW 17’ recorded higher LAI than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year at 30 DAS. In
‘PBW 343’ significantly higher leaf area index (0.41 at 30 DAS) was observed with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 at 30 DAS and at 60 DAS during first year.
In ‘DBW 17’ significantly higher DM was recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 at 30 DAS,
whereas at 60 DAS this treatment was higher than control but at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during first year. Dry matter accumulation in variety ‘PBW
343’ was significantly higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control, 12.5 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray at 30 DAS during second year.
The zinc levels applied to previous maize crop did not affect the effective tiller m-2 and grain
diameter of wheat during both the year. However, grain weight spike-1 during first year and
1000 grain weight, did not differ significantly during second year. Zinc application
influenced grain weight spike-1 and grains spike-1 during second year while 1000 grain
weight during first year. Application of zinc to wheat recorded significant variation in
effective tiller m-2, grains spike-1, and grain diameter during second year and 1000 grain
weight during both the year.
Grain weight spike-1 was found significantly higher with the application 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to
preceding maize crop than control and it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of
0.5 % ZnSO4 during second year. Grain spike-1 and 1000 grain weight were higher with
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % and control
during first year. Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was found superior with respect to
effective tiller m-2 and grain diameter during both the year and grain weight spike-1 and grain
spike-1 during first year. However relatively higher grain, straw, biological yield and harvest
index was found with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1of zinc to maize crop. Direct
application of zinc to wheat varieties viz. ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’, showed significant
variation in grain, straw, biological yield and harvest index during both the year
Relatively higher protein content was recorded with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 and control during both the
year. Phosphorus concentration significantly affected during both the year due to application
of zinc. Iron and manganese concentration in grain did not vary significantly due to zinc
125
application during both the year. Zinc and copper concentration differ significantly during
second year.
Nitrogen concentration in stover during first year and phosphorus concentration during
second year show significant variation due to different levels of zinc. However, zinc
application did not give any effect on potassium concentration during both years. Zinc
application to maize crop has shown the significant effect on iron concentration in stover
during second year and manganese concentration during first year. Zinc, copper did not vary
significantly during both the year and manganese during first year due to various levels of
zinc.
Zinc applied to preceding maize crop did not show any significant effect on protein content,
flour recovery, water absorption capacity, hardness and sedimentation value of wheat during
both the year. Sedimentation value and hardness differ significantly during first and second
year, respectively due to direct application of zinc levels in wheat varieties ‘DBW 17’ and
‘PBW 343’. Protein content, flour recovery and water absorption capacity remain unaffected
due to zinc levels during both the years.
The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize crop recorded relatively higher
protein content (12.4 %) than the 12.5 kg ZnSO4, foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 and control
during first year. Direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to ‘DBW 17’ recorded relatively
higher protein content (11.7 % and 12.4 %) than 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 and control during first year. During second year application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
followed by foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 gave comparatively higher protein content than
other treatments.
Flour recovery was relatively higher from application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding
maize crop than other levels during both the year. The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to
preceding maize recorded relatively higher water absorption capacity during first year while
control treatment during second year. Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties did not
show significant variation in water absorption capacity during both the year. Lowest
hardness values were obtained from foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 to preceding maize crop
during both the year in comparison to other levels. Hardness value was higher with control
and decreased by increasing levels of zinc.
During first year highest sedimentation value observed with control treatment to preceding
maize crop. However, during second year foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 gave higher values.
Sedimentation value in ‘DBW 17’ due to direct application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 was
significantly higher (34.8 ml) than other treatments during first year.
126
Micronutrient concentration in grain of wheat differs significantly due to application of zinc
to preceding maize during first year. Direct application of zinc to varieties showed
significant differences in micronutrient concentration during both the year. The iron
concentration recorded from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to preceding maize crop was
significantly higher (33.2 ppm) than remaining treatments during first year.
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to preceding maize was significantly higher in zinc
concentration (41.3 ppm) than other treatments except it was at par with 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
during first year. The application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to wheat gave significantly higher zinc
concentration (33.2 and 42.6 ppm) during both the year in ‘PBW 343’ and during first year
in variety ‘DBW 17’. In ‘PBW343’ significantly higher zinc concentration recorded with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control but at par with foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 during both the
year.
During first year Cu concentration from the treatment with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 applied to
preceding maize was significantly higher (4.3 ppm) than control. The application of 25 kg
ZnSO4 ha-1 gave significantly higher copper (4.4 ppm) concentration in ‘DBW 17’ than
remaining levels during second year. In both varieties Cu concentration from 12.5 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 was significantly higher than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the
year.
Zinc applied to maize crop had significant effect on nitrogen and potassium uptake in grain,
stover and total uptake during first year whereas phosphorus uptake during both year. The
uptake of micronutrient zinc, iron, copper and manganese in grain, stover and total varied
significantly only during first year whereas iron and zinc during both the year.
Gross returns were significantly higher (` 31750) with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 than
other treatments during first year. During second year relatively higher gross returns was
computed from 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1than remaining treatments.
Zinc application to preceding maize crop had significant effect on uptake of nitrogen in grain
and total uptake in wheat during second year and uptake of phosphorus during both the year.
The uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium in grain, straw and total showed great
variation during both the year due to direct application of zinc to wheat varieties.
Application of zinc to preceding maize crop had significant effect on uptake of zinc in wheat
grain during first year and total uptake during both the year. Iron uptake varied significantly
during both the year except in grain during second year unaffected. Uptake of manganese
showed significant variation in grain and total uptake during first year and in straw and total
during second year. Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties has recorded significant
127
variation in uptake of zinc, iron, copper and manganese in grain, straw and total during both
the year except uptake of copper during first year.
Gross returns, net returns and B: C ratio showed significant variation due to application of
zinc in preceding maize during second year. Direct application of levels of zinc to wheat
varieties ‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ recorded significant variation in gross and net returns
while B: C ratio did not vary significantly during both the year.
CONCLUSIONS
Performance of maize and wheat was found better with the soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4
ha-1 zinc application than other levels.
Grain, straw/stover and biological yield of maize and wheat was significantly higher with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than control and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 but at par with
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
Quality character (protein content, hardness and sedimentation values) of maize and wheat
affected by application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
Protein content in maize and wheat, flour recovery, water absorption capacity, sedimentation
value and hardness was higher in 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
N, P, K, Zn, Fe, Cu and Mn concentration in grain and straw of maize and wheat was found
higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1.
N, P, K and micronutrient uptake was higher with the application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray and control.
Application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to maize and wheat
cropping system were found more economical than remaining treatments.
Soil application of zinc was found better in comparison to foliar spray of zinc sulphate.
Overall it can be concluded that soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 to maize and wheat crop
found better than other treatment with respect to grain yield and concentration of nutrients and
other quality parameters of maize and wheat.
FUTURE LINE OF WORK
On the basis of the findings of the present study, the following future line of work is
suggested for improved understanding on agronomic biofortification and their management
in maize-wheat cropping system
To get better understanding about effect of zinc on maize and wheat in relation to their
distribution in different parts of the plant.
To know about the efficiency of genotype to extract the zinc more efficiently.
To identify the genotype with high nutrient concentration in grain.
128
To know about the response of other cropping system to zinc application and bioavailability of
zinc in human.
In depth analysis of dynamics of zinc in soil and plant and interaction of zinc nutrition with
other macro/micronutrient.
Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea mays)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system
ABSTRACT
A field study entitled “Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize
(Zea mays)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system” was conducted during 2009-11 at
Research Farm of Division of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, with the objectives; (i) To
workout comparative response of wheat and maize to zinc nutrition (ii) To determine the
effect of zinc application on wheat and maize grain quality and (iii) To find out the most
effective dose and method of zinc application in maize-wheat cropping system. The overall
weather conditions were more conducive to the crops during second year as compared to first
year. The treatment consisted of control (no ZnSO4), soil applied 12.5 kg, 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 at knee height stage and second spray one week later in
maize whereas at anthesis and one week after first spray in wheat. All treatments were tested
in randomised block design in maize and in wheat treatments were splited to accommodate
two varieties keeping treatment of maize as main plot with three replications. The result
reveals that growth attributes vary significantly due to zinc application only during second
year. The grain, stover and biological yield of maize were significantly influenced by
application of zinc sulphate during first year and the maximum yields were recorded with the
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 during both the year. During first year application of 25 kg
ZnSO4, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 increased grain yield by 22.81,
18.63 and 8.36 per cent respectively over control, while 4.10, 2.41 and 1.69 per cent increase
in grain yield was recorded during second year. In wheat, application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1
significantly increased 1000 grain weight during first year and effective tiller m-2, grain spike-
1 and grain diameter during second year. Direct application of zinc to wheat varieties i.e.
‘DBW 17’ and ‘PBW 343’ showed significant variation in grain, straw and biological yield
and harvest index during both the years. Relatively higher protein content was obtained from
soil application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 followed by 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4 and control during both the year. Nitrogen concentration during first year and
phosphorus concentration during second year in grain showed significantly affected by levels
of zinc sulphate. Sedimentation value of wheat varieties increased significantly due to
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 over control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 %
ZnSO4. Concentration of iron, zinc, copper and manganese in wheat grain during first year
differs significantly due to application of zinc sulphate to preceding maize crop. The
application of 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 significantly increased zinc concentration during both the
year in ‘PBW 343’ (44.1 mg kg-1) while in ‘DBW 17’ (43.9 mg kg-1) during first year.
Nitrogen and potassium uptake in grain, stover and total in maize and wheat were
significantly affected by application of Zn only during first year, whereas, phosphorus uptake
during both the year. Maximum gross return (Rs 64510 and Rs 77750) and significantly
higher net return (Rs 42100 and Rs 54140) was obtained with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than foliar
spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 (Rs 38920 and Rs 48630) and control (Rs 38010 and Rs 46090). Direct
application of zinc to wheat recorded slightly more B: C ratio with 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 than
control, 12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 and foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 during both the year in both the
varieties.
Keywords: Growth, yield, sedimentation, water absorption capacity, gross return, net return
etc.
'kh"kZd **eDdk ¼ftvk est½&xsgw¡ ¼fVªfVde ,fLVoe ½ Qlyz iz.kkyh esa ftad iks"k.k }kjk
lL;oSKkfudh; tSo&lao/kZu** ds vUrxZr o"kZZ 2009&10 o 2010&11 ds nkSjku lL;foKku
laHkkx] Hkk-d`-vuq-la-] ubZ fnYyh ds vuqla/kku i{ks=z ij ,d v/;;u fd;k x;k ftlds mn~ns”;
bl izdkj Fks%& i) ftad iks’k.k ds izfr xsgwa¡ o eDdk dh rqyukRed izfrfØ;k dk v/;;u] ii)
xsgwa¡ eDdk dh nkuk xq.koRrk ij ftad vuqiz;ksx ds izHkko dk fu/kkZj.k djuk] rFkk iii) eDdk
o xsgwa¡ dh xq.koRrk ekudksa ij ftad lYQsV vuqiz;ksx dh fofHkUu ek=k ,oa fof/k;ksa ds izHkko
dk rqYkukRed v/;;uA v/;;u vof/k ds nkSjku ekSle ifjfLFkfr izFke o"kZ dh rqyuk esa
f}rh; o"kZ dgha vf/kd vuqdwy FkhA iz;ksx esa yk, x, mipkj ds rgr fu;a=.k ¼ ftad lYQsV
dk dksbZ iz;ksx ugha½] 12-5 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls e`nk esa vuqiz;ksx] 25 fdxzk
ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls enk esa vuqiz;ksx] rFkk eDdk dh ?kqVus dh mapkbZ okyh
voLFkk esa 0-5 izfr”kr ftad lYQsV dh nj ls izFke i.khZ; fNM+dko ,oa izFke fNM+dko ds ,d
lIrkg Ik”pkr nwljk fNM+dko ,oa xsgwa¡ dh *MhchMCY;w 17* o *ihchMCY;w 343* fdLeksa ij izFke
fNM+dko iq’Ik fudyus dh voLFkk rFkk f}rh; fNM+dko izFke fNM+dko ds ,d lIrkg mijkUr
fNM+dko djuk “kkfey FkkA bu mipkjksa dks eDdk esa rhu iqujkofr;ksa esa ;kn`fPNd CykWd
fMtkbu esa yxk;k x;k A xsgwa¡ esas eq[; IykV ds :i esa eDdk ds mipkj dks j[kk x;k A
lc&IykWV esa eDdk ds izR;sd mipkj dks 8 IykWV esa yxk;k x;k ftlesa xsgwa¡ dh nks iztkfr;ksa
ds lkFk ftad lYQsV ds pkj mipkjksa dks j[kk x;k A nks o"kksZa ds ijh{k.kksa ls irk pyk fd
igys o"kZ esa ftad vuqiz;ksx ds dkj.k fofHkUu o`f) dkjdksa esa dksbZ mYys[kuh; fHkUurk ugha FkhA
gkykafd] nwljs o"kZ esa mYys[kuh; fHkUurk ns[kus dks feyhA igys o"kZ ftad vuqiz;ksx ds dkj.k
eDdk dh nkuk] MaBy ,oa dqy tSfod mit mYys[kuh; :i ls izHkkfor gqbZ vkSj nksuksa o"kksZa esa
25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls e`nk esa vuqiz;ksx djus ls vf/kdre mit izkIr
gqbZA igys o"kZ esa fu;af=r mipkj dh rqyuk esa 25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls e`nk
esa vuqiz;ksx] 12-5 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls enk esa vuqiz;ksx rFkk 0-5 izfr”kr
ftad lYQsV dh nj ls i.khZ; fNM+dko ls nkuk mit esa Øe”k% 22-81] 18-63 ,oa 8-36
izfr”kr dh o`f) gqbZ tcfd nwljs o"kZ esa nkuk iSnkokj esa Øe”k% 4-10] 2-41 ,oa 1-69 izfr”kr
dh of) ikbZ xbZA xsgwa¡ dh *MhchMCY;w 17* o *ihchMCY;w 343* fdLeksa esa ftad dk lh/kk vuqiz;ksx
djus ij nksuks o"kZ nkuk] Hkwlk rFkk dqy tSfod mit ,oa dVkbZ lwpdkad esa mYys[kuh; fHkUurk
iznf’kZr gqbZA nksuksa o"kZ *ihchMCY;w 343* esa fu;a=.k] 12-5 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj
ls e`nk esa vuqiz;ksx rFkk i.khZ; fNM+dko dh rqyuk esa 25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj
ls e`nk esa vuqiz;ksx djus ij Øe”k% 0-35] 0-26 o 0-28 rFkk 0-43] 0-13 ,oa 0-29 Vu izfr
gSDVj dh vf/kd mit feyh A ftad lYQsV dh 25 fdxzk izfr gSDVj dh nj ls e`nk esa
vuqiz;ksx djus ls vf/kdre Hkwlk o dqy tSfod mit izkIr dh xbZA eDdk o xsgwa¡ ij ftad
lYQsV ds fHkUu Lrjksa ds vuqiz;ksx dk nkuksa esa izksVhu lkanzrk] dBksjrk] ty vo”kks’k.k {kerk
vkSj vkVk nj ij dksbZ mYys[kuh; izHkko ns[kus dks ugha feykA nksuksa o"kZ lkisf{kd :Ik ls
mPprj izksVhu ek=k] e`nk esa 25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls vuqiz;ksx djus ij
vkSj rnqijkar dze”k% e`nk esa 12-5 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls vuqiz;ksx djus] 0-
5 izfr”kr ftad lYQsV dh nj ls i.khZ; fNM+dko djus vkSj fu;af=r mipkj nsus ij izkIr dh
xbZA ftad lYQsV ds fofHkUu Lrjksa ds vuqiz;ksx ds dkj.k nkuksa esa igys o"kZ esa ukbVªkstu
lkanzrk ,oa nwljs o"kZ esa QkLQksjl lkanzrk esa mYys[kuh; fHkUurk iznf”kZr gqbZA xsgw¡ dh fdLe
*MhchMCY;w 17* ,oa *ihchMCY;w 343* esa ftad dk lh/kk vuqiz;ksx djus ls nkuksa esa izksVhu
ek=k] vkVk nj ,oa ty vo”kks’k.k {kerk esa fdlh izdkj dh mYys[kuh; fHkUurk ugha ns[kh
xbZA xsgw¡ dh nksuksa fdLeksa esa fu;a=.k] e`nk esa 12-5 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls
vuqiz;ksx djus rFkk 0-5 izfr”kr ftad lYQsV dh nj ls i.khZ; fNM+dko djus dh rqyuk esa
25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls ftad dk e`nk esa vuqiz;ksx djus ij mYys[kuh;
:i ls XywVu&”kfDr dk eku vf/kd ik;k x;kA iwoZorhZ eDdk Qly esa ftad lYQsV dk
vuqiz;ksx fd, tkus ds dkj.k igys o"kZ esa ykSg] ftad] rkack rFkk eSaxuht dh lkanzrk esa
mYys[kuh; fHkUurk ns[kus dks feyh ysfdu nwljs o"kZ esa bl izdkj dh dksbZ fHkUurk iznf”kZr
ugha gqbZA e`nk esa 25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls vuqiz;ksx djus ij nksuks o"kZ tgka
*ihchMCY;w 343* esa ¼44-1 fexzk@fdxzk½ rFkk igys o"kZ *MhchMCY;w 17* esa ¼43-9 fexzk@fdxzk½
ftad dh lkanzrk esa mYys[kuh; o`f) gqbZA igys rFkk nwljs o"kZ esa dze”k% nkuksa rFkk Hkwls esa
ukbVªkstu mnxzg.k ,oa nksuksa o"kZ iksVSf”k;e mnxzg.k esa fdlh izdkj dh mYys[kuh; fHkUurk
iznf”kZr ugha gqbZA ftad ds lh/ks vuqiz;ksx ds dkj.k nksuks o"kZ xsg¡wa dh fdLe *MhchMCY;w 17* ,oa
*ihchMCY;w 343* ds nkuksa] Hkwlk rFkk dqy ikS/ks esa ukbVªkstu] QkLQksjl ,oa iksVSf”k;e ds
mnxzg.k esa mYys[kuh; fHkUurk iznf”kZr gqbZA e`nk esa 25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj
ls vuqiz;ksx djus ij nksuksa o"kZ vf/kdre dqy vk; ¼`64]510 ,oa `77]750½ izkIr dh xbZA blh
izdkj 0-5 izfr”kr ftad lYQsV dh nj ls i.khZ; fNM+dko djus ¼` 38]920 ,oa `48]630½ ,oa
fu;a=.k ¼`38]010 ,oa `46]090½dh rqyuk esa e`nk esa 25 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls
vuqiz;ksx djus ¼`42]100 ,oa ` 54]140½ ij lkFkZd :i lsa vf/kd “kq) vk; izkIr gqbZA xsgwa¡ dh
nksuksa fdLeksa esa nksuks o"kZ fu;a=.k] e`nk esa 12-5 fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls
vuqiz;ksx djus rFkk 0-5 izfr”kr ftad lYQsV dh nj ls i.khZ; fNM+dko djus dh rqyuk esa 25
fdxzk ftad lYQsV izfr gSDVj dh nj ls vuqiz;ksx ds lkFk xsgwa esa ftad dk lh/kk vuqiz;ksx
djus ij FkksM+k vf/kd ch%lh vuqikr ntZ fd;k x;kA vf/kdka”k ekeyksa esa fu;a=.k dh rqyuk esa
ek=k ,o fof/k ds ckotwn ftad lYQsV ds vuqiz;ksx esa lHkh ekudksa esa mYys[kuh; o`f)
iznf”kZr gqbZA
% o`f)] mit] XywVu&“kfDr] ty vo'kks"k.k {kerk] mnxzg.k] dqy vk;] “kq) vk;
vkfn A
134
REFERENCES
Abbas, Ghulam Hassan, Gul, Ali, Muhammad, Anjum, Aslam, Muhammad and Abbas, Zafar (2010) Response of wheat to different doses of ZnSO4 under Thar Desert environment. Pakistan Journal of Botany 42(6): 4079-4085.
Abbas, Ghulam, Khan, Muhammad Qasim, Jamil, Muhammad, Tahir, Muhammad and Hussain, Fida (2009) Nutrient uptake, growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) as affected by zinc application rates. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 11(4):389–396.
Abunyewa, A. A. and Quarshie, H. Mercer (2004) Response of maize to magnesium and zinc application in the semi arid zone of West Africa. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 3(1):1-5.
Adhikary, Bishnu Hari, Shrestha, Jiban and Baral, Bandhu Raj (2010) Effects of micronutrients on growth and productivity of maize in acidic soil. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences 1 (1):8-15
Adiloglu, S (2006) The effect of increasing nitrogen and zinc doses on the iron, copper and manganese contents of maize plant in calcareous and zinc deficient soils. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 5 (3) :504-507.
Ahmad, H. R., Abbas Aziz, M., Ghafoor, A., Rehman, M. Z., Sabir, M. and Saifullah (2011) Wheat assimilation of nickel and zinc added in irrigation water as affected by organic matter. Journal of Plant Nutrition 34:27–33.
Akhtar, Saeed, Anjum, Faqir M. And Anjum, M. Akbar (2011) Micronutrient fortification of wheat flour: recent development and strategies. Food Research International 44:652–659.
Akinrinde, E. A., Olubakin, O. A., Omotoso, S. O. and Ahmed, A. A. (2006) Influence of zinc fertilizer, poultry manure and application levels on the performance of sweet corn. Agricultural Journal 1: 96-103.
Alam, S.M. and Shereen, A. (2002) effect of different levels of zinc and phosphorus on growth and chlorophyll content of wheat. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 1(4):364-366.
Ali, Sajid , Shah, A., Arif , M., Miraj, G., Ali, Imran, Sajjad, M., Farhatullah, M., Khan, Yasir and Khan, Noor Moula (2009a) Enhancement of wheat grain yield and yield components through foliar application of zinc and boron. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 25 (1):15-19.
Ali, Sajid, Riaz, Khan, A., Ghazal, Mairaj, Arif, M., Fida, Mehwish and Bibi, Saiqa (2008) Assessment of different crop nutrient management practices for yield improvement. Australian Journal of Crop Science 2(3):150-157.
Alvarez, J. M., Almendros, P. and Gonzalez, D. (2009) Residual effects of natural Zn chelates on navy bean response, Zn leaching and soil Zn status. Plant and Soil 317:277–291.
135
Ananda, N. and Patil, B.N. (2005) Influence of zinc, iron and time of nitrogen application on growth, yield and quality of durum wheat. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science, 18 (3):599-603
Aref, Farshid (2010) Zinc and boron fertilization on concentration and uptake of iron and manganese in the corn grain. Journal of American Science 6(8): 236-242.
Aref, Farshid (2011) Zinc and boron content by maize leaves from soil and foliar application of zinc sulphate and boric acid in zinc and boron deficient soils. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 7 (4): 610-618.
Aref, Farshid (2012) Evaluation of application methods and rates of zinc and boron on nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents of maize. leaf Journal of Plant Nutrition 35:1210–1224.
Aref, Farshid (2012) Manganese, iron and copper contents in leaves of maize plants (Zea mays L.) grown with different boron and zinc micronutrients. African Journal of Biotechnology 11(4):896-903.
Arif, Muhammad, Chohan, Muhammad Aslam, Ali, Sajid, Gul, Rozina and Khan, Sajjad (2006) Response of wheat to foliar application of nutrients. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 1(4):30-34.
Arya, K. C. and Singh, S.N. (2000) Effect of different levels of phosphorus and zinc on yield and nutrients uptake of maize (Zea mays) with and without irrigation. Indian Journal of Agronomy 45(4): 717-721.
Badiyala, Dinesh and Chopra, Pankaj (2011) Effect of zinc and FYM on productivity and nutrient availability in maize (Zea mays)–linseed (Linum usitatissimum) cropping sequence. Indian Journal of Agronomy 56(2): 88-91.
Bagci, A., Erdal, I., Gultekin, I., Yilmaz, A., Ekiz, H., Sade, B., Torun, M.B. and Cakmak, I. (2007) Effect of zinc fertilization and irrigation on grain yield, zinc concentration and quality of cereal species. www.zinccrop2007_bagci.pdf.
Balai, M. L., Verma, Arvind , Nepalia, V. and Kanthaliya, P. C. (2011) Productivity and quality of maize (Zea mays) as influenced by integrated nutrient management under continuous cropping and fertilization. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (4): 374–6.
Bashir Fiaz, Maqsood Muhammad, Sarwar Naeem, Ali, Hakoomat, Mubeen, Khuram, Muhammad and Shehzad, Asif (2012) Effect of foliar application of zinc on yield and radiation use efficiency (RUE) of maize (Zea mays L.) under reduced irrigation conditions. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Research 2(1)33-39.
Behera, Sanjib Kumar, Singh, Dhyan, Dwivedi, B. S., Singh, Sarjeet, Kumar, K. and Rana, D. S. (2008) Distribution of fractions of zinc and their contribution towards availability and plant uptake of zinc under long-term maize (Zea mays L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping on an Inceptisol. Australian Journal of Soil Research 46: 83–89.
136
Behera, S.K., Singh, M.V., Singh, K.N. and Todwal, Sandeep (2011) Distribution variability of total and extractable zinc in cultivated acid soils of India and their relationship with some selected soil properties. Geoderma 162:242-250.
Benbi, D. K., Brar, Kiranvir, Toor, A. S., Singh, Pritpal and Singh, Hargopal (2012) Soil carbon pools under poplar-based agroforestry, rice-wheat, and maize-wheat cropping systems in semi-arid India. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 92:107-118.
Bhmanyar, Mohammad, Ali and Piradsht, Hemmatollah (2008) The effect of Zn and K fertilisers on agronomical characteristics and Zn, Fe and P accumulation in two wheat cultivars in calcareous soils. “Global issue Paddock Action” edited by M. Unkovick. Proceedings of 14th Agronomy conference 2008, 21-25 September 2008, Adelaide, South Australia.
Bouyoucos, G.J. (1962) Hydrometer method for making particle size analysis of soils. Agronomy Journal 54: 464.
Brar, M. S. and Sekhon, G. S. (1976) Interaction of zinc with other micronutrient cations I. effect of copper on zinc absorption by wheat Seedlings and its translocation within the Plants. Plant and Soil 45:137-143.
Bukvic, G., Antunovic, M., Popovic, S., and Rastija, M. (2003) Effect of P and Zn fertilisation on biomass yield and its uptake by maize lines (Zea mays L.). Plant Soil Environment 49 (11): 505–510.
Cakmak Ismail, Marschner, Horst, and Bangerth, Fritz (1989) Effect of zinc nutritional status on growth, protein metabolism and levels of indole-3-acetic acid and other phytohormones in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 40(3): 405 -412.
Cakmak, I. , Sari, N. , Marschner, H. , Kalayci, M. , Yilmaz, A. , Eker, S. and Gulut, K. Y. (1996) Dry matter production and distribution of zinc in bread and durum wheat genotypes differing in zinc efficiency. Plant and Soil 180(2):173-181.
Cakmak, I., Kalayci, M., Ekiz, H., Braun, H.J., Kilinc, Y. and Yilmaz, A. (1999) zinc deficiency as a practical problem in plant and human nutrition in Turkey: A NATO-science for stability project. Field Crop Research 60:175-188.
Cakmak, I., Torun, B., Erenoglu, B., Ozturk, L., Marscher, H., Kalayci, M., Ekiz, H. and Yilmaz, A. (1998) Morphological and physiological differences in the response of cereals to zinc deficiency. Euphytica 100: 349-357.
Cakmak, Ismail (2002) Plant nutrition research: priorities to meet human needs for food in sustainable ways. Plant and Soil 247: 3–24
Cakmak, Ismail (2008) Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: agronomic or genetic biofortification. Plant and Soil 302:1–17.
Cakmak, Ismail (2010a) Biofortification of cereals with zinc and iron through fertilization strategy. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World 1-6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia. Pp: 4-6.
137
Cakmak, Ismail, Pfeiffer, Wolfgang H. and McClafferty, Bonnie (2010b) Biofortification of durum wheat with zinc and iron. Cereal chemistry 87(1):10-20.
Cakmak, , I. Kalayci, M. Kaya, Y. A., Torun, A. Aydin, N., Wang, Y., Arisoy Z. Erdem, H., Yazici, A., Gokmen, O., Ozturk, L. and Horst, W. J.(2011) Biofortification and localization of zinc in wheat grain. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 58 (16):9092–9102.
Cakmak,.I (2009) Enrichment of fertilizers with zinc: An excellent investment and crop production in India. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology 23: 281–289.
Chaab, A., Savaghebi, G.H.R. and Motesharezadeh, B. (2010) Differences in the zinc efficiency among and within maize cultivars in a calcareous soil. Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3(1): 26-31.
Chakraborti, M., Prasanna, B. M., Hossain, F. and Singh, Anju M. (2011) Evaluation of single cross quality protein maize (QPM) hybrids for kernel iron and zinc concentrations. Indian Journal of Genetics 71(4): 312-319.
Chandrapala, A.G., Yakadrm, Kumar, R. Mahender and Raj, G. Bhupal (2010) Productivity and economics of rice (Oryza sativa)–maize (Zea mays) as influenced by methods of crop establishment, Zn and S application in rice. Indian Journal of Agronomy 55 (3): 171-176.
Chatzav, Merav, Peleg, Zvi, Ozturk, Levent , Yazici ,Atilla , Fahima, Tzion, Cakmak, Ismail and Saranga, Yehoshua (2010) Genetic diversity for grain nutrients in wild emmer wheat: potential for wheat improvement. Annals of Botany 105: 1211–1220.
Chaube, A.K., Ruhella, Rashmi, Chakraborty, Raja, Gangwar, M.S., Srivastava, P.C. and Singh, S.K. (2007) Management of zinc fertilizer under pearl millet–wheat cropping system in a typic ustipsamment. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 55(2):196-202.
Chen, Z. H., Tian, X. H., Yang, X. W., Lu, X. C., Mai, W. X., Gale, W. J. and Cao, Y. X. (2010) Comparison of zinc efficiency among winter wheat genotypes cultured hydroponically in chelator-buffered solutions. Journal of Plant Nutrition 33:1612-1624.
Coventry, D.R., Poswal, R.S., Yadav, A., Gupta, R.K., Gill, S.C., Chhokar, R.S., Kumar, V., Sharma, R.K., Kumar, A., Mehta, A., Kleemann, S.G.L. and Cummins, J.A. (2011) Effect of tillage and nutrient management on wheat productivity and quality in Haryana, India. Field Crops Research 123:234–240.
Cui, Y. and Zhao, N. (2011) Oxidative stress and change in plant metabolism of maize (Zea mays L.) growing in contaminated soil with elemental sulfur and toxic effect of zinc. Plant Soil Environment 57 (1): 34–39.
Duarte, Aildson Pereira, Cakmak, Ismail and Ramos, Waldir Josue (2011). Effect of different zinc fertilizer treatments on maize grains in Brazil.www.zinccrops2011_durate_abstract.pdf.
138
Duffner, Andreas, Hoffland, Ellis and Temminghoff, J. M. Erwin (2012) Bioavailability of zinc and phosphorus in calcareous soils as affected by citrate exudation. Plant Soil DOI 10.1007/s11104-012-1273-9.
Dvorak, P., Tlustos, P., Szakova, J., Cerny, J. and Balik, J. (2003) Distribution of soil fractions of zinc and its uptake in potatoes, maize, wheat and barley after soil amendment by sludge and inorganic Zn salt. Plant and Environment 49(5): 203-212.
Dwivedi, S.K., Singh, R.S. and Dwivedi, K.N. (2002) Effect of sulphur and zinc nutrition on yield and quality of maize in typic ustochrept soil of Kanpur. Journal of the Indian Society Soil Science 50 (1):70-74.
Ebrahim, Mohsen K. H. and Aly, Magda M. (2004) Physiological response of wheat to foliar application of zinc and inoculation with some bacterial fertilizers. Journal of Plant Nutrition 27(10):1859–1874.
Ekiz, H. Bagci, S. A., Kiral, A. S., Eker, S., Gültekin, I., Alkan, A. and Cakmak, I. (1998) Effects of zinc fertilization and irrigation on grain yield and zinc concentration of various cereals grown in zinc‐deficient calcareous soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition 21(10): 2245-2256.
Erenoglu, B., Cakmak I., Romheld, V., Derici, R. and Rengel, Z. (1999) Uptake of zinc by rye, bread wheat and durum wheat cultivars in differing zinc deficiency. Plant and Soil 209:245-252.
Erenoglu, B., Nikolic, M., Romheld, V. and Cakmak, I. (2002) Uptake and transport of foliar applied zinc (65Zn) in bread and durum wheat cultivars differing in zinc efficiency. Plant and Soil 241: 251–257.
Frontela, C., Ros, G. and Martinez, C. (2011) Phytic acid content and “in vitro” iron, calcium and zinc bioavailability in bakery products: the effect of processing. Journal of Cereal Science 54:173-179.
Fuehring, H. D. (1969) Irrigated wheat on a calcareous soil as affected by application of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and zinc: ii. analysis of the young plant in relation to yield. Agronomy Journal 61:594-596.
Gao, Xiaopeng , Mohr, Ramona M., McLaren, Debra L. and Grant, Cynthia A. (2011) Grain cadmium and zinc concentrations in wheat as affected by genotypic variation and potassium chloride fertilization. Field Crops Research 122:95–103.
Gao, Xiaopeng, Flaten, Donald N., Tenuta, Mario, Grimmett, Mark G., Gawalko, Eugene J. and Grant, Cynthia A.(2011) Soil solution dynamics and plant uptake of cadmium and zinc by durum wheat following phosphate fertilization. Plant Soil 338:423–434.
Genc Y., McDonald, G.K. and Graham, R.D. (2006) Contribution of different mechanisms to zinc efficiency in bread wheat during early vegetative stage. Plant and Soil 281:353-367.
Genc, Y. and McDonald, G.K. (2004) The potential of synthetic hexaploid wheat to improve zinc efficiency in modern bread wheat. Plant and Soil 262: 23–32.
139
Genc, Y., McDonald, G.K. and Graham, R.D. (2004) Differential expression of zinc efficiency during the growing season of barley. Plant and Soil 263: 273–282.
Ghaffari, Azhar, Ali, Asghar, Tahir, Muhammad, Waseem, Muhammad, Ayub, M., Iqbal, Asif and Mohsin, Atta Ullah (2011) Influence of integrated nutrients on growth, yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.). American Journal of Plant Sciences 2:63-69.
Ghandilyan, Artak, Kutman, Umit Baris, Kutman, Bahar, Yildiz, Cakmak, Ismail and Aarts, Mark G. M. (2012) Genetic analysis of the effect of zinc deficiency on Arabidopsis growth and mineral concentrations. Plant and Soil DOI 10.1007/s11104-012-1334-0.
GOI (2012) Fourth Advance Estimates of Production of Food grains for 2011-12 Agricultural Statistics Division, Directorate of Economics & Statistics Department of Agriculture & Cooperation.www.agricoop.nic.in.
Gomez-Becerra, H.F., Erdem, H., Yazici, A., Tutus, Y., Torun, B., Ozturk, L.and Cakmak, I. (2010) Grain concentrations of protein and mineral nutrients in a large collection of spelt wheat grown under different environments Journal of Cereal Science 52: 342-349.
Goos, R. Jay, Johnson, Brian E. and Thiollet, Marie (2000) A comparison of the availability of three zinc sources to maize (Zea mays L.) under greenhouse conditions. Biology Fertilizer and Soils 31:343–347.
Gowda, D.S. Samrat, Singh, G.P., Singh, Anju M., Deveshwar, J.J. and Ahlawat, Arvind (2010) Stability analysis for physiological and quality parameters in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80 (12): 1028–32.
Graham, A .W. and McDonald, G. K. (2001) Effects of zinc on photosynthesis and yield of wheat under heat stress. Proceedings of the Australian Agronomy Conference, Australian Society of Agronomy.
Grant, C. A. and Bailey, L. D. (1998) Nitrogen, phosphorus and zinc management effects on grain yield and cadmium concentration in two cultivars of durum wheat. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 78: 63–70.
Grewal, Harsharn Singh and Graham, Robin D. (1997) Seed zinc content influences early vegetative growth and zinc uptake in oilseed rape (Brassica napus and Brassica juncea) genotypes on zinc-deficient soil. Plant and Soil 192(2):191-197.
Grewal, Harsharn Singh and Graham, Robin D. (1999) Residual effects of subsoil zinc and oilseed rape genotype on the grain yield and distribution of zinc in wheat. Plant and Soil 207(1): 29-36.
Gul, Hasina, Said, Ahmad, Saeed
Beena, Mohammad,
Fida and Ahmad, Ijaz (2011) Effect of foliar application of nitrogen, potassium and zinc on wheat growth. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 6(4):56-58.
Gul, Hasina, Said, Ahmad, Saeed Beena, Ahmad, Ijaz
and Ali, Khalid (2011a) Response of yield and yield components of wheat towards foliar spray of nitrogen, potassium and zinc. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 6 (2):23-25.
140
Gul, Hasina, Said, Ahmad, Saeed Beena, Mohammad, Fida
and Ahmad Ijaz (2011)b Effect of foliar application of nitrogen, potassium and zinc on wheat growth. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 6 (4):56-58.
Gunes, Aydin, Inal Ali, Adak, Mehmet S., Alpaslan, Mehmet, Bagci, Esra G., Erol, Taskin and Pilbeam, David J. (2007) Mineral nutrition of wheat, chickpea and lentil as affected by mixed cropping and soil moisture. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 78:83–96.
Gupta, Umesh C. (1989) Effect of zinc fertilization on plant zinc concentration of forages and cereals. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 69: 473-479.
Habib, Maralian (2009) Effect of foliar application of Zn and Fe on wheat yield and quality. African Journal of Biotechnology 8 (24): 6795-6798.
Harris, David, Rashid, Abdul, Miraj, Ghazal, Arif, Mohammed and Yunas, Mohammed (2008) ‘On-farm’ seed priming with zinc in chickpea and wheat in Pakistan. Plant and Soil 306:3–10.
Hasanzadeh, Elaheh, Sepanlou, Mehdi Ghajar and Bahmanyar, Mohammad Ali (2012) Effects of potassium and manure fertilizers on concentration of micro elements in leaf and grain of wheat under water stress. European Journal of Experimental Biology 2 (3):520-524.
Haslett, B.S., Reid, R. J. and Rengel, Z. (2001) Zinc mobility in wheat: uptake and distribution of zinc applied to leaves or roots. Annals of Botany 87:379-386.
Hemantaranjan, A. and Garg, O. K. (1988) Iron and zinc fertilization with reference to the grain quality of Triticum aestivum L. Journal of Plant Nutrition 11(6-11):1439-1450.
Herren, Thomas and Feller, Urs (1997) Influence of increased zinc levels on phloem transport in wheat shoots Journal of plant physiology. 150:228-231.
Holloway, Robert E., Graham, Robin D., McBeath, Therese M. and Brace, Dot M. (2010) The Use Of A Zinc-Efficient Wheat Cultivar As An Adaptation To Calcareous Subsoil: A Glasshouse Study. Plant and Soil 336 (1-2):15-24.
Hong, Shen, Peter, Christie and Xiaolin, Li (2006) Uptake of zinc, cadmium and phosphorus by arbuscular mycorrhizal maize (Zea mays L.) from a low available phosphorus calcareous soil spiked with zinc and cadmium. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 28:111–119.
Hong, Wang and Ji-yun, Jin (2007) Effects of zinc deficiency and drought on plant growth and metabolism of reactive oxygen species in maize (Zea mays L.). Agricultural Sciences in China 6 (8):988-995.
Hossain, M. A., Jahiruddin, M. and Khatun, F. (2011) Response of maize varieties to zinc fertilization. Bangladesh Journal of Agriculture Research 36(3): 437-447.
Hossain, M. A., Jahiruddin, M., Islam, M. R. and Mian, M. H. (2008) the requirement of zinc for improvement of crop yield and mineral nutrition in the maize–mungbean–rice system. Plant and Soil 306:13–22.
141
Hosseiny, Y. and Maftoun, M. (2008) Effects of nitrogen levels, nitrogen sources and zinc rates on the growth and mineral composition of lowland rice. Journal of Agriculture Science and Technology 10: 307-316.
Hussain, Shahid, Maqsood, Muhammad Aamer and Rahmatullah (2010) Increasing grain zinc and yield of wheat for the developing world: a review. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 22 (5): 326-339.
Imtiaz, Muhammad, Rashid, Abdul, Khan, Parvez, Memon, M.Y. and Aslam, M. (2010) The role of micronutrients in crop production and human health. Pakistan Journal of Botany 42(4): 2565-2578.
Jackson, M.L. (1973) Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Jain, N. K. and Dahama, A. K. (2005) Residual effect of phosphorus and zinc on yield, nutrient content and uptake and economics of pearlmillet (Pennisetum glaucum) wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences 75 (5): 281-284.
Jain, N. K. and Dahama, A. K. (2006)a Direct and residual effects of phosphorus and zinc fertilization on productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum)-pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51 (3): 161-169.
Jain, N. K. and Dahama, A. K. (2007) Effeet of phospborus and zinc on a yield, nutrient uptake and quality of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 77 (5): 3 10-3.
Jain, Navin K. and Dahama, Anil K. (2006)b phosphorus and zinc requirements of wheat under wheat (Triticum aestivum) – pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) cropping system. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 52( 6): 645 – 653.
Jakhar, S. R., Singh, M. and Balap, C.M. (2006) Effect of farmyard manure, phosphorus zinc levels on growth, yield, quality and economics of pearl millet. (Pennisetum glaucum). Indian Journal Agricultural Sciences 76 (1): 58-61.
Jat, N.K., Kumar, Ashok and Shiva Dhar (2010) Influence of sesbania green manure with or without wheat residues and N fertilization on maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 55 (4): 253-258.
Johns, Timothy and Eyzaguirre, Pablo B. (2007) Biofortification, biodiversity and diet: A search for complementary applications against poverty and malnutrition. Food Policy 32:1-24.
Jorge and Grusak, Michael A. (2009) Wheat (Triticum aestivum) NAM proteins regulate the translocation of iron, zinc, and nitrogen compounds from vegetative tissues to grain. Journal of Experimental Botany 60 (15): 4263-4274.
Joshi, A.K., Crossa, J., Arun, B., Chand, R., Trethowan, R., Vargas, M., and Monasterio, I. Ortiz (2010) Genotype X environment interaction for zinc and iron concentration of wheat grain in eastern Gangetic plains of India. Field Crops Research 116:268–277.
142
Joshi, P. K., Singh, N.P., Singh, N.N., Gerpacio, R.V. and Pingali, P.L. (2005) maize in India: production systems, constraints, and research priorities. Mexico, D.F: CIMMYT pp: 1-30.
Kai, Dang Hong, Rui-qi, Li, Ya-hui, Sun, Zhang, Xin-wen and Yan-ming, Li (2010) Absorption, accumulation and distribution of zinc in highly-yielding winter wheat. Agricultural Sciences in China 9 (7): 965-973.
Kalayci, M., Torun, B., Eker, S., Aydin, M.,Ozturk, L. and Cakmak, I. (1999) Grain yield, zinc efficiency and zinc concentration of wheat cultivars grown in a zinc deficient calcareous soil and greenhouse. Field Crop Research 63: 87-98.
Kant, Lakshmi, Pant, S. K., Mahajan, V., Gopinath, K. A. and Gupta, H. S. (2010) Performance of micronutrients-rich, rust-resistant early-maturing, high-yielding wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80 (3): 203-207.
Kanwal, S., Rahmatullah, Ranjha, A.M. and Ahmad, R. (2010) Zinc partitioning in maize grain after soil fertilization with zinc sulphate. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 12: 299-302.
Kanwal, Shamsa, Rahmatullah, Maqsood, Muhammad, Aamer and Gul, Bakhat, Hafiz, Faiq Siddique (2009) Zinc requirement of maize hybrids and indigenous varieties on Udic Haplustalf. Journal of Plant Nutrition 32: 470–478.
Kar, Dipankar, Ghosh, D. and Srivastava, P.C. (2007) Efficacy evaluation of different zinc-organo complexes in supplying zinc to maize (Zea mays L.) plant. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 55(1): 67-72.
Karimian, N. and Yasrebi, J. (2008) Prediction of residual effects of zinc sulfate on growth and zinc uptake of corn plants using three zinc soil tests. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 26 (1-2): 277-287.
Karki, T. B., Kumar, Ashok and Gautam, R. C. (2005) Influence of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield, content and uptake of nutrients and soil fertility status in maize. (Zea mays) Indian Journal Agricultural Sciences 75 (10): 682-685.
Kaya, Yuksel, Kaya, Yasin, Arisoy, R Zafer and Goomen, Aysun (2002) Variation in grain yield and quality traits of bread wheat genotype by zinc fertilization. Pakistan Journal of Agronomy 1 (4): 142-144.
Kelarestaghi, K., Bakhsh, Madani, H., Bazoobandi, M. and Asadi, M. (2007) Optimizing of zinc quantity and application method on bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) in bam region of Iran. www.zinccrop2007_ Kelarestaghi_abstract.pdf
Khan, A., Gurmani, A.R., Khan, M. S. and Gurmani, M. H. (2009) Residual, direct and cumulative effect of zinc application on wheat and rice yield under rice-wheat system. Soil and Environment 28 (1): 24-28.
Khan, H.R., McDonald, G.K., and Rengel, Z. (2003) Zn fertilization improves water use efficiency, grain yield and seed Zn content in chickpea. Plant and Soil 249: 389-400.
143
Khan, Khalid Saifullah and Joergensen, Rainer Georg (2010) Effects of Zn and P addition on the microbial biomass in a Zn deficient calcareous soil amended with glucose. Plant and Soil 335:493–499.
Khan, M.A., Fuller, M.P. and Baloch, F.S. (2008) Effect of soil applied zinc sulphate on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown on a calcareous soil in Pakistan. Cereal Research Communications 36(4): 571–582.
Khan, Naseer Hussain, Raja, M.I. and Tahir, G. R. (1980) Interaction studies on nitrogen, phosphorus, and zinc application to corn under field conditions. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Research 1(2): 119-124.
Kharub, A.S. and Gupta, S.P. (2003) Quality traits in durum and aestivum wheat genotypes as influenced by zinc application. Indian Journal of Agriculture Research 37 (1): 48-51.
Khoshgoftarmanesh, Amir Hossein, Sahar, Kabiri, Shariatmadari, Hossein, Sharifnabi Bahram and Schulin, Rainer (2010) Zinc nutrition effect on the tolerance of wheat genotypes to Fusarium root-rot disease in a solution culture experiment. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 56: 234–243.
Kinaci, G. and Kinaci, E. (2005) Effect of zinc application on quality traits of barley in semi arid zones of Turkey. Plant Soil Environment 51 (7): 328–334.
Koti, R.V., Mummigatti, U.V., Nawalgatti, C.M., Savita, F.H., Guled, M.B. and Anand, A. (2009) Complimentary effect of zinc application on iron content in sorghum genotypes. Indian Journal Plant Physiology14(1):78-81.
Kovacevic, V., Brkic I., Simic D., Bukvic, G. and Rastija, M. (2004) The role of genotypes on phosphorus, zinc, manganese and iron status and their relations in leaves of maize on hydromorphic soil. Plant Soil Environment 50 (12): 535–539.
Krebs, Nancy F. (2009) The quantity of zinc absorbed from wheat in adult women is enhanced by biofortification. The Journal of Nutrition 139(10):1920-1925.
Kumar, Ashok and Shiva Dhar (2010) evaluation of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients in maize (Zea mays) and their residual effect on wheat (Triticum aestivum) under different fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80 (5): 364–71.
Kumar, M. and Qureshi, F.M. (2012) Dynamics of zinc fractions, availability to wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and residual effect on succeeding maize (Zea mays L.) in inceptisols. Journal of Agricultural Science 4(6) : 236-245.
Kumar, M., (2011) Will rising CO2 affect Zn and Fe bioavailability in food grains? Current Science 101(4):467.
Kumar, Ratan, Mehrotra, N.K., Nautiyal, B.D., Kumar, Praveen and Singh, P.K. (2009) effect of copper on growth, yield and concentration of Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu in wheat plants (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Environmental Biology 30(4) 485-488.
Kumar, Taresh, Smmauria, R. and Pareek, B. L. (2011) Response of barley (Hordeum vulgare) to phosphorus and zinc application under irrigated conditions of hyper arid plains of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (7): 662–665.
144
Kutman, Umit Baris, Yildiz, Bahar and Cakmak, Ismail (2011) Improved nitrogen status enhances zinc and iron concentrations both in the whole grain and the endosperm fraction of wheat. Journal of Cereal Science 53:118-125.
Li, B.Y., Zhou, D.M., Cang, L., Zhang, H.L., Fan, X.H. and Qin, S.W. (2007) Soil micronutrient availability to crops as affected by long-term inorganic and organic fertilizer applications. Soil and Tillage Research 96:166–173.
Liang, Qiong, Chen, Haiqing, Gong, Yuanshi, Fan, Mingsheng, Yang, Hefa, Lal, Rattan and Kuzyakov, Yakov (2012) Effects of 15 years of manure and inorganic fertilizers on soil organic carbon fractions in a wheat-maize system in the North China Plain. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 92:21–33.
Liu H., R.L. and Jin, J.Y. (2009) Effects of zinc and soil moisture on photosynthetic rate and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of maize. Biologia Plantarum 53 (1): 191-194.
Liu, Z.H., Wanga, H.Y., Wanga, X.E., Zhang, G.P., Chen, P.D. and Liu, D.J. (2007) Phytase activity, phytate, iron, and zinc contents in wheat pearling fractions and their variation across production locations. Journal of Cereal Science 45: 319–326.
Lu, Xinchun, Tian, Xiaohong, Cui, Juan, Zhao, Aiqing, Yang Xiwen and Mai Wenxuan (2011) Effect of combined phosphorus-zinc fertilization on grain zinc nutritional quality of wheat grown on potentially zinc deficient calcareous soil. Soil Science 176(12):684-690.
Lungu, Obed I., Simunji, S. and Cakmak, I., (2011) Effects of soil and foliar applications of zinc on grain zinc concentrations of maize, sorghum and wheat in Zambia. www.zinccrops2011_lungu.pdf.
Malik, B. S., Paul, S., Ahlawat, A. K., Singh, Anju M. and Shivay, Y. S. (2009) Productivity and quality of wheat spp grown with different fertilization condition. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 79 (8): 636-40.
Mandal, Biswapati, Hazra, G. C., and Mandal, L. N. (2000) Soil management influences on zinc desorption for rice and maize nutrition. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64:1699–1705.
Manzeke, Grace M. , Mapfumo, Paul, Mtambanengwe, Florence, Chikowo, Regis, Tendayi Takesure and Cakmak, Ismail (2012) Soil fertility management effects on maize productivity and grain zinc content in smallholder farming systems of Zimbabwe Plant and Soil DOI: 10.1007/s11104-012-1332-2.
Maqsood, Muhammad Aamer, Rahmatullah, Kanwal, Shamsa, Tariq, Aziz and Ashraf, Muhammad (2009) Evaluation of Zn distribution among grain and straw of twelve indigenous wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). genotypes Pakistan Journal of Botany 41(1): 225-231.
Marawat, Khan Bahadar, Arif, Muhammad and Khan, Muhammad Azim (2007) Effect of tillage and zinc application methods on weeds and yield of maize. Pakistan Journal of Botany 39(5): 1583-1591.
McDonald, Glenn K., Genc, Yusuf, Lewis, Jim, and Graham, Robin D. (2007) Relationships between zinc and other nutrients in wheat grain. www.zinc.crop.org2007.
145
Meena, K.N., Kumar, Ashok Rana, D.S. and Meena, M.C. (2011) Productivity and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system under different bio-sources and nitrogen levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 56 (3): 182-188.
Mehta ,Savita, Bedi, Seema and Vashist, Krishan Kumar (2011) Performance of winter maize (Zea mays) hybrid to planting methods and nitrogen levels. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (1): 50-54.
Mishra, L. K. And Abidi, A. B. (2010) Phosphorus- zinc interaction: effects on yield component and chemical composition and bread making qualities of wheat. World Applied Sciences Journal 10(5):568-573.
Misra, B. K., Sharma, Rajiv K. and Nagarajan, S. (2005) Plant breeding: a component of public health strategy. Current science 86(9): 1210-1216.
Mohammad R., Pahlavan-Rad and Mohammad, Pessarakli (2009) Response of wheat plants to zinc, iron, and manganese applications, uptake and concentration of zinc, iron, and manganese in wheat grains. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 40 (7&8):1322-1332.
Mohammad, Ahmadi, Astaraei, A.R., Nasiri, Mahalati, Mahdi, and Keshavarz, P. (2006) Effect of irrigation water salinity and zinc application on yield, yield components and zinc accumulation of wheat. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 3(2):195-206.
Mohan, D. and Gupta, R. K. (2011) Harness value-addition in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) through genotype and location specificity in highly productive north western Indo-Gangetic Plains. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (5): 433-437.
Moinuddin and Imas, Patricia (2010) Effect of zinc nutrition on growth, yield, and quality of forage sorghum in respect with increasing potassium application rates. Journal of Plant Nutrition 33:2062–2081.
Moore, Katie L., Zhao, Fang-Jie, Gritsch, Cristina S., Tosi, Paola, Hawkesford, Malcolm J., McGrath, Steve P., Shewry, Peter R. and Grovenor, Chris R.M. (2012) Localisation of iron in wheat grain using high resolution secondary ion mass spectrometry. Journal of Cereal Science 55:183-187.
Morshedi, A. and Farahbakhsh, H. (2010) Effects of potassium and zinc on grain protein contents and yield of two wheat genotypes under soil and water salinity and alkalinity stresses. Plant Ecophysiology 2:67-72.
Morshedi, A. and Farahbakhsh, H. (2010) Effects of potassium and zinc on grain protein contents and yield of two wheat genotypes under soil and water salinity and alkalinity stresses. Plant Ecophysiology 2:67-72.
Moussavi-Nik, M., Rengel, Z., Pearson, J.N. and Hollamby, G. (1997) Dynamics of nutrient remobilization from seed of wheat genotypes during imbibition, germination and early seedling growth. Plant and Soil 197: 271–280.
Murgia, Irene, Arosio, Paolo, Tarantino, Delia and Soave, Carlo (2012) Biofortification for combating ‘hidden hunger’ for iron. Trends in Plant Science 17(1) 47-55.
146
N Cakmak itika, Darshan, Punia and Khetarpaul, N. (2008) Physico-chemical characteristics, nutrient composition and consumer acceptability of wheat varieties grown under organic and inorganic farming conditions. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 59(3): 224-245.
Nadim, Muhammad Amjad, Awan, Inayat Ullah Baloch, Mohammad, Safdar, Khan, Ejaz Ahmad, Naveed, Khalid, Khan, Muhammad, Ayyaz, Zubair Muhammad and Hussain, Nazim (2011) Effect of micronutrients on growth and yield of wheat. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Science 48(3):191-196.
Naik, Sushanta Kumar and Das, Dilip Kumar (2008) Relative performance of chelated zinc and zinc sulphate for lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 81:219–227.
Narwal, R. P., Malik R. S. and Dahiya, R. R. (2010) Addressing variations in status of a few nutritionally important micronutrients in wheat crop. 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World 1-6 August 2010, Brisbane, Australia.pp1-3.
Nawab, Khalid Amanullah and Ali, Asad (2006) Response of wheat to farm yard manure, potassium and zinc under rainfed cropping patterns. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 1 (1): 01-09.
Nawab, Khalid, Paighamshah, Arif, Muhammad, Amanullah, M., Azimkhan, Abdulmateen, Abdurrab, Fazalmunsif and Kawsarali (2011) Effect of cropping patterns, farm yard manure, K and Zn of wheat growth and grain yield. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 27(3):371-375.
Neelam, Kumari, Rawat ,Nidhi, Tiwari ,Vijay K., Kumar, Sundip, Chhuneja, Parveen , Singh Kuldeep, Randhawa ,Gursharn S and Dhaliwal, Harcharan S. (2011) Introgression of group 4 and 7 chromosomes of Ae. peregrina in wheat enhances grain iron and zinc density. Molecular Breeding 28:623–634.
Nestel, Penelope, Howarth, E. Bouis, Meenakshi, J. V. and Pfeiffer, Wolfgang (2006) Biofortification of staple food crops. The Journal of Nutrition 136:1064-1067.
Oliver, D. P., Wilhelm, N. S, McFarlane, J. D, Tiller, K. G. and Cozens, G. D. (1997) Effect of soil and foliar applications of zinc on cadmium concentration in wheat grain. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 37:677–81.
Olsen, B.C., Cole, C.V., Watenabe, F.S. and Dean, L.A. (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus by extraction with sodium carbonate, USDA Circ. No. 939, pp 19.
Omotoso, S.O. and Falade, M. J. (2007) Zinc and organ mineral fertilization effects on biomass production in maize (Zea mays) grown on acid sand alfisol (typic paleudalf). Research Journal of Agronomy 1(2):62-65.
Orman, Sule and Ok, Huseyin (2012) Effects of sulphur and zinc applications on growth and nutrition of bread wheat in calcareous clay loam soil. African Journal of Biotechnology 11(13): 3080-3086.
147
Ortiz-Monasterio, J.I., Palacios-Rojas, N., Meng, E., Pixley, K., Trethowan, R. and Pena, R.J. (2007) Enhancing the mineral and vitamin content of wheat and maize through plant breeding. Journal of Cereal Science 46:293–307.
Osiname, O. A., Kang, B. T., Schulte, E. E. and Corey, R. B. (1973) Zinc response of maize (Zea mays L.) grown on sandy inceptisols in Western Nigeria. Agronomy Journal 65:875-877.
Oury, F. X., Leenhard, F., Remesy, C., Chanliaud, E., Duperrier, B., Balfourier, F. and Charmet, G. (2006) Genetic variability and stability of grain magnesium, zinc and iron concentrations in bread wheat. European Journal of Agronomy 25 : 177–185.
Ozkutlu, Faruk, Torun, Bulent and Cakmak, Ismail (2006) Effect of zinc humate on growth of soybean and wheat in zinc-deficient calcareous soil. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 37: 2769–2778.
Ozturka, Levent, Mustafa, Atilla, Yazicia, Cemal, Yucelb, Ayfer, Torunb, Cemal, Cekicc, Ahmet, Bagcid, Hakan, Ozkanb, Hans-Joachim, Braune, Zehra, Sayersa and Cakmak, Ismail (2006) Concentration and localization of zinc during seed development and germination in wheat. Physiologia Plantarum 128: 144–152.
Pahlavan-Rad, Mohammad R and Pessarakli Mohammad (2009) Response of wheat plants to zinc, iron, and manganese applications and uptake and concentration of zinc, iron, and manganese in wheat grains. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 40: 1322–1332.
Palmgren, Michael G., Clemens, Stephan, Williams, Lorraine E., Kramer, Ute, Borg, Soren, Schjorring, Jan K. and Sanders, Dale (2008) Zinc biofortification of cereals: problems and solutions. Trends in Plant Science 13(9):464-473.
Pandey S.N. and Gautam, Sanghpriya (2009) Effects of zinc supply on its uptake, growth and biochemical constituents in lentil. Indian Journal Plant Physiology 14(1):67-70.
Paramasivan, M., Kumaresan, K.R., Malarvizhi, P., Mahimairaja, S. and Velayudham, K. (2011) Effect of different levels of NPK and Zn on yield and nutrient uptake by hybrid maize (COHM 5) in Pilamedu and Palaviduthi series of Tamil Nadu. Madras Agriculture Journal 98 (10-12): 334-338.
Patel, Archana B., Manju, Mamtani, Badhoniya, Neetu and Kulkarni, Hemant (2011) Wheat zinc supplementation does and does not achieve in diarrhea prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases 11:122.
Patil P.L., Radder, B.M., Patil, S.G., Aladakatti, Y.R., Meti, C.B. and Khot, A.B. (2006) Effect of moisture regimes and micronutrients on yield, water use efficiency and nutrient uptake by maize in vertisol of Malaprabha Command, Karnataka. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 54(3):261-264.
Peck, A.W., McDonald, G. K. and Graham, R. D. (2008) Zinc nutrition influences the protein composition of flour in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Cereal Science 47: 266–274.
Peleg, Zvi, Saranga, Yehoshua, Yazici, Atilla, Fahima, Tzion, Ozturk, Levent and Cakmak, Ismail (2008) Grain zinc, iron and protein concentrations and zinc-efficiency
148
in wild emmer wheat under contrasting irrigation regimes. Plant and Soil 306:57-67
Pervaiz, Z., Afzal, M., Xi, X., Xiaoe, Y. and Luo (2002) Relationship among nitrate reductase activity, growth, mineral contents and salt tolerance of wheat cultivars under saline condition. Pakistan Journal of Soil Science 21: 67-72.
Piper, C.S. (1950) Soil and plant analysis The University of Adelaide, Australia: 286-287
Pixley, Kevin V., Palacios-Rojasb, Natalia, and Glahn, Raymond P. (2011) The usefulness of iron bioavailability as a target trait for breeding maize (Zea mays L.) with enhanced nutritional value. Field Crops Research 123:153–160.
Pooniya, Vijay and Shivay, Yashbir Singh (2011) Effect of green manuring and zinc fertilization on productivity and nutrient uptake in Basmati rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 56 (1): 28-34.
Potarzycki, J. (2011) Effect of magnesium or zinc supplementation at the background of nitrogen rate on nitrogen management by maize canopy cultivated in monoculture. Plant Soil Environment 57 (1): 19–25.
Potarzycki, J. and Grzebisz, W. (2009) Effect of zinc foliar application on grain yield of maize and its yielding components. Plant Soil Environment 55 (12): 519–527.
Prasad, B., Sharma, M. M. and Sinha, S. K. (2002) Evaluating zinc fertilizer requirement on typic haplaquent in the rice-wheat cropping system. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 19(3): 39-49.
Prasad, R., Shivay, Y.S., Kumar, D., and Sharma, S. N. (2006) Learning by doing exercise in soil fertility (A practical manual for soil fertility), Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi Pp 68.
Prasad, R.K., Kumar, Vipin, Prasad, B. and Singh, A. P. (2010) long-term effect of crop residues and zinc fertilizer on crop yield, nutrient uptake and fertility build-up under rice-wheat cropping system in calciorthents Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 58(2): 205-211.
Prasad, Rajendra (2010) Zinc biofortification of food grains in relation to food security and alleviation of zinc malnutrition Current Science 98(1):1300-1304.
Prasanna, B. M., Mazumdar, S., Chakraborti, M., Hossain, F., Manjaiah, K. M., Agrawal, P. K., Guleria, S. K. and Gupta, H. S. (2011) Genetic variability and genotype × environment interactions for kernel iron and zinc concentrations in maize (Zea mays) genotypes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (8): 704–11.
Prasanna, B. M., Vasal, S. K., Kassahun, B. and Singh, N. N. (2001) Quality protein maize. Current Science 81(10):1308-1319.
Rafiq, Asif, Muhammad, Ali, Asghar, Malik, Muhammad Asghar and Hussain, Mumtaz (2010) Effect of fertilizer levels and plant densities on yield and protein contents of autumn planted maize. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Science 47(3):201-208.
149
Rahimi, A., Rezaei, S., Nouri, H. and Aghashiri A.(2012) Effects of municipal wastewater and zinc fertilizer on yield and yield components of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the Yasouj region of Iran. International Journal of AgriScience 2(4): 313-319.
Raj, Hans and Gupta, V. K. (1986) Influence of organic manures and zinc on wheat yield and Zn concentration in wheat. Agricultural Wastes 16 (4): 255-263.
Ram, Sewa , Verma, Anukriti and Sharma, Shikha (2010) Large variability exits in phytase levels among Indian wheat varieties and synthetic hexaploids. Journal of Cereal Science 52:486-490.
Ram, Hari, Sohu, V. S., Singh, Kuldeep Cakmak, Ismail, Buttar, G. S., Sodhi, G.P.S, Gill, H. S., Bhagat, Indoo, Singh, Parminder, Dhaliwal, S. S. and Mavi, G. S. (2011) agronomic fortification of rice and wheat grains for improving human health. www.zinccrops2011ram.pdf.
Rana, Anuj, Joshi, Monica, Prasanna, Radha, Shivay, Yashbir Singh and Nain, Lata (2012) Biofortification of wheat through inoculation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and cyanobacteria. European Journal of Soil Biology 50:118-126.
Ranjbar, G. A. and Bahmaniar, M. A. (2007) Foliar application of Zn fertilizer on yield and growth of bread wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) cultivars. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 6(6):1000-1005.
Rattan, R.K., Patel, K.P., Manjaiah, K.M. and Datta, S.P. (2009) Micronutrients in soil, plant, animal and human health. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 57 (4): 546-558.
Rawat, Nidhi, Tiwari, Vijay K., Singh, Neelam, Randhawa, Gursharn S., Singh, Kuldeep, Chhuneja, Parveen and Dhaliwal, Harcharan S. (2009) Evaluation and utilization of Aegilops and wild Triticum species for enhancing iron and zinc content in wheat. Genetic Resource Crop Evolution 56:53–64.
Razvi, Mohamed Rafiulla, Halepyati, A.S., Koppalkr B.G. and Pujari, B.T. (2004) Nutrient uptake by wheat as influenced by application of green manure, macronutrients and zinc. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 17 (4):801-804.
Regmi, Basu Dev, Rengel, Zed and Khabaz‐Saberi, Hossein (2011) Impact of zinc fertilization on grain phytate and phosphorus concentrations in zinc efficient and in‐efficient wheat genotypes. www.2011_zinccrops2011_regmi_abstract.pdf.
Rengel, Zdenko and Graham, Robin D. (1995) Importance of seed Zn content for wheat growth on Zn-deficient soil Plant and Soil 173(2): 267-274.
Rengel, Zdenko and Graham, Robin D. (1996) Uptake of zinc from chelate-buffered nutrient solutions by wheat genotypes differing in zinc efficiency. Journal of Experimental Botany 47 (295):217-226.
Rengela, Z., Batten, G.D., and Crowley, D.E. (1999) Agronomic approaches for improving the micronutrient density in edible portions of field crops. Field Crops Research 60: 27-40.
150
Rosado, Jorge L., Hambidge, Michael, K. Miller, Leland V., Garcia, Olga P., Westcott, Jamie, Gonzalez, Karla, Conde, Jennifer, Hotz, Christine, Pfeiffer, Wolfgang, Monasterio Ivan Ortiz (2009) Response of wheat to foliar application of nutrients. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 1(4):30-34.
Sachin, H. Malve, Raghavaiah, R and Bhatt Spandana (2011) $nfluence of row ratio and zinc levels on productivity, economics,nutrient uptake and soil fertility status of soil on maize (Zea mays)– soybean (Glycine max) intercropping systems under rainfed conditions www.2011_zinccrops2011_sachin_abstract.pdf.
Sahrawat, K. L., Rego, T. J. Wani, S.P. and Pardhasaradhi, G. (2008) Sulphur, boron, and zinc fertilization effects on grain and straw quality of maize and sorghum grown in semi-arid tropical region of India. Journal of Plant Nutrition 31(9):1578-1584.
Sajedi, N., Ardakani, M., Rejali, F. Mohabbati, F. and Miransari, Mohammad (2010) Yield and yield components of hybrid corn (Zea mays L.) as affected by mycorrhizal symbiosis and zinc sulphate under drought stress. Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants 16(4): 343-351.
Salehin, Faizus and Rahman, Shahedur (2012) Effects of zinc and nitrogen fertilizer and their application method on yield and yield components of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Agricultural Sciences 3:9-13.
Salunke, Rajani, Rawat, Nidhi, Tiwari, Vijay Kumar, Neelam, Kumari, Randhawa, Gursharn Singh, Dhaliwal, Harcharan Singh and Roy, Partha (2012) Determination of bioavailable-zinc from biofortified wheat using a coupled in vitro digestion/Caco-2 reporter-gene based assay. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2012) xxx–xxx.
Sanaeiostovar, Azadeh, Khoshgoftarmanesh, Hossein, Amir and Hossein, Shariatmadari (2011) Effects of zinc activity in nutrient solution on uptake, translocation, and root export of cadmium and zinc in three wheat genotypes with different zinc efficiencies. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 57:681-690.
Sankaranarayanan, K., Praharaj, C. S., Nalayini, P., Bandyopadhyay, K. K. and Gopalakrishnan, N. (2010) Effect of magnesium, zinc, iron and boron application on yield and quality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80 (8): 699-703.
Santa-Maria, Guillermo E. and Cogliatti, Daniel H. (1998) The regulation of zinc uptake in wheat plants. Plant Science 137: 1–12.
Sarwar, Muhammad (2011) Effect of zinc fertilization in integration with Organic and mineral nitrogen sources on maize production under rainfed conditions. Part of Ph.D thesis submitted to Department of Soil Science & SWC Faculty of Crop and Food Sciences Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi Pakistan.
Sarwar, Muhammad, Jilani, Ghulam, Rafique, Ejaz, Akhtar ,Muhammad, Ehsan and Chaudhry, Arshad Nawaz (2012) Impact of integrated nutrient management on yield and nutrient uptake by maize under rain-fed conditions. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 11 (1): 27-33.
151
Scrimgeour, Angus G., Condlin, Michelle, L., Otieno, Lucas and Bovill, Maria E. (2011) Zinc Intervention Strategies: Costs and Health Benefits. Nutrition and Health 4:189-214, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60761-308-4-13.
Seadh, S. E., Abady, E.L., M.I., EI-Ghamry, A.M. and Farouk, S. (2009) Influence of micronutrients foliar application and nitrogen fertilisation on wheat yield and quality of grain and seed. Journal of Biological Sciences 9 (8):851-858.
Seilsepour, M. (2006) Study of zinc effects on quantitative and qualitative traits of winter wheat in saline soil condition. Biaban (Desert Journal) 11: (2) 17-23.
Sekar, S., Amanullah, M. Mohamed, Manoharan, S., Muthukrishnan, P., Subramanian, K.S. and Vincent, S. (2010) Influence of fertilizer levels and growth substances on yield and economics of hybrid maize. Madras Agriculture Journal 97(1-3): 58-61.
Sepat, R.N., Rai, R. K. and Shiva Dhar (2010) Planting systems and integrated nutrient management for enhanced wheat (Triticum aestivum) productivity. Indian Journal of Agronomy 55 (2): 114-118
Shafea, L. and Saffari, M. (2011) Effects of zinc (ZnSO4) and nitrogen on chemical composition of Maize grain. International Journal of Agriculture Science 1(6): 323-328.
Shaheen, Riffat, Samim, M. K. and Mahmud, R. (2007) Effect of zinc on yield and zinc uptake by wheat on some soils of Bangladesh. Journal of Soil Nature. 1 (1): 07-14.
Shanmugasundaram R.and Savithri P. (2006) Effect of levels and frequency of zinc sulphate application on its content and uptake by maize and sunflower in their sequential cropping system Agricultural Science Digest 26 (1): 31 – 33.
Shanmugasundaram, R and Savithri P (2005) Effect of levels and frequency of zinc sulphate application on yield and DTPA-Zn availability in maize-sunflower cropping system. Madras Agriculture Journal 92 (4-6): 252-257.
Sharma, A.R., Singh, Ratan, Dhyani, S.K. and Dube, R.K. (2010) Tillage and legume mulching effects on moisture conservation and productivity of rainfed maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 55 (4): 245-252.
Sharma, B. D., Singh, Yadvinder and Singh, Bijay (1988) Effect of time of application on the effectiveness of zinc sulphate and zinc oxide as sources of zinc for wheat. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 17(2):147-151.
Sharma, Reena, Agarwal Abha and Kumar, Sanjeev (2008) Effect of micronutrients on protein content and productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Vegetos 21(1): 51-53.
Sharma, S. N. and Singh, Rajesh Kumar (2011) Seed rate and weed management on yield and nutrient uptake of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (12): 1174-1179.
Shen, Hong Christie, Peter and Li, Xiaolin (2006) Uptake of zinc, cadmium and phosphorus by arbuscular mycorrhizal maize (Zea mays L.) from a low available phosphorus
152
calcareous soil spiked with zinc and cadmium. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 28:111–119.
Sheraz, Mahdi, S., Badrul, Hasan, Singh, Lal (2012) Influence of seed rate, nitrogen and zinc on fodder maize (Zea mays) in temperate conditions of western Himalayas. Indian Journal of Agronomy 57(1) : 85- 88.
Shetty, Prakash (2009) Incorporating nutritional considerations when addressing food insecurity. Food Security 1:431–440.
Shewry, Peter R. (2007) Improving the protein content and composition of cereal grain. Journal of Cereal Science 46:239–250.
Shewry, Peter R., Halford, Nigel G., Belton, Peter S. and Tatham, Arthur S. (2002) The structure and properties of gluten: an elastic protein from wheat grain. Philosophical Transaction Royal Society London B 357: 133–142.
Shi, Rongli, Zhang, Yueqiang, Chen, Xinping, Sun, Qinping, Zhang, Fusuo, Romheld, Volker and Zou, Chunqin (2010) Influence of long-term nitrogen fertilization on micronutrient density in grain of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Cereal Science 51:165–170.
Shivay, Yashbir Singh, Kumar, Dinesh and Prasad, Rajendra (2008b) Effect of zinc-enriched urea on productivity, zinc uptake and efficiency of an aromatic rice–wheat cropping system. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 81:229–243.
Shivay, Yashbir Singh, Kumar, Dinesh, Prasad, Rajendra and Ahlawat, I. P. S. (2008) Relative yield and zinc uptake by rice from zinc sulphate and zinc oxide coatings onto urea .Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 80:181–188.
Shivay, Yashbir Singh, Prasad, Rajendra and Rahal, Anshu (2008a) Relative efficiency of zinc oxide and zinc sulphate-enriched urea for spring wheat. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 82:259–264.
Shukla, S.K. and Warsi, A.S. (2000) Effect of sulphur and macronutrients on growth, nutrient content and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Indian Journal of Agriculture Research 34 (3): 203-205.
Shukla, U. C, and Prasad, K. G. (1974) Ameliorative role of zinc on maize growth under alkali soil condition. Agronomy Journal 66:804-806.
Simic Domagoj, Snezana Mladenovic Drinic, Zvonimir Zdunic, Antun Jambrovic, Tatjana Ledenc Josip Brkic, Andrija Brkic, and Ivan Brkic (2012) Quantitative trait loci for biofortification traits in maize grain. Journal of Heredity 103(1):47–54.
Simic, Domagoj, Sudar, Rezica, Ledencan, Tatjana, Jambrovic, Antun, Zdunic, Zvonimir, Brkic, Ivan and Kovacevic, Vlado (2009) Genetic variation of bioavailable iron and zinc in grain of a maize population. Journal of Cereal Science 50:392–397.
Singh, Bhupinder, Kumar, Senthil, Natesan, A., Singh, B. K. and Usha, K. (2005) Improving zinc efficiency of cereals under zinc deficiency. Current Science 88 (1): 36-44.
153
Singh, Dhananjaya, Ram, P.C., Dar, S.R and Sharma P.C. (2010) Alleviating adverse effect of soil salinity in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) through application of zinc fertilizer. Indian Journal Plant Physiology 15(4):389-395.
Singh, Gajendra, Sharma, G.L. and Golada, Shankar, Lal (2011) Integrated nutrient management on quality protein maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Progressive Agriculture 2(3):65-67.
Singh, M. V. and Abrol, I. P. (1986) Transformation and movement of zinc in an alkali soil and their influence on the yield and uptake of zinc by rice and wheat crop. Plant and Soil 94(3):445-449.
Singh, M. V. (2004) Micronutrient deficiencies in Indian soils and field usable practices for their correction. IFA International Conference on Micronutrients, Feb 23-24, 2004 at New Delhi.
Singh, M. V. (2009) Micronutrient nutritional problems in soils of India and improvement for human and animal health. Indian Journal of Fertilizer 5(4):11‐26.
Singh, M.V. (2010) Detrimental effect of zinc deficiency on crops productivity and human health. First Global Conference on Biofortification, Harvest Plus, Washington, USA.
Singh, M.V. (2011) Scenario of zinc deficiency in Indian soils and its influence on zinc enrichment in crops for improving human and animal health. www.2011_zinccrops2011_mv_singh_keynote.pdf.
Singh, M.V. and Abrol, I.P. (1985) Direct and residual effect of fertilizer zinc application on the yield and chemical composition of rice-wheat crops in an alkali soil. Fertilizer Research 8:179-191.
Singh, M.V. and Sampath, K.T. (2011) Micronutrient status in farms of India and their effect on health and productivity. Proceedings 10th NAAS Congress, held at Lucknow, 11‐13 Feb. 2011.
Singh, N.B., Kumar, Vinay, Singh, G.S., Singh, Y.P., Singh, I.J., Kumar J., Singh, K.N. and Srivastava, J.K.(2009) Variability in response to zinc application in wheat genotypes. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 14 (4): 413-417.
Singh, R., Sharma, A. R., Dhyani, S. K. and Dube, R. K. (2011) Tillage and mulching effects on performance of maize (Zea mays)–wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system under varying land slopes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81 (4): 330-335.
Singh, S. K., Chatrath, Ravish, and Mishra, B. (2010) Perspective of hybrid wheat research: A review. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80 (12): 1013–27.
Singh, S. P., Sinha M. K. and Randhawa, N. S. (1979) Effect of zinc-amended poultry manure and zinc sulphate on the growth and uptake of zinc by corn (zea mays L.) Plant and Soil 52(4 ): 501-505, DOI: 10.1007/BF02277945.
Singh, Sundar and Choudhry, S.S. (2004) Effect of phosphorus and zinc on yield of wheat and their interactive effect on uptake of nutrients in texturally variant soils. Agricultural Science Digest 24 (3) : 212-214.
154
Slaton, N.A., DeLong, R.E., Clark, S., Shafer, J, and Golden, B.R. (2009) Wheat grain yield response to phosphorus, potassium, and micronutrient fertilization. Wayne E. Sabbe Arkansas Soil Fertility Studies 36-39.
Soleimani, Reza (2012) Cumulative and residual effects of zinc sulfate on grain yield, zinc, iron, and copper concentration in corn and wheat. Journal of Plant Nutrition 35:85–92.
Soleymani, Ali and Shahrajabian, Mohamad, Hesam (2012) The effects of Fe, Mn and Zn foliar application on yield, ash and protein percentage of forage sorghum in climatic condition of Esfahan. International Journal of Biology 4(3):92-96
Srinivas, A. (2002) Influence of nitrogen and methods of zinc application on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. Indian Journal of Agriculture Research 36 (3): 167-171.
Srivastava, Ranjan, Agarwal, Ankur, Tiwari, R. S. and Kumar, Santosh (2005) Effect of micronutrients, zinc and boron on yield, quality and storability of garlic (Alliurn satilvum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 75 (3): 157-9.
Stein, Alexander J. (2010) Global impacts of human mineral malnutrition. Plant and Soil 335(1-2):133-154.
Subramanian, Kizhaeral S., Bharathi, Chandrasekaran and Jegan, Asok Kumar (2008) Response of maize to mycorrhizal colonization at varying levels of zinc and phosphorus. Biology Fertility Soils 45:133–144.
Suri, I.K., Prasad, Rajendra and Shivay, Y.S. (2011) Zinc oxide–neem oil conditioning for improving the quality of the micronutrient fertilizer zinc sulphate heptahydrate. Current Science 100(1):27-28.
Talliee, A.A. and Abedi, M.J. (1999) Study on effect of different amount of zinc application and estimation of critical limit of zinc on dry land wheat (Triticum aestivum) in Kermanshah province. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 1(3):1-4.
Tarighi, H., Majidian, M., Baghaie, A. H. and Gomarian, M. (2012) Zinc availability of two wheat cultivars in soil amended with organic and inorganic Zn sources. African Journal of Biotechnology 11(2):436-443.
Tariq, M., Khan, M.A. and Praveen, S. (2002) Response of maize to applied soil zinc. Asian Journal of Plant Science 1(4):476-477.
Tauris, Birgitte, Borg, Soren, Gregersen, Per L. and Holm, Preben B. (2009) A roadmap for zinc trafficking in the developing barley grain based on laser capture micro dissection and gene expression profiling. Journal of Experimental Botany 60 (4 ): 1333- 1347.
Teng, Paul, Sombilla, Mercedita A., Ewing, J. Jackson and Escaler, Margarita (2012) Feeding Asia in the 21st century: building urban-rural alliances: summary of the main findings of the International Conference on Asian food security held in Singapore on 10–12 August 2011 Food Security DOI 10.1007/s12571-011-0159-7.
155
Tetarwal, J.P., Ram, Baldev and Meena, D.S. (2011) Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity, profitability, nutrient uptake and soil fertility in rainfed maize (Zea mays). Indian Journal of Agronomy 56 (4): 373-376.
Timsina, J. and Connor, D.J. (2001) Productivity and management of rice-wheat cropping systems: issues and challenges. Field Crops Research 69: 93-132.
Tiwari, Vijay K., Rawat, Nidhi, Neelam, Kumari, Kumar, Sundip, Randhawa, Gursharn S., and Dhaliwal, Harcharan S. (2010) Substitutions of 2S and 7U chromosomes of Aegilops kotschyi in wheat enhance grain iron and zinc concentration. Theory Applied Genetics 121:259–269.
Tripathi, Bhumika, Patel, Kalpana and Srinivasan, Krishnapura (2012) Double fortification of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) and finger millet (Eleucine coracana L. Gaertn) flour with iron and zinc. Journal of Cereal Science 55:195-201.
Vallee, Bert L. and Falchuk, Kenneth H. (1998) The biochemical basis of zinc physiology. Physiological Reviews 73(1):79-118.
Vasconcelos, Ana C. F. de, Nascimento, C. W. A., Filho, F. F. and Cunha da (2011) Distribution of zinc in maize plants as a function of soil and foliar Zn supply. International Research Journal of Agricultural Science 1(1):1-5.
Vasuki, N. (2010) Micronutrient management for enhancing crop production-future strategy and requirement. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 58(1):32-36.
Velu, G., Singh, R., Huerta-espino, J., Pena, J. and Ortiz-monasterio, I. (2011) Breeding for enhanced zinc and iron concentration in CIMMYT spring wheat germplasm. Genetics Plant Breeding 47: 174–177.
Verma, T. S. and Minhas, R. S. (1987) Zinc and phosphorus interaction in a wheat-maize cropping system. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 13(1): 77-86.
Verma, T.S. and Bhagat, R.M. (1990) Zinc and nitrogen interaction in wheat grown in limed and unlimed acid alfisol. Fertilizer Research 22: 29-35.
Wang H., Liu, R.L. and Jin, J.Y. (2009) Effects of zinc and soil moisture on photosynthetic rate and chlorophyll fluorescence parameters of maize. Biologia Plantarum 53 (1): 191-194
Wang, H. and Jin, J. Y. (2005) Photosynthetic rate, chlorophyll florescence parameters, and lipid peroxidation of maize leaves as affected by zinc deficiency. Photosynthetica 43: 591-596.
Waters, Brian M and Sankaran, Renuka, P. (2011) Moving micronutrients from the soil to the seeds: Genes and physiological processes from a biofortification perspective. Plant Science 180:562–574.
Waters, Brian M., Uauy, Cristobal, Dubcovsky, Jorge and Grusak, Michael A. (2009) Wheat (Triticum aestivum) NAM proteins regulate the translocation of iron, zinc, and nitrogen compounds from vegetative tissues to grain. Journal of Experimental Botany 60 (15): 4263-4274.
156
Welch, Ross M. and Graham, Robin D. (2004) Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. Journal of Experimental Botany 55 (396):353-364.
White, Philip J. and Broadley, Martin R (2005) Biofortifying crops with essential mineral elements. Trends in Plant Science 10 (12): 586-593.
Wissuwa, Matthias, Ismail, Abdelbagi M. and Graham, Robin D. (2008) Rice grain zinc concentrations as affected by genotype, native soil-zinc availability, and zinc fertilization. Plant and Soil 306:37-48.
Wu, Jian, Schat Henk, Sun, Rifei, Koornneef, Maarten, Wang, Xiaowu and Aarts, Mark G. M. (2007) Characterization of natural variation for zinc, iron and manganese accumulation and zinc exposure response in Brassica rapa L. Plant and Soil 291:167-180.
Xi-wen,Yang, Xiao-hong,Tian , Xin-chun,Lu, William, J Gale and Yu-xian, Cao (2011) Foliar zinc fertilization improves the zinc nutritional value of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(66):14778-14785.
Yang, Xiao-E., Chen, Wen-Rong and Feng, Ying (2007) Improving human micronutrient nutrition through biofortification in the soil–plant system: China as a case study. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 29:413-428.
Yang, Xi-wen, Tian, Xiao-hong, Lu, Xin-chun, Gale, William J. and Cao, Yu-xian (2011) Foliar zinc fertilization improves the zinc nutritional value of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain. African Journal of Biotechnology 10(66):14778-14785.
Yassen, A., El-Nour, Abou, E.A.A., and Shedeed, S. (2010) Response of wheat to foliar spray with urea and micronutrients. Journal of American Science 6(9)14:22.
Yassen, A.A., Hellal, F.A. and Abo-Basha, Doaa M. (2011) Influence of organic materials and foliar application of zinc on yield and nutrient uptake by wheat plants. Journal of Applied Sciences Research 7(12): 2056-2062.
Yilmaz, A., Ekiz, H., Torun, B., Gultekin, I., Karanlik, S., Bagci, S. A. and Cakmak, I. (1997) effect of different zinc c application methods on grain yield and zinc c concentration n in wheat cultivars grow non zinc-deficient calcareous soils. Journal of Plant Nutrition 20(4&5):461-471.
Zeidan, M.S., Mohamed, Manal F. and Hamouda, H.A. (2010) Effect of foliar fertilization of Fe, Mn and Zn on wheat yield and quality in low sandy soils fertility. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6 (6): 696-699.
Zhang, Lei and Song, Feng Bin (2006) Effects of forms and rates of zinc fertilizers on cadmium concentrations in two cultivars of maize. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 37: 1905-1916.
Zhang, Yue-Qiang, Deng Yan, Chen, Ri-Yuan, Cui, Zhen-Ling, Chen, Xin-Ping, Yost Russell, Zhang, Fu-Suo and Zou, Chun-Qin (2012) The reduction in zinc concentration of wheat grain upon increased phosphorus-fertilization and its mitigation by foliar zinc application. Plant and Soil DOI 10.1007/s11104-012-1238.
157
Zhang, Yue-Qiang, Sun, Yi-Xiang You-Liang Ye, Karim, Md. Rezaul, Xue, Yan-Fang, Peng Yan, Qing-Feng Meng, Cui, Zhen-Ling, Ismail, Cakmak, Zhang, Fu-Suo and Zou Chun-Qin (2012) Zinc biofortification of wheat through fertilizer applications in different locations. Field Crops Research 125:1–7.
Zhao, Ai-Qing, Bao Qiong-Li, Tian, Xiao-Hong, Lu Xin-Chun and William, Jeff Gale (2011a) Combined effect of iron and zinc on micronutrient levels in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Environment and Biology 32: 235-239.
Zhao, Aiqing, Lu, Xinchun, Chen, Zihui, Tian, Xiaohong, and Yang, Xiwen (2011) zinc fertilization methods on zinc absorption and translocation in wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science 3 (1) 28:35.
Zhu, Y.G., Smith, S. E. and Smith, F. A. (2001) Zinc (Zn)-phosphorus (P) interactions in two cultivars of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) differing in p uptake efficiency. Annals of Botany 88: 941-945.
Ziaeyan, A. H. and Rajaie, M. (2009) Combined effect of zinc and boron on yield and nutrients accumulation in corn. International Journal of Plant Production 3(3): 35-44.
Zou, C. Q., Zhang, Y. Q., Rashid, A., Ram, H., Savasli E., Arisoy, R. Z., Ortiz-Monasterio, I., Simunji, S., Wang, Z. H., Sohu, V., Hassan, M., Kaya, Y., Onder ,O., Lungu, O., Mujahid, M. Yaqub, Joshi, A. K. Zelenskiy, Y., Zhang, F. S and Cakmak, I (2012) Biofortification of wheat with zinc through zinc fertilization in seven countries. Plant and Soil, DOI 10.1007/s11104-012-1369-2.
ANNEXURE-I
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) table showing splitting of total variation in to different
components
Sources of variation Degrees of freedom
Replication (r-1) 2
Main plot A (Zinc application) (m-1) 3
Error (a) (r-1) (m-1) 6
Subplot (zinc application and wheat variety) (s-1) 7
Interaction between main plot and subplot (AXB) (m-1) (s-1) 21
Error (b) m (r-1) (s-1) 56
Total rms-1 95
ANNEXURE II
Mean weekly meteorological data during 2009-10
Month Std. Week Rainfall (mm)
Temperature (0C) Sunshine (hrs/day)
RH ( %)
Evaporation (mm) Maximum Minimum
June 23 0 42.1 26.3 8.3 47 13.2 24 0 40.3 26.0 7.6 54 11.1 25 0 42.3 17.1 9.9 46 11.2 26 12.8 41.8 28.4 8.5 68 10.4 July 27 3.0 36.9 25.9 5.8 74 6.6 28 2.4 35.6 27.6 6.6 80 10.0 29 1.0 35.9 27.5 6.5 74 7.6 30 110.4 35.3 26.3 5.6 79 6.8 31 0 35.8 27.0 7.6 64 7.1 August 32 7.8 37.0 27.8 6.3 65 7.7 33 55.6 32.9 25.6 2.4 84 5.0 34 50.4 34.8 24.6 7.6 86 4.8 35 79 32.6 25.2 5.7 87 4.0 September 36 78.9 32.7 23.2 7.2 90 4.0 37 118.8 29.6 21.6 4.3 94 3.2 38 0 35.2 23.8 9.4 88 5.8 39 0 36.0 23.5 8.9 80 5.5 October 40 0.3 32.7 22.8 5.6 81 4.7 41 0 34.6 16.8 8.8 90 3.2 42 0 32.8 15.8 7.4 89 4.7 43 0 31.5 11.6 8.3 77 5.5 44 0 30.5 14.0 6.9 87 4.5 November 45 0 27.9 11.2 2.8 85 3.2 46 0 26.6 10.3 3.5 86 3.1 47 0 25.8 6.5 3.1 83 2.5 48 0 25.3 9.2 2.6 84 2.1 December 49 0 20.9 6.1 3.2 87 2.1 50 0 17.7 5.3 1.5 85 1.7 51 0 20.8 3.2 6.1 80 1.8 52 0 19.5 4.9 4.8 86 1.4 January 1 0 16.7 6.4 1.7 70 1.6 2 0 13.8 6.9 0.7 63 1.5 3 0 17.0 6.8 2.3 63 1.5 4 0 20.7 6.6 3.2 56 2.7 February 5 0 23.6 7.2 6.4 39 2.5 6 11.8 24.7 10.9 4.8 49 1.7 7 0 22.2 8.2 4.9 45 3.1 8 1.2 25.4 10.3 7.7 39 5.1 9 0 30.3 14.5 7.9 33 5.8 March 10 0 29.1 13.4 8.8 31 6.1 11 0 31.8 13.6 8.9 27 7.5 12 0 36.7 16.6 9.0 23 7.1 13 0 37.8 18.2 7.7 28 8.3 April 14 0 37.8 18.8 9.3 13 9.5 15 0 41.0 21.5 9.3 22 10.0 16 0 42.6 24.5 7.3 34 10.2 17 0 40.4 25.0 7.9 27 8.7 May 18 8.8 38.9 25.0 7.3 36 8.7 19 0 38.8 24.0 8.8 36 9.1 20 0 43.8 27.0 8.9 25 11.3 21 0 43.1 26.9 9.8 21 10.5 22 0 41.2 28.0 4.2 22 11.4
ANNEXURE III
Mean weekly meteorological data during 2010-11
Month Std. Week Rainfall (mm)
Temperature (0C) Sunshine (hrs/day)
RH ( %)
Evaporation (mm) Maximum Minimum
June 23 0 42.1 26.3 2.8 59 7.8 24 0 40.3 26 7.6 48 11.2 25 0 42.3 17.1 7.7 42 12.4 26 4.6 41.8 28.4 4.7 62 10.8 July 27 126.8 36.9 25.9 4.6 84 5.9 28 53.4 35.6 27.6 7.3 79 7.0 29 46.8 35.9 27.5 2.2 86 5.5 30 9.8 35.3 26.3 2.4 85 4.1 31 33.8 35.8 27 2.5 89 4.2 August 32 59.4 37 27.8 6.5 86 5.5 33 46 32.9 25.6 2.4 93 3.5 34 192.8 34.8 24.6 1.5 97 2.8 35 6.6 32.6 25.2 1.6 92 3.5 September 36 62.6 32.7 23.2 2.1 95 5.2 37 109.8 29.6 21.6 2.9 97 2.4 38 96.2 35.2 23.8 3.1 96 2.6 39 45.6 36 23.5 6.3 94 2.9 October 40 0 32.7 22.8 6.5 94 5.2 41 0 34.6 16.8 5.2 88 3.9 42 0 32.8 15.8 6.7 86 4.4 43 22 31.5 11.6 5.3 85 3.6 44 0 30.5 14 5.2 86 3.5 November 45 0 27.9 11.2 3.3 93 3.4 46 3.6 26.6 10.3 2.6 92 2.8 47 9 25.8 6.5 3.8 91 2.5 48 0.8 25.3 9.2 2.8 93 2.5 December 49 0 20.9 6.1 3.6 89 2.7 50 0 17.7 5.3 2.5 86 2.2 51 0 20.8 3.2 4.5 91 2.4 52 0 19.5 4.9 3.1 90 2.3 January 1 0.3 16.7 6.4 1.5 82 1.6 2 0 13.8 6.9 0.9 89 2.1 3 0 17 6.8 5 86 3.9 4 0 20.7 6.6 6 85 3.5 February 5 0 23.6 7.2 5.8 84 3.0 6 6.4 24.7 10.9 5 90 3.2 7 21.1 22.2 8.2 5.3 92 2.9 8 15.4 25.4 10.3 6.4 83 2.6 9 8.3 30.3 14.5 3.9 89 2.0 March 10 2.3 29.1 13.4 6.1 88 3.0 11 0 31.8 13.6 7.5 89 4.8 12 0 36.7 16.6 6.9 83 5.1 13 0 37.5 18.2 8.7 76 6.4 April 14 0 33.2 14.3 8.4 70 6.6 15 0 34.1 18.6 6.3 71 5.4 16 2.2 35.5 16.4 7.7 62 5.7 17 0 39.0 22.6 8.8 57 7.2 May 18 0 40.5 23.5 7.3 60 8.7 19 0 38.2 21.7 8.8 57 9.1 20 0 39.7 26.6 8.9 42 11.3 21 4.6 38.7 24.3 9.8 50 10.5 22 6.8 37.5 25.2 4.2 43 11.4
ANNEXURE IV
Composition of wheat grain and flour
Parameter Grain (percent) Flour (percent)
Moisture
Starch
Protein
Cellulose
Fat
Sugars
Mineral matters
9-18
60-68
8-15
2-2.5
1.5-2
2-3
1.5-2
13-15.5
65-70
8-13
Trace
0.8-1.5
1.5-2
3-6
ANNEXURE V
SDS sedimentation test – operation time commencement
Cylinder
No.
15 sec.
Shake in
water
15 sec.
Shake in
water
15 sec/
shake in
water. 50
ml SDS
invert
4X
Invert
4X
Invert
4X
Inver
4X
Read sedimentation
volume
Whole
meal
Flour
1 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10 30 50
2 0.5 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 30.5 50.5
3 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 11 31 51
4 1.5 3.5 5.5 7.5 9.5 11.5 31.5 51.5
ANNEXURE VI
Classification of wheat based on SDS-sedimentation values
Sedimentation
values ( in ml)
Interpretation Classification
Less than 20
20-39
0-59
60 and above
Soft wheat with low protein and exceptionally weak gluten. Good
for cake, pasty cookies etc.
Low protein content, hard wheat. For production of “all purposes”
flour. For use in mixing with stronger wheat.
Hard type (other than durum). Used for production of bread flour.
Protein varies from 12-14 percent. Gluten stability is good and flour
has high bread baking strength.
Entirely hard with high protein content (over 14 percent). Superior
gluten quality. Superior baking quality. Suitable for mixing with
weaker wheat for the production of bread flour.
Very Weak
Weak
Medium
Strong
ANNEXURE VII
2.1 Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (Control treatment)-2009
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Thinning 2 2 0 Gap Filling 1 2 180 360 Total 360 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700 Total 2700 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 180 360 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 180 1080 Total 2880 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 0 60 0 Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 180 360 Total 3035.2 Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 180 540 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 3740 Total working Capital 15575.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 16153
ANNEXURE VIII
2.1 Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (12.5 Kg ZnSO4 ha-1) during -2009
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Thinning 2 2 0 Gap Filling 1 2 180 360 Total 360 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700 Total 2700 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 180 360 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 180 1080 Total 2880 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 12.5 60 750 Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 180 360 Total 3785.2 Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 180 540 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 3740 Total working Capital 15575.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 16902.6
ANNEXURE IX
Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (25 Kg ZnSO4 ha-1) during -2009
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Thinning 2 2 0 Gap Filling 1 2 180 360 Total 360 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700 Total 2700 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 180 360 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 180 1080 Total 2880 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 25 60 1500 Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 180 360 Total 4535.2 Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 180 540 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 3740 Total working Capital 17075.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 17652.6
ANNEXURE X
Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (foliar spray of 0. 5% ZnSO4) during -2009
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Thinning 2 2 0 Gap Filling 1 2 180 360 Total 360 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700 Total 2700 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 180 360 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 180 1080 Total 2880 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 2.5 60 150 Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 180 360 Total 3185.2 Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 180 540 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 3740 Total working Capital 15725.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 16302.6
ANNEXURE XI
Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (Control treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Gap Filling 1 2 180 360 Total 360 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 200 3000 Total 3000 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 200 400 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 200 1200 Total 3000 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 0 60 0 Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 180 360 Total 3075.2 Harvesting Labour 10 200 2000 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 200 540 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 4000 Total working Capital 16375.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 16953
ANNEXURE XII
Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Gap Filling 1 2 200 400 Total 400 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 200 3000 Total 3000 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 200 400 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 200 1200 Total 3000 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 12.5 60 750 Appli Cost(Org) 0 200 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 200 400 Total 3825.2 Harvesting Labour 10 200 2000 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 200 600 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 4000 Total working Capital 17125.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 17703
ANNEXURE XIII
Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Gap Filling 1 2 200 400 Total 400 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 200 3000 Total 3000 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 200 400 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 200 1200 Total 3000 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 25 60 1500 Appli Cost(Org) 0 200 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 200 400 Total 4575.2 Harvesting Labour 10 200 2000 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 200 600 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 4000 Total working Capital 17875.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 18453
ANNEXURE XIV
Common cost of maize cultivation ha-1 (foliar spray of 0.5% ZnSO4 treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha) Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total
cost Land preparation Ploughing 1 450 450 Harrowing 2 350 700 Total 1150 Seed 25 20 500 Total 500 Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 500 500 Total 500 Gap Filling 1 2 200 400 Total 400 Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 200 3000 Total 3000 Plant Protection Chemical 1 1 350 350 Labour 1 2 200 400 Total 710 Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450 After sowing 3 450 1350 Labour for IRR 6 1 6 200 1200 Total 3000 Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1057 P 40 21.75 1305 K 40 7.83 313.2 Zn 2.5 60 150 Appli Cost(Org) 0 200 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 2 200 400 Total 3225.2 Harvesting Labour 10 200 2000 Combine 0 2000 0 Threshing Labour 3 200 600 Thresher 1 1400 1400 Total 4000 Total working Capital 16525.2 Intrest on WC 0.25 16370 0.08 327.4 Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total Land rent(one year) 0.25 1000 250 Total 250 Grand Total 17103
ANNEXURE XV
Common cost of wheat cultivation ha-1 (control treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha)
Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total cost
Land preparation
Ploughing 1 450 450
Harrowing 2 350 700
Total 1150
Seed Wheat 100 1 30 3000
Total 3000
Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 1 1 500 500
Total 500
Gap Filling 1 1 180 180
Total 180
Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700
Chemical 0
Labour for spray 1 3 180 540
Total 3240
Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450
After sowing 5 450 2250
Labour for IRR 3 2 180 1080
Total 3780
Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1268.4 P-SSP 60 21.75 1305 K 60 7.83 469.8
Zn 0 0 60 0
Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 3 180 540 Total 3583.2
Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800
Threshing Labour 10 180 1800
Thresher 1 1400 1400
Total 5000
Total working Capital 20433 Intrest on WC 0.35 20433 0.08 572
Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total
Land rent(one year) 0.35 1000 350
Implements(depre) 0 0 0
Total 350
Grand Total 21355
ANNEXURE XVI
Common cost of wheat cultivation ha-1 (12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha)
Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total cost
Land preparation
Ploughing 1 450 450
Harrowing 2 350 700
Total 1150
Seed Wheat 100 1 30 3000
Total 3000
Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 1 1 500 500
Total 500
Gap Filling 1 1 180 180
Total 180
Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700
Chemical 0
Labour for spray 1 3 180 540
Total 3240
Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450
After sowing 5 450 2250
Labour for IRR 3 2 180 1080
Total 3780
Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1268.4 P-SSP 60 21.75 1305 K 60 7.83 469.8
Zn 0 12.5 60 750
Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 3 180 540 Total 4333.2
Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800
Threshing Labour 10 180 1800
Thresher 1 1400 1400
Total 5000
Total working Capital 21183 Intrest on WC 0.35 20433 0.08 572
Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total
Land rent(one year) 0.35 1000 350
Implements(depre) 0 0 0
Total 350
Grand Total 22126
ANNEXURE XVII
Common cost of wheat cultivation ha-1 (25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha)
Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total cost
Land preparation
Ploughing 1 450 450
Harrowing 2 350 700
Total 1150
Seed Wheat 100 1 30 3000
Total 3000
Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 1 1 500 500
Total 500
Gap Filling 1 1 180 180
Total 180
Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700
Chemical 0
Labour for spray 1 3 180 540
Total 3240
Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450
After sowing 5 450 2250
Labour for IRR 3 2 180 1080
Total 3780
Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1268.4 P-SSP 60 21.75 1305 K 60 7.83 469.8
Zn 0 25 60 1500
Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 3 180 540 Total 5083.2
Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800
Threshing Labour 10 180 1800
Thresher 1 1400 1400
Total 5000
Total working Capital 21933 Intrest on WC 0.35 20433 0.08 572
Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total
Land rent(one year) 0.35 1000 350
Implements(depre) 0 0 0
Total 350
Grand Total 22897
ANNEXURE XVIII
Common cost of whe tcultivation ha-1 (foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 treatment)-2010
Cost of cultivation of crops (ha)
Items Operations No. Mandays Materials rate/unit Total cost
Land preparation
Ploughing 1 450 450
Harrowing 2 350 700
Total 1150
Seed Wheat 100 1 30 3000
Total 3000
Planting /sowing Seed drill 1 1 1 500 500
Total 500
Gap Filling 1 1 180 180
Total 180
Weed control Hand weeding 1 15 180 2700
Chemical 0
Labour for spray 1 3 180 540
Total 3240
Irrigations Pre-sowing 1 450 450
After sowing 5 450 2250
Labour for IRR 3 2 180 1080
Total 3780
Fertilizer N 120 10.57 1268.4 P-SSP 60 21.75 1305 K 60 7.83 469.8
Zn 0 2.5 60 150
Appli Cost(Org) 0 180 0 Appli Cost(I/O) 3 180 540 Total 3733.2
Harvesting Labour 10 180 1800
Threshing Labour 10 180 1800
Thresher 1 1400 1400
Total 5000
Total working Capital 20583 Intrest on WC 0.35 20583 0.08 576
Fixed cost ITEM Duration rate Total
Land rent(one year) 0.35 1000 350
Implements(depre) 0 0 0
Total 350
Grand Total 21510
ANNEXURE XIX
Cost of cultivation of each treatment in wheat
Treatment combinations Year
2009-10 2010-11
M1V1Zn 0 21355 22294
M1V1Zn 1 22126 23065
M1V1Zn 2 22897 23836
M1V1Zn 3 21510 22448
M1V2Zn 0 21355 22294
M1V2Zn 1 22126 23065
M1V2Zn 2 22897 23836
M1V2Zn 3 21510 22448
M2V1Zn 0 21355 22294
M2V1Zn 1 22126 23065
M2V1Zn 2 22897 23836
M2V1Zn 3 21510 22448
M2V2Zn 0 21355 22294
M2V2Zn 1 22126 23065
M2V2Zn 2 22897 23836
M2V2Zn 3 21510 22448
M3V1Zn0 21355 22294
M3V1Zn1 22126 23065
M3V1Zn2 22897 23836
M3V1Zn3 21510 22448
M3V2Zn0 21355 22294
M3V2Zn1 22126 23065
M3V2Zn2 22897 23836
M3V2Zn3 21510 22448
M4V1Zn0 21355 22294
M4V1Zn1 22126 23065
M4V1Zn2 22897 23836
M4V1Zn3 21510 22448
M4V2Zn0 21355 22294
M4V2Zn1 22126 23065
M4V2Zn2 22897 23836
M4V2Zn3 21510 22448
ANNEXURE XX
Cost of cultivation of each treatment in maize
Sr. No. Treatment (application of ZnSO4)
2009 2010
1 Control 16153 16953
2 12.5 kg ha-1 16902 17703
3 25 kg ha-1 17652 18453
4 Foliar spray (0.5 %) 16302 17103
ANNEXURE XXI
ANOVA Tables
Maize LAI at 60 DAS (2009)
ANOVA
Source df SS MSS F Cal F Tab 5%
t Tab 5%
Replication 3 2 1.049267 0.524633 10.69468
Treatment 4 3 2.494292 0.831431 16.94875 4.757063 2.446912
Error 6 0.294333 0.049056
Total 11 3.837892 1.405119
11
S/NS 5%
S/NS 1%
Sem± CD 5% CD 1% CV (%)
S S 0.127874 0.442499 0.670451 9.018726
Maize DMA at harvest (2009)
Source df SS MSS F Cal F Tab 5%
t Tab 5%
Replication 3 2 0.027006 0.013503 0.238126
Treatment 4 3 1.043971 0.34799 6.136828 4.757063 2.446912
Error 6 0.340231 0.056705
Total 11 1.411208 0.418198
11
S/NS 5%
S/NS 1%
Sem± CD 5% CD 1% CV (%)
S NS 0.137484 0.475751 0.720833 3.642224
Maize Grain yield (2009)
ANOVA
Source df SS MSS F Cal F Tab 5%
t Tab 5%
Replication 3 2 0.130965 0.065482 1.812435
Treatment 4 3 0.661088 0.220363 6.099238 4.757063 2.446912
Error 6 0.216777 0.03613
Total 11 1.00883 0.321975
11
S/NS 5%
S/NS 1%
Sem± CD 5% CD 1% CV (%)
S NS 0.109741 0.379752 0.575379 8.258356