Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea … · 2018-12-15 · Agronomic...

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


4.2.2 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


potassium in wheat grain

77-79


potassium in wheat straw

79-81


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


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


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


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





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










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



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


variance (ANOVA) technique for a split plot design using MSTAT-C software. Source of


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


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



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


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


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



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


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


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

[email protected]%

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


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


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Fig 4.1.2 Effect of zinc application on yield of Wheat var. ‘DBW 17’


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10

Grain Straw Biological

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10


Fig 4.1.3 Effect of zinc application on yield of Wheat var. ‘PBW 343’


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16


Yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

ZnSO4 levels

2010-11


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


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.



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





about 850 mm.




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


Chemical properties








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.



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


0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24


Con

cent

rati

on (

ppm

)

ZnSO4 levels

2009

Zn Fe Cu Mn

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


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


Table 4.2.4 Effect of zinc application on concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus and

potassium in maize stover

Treatment


% 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


Fig 4.2.2 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in maize stover


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Con

cent

rati

on(p

pm

)

ZnSO4 levels

2009

Zn Fe Cu Mn

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200


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


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


Fig. 4.2.3 Effect of zinc application on Protein content, hardness and Sedimentation of ‘DBW 17’


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Val

ues

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10

Protein content (%) Hardness Sedimentation (ml)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Val

ues

ZnSO4 levels

2010-11


Fig. 4.2.4 Effect of zinc application on protein content, hardness and sedimentation of ‘PBW 343’


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


valu

es

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


valu

es

ZnSO4 levels

2010-11


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


Fig 4.2.5 Effect of zinc application on concentration of micronutrient in grain of ‘DBW 17’


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Con

cent

rati

on(p

pm)

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10

Zn Fe Cu Mn

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


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’


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Con

cent

rati

on (

ppm

)

ZnSO4 levels

2009

Zn Fe Cu Mn

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


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


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


Fig 4.2.7 Effect of zinc application on micronutrient concentration in straw of ‘DBW 17’


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Con

cent

rati

on(m

g kg

-1)

ZnSO4 levels

2009

Zn Cu Mn

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


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’


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Con

cent

rati

on(p

pm

)

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10

Zn Cu Mn

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


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


potassium in wheat grain


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


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


potassium in wheat straw

Treatment


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


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


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.






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








6. Available K( kg ha-1) (Jackson, 1973) 239.5


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





about 850 mm.




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



various (ANOVA) technique for a split plot design using MSTAT-C software. Source of


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


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


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


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


`(' 0

00)

ZnSO4 levels

2009

Cost of cultivation Gross return Net return

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


`(' 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


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


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


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



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


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



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



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’


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


`(' 0

00)

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


`(' 0

00)

ZnSO4 levels

2010-11


Fig 4.3.3 Effect of zinc application on economics of wheat variety ‘PBW 343’


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


`(' 0

00)

ZnSO4 levels

2009-10


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


`(' 0

00)

ZnSO4 levels

2010-11


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


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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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



Land preparation

Ploughing 1 450 450

Harrowing 2 350 700

Total 1150

Seed Wheat 100 1 30 3000

Total 3000


Total 500


Total 180


Chemical 0


Total 3240




Total 3780


Zn 0 12.5 60 750





Total 5000





Total 350

Grand Total 22126

ANNEXURE XVII

Common cost of wheat cultivation ha-1 (25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 treatment)-2010



Land preparation

Ploughing 1 450 450

Harrowing 2 350 700

Total 1150

Seed Wheat 100 1 30 3000

Total 3000


Total 500


Total 180


Chemical 0


Total 3240




Total 3780


Zn 0 25 60 1500





Total 5000





Total 350

Grand Total 22897

ANNEXURE XVIII

Common cost of whe tcultivation ha-1 (foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnSO4 treatment)-2010



Land preparation

Ploughing 1 450 450

Harrowing 2 350 700

Total 1150

Seed Wheat 100 1 30 3000

Total 3000


Total 500


Total 180


Chemical 0


Total 3240




Total 3780


Zn 0 2.5 60 150





Total 5000





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)


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


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

Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea … · 2018-12-15 · Agronomic...

Documents

Transcript of Agronomic biofortification through zinc nutrition in maize (Zea … · 2018-12-15 · Agronomic...