physicochemical

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MALLA REDDY et. al. producing grain yield. Soil application of ZnS04 gave significantly higher seed yield than foliar spray of 0.5 % ZnS04 at 25 DAS in cluster bean during kharif at Gwalior (Sharma et al., 2004). Foliar sprays of Zn can not be compared with soil application. Soil application of ZnS04 @ 22.4 kg ha -1 significantly increased the grain yield of rice over control in sodic soils at Ludhiana (Sharma et al., 1982). Significantly higher straw yield (8621 kg/ha) was recorded with basal application of Biozinc @ 50 kg/ ha + foliar spray @ 3 g/l at 30 DAT and 22.6% higher over control (7029 kg/ha) and was at par with basal application of Biozinc @ 50 kg /ha (8530 kg/ha), basal application of ZnS0 4 @ 50 kg /ha + foliar spray @ 3g/l at 30 DAT (8281 kg/ha) and basal application of ZnS0 4 @ 50 kg/ha (8185 kg/ha) during 2009. There was no significant difference between foliar spray of Biozinc (7682) and ZnS04 (7794) @ 3 g/l at 30 and 45 DAT during 2009. The straw yield was not significantly influenced by zinc nutrition during 2008 (Table 3).14.1 and 17.6 % increase in straw yield was observed with basal application of ZnS04 and Biozinc, respectively over control. During 2009, 9.8 and 8.5 % increase in straw yield recorded with foliar spray of ZnS04 and Biozinc, respectively over control. In addition to basal application, foliar spray by ZnS04 and Biozinc increased the straw yield by 15.1 and 18.5 %, respectively over control. There was no significant difference between sources of Zn i.e., ZnS04 and Biozinc in producing tillers, yield attributes and yield in low land rice during both the years. On the other hand, significant difference observed between method of application i.e., basal and foliar spray during both the years in producing tillers, yield attributes and yield. The DTPA-Zn in the soil after harvest of the crop was not influenced by zinc nutrition. There was not much change in the values (ppm) of soil zinc during two years (Table 4). However, the DTPA-Zn was higher in plots where zinc was applied (0.8 to 1.1 ppm) compared to control (0.7 ppm). Basal application of 50 kg Biozinc/ha + foliar spray @ 3 g/l at 30 DAT has recorded high net returns during 2008 and 2009 (Rs.51,212 and 62,344/ha, respectively), followed by basal application of 50 kg ZnS0 4 /ha + foliar spray @ 3 g/l at 30 DAT (Rs.49,584/ ha) during 2008 and basal application of 50 kg Biozinc/ ha only (Rs.61,240/ha) during 2009 (Table 3). There was very little difference between foliar spray of ZnS0 4 (Rs.44, 641 and 54,515/ha) and Biozinc (Rs.45,550 and 53,359/ha) compared to basal application of ZnS0 4 (Rs.46,470 and 57,830/ha) or Biozinc (Rs.47,961 and 61,240/ha) alone during 2008 and 2009,repectively. Growing of zinc sensitive varieties like MTU 1001, MTU 1010 etc. coupled with high soil available P, resulted in Zn deficiency. This is very frequent in sodic soils. Thus, the findings indicated that for Zn sensitive varieties, basal application of Biozinc or ZnS0 4 @ 50 kg/ha and foliar spray @ 3 g/l at 30 and 45 DAT are essential in low land rice for getting higher profitable yields in alkali/sodic soils of Andhra Pradesh. 16
RESPONSE OF LOW LAND RICE TO SOURCE, TIME AND METHOD OF ZINC APPLICATION Table 1. Tillers/m 2 at 30 and 60 DAT of rice as influenced by zinc nutrition No. of tillers/m 2 Treatments 30 DAT 60 DAT 2008 2009 2008 2009 T 1 : Control 423 409 336 290 T 2 : 50 kg ZnS0 4 /ha as basal application 496 487 388 371 T 3 : 50 kg ZnS0 4 /ha as basal application + foliar spray @ 3g/l at 30 DAT 518 492 409 374 T 4 : 50 kg Biozinc/ha as basal application 509 511 399 397 T 5 : 50 kg Biozinc/ha as basal application + foliar spray @ 3 g/l at 30 DAT T 6: Foliar spray of ZnS0 4 @ 3 g/l at 30 and 45 DAT T 7 : Foliar spray of Biozinc @ 3 g/l at 30 and 45 DAT 533 521 418 403 451 448 377 332 462 442 370 327 SE+ 29.6 34.6 22.6 11.2 CD at 5% 64.5 NS NS 24.4 Table 2. Yield attributes of rice as influenced by zinc nutrition Treatments Panicles/m 2 Filled grains/panicle Chaffy grains/panicle 1000-grain weight (g) 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 T 1 : Control 231 218 140 140 19 22 22 22 T 2 : 50 kg ZnS0 4 /ha as basal application T 3 : 50 kg ZnS0 4 /ha as basal application + foliar spray @ 3g/l at 30 DAT T 4 : 50 kg Biozinc/ha as basal application T 5 : 50 kg Biozinc/ha as basal application + foliar spray @ 3 g/l at 30 DAT T 6: Foliar spray of ZnS0 4 @ 3 g/l at 30 and 45 DAT T 7 : Foliar spray of Biozinc @ 3 g/l at 30 and 45 DAT 284 271 181 175 11 17 22 23 301 275 203 179 9 15 23 24 296 292 193 191 10 13 23 24 317 303 221 204 7 11 24 24 259 254 169 163 14 19 22 23 270 245 177 162 13 20 22 23 SE+ 17.6 12.6 17.9 11.2 4.5 3.0 1.2 1.6 CD at 5% 38.4 27.5 39.0 24.4 NS 6.6 NS NS 17
Page 1 and 2: J.Res. ANGRAU 39(1&2)1-5, 2011 CHAR
Page 3 and 4: CHARACTERIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION
Page 5 and 6: CHARACTERIZATION AND CLASSIFICATION
Page 7 and 8: SCREENING OF YEAST ISOLATES AND PRO
Page 9 and 10: SCREENING OF YEAST ISOLATES AND PRO
Page 11 and 12: EFFECT OF WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Page 13 and 14: EFFECT OF WEED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Page 15: RESPONSE OF LOW LAND RICE TO SOURCE
Page 19 and 20: RESPONSE OF LOW LAND RICE TO SOURCE
Page 21 and 22: HETEROSIS FOR YIELD AND YIELD ATTRI
Page 23 and 24: HETEROSIS FOR YIELD AND YIELD ATTRI
Page 25 and 26: J.Res. ANGRAU 39(1&2)25-27, 2011 IN
Page 27 and 28: INHERITANCE OF RESISTANCE TO FUSARI
Page 29 and 30: COMBINING ABILITY ANALYSIS FOR YIEL
Page 35 and 36: SURVEY ON LEVEL OF AFLATOXIN CONTAM
Page 37 and 38: J.Res. ANGRAU 39(1&2)37-42, 2011 CO
Page 39 and 40: COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT DIALLEL MAT
Page 41 and 42: COMPARISION OF DIFFERENT DIALLEL MA
Page 43 and 44: J.Res. ANGRAU 39(1&2)43-47, 2011 GL
Page 45 and 46: GLYCAEMIC INDEX AND GLYCAEMIC LOAD
Page 47 and 48: GLYCAEMIC INDEX AND GLYCAEMIC LOAD
Page 49 and 50: ASSESSMENT OF VARIABILITY AND CAUSE
Page 51 and 52: ASSESSMENT OF VARIABILITY AND CAUSE
Page 53 and 54: Research Note J.Res. ANGRAU 39(1&2)
Page 55 and 56: FARMERS PERCEPTION TOWARDS UNDERSTA
Page 57 and 58: FARMERS PERCEPTION TOWARDS UNDERSTA
Page 59 and 60: KASTHURI et. al. REFERENCES Arbad,
Page 61 and 62: INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR WEED CONTRO
Page 63 and 64: INTEGRATED APPROACH FOR WEED CONTRO
Page 65 and 66: STUDIES ON EFFECT OF ORGANIC AGRICU
Page 67 and 68:
STUDIES ON EFFECT OF ORGANIC AGRICU
Page 69 and 70:
Research Note J.Res. ANGRAU 39(1&2)
Page 71 and 72:
INTEGRATED NITROGEN MANAGEMENT IN A
Page 73 and 74:
S.No. Profile Frequency Percentage
Page 75 and 76:
ENTERPRISES TAKEN UP BY THE WOMEN E
Page 77 and 78:
ENTERPRISES TAKEN UP BY THE WOMEN E
Page 79 and 80:
Research Note J.Res. ANGRAU 39(1&2)
Page 81 and 82:
STRESS OF ASSISTANT PROFESSORS IN A
Page 83 and 84:
MANAGEMENT OF CHROZOPHORA ROTTLERI
Page 85 and 86:
ABSTRACTS inoculated wit 10 8 spore
Page 87 and 88:
ABSTRACTS Genetic divergence in Ses
Page 89 and 90:
ABSTRACTS The path analysis indicat
Page 91 and 92:
ABSTRACTS variability, heritability
Page 93 and 94:
ABSTRACTS “Reaction of Urdbean [V
Page 95 and 96:
ABSTRACTS The pupal period varied f
Page 97 and 98:
CONTENTS PART 1 : PLANT SCIENCE Cha
Page 99 and 100:
The Journal of Research ANGRAU (Pub
Page 101 and 102:
Statement about ownership and other
Page 103 and 104:
GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF M
Page 105:
2 2 2 N The original research artic
show all

physicochemical

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?