Comparison of chelated zinc vs mineral zinc on the yield of rice applied through soil and foliar application

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/03/2014
Views (190) Download (2)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Comparison of chelated zinc vs mineral zinc on the yield of rice applied through soil and foliar application

Ifra Saleem, Shahid Javid, Shabana Ehsan, Fareeha Habib, Tahir Majeed
Int. J. Agron. Agri. Res.4( 3), 98-104, March 2014.
Certificate: IJAAR 2014 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

Zinc is essential for plants, animals and humans. Zinc deficiency persists in our soils which creates problem in many physiological processes of plants. Presently many chelated Zn compounds are available in the market for foliar application with the claim that these compounds perform better than mineral Zn application. To test this claim a field experiment was conducted for three consecutive years (2009-2011) at Soil Chemistry Section, ISCES, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute Faisalabad on a permanent lay out to compare the efficiency of chelated vs. mineral zinc applied through soil and foliar application. The experiment was laid out according to randomized complete block design with three replications. Three levels of mineral Zn viz. 2.5, 5.0 and 7.5 kg/ha were applied at the time of soil preparation. The foliar application of zinc sulphate and cheated Zn was made @ 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3% solutions at transplanting and at 30 days after transplanting. A control was also kept where no Zn fertilizer was applied. Basal dose of NPK was applied @ 150-90-60 kg/ha. The results showed that rice crop significantly respond to Zn application as expected. The three year pooled data revealed that foliar application of mineral Zn and chelated Zn @ 0.3 %gave statistically similar paddy yields (4.67 and 4.50 t/ha, respectively). The plant analysis at panicle initiation stage showed that Zn concentration in plant significantly improved by foliar application of chelated Zn @ 0.3%. Cost benefit ratio showed that foliar application of 0.3% mineral Zn gave maximum return by spending minimum, however the grain yield was also at par with the foliar application of cheated Zn @ 0.3% and soil application of mineral Zn @ 7.5 kg/ha. It is concluded from the study that 0.3% chelated zinc and 0.3% mineral zinc application produced similar yield but the use of chelated zinc is not economically friendly.

VIEWS 21

Alloway BJ. 2004. Zinc in soils and crop nutrition. IZA Publications. International Zinc Association, Brussels

Amrani M, Westfall DG, Peterson GA. 1999. Influence of water solubility of granular zinc fertilizers on plant uptake and growth. Journal of Plant Nutrition 22(12), 1815-1827.

Amrani M, Westfall DG, Peterson GA. 1997. Zinc availability as influenced by zinc fertilizer source and zinc water-solubility. CSU Ag. Exp. Stat. Technical Bull. TB 97-4.

Anonymous. 1998. Micronutrients in Agriculture: Pakistan Perspective Status Report 4/98. National Fertilizer Development Center, Islamabad, Pakistan.

Bhatti HM, Rashid M. 1985. Micronutrient research in Pakistan. Proc. Rice Prod. Seminar, Larkana. pp. 67-72.

Cakmak I. 2008. Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: agronomic or genetic biofortification? Plant Soil 302, 1–17.

Chand M, Randhawa NS, Bhumbla DR. 1981. Effectiveness of zinc chelates in zinc nutrition of greenhouse rice crop in a saline-sodic soil. Plant and soil. 59(2), 217-225.

CIMMYT. 1988. An Economic Training handbook. Economic programme, CIMMYT, Maxico.

Grotz N, Guerinot ML. 2006. Molecular aspects of Cu, Fe and Zn homestasis in plants. Biochim. Biophys Acta. 1763(7), 595-608.

Hemantaranjan A. 1996. Physiological and biochemical significance of zinc nutrition in plants. In: Hemantaranjan A (Ed.) Advancement in Micronutrients Research Scientific Publisher, Jodhpur. pp. 151-178.

Jhonson-Beebout SE, Lauren JG, Duxbury JM. 2008. Immobilization of zinc fertilizer in flooded soils monitored by DTPA soil test. Communication in soil science and plant analysis (in the press)

Kanwar JS, Dhingra DR. 1963. Effect of micronutrient sprays on the chemical composition of citrus leaves and incidence of chlorsis. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 32, 309-314.

Kausar MA, Chaudhry FM, Rashid A, Latif A, Alam SM. 1976. Micronutrient availability to cereals from calcareous soils.1. Comparative Zn and Cu deficiency and their mutual interaction in rice and wheat. Plant and Soil. 45, 397-410.

Kutman UB, Yildiz B, Ozturk L, Cakmak I. 2010. Biofortificationof durum wheat with zinc through soil and foliar applications of nitrogen. Cereal Chemistry. 87, 1-9

Lindsay W L, Norvell WA. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Science Society American Journal. 42, 421-428.

Maqsood M, Irshad M, Wajid SA, Hussain A. 1999. Growth and yield response of Basmati-385 (Oryza sativa L.) to ZnSO4 application. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2(4), 1632-1633.

Mclean EO. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirement. p. 199-209. In: Methods of Soil Analysis part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties. A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney, (2nd eds.). American Society of Agronomy. 9. Madison, WI, USA.

Mehla DS, Singh K, Sekhon S, Sihag D, Bhardwaj KK. 2006. Long term effect of inorganic and organic inputs on yield and soil fertility in rice-wheat cropping system in India. 18th World. Congress Of Soil Science. (WCSS), 9-15 July 2006, Pennsyl Paper No. 163-32, Philadephia.

Mortvedt JJ, Murphy LS, and Follett RH. 1999. Fertilizer Technology and Application. Meister Publishing Co.Willoughby, OH.

Nalson DW, Sommers LE. 1982. Carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Methods of Soil Analysis Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. pp: 539-580, A.L. Page, R.H. Miller and D.R. Keeney (eds). American Society of Agronomy. 9 (Madison), WI, USA.

Potarzycki J, Grzebisz W. 2009. Effect of zinc foliar application on grain yield of maize and its yielding components. Plant Soil Environ. 55(12), 519-527.

Rahman A, Yassen M, Akram M, Awan ZI. 2001. Response of rice to zinc application and different sources in calcareous soil. Pakistan of Journal Biological Sciences. 4, 285-287.

Rashid A. 1986. Mapping zinc fertility of soils using indicator plants and soils analysis. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawaii, HI, USA.

Rashid M. 1996. Effect of salinity, sodicity, Zn and Cu on concentration of micronutrients in rice. Pakistan Journal of Soil Scence. 12, 111-117.

Rehmatullah F, Chaudhry M, Rashid A. 1976. Micronutrient availability to cereals from calcareous soils. 11. Effect of flooding on the electro-chemical properties of soils. Plant and Soil. 45, 411-20.

Reyes RY, Brinkman R. 1983. Some methods to minimize zinc deficiency in transplanted wetland rice 646-655(En, 9 ref ). IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. Field Crops Absts. 35(9), 7734.

Roemheld V, El-Fouly MM. 1999. Foliar nutrient application Challenge and limits in crop production. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Foliar Fertilization, Bangkok, Thailand, 4-10 April 1999.

Rowell DL. 1994. Soil Science. Methods and Application. Longman Scientific & Technical, UK.

Sheldrich BH,Wang C. 1993. Particle size distribution. In: soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, (ed M.R. carter), pp. 499-511. Canada.

Singh AK, Thakur SK, Singh SS. 1996. Effect of N with and without FYM and Zn on Yield, uptake and economicsof rice. Journal Research Agriculture University, Pusa. India. 8,175-6.

Srivastava PC, Gosh D, Singh VP. 1999. Evaluation of different Zn sources for lowland rice production. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 30 (1-2), 168-172.

Steel RGD, Torrie JH. 1984. Principles and procedures of statistics (2nd ED.) McGraw Hill Book Co., Singapore. pp: 172-177.

Tahir M, Kausar MA, Ahmad R, Bhatti AS. 1991. Micronutrient status of Faisalabad and Sheikhupura soils. Pakistan Journal of Agriculural Research.12, 134-140.

Tisdale SL, Nelson WL, Beaton JD, Havlin JL. 1993. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 5th ed. Macmillan Publish. Co. N.Y., USA.

Wutscher HK, Hardesty C. 1979. Concentration of 14 elements in tissues of blight affected and healthy Valencia orange trees. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Sciences. pp.104, 9-11.