Paper · 2001 · Indian Journal of Agronomy

Effect of zinc application methods on yield attributes, yield and nutrient uptake in wheat (Triticum aestivum) varieties under sodic soil

A.K. MAURIYA; D.C. MAURYA; V.K. MAURYA; et al.

9
claims
16
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the winter (rabi) season 200810 at Chandeswar, Azamgarh, on a zinc (Zn)-deficient and salt affected soil, to elucidate the most effective and economical method of Zn application for wheat [Triticum aestivum (L.) emend. Fiori & Paol.] yield improvement in partially reclaimed sodic soils of east- ern Uttar Pradesh. Eighteen treatments comprised 6 methods of Zn application, viz. control (no Zn), seed soaking with 0.5% ZnSO .7H O aqueous, seed soaking with 1.0% ZnSO . 7H O (ZnSHH) aqueous, 20 and 30 kg/ha 4 2 4 2 ZnSHH (basal) and foliar spray of 5 kg/ha ZnSHH with 2% urea in 1,000 litres water at 25 and 50 days after sow- ing (2 sprays), and 3 wheat varieties, viz. NW 1012, PBW 343 and Malviya 468 were tested in factorial random- ized block design with 3 replication. All the Zn application methods, increased the plant height, tillers/plant, grains/ spike, spike length, test weight, grain yield, straw yield and nutrient uptake over the control (no Zn). Foliar spray of Zn sulphate (5 kg/ha hepta hydrate) resulted in 26% higher grain yield than the control. Overall performance of NW 1012 variety of wheat showed superiority to Malviya 468 and PBW 343. Variety NW 1012 gave 6.0 and 3.8% higher grain yield over Malviya 468 and PBW 343, respectively. Foliar spray of 5 kg/ha ZnSHH with 2% urea in 1,000 litres water at 25 and 50 days after sowing was most economical. These foliar zinc application on wheat crop recorded 21.54 103/ha net returns along with 1.33 benefit: cost ratio.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All zinc methods increased wheat plant height, tillers and grains per spike versus no zinc.

Treatment
Zn application methodse0
Outcome
plant height, tillers/plant, grains/ spikee0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control (no Zn)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All the Zn application methods, increased the plant height, tillers/plant, grains/ spike, spike length, test weight, grain yield, straw yield and nutrient uptake over the control (no Zn).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 815–1002 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–110 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All zinc methods increased wheat spike length, test weight and grain yield versus no zinc.

Treatment
Zn application methodse0
Outcome
spike length, test weight, grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control (no Zn)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All the Zn application methods, increased the plant height, tillers/plant, grains/ spike, spike length, test weight, grain yield, straw yield and nutrient uptake over the control (no Zn).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 815–1002 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–110 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All zinc methods increased wheat straw yield and nutrient uptake versus no zinc.

Treatment
Zn application methodse0
Outcome
straw yield and nutrient uptakee0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control (no Zn)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All the Zn application methods, increased the plant height, tillers/plant, grains/ spike, spike length, test weight, grain yield, straw yield and nutrient uptake over the control (no Zn).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 815–1002 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–110 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar zinc sulphate gave 26% higher wheat grain yield than control.

Treatment
Foliar spray of Zn sulphate (5 kg/ha hepta hydrate)e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
26%e0
Comparator
controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar spray of Zn sulphate (5 kg/ha hepta hydrate) resulted in 26% higher grain yield than the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1003–1107 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–110 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NW 1012 yielded 6.0% more grain than Malviya 468.

Material
NW 1012e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
6.0e0
Comparator
Malviya 468e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Variety NW 1012 gave 6.0 and 3.8% higher grain yield over Malviya 468 and PBW 343, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1203–1299 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–110 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NW 1012 yielded 3.8% more grain than PBW 343.

Material
NW 1012e0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
3.8%e0
Comparator
PBW 343e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Variety NW 1012 gave 6.0 and 3.8% higher grain yield over Malviya 468 and PBW 343, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1203–1299 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–110 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar zinc with urea at 25 and 50 days was the most economical application.

Treatment
Foliar spray of 5 kg/ha ZnSHH with 2% urea in 1,000 litres water at 25 and 50 days after sowinge0
Outcome
most economicale0
Direction
most economicale0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar spray of 5 kg/ha ZnSHH with 2% urea in 1,000 litres water at 25 and 50 days after sowing was most economical.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1300–1416 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat (Triticum aestivum)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–110 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar zinc application recorded 21.54 103/ha net returns.

Treatment
foliar zinc applicatione0
Outcome
net returnse0
Value
21.54 103/hae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“These foliar zinc application on wheat crop recorded 21.54 103/ha net returns along with 1.33 benefit: cost ratio.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1417–1531 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar zinc application recorded a 1.33 benefit: cost ratio.

Treatment
foliar zinc applicatione0
Outcome
benefit: cost ratioe0
Value
1.33e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“These foliar zinc application on wheat crop recorded 21.54 103/ha net returns along with 1.33 benefit: cost ratio.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1417–1531 · show in text ↑

zinc atom · quality: grain · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

20 papers: 17 positive, 3 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

zinc atom · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

511 papers: 456 positive, 55 negative or no effect

455 papers in the same direction as this paper · 49 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

507 papers more in this group

See all 511 papers →

sulfate · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

23 papers: 22 positive, 1 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 papers →

application · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

877 papers: 795 positive, 82 negative or no effect

794 papers in the same direction as this paper · 75 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

873 papers more in this group

See all 877 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.