Next Article in Journal
The Mediating Effect of Financial Literacy and the Moderating Role of Social Capital in the Relationship between Financial Inclusion and Sustainable Development in Cameroon
Next Article in Special Issue
Drought-Induced Nitrogen and Phosphorus Carryover Nutrients in Corn/Soybean Rotations in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Previous Article in Journal
A Framework for Assessing Climate Adaptation Governance on the Caribbean Island of Curaçao
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sawdust Amendment in Agricultural and Pasture Soils Can Reduce Iodine Losses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 22
10.3390/su142215091
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Different Rates and Frequencies of Zn Application to Maize–Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivity and Zn Use Efficiency

by
Dileep Kumar
1,
Khusvadan C. Patel
1,
Vinubhai P. Ramani
2,
Arvind K. Shukla
3,*,
Sanjib Kumar Behera
3,* and
Ravi A. Patel
1
1
Micronutrient Research Centre (ICAR), Anand Agricultural University, Anand 388 110, Gujarat, India
2
College of Agriculture, Vaso, Anand Agricultural University, Anand 388 110, Gujarat, India
3
ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal 462 038, Madhya Pradesh, India
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(22), 15091; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215091
Submission received: 22 August 2022 / Revised: 9 November 2022 / Accepted: 11 November 2022 / Published: 15 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition in Sustainable Crop Production)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nowadays, zinc (Zn) fertilizers are commonly used for quality food production globally. Knowledge about proper application time and rates of commercial Zn fertilizers is necessary to obtain higher crop production and improve Zn use efficiency. A long-term field experiment was conducted during 2012 to 2018 at Anand Agricultural University, Anand (Gujarat), India, to find out the right Zn fertilizer dose and its frequency of application in maize–wheat cropping systems grown on typic haplustepts soil. The study comprised of three frequency levels, i.e., Zn application in the first year only (F1), alternate year (F2), and every year (F3), with four different rates of Zn, i.e., 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 per year imposed in the maize–wheat cropping system in each kharif season (during June to September) for six years. Findings of the study revealed that Zn applications to maize at 7.5 and 10 kg ha−1 in alternate year and 5.0 to 10 kg ha−1 in every year significantly increased maize equivalent yield as compared to no-Zn treatment. Application of 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 per year produced higher grain size, straw, and total Zn concentrations compared to those observed under no-Zn application in maize and wheat crops. Diethylene triamine penta acetic acid extractable Zn concentration in soil was higher in Zn treated plots which received Zn application at 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 kg ha−1 in alternate years and 10 kg ha−1 in every year as compared to no-Zn application. Apparent Zn recovery efficiency varied from 0.17 to 1.46% for maize crop and 0.34 to 1.70% for wheat crop under different rates and frequencies of Zn application. The above results emphasize the importance of Zn retention capacity of soil regarding its response to different rates and frequencies of Zn application to maize and wheat crops.

1. Introduction

Deficiency of zinc (Zn) is a global concern for human health [1] and its deficiency in soil adversely affects crop production and crop nutritional characteristics [2]. Evidently, Zn assumes a position of importance among the micronutrients [3]. On other hand, the pressure on agriculture is increasing to produce sufficient food for the population of world, which is projected to cross 9.0 billion by 2055 [4]. Staple cereals i.e., rice, wheat, and maize, are the major dietary sources of food in developing countries which contain low amounts of micronutrients, especially Zn and iron (Fe) [5]. Therefore, the use of only staple food in daily diet is a major cause of widespread micronutrient deficiency in under-developed countries [6]. Zinc deficiency affects almost 17.3% of the global population and 30% of South Asian countries [7,8,9]. The inadequate dietary status of Zn is a negative factor to human health and leads to several diseases [10,11]. Food security, agricultural sustainability, and nutritional security are the global challenges for the present and future generations [12]. In the current global scenario, it is interesting to note that Zn deficiency is one of the predisposing factors for the infection and progression of COVID-19 [13].
In the world, approximately 50% of agricultural soils are deficient in zinc, and associated with Zn-deficient humans and animals [14], and it is expected to touch the mark of 63% by 2025 [15]. In India, field-scale deficiency of Zn (occurrence of Khaira disease) in low-land rice in Tarai soils of Pantnagar was first reported by Nene [16]. About 40% of the soils of India are deficient in available Zn [17], especially in states like Gujarat, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh [18]. Zinc deficiency occurs in soils that are sandy or loamy sand in texture (coarser in texture), very high in pH (alkali/sodic soils), low in organic carbon content (<0.4%), calcareous in nature (>0.5% or high in CaCO3), and intensively cultivated [19]. Zinc use efficiency (ZnUE) is <3.5%, which is attributed to the variations in the Zn adsorptive capacity of the soils [20]. Therefore, new alternatives and sustainable strategies need to be adapted for better nutrient replenishment to get higher crop productivity and increased Zn use efficiency.
Zinc plays a vital role in plant metabolism, and it is an essential element for higher plants. Its importance in agriculture is increasingly being recognized [21]. Initially, the incidence of Zn deficiency was observed more in cereals, particularly in rice and wheat crops, but with the passage of time, distribution of Zn deficiency covered the whole country across the crops and cropping systems [22]. Zinc acts as a cofactor and regulates the activity of several enzymes in crop plants [23,24]. Moreover, it plays an important role in the formation of chlorophyll, photosynthesis, and respiration [25]. Therefore, its deficiency decreases the photosynthetic rate, chlorophyll content, the activity of carbonic anhydrase, and protein biosynthesis [26,27,28].
Maize (Zea mays L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) are the main sources of the world’s food energy [29] and contain significant amounts of proteins, minerals, and vitamins which are highly essential nutrients for human health [30]. Maize is considered a promising option for diversification of agriculture in the upland areas of the country and now it is recognized as the third most important food grain crop in the nation. India ranks as the second largest wheat-producing nation globally and contributes about 11.9% to the world wheat production from about 12% area of the world [31]. Maize is the most vulnerable crop to zinc deficiency. Low availability of Zn is frequently reported for grains of maize and wheat [32], resulting in insufficient amounts of Zn in cereal grains to meet the human nutritional requirement, particularly in the developing countries where daily diets are dominated by maize, rice, and wheat [33,34].
One of the most common recommendations for prevention of Zn deficiency in soil is to apply 11 kg Zn ha−1 as zinc sulfate (ZnSO4) [35,36,37]. Recommendations for fertilization with relatively high granular Zn rates have existed since research was first initiated, investigating how to prevent crop Zn deficiency [38]. In India, Zn fertilization is an accepted practice and applied in different rates in different crops/cropping systems [39]. For example, the optimum rate of Zn application to rice in Haryana and Punjab was as high as 22 kg ha−1 in highly sodic (pH more than 10.0) and flood plain soils, compared to 11 kg ha−1 in alkaline (pH 8.4 to 8.7) soil and 2.5 kg ha−1 in sandy alkaline soils. In an intensively cultivated rice–wheat cropping system, Zn application is needed once each year.
Although many techniques of Zn application to the crop have been tested, suitable and proper application methods of Zn fertilizer are still unclear that must be understood in view of low Zn use efficiency in soil. It has been reported that basal Zn fertilizer may have a strong residual effect [40], but in some soils, Zn gets fixed and is therefore not utilized by the crops [41]. Therefore, the present study was conducted with the objective to investigate the effects of different rates and frequencies of Zn application on the productivity of the maize–wheat cropping system and ZnUE in typic haplustepts soil of Gujarat, India. The results of this study are important for optimizing Zn fertilizer application and increasing the grain yield and quality of maize and wheat crops.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

The field experiments were conducted during 2012 to 2018 in a maize–wheat cropping system at the Agronomy Farm of Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, India, (Figure 1). The experimental site is situated at 22°35′ N latitude, 72°55′ E longitude with an elevation of 45.1 m above the mean sea level.
The initial surface soil (0–15 cm) of the experimental field was sandy loam (6.7% clay, 78.3% sand, 14.0% silt) in texture with pH 7.2 (1:2.5 w/v in water), electrical conductivity (EC) 0.15 dS m−1, and organic carbon (OC) content of 3.1 g kg−1 [42]. The concentrations of 0.5 M NaHCO3 pH 8.5 extractable P [43], 1 N NH4OAc, pH 7.0 extractable K [44], and 0.15% CaCl2 extractable sulphur [45] were 49.0 kg ha−1, 374 kg ha−1, and 14.3 mg kg−1, respectively. The concentrations of DTPA-extractable Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn [46] were 0.62, 7.08, 8.32, and 0.99 mg kg−1 soil, respectively. The concentration of hot water-soluble boron [47] in soil was 0.43 mg kg−1. The soil was a well-drained, gently sloping alluvial plain and was classified as typic haplustepts in the U.S. soil taxonomy.

2.2. Average Weather Condition during Study Period

The climate of this region is semi-arid and sub-tropical in nature. For the period of year 2012 to 2018, the average minimum, maximum, and mean temperature ranged from 19 to 21 °C, 33 to 34 °C, and 26 to 28 °C, respectively (Figure 2). Monsoon commences by the second week of June and retreats by the end of September with an average total rainfall ranging from 59 to 107 cm, received entirely from the south–west monsoon currents. The average relative humidity ranges from 62 to 69 percent (Figure 2).

2.3. Details of Field Experiments

The field experiments (conducted in 5 × 3.6 m2 sized plots) consisted of combinations of three different frequencies of Zn application, i.e., first year only (F1), every alternate year (F2) and every year (F3), four different rates (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 kg Zn ha−1); there was one Zn control plot. All the plots received the recommended dose of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) fertilizers (80-40-0N-P-K for maize and 120-60-0N-P-K for wheat crop). During the entire study period, the sowing of maize (Zea mays L., cv. GM-6) was done with the spacing of 45 × 20 cm and seeding rate of 100 kg ha−1, whereas the sowing of wheat (Triticum aestivum L., cv. GW-496) was done in rows (22.5 cm spaced) with the seeding rate 125 kg ha−1. Maize and wheat seeds were sown in the month of July and November, respectively. Zinc treatments were given to the maize crop only through zinc sulphate heptahydrate as per the three frequencies, whereas the recommended dose of fertilizer was given to all the plots for maize and wheat over the six years of experimentation. Nitrogen, P, and K were applied through urea, di-ammonium phosphate (DAP), and muriate of potash (MOP), respectively. A full dose of P, K, and Zn and half of the recommended N were applied as basal dressing, whereas the remaining half of the N was top-dressed at a knee-high stage in maize and at tillering in wheat crops. The experiment was designed in a randomized block design (RBD) with three replications. During the entire six years of experiments, Zn was applied once in the first year (1st crop only), thrice in every alternate year (1st, 5th, and 9th crop), and six times in every year (1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th crop) to maize crop only (Table 1). Maize and wheat crops were harvested on physiological maturity stage in the month of October and April, respectively, during the six years study period. The harvested maize and wheat crops from each experimental plot were tangled into bundles and sundried for seven days, then it was threshed using a mini-thresher. Grains of both crops were separated; grain yield and straw yield were recorded for each plot and expressed in kg ha−1. During the crop growth period, six irrigations for maize crop and five irrigations for wheat crop were applied using bore-well water as a source of irrigation. All the cultural practices, including weeding, thinning, and hoeing, were performed.

2.4. Soil and Plant Analysis and Estimation of Zn Use Efficiency

The soil samples were collected after harvesting of maize and wheat crops and analyzed for diethylene triamine penta acetic acid (DTPA) extractable Zn [46]. For the determination of Zn content in grain and straw, samples were dried in an oven at 65 °C, ground, and stored in plastic bag for further analysis. Microwave digestion procedure was used to avoid contamination risk. One gram (1.0 g) sample was taken and transferred into a digestion vessel, followed by the addition of 10 mL 65% nitric acid. Vessels were covered, placed into the rotator body of microwave oven, and the digestion program was recalled. Samples were cooled at room temperature and ultra-pure water was added to make 50 mL volume. Zn contents in plant and soil extracts were determined by using Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) (Model Optima 7000 DV, Perkin Elmer, USA) [48]. In the present study, we estimated Zn use efficiencies by following the formulas [49,50].
Agronomic use efficiency (AUE) = (GYZn − GY0)/Zna
Apparent recovery efficiency (ARE) = (UZn − U0)/Zna
where GYZn and GY0 are the grain yield of Zn treated and untreated plots, respectively. Zna is the total amount of Zn applied. UZn and U0 are Zn uptake in grain and straw of Zn treated and untreated plots, respectively.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Analyses of variance of all the data obtained from maize and wheat crops, grain nutrient uptake, and soil chemical properties were performed using the F-test [51]. The comparisons of the treatment means were carried out by Duncan’s New Multiple Range test (DNMRT). Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Pullman, WA, USA) and SPSS 16.0 for Window (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) were used to perform correlation analysis.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Crop Yields of Maize and Wheat

The results showed that the Zn application had a significant effect on grain, straw, and total yields of maize in the six-year experiment (pooled). Most of the Zn fertilizer treatments significantly improved maize grain and straw yields compared to yields obtained under no-Zn application. The maximum grain (1513 kg ha−1), straw (3542 kg ha−1), and total (5154 kg ha−1) yields of maize were recorded in every year application of 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 (Table 2). Irrespective of the frequencies, the enhancement in grain yield was found to be 7.8, 6.8, 5.3, and 8.3% due to the application of 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 every year, respectively, over the yield under the first year application. Similarly in wheat, significant improvement in grain, straw, and total yields was obtained due to the application of 10 kg Zn ha−1 in every year to maize crop. When Zn was applied at 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 kg ha−1 in every year, the improvement in yield was 8.2, 7.6, 8.5, and 10.0%, respectively. The beneficial effect of Zn application in the alternate year and every year was observed on straw and total yields of wheat over control (Table 2). In wheat and rice systems, Zn fertilization has also been reported to increase yield [52,53]. Zinc deficiency has often been associated with poor seed germination and seedling development [54]. The results suggested that application of 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 every year to maize only could be more beneficial and provide residual effect in the succeeding wheat crop. The results are in close conformity with the findings of many researchers [55,56,57], who reported that with increasing levels of Zn application, wheat and maize yields also increased. The enhancement in crop yields due Zn application is attributed to increased enzyme activity, growth and development, and yield-attributing factors in crop plants.

3.2. Zn Concentration and Uptake

The Zn concentrations of grain and straw varied from 21.62 to 30.08 mg kg−1 and 17.05 to 24.23 mg kg−1, respectively, in maize, and from 17.17 to 24.17 mg kg−1 and 14.97 to 20.62 mg kg−1, respectively, in wheat, under different treatments (Table 3). A significant increase in Zn concentration of maize grain and straw was observed in all the treatments over Zn concentration under no-Zn control. The application of 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 in every year resulted in the maximum grain and straw Zn concentrations. There was a significant increase in Zn concentration of wheat grain with the application of 10 kg Zn ha−1 in the first year. A significant increase in Zn concentration of wheat straw was recorded at 7.5 and 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 application in all the three modes of application. It has already been reported that Zn kick-starts growth through improved seedling vigor, root growth, and chlorophyll concentration, which results in enhanced nutrient uptake and crop productivity [58,59]. Zn also plays a vital role for the initiation of several metabolic enzymes in the plant body and roots [60]. Adequate Zn fertilization can also alleviate biotic and abiotic stress events in crops grown on farmers’ fields due to benefits on several physiological processes, including the bio-synthesis of growth hormones essential for photosynthesis [61,62,63].
Zn uptakes by maize grain and straw increased in most of the Zn treatments as compared to no Zn treatment (Table 4). The highest grain Zn uptake was obtained due to application of Zn at 7.5 and 10 kg Zn ha−1 in every year. The significant improvement in Zn uptake by wheat grain and straw was also noticed due to Zn application in the first year only, alternate year, and every year. The highest grain, straw, and total Zn uptake was observed due to application of Zn at 5.0 and 10 kgha−1 in every year treatments. These findings are in accordance with the observation of Zhang et al. [64], who reported that Zn application could increase Zn uptake by plants. Similar results were also reported in different crops by Harris et al. [65], Norouzi et al. [66], and Kumari et al. [67].

3.3. Zn Content in the Soil

It was reported that DTPA extractable Zn in soil can be a reliable index of the Zn availability to the plants [68]. In the present study, Zn application over a period of six-year appreciably improved the DTPA- Zn content in soil (Figure 3). Soil Zn application generally increased maize and wheat grain Zn concentrations; however, grain Zn concentrations were still insufficient for human dietary requirements. The DTPA–Zn varied from 1.00 mg kg−1 in the control plot to 2.76 mg kg−1 in the soil, which received the highest dose of Zn application every year for six years of application. The Zn-treated plot in every year application, from 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 kg ha−1, had significantly higher values of DTPA-Zn as compared to the alternate year and the first year at all four rates of Zn application. The content of DTPA-Zn in soil might have increased due to continuous application of Zn at 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0 kg ha−1 to maize crop for six years, resulting in greater efficiency of fertilizer use in the soil. This result is in line with the findings of Sharma et al. [69] and Khan et al. [70].

3.4. Zinc Use Efficiency and Apparent Zn Recovery

Agronomical use efficiency is the fundamental tool for estimating the nutrient use efficiency of any nutrient management practice and to develop sound nutrient management strategies [71,72]. Zinc efficiency is determined in terms of Zn content in grains of crops grown on low Zn available soils [73]. Results showed that the agronomic efficiency varied from 75.9 kg grain per kg Zn in the treatment of Zn application at 2.5 kg ha−1 every year to 15.9 kg grain per kg Zn in treatment of Zn application at 10.0 kg ha−1 in the first year only in case of maize crop (Figure 4). Similarly, in wheat, it varied from 130.2 kg grain per kg Zn in 2.5 kg ha−1 every year to 25.61 kg grain per kg Zn in 10.0 kg ha−1 application in the first year only. The highest agronomic efficiency was found in treatment of 2.5 kg Zn ha−1 in every year’s application of Zn in both the crops.
The recovery of fertilizer Zn by plants is low, with apparent utilization efficiencies ranging between 0.3 and 3.5% per year [74]. In our study, apparent Zn recovery efficiency varied from 1.46 % in 2.5 kg Zn ha−1 applied every year to 0.17% in 10 kg Zn ha−1 applied in the first year only in the case of maize, and from 1.70 % in 2.5 kg Zn ha−1 applied every year to 0.34% in 10 kg Zn ha−1 applied in the first year only (Figure 5). The order of apparent Zn recovery efficiency was 2.5 kg Zn ha−1 every year (1.4%) ≥ 5.0 kg Zn ha−1 every year (0.85%) ≥ 7.5 kg Zn ha−1 every year (0.63%) ≥ 10 kg Zn ha−1 every year (0.54%). A similar trend was observed in the alternate year application of Zn. Agronomic efficiency and apparent Zn recovery decreased significantly with Zn levels. This was due to the inverse relationship often observed between utilization and rate of application [75]. The decrease in zinc use efficiency with increase in Zn rates was also due to progressive decline in grain yield or dry matter production at higher levels of Zn applied. Higher ZnUE at lower Zn levels was also reported by Genc et al. [76] in barley genotypes and Fageria et al. [77] in rice.

3.5. Relationship between DTPA-Zn and Grain Yield of Maize and Wheat

Long-term application of mineral and organic fertilization could significantly modify soil properties and availability of nutrient in soil and plant [78,79]. The DTPA-Zn exhibited a quadratic relationship with maize and wheat grain yields. The quadratic fit model is a response function curve representing an initial increase in crop yield, and after attaining physical optimum, the response starts declining with additional input variable. The highest gain yields of 1513 and 3538 kg ha−1 were recorded at DTPA-Zn concentrations of 2.76 mg kg−1 in maize and wheat, respectively (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The Zn availability is increased to plants with an increase in organic matter [80]. The results revealed that the Zn uptake is a dynamic and complex process as Zn primarily enters into the plant via root absorption of Zn2+ from the soil solution. The Zn uptake depends on ion concentration at the root surface, plant demand, and root absorption capacity [81].

4. Conclusions

From the present study, it could be concluded that the application of Zn at different rates and frequencies influenced the productivity of maize–wheat cropping system and ZnUE in typic haplustepts soil of Gujarat, India. The application of 10.0 kg Zn ha−1 in every year resulted in the highest grain, and straw Zn concentrations in maize and wheat crops. Results indicated that continuous application of Zn at higher rates (5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 kg ha−1) and in alternate years at 10 kg ha−1 had a significantly higher value of DTPA extractable Zn in soil as compared to no-Zn application. Apparent Zn recovery efficiency varied from 1.46% in 2.5 kg Zn ha−1 applied every year to 0.17% in 10 kg Zn ha−1 applied in the first year only for maize, and from 1.70% in 2.5 kg Zn ha−1 applied every year to 0.34% in 10 kg Zn ha−1 applied in the first year only. The results emphasized the importance of Zn retention capacity of soil, which affected the responses of maize and wheat crops to Zn application at different rates and frequencies. There is a need for standardization of rates and frequencies of application of Zn and other required micronutrients for different crops and cropping systems of India and other countries to obtain higher crop productivity, better crop quality, and higher nutrient use efficiency.

Author Contributions

Supervision, Statistical data analysis, D.K., V.P.R. and R.A.P.; Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, D.K., K.C.P., S.K.B. and R.A.P.; Visualization & editing of manuscript, V.P.R., A.K.S. and D.K.; Conceptualization execution of research, V.P.R., A.K.S. and D.K.; Formal analysis D.K. and R.A.P.; collecting review for methodology, D.K., R.A.P. and K.C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data sets supporting the conclusions made are included in this article.

Acknowledgments

We are highly grateful to AICRP on Micro and Secondary Nutrients and Pollutant Elements in Soils and Plants of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi for support and technical guidance and to Anand Agricultural University Anand for providing all necessary facilities for conducting the experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Behera, S.K.; Shukla, A.K.; Singh, M.V.; Wanjari, R.H.; Singh, P. Yield and zinc, copper, manganese and iron concentration in maize (Zea mays L.) grown on vertisol as influenced by zinc application from various zinc fertilizers. J. Plant Nutr. 2015, 38, 1544–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zulfiqar, U.; Hussain, S.; Ishfaq, M.; Matloob, A.; Ali, N.; Ahmad, M.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Ahmad, P. Zinc-Induced effects on productivity, zinc use efficiency and grain biofortification of bread wheat under different tillage permutations. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yadav, R.L.; Dwivedi, B.S.; Prasad, K.; Tomar, O.K.; Shurpali, N.J.; Pandey, P.S. Yield trends and changes in soil organic-C and available NPK in a long-term rice–wheat system under integrated use of manures and fertilisers. Field Crops Res. 2000, 68, 219–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Combs, G.F., Jr.; Welch, R.M.; Duxbury, J.M.; Uphoff, N.T.; Nesheim, M.C. Food-Based Approaches to Preventing Micronutrient Malnutrition: An International Research Agenda; CIIFAD: Ithaca, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  6. Erdal, I.; Yilmaz, A.; Taban, S.; Eker, S.; Torun, B.; Cakmak, I. Phytic acid and phosphorus concentrations in seeds of wheat cultivars grown with and without zinc fertilization. J. Plant Nutr. 2002, 25, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Maxfield, L.; Crane, J.S. Zinc Deficiency. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Tampa, FL, USA, 2019. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493231 (accessed on 5 August 2022).
  8. Gupta, S.; Kishore, A.; Alvi, M.F.; Singh, V. Designing better input support programs: Lessons from zinc subsidies in Andhra Pradesh, India. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Klassen-Wigger, P.; Geraets, M.; Messier, M.C.; Detzel, P.; Lenoble, H.P.; Barclay, D.V. Micronutrient fortification of bouillon cubes in central and West Africa. Food Fortification in a Globalized World. In Food Fortification in a Globalized World; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 363–372. [Google Scholar]
  10. WHO. The World Health Report 2002: Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gibson, R.S. A historical review of progress in the assessment of dietary zinc intake as an indicator of population zinc status. Adv. Nutr. 2012, 3, 772–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Nagender, P.B.; Kumar, P.; Shukla, A.K.; Sharma, M.; Kumar, P. Agronomic zinc biofortification and its impact on mineral composition of eight okra genotypes [Abelmoschusesculentus (L.) Moench] in an acid Alfisol. J. Plant Nutr. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Skalny, A.V.; Rink, L.; Ajsuvakova, O.P.; Aschner, M.; Gritsenko, V.A.; Alekseenko, S.I.; Svistunov, A.A.; Petrakis, D.; Spandidos, D.A.; Aaseth, J.; et al. Zinc and respiratory tract infections: Perspectives for COVID-19 (Review). Int. J. Mol. Med. 2020, 46, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Cakmak, I. Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: Agronomic or genetic biofortification? Plant Soil 2008, 302, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Singh, M.V. Micronutrient nutritional problems in soils of India and improvement for human and animal health. Indian J. Fertil. 2009, 5, 11–56. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nene, Y.L. Symptoms, cause of control of khaira disease of paddy. Bull. Indian Phytopathol. Soc. 1966, 3, 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  17. Shukla, A.K.; Behera, S.K. Micronutrient fertilizers and higher productivity. Indian J. Fertil. 2012, 8, 100–117. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumar, D.; Patel, K.P.; Ramani, V.P.; Shukla, A.K.; Meena, R.S. Management of Micronutrients in Soil for the Nutritional Security. In Nutrient Dynamics for Sustainable Crop Production; Meena, R.S., Ed.; Springer Nature Pvt. Ltd.: Singapore, 2019; pp. 103–134. [Google Scholar]
  19. Shukla, A.K.; Behera, S.K.; Satyanarayana, T.; Majumdar, K. Importance of micronutrients in Indian agriculture. Better Crops South Asia 2019, 11, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  20. Suganya, A.; Saravanan, A.; Manivannan, N. Role of zinc nutrition for increasing zinc availability, uptake, yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.) grains: An overview. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2020, 51, 2001–2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rattan, R.K.; Kumar, M.; Narwal, R.P.; Singh, A.P. Soil health and nutritional security–micronutrients. In Proceedings of the Platinum Jubilee Symposium of the Indian Society of Soil Science, New Delhi, India, 22–25 December 2009; pp. 249–265. [Google Scholar]
  22. Shukla, A.K.; Behera, S.K.; Lenka, N.K.; Tiwari, P.K.; Prakash, C.; Malik, R.S.; Chaudhary, S.K. Spatial variability of soil micronutrients in the intensively cultivated Trans-Gangetic Plains of India. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 282–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barak, P.; Helmke, P.A. The chemistry of zinc. In Zinc in Soils and Plants; Robson, A.D., Ed.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 90–106. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lopez-Millan, A.F.; Ellis, D.R.; Grusak, M.A. Effect of zinc and manganese supply on the activities of superoxide dismutase and carbonic anhydrase in Medicago truncatula wild type and raz mutant plants. Plant Sci. 2005, 168, 1015–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aravind, P.; Prasad, M.N.V. Zinc alleviates cadmium induced toxicity in Ceratophyllumdemersum, a fresh water macrophyte. Plant Phys. Biochem. 2003, 41, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Anwar, S.; Khalilzadeh, R.; Khan, S.; Bashir, R.; Pirzad, A.; Malik, A. Mitigation of Drought Stress and Yield Improvement in Wheat by Zinc Foliar Spray Relates to Enhanced Water Use Efficiency and Zinc Contents. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2021, 15, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kaya, C.; Higgs, D. Response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) cultivars to foliar application of zinc when grown in sand culture at low zinc. Sci. Hortic. 2002, 93, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fu, X.Z.; Xing, F.; Cao, L.; Chun, C.P.; Ling, L.L.; Jiang, C.L.; Peng, L.Z. Effects of foliar application of various zinc fertilizers with organosilicone on correcting citrus zinc deficiency. Hort. Sci. 2016, 51, 422–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Rosenblueth, M.; Ormeño-Orrillo, E.; López-López, A.; Rogel, M.A.; Reyes-Hernández, B.J.; Martínez-Romero, J.C. Nitrogen fixation in cereals. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 17–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Poole, N.; Donovan, J.; Erenstein, O. Agri-nutrition research: Revisiting the contribution of maize and wheat to human nutrition and health. Food Policy 2020, 16, 1019–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Singh, S.K.; Chatrath, R.; Mishra, B. Perspective of hybrid wheat research: A review. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 80, 1013–1027. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cakmak, I.; Kutman, U.A. Agronomic biofortification of cereals with zinc: A review. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Khush, G.S.; Lee, S.; Cho, J.I.; Jeon, J.S. Biofortification of crops for reducing malnutrition. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2012, 6, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. World Bank. The World Bank Annual Report 2008: Year in Review; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7524 (accessed on 12 September 2019).
  35. Sharma, B.D.; Katyal, J.C. Evaluation of amounts, methods and sources of zinc application to wheat in flood plain soils. J. Agric. Sci. 1986, 106, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Amrani, M.; Westfall, D.G.; Peterson, G.A. Influence of water solubility of granular zinc fertilizers on plant uptake and growth. J. Plant Nutr. 1999, 22, 1815–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Norman, R.; Slaton, N.; Roberts, T. Soil fertility. In Rice Production Handbook; Publication MP192; Hardke, J.T., Ed.; University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: Little Rock, AR, USA, 2013; pp. 69–101. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sommer, A.L.; Lipman, C.B. Evidence on the indispensable nature of zinc and boron for higher green plants. Plant Physiol. 1926, 1, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shukla, A.K.; Behera, S.K. Zinc management in Indian Agriculture-Past, present and future. Indian J. Fertil. 2011, 7, 14–33. [Google Scholar]
  40. Liu, H.X.; Zhang, H.M.; Wang, D.X. Study on yield increasing effect on summer maize nitrogen, zinc complex. J. Jilin Agric. Univ. 2004, 26, 538–541. [Google Scholar]
  41. Rengel, Z. Availability of Mn, Zn and Fe in the rhizosphere. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2015, 15, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Walkley, A.J.; Black, I.A. An estimation of the Degtjareft method for determining of soil organic matter and a proposed modification of chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934, 37, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Olsen, S.R.; Cole, C.V.; Watanabe, F.S.; Dean, L.A. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil Byextraction with Sodium Bicarbonate; Circular; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington DC, USA, 1954; p. 939.
  44. Hanway, J.J.; Heidal, H. Soil analysis methods as used in Iowa State College, Soil testing Laboratory. Iowa Agric. 1952, 57, 43–45. [Google Scholar]
  45. Williams, C.H.; Steinbergs, A. Soil sulphur fractions as chemical indices of available sulphur in some Australian soils. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1959, 10, 340–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lindsay, W.; Norvell, W.A. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc iron manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1978, 42, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Berger, K.C.; Truog, E. Boron determination in soils and plants. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 1939, 11, 540–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Espinoza-Quiñones, F.R.; Módenes, A.N.; de Pauli, A.R.; Palácio, S.M. Analysis of trace elements in groundwater using ICP-OES and TXRF techniques and its compliance with Brazilian protection standards. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2015, 226, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fageria, N.K. The Use of Nutrients in Crop Plants; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  50. Shivay, Y.S.; Prasad, R. Zinc-coated urea improves productivity and quality of basmati rice (Oryza sativa L.). under zinc stress condition. J. Plant Nutr. 2012, 35, 928–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1984; p. 680. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yilmaz, A.; Ekiz, H.; Gultekin, I.; Torun, B.; Barut, H.; Karanlik, S.; Bagci, S.A.; Cakmak, I. Effect of different zinc application methods on grain yield and zinc concentration in wheat grown on zinc deficient calcareous soils in Central Anatolia. J. Plant Nutr. 1997, 20, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Slaton, N.A.; Wilson, C.E., Jr.; Ntamatungiro, S.; Norman, R.J.; Boothe, D.L. Evaluation of zinc seed treatments for rice. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 152–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Alloway, B.J. Zinc in Soils and Crop Nutrition, 2nd ed.; International Zinc Association (IZA) and International Fertilizer Association (IFA): Brussels, Belgium; Paris, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  55. Goswami, V.K. Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to nitrogen and zinc application. Ann. Agric. Res. New Ser. 2007, 28, 90–91. [Google Scholar]
  56. Tahir, M.; Fiaz, N.; Nadeem, M.A.; Khalid, F.; Ali, M. Effect of different chelated zinc sources on the growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Soil Environ. 2009, 28, 179–183. [Google Scholar]
  57. Laik, R.; Singh, S.K.; Pramanick, B.; Kumari, V.; Nath, D.; Dessoky, E.S.; Attia, A.O.; Hassan, M.M.; Hossain, A. Improved method of boron fertilization in rice (Oryza sativa L.)–mustard (Brassica juncea L.) cropping system in upland calcareous soils. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Doolette, C.L.; Read, T.L.; Li, C.; Scheckel, K.G.; Donner, E.; Kopittke, P.M.; Schjoerring, J.K.; Lombi, E. Foliar application of zinc sulphate and zinc EDTA to wheat leaves: Differences in mobility, distribution, and speciation. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 4469–4481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Cakmak, I. Role of zinc in protecting plant cells from reactive oxygen species. New Phytol. 2000, 146, 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shojaei, H.; Makarian, H. The effect of nano and non-nano zinc oxide particles foliar application on yield and yield components of mungbean (Vigna radiate) under drought stress. Iranian J. Field Crops Res. 2015, 12, 727–737. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sharma, C.P.; Sharma, P.N.; Bisht, S.S.; Nautiyal, B.D. Zinc deficiency induced changes in cabbage. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Plant Nutrition Colloquim, Coventry, UK, 22–27 August 1982; Scaife, A., Ed.; Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux: Slough, UK, 1982; Volume 2, pp. 601–606. [Google Scholar]
  62. Oosterhuis, D.; Hake, K.; Burmester, C. Foliar feeding cotton. Cotton Physiol. Today Natl. Cotton Counc. Am. 1991, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  63. Umair Hassan, M.; Aamer, M.; Umer Chattha, M.; Haiying, T.; Shahzad, B.; Barbanti, L.; Nawaz, M.; Rasheed, A.; Afzal, A.; Liu, Y.; et al. The Critical Role of Zinc in Plants Facing the Drought Stress. Agriculture 2020, 10, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhang, Y.Q.; Pang, L.L.; Yan, P.; Liu, D.Y.; Zhang, W.; Yost, R.; Zhang, F.S.; Zou, C.Q. Zinc fertilizer placement affects zinc content in maize plant. Plant Soil 2013, 372, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Harris, D.; Rashid, A.; Miraj, G.; Arif, M.; Shah, H. ‘On-farm’ seed priming with zinc sulphate solution–A cost-effective way to increase the maize yield of resource-poor farmers. Field Crops Res. 2007, 102, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Norouzi, M.; Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H.; Afyuni, M. Zinc fractions in soil and uptake by wheat as affected by different preceding crops. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2014, 60, 670–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Kumari, K.; Choudhary, R.; Prasad, J.; Solanki, I.S. Long term effect of residual zinc and crop residue on zinc fractionation with different path. J. Pharma. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 2801–2807. [Google Scholar]
  68. Han, X.; Li, X.; Uren, N.; Tang, C. Zinc fractions and availability to soybeans in representative soils of Northeast China. J. Soils Sediments 2011, 11, 596–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sharma, B.L.; Bapat, P.N. Levels of micronutrient cations in various plant parts of wheat as influenced by zinc and phosphorus application. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2000, 48, 130–134. [Google Scholar]
  70. Khan, H.; Maitlo, A.A. Yield and micronutrients content of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under a multinutrient fertilizer-Hal-tonic. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2006, 8, 366–370. [Google Scholar]
  71. Panwar, A.S.; Shamim, M.; Babu, S.; Ravishankar, N.; Prusty, A.K.; Alam, N.M.; Singh, D.K.; Bindhu, J.S.; Kaur, J.; Dashora, L.N.; et al. Enhancement in productivity, nutrients use efficiency, and economics of rice-wheat cropping systems in India through farmer’s participatory approach. Sustainability 2018, 11, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yadav, R.L. Assessing on-farm efficiency and economics of fertilizers N, P and K in rice-wheat system of India. Field Crops Res. 2003, 81, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rehman, H.U.; Aziz, T.; Farooq, M.; Wakeel, A.; Rengel, Z. Zinc nutrition in rice production systems: A review. Plant Soil 2012, 361, 203–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ma, Y.B.; Uren, N.C. Effect of aging on the availability of zinc added to a calcareous clay soil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2006, 76, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Muthukumararaja, T.M.; Sriramachandrasekharan, M.V. Effect of zinc on yield, zinc nutrition and zinc use efficiency of low land rice. J. Agric. Technol. 2012, 8, 551–561. [Google Scholar]
  76. Genc, Y.; McDonald, G.K.; Graham, R.D. Critical deficiency concentration of zinc in barley genotypes differing in zinc efficiency and its relation to growth responses. J. Plant Nutr. 2002, 25, 545–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fageria, N.K.; Dos Santos, A.B.; Cobucci, T. Zinc Nutrition of Lowland Rice. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 1719–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Li, B.Y.; Zhou, D.M.; Cang, L.; Zhang, H.L.; Fan, X.H.; Qin, S.W. Soil micronutrient availability to crops as affected by long term inorganic and organic fertilizer applications. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 96, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shambhavi, S.; Kumar, R.; Padbhushan, R.; Verma, G.; Sharma, S.P.; Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, R.P. Dynamics of zinc under long term application of chemical fertilizers and amendments by maize–wheat cropping sequence in Typic Hapludalfs. Soil Use Manag. 2020, 36, 507–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rutkowska, B.; Szulc, W.; Sosulski, T.; Stępień, W. Soil micronutrient availability to crops affected by long-term inorganic and organic fertilizer applications. Plant Soil Environ. 2014, 60, 198–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Sadeghzadeh, B. A review of zinc nutrition and plant breeding. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 13, 905–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 15091 g001 550
Figure 1. Geographic area of field experiments.
Figure 1. Geographic area of field experiments.
Sustainability 14 15091 g001
Sustainability 14 15091 g002 550
Figure 2. Average temperature, rainfall, and relative humidity trends at experimental site location.
Figure 2. Average temperature, rainfall, and relative humidity trends at experimental site location.
Sustainability 14 15091 g002
Sustainability 14 15091 g003 550
Figure 3. Zn content in the soil (pooled) as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications to maize crops.
Figure 3. Zn content in the soil (pooled) as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications to maize crops.
Sustainability 14 15091 g003
Sustainability 14 15091 g004 550
Figure 4. Agronomic use efficiency as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications to maize and wheat crop.
Figure 4. Agronomic use efficiency as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications to maize and wheat crop.
Sustainability 14 15091 g004
Sustainability 14 15091 g005 550
Figure 5. Apparent Zinc recovery as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications to maize and wheat crop.
Figure 5. Apparent Zinc recovery as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications to maize and wheat crop.
Sustainability 14 15091 g005
Sustainability 14 15091 g006 550
Figure 6. Representing interactions between soil DTPA-Zn and grain yield of maize (Numerical value at the edges is maize yield (kg ha−1) and treatments in bracket).
Figure 6. Representing interactions between soil DTPA-Zn and grain yield of maize (Numerical value at the edges is maize yield (kg ha−1) and treatments in bracket).
Sustainability 14 15091 g006
Sustainability 14 15091 g007 550
Figure 7. Representing interactions between soil DTPA-Zn and grain yield of wheat (Numerical value at the edges is wheat yield (kg ha−1) and treatments in bracket).
Figure 7. Representing interactions between soil DTPA-Zn and grain yield of wheat (Numerical value at the edges is wheat yield (kg ha−1) and treatments in bracket).
Sustainability 14 15091 g007
Table
Table 1. Treatment details of the experiment.
Table 1. Treatment details of the experiment.
Treatment No.Treatment Details
Rate of Zn Application to Maize Crop Only (kg Zn ha−1)Frequency of Zn Application
to Maize Crop Only
T1Zn0 0.0No Zn applied
T2Zn1 2.5 Zn applied first year only
T3Zn2 5.0
T4Zn3 7.5
T5Zn4 10.0
T6Zn1 2.5 Zn applied alternate year
T7Zn2 5.0
T8Zn3 7.5
T9Zn4 10.0
T10Zn1 2.5 Zn applied every year
T11Zn2 5.0
T12Zn3 7.5
T13Zn4 10.0
Table
Table 2. Maize and wheat yields (kg ha−1) as influenced by rates and frequencies of fertilizer Zn applications.
Table 2. Maize and wheat yields (kg ha−1) as influenced by rates and frequencies of fertilizer Zn applications.
Treatments
(kg Zn ha−1)		Frequency of ApplicationMaize (Direct) PooledWheat (Residual) Pooled
GrainStrawTotalGrainStrawTotal
Zn0 0.0 1237 e2946 f4183 f2934 h5042 abcde7968 g
Zn1 2.5 First year
only
(F1)		1323 d3113 e4436 e3012 gh5156 abcde8179 fg
Zn2 5.0 1377 cd3216 de4593 de3096 fg5354 abcd8427 ef
Zn3 7.5 1405 bcd3318 bcd4723 cd3136 ef5401 abcd8534 def
Zn4 10.0 1397 bcd3276 cd4673 cd3190 def5491 abc8695 cde
Zn1 2.5 Alternate year
(F2)		1396 bcd3264 cd4660 d3068 fg5409 abcd8474 ef
Zn2 5.0 1440 abc3339 bcd4779 bcd3170 ef5486 abc8674 cde
Zn3 7.5 1461 abc3402 abc4863 abc3248 cde5519 abc8764 bcde
Zn4 10.0 1461 abc3395 abc4856 abc3301 bcd5672 abc8972 abc
Zn1 2.5 Every
year
(F3)		1427 abc3360 bcd4786 bcd3260 cde5420 abcd8686 cde
Zn2 5.0 1471 ab3465 ab4936 ab3332 bc5599 abc8921 bcd
Zn3 7.5 1479 ab3533 a5012 a3401 ab5760 ab9162 ab
Zn4 10.0 1513 a3542 a5054 a3508 a5846 a9355 a
Note: Treatment means in a column with the letters in common are not significant by Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test at 5% level of significance.
Table
Table 3. Zn concentration (mg kg−1) in maize and wheat crops as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications.
Table 3. Zn concentration (mg kg−1) in maize and wheat crops as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications.
Treatments
(kg Zn ha−1)		Frequency of ApplicationMaize (Direct) PooledWheat (Residual) Pooled
GrainStrawGrainStraw
Zn0 0.0 21.62 h17.16 g17.17 j14.97 g
Zn1 2.5 First year
only
(F1)		22.10 gh17.05 g18.03 ij15.44 fg
Zn2 5.0 22.84 gh17.77 fg18.78 hi16.38 ef
Zn3 7.5 23.03 fgh18.08 fg19.05 h17.17 de
Zn4 10.0 23.41 fg18.64 ef19.61 fgh17.82 cd
Zn1 2.5 Alternate year
(F2)		24.56 ef18.32 ef19.38 gh17.25 de
Zn2 5.0 25.15 de19.32 de20.40 efg17.55 cde
Zn3 7.5 25.86 de19.90 cd20.62 def18.69 bc
Zn4 10.0 26.50 cd20.61 c21.55 cd19.51 ab
Zn1 2.5 Every
year
(F3)		27.88 bc22.07 b20.68 de18.61 bc
Zn2 5.0 28.57 ab22.57 b21.78 c19.11 b
Zn3 7.5 29.30 ab23.04 ab22.90 b19.67 ab
Zn4 10.0 30.08 a24.23 a24.17 a20.62 a
Note: Treatment means in a column with the letters in common are not significantly Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test at 5% level of significance.
Table
Table 4. Zn uptake (mg kg−1) by maize and wheat crops as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications.
Table 4. Zn uptake (mg kg−1) by maize and wheat crops as influenced by different rates and frequencies of Zn applications.
Treatments
(kg Zn ha−1)		Frequency of ApplicationMaize (Direct) PooledWheat (Residual) Pooled
GrainStrawTotalGrainStrawTotal
Zn0 0.0 27.03 g50.52 j163.15 h51.32 i76.02 h260.05 i
Zn1 2.5 First year
only
(F1)		29.72 fg52.92 ij174.25 g55.80 h80.67 gh279.21 h
Zn2 5.0 32.03 ef57.01 hi187.37 f59.21 gh88.60 fg302.19 gh
Zn3 7.5 32.87 ef59.90 gh194.66 f60.96 fg93.24 ef313.52 fg
Zn4 10.0 33.35 de61.12 gh197.59 f63.80 ef97.96 def328.36 def
Zn1 2.5 Alternate year
(F2)		34.30 de59.65 gh199.38 f60.40 fg94.24 ef314.92 ef
Zn2 5.0 36.39 cd64.39 fg212.25 e66.28 e97.60 def334.48 e
Zn3 7.5 37.83 c67.57 ef221.88 de67.95 de103.09 bcde347.28 de
Zn4 10.0 38.98 bc69.83 de228.86 cd71.99 cd110.61 abc370.35 cd
Zn1 2.5 Every
year
(F3)		39.77 bc74.23 cd239.10 c68.26 cde101.64 cde343.87 cde
Zn2 5.0 42.07 ab78.21 bc252.20 b72.67 c107.41 bcd366.89 cd
Zn3 7.5 43.43 a81.47 ab262.01 ab78.57 b112.43 ab390.43 b
Zn4 10.0 45.40 a85.96 a273.60 a85.71 a120.21 a420.33 a
Note: Treatment means in a column with the letters in common are not significantly Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test at 5% level of significance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kumar, D.; Patel, K.C.; Ramani, V.P.; Shukla, A.K.; Behera, S.K.; Patel, R.A. Influence of Different Rates and Frequencies of Zn Application to Maize–Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivity and Zn Use Efficiency. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215091

AMA Style

Kumar D, Patel KC, Ramani VP, Shukla AK, Behera SK, Patel RA. Influence of Different Rates and Frequencies of Zn Application to Maize–Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivity and Zn Use Efficiency. Sustainability. 2022; 14(22):15091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215091

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kumar, Dileep, Khusvadan C. Patel, Vinubhai P. Ramani, Arvind K. Shukla, Sanjib Kumar Behera, and Ravi A. Patel. 2022. "Influence of Different Rates and Frequencies of Zn Application to Maize–Wheat Cropping on Crop Productivity and Zn Use Efficiency" Sustainability 14, no. 22: 15091. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215091

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop