Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 2 2015 ISSN 1916-9752 E-ISSN 1916-9760 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Journal of Agricultural Science; Vol. 7, No.
2; 2015
ISSN 1916-9752 E-ISSN 1916-9760
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
Relative Efficiency of Zinc-Coated Urea and Soil and Foliar

Application of Zinc Sulphate on Yield, Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Potassium, Zinc and Iron Biofortification in Grains and Uptake by
Basmati Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Yashbir Singh Shivay1, Rajendra Prasad1, Rajiv Kumar Singh2,3 & Madan Pal1
1
Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India
2
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Aligarh of Chander Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur,
India
3
Directorate of Seed Research, Village Kushmaur, Post Office, NBAIM, District Mau, Uttar Pradesh, India
Correspondence: Yashbir Singh Shivay, Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New
Delhi 110 012, India. Tel: 91-986-833-7578. E-mail: [email protected]
Received: October 10, 2014 Accepted: December 16, 2014 Online Published: January 15, 2015
doi:10.5539/jas.v7n2p161 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v7n2p161
Abstract
Two on-farm trials conducted one each in Aligarh and Meerut districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh, India on zinc
(Zn) deficient soils during the rainy season (July-October) showed that Zn application increased not only Zn
concentration and uptake by rice but also increased protein content of rice kernels and concentrations of Fe, N, P
and K due to the overall improvement in crop growth. Foliar application of Zn was better from the viewpoint of
Zn biofortification of rice kernels; nevertheless much of the foliar applied Zn was retained in husk. Since, foliar
application of Zn is made at a late stage of crop growth, hence it was not as effective as soil application in
increasing yield attributes, yield and concentration and uptake of Fe, N, P and K in rice. This study brought out
that adequate soil application of Zn sulphate followed by its foliar application is the best approach. Zn coated
urea applying less than half the amount of Zn as applied through soil + foliar application was very close to it and
is quite promising.
Keywords: basmati rice, ferti-fortification, nutrient concentrations and uptake, Zn fertilization
1. Introduction
Zinc (Zn) is now recognised as the fourth major micronutrient deficiency in humans and comes after vitamin A,
iron and iodine deficiencies (Bell & Dell, 2008). Zn deficiency leads to diarrhoea and pneumonia in infants and
children (Black et al., 2008; Graham, 2008) and is considered for responsible for childhood dwarfism (Hotz &
Brown, 2004). Zn plays an important role in production of protein and thus helps in wound healing, blood
formation and growth and maintenance of tissue (Bell & Dell, 2008).
Rice is staple food in South and Southeast Asia, where about 90% of it is grown and consumed. Polished rice
contains only 13-15 mg Zn kg-1 (Welch, 2005) and a rice based diet is thus likely to be deficient in Zn as
compared to diet containing grain legumes and animal proteins, which are rich in Zn (Prasad, 2003). Asian,
especially Indian soils are low in available Zn (Prasad, 2006; Singh, 2011) and this leads to production of low Zn
containing rice. Keeping this in view, programmes such as HarvestPlus and Golden Rice are underway to
develop rice varieties capable of producing grains denser in Zn, Fe and other micronutrients (Stein et al., 2007).
Our research at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi (Shivay et al., 2007; Shivay et al.,
2008a, 2008b, 2008c; Shivay et al., 2010; Shivay & Prasad, 2012; Shivay et al., 2013; Shivay & Prasad, 2014)
has shown that Zn concentration in rice, wheat, barley and corn grains can be easily increased by adequate Zn
fertilization of crops and agronomic biofortification of cereals with Zn and Fe, which are essential plant
micronutrients (Prasad & Power, 1997) is a faster and easier way for achieving the goal of obtaining cereal
grains denser in Zn. As a follow-up of our research at IARI, two on-farm field trials were therefore conducted to
familiarize the farmers about the biofortification of rice grains with Zn and this paper reports the results of these
on-farm trials.
161
www.ccsenet.org/jas Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 2; 2015
2. Materials and Methods

2.1 Description of Study Area
On-farm experiments were conducted at two different places. First on-farm trial was conducted at the Krishi
Vigyan Kendra (KVK), Aligarh of Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture & Technology, Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh, India during rainy season (July-October) of 2008 on a sandy clay loam soil (typic Ustochrept).
The soil of experimental field had 133.7 kg ha-1 alkaline permanganate oxidizable nitrogen (N) (Subbiah & Asija,
1956), 12.3 kg ha-1 available phosphorus (P) (Olsen et al., 1954), 295.1 kg ha-1 1 N ammonium acetate
exchangeable potassium (K) (Hanway & Heidel, 1952) and 0.36% organic carbon (C) (Walkley & Black, 1934).
The pH of soil was 8.5 (1: 2.5 soil and water ratio) (Prasad et al., 2006) and diethylene triamine penta acetic acid
(DTPA) extractable Zn and Fe (Lindsay & Norvell, 1978) in soil were 0.33 and 3.7 mg kg-1 of soil, respectively.
The second on-farm trial was conducted at Kulimanpur village of Meerut district, Uttar Pradesh, India during
rainy season (July-October) of 2008 on a sandy loam soil. The soils of experimental field at second site had
127.3 kg ha-1 alkaline permanganate oxidizable nitrogen (N) (Subbiah & Asija, 1956), 14.7 kg ha-1 available
phosphorus (P) (Olsen et al., 1954), 278.9 kg ha-1 1 N ammonium acetate exchangeable potassium (K) (Hanway
& Heidel, 1952) and 0.35% organic carbon (C) (Walkley & Black, 1934). The pH of soil was 8.2 (1:2.5 soil and
water ratio) (Prasad et al., 2006) and diethylene triamine penta acetic acid (DTPA) extractable Zn and Fe
(Lindsay & Norvell, 1978) in soil were 0.35 and 4.9 mg kg-1 of soil, respectively. The critical level of DTPA
extractable Zn for rice grown on alluvial soils in the rice-wheat belt of north India varies from 0.38-0.90 mg kg−1
soil (Takkar et al., 1997) and thus the response of Basmati rice to Zn application was expected on the
experimental field.
2.2 Experimental Treatments and Design
The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with six replications on both sites. The treatments
were: check (control, no Zn), 5 kg Zn ha-1 to soil as Zn sulpfate (soil), 1 kg Zn ha-1 as Zn suphate to foliage
(foliar), 5 kg Zn ha-1 (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha-1 (foliar) and 2.83 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn-coated urea (soil).
2.3 Application of Treatments and Fertilizers
The experimental field was disk-ploughed twice, puddled three times with a puddler in standing water and
levelled. At final puddling 26 kg P ha−1 as single superphosphate and 33 kg K ha−1 as muriate of potash was
broadcasted. Addition of 26 kg P as single super phosphate also supplied 45 kg S ha−1 and takes care of S
deficiency (if any). Nitrogen at 130 kg N ha–1 as prilled urea or Zn-coated urea (ZnCU) was band applied in two
equal splits, half 10 days after transplanting (DAT) and the other half at panicle initiation (40 DAT). Thus, Zn in
ZnCU was band applied. When applied at the site, ZnCU supplied 2.83 kg Zn ha–1 for the 1.0% Zn coatings onto
prilled urea. Foliar application of Zn was made at flowering and 0.5% ZnSO4·7H2O foliar application at the rate
of 1,000 liters of solution ha−1 (+ 2.5 kg ha-1 lime) which supplied 1.0 kg Zn ha−1.
2.4 Rice Transplanting
Two 25-day-old seedlings of rice were transplanted per hill at 20 cm × 10 cm in the first fortnight of July at both
the places of study. The ‘Pusa Sugandh 5’, a derivative of Pusa 3A Karnal Basmati, is a semi-dwarf (90–100 cm
height), high yielding basmati rice variety released in the year 2004 by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi, for commercial cultivation was transplanted in Meerut district of Uttar Pradesh. However, in Aligarh
district ‘Pusa Basmati 1’ was transplanted which is an aromatic (Basmati) variety released from Indian
Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India during 1989 for its commercial cultivation. It is a cross
between ‘Pusa 150’ and ‘Karnal Lokal’. It produces long slender grains with good aroma and excellent cooking
qualities (Rani et al., 2009; V. P. Singh & A. K. Singh, 2009; Siddiq et al., 2012). Irrigation channels measuring 1
m wide were placed between the replications to ensure easy and uninterrupted flow of irrigation water where an
individual plot was independently irrigated from the irrigation channels. Rice crop was grown as per
recommended package of practices and was harvested in the second fortnight of October at both the places.
2.5 Recording of Growth, Yield Attributes and Yields of Rice
Ten hills were randomly selected in each plot for measuring plant height and fertile tillers hill-1 10 days before
harvest and the average values were computed. Similarly, 10 panicles were randomly selected from each plot for
recording the data on yield attributes (fertile tillers hill-1, panicle length, grains panicle-1 and 1,000-grain weight).
At harvest, grain, straw and biological yields have been recorded for each plot and finally converted into tonnes
ha-1. The rice grain yield was recorded at 14% moisture. The rough rice grains were hulled and rice kernel and
rice husk yields were obtained which were used for chemical analysis of mineral nutrients such as Zn, Fe, N, P
and K.
162
2.6 Chemical Analysis of Zn and Fe Concentration in Rice Kernel, Rice Husk and Rice Straw
At harvest, samples of rice kernel, rice husk and rice starw were drawn from each plot of the experiment for the
chemical analysis of Zn and Fe concentrations. Zn and Fe in rice kernel, husk and straw samples was analysed
on a di-acid (HClO4 + HNO3 in 3:10 ratio) digest on an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Prasad et al.,
2006). Thereafter, the uptake of the Zn and Fe was calculated by multiplying Zn and Fe concentrations with
respective plot yield of rice kernel, rice husk and rice straw yields.
2.7 Chemical Analysis of N, P and K in Rice Kernel, Rice Husk and Rice Straw
At harvest, samples of rice kernel, rice husk and rice starw were drawn from each plot of the experiment for the
chemical analysis of N, P and K as per the procedure described by Prasad et al. (2006). Finally recorded data in
all the six replications were subjected to statistical analysis and final tabulation were done of the statistically
analyzed data.
2.8 Statistical Analysis
All the data obtained from rice for this study were statistically analyzed using the t-test as per the procedure
given by K. A. Gomez and A. A. Gomez (1984). LSD values at P = 0.05 were used to determine the significance
of differences between treatment means.
3. Results
A. Aligarh Site
3.1 Yield Attributes
Zn application significantly increased tillers m-2 and grains panicle-1 in rice, but not the panicle length and
1,000-grain weight (Table 1). Tillers m-2 and grains panicle-1 were the most with soil + foliar application of Zn
sulphate (ZnS), significantly more than soil application of ZnS or Zn-coated urea (ZnCU), which in turn was
significantly superior to foliar application of ZnS.
Table 1. Effect of various zinc treatments on yield attributes of aromatic rice [Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh site]
Plant height Panicle Grains 1,000-grain
Treatments Tillers m-2
(cm) length (cm) panicle-1 (Nos.) weight (g)
Check 104 310 24 85 21.1
-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 107 326 26 91 22.2
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 105 318 25 88 22.0
-1 -1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha
108 342 27 94 22.7
(foliar)
2.83 kg Zn ha-1 through
107 328 26 91 22.3
Zn-coated urea (soil)
SEm± 2.12 3.51 0.79 1.03 0.38
LSD (p = 0.05) NS 9.95 NS 2.93 NS
3.2 Yields
Zn application significantly increased grain and straw yield as well as harvest index of rice (Table 2). The
highest values of grain, kernel, husk, straw and biological yield were obtained with soil + foliar application of
ZnS, followed by soil application of ZnCU, which in turn was significantly superior to soil application of ZnS
(Table 2). Foliar application of ZnS recorded the lowest values for all yields. Harvest index was also the highest
for soil + foliar application of ZnS followed by ZnCU, which in turn was followed by soil or foliar application of
ZnS.
163
Table 2. Effect of various zinc treatments on yields of aromatic rice [Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh site]
Rice grain Rice kernel Rice husk Rice straw Biological Harvest
Treatments
yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) index (%)
Check 3.58 2.40 1.18 6.80 10.38 34.5
-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 3.93 2.63 1.30 7.45 11.38 34.4
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 3.80 2.55 1.25 7.25 11.05 34.4
-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg
4.52 3.03 1.50 8.12 12.63 35.7
Zn ha-1 (foliar)
2.83 kg Zn ha-1 through
4.10 2.75 1.35 7.63 11.73 35.1
Zn-coated urea (soil)
SEm± 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.21
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.11 0.60
3.3 Zn Concentration and Uptake

Zn application increased Zn concentration in rice kernls, husk and straw and the highest values were obtained for
soil + foliar application of ZnS (Table 3). In the case of kernels and straw soil + foliar application of ZnS
recorded significantly higher Zn concentration than ZnCU, which in turn was superior to soil or foliar
application of ZnS. In the case of husk ZnCU was superior to to foliar application of ZnS, which in turn was
superior to soil application of ZnS. Foliar application of ZnS significantly increased Zn concentration in husk but
not in kernels.
Zn application increased Zn uptake by rice. In husk and straw as well as in total Zn uptake by rice various
treatments were in the following order: soil + foliar application of ZnS > ZnCU > foliar application of Zn > soil
application of Zn; soil + foliar application recording the highest Zn uptake. However in the case of rice kernels,
soil or foliar application of Zn recorded the same value for Zn uptake.
Table 3. Effect of various zinc treatments on zinc concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
uptake in aromatic rice [Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh site]
Zn concentration in
Zn concentration in
Zn concentration in
Total Zn uptake in
rice kernel (mg kg-1
rice husk (mg kg-1
rice straw (mg kg-1
Zn uptake in rice
Zn uptake in rice
Zn uptake in rice
rice crop (g ha-1)

kernel (g ha-1)
straw (g ha-1)
husk (g ha-1)
Treatments
rice kernel)
rice straw)
rice husk)
Check 20.0 125.0 91.0 48.0 147.5 618.8 814.3

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 21.3 130.0 100.0 56.0 169.0 745.0 970.0
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 22.0 147.0 102.0 56.1 183.8 739.5 979.4
-1 -1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 25.0 175.0 107.0 75.7 262.5 868.8 1207.0
-1
2.83 kg Zn ha through Zn-coated urea (soil) 23.8 170.0 105.0 65.5 229.5 801.2 1096.2
SEm± 0.30 1.46 0.98 1.07 2.41 7.95 9.27
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.86 4.13 2.78 3.02 6.82 22.55 26.26
3.4 Iron Concentration and Uptake

Soil application of ZnS or ZnCU significantly increased Fe concentration in rice kernels, husk and straw. In the
case of kernels and husk, soil application of ZnS, ZnCU or soil + foliar application of ZnS were at par (Table 4).
However, soil + foliar application of ZnS or ZnCU recorded significantly higher concentration in rice straw than
soil application of ZnS. Foliar application of ZnS had no effect on Fe concentration by rice.
Zn application increased Fe uptake by rice. As regards grain and straw and total Fe uptake by rice, different
164
treatments were in the following order: soil + foliar application of ZnS > ZnCU > soil aplication of ZnS > foliar
application of ZnS. In the case of husk soil application of ZnS and ZnCU were at par. In general, as a contrast to
Zn uptake, soil application of Zn recorded the higher Fe uptake than foliar application of ZnS.
Table 4. Effect of various zinc treatments on Fe concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
Fe concentration in
rice kernel (mg kg-1
Fe concentration in
rice husk (mg kg-1
Fe concentration in
rice straw (mg kg-1
Total Fe uptake in
Fe uptake in rice
Fe uptake in rice
Fe uptake in rice
rice crop (g ha-1)

kernel (g ha-1)
straw (g ha-1)
husk (g ha-1)
Treatments
rice kernel)
rice straw)
rice husk)
Check 8.2 12.3 42.0 19.7 14.5 285.6 319.8
-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 9.0 13.4 48.0 23.7 17.4 357.6 398.7
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 8.4 12.8 45.0 21.4 16.0 326.3 363.7
-1 -1
-1
SEm± 0.15 0.39 0.58 0.79 0.53 4.55 4.59

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.44 1.10 1.66 2.24 1.51 12.88 13.01
3.5 Nitrogen Concentration and Uptake

Zn application significantly increased N concentration and crude protein content in rice kernel and N
concentration in straw. In general, soil + foliar application of ZnS or ZnCU recorded significantly higher N
concentration in rice kernel and straw than foliar application of ZnS (Table 5). The N concentration in rice kernel
was about 2.5 times of that in straw.
As regards N uptake by rice kernel, straw as well as total N uptake by rice crop, different treatments were in
the following order: soil + foliar application of ZnS > soil application of ZnCU > soil application of ZnS > foliar
application of ZnS; soil + foliar application recording the highest N uptake.
Table 5. Effect of various zinc treatments on N concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
uptake in aromatic rice and crude protein content in brown rice [Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh site]
N concentration in
N concentration in
protein
content in rice
N uptake in rice
N uptake in rice
Total N uptake in
rice crop (kg ha-1)
kernel (kg ha-1)
rice kernel (%)
straw (kg ha-1)

rice straw (%)
Treatments
kernel (%)
Crude
Check 1.50 0.62 36.0 42.2 78.2 8.92

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 1.60 0.66 42.1 49.2 91.3 9.52
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 1.53 0.64 39.0 46.4 85.4 9.10
-1 -1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 1.62 0.67 49.1 54.4 103.5 9.64
-1
2.83 kg Zn ha through Zn-coated urea (soil) 1.61 0.67 44.3 51.1 95.4 9.58
SEm± 0.007 0.005 0.54 0.41 0.61 0.05
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.020 0.015 1.54 1.16 1.72 0.14
3.6 Phosphorus Concentration and Uptake

A significant increase in P concentration in rice due to Zn application was recorded only in kernels, where soil
165
application of ZnS recorded significantly higher P concentration than foliar application of ZnS or soil application
of ZnS. Least P concentration was recorded with soil + foliar application of ZnS (Table 6).
Uptake of P by kernel was much more than that by husk or straw. In kernels and total P uptake by rice was the
highest with soil application of ZnS followed by soil + foliar application of ZnS or ZnCU, which were at par.
Least P uptake by kernels and total P uptake by the rice crop was recorded with foliar application of ZnS.
Table 6. Effect of various zinc treatments on P concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
P concentration in
P concentration in
P concentration in
Total P uptake in
P uptake in rice
P uptake in rice
P uptake in rice
rice crop (kg ha-1)

kernel (kg ha-1)
rice kernel (%)
straw (kg ha-1)

rice straw (%)
husk (kg ha-1)

rice husk (%)
Treatments
Check 0.64 0.03 0.07 15.36 0.35 4.76 20.47

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 0.73 0.04 0.08 19.20 0.52 5.96 27.68
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 0.64 0.03 0.08 16.32 0.38 5.80 22.56
-1 -1
-1
SEm± 0.007 0.002 0.005 0.66 0.021 0.26 0.44
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.020 0.004 NS 0.75 0.060 0.75 1.24
3.7 Potassium Concentration and Uptake

Zn application significantly increased K concentration in kernels only and soil application of ZnS and soil +
foliar application of ZnS were at par significantly superior to soil application of ZnCU or foliar application of Zn
(Table 7).
As regards K uptake in kernels, soil + foliar application of ZnS recorded the highest K uptake followed by the
soil application of ZnCU and soil or foliar application of ZnS. In husk the treatments were in the following order:
soil + foliar application of ZnS > soil application of ZnCU or ZnS > foliar application of ZnS. Straw contributed
most to K uptake by rice and different treatments were in the following order: soil + foliar application of ZnS >
soil application of ZnCU > soil application of ZnS > foliar application of ZnS.
Table 7. Effect of various zinc treatments on K concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
K concentration in
K concentration in
K concentration in
Total K uptake in
K uptake in rice
K uptake in rice
K uptake in rice
rice crop (kg ha-1)

kernel (kg ha-1)
rice kernel (%)
straw (kg ha-1)

rice straw (%)
husk (kg ha-1)

rice husk (%)
Treatments
Check 0.18 0.47 3.40 4.32 5.55 231.2 241.1

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 0.20 0.49 3.67 4.26 6.37 273.4 285.0
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 0.19 0.47 3.53 4.84 5.88 255.9 266.6
-1 -1
-1
SEm± 0.004 0.007 0.013 0.12 0.11 1.52 2.11
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.012 0.021 0.037 0.34 0.31 4.31 5.99
166
3.8 Zn, N, P and K Concentration in Fag Leaf

Zn application significantly increased Zn, N and K concentration but not the P concentration in rice flag leaf
(Table 8). Soil + foliar application of ZnS and soil applicastion of ZnCU were at par and significantly superior to
soil or foliar application of ZnS. As regards N concentration in flag leaf, different treatments were in the
following order: soil application of ZnCU > soil + foliar applcation of ZnS > soil application of ZnS > foliar
application of ZnS.
Table 8. Effect of various zinc treatments on Zn, Fe, N, P and K concentrations in aromatic rice flag leaf [Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh site]
Zn concentration in
N concentration P concentration in K content in rice
Treatments rice flag leaf (mg
in rice leaf (%) rice flag leaf (%) flag leaf (%)
kg-1 rice leaf DM)
Check 95.0 1.29 0.35 4.04

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 105.0 1.39 0.36 4.31
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 107.0 1.32 0.40 4.15
-1 -1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 112.0 1.41 0.41 4.47
-1
2.83 kg Zn ha through Zn-coated urea (soil) 111.0 1.46 0.42 4.58
SEm± 1.01 0.005 0.025 0.06
LSD (p = 0.05) 2.86 0.014 0.072 0.16
B. Meerut Site
3.9 Yield Attributes
Zn application significantly increased tillers m-2 and grains panicle-1 but not the panicle length and 1,000-grain
weight (Table 9). Soil application of ZnS or ZnCU or soil + foliar application of ZnS resulted in significantly
more effective tillers than foliar application of ZnS. The highest number of grains panicle-1 were produced by
soil application of ZnS or ZnCU.
Table 9. Effect of various zinc treatments on yield attributes of aromatic rice [Meerut, Uttar Pradesh site]
Plant Effective Panicle Grains panicle-1 1,000-grain
Treatments
height (cm) tillers hill-1 length (cm) (Nos.) weight (g)
Check 105 7.1 27.0 124 24.0
-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 108 7.8 27.7 131 24.5
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 107 7.3 27.4 128 24.3
-1 -1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 109 8.0 28.0 125 24.7
-1
2.83 kg Zn ha through Zn-coated urea
109 7.8 27.8 131 24.5
(soil)
SEm± 2.25 0.10 0.63 1.20 0.40
LSD (p = 0.05) NS 0.27 NS 3.40 NS
3.10 Yields
Zn application significantly increased grain and straw yield as well as harvest index in rice (Table 10). Soil +
foliar application of ZnS recorded significantly more grain, kernel, husk and total biological yield than other
treatments. As regards straw yield, soil + foliar appplication of ZnS was at par with soil application of ZnCU and
both these treatments were significantly superior to soil or foliar application of ZnS. Harvest index was not
significantly affected by Zn application.
167
Table 10. Effect of various zinc treatments on yields of aromatic rice [Meerut, Uttar Pradesh site]
Rice grain Rice kernel Rice husk Rice straw Biological Harvest
Treatments
yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) yield (t ha-1) index (%)
Check 5.40 3.62 1.78 8.50 13.90 38.8

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 5.70 3.82 1.88 8.90 14.60 39.0
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 5.60 3.75 1.85 8.70 14.30 39.2
-1 -1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha
6.00 4.02 1.98 9.20 15.20 39.5
(foliar)
2.83 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn-coated

5.70 3.82 1.88 9.00 14.70 38.8
urea (soil)
SEm± 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.14 0.44
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.27 0.20 0.09 0.26 0.40 NS
3.11 Zinc Concntration and Uptake

Zn application increased Zn concentation in rice kernel, husk and straw of rice (Table 11). Zn concentration in
rice kernels was the highest with soil application of ZnCU, signicantly more than that obtained with soil + foliar
application of ZnS, which in turn was superior to foliar application of ZnS. However, foliar application of ZnS
recorded significantly more Zn concentration in rice kernels than soil aplication of ZnS. Zn concentration in rice
husk was the highest with soil + foliar application of ZnS, significantly superior to foliar application of ZnS,
which in turn was superior to ZnCU. Lowest Zn concentration was obtained with soil application of ZnS. As
regards Zn concentration in straw, soil + foliar application of ZnS and soil application of ZnCU were at par and
significantly superior to foliar application of ZnS, which in turn was superior to soil application of ZnS.
Zn uptake significantly increased Zn uptake by rice kernels, husk and straw in rice and this resulted in a
significant increase in total Zn uptake by rice. As regards rice kernels soil + foliar application of ZnS and soil
application of ZnCU were at par and significantly superior to soil or foliar application of ZnS. In the case of rice
husk, foliar aplication of ZnS was next only to soil + foliar application of ZnS and was followed by soil
application of ZnCU. Soil application of ZnS recorded the least Zn uptake by rice.
Table 11. Effect of various zinc treatments on Zn concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
uptake in aromatic rice [Meerut, Uttar Pradesh site]
Zn concentration
in rice kernel (mg
Zn concentration
Zn concentration
in rice husk (mg
in rice straw (mg
Total Zn uptake in
Zn uptake in rice
Zn uptake in rice
Zn uptake in rice
rice crop (g ha-1)

kg-1 rice kernel)
kg-1 rice straw)

kg-1 rice husk)
kernel (g ha-1)
straw (g ha-1)
husk (g ha-1)
Treatments
Check 18.0 17.7 110.3 65.2 31.5 937.6 1034.3

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 18.7 23.8 117.0 71.4 44.7 1041.3 1157.4
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 20.2 34.7 124.2 75.8 64.2 1080.5 1220.5
-1 -1
-1
SEm± 0.28 0.42 0.49 2.57 1.29 15.3 15.76
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.79 1.20 1.40 7.30 3.65 43.3 44.65
3.12 Iron Concentration and Uptake

Fe concentration in rice kernels, husk and straw was increased by Zn application and for all the components soil
+ foliar application of ZnS or ZnCU were at par and significantly superior to foliar application of ZnS (Table 12).
Foliar application of ZnS had no significant effect on Fe concentration in rice kernels, husk and straw.
168
All treatments except foliar application of Zn significantly increased Fe uptake by rice kernels, husk and straw
and total Fe uptake by rice crop.
Table 12. Effect of various zinc treatments on Fe concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
Fe uptake in rice
Fe uptake in rice
Fe uptake in rice
Fe concentration
in rice kernel (mg
Fe concentration
in rice husk (mg
Fe concentration
in rice straw (mg
Total Fe uptake in
rice crop (g ha-1)
kg-1 rice kernel)
kg-1 rice straw)

kg-1 rice husk)
kernel (g ha-1)
straw (g ha-1)
husk (g ha-1)
Treatments
Check 21.2 56.0 98.2 76.7 99.7 834.7 1011.1

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 22.4 58.0 103.6 85.6 109.0 922.0 1116.6
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 21.6 55.0 100.3 81.0 101.8 872.6 1055.4
-1 -1
-1
SEm± 0.37 0.50 1.59 2.26 2.23 24.26 29.07

LSD (p = 0.05) 1.06 1.42 4.51 6.40 6.31 68.34 82.37
3.13 Nitrogen Concentration and Uptake

Nitrogen concentration and crude protein content in rice kernels was significntly increased due to Zn fertilization
and soil + foliar application of ZnS and soil application of ZnCU were at par and significantly superior to soil
application of ZnS, which in turn was significantly superior to foliar application of ZnS (Table 13).
Nitrogen uptake by rice kernels and straw and total N uptake by the rice crop was most with soil + foliar
application ZnS or ZnCU, which were at par. Foliar application of ZnS recorded the lowest N uptake.
Table 13. Effect of various zinc treatments on N concentrations in rice kernel, rice straw and their uptake in
aromatic rice and also crude protein content [Meerut, Uttar Pradesh site]
N concentration in
N concentration in
protein
Total N uptake in
content in rice
N uptake in rice
N uptake in rice
rice crop (kg ha-1)

kernel (kg ha-1)
rice kernel (%)
straw (kg ha-1)

rice straw (%)
Treatments
kernel (%)
Crude
Check 1.29 0.79 46.7 67.1 113.8 7.7

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 1.43 0.89 54.6 79.2 133.8 8.5
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 1.34 0.85 50.2 74.0 124.2 8.0
-1 -1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) + 1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 1.50 0.92 60.3 84.6 144.9 8.9
-1
2.83 kg Zn ha through Zn-coated urea (soil) 1.47 0.85 56.2 76.5 132.7 8.7
SEm± 0.01 0.005 1.55 1.23 2.39 0.08
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.03 0.014 4.41 3.48 6.77 0.23
3.14 Phosphorus Concentration and Uptake

In rice kernels soil application of ZnCU recorded the highest P concentration and was followed by soil + foliar
application of ZnS, which in turn was significantly superior to soil application of ZnS (Table 14). In the case of
husk, however, soil + foliar application of ZnS was superior to soil application of ZnS or ZnCU, which were at
par. In straw, soil application of ZnCU recorded the highest P concentration followed by soil application of ZnS,
169
which in turn was significantly superior to soil + foliar application of ZnS.

Phosphorus uptake by rice kernels was increased by soil application of ZnS or ZnCU or soil + foliar application
of ZnS, which were at par. Foliar application of ZnS did not increase P uptake by rice crop. Zn application did
not increase P uptake by husk. However in rice straw, different treatrments were in the following order: soil
application of ZnCU > soil application of ZnS > soil + foliar application of Zn > foliar application of ZnS. Soil
application of ZnCU recorded the highest P uptake, significantly higher than soil + foliar application of ZnS or
soil application of ZnS Foliar application of ZnS did not increase P uptake by rice.
Table 14. Effect of various zinc treatments on P concentrations in rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
P uptake in rice
P uptake in rice
P uptake in rice
P concentration in
P concentration in
P concentration in
Total P uptake in
rice crop (kg ha-1)
kernel (kg ha-1)
rice kernel (%)
straw (kg ha-1)

rice straw (%)
husk (kg ha-1)

rice husk (%)
Treatments
Check 0.58 0.063 0.14 21.00 1.12 11.90 34.02

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 0.66 0.065 0.19 25.21 1.22 16.91 43.34
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 0.55 0.063 0.15 20.62 1.16 13.05 34.83
-1 -1
-1
SEm± 0.006 0.0004 0.004 0.49 0.086 0.48 1.035
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.016 0.0011 0.011 1.38 0.283 1.37 2.931
3.15 Potassium Concentration and Uptake

A significant increase in K concentration in rice kernels was obtained only with soil + foliar application of ZnS
or soil application of ZnCU (Table 15). There was no significant increase in K uptake due to Zn application. In
the case of rice straw, soil application of ZnS or ZnCU or soil + foliar application of ZnS were at par and
significantly superior to foliar application of ZnS.
Foliar application of ZnS did not significantly increase K uptake in rice kernels or husk, but did so in straw and
therefore in total K uptake by rice crop. Soil application of ZnS or ZnCU and soil + foliar application of ZnS
recorded significantly more K uptake than foliar application of ZnS.
Table 15. Effect of various zinc treatments on K concentrations of rice kernel, rice husk, rice straw and their
K concentration in
K concentration in
K concentration in
Total K uptake in
K uptake in rice
K uptake in rice
K uptake in rice
rice crop (kg ha-1)

kernel (kg ha-1)
rice kernel (%)
straw (kg ha-1)

rice straw (%)
husk (kg ha-1)

rice husk (%)
Treatments
Check 0.31 0.34 1.78 11.22 6.05 151.30 168.57

-1
5 kg Zn ha (soil) 0.33 0.37 1.87 12.61 6.96 166.43 186.00
-1
1 kg Zn ha (foliar) 0.32 0.35 1.84 12.00 6.48 160.08 178.56
-1 -1
-1
SEm± 0.007 0.009 0.013 0.39 0.21 2.59 2.92
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.021 NS 0.037 1.10 0.60 7.34 8.26
170
4. Discussion
Foliar application of Zn resulted in higher Zn concentration in rice kernels than soil application of ZnS in the
on-farm trial in Meerut but not at the Farmers Science Centre in Aligarh. However in both the on-farm trials Zn
concentration in husk was sugnificantly more with foliar than with soil application of Zn. Impa and
Johnson-Beebout (2012) reported that biofortification recovery of Zn with foliar application was 8 times of that
obtained with soil application. However data reported by Shivay and Prasad (2010) suggested that Zn
concentration in rice grain was 47.5 mg kg-1, while that in kernel was only 40.3 mg kg-1. Thus more of foliar
applied Zn tended to be retained by the husk. From a study involving multi-country and multi-location trials,
Phattrakul et al. (2012) also reported that a major share of foliar applied Zn was retained in husk.
It needs to be considered that in Asian countries food security is a serious problem alongwith low Zn
concentration in rice (Prasad et al., 2014). In the present study, highest values of yield attributes, rice grain yield
and concentrations and uptake of Zn, Fe, N, P and K were obtained by soil + foliar application of Zn. This is
because soil applied Zn on Zn deficient soils results in overall better growth, higher yield attributes and grain and
straw yield in rice (Pooniya & Shivay, 2013), which results in increased uptake of all nutrients. This does not
happen with foliar application of Zn, which is made at a much latter stage of crop growth. Soil application of Zn
but not the foliar application of Zn also resulted in increased crude protein content in rice kernels, which is
important from the viewpoint of wide spread protein malnutrition in India and other Asian countries (Prasad,
2003).
For most of the characters studied ZnCU performed better than ZnS and was next only to soil + foliar application
of Zn. These results are in conformity of our results reported earlier (Shivay et al., 2007, 2008a; Prasad et al.,
2013). The major advantage with ZnCU is saving in the amount of Zn to be applied; only 2.83 kg Zn ha-1 was
applied with ZnCU as against 6 kg Zn ha-1 in the case of soil + foliar application of ZnS. The ZnCU is therefore
a promising fertilizer.
Zn application also increased Fe, N, P and K concentration and uptake in rice. Thus, a soil-foliar Zn
biofortification programme also results in enrichment of rice kernels in Fe, N, P and K. A close relationship
between Zn, Fe, N, P and K in wheat germplasms has been reported by Gomez-Beccera et al. (2010) and Zhao et
al. (2009).
In conclusion, the present study brings out that for increased production of rice alongwith its biofortification with
micronutrients Zn and Fe, adequate soil application of Zn should be followed by some foliar application of Zn.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Director and Head, Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi 110 012, India for providing necessary facilities to carry out this research work. Rajendra Prasad is
grateful to the Indian National Science Academy for awarding him an Honorary Scientist position, which made
this research possible.
References
Bell, D. W., & Dell, B. (2008). Micronutrients for sustainable food, feed, fibre and bioenergy products (p. 175).
International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris.
Black, R. E., Lindsay, H. A., Bhutta, Z. A., Caulfield, L. E., DeOnnis, M., Ezzat, M., ... Rivera, J. (2008).
Maternal and child under nutrition: Global and regional exposures and health consequences. Lancet, 371,
243-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61690-0
Gomez, K. A., & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Gomez-Becerra, H. F., Yazici, A., Ozturk, L., Budak, H., Peleg, Z., Morgounov, A., ... Cakmak, I. (2010).
Genetic variation and environmental stability of grain mineral nutrient concentrations in Triticum
dicoccoides under five environments. Euphytica, 171, 39-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-9987-3
Graham, R. D. (2008). Micronutrient deficiencies in crops and their global significance. In B. J. Alloway (Ed.),
Micronutrient deficiencies in global crop production (pp. 41-61). Springer, Dordrecht.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6860-7_2
Hanway, J. J., & Heidel, H. (1952). Soil analysis methods as used in Iowa State College Soil Testing Laboratory.
Bulletin 57. Ames, IA: Iowa State College of Agriculture.
Hotz, C., & Brown, K. H. (2004). Assessment of the risk of zinc deficiency in populations and options for its
171
control. International Zinc Nutrition Consultative Group Technical Document No 1. Food Nutrition Bulletin,
25, S91-S204.
Impa, S. M., & Johnson-Beebout, S. E. (2012). Mitigating zinc deficiency and achieving high grain Zn in rice
through integration of soil chemistry and plant physiology research. Plant and Soil, 361, 3-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1315-3
Lindsay, W. L., & Norvell, W. A. (1978). Development of DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 42, 421-428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x
Olsen, R., Cole, C. V., Watanabe, F. S., & Dean, L. A. (1954). Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by
extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Circular 939 United States Department of Agriculture. Washington,
DC: US Government Printing Office.
Phattarakul, N., Rerkasem, B., Li, L. J., Wu, L. H., Zou, C. Q., Ram, H., ... Cakmak, I. (2012). Biofortification of
rice grain with zinc through zinc fertilization in different countries. Plant and Soil, 361, 131-141.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1211-x
Pooniya, V., & Shivay, Y. S. (2013). Enrichment of Basmati rice grain and straw with zinc and nitrogen through
ferti-fortification and summer green manuring under Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Journal of Plant
Nutrition, 36(1), 91-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2012.733052
Prasad, R. (2003). Protein-energy malnutrition in India. Fertiliser News, 48(4), 13-26.
Prasad, R. (2006). Zinc in soils and in plant, human and animal nutrition. Indian Journal of Fertilizers, 2,
103-119.
Prasad, R., & Power, J. F. (1997). Soil Fertility Management for Sustainable Agriculture (p. 356). Boca Raton,
New York: CRC, Lewis Publishers.
Prasad, R., Shivay, Y. S., & Kumar, D. (2013). Zinc fertilization of cereals for increased production and
alleviation of zinc malnutrition in India. Agricultural Research, 2(2), 111-118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40003-013-0064-8
Prasad, R., Shivay, Y. S., & Kumar, D. (2014). Agronomic biofortification of cereal grains with iron and zinc.
Advances in Agronomy, 125, 55-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800137-0.00002-9
Prasad, R., Shivay, Y. S., Kumar, D., & Sharma, S. N. (2006). Learning by Doing Exercises in Soil Fertility (A
Practical Manual for Soil Fertility) (pp. 68). Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural Research Institute,
New Delhi.
Rani, N. S., Prasad, G. S. V., & Viraktamath, B. C. (2009). National system for evaluation of Basmati rices for
yield and quality traits. Indian Farming, 59, 7-11.
Shivay, Y. S., & Prasad, R. (2012). Zinc-coated urea improves productivity and quality of Basmati rice (Oryza
sativa L.) under zinc stress condition. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 35, 928-951.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2012.663444
Shivay, Y. S., & Prasad, R. (2014). Effect of source and methods of zinc application on corn productivity,
nitrogen and zinc concentrations and uptake by high quality protein corn (Zea mays). Egyptian Journal of
Biology, 16(1), 72-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ejb.v16i1.10
Shivay, Y. S., Kumar, D., & Prasad, R. (2008a). Effect of zinc-enriched urea on productivity, zinc uptake and
efficiency of an aromatic rice-wheat cropping system. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 81(3), 229-243.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10705-007-9159-6
Shivay, Y. S., Kumar, D., & Prasad, R. (2008c). Relative efficiency of zinc sulphate and zinc oxide coated urea in
rice-wheat cropping system. Communication in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 39, 1154-1167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103620801925869
Shivay, Y. S., Kumar, D., Ahlawat, I. P. S., & Prasad, R. (2007). Relative efficiency of zinc oxide and zinc sulfate
coated urea for rice. Indian Journal of Fertilizers, 3(2), 51-56.
Shivay, Y. S., Prasad, R., & Rahal, A. (2008b). Relative efficieny of zinc oxide and zinc sulphate enriched urea
for spring wheat. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 82, 259-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10705-008-9186-y
Shivay, Y. S., Prasad, R., & Rahal, A. (2010). Genotypic variation for productivity, zinc utilization efficiencies,
172
and kernel quality in aromatic rices under low available zinc conditions. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 33,
1835-1848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2010.503832
Shivay, Y. S., Prasad, R., & Pal, M. (2013). Zinc fortification of oats grain and straw through zinc fertilization.
Agricultural Research, 2, 375-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40003-013-0078-2
Siddiq, E. A., Vemireddy, L. R., & Nagraju, J. (2012). Basmati rices: Genetics, breeding and trade. Agricultural
Research, 1, 25-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40003-011-0011-5
Singh, M. V. (2011). Assessing extent of zinc deficiency for soil factors affecting and nutritional scarcity in
humans and animals. Indian Journal of Fertiliser, 7(10), 36-43.
Singh, V. P., & Singh, A. K. (2009). History of Basmati rice research and development in India. Indian Farming,
59, 4-6.
Stein, A. J., Nestel, P., Meenakshi, J. V., Qaim, M., Sachdev, H. P. S., & Bhutta, Z. (2007). Plant breeding to
control zinc deficiency in India: How cost effective is biofortification? Public Health Nutrition, 10,
492-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980007223857
Subbiah, B. V., & Asija, G. L. (1956). A rapid procedure for the determination of available nitrogen in soils.
Current Science, 25, 259-260.
Takkar, P. N., Singh, M. V., & Ganeshmurthy, A. N. (1997). A critical review of plant nutrient supply needs,
efficiency and policy issues for Indian agriculture for the year 2000: Micronutrients and Trace elements. In
J. S. Kanwar & J. C. Katyal (Eds.), Plant Nutrient, Supply Efficiency and Policy Issues: 2000-2025 (pp.
238-264). New Delhi: National Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
Walkley, A. J., & Black, I. A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determination soil organic
matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science, 37, 29-38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
Welch, R. M. (2005). Harvesting health: agricultural linkages for improving human nutrition. In P. Anderson, J.
K. Tuladhada, K. B. Karki & S. L. Maskey (Eds.), Micronutrients in south and Southeast Asia (pp. 9-10).
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu.
Zhao, F. J., Su, Y. H., Dunham, S. J., Rakszegi, M., Bedo, Z., McGrath, S. P., & Shewry, P. R. (2009). Variation
in mineral micronutrient concentrations in grain of wheat lines of diverse origin. Journal of Cereal Science,
49, 290-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
173

Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 2 2015 ISSN 1916-9752 E-ISSN 1916-9760 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 2 2015 ISSN 1916-9752 E-ISSN 1916-9760 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 7, No. 2 2015 ISSN 1916-9752 E-ISSN 1916-9760 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Agricultural Science; Vol. 7, No.

Relative Efficiency of Zinc-Coated Urea and Soil and Foliar

2. Materials and Methods

3.3 Zn Concentration and Uptake

rice husk (mg kg-1

rice straw (mg kg-1

rice crop (g ha-1)

Check 20.0 125.0 91.0 48.0 147.5 618.8 814.3

SEm± 0.30 1.46 0.98 1.07 2.41 7.95 9.27

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.86 4.13 2.78 3.02 6.82 22.55 26.26

3.4 Iron Concentration and Uptake

rice crop (g ha-1)

SEm± 0.15 0.39 0.58 0.79 0.53 4.55 4.59

3.5 Nitrogen Concentration and Uptake

straw (kg ha-1)

Check 1.50 0.62 36.0 42.2 78.2 8.92

SEm± 0.007 0.005 0.54 0.41 0.61 0.05

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.020 0.015 1.54 1.16 1.72 0.14

3.6 Phosphorus Concentration and Uptake

rice crop (kg ha-1)

straw (kg ha-1)

husk (kg ha-1)

Check 0.64 0.03 0.07 15.36 0.35 4.76 20.47

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.020 0.004 NS 0.75 0.060 0.75 1.24

3.7 Potassium Concentration and Uptake

rice crop (kg ha-1)

straw (kg ha-1)

husk (kg ha-1)

Check 0.18 0.47 3.40 4.32 5.55 231.2 241.1

SEm± 0.004 0.007 0.013 0.12 0.11 1.52 2.11

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.012 0.021 0.037 0.34 0.31 4.31 5.99

3.8 Zn, N, P and K Concentration in Fag Leaf

Check 95.0 1.29 0.35 4.04

SEm± 1.01 0.005 0.025 0.06

LSD (p = 0.05) 2.86 0.014 0.072 0.16

Check 5.40 3.62 1.78 8.50 13.90 38.8

2.83 kg Zn ha-1 through Zn-coated

SEm± 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.14 0.44

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.27 0.20 0.09 0.26 0.40 NS

3.11 Zinc Concntration and Uptake

in rice straw (mg

rice crop (g ha-1)

kg-1 rice straw)

Check 18.0 17.7 110.3 65.2 31.5 937.6 1034.3

SEm± 0.28 0.42 0.49 2.57 1.29 15.3 15.76

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.79 1.20 1.40 7.30 3.65 43.3 44.65

3.12 Iron Concentration and Uptake

kg-1 rice straw)

Check 21.2 56.0 98.2 76.7 99.7 834.7 1011.1

SEm± 0.37 0.50 1.59 2.26 2.23 24.26 29.07

3.13 Nitrogen Concentration and Uptake

rice crop (kg ha-1)

straw (kg ha-1)

Check 1.29 0.79 46.7 67.1 113.8 7.7

SEm± 0.01 0.005 1.55 1.23 2.39 0.08

LSD (p = 0.05) 0.03 0.014 4.41 3.48 6.77 0.23

3.14 Phosphorus Concentration and Uptake

which in turn was significantly superior to soil + foliar application of ZnS.

straw (kg ha-1)