sulphur role in plant

1. 1

2. Master’s Seminar-1
on
Presented by
Mr. Shivaji Ravsaheb Suryavanshi
“INTEGRATED SULPHUR MANAGEMENT IN OILSEEDS-
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO GROUNDNUT”
2
MAHATMA PHULE KRISHI VIDYAPEETH, RAHURI
RCSM COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, KOLHAPUR
AGRONOMY SECTION

3. Introduction
Importance of oilseed crops
Role of sulphur in oilseed crops
Sulphur Status in soils of India &Karnataka
Response of oilseed crops to sulphur
Effect of applied S on oil content & oil yield of
oilseed crops
Research results
Conclusion
3

4. Esentialityof sulphurwas establishedin1911by
PetesonSulphuris now rightly ledthefourthmajor
plantnutrient nextto N, PandK.
S content in oilseeds is 1.1 per cent, 0.3 per cent in
pulses and0.2percentin cereals.
4

5. India is among the largest vegetable oil economies in the
world next only to USA and China.
In the agricultural economy of India, oil seeds are important
next only to food grains in terms area, production and value
.
India accounts for
-13% world’s oilseed area
-7% world’s oilseed output
-10% world’s oil consumption
But the introduction of high yielding varities and other
cultural practices made the soils S deficient and it adversely
affected the oil seed production and quality.
5

6. 2017 2020 2025 2030
Projected
population(billion)
1.29 1.36 1.42 1.48
Per capita
consumption(kg/annum)
14.57 16.38 19.45 23.10
Oilseeds
requirement(mt)
46.37 66.80 87.60 102.30
Annual oilseed 32.52 53.40 67.70 81.80
production (mt)
Source: DOR – Vision 20306

7. 7

8. 8

9. Maharashtra
Punjab
Chhattisgarh
(2899)samples
(8962)
(1644)
Haryana (3730)
20%
26%
27%
32 %
37%
Bihar (7642 ) 33%
Rajasthan (1015)
Gujarat (6598 )
Mandhya
Pradesh
(8706 )
43%
Orissa
(1045 )
45%
Uttar
Pradesh
53% 9

10. N
10Sujal –III project Report (GOK)
Available sulphur status in Karnataka

11. Gypsum
CaSO4.2H2O
Anhydrite
CaSO4
Epsomite
MgSO4.7H2O
Iron pyrite
FeS2
Sphalerite
ZnS
chalcopyrite
CuFeS2
Galena
PbS
Arsenopyrite
FeS2.FeAs2
Important sulphur containing minerals
11

12. Some key
functions of
sulphur in
plants are
FFoorrmmaattioionnooffcchhlolorroopphhyyll:l:
PPrrootteeininpprroodduuccttioionn
SSyynntthheessisisooffooilisls
AAccttivivaattioionnooffeennzzyymmeess
IInnccrreeaasseessccrrooppyyieieldldssaannddimimpprroovveesspprroodduuccee
qquuaaliltityy
OOililsseeeeddssaarreeeenneerrggyyrricichhccrrooppssaanndd
inintteerrmmssooffeenneerrggyyeeqquuaattioionn..
11KKggooffooilil==11.6.666ggooffpprrootteeininss
==22.3.377ggooffCCHHOO
12

13. 1.It is required for the synthesis of the S containing amino acids cystein,
cystine and methionine and for protein synthesis.
2.It activates certain proteolytic enzymes such as papainase and synthesis of
papain.
3.It is a constituent of certain vitamins viz., Thiamine and biotin, coenzymes
and glutathione, Acetyl coenz A (precursor for fatty acid synthesis),ferredoxin.
4. It is present in the crops like onion, mustard, cabbage and cauliflower as
polysulfides.
5. It increases oil content of crops like flax, soybean, groundnut etc.
6. Disulfide linkages (-S-S - ) have been associated with the structure of
proteins.
7. Sulfhydryl (-SH) groups in plants are related to increased cold resistance.
8.It is required for N fixation in legumes and is a part of nitrogenase enzyme
system.
9.Indirect nutritive value as soil amendments,(calcareous and saline alkali soils)
13

14. Fertilizers / Soil amendment Sulphur %
Ammonium sulphate 24
Ammonium sulphate nitrate 12
Single super phosphate 10-12
Amonium phosphate sulphate 15
Potassium sulphate 17-18
Gypsum 18.6
Pyrite 22
Zine sulphate 10
Copper sulphate 12.8
Ferrous sulphate 18.8
Source : Soil science manure and fertilizer 2000 by Dr. Vinay Singh 15

15. Manure S (%)
Farmyard manure 0.02
Poultry manure 2.56
Vermicompost 0.05
Sewage sludge 1.51
0.36Pressmud
Table 3:Sulphur Content of Organic Manures
15
Reddy, S.R.2005. Principles of Agronomy

16. Absorb mainly in So4
2 - formUptake against concentration gradient-
Active uptake
Translocation in upward
direction
16

17.  Use of sulphur free fertilizer such as Urea, DAP, MOP
 Decrease in the use of organic manure such as FYM,
green manuring, compost etc.
 Use of high yielding varieties
 Leaching losses
 Intensive cropping
Use of sulphur free fertilizer such as Urea, DAP, MOP
17

 Decrease in the use of organic manure such as FYM,
green manuring, compost etc.
 Use of high yielding varieties
 Leaching losses
 Intensive cropping

18. Crop removal Leaching
Soil erosionVolatilization
18

19. 19

20. 20

21. Young plants are smaller than normal,
pale and more erect from the petiole than
normal plants .
Nodulation and pod formation is
restricted and maturity of seeds is
delayed.
21

22. Sulphur sources Protein content Oil content (%) Pod yield (g pot-1)
(%)
Control 6.26 31.30 28.43
100% PM 10.60 42.53 38.07
75 % PM + 25% CF 12.50 43.50 41.03
50 % PM + 50 % CF 10.46 41.57 40.33
25 % PM + 75% CF 10.75 45.20 45.50
100 % CF 10.04 39.73 29.77
CD at 5% 0.29 1.32 1.29
Sri Lanka
Table 4: Effect of poultry manure and chemical
fertilizer on quality and yeild of groundnut
Premanandarajah and Komathy (223013)
Soil:loamy sand
Available sulphur:8.2ppm
PM:Poultrey Manure
CF:ChemicalFertilizer
RDF:17Kg(N)54kg(k2o5)93kg(cacl2)
SSP:34kgha-1
Elemental Sulphur:75kgha-1
* Applied onall equivalent P&Sbasis

23. Sulphur sources
Control
Farmyard manure
Poultry manure
Vermicompost
Sewage sludge
Superphosphate
P value
F test
Pod yield (tha-1)
1.45
1.96
2.45
1.59
1.85
1.71
< 0.05
*
24
Sri Lanka Premanandarajah
and Shanika ,2016
Soil:loamy sand
Available sulphur:8.2ppm
RDF:17Kg(N) 54kg(k2o5)93kg (cacl2)
SSP:34 kg ha-1
Poultry manure as S :75 kg ha-1
* Applied on all equivalent P&Sbasis

24. Treatments Plant height (cm) No of pods. plant-1
Sources of sulphur
Pod yield (kg ha-1) Oil content (%)
S1:Elemental sulphur 24.97 16.21 2866 46.31
S2: Gypsum 26.21 17.21 3196 50.10
S.E.± 0.43 0.32 57 1.11
C D at 5% 1.23 0.92 164 3.21
L0: control 24.34
levels of sulphur
15.14 2586 44.45
L1: 20 kg S ha-1 25.76 16.76 3142 48.86
L2: 40 kg S ha-1 26.67 18.22 3365 51.48
S.E.± 0.52 0.39 70 1.39
C D at 5% 1.51 1.12 200 4.00
R0:Without bio-fertilizer 25.17
Bio-fertilizer
16.17 2948 47.04
R1: With bio-fertilizer 26.01 17.24 3114 49.36
S.E.± 0.43 0.32 57 1.11
NS 0.92 NSCD a
A
t5
n
%
and(Gujarat)
16B4anuet al. (2015)Soil:Lomy Sand
25
Available S:6.2PPM

25. Treatment
Plant height
(cm)
No. of filled
pods/plant
100 pod
Wt. (g)
2010 2011 2010 2011 2010 2011
63.11 64.26 16.45 15.68 74.35 75.92
66.60 68.08 16.77 16.14 75.73 76.47
68.85 69.35 17.93 17.83 75.74 77.19
63.73 64.29 16.91 14.78 74.72 76.86
65.87 66.75 17.49 15.65 76.68 77.57
68.11 67.93 17.74 16.89 77.37 78.13
64.78 65.50 18.00 17.42 77.03 78.20
68.90 69.07 18.03 18.67 77.72 79.42
70.66 71.45 18.27 19.33 79.08 80.77
61.12 60.74 13.20 12.94 70.09 71.15
Elemental sulphur 15kg/ha
Elemental sulphur30kg/ha
Elemental sulphur 45kg/ha
Sulphur bentonite 15kg/ha
Sulphur bentonite 30kg/ha
Sulphur bentonite 45kg/ha
Gypsum 15kg/ha
Gypsum 30kg/ha
Gypsum 45kg/ha
Control
SEM.± 1.65 1.83 0.47 0.74 1.52 1.31
CD at 5% 4.51 5.43 1.27 1.49 4.78 3.69
Rao et al. (2013)Seethampeta (AP)
Soil:LomySand
Available S:6.2PPM
26

26. Treatment Shelling (%) Oil content (%)Pod yield (Kg/ha)
2011 2012 2011
64.82
2012
65.17
2011
48.50
2012
48.57Elemental sulphur 15kg/ha 895 880
Elemental sulphur30kg/ha 997 991
Elemental sulphur 45kg/ha 1045 1026
Sulphur bentonite 15kg/ha 886 878
Sulphur bentonite 30kg/ha 982 948
Sulphur bentonite 45kg/ha 1038 1011
Gypsum 15kg/ha 1005 986
Gypsum 30kg/ha 1132 1102
Gypsum 45kg/ha 1215 1204
Control
SEM.±
CD at5%
798
25.25
75
801
22.90
68
66.37 66.79 48.63 48.97
68.90 68.42 49.23 49.57
65.03 65.23 48.07 47.50
67.05 67.37 48.57 48.60
67.29 67.74 49.20 49.07
67.37 67.61 48.97 48.77
68.11 68.45 49.53 49.67
68.65 69.09 50.17 49.93
63.37 62.70 46.65 45.89
0.54 0.71 0.28 0.32
1.59 2.11 0.82 0.94
Rao et al. ( 2013)Seethampeta (AP)
Soil :Lomy Sand
Available S:6.2 ppm 27

27. Treatments
FYM+Sulphur and micronutrient(kg/ha)
Pod yield (kg/ha) Haulm yield
(kg/ha)
B:C
T1 only FYM(control) 2395 4078 2.31
T2 FYM+12.5 kg FeSO4 ha-1 2911 4514 2.85
T3 FYM+12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 2738 4421 2.74
T4 FYM+12.5 kg FeSO4 +12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 3047 4838 2.94
T5 FYM+25 kg kg FeSO4 ha-1 3063 4915 3.02
T6 FYM+25 kg kg ZnSO4 ha-1 2832 4546 3.79
T7 FYM+25 kg kg FeSO4 +25 kg kg ZnSO4 ha-1 3226 5193 3.11
T8 FYM+20 kg elemental sulphur 2663 4407 2.52
T9 FYM+FeSO4 Spray(1%) +25 kg ZnSO4 2797 4492 2.71
SE ± 50 90
CD at 5% 140 270
*FYM 10 t/ha for all treatments
Patel et al. (2007)Banaskanth (GJ )
Soil :Lomy Sand
Available S:10 ppm 28

28. Table 10: Effect of source and level of sulphur on yield attributes of
pigeon pea and groundnut intercropping system.
Treatments
Source and
levels of
sulphur
(kg S /ha)
Pods/
plant
Pigeon pea
Grains/pod Grain
yield
(t/ha)
Pods/
plant
Groundnut
Pod
yield
(t/ha)
Haulm
yield
NR B:C ratio
(Rs) (Rs)
Control
E.S @ 35
15620
20808
20464
1.72
2.02
1.81
21365 2.12
E.S @ 70
Gypsum @35
Gypsum @ 70
Cosavet @ 35
141.0
156.9
161.9
158.8
163.2
165.4
3.10
3.57
3.60
3.60
3.66
3.70
1.33
1.44
1.46
1.46
1.48
1.66
6.33
8.51
9.06
8.81
9.13
12.31
0.37
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.58
1.62
2.03
2.12
2.06
2.13
2.40
167.5 3.70 1.68 12.35 0.58 2.41Cosavet @ 70
SEm ± 2.9
CD at 5% 8.4
0.04
0.12
0.03
0.09
0.22
0.63
0.11
0.31
0.05
0.15
21229
19447
14225
--
--
1.96
1.24
0.65
--
--
Soil type – sandy loam
Available S :12 kg/haIARI, New Delhi Jat and Ahlawat (201209)
E.S:Elementel sulphur

29. Sulphur Pod yield(t/ha) Kernel yield Oil content (%)
(Phosphogypsum)
No sulphur 1.52
(t/ha)
1.08 43.23
20 kg/ha 1.80 1.31 46.60
40 kg/ha 1.79 1.31 47.77
60 kg/ha 1.66 1.18 47.90
SEm± 0.03 0.06 0.44
C D at 5% 0.08 0.16 1.28
Table 11:Effect of sulphur levels on kernel yield and
oil content of groundnut (pooled mean 3 year)
Dash et al.(2013)Odisha Soil:sandy loam
Available S:13.4 kg/ha 30

30. Treatment Yeild (kg/ha Pod) Net return (Rs. ha-1) B:C
T1 1697 22023 1.99
T2 1788 23930 2.15
T3 1820 24036 2.16
T4 1876 25024 2.23
T5 1702 21919 1.96
T6 1855 24867 2.20
T7 1914 25360 2.20
T8 1777 23001 2.01
T9 1618 21129 2.01
S.Em.± 50 -
CD at 5% 141 -
-
-
Table 12:Effect of different treatments on groundnut yield and
economics (Pooled 2001-04)
Ramdevputra et al.(2010)Junagadh Available S( 13.58 ppm).
Soil:sandy loam
T1- Recommended dose (RD- 12.5:25 kg NP ha-1) through urea and DAP
T2- RD through urea and SSP (18.75 kg S ha-1)
T3-T1 + 18.75 S ha-1 through gypsum
T4- T1 +18.75 kg S ha-1 through AS ,DAP and SSP
T5- T1 + 18.75 kg S ha-1 through ASP(Ammonium sulphate phosphate)
andSSP,
T6- T1 + 18.75 kg S ha-1 elemental sulphur (before one month of sowing)
T7- T1 + 18.75 S kg ha-1
through SOP
T8- T1 + K equivalent to
SOP through MOP
T9- Absolute control.
31

31. Table 13:Effect of different fertilizer on yield, oil content and
economics of groundnut (pooled data of 2 years)
Dutta And Mondal(2005)West Bengal
Sulphur 7.71 ppm%
Soil:loamy Sand
Fertilizer Pod yield (q/ha) Oil content (%) Net return (Rs/ha) Benefit:
cost ratio
F1: 100% RDF 18.96 42.98 22,443 1.42
F2: 125% RDF 19.92 43.11 23,926 1.47
F3: 100% RDF +
500 kg gypsum/ha
22.22 45.91 28,482 1.73
F4:125% RDF +
500 kg gypsum/ha
22.46 45.92 28,525 1.70
CD at 5% 1.06 1.29
RDF:30:60:4O:N:P:K
31

32. MUSTARD
32

33. Leaves show a general overall chlorosis
while, still retaining some green color
The veins and petioles show a very
distinct reddish color
The visual symptoms of sulphur
deficiency are very similar to the chlorosis
found in nitrogen deficiency
33

34. Treatment Seed yield Oil content Protein
(%)(q/ha)
Source of Sulphur
(%) Content
Pyrite 28.01 41.6 22.8
S.S.P 27.76 41.5 22.7
Ammonium Sulphate 29.52 43.6 23.3
Gypsum 29.05 42.9 23.3
CD at 5% 1.50 1.2 NS
Level of Sulphur (kg/ ha)
0 27.00 40.4 22.9
20 28.02 41.8 22.9
40 30.28 43.7 23.3
60 29.11 43.0 23.1
CD at 5% 2.04 0.7 0.3
Soil :Sandy loam
Available S : 4.5ppmGwalior Bansal et al. (2000)
34

35. Safflower
35

36. Treatments No of capsules/
plant
Seed weight/ head
(g)
1000 seed
weight(g)
Seed yield
(kg/ha)
D at 5% 2.96 0.06 4.35
Control 20.5 0.62 44.7 1172
10 kg S/ha 24.0 0.69 49.5 1298
10 kg S/ha + Fe foliar 25.1 0.71 51.9 1319
10 kg S/ha + Zn foliar 26.7 0.76 55.8 1379
10 kg S/ha +Fe +Zn foliar 28.8 0.78 56.8 1445
20 kg S/ha 27.2 0.76 56.2 1426
20 kg S/ha + Fe foliar 29.1 0.78 57.4 1462
20 kg S/ha + Zn foliar 30.6 0.82 61.7 1517
20 kg S/ha + Fe +Zn foliar 33.0 0.85 63.1 1591
30 kg S/ha 32.2 0.84 61.6 1553
30 kg S/ha + Fe foliar 33.2 0.89 63.3 1617
30 kg S/ha + Zn foliar 35.3 0.92 64.9 1691
30 kg S/ha + Fe +Zn foliar 37.1 0.96 68.2 1765
S.Em+ 1.02 0.02 1.49 42.63
124.44
Table 15: Effect of sulphur, zinc and iron nutrition on yield parameters of
safflower
UAS, Dharwad
C
SulphurSource:Ammonium Sulphate Fe:0.5% Zn:0.5%
Available S-5.5 ppm , Zn – 0.63 pp Ravi et al.(23
07
07)

37. 37

38. Growth is retarded, leaves
fullyare smaller and
emerged leaves first turn pale
and then golden yellow, So it
reduces number of flowers
and pods, hence yield is
reduced
golden yellow
38

39. Treatments Seed yield
(kg/ha)
Stalk yield
(kg/ha)
Biological Yield
(kg/ha)
Harvest index
(%)
15 534
A. Sulphur levels (kg/ha)
1983 2517 21.24
30 613 2292 2904 21.09
45 679 2459 3138 21.66
60 710 2559 3269 21.72
SEm± 13 48 62 0.31
CD at 5% 38 140
B. Source
178 NS
Gypsum 680 2467 3148 21.59
Elemental sulphur 588 2179 2767 21.26
SEm± 9.2 34 44 0.22
CD at 5% 27 99 126 NS
Meena (2013)Rajasthan Soil:loamy sand
Available S :6ppm
40

40. 40

41. Deficiency symptoms
•New leaves continue to remain
pale-yellowish green
•Size of leaves and length of
internodes is reduced
•Chlorosis starts from leaf margins
and spreads inwards.
•Under severe deficiency, leading to
premature leaf fall, reduced
flowering and fruiting
41

42. Treatment Seed yield (kg/ha) Oil content (%) Protein content(%)
Sulphur level (kg/ha)
0 2339 18.76 39.37
20 2704 19.58 40.38
40 2970 20.69 42.20
S. Em.± 0.62 0.12 0.48
CD at 5% 1.80 0.37 1.45
Source of sulphur
SSP 2707 19.74 40.97
ES 2509 19.34 39.40
Gypsum 2798 19.95 41.20
S.Em.± 0.62 0.12 0.48
CD at 5% 1.86 0.37 1.45
Gokhale et al. (2006)Parbhani
Table 17: Effect of level and source of sulphur on seed
yield, oil and protein content in soybean
43
SSP: Singlesuper phosphate.,
ES: Elementalsulphur
Soil : Deepblack . pH: 8.5

43. Sunflower
43

44. Leaves and inflorescence
(flowers) become pale
Plants are smaller with
shorter internodes than
normal
Number and size of
leaves remains small
44

45. Treatments Seed yield (kg
ha-1)
Oil yield (kg B:C ratio
ha-1)
T1 - Control (Uninoculated) 1404 482 2.07
T2 - Sulphur Oxidizing Biofertilizer 1493 528 2.19
T3- Sulphur 10 kg ha-1 1650 607 2.38
T4- Sulphur 10 kg+ha -1Sulphur Oxidizing
Biofertilizer
1729 642 2.49
T5- Sulphur 20 kg ha-1 1813 686 2.56
T6 - Sulphur 20 kg ha-1+ Sulphur 1932 742 2.72
Oxidizing Biofertilizer
T7 - Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 1955 761 2.71
T8 - Sulphur 30 kg ha-1 + Sulphur 2007 782 2.77
Oxidizing Biofertilizer
S.Em.± 25.21 11.86 0.03
CD at 5% 76.48 35.96 0.11
Table 18: Seed yield, oil yield, at harvest and economics of sunflower as influenced by
different levels of sulphur alone or in combination with biofetilizer.
Pujar et al.(2013)UAS, Dharwad Soil-Red sandy loam
Available S:6 ppm 46

46. Soil : Loamy sand pH 7.9,
Available sulphur:7.2 ppmLudhiana Sheoran et al. (2013)
Treatment Seed yield
(t/ha)
Oil content
(%)
Oil yield
(t/ha)
Sulphur
uptake (kg/ha)
B: C
ratio
S20
S40
Levels of sulphur (kg/ha)
S0 2.40 42.1 1.01 14.5 3.72
2.57 42.5 1.09 19.1 3.90
2.62 42.7 1.11 20.1 3.93
CD at 5% 0.04 NS 0.02 2.86 0.14
AS 2.55
Source of sulphur
42.5 1.08 18.4 3.86
SSP 2.50 42.4 1.06 17.6 3.84
Gypsum 2.56 42.6 1.08 18.9 3.94
ES 2.50 42.2 1.05 16.6 3.77
CD at 5% 0.03 NS 0.02 0.58 0.06
Table 19: Effect of level and sources of sulphur on yield,
quality,sulphur uptake and economics of sunflower
(pooled mean of 2 years)
47
AS: Ammonium Sulphate
ES:Elemental Sulphur

47. 48

48. Treatment Seed yield Net returns B : C ratio
10 kg S/ha (SSP)
(kg/ha)
2416
(Rs./ha)
47697 1.92
20 kg S/ha (SSP) 2716 56097 2.21
30 kg S/ha (SSP) 2593 51562 1.97
10kg S/ha (Gypsum) 2369 46682 1.91
20kg S/ha (Gypsum) 2431 48365 1.97
30kg S/ha (Gypsum) 2508 50498 2.04
10kg S/ha (Elemental Sulphur) 2307 42997 1.64
20kg S/ha (Elemental Sulphur) 2376 43066 1.53
30kg S/ha (Elemental Sulphur) 2316 39265 1.30
Control 2138 39929 1.65
S.Em. ± 129 - -
CD at 5% 383 - -
Kanpur (U.P.)
soil:sandy loam
Available S :6 ppm
Srivastava et al. (2015)
49

49. Sources
Seed yield (t/ha) Oil Content
(%)
Oil yield (kg
/ha)
2009 2010 Mean of two years
Gypsum 15.77 16.33 41.00 658.4
Pyrites 14.91 15.43 40.90 620.5
Elemental S 14.99 15.58 40.90 625.6
Ammonium S 15.90 16.55 41.00 665.8
CD at 5% 0.70 0.64 NS 28.70
S levels(kg/ha)
0 12.02 12.51 40.50 498.0
20 14.63 15.27 40.70 609.9
40 17.26 17.85 41.10 722.3
60 17.66 18.26 41.4 761.1
CD at 5% 0.70 0.64 0.03 28.70
Pandey and Javed (2010)Agra Available S :7.5 ppm
Soil:clay 50

50.  Application of sulphur in oilseed crops through different sources
results in higher yield and high oil content over a control.
 The average improvement in yield of different oilseed crops vary
from 10 to 40 per cent due to application of 30-60 kg sulphur/ha.
 Among different sources of sulphur, gypsum is the cheapest
source and most abundantly available.
 The overall result indicated that sulphur play a vital role in
improving yield and quality of oilseeds.
51

51. 

To create the awareness among the farmers for S utilization.
Relationship of sulphur and other nutrient need to be
establish.
 The balanced rates of different fertilizer nutrients including
sulphur should be worked out for different oilseed crops
51

52. 52