Sulphur is an essential macro nutrient for all crops, especially in oilseed crops it helps in improving in the yield of Oil content and also enhances the essential aminio acids content.

1. EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON OILSEED
CROPS
Supervisor
Prof. J. S. Bohra
Speaker
Raghuveer M
I. D. No: PA-13005
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY
VARANASI-221005

2. Outline• Introduction
• Oilseeds at a glance
• Sulphur
• Sulphur cycle
• Mechanism of sulphur assimilation
• Experimental findings
• Conclusion

3. Oilseed crops
• India is the 3rd largest producer of oilseeds in the
world
• Oilseed sector occupies an important position in the
country’s economy
• The country accounts for
12-15 per cent of global oilseeds area
6-7 per cent of vegetable oils production
9-10 per cent of the total edible oils consumption
• In terms of acreage, production and economic value,
oilseeds are next only to food grains

4. Major oilseed crops grown in India
Common name Botanical Name Family Oil content
(%)
Groundnut Arachis hypogea L. Leguminaseae 45
Rapeseed/ Mustard Brassica spp. Brassicaceae 37-49
Soybean Glycine max L. Leguminaseae 20
Sesamum Sesamum indicum L. Pedaliaceae 50
Sunflower Helianthus annuus L. Compositae 45-50
Safflower Carthamus tinctorious L. Compositae 24-36
Niger Guizotia abyssinica Asteraceae 30-40
Linseed Linum usitatissimum L. Linaceae 33-47
Castor Ricinus communis L. Euphorbiaceae 48

5. Area, production and yield of oilseed crops in India
Common name Area (m ha) Production (mt) Yield (kg ha-1)
Soybean 12.20 11.99 983
Rapeseed/
Mustard
6.70 7.96 1188
Groundnut 5.53 9.67 1750
Sunflower 0.69 0.55 791
Total oilseed crops 28.53 32.88 1153
Source: Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, 2013-14

6. Sulphur
 Essentiality by Sachs Knop in 1857
 Concentration of sulphur in plant ranges from 0.1 to 5%
 Necessary for the formation of chlorophyll
 Constituent of three important amino acids namely cysteine
(26% S), cystine (27% S) and methionine (21% S)
 Helps in synthesis of oil.
 Involved in the formation of glucosides and
glucosinolates

7. Sulphur deficiency symptoms
 Yellowing of younger leaves
 Stunted plant growth, slender shoot
 Poor nodulation in legumes and nitrogen fixation
 An excess of sulphur free amino acid (e.g. asparagine, glutamine and
arginine) due to the inhibition of protein synthesis
 Groundnut : Young plants are smaller, pale in colour and more erect
from the petiole than normal plants. This gives the trifoliate leaves a V
shaped appearance
 Soybean :New leaves continue to remain pale-yellow green, chlorosis
starts from leaf margin and spread inwards
 Rapeseed : Cupped leaves and a reddening of the underside of leaves
and stems
 Sunflower : Leaves and inflorescence become pale, plants are markedly
smaller
S deficiency symptoms in major oilseeds

8. Leaching
SO2 SO4
-2
Anthropogenic
and natural SO2
Adsorbed or
Labile SO4
-2
Soil solution
SO4
-2
SO4
-2 S0 S-2
SOM
Immobilization
Mineralization
Volatilization
SO2
Plant and animal
residues SO4
-2
Plant uptake
Figure 1: Sulphur cycle Tabatabai, 1986

9. Figure 2 : Soil fertility map of India showing Sulphur deficiency

10. Figure 3: Mechanism of sulphur assimilation by plants Watanabe et al., 2013
Soil
Plant
SO4
-2
SO4
-2
SO3
-2
Sulfite reductase
S-2
Cysteine
6 Ferredoxinox
6 Ferredoxinred
O-acetylserine
Acetate
OASTL
APS
APS reductase
ATP sulphurylase
AMP+RSSR
2 RSH
ATP
PPi
S2O3
-2
S2O3
-2 S2O3
-2 = S-SO3
-2

11. EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS

12. Table 1: Effect of sulphur levels on growth and nodulation of
soybean (Pooled data of 2 years)
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Plant height
(cm)
Nodules
plant-1
Fresh weight
(g plant-1)
Dry weight
(g plant-1)
Pods
plant-1
Seeds
plant-1
S0 56.1 18.1 0.61 102 55.0 92.7
S10 63.4 24.0 1.02 193 61.1 98.8
S20 68.8 29.2 1.28 336 67.2 103.0
S30 73.2 33.5 1.42 411 74.3 106.1
S40 74.4 34.6 1.46 420 76.6 107.0
CD (P=0.05) 4.02 1.95 0.05 14.4 4.62 1.90
Najar et al., 2011
Location: Kashmir, India
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

13. Table 2: Effect of sulphur levels on nutrient content in soybean
(Pooled data of 2 years)
S levels
(kg ha-1)
N content (%) P content (%) K content (%) S content (%) Ca content (%)
Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover
S0 5.68 1.80 0.68 0.032 2.40 2.21 0.38 0.20 0.86 0.78
S10 5.77 1.93 0.70 0.042 2.44 2.28 0.41 0.22 0.90 0.81
S20 5.81 2.00 0.71 0.045 2.49 2.32 0.45 0.24 0.94 0.81
S30 5.84 2.05 0.72 0.047 2.54 2.34 0.45 0.25 0.96 0.82
S40 5.88 2.07 0.73 0.048 2.55 2.34 0.49 0.26 0.96 0.82
CD
(P=0.05)
0.12 0.05 0.01 0.002 NS NS 0.38 0.20 NS NS
Najar et al., 2011Location: Kashmir, India
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

14. Table 3: Effect of sulphur levels on nutrient uptake and quality
parameters of soybean (Pooled data of 2 years)
Total nutrient uptake (Kg ha-1) Quality
S
levels
(kg ha-1)
N P K S Ca
Protein
content
(%)
Oil
content
(%)
Methionine
(g 16-1 g N)
Cystein
(g 16-1 g N)
S0 83.7 8.39 53.3 6.74 19.08 34.02 15.7 1.50 1.42
S10 113.4 10.8 70.4 9.17 25.47 35.43 17.5 1.57 1.48
S20 132.3 12.4 80.9 11.52 29.38 36.94 18.3 1.62 1.52
S30 140.0 13.5 88.0 13.20 32.07 37.76 19.1 1.65 1.54
S40 144.6 14.1 91.7 14.29 32.87 37.74 19.2 1.67 1.55
CD
(P=0.05)
7.35 0.72 4.43 0.72 1.90 1.37 0.75 0.06 0.05
Najar et al., 2011Location: Kashmir, India
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

15. Table 4: Effect of sulphur on growth parameters of soybean
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Plant height
(cm)
No. of
branches
plant-1
Green Leaves
plant-1
Dry matter
accumulation
(g plant-1)
S0 66.2 4.57 13.1 30.4
S20 77.8 4.93 15.7 37.8
S40 86.4 5.19 16.31 43.4
S60 89.2 5.22 17.0 46.3
CD (P=0.05) 10.87 0.17 0.83 2.20
Sharma, 2011Location: Kota, Rajasthan

16. Table 5: Effect of sulphur on yield attributes, yield and on oil
yield of soybean
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Pods
plant-1
Seeds
pod-1
Seed
index (g)
Seed
yield
(q ha-1)
Straw
yield
(q ha-1)
Oil
content
(%)
Oil yield
(kg ha-1)
S0 47.45 2.09 9.10 16.86 27.01 19.35 330.31
S20 54.57 2.34 9.57 19.71 30.66 20.69 411.94
S40 61.01 2.52 9.75 22.50 34.34 21.73 494.59
S60 63.06 2.55 9.80 23.59 35.57 21.91 523.10
CD
(P=0.05)
3.12 0.10 0.18 1.10 1.66 0.31 22.08
Sharma, 2011Location: Kota, Rajasthan

17. Table 6: Effect of sulphur on nutrient uptake and economics of soybean
S levels
(Kg ha-1)
Total S uptake
(kg ha-1)
Total P uptake
(kg ha-1)
Total N uptake
(kg ha-1)
Net returns
(Rs ha-1)
B:C ratio
S0 10.82 16.49 151.77 14046 2.10
S20 13.22 20.75 179.93 17232 2.50
S40 15.65 24.65 206.42 20361 2.87
S60 16.56 26.03 217.01 21429 2.94
CD (P=0.05) 0.67 1.08 9.49 1269 0.18
Sharma, 2011Location: Kota, Rajasthan

18. Treatment
Seed yield (kg ha-1)
2007 2008 2009 Mean
Control 1290 1324 1278 1297
30 kg S ha-1 full as basal 1438 1498 1484 1473
40 kg S ha-1 full as basal 1520 1576 1562 1553
30 kg S ha-1 as split (1/2 as basal + ½ at 30 DAS) 1586 1645 1598 1610
40 kg S ha-1 as split (1/2 as basal + ½ at 30 DAS) 1654 1728 1648 1677
30 kg S ha-1 full dose at 30 DAS 1358 1412 1346 1372
40 kg S ha-1 full dose at 30 DAS 1372 1488 1390 1417
CD (P=0.05) 112.4 124.6 118.4
Table 7: Effect of different levels and times of sulphur application on
seed yield of soybean
Madhavi et al., 2015Location: Hyderabad, Telangana
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

19. Treatment S content (%) S uptake (kg ha-1)
Control 0.30 3.89
30 kg S ha-1 full as basal 0.40 5.89
40 kg S ha-1 full as basal 0.42 6.52
30 kg S ha-1 as split (1/2 as basal + ½ at 30 DAS) 0.41 6.60
40 kg S ha-1 as split (1/2 as basal + ½ at 30 DAS) 0.43 7.22
30 kg S ha-1 full dose at 30 DAS 0.42 5.76
40 kg S ha-1 full dose at 30 DAS 0.43 6.09
CD (P=0.05) 0.036 0.54
Table 8: Effect of different levels and times of sulphur application on S content and S uptake by
soybean seed (3 years pooled data)
Madhavi et al., 2015Location: Hyderabad, Telangana
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

20. Treatment Branches
plant-1 at
90 days
LAI at
60
days
Mean CGR (g day-1 cm-2) Mean RGR (g day-1 cm-2)
30-60 days 60-90 days 30-60 days 60-90 days
T1 (Control) 3.1 3.07 0.39 0.20 0.052 0.010
T2 3.3 3.23 0.45 0.20 0.050 0.009
T3 3.5 3.40 0.47 0.29 0.040 0.012
T4 3.5 3.65 0.53 0.37 0.050 0.013
T5 3.1 3.10 0.45 0.16 0.052 0.007
T6 3.4 3.22 0.48 0.23 0.053 0.010
T7 3.4 3.33 0.54 0.27 0.058 0.011
T8 3.3 3.16 0.47 0.21 0.053 0.009
T9 3.6 3.41 0.51 0.25 0.052 0.010
T10 3.9 3.85 0.57 0.31 0.051 0.011
CD (P=0.05) 0.83 0.30 0.07 0.09 0.005 0.004
Table 9: Growth and physiological parameters of soybean as influenced by levels and time of
sulphur application (Pooled data of 2 years)
Laxman et al., 2015Location: IARI, New Delhi
T2: 15 kg S ha-1 as basal; T3: 30 kg S ha-1 as basal; T4: 45 kg S ha-1 as basal;
T5: 15 kg S ha-1 at flowering; T6: 30 kg S ha-1 at flowering; T7: 45 kg S ha-1 at flowering;
T8: 15 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering; T9: 30 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering;
T10: 45 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

21. Treatment Pods
plant-1
Seeds
pod-1
Yield ( t ha-1) HI (%) Protein
content (%)
Oil content
(%)
Seed Stover
T1 (Control) 31.46 2.35 1.40 3.17 30.58 38.38 18.85
T2 34.33 2.57 1.58 3.34 32.13 39.16 19.41
T3 37.92 2.76 1.71 3.49 32.88 39.66 19.63
T4 38.81 2.89 1.81 3.66 33.12 40.52 20.17
T5 32.91 2.48 1.54 3.33 31.60 39.03 19.35
T6 34.20 2.56 1.64 3.35 32.79 39.62 19.73
T7 37.08 2.68 1.78 3.39 34.29 40.34 20.08
T8 37.66 2.56 1.64 3.39 32.57 38.86 19.63
T9 38.22 2.82 1.73 3.49 33.13 39.86 20.05
T10 42.64 2.97 1.90 3.64 34.32 40.65 20.48
CD (P=0.05) 3.49 0.17 0.095 0.14 1.59 0.61 0.52
Table 10: Yield attributes, yield and quality of soybean as influenced by levels and time of
sulphur application (Pooled data of 2 years)
Laxman et al., 2015Location: IARI, New Delhi Source of sulphur: Gypsum
T2: 15 kg S ha-1 as basal; T3: 30 kg S ha-1 as basal; T4: 45 kg S ha-1 as basal;
T5: 15 kg S ha-1 at flowering; T6: 30 kg S ha-1 at flowering; T7: 45 kg S ha-1 at flowering;
T8: 15 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering; T9: 30 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering;
T10: 45 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering

22. Treatment Protein yield
(kg ha-1)
Oil yield
(kg ha-1)
Gross
returns
(Rs ha-1)
Net
returns
(Rs ha-1)
B:C
ratio
AE (Kg seed
increased kg-1 S
applied)
T1 (Control) 536.7 263.6 24106 12293 1.06 0.00
T2 619.7 307.2 27027 15057 1.25 12.23
T3 678.9 336.2 29133 16924 1.35 10.42
T4 733.0 364.8 30784 17956 1.38 9.12
T5 600.9 297.7 26395 14021 1.15 9.34
T6 650.0 323.5 27965 15218 1.20 8.02
T7 717.3 357.6 30058 16194 1.23 8.46
T8 637.3 321.6 27972 15981 1.31 16.04
T9 691.3 347.2 29510 17079 1.35 11.14
T10 773.2 389.4 32119 18836 1.44 11.16
CD (P=0.05) 36.91 19.82 0.11 4.96
Table 11: Protein, oil yield and economics of soybean as influenced by levels and time of sulphur
application (Pooled data of 2 years)
Laxman et al., 2015Location: IARI, New Delhi Source of sulphur: Gypsum
T2: 15 kg S ha-1 as basal; T3: 30 kg S ha-1 as basal; T4: 45 kg S ha-1 as basal;
T5: 15 kg S ha-1 at flowering; T6: 30 kg S ha-1 at flowering; T7: 45 kg S ha-1 at flowering;
T8: 15 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering; T9: 30 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering;
T10: 45 kg S ha-1 as 50% basal+50% at flowering

23. Table 12: Effect of sulphur levels on growth and yield components of Indian mustard under
rainfed conditions
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Plant
height
(cm) at 90
DAS
Leaf
plant-1 at
90 DAS
Branches
plant-1 at
90 DAS
No. of
siliquae
plant-1
Siliquae
length
(cm)
seeds
siliquae-1
Test
weight
(g)
S0 147 3.9 18.4 263 6.60 14.2 4.46
S15 152 4.0 19.3 304 6.75 14.8 4.57
S30 157 4.0 21.0 316 6.90 15.1 4.64
S45 159 4.1 21.5 330 7.05 15.4 4.68
CD (P=0.05) 3.8 0.04 0.6 13 0.11 0.16 0.05
Kumar et al., 2009Location: BHU, Varanasi
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

24. Table 13: Effect of sulphur levels on yield and quality of Indian mustard under rainfed
conditions
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Seed yield
(t ha-1)
Stalk yield
(t ha-1)
Oil content
(%)
Oil yield
(kg ha-1)
Protein
content
(%)
Protein
yield
(kg ha-1)
S0 1.04 3.80 36.7 335 16.6 167
S15 1.15 4.01 37.8 458 17.3 197
S30 1.20 4.11 38.8 491 17.7 211
S45 1.25 4.20 39.9 522 17.9 222
CD (P=0.05) 0.05 0.06 1.19 0.16
Kumar et al., 2009Location: BHU, Varanasi
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

25. Table 14: Effect of sulphur levels on nutrient uptake and economics of Indian mustard under
rainfed conditions
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Nitrogen uptake
(kg ha-1)
Sulphur
uptake
(kg ha-1)
Cost of
cultivation
(Rs ha-1)
Net returns
(Rs ha-1)
B:C ratio
S0 39.2 15.8 9216 10044 2.15
S15 46.6 17.6 9402 11908 2.43
S30 49.8 19.4 9582 13001 2.42
S45 54.1 20.7 9775 13568 2.45
CD (P=0.05) 4.4 1.4
Kumar et al., 2009Location: BHU, Varanasi
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

26. Table 15: Effect of sulphur on growth, yield attributes and yield of canola oilseed rape
(Mean of 3 years)
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Secondary
branches
plant-1
Seeds
siliquae-1
Test
weight
(g)
Yield
(kg ha-1)
Oil
content
(%)
Oil yield
(kg ha-1)
Seed Stover
S0 5.4 20.9 3.58 1366 5176 39.2 537
S20 6.0 21.9 3.75 1436 5388 39.4 566
CD
(P=0.05)
0.4 0.8 0.09 53 159 NS 19
Sardana and Sheoran, 2011Location: Ludhiana, Punjab
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

27. Table 16: Effect of sulphur levels on growth, yield attributes and oil content of Indian
mustard (Mean of 2 years)
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Plant
height
(cm)
Dry weight
(g plant-1)
No. of
siliquae
plant-1
No. of
seeds
siliquae-1
Test
weight (g)
Oil content (%)
2008-09 2009-10
S0 162.6 75.32 288.2 10.9 4.61 37.56 38.08
S30 165.5 80.73 324.0 11.8 4.82 39.28 40.26
S60 170.8 84.44 363.6 14.9 5.06 41.18 41.88
S90 171.2 83.78 374.7 15.2 5.25 41.81 42.12
CD
(P=0.05)
4.4 4.58 20.4 0.6 0.16 0.47 0.51
Pachauri and Trivedi, 2012Location: Agra, UP
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

28. Table 17: Effect of sulphur levels on yields and total nutrient uptake of Indian mustard
(Mean of 2 years)
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Yield (t ha-1) Total uptake (kg ha-1)
Seed Stover
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 N P K S
S0 1.68 1.70 4.28 4.40 83.86 19.8 53.91 11.20
S30 1.81 1.85 5.01 5.22 98.22 23.8 64.61 15.42
S60 2.11 2.18 6.06 6.29 122.2 30.7 81.19 24.06
S90 2.17 2.26 6.57 6.77 131.0 31.1 87.92 27.47
CD
(P=0.05)
0.098 0.095 0.183 0.167 4.03 1.09 1.87 0.91
Pachauri and Trivedi, 2012Location: Agra, UP
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

29. Table 18: Effect of sulphur on yield components and yield of summer groundnut
Treatment
Pods
plant-1
Shelling
%
100 Kernel
weight (g)
Oil in
kernel
(%)
Yield (t ha-1)
Pod Kernel Oil Haulm
T1 15.3 68.4 43.4 46.60 2.39 1.63 0.76 4.73
T2 18.0 69.5 44.9 48.82 2.71 1.88 0.92 4.79
T3 17.4 69.3 44.4 48.24 2.62 1.81 0.88 4.82
T4 19.8 70.7 47.0 49.89 2.89 2.04 1.02 4.89
T5 18.9 70.4 46.8 49.53 2.78 1.96 0.97 4.88
CD (P=0.05) 0.26 0.08 0.20 0.043 0.037 0.026 0.058
Patra et al., 1995Location: Kalyani, West Bengal
T1: Control; T2: 20 kg S ha-1 as gypsum T4: 40 kg S ha-1 as gypsum
T3: 20 kg S ha-1 as pyrite T5: 40 kg S ha-1 as pyrite

30. Treatment No. of
matured
pods plant-1
Shelling % Yield (kg ha-1) Oil (%)
Pod Haulm
T1 9.2 66.7 1900 2172 46.8
T2 9.5 68.4 2089 2334 47.1
T3 9.4 66.2 1839 2138 46.3
T4 9.1 65.0 1807 2155 47.8
T5 9.2 66.1 1926 2194 47.1
T6 9.7 70.2 2178 2550 48.5
T7 9.5 67.0 2085 2482 48.1
T8 8.4 61.5 1705 2070 45.7
CD (P=0.05) 0.35 3.4 246 353 2.1
Table 19: Effect of sulphur on yield attributes and seed yield of groundnut (Mean data of 2
years)
Krishna et al., 1997Location: Jagtial, Telangana
T1: Soil application of ZnSO4 @25 kg ha-1 T2: T1 + foliar application of ZnSO4 @2%
T3: foliar application of ZnSO4 @2% at 45 DAS T4: S0 12.5 kg ha-1 at sowing + 12.5 kg at 45 DAS
T5: Gypsum @500 kg ha-1 at sowing, band placement T6: Gypsum @500 kg ha-1 at 35 DAS in pegging zone
T7: Gypsum @250 kg ha-1 at sowing, band placement + 250 kg ha-1 at 35 DAS T8: RDF (N,P,K = 30,60,40 kg ha-1)

31. Source and
rate of S
(kg ha-1)
Plant height
(cm)
Branches
plant-1
LAI Oil content
(%)
Pod yield
(t ha-1)
2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004
Control 32.1 31.9 5.9 5.7 1.90 1.84 40.2 40.0 0.36 0.32
S0 @35 35.1 34.9 7.0 6.8 2.12 2.04 43.3 42.1 0.46 0.43
S0 @70 37.0 36.8 7.1 6.8 2.13 2.10 44.1 42.9 0.47 0.43
Gypsum @35 36.1 35.9 7.0 6.8 2.13 2.05 43.3 42.1 0.46 0.43
Gypsum @70 37.2 36.9 7.1 6.8 2.14 2.11 46.0 43.3 0.47 0.43
Cosavet @35 39.2 39.1 7.9 7.7 2.33 2.25 46.1 43.8 0.58 0.54
Cosavet @70 40.1 39.9 7.9 7.7 2.34 2.30 46.6 43.9 0.58 0.55
CD (P=0.05) 2.4 2.7 0.57 0.5 0.18 0.14 3.4 2.9 0.03 0.03
Table 20: Effect of source and rate of sulphur on growth attributes, oil content and yield of
groundnut
Jat and Ahlawat, 2009Location: IARI, New Delhi

32. Treatments Pods
plant-1
Shelling % 100 kernel
weight (g)
Yield (Kg ha-1) Oil
content
(%)
Protein
content
(%)Haulm Pod Oil
S sources
C1 31 75.21 36.29 5598 3462 1249 48 24
C2 31 75.07 36.33 5589 3482 1265 49 24
CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
S levels (kg ha-1)
S0 27 74.29 33.05 5161 3085 1051 47 23
S20 31 75.29 35.98 5502 3414 1238 48 24
S40 33 75.57 38.17 5857 3699 1366 48 24
S60 33 75.43 38.04 5843 3688 1371 49 24
CD (P=0.05) 3.2 0.42 0.49 117 89 122 0.3 0.01
Table 21: Effect of sources and levels of sulphur on yield attributes, yield and quality of
groundnut (Pooled mean)
Patel et al., 2009Location: Dantiwada, Gujarat
C1: Elemental sulphur C2: Gypsum

33. S levels
(kg ha-1)
Mature
pod
plant-1
100
seed
weight
(g)
Shelling
%
Yield (t ha-1) Oil
content
(%)
SUE
(kg kg-1)
Haulm Pod Seed
S0 10.8 48.1 70.4 2.72 1.52 1.08 43.23 15.42
S20 13.3 49.5 72.2 3.01 1.80 1.31 46.60 6.67
S40 13.2 49.1 72.6 3.06 1.79 1.31 47.70 3.62
S60 12.2 48.8 71.0 2.91 1.66 1.18 47.90 0.68
CD
(P=0.05)
1.3 NS 1.4 0.09 0.08 0.11 1.28 1.94
Table 22: Effect of different levels of sulphur on yield attributes and yield of rabi groundnut
(Pooled mean)
Dash et al., 2013Location: Sambalpur, Odisha
Source of sulphur: Phosphogypsum

34. Phosphogypsum levels
(Pg)
No. of
pods
plant-1
No. of
kernels
pod-1
100 kernel
weight
(g)
Shelling
%
Yield (kg ha-1)
Pod Haulm
Pg1- Gypsum @ 500 kg ha-1
at flower initiation
13.7 1.5 41.3 68.2 2060 3665
Pg2- PG @ 250 kg ha-1 at
flower initiation
13.3 1.5 40.2 66.8 1958 3556
Pg3- PG @ 250 kg ha-1 ½ as
basal and ½ at flower
initiation
13.0 1.5 40.0 64.9 1795 3444
Pg4- PG @ 500 kg ha-1 ½ as
basal and ½ at flower
initiation
13.4 1.5 40.7 67.1 2001 3555
Pg5- PG @ 500 kg ha-1 at
flower initiation
14.6 1.6 42.1 70.6 2136 3701
CD (P=0.05) 0.4 0.1 1.0 2.4 59 161
Table 23: Yield attributes and yield of rabi groundnut as influenced by phosphogypsum levels
Naresha et al., 2014Location: Hyderabad, Telangana

35. Treatment Plant
height
at 60 DAS
(cm)
LAI at
60 DAS
Head
diameter
at harvest
(cm)
Seed weight
capitulum-1
(g)
Test
weight
(g)
Yield (kg ha-1)
Seed Stalk
T1 (Control) 138.7 2.08 14.77 20.40 40.95 1028 2557
T2 143.7 2.18 14.82 21.13 42.35 1091 2662
T3 151.1 2.23 15.92 22.40 42.70 1177 2807
T4 152.0 2.43 16.17 22.99 43.80 1226 2965
T5 145.7 2.24 16.07 22.42 42.72 1154 2885
T6 152.6 2.64 16.82 25.70 44.72 1310 3052
T7 154.5 2.66 17.05 25.87 45.02 1344 3120
CD (P=0.05) NS 0.29 1.54 2.58 1.81 160 252
Table 24: Effect of sulphur application on growth, yield attributes and yield of sunflower
Intodia and Tomar, 1997Location: Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
T2: Elemental sulphur @ 20 kg S ha-1 T5: Gypsum @ 20 kg S ha-1
T3: Elemental sulphur @ 40 kg S ha-1 T6: Gypsum @ 40 kg S ha-1
T4: Elemental sulphur @ 60 kg S ha-1 T7: Gypsum @ 60 kg S ha-1

36. Table 25: Effect of applied sulphur on yield and nutrient content of sunflower
S levels
(Kg ha-1)
Sunflower yield (kg ha-1) Nutrient content in seed (%)
1996-97 1997-98 Mean 1996-97 1997-98 Mean
P S P S P S
S0 907 1005 956 0.93 0.21 0.94 0.31 0.93 0.26
S10 1002 1160 1091 1.06 0.26 1.08 0.33 1.07 0.30
S20 1033 1182 1107 1.04 0.31 1.08 0.35 1.06 0.33
S30 1102 1126 1114 1.01 0.31 1.09 0.39 1.02 0.35
S40 1074 1105 1090 0.98 0.30 0.99 0.37 0.98 0.34
CD (P=0.05) 102 115 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.05
Singh and Kairon, 2001Location: Sirsa, Haryana

37. Table 26: Effect of sulphur on growth and physiological parameters of sunflower
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Plant height
(cm) at 50%
flowering
Dry matter accumulation
(g plant-1) at 50% flowering
LAI at 50
DAS
CGR (g plant-1)
at 50-70 DAS
S0 104.0 95.0 1.3 1.7
S30 109.9 100.1 1.5 2.0
S60 112.0 103.2 1.7 2.0
CD (P=0.05) 0.6 0.6 0.01 0.07
Sarkar and Mallick, 2009Location: Baruipur, West Bengal
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

38. Table 27: Effect of sulphur on yield attributes and yield of sunflower
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Diameter of
capitulum
(cm)
Filled seeds
capitulum-1
Test weight
(g)
Seed yield
(t ha-1)
HI
S0 16.2 571.4 49.4 1.71 0.348
S30 18.0 635.4 51.0 1.99 0.352
S60 20.8 665.4 53.5 2.27 0.352
CD (P=0.05) 0.13 15.4 0.5 0.03 0.003
Sarkar and Mallick, 2009Location: Baruipur, West Bengal
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

39. Table 28: Effect of sulphur on oil content, nutrient uptake and economics of sunflower
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Oil
content
(%)
Total N
uptake
(kg ha-1)
Total S
uptake
(kg ha-1)
Cost of
cultivation
(Rs ha-1)
Gross
returns
(Rs ha-1)
Net
returns
(Rs ha-1)
B:C
ratio
S0 34.5 40.3 6.8 12450 25650 13200 2.06
S30 36.7 51.0 15.9 13150 29850 16700 2.26
S60 38.0 60.4 18.4 13450 34050 20600 2.53
CD
(P=0.05)
1.1 1.62 0.34
Sarkar and Mallick, 2009Location: Baruipur, West Bengal
Source of sulphur: Gypsum

40. Table 29: Effect of sulphur on growth parameters, yield attributes and yield of linseed
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Plant
height
(cm)
Dry matter
accumulation (g
plant-1)
Days
to
maturity
Capsules
plant-1
Seeds
capsule-1
Test
weight
(g)
Seed yield
(q ha-1)
S0
50.5 8.04 119.0 36.0 9.05 6.99 11.53
S20
53.6 8.67 119.6 39.3 9.24 7.55 14.19
S40
52.6 8.64 119.2 38.4 9.28 7.47 14.15
CD
(P=0.05)
2.54 0.41 NS 1.44 0.16 0.19 0.61
Singh, 2011Location: BHU, Varanasi
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

41. Table 30: Effect of sulphur on quality parameters and nutrient content of linseed
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Oil
content
(%)
Oil yield
(q ha-1)
Protein
content
(%)
Protein
yield
(q ha-1)
Nutrient content in seed (%)
N P K S
S0
39.3 4.53 18.8 2.17 3.007 0.724 0.668 0.311
S20
41.1 5.84 19.6 2.78 3.137 0.745 0.680 0.348
S40
41.3 5.84 20.0 2.83 3.200 0.751 0.675 0.368
CD
(P=0.05)
0.38 0.25 0.43 0.12 0.068 0.006 0.003 0.011
Singh, 2011Location: BHU, Varanasi
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

42. Table 31: Effect of sulphur on nutrient uptake and economics of linseed
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Total nutrient uptake by
linseed (kg ha-1)
Economics of linseed
N P K S Cost of
cultivation
(Rs ha-1)
Gross return
(Rs ha-1)
Net return
(Rs ha-1)
Output
input
ratio
S0 49.2 10.6 27.4 7.33 17167 25593 8425 1.49
S20 61.7 13.2 31.9 9.74 17916 31416 13500 1.75
S40 62.4 13.3 31.2 10.2 18665 31278 12612 1.67
CD
(P=0.05)
2.95 0.49 1.94 0.635 1320 1320 0.07
Singh, 2011Location: BHU, Varanasi
Source of sulphur: Elemental sulphur

43. Table 32: Effect of sulphur application on physiological parameters of sesame at different
growth stages (Mean data of 2 years)
S levels
(kg ha-1)
CGR (g plant-1 day-1) RGR (g g-1 day-1) NAR (g cm-2 day-1)
Days after sowing Days after sowing Days after sowing
35-45 45-60 60-75 75-90 35-45 45-60 60-75 75-90 35-45 45-60 60-75 75-90
S0
0.170 0.330 1.858 1.358 0.152 0.032 0.040 0.011 0.007 00.04 00.38 0.015
S25
0.209 0.435 1.913 1.164 0.150 0.031 0.045 0.013 0.008 00.06 00.35 0.012
S50
0.230 0.482 2.005 1.013 0.151 0.032 0.039 0.039 0.007 00.07 00.33 0.012
CD
(P=0.05)
0.003 0.004 NS 0.006 0.001 NS 0.002 0.002 NS 00.02 00.002 NS
Sarkar and Banik, 2002Location: Kolkata, West Bengal

44. Table 33: Effect of sulphur application on yield attributes and seed yield of sesame at
different growth stages (Mean data of 2 years)
S levels
(kg ha-1)
Capsules
plant-1
Capsule
length
(cm)
Seeds
capsule-1
Test
weight
(g)
Seed yield (kg ha-1)
1999 2000 Mean
S0 44.83 2.08 44.89 3.45 744 760 752
S25 45.33 2.18 45.11 3.47 759 779 769
S50 45.88 2.26 45.55 3.50 791 812 801
CD
(P=0.05)
NS 0.13 NS NS 15.70 6.80 14.60
Sarkar and Banik, 2002Location: Kolkata, West Bengal

45. Conclusion
• The application of sulphur @ 30 to 40 kg ha-1 significantly
influenced the growth, yield, nutrient uptake and economics of
oilseed crops
• The increase in the level of sulphur resulted in the increase in
oil content and oil yield of oilseed crops
• Sulphur application at the time of flowering showed
significant effect on the performance of oilseed crops
• The application of sulphur through gypsum resulted in the
significant effect on growth, yield, quality and economics of
the oilseed crops