effect of zinc sulphate on groundnut

1
RESEARCH REPORT
STUDIES ON EFFECT OF DIFFERENT
CONCENTRATION OF ZINC SULPHATE ON
GROUNDNNUT
DEPARTMENTOF AGRONOMY
College of Agriculture, V C Farm, Mandya-571 405
RESEARCH REPORT
Submitted to:
Dr.G.R.DINESH
Department of Agronomy
College of Agriculture.
V.C.Farm. Mandya.
Submitted by:
DEBASISH PRUSTY
III B.Sc. (Agri)
ALM 4016
College of Agriculture,
V.C.Farm, Mandya

2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It gives me immense contentment in expressing my
gratitude and sincere thanks to Dr.G.R.DINESH, Dept. of
AGRONOMY, College of Agriculture, V.C.Farm, Mandya, for
his valuable guidance, help and encouragement throughout
the course of work.
I am very grateful to all the staffs of the Dept. of
agronomy, College of Agriculture, V.C.Farm, Mandya and all
other course teacher for giving me an opportunity to conduct
the course during the course of my degree programme.
Finally I thank each and every one who had rendered
the valuable suggestions and services towards the completion
of this course and report work.
Debasish Prusty
ALM 4016
III B.Sc(Ag)
College ofAgriculture,
V.C. Farm . Mandya

3
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Mr. DEBASISH PRUSTY. ID NO.ALM 4016
III.B.S.c.(Ag.) has satisfactorily completed the course of
“Experiments Techniques of Agricultural Research”, AGR.
301(0+1), prescribed by the University of Agricultural Science,
Bengaluru for the degree course conducted by the Department of
AGRONOMY, College of Agriculture, V.C.Farm, Mandya during
the year 2016-17
Date of Submission: 10/01/2017
Marks Obtained:
Signature of Course Teacher
DEBASISH PRUSTY
ID NO: AL(M) -4016
COLLEGEOF AGRICULTURE
V.C.FARM, MANDYA

4
Affectionately dedicated to
my respected course teacher

5
Effect of different concentration of zinc sulphate micro
nutrient on yield and growth of groundnut
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted during kharif 2016 at
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, VC Farm Mandya to study the
effect of zinc sulphate at different levels of dosage on growth
and yield of groundnut in red sandy loam soil. There were five
treatments viz., micro nutrient znso4 @ 10 kg/ha, 15 kg/ha, 20
kg/ha, 25 kg/ha and without any micro nutrient. All of the
treatment were under 100% of RDF through normal and water
soluble fertilizers (WSF) with surface irrigation methods which
were replicated four times. The investigation revealed that both
growth and yield parameters are improved on application of
zinc sulphate on groundnut before the sowing operation. .
Department of agronomy
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE Major Advisor
VC FARM MANDYA (Dr. G.R DINESH)

6
CONTENTS
Sl. No Chapters Page No
1 Introduction
2 Review of Literature
3 Materials used and Methods adopted
4 Experimental Results
5 Discussion
6 Summary
7 References

7
ABBRVIATIONS USED IN REPORT
 ha-1
: per hectare
 t ha-1
: tons per hectare
 % : percent
 hrs: hours
 C.D: Critical difference
 NS: non significant
 ANOVA: Analysis of variance
 T-1: Treatment -1
 DAS: Days after sowing
 i.e: that is
 M2
: square meters
 cm: centi meter
 g: gram
 V.C : Vishweswaraya canal
 ACM: Agriculture college, Mandya.
 mm: milli meter
 MSL: mean sea level

8
INTRODUCTION :
S.N:- Arachishypogaea
Chromosomenumber: 2n =2x=20
Kingdom:Plantae.
Order: Fabales
Family: Fabaceae
Sub family: Faboideae
Genus: Arachis
Species : hypogaea

9
Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.), king of oilseeds belongs to the family
Leguminoceae and is commonly called as poor man‟s almond. It is the
world's fourth most important source of edible oil and third most
important source of vegetable protein. Seed is valued both for its oil and
protein content as it contains about 40-45 per cent oil, 25 per cent
protein and 18 per cent carbohydrates in addition to minerals and
vitamins (Desai et al., 1999). Groundnut occupies an area of 24.7 million
hectares in the world with a total production of 33 million tonnes. India
occupies the first place in acreage but stands second in production (18.42
%) after China (41.5 %). The area under groundnut in India was estimated
to be 4886.3 thousand hectars with a production of 57.79 lakh tonnes in
2012-2013. Gujarat accounts for 36 per cent of the total production of
groundnut and it‟s the largest producer in India followed by Tamil Nadu
(20.78 %), Andhra Pradesh (15.23 %), Rajasthan (8.23 %), Maharashtra
(8.23 %) and Karnataka (7.82 %) (Gracy et al., 2013). India ranks first in
terms of area under groundnut, way ahead of China, but when it comes
to production or productivity India lags behind many. Deficient nutrient is
the key reason for imbalance nutrition and incidence of severe pests and
diseases.These are the main causes for low productivity.
In India, zinc is considered as fourth most important yield limiting
nutrient in agricultural crops. Zinc deficiency in Indian soils is likely to
increase from 49 to 63 %by 2025. India is leading in groundnut in acerage
but behind of china in production due to less productivity. Apart from
rain dependent cultivation and mineral nutrient play a vital role in
groundnut productivity.
Among nutrient zinc deficiency causes maximum yield lossto the tune of
40%. The acreage response of groundnut to zinc fertilizerranged from 210
to 470 kg/ha. Hence it is ideal to follow suitable crop improvement and
agronomic management strategy to enhance to uptake and availability of
zinc in peanut.
There are reports emerging that genetic variability exists among the
peanut genotypes for response and accumulation in kernel. This implies
that high zinc dense confectionary peanut genotypes can be exploited for
the further breeding programmes. In addition, zinc fertilization strategies
viz. soil application of enriched zinc, seed coating and foliar application

10
can be suitably adapted with availability and uptake by peanut under
changing climate.
The article attempt to examine the status of zinc deficiency in semi-arid
tropics and approaches to enhance zinc content in peanut kernel through
crop improvement and agronomic manipulation.
Groundnut crop continues to be an unpredictable legume, showing
inconsistency in pod and oil yields. With increase in cost of cultivation
due to increased cost of input, labour and to increase the use efficiency of
applied inputs there is need for a fresh look to exploit the precision of
micro nutrient approaches using different sources and levels of the same
for growing groundnut which maximise quality and quantity of oil and
also number of pods per plant etc.
In this context, a field experiment entitled “Effect of micro nutrient
management with different levels on growth and yield of groundnut” was
conducted with the objectives of to determine the Effect of zinc sulphate
nutrient management on growth and yield of groundnut.

11
Review of Literature
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature on the “Effect of different level of micro nutrient on growth
and yield of groundnut” has been reviewed in this chapter under the
followingheadings.
Nadaf and Chidanandappa (2015) reported that application of zinc
sulphate 20 kg/ha was recorded significantly higher pod and haulm yield
(22.4 q/ha and 38.2 q/ha) than zinc sulphate at 5, 10 kg/ha and control as
RDF.
El-Habbasha et al. 2013 showed that No. Pod/ plant, Wt. Pod/ plant,
100seed wt. (g), seed yield/ (ton/fad) and Straw yield/ (ton/fad) were
significantly higher with Zinc foliar application at seed filling stage as
compared to Control and Zincfoliarapplicationat floweringstage.

12
Prasad et al.2012 showed that zinc oxide at 1000 ppm recorded
significantly higher plant height cm), no. of pod per plant and pod weight
kg per ha
Deshmukh et alin 2001 found PKV method along with use of
micronutrient of groundnut seed production was superior and helped in
increasingyield.
Janilaet al in 2013 found Groundnut improvement: use of genetic and
genomic tools.
Prasadet al in 2003 Super-Optimal Temperatures are Detrimental to
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Reproductive Processes and Yield at Both
Ambient and Elevated Carbon Dioxide
Bozorg et al in 2011 found the effect of zinc foliar spraying
increases the growth and yield of groundnut.
Meena in 2006 found the role of Zinc, Iron and Sulphur on
mustered in loamy sand soil.
Tomar (2003) reported that kernal yield of maize was increased by 18.71
per cent with application zincsulphate
Samui and Minajur Ahasan (1997) reported that gypsum application in
groundnut at sowing and at earthing up significantly increased the 100
kernel weight, number of pods per plant, shelling per cent and pod yield
in groundnut.

13
Barik et al. (1998) reported that dry matter production, LAI and plant
height were increased significantly with application of borax and the
higher value was observed with 40 kg ha-1 in groundnut.
Munda et al. (2004) observed increased branches per plant from 9.9 to
10.1 and number of pods per plant from 9.2 to 12.3 when application of
zinc sulphate is practised along with normal RDF to groundnut as
compared to control.

14
Material and methods
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS
A field experiment was conducted during kharif season of 2016 to study
the “Effect of different levels of micronutrient on yield of groundnut”
under RDF conditions. The material used and methodologies followed
duringthe investigations are presented in this chapter.
3.1 Experimental site
The experiment was conducted at college of agriculture, vc farm
mandya. Geographically situated in the Southern Dry Zone (Zone - 6) of
Karnataka. The site is located at a latitude of 120 451North and longitude of
76o 451 East and at an altitude of 685m above MSL..The topography of
experimental site was uniform with gentle slope towards north direction.
3.2 Climate
Monthly mean meteorological data was recorded at the observatory,
Zonal Agricultural Research Station, for the year 2016. The normal of 25
years (1991-2016) and actual weather parameters for the year 2016
(January 2016 to December 2016) such as total rainfall, temperature

15
(maximum and minimum), sunshine hours, wind speed, relative humidity
and pan evaporation are presented in Table below.
3.2.1 Normal climatic conditions
The normal annual rainfall of the station is 926.45 mm. The major portion
of it was received during May - November with two peaks, first peak in
the months of May (97.31 mm) and second peak in September to October
(381.01 mm). The mean monthly maximum air temperature ranged
between 26.2 °C to 33.6 °C and monthly minimum air temperature
ranged between 13.9 °C to 20.4 °C. The highest monthlytemperature was
recorded during April (33.6 °C) and it was followed by May (33.1 °C). The
mean monthly relative humidity ranged from 74 per cent in March to 88
per cent in August. The mean monthly bright sunshine hours was
maximum duringFebruary(9.6 hrs) followed by March (9.5 hrs)
3.2.2 Actual climatic conditions during the period of experimentation
The highest monthly rainfall was in November 2016 (150.0 mm) and the
lowest was in December 2016 (11.2 mm). During the cropping season
(August 2016 - November 2016), total of 361.7 mm rainfall was received
i.e., 7.7 per cent deficit from normal rainfall. The average maximum air
temperature of 29.2 °C in the month of September 2016 and minimum
temperature was of 16.2 °C during the month of November 2016 was
recorded. The mean monthly relative humidity ranged from 82 per cent in
March and April to 93.0 per cent in July and August during 2016. The
mean bright sunshine hours were least during the month of August (4.4
hours) in 2016. The overall weather conditions prevailed during the
cropping period was nearly normal, except at the early stages of crop
establishment. However, this situation hardly had any impact on growth
and yield of groundnut.

16
Table 2: Meteorological data of the weather parameters for the experimental
period (2016) at College of Agriculture, V. C. Farm, Mandya
3.2. Soil And Its Characteristics
Month
Rainf
all
(mm)
Mean relative
humidity (%)
Mean daily
temperature (oC)
Mean
daily
sunshin
e hours
(hrs)
Mean
daily
wind
veloc
ity
(Km
hr-1)
Mean
daily
evap
oratio
n
(mm)
Num
ber
of
rain
y
daysMaxi
mum
Minimu
m
Maxim
um
Minimu
m
July 65.6 87.1 63.0 30.9 20.7 4.6 7.1 3.9 6.0
August 104.1 92.3 55.6 32.2 20.3 5.3 7.5 4.4 3.0
Septemb
er
68.2 91.9 60.5 33.3 19.1 2.5 5.5 4.2 4.0
October 65.0 86.2 54.6 34.5 17.3 6.7 2.5 3.9 2.0
Novemb
er
4.4 89.0 42.8 31.9 15.8 8.8 1.8 3.4 1.0
Total/me
an
302.9 89.4 58.4 32.7 19.4 4.8 5.7 16.4 15.0

17
The soil type of experimental site was red sandy loam with 73% sand, 9% silt
and 18% clay. The results of soil analysis indicates that the bulk density of
1.45, pH of 7.5, organic matter of 0.6% with the available NPK 195, 30, 225
kg/ha respectively (Table-1)
Table 1: Physical and chemical properties of the soil at the experimental site
Particulars Values Status Methods

18
3.4 Cropping history of the experimental site
Maize was grown in the plot during the period of 2015-16for experiment
purpose, before takingup the present investigation.
Physical properties
Coarse sand (%) 53.8 -
International pipette method (Piper,1966)
Fine sand(%) 13.4 -
Silt(%) 17.7 -
Clay(%) 14.1 -
Soil textural class Redsandyloam
Chemical properties
Ph (1:2.5) 7.48 Neutral
Potentiometric method
(Jackson, 1973)
EC (1:2.5) (dSm-1
) 0.23 Low
Conductometric method
(Jackson, 1973)
Organiccarbon (%) 0.69 Medium
Wet oxidation method
(Walkley and Black, 1934)
Available N (kgha-1
) 179.80 Low
Alkaline potassium
permanganate method
(Subbaiah and Asija, 1956)
Available P2O5 (kgha-1
) 68.33 High
Brays extract
(Jackson, 1973)
Available K2O(kgha-1
) 329.76 Medium
Flame photometry
(Jackson, 1973)

19
3.5 Experimental details
3.5.1 Treatment details
T1: zinc sulphate @10kg per ha at 100% RDF
T2: zinc sulphate @15kg per ha at 100% RDF
T3: zinc sulphate @20kg per haat 100% RDF
T4: zinc sulphate @25kg per haat 100% RDF
T5: no zinc sulphate at 100% RDF
RDF- Recommended dose of fertilizer.
Details about the experiment given in the table below
Replication 4
Design RANDOM COMPLETE BLOCK DESIGN

20
(RCBD)
Total area allotted 54 m2
Size of 1 plot 1.8 m2
Location College o0f agriculture
Crop Groundnut
Variety TMV
Spacing 30X10
Recommended doseof fertilizer 30;50;50 NPK
Season Kharif
Seed rate 120 kg/ha
FYM 10 ton/ha
Treatments 5
Total number of plots 20
3.5.2 Design and layout
The experiment was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
with FOUR replication and FIVE treatments. The layout of the experiment is
depicted in Figurebelow

21
N
3.5.3 Varietal descriptionof groundnutused in present investigation
T1R1 T4R2 T2R3 T5R4
T2R1 T5R2 T3R3 T1R4
T3R1 T1R2 T4R3 T2R4
T4R1 T2R2 T5R3 T3R4
T5R1 T3R2 T1R3 T4R4

22
The cultivar used in the investigation was TMV-2 is released from the
Agriculture Research Station, Tindivanam, of Tamil Nadu state. It is being
grown in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu states. The main axis is
long, erect and the laterals are oblique to the main axis. The rate of growth is
very rapid in the first two fortnights. Crop matures in 90-100 days. Seeds are
small in size with a test weight of 25-30 g per 100 seeds. On an average, it
yields 1200-1500 kg ha-1 under rainfed condition and 2000-2500 kg ha-1 under
irrigated condition.
3.6 Crop husbandry
3.6.1 Land preparation
The land was ploughed with tractor drawn disc plough followed by
harrowing and leveling to bring the soil to fine tilth. Layout was made
according to the experimental design with small bunds around each plot
and replication to avoid movement of water and nutrients from one plot
to another. Each plot was enclosed by bunds of 30 cm width and 15 cm
height.
3.6.2 Manure application
The manures were calculated as per the package of practice (10 t ha-1)
and applied 15 days priorto sowing and mixed well in the soil.
3.6.3 Treatment application
Soil application of zinc sulphate after application of manure was applied.
It was mixed with 1 kg of fym and broadcasted throughout the plot.
Amount of zinc sulphate mixed with FYM are applied as followed:

23
T1: 1.8 gm of zinc sulphate mixed with 1 kg of FYM
T5: only1 kg of FYM without any zinc sulphate
3.6.4 Irrigation
The plots were irrigated upto field capacity followed by sowing of
groundnut seed. Then the plots were left without any irrigation for next
10 days to avoid and fungal or bacterial infection. After than frequent
irrigation was given manuallyat an interval oftwice in a week.
3.6.5 Seed treatment
Prior to sowing the seeds were treated with chlorpyrifos @ 2ml per kg of
seeds to minimize attack of soil borne disease.
3.6.6 Sowing
Before sowing furrows were opened at 30 cm interval. Seeds were
dibbled per hill at 15 cm spacing and covered with soil immediately after
sowing. Entire quantity of P and K fertilizers was applied to soil at the
time of sowing as per the treatments and half the dose of N fertilizer was
applied .Sowing was done on July 18, 2016.
3.6.7 Fertilizer application
Entire amount of phosphatic and potash fertilizer was applied at one at
the time of sowing, whereas basal dose or half of the nitrogenous
fertilizer was applied as basal dose and rest all other was exercised, 30
days after sowing.
Fertilizer applied are as follows:

24
N: 6 gm of urea per plot as basal dose
6 gm of urea per plot are done as top dresssing
P2O5: 31.25 gm of SSP per plot was applied at once
K2O: 8.6 gm of MOP per plot was exercised at once
3.7 After care
3.7.1 Gap filling and thinning
Gap filling was done on 15th day to ensure uniform plant population and
thinning was also done on same day to maintain single plant. Two hand
weeding were done manually at 25 and 40 DAS followed by earthing up
at 40 DAS was done for effective weed control and to give favourable
environment forpeg and pod development.
3.7.2 Plant protection measures
Soil drenching of Chloropyrophos 3 ml/lit against root grub at 30 DAS and
two plant protection sprays of Dimethoate @ 1.5 ml/lit and Carbendizim
(1 g/ml) were taken up at 35 and 65 days after sowing (DAS) to keep the
crop free from leaf eating caterpillars, late leaf spot and leaf rust
respectively
3.8 Collectionof experimentaldata
Observations were recorded from five randomly selected and tagged
plants in each plot at different intervals. Details of observations taken and
the method followed havebeen provided below.

25
3.8.1 Observation on growth parameters
Observations on growth and yield parameters of groundnut were
recorded from five randomly selected plants from the net plot area. The
observations were recorded at 30, 60and at harvest. The general view of
experimental plot was depicted.
The techniques used and the details of observations recorded are
explained in the followingparagraphs.
3.8.2 Plant height (cm)
The plant height was measured from ground level to the tip of the main
stem on five randomly selected plants at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest. The
average height was computed and expressed in centimetres.
3.8.3 Number of primary branches plant-1
Number of primary branches was counted from five randomly selected
plants at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest and their average was taken.
3.8.3 Harvesting
The crop was harvested on November 23, 2016 by hand pulling under wet
condition when it attained physiological maturity as indicated by lower
leaves started drying. The pods were plucked and haulm was separated
from the net plot area separately and dried. The produce was cleaned
and pod weight and haulm yield per net plot was recorded after complete
sun drying.
3.8.7 Dry matter accumulation and distribution (g plant-1)
Dry matter accumulation at harvest was measured only after the plant is
dried. The plant is allowed to dry under sun for few days after which
weight is taken. The completely dried samples were weighed separately
and weight was recorded in grams for each plant plot. This primary data

26
was used to estimate the total dry weight plant-1 and its distribution in
various plant parts at different stages of plant growth.
3.9 Observations on yield parameters
The various yield parameters such as number of pods plant-1, pod yield
plant-1, kernel yield plant-1, 100-kernel weight, shelling percentage, pod
yield, haulm yield and harvest index were recorded after harvest of
groundnut.
3.9.1 Number of pods plant-1
The total number of filled pods was counted from five randomly selected
plants at harvest and the average was recorded as number of matured
pods plant-1.
3.9.2 Pod weight (g plant-1)
The pods obtained in each of the five tagged plants in each plot were
dried in shade until kernel moisture content was around nine per cent.
The total pod obtained from each plant was recorded and the average
was worked out and expressed as pod yield in grams plant-1.
3.9.3 Shelling percentage
Two hundred and fifty grams of sun dried pods from sample of each plot
was shelled manually and the shelling percentage was calculated by
dividing the weight of kernels to weight of pods taken and expressed in
percentage.
3.9.4 100-kernel weight (g)

27
Hundred kernels obtained from shelled pods were mixed thoroughly and
hundred seeds were counted from each net plot yield and the weight was
recorded and expressed in grams.
3.9.5 Pod yield (kg ha-1)
Groundnut plants in the net plot area were harvested and after
separating the pods from plant, the pods were sun dried and pod yield
was recorded and expressed as pod yield kg ha-1.
3.9.6 Haulm yield (kg ha-1)
The dried haulm yield from each net plot at harvest was recorded after
separatingthe pods and worked out as kg ha-1.

28
Statisticalanalysis
The experimental data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis
adopting Fisher‟s method of analysis of variance as out lined by Gomez
and Gomez (1984). The level of significance used in „F‟ test was given at
5 per cent. Critical difference (CD) values are given in the table at 5 per
cent level of significance, wherever the „F‟ test was significant at 5 per
cent level.
Experimental Results
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results of the field experiment conducted during Kharif 2016 to investigate
the “Effect of different level of zinc sulphate on growth and yield of
groundnut” arepresented in this chapter.
4.1 Growth components
The data on plant height, number of branches palnt-1, number of pegs plant-1,
total dry matter production, as influenced bydifferent level of zinc sulphate
are presented in Table below.
4.1.1 Plant height (cm)
The data on plant height (cm) in groundnut at different stages as influenced by
different concentration of micro nutrient are presented in Table below
Recommended dose of fertilizer without any micro nutrient (T5) recorded
significantly lower plant height at 60, 90 days after sowing (DAS) compared to
all other micro nutrient treatments. Significantly higher plant height was

29
recorded with 25 kg of zinc sulphate with 100 per cent RDF (T4) before sowing
and it was on par with zinc sulphate @ 20 kg/ha applied before sowing.
However, the treatments with zinc sulphate @ 15 kg and 10 kg/ha through
recommended dosewere statistically on par with each other.
Table: Plant height (cm) as influenced by different level of micro nutrient at
different stages in groundnut
Treatments 30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS
T1: zinc sulphate @ 10 kg/ha with RDF
T5: Only RDF with no zinc sulphate
11.2
11.5
12.2
13.2
11.4
31.80
33.05
33.20
33.93
31.15
42.20
42.15
42.50
43.40
40.80
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
_
_
_
1.10
3.38
6.77
1.51
4.60
7.13
DAS: Days after sowing, RDF- Recommended dose of fertilizers

30
4.1.2 Number of primary branches plant-1
The data on number of branches plant-1 in groundnut at different stages as
influenced by application of different level of micronutrient are presented in Table
below
significantly lower number of branches per plant at 60, 90 days after sowing
(DAS) compared to all other micro nutrient treatments. Significantly higher
plant height was recorded with 25 kg of zinc sulphate with 100 per cent RDF
(T4) before sowing and it was on par with zinc sulphate @ 20 kg/ha applied
before sowing. However, the treatments with zinc sulphate @ 15 kg and 10
kg/ha through recommended dose werestatistically on par with each other.
Table depicting number of branches per plant of groundnut at 60 and 90 DAS
Treatments 30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS
2.85
2.90
3.05
3.25
2.85
6.00
5.80
6.20
6.80
6.00
6.20
6.65
6.98
7.35
5.73
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
_
_
_
0.46
1.39
14.77
0.65
1.98
14.66

31
4.1.3 Number of pegs plant-1
The data pertaining to number of pegs plant-1 as influenced by application of
different level of zinc sulphate at different stages of groundnut are presented
in Table below.
significantly lower number of branches per plant at 60, 90 days after sowing
(DAS) compared to all other micro nutrient treatments. Significantly higher
plant height was recorded with 25 kg of zinc sulphate with 100 per cent RDF
(T4) before sowing and it was on par with zinc sulphate @ 20 kg/ha applied
before sowing. However, the treatments with zinc sulphate @ 15 kg and 10
kg/ha through recommended dose werestatistically on par with each other.
Table depicting number of pegs per plant of groundnut at 60 and 90 DAS
Treatments 60 DAS 90 DAS
33.60
34.10
37.60
40.30
28.00
9.40
9.50
11.30
12.10
8.50
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
1.80
5.50
10.36
13.4
9.5
12.56

32
4.1.4 Number of leaves per plant-1
The data on number of leaves plant-1 in groundnut at different stages as influenced
by application of different level of micronutrient are presented in Table below
significantly lower number of leaves per plant at 60, 90 days after sowing (DAS)
compared to all other micro nutrient treatments. Significantly higher plant
height was recorded with 25 kg of zinc sulphate with 100 per cent RDF (T4)
before sowing and it was on par with zinc sulphate @ 20 kg/ha applied before
sowing. However, the treatments with zinc sulphate @ 15 kg and 10 kg/ha
through recommended dosewere statistically on par with each other.
Leaves after 90 DAS sowing was found to very less because it was short
duration crop, and leaves were fallen off after certain period.

33
Table depicting number of leaves per plant of groundnut at 60 and 90 DAS
Treatments 30 DAS 60 DAS
28.60
35.25
45.60
54.80
35.70
82.00
77.40
95.00
110.20
68.60
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
2.72
8.31
13.61
6.64
20.28
15.32
4.2 Yield components and yield of groundnut
The data on yield parameters viz., number of pods per plant, pod yield, kernel
yield, haulm yield, 100 kernel weight and harvest index in groundnut as
influenced by application of different level of zinc sulphate are presented in
below

34
4.2.1 Number of pods plant-1
The data on number of pods plant-1 at harvest as influenced by different and
levels of zinc sulphate used. Details of the number of pod per plant are
presented in Table below
Total number pods per plant differed significantly among different treatments,
between concentrations of zinc micronutrient. Treatment with highest amount
of zinc sulphate i.e @ 25 kg/ha (T4) produced significantly higher pod number
(30.55) over all other treatments.T5 with no zinc sulphate produced lowest
yield among all. Treatment 1 and treatment 2 are on par. Treatment with 20
kg/ha (T3) had more numbers of pods than T1 and T2.
Table withnumber of pods produced per plant at the time of harvest
Treatments AT HARVEST
24.20
24.18
27.20
30.55
22.00
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
2.01
6.15
15.70

35
4.2.2 Pod weight (g plant-1)
The data on pod weight (g plant-1) in groundnut at harvest as influenced by
amount of zinc sulphate applied to soil before sowing. Details of the same is
given below in the table.
significantly lower pod weight at harvest compared to all other micro nutrient
treatments. Significantly higher plant height was recorded with 25 kg of zinc
sulphate with 100 per cent RDF (T4) before sowing and it was on par with zinc
sulphate @ 20 kg/ha applied before sowing. However, the treatments with zinc
sulphate @ 15 kg and 10 kg/ha through recommended dose were statistically
on par with each other.
Table representing pod weight at harvest
11.35
11.58
13.43
14.30
11.18
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
0.48
1.47
7.79

36
4.2.3 Test weight (g)
The data pertaining to 100 kernel weight did not differ significantly as like
other parameters.
However the average kernel weight of the current ground variety found to be
32.7
4.2.4 Dried Pod yield
The data on pod yield (kg ha-1) at harvest as influenced by amount of zinc
sulphate applied to the soil before sowing. Details of the following are given
below in the table.
The total pod yield kg ha-1 varied significantly among different treatments.
Between four methods of micronutrient application. Zinc sulphate @ 25 kg/ha
found to be superior than all other type of method. Micronutrient @ 10 kg/ha
and that of 15 kg/ha found to be statistically on [[ar. Treatment with no zinc
sulphate i.e (T5) found to least effective in terms of pod weight per plot.
Table representing dataof driedpod yieldper plot
408.60
414.63
490.05
500.38
396.63

37
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
13.36
2.75
13.73
4.2.5 Haulm yield(kg ha-1)
The data on haulm yield (kg ha-1) at harvest as influenced by different level of
application of zinc sulphate to the crop plant before sowing. Treatment with
maximum zinc sulphatehave more dry matter hence morehaulm weight.
Details are given below;
Table representhaulmyieldexpressedinkg/ha
kg/ha
8235
9458
9802
10565
7912

38
S.Em
C.D at 5%
C.V(%)
11.52
3.84
11.19
4.2.7 Shelling per cent
The data pertaining to shelling percentage of groundnut did not differ
significantly as like other parameters, however the more micronutrient treated
plot had more shelling percent than the one with no treatment of
micronutrient. The average shelling percentage of the current ground variety
found to be 77.4.

39
Discussion
V. DISCUSSION
Micro nutrient is one of the major resources for agriculture which are
becoming scarce and costly day by day. Inadequate supply and inefficient
use of these resources is not only costing more but also resulting in
inconsistent production. Groundnut is important oil seed crop of India
and the world. It is a matter of concern that in recent years groundnut
yields even in most of the potential areas of India are declining mainly
due to inadequate nutrient availability and improper usage of chemical
fertilizers. Dwindling resource base, fluctuating economy and inconsistent
productivity, warrant efficient use of zinc micronutrients need extensive
adoption. Though this system is widely used by progressive farmers but
recently this system is becoming popular among small and marginal
farmers. In the light of the above, the field experiment was conducted at
College of agriculture, VC Farm MANDYA on “Effect of zinc sulphate at
different level concentration on growth and yield of groundnut” under
normal recommended dosage of fertilizer condition and the results of the
experiment are discussed in this chapter.
The results of the experiment to study the EFECT OF DIFFERENT
CONCENTRATION OF ZINC SULPHATE ON GROWTH AND YIELD
PARAMETER OF GROUND PLANT. Cultivation was conducted at
Agronomy field experimental unit, V.C.Farm, Mandya, during rainy season
under red sandyloam soil of V.C.Farm are discussed in this chapter.
5.1 Weather conditions during the growing seasons
The normal and actual weather data that prevailed during 2016 with respect to
rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature and mean relative humidity are
discussed above.

40
The fluctuations in weather conditions truly reflect on expected yield. During
kharif 2016, the crop could not experienced any favorable weather condition
during its growth (weather table). A total rainfall of 304.1 mm was received
during the crop growth period, which was very less than the normal (397.9
mm). The mean monthly maximum temperature and mean monthly minimum
temperature were higher than their respective normal values. The actual
maximum relative humidity was than the normal. Similarly, the bright
sunshine hour‟s day-1 during the crop growth period was higher than the
normal. The crop was attacked by little period, but soon after it was controlled.
5.2 effect of zinc sulphate on growth and yield component in
groundnut
Zinc sulphate is one of the most important micronutrient for the growth
and development of groundnut plant. It contains zinc and sulphur mineral
it in component. Duo helps in increasing the all major yield enhancing
character in the plant. It helps in increasing overall growth rate growth,
producing more number of branches, more number of leaves, more
height, more number of flowers, more number of pegs, more haulm,
more dry matter content, and helping in yield enhancing character like,
more number of pods per plant, more pod weight, more test weight,
more shelling percentage. All the above were proven correct in the
present experiment.
Practical utility
Any innovation is rendered useless, if it has no practical utility. The
adoption of method by farmers being the main objective, a
technology can be more easily adopted, if the farming community is
convinced about its benefits. The results obtained in the present
investigation revealed the following practical utilities in promoting
the use ofmicronutrient on improving the performance of
groundnut.

41
Future research needs
1. Further investigations are required to know the response of
groundnut under long term use of micronutrient.
2. Suitable combination optimum level of zinc sulphate and normal
fertilizer needs to be evolved to reduce high cost of cultivation.
3. Zinc nutrient release pattern of under different irrigation level in
groundnut need to be studied.
4. Identification of suitable crops and their sequences needs to be
examined to maximize benefits from residual effect of zinc sulphate.
5. Effect of zinc sulphate on oil content and oil quality of the
groundnut plant.

42
VI. SUMMARY
A field experiment entitled ‘’Effect of different concentration of
zinc sulphate micronutrient and growth and yield parameter
groundnut’’ was conducted on red sandy loam soil at College of
agriculture, VC Farm Mandya during kharif 2016. The
experimental site lied in Southern Dry Zone (Zone-6) of
Karnataka. There were five treatments comprising of four of
different level of zinc sulphate and one having no micronutrient.
All the treatment having same RDF and same irrigation and same
for all other aspect. The experiment was laid out in a
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four
replications. During the course of investigation, different growth
and yield parameters were recorded at different stages of the
crop growth (30, 60, 90 DAS). The salient features of the
investigation are summarized and presented in this chapter.
 Plots where zinc sulphate was applied @ 25 kg/ha(T4) had
more height at 30 DAS than all other treatment i.e 13.4.
and all others were on par. 60 DAS the plant height was
again found to be superior in treatment (T4) i.e 33.93cm,
and treatment with no zinc sulphate(T5) found to be 31.15
which is lowest among all treatment. T3 had more height T1
and T2which has on par value with t5 statistically. 90 DAS
with no surpise T5 was found superior significantly against
rest others i.e 43.4. t5 with no micronutrient supplied to if
again found to be the lowest. T3 was superior to T1 and T2,
where T1 and T2 were statistically on par.

43
 When we considered number of branches again the same
result was observed as above. T5 with zinc sulphate @ 25
kg/ha was most superior than all other treatment i.e 3.25
number of branches. Treatment with no micro nutrient
application had the least height i.e 2.85. 60 DAS the plant
number of branches was again found to be superior in
treatment (T4) i.e 6.8, and treatment with no zinc
sulphate(T5) found to be 6.0 which is lowest among all
treatment. T3 had more height T1 and T2 which has on par
value with T5 statistically. 90 DAS with no surpise T4 was
found superior significantly against rest others i.e 7.1. T5
with no micronutrient supplied to it again found to be the
lowest i.e 5.73. T3 was superior to T1 and T2, where T1 and
T2 were statistically on par.
 When we considered number of leaves among the plants
then T5 with zinc sulphate @ 25 kg/ha was most superior
than all other treatment i.e 54.8 average number of leaves
in it. Treatment with no micro nutrient application had the
least number of leaves i.e 28.6. similar kind of observation
was taken in 60 DAS and 90 DAS. After 60 DAS T4 had 110.2
average number of leaves which was significantly superior
to all other treatments and treatment with no zinc
sulphate(T5) found to be 68.6 number of leaves which is
lowest among all treatment. T1 and T2 were on par
statistically.
 When yield character were considered again in all the
character treatment with zinc sulphate @ 25kg/ha found to
be most among all other treatments.
 Number of pods per plant was more in T4 i.e 30.55 pods per
plant and with no surprise T5 with no micronutrient was

44
found to be the lowest (i.e 22.0)among all other
treatments.
 All similar kind of observation were taken when pod weight
was taken into consideration T4 with maximum zinc
sulphate was found to be superior than rest others i.e 14.3.
and with no zinc sulphate was found to be 11.5 which was
again the lowest than all other treatments. T1 and T2 was
found to be on par statistically.
 Shelling percentage, test weight, yield per plot all of them
too had a similar kind of result as repeated above. T4 was
always the favourite among all other treatments. And with
no surprise T5 was the least among all.

45
VII. REFERENCES
NADAF, S. F. AND CHIDANANDAPPA, H. M., 2015, Content and
uptake of macronutrients by groundnut (Arachis
hypogaeaL.) as influenced by soil application of zinc and
boron in sandy loam soils of Karnataka, India. Legume
Research.38 (3): 363-366.
Tripathy, S. K. Patra, A. K and Samui, S. C (1999) Effect of
micronutrients on nodulation, growth, yield and nutrient
uptake by groundnut. Indian J. Physiol., 41(3): 207-209
Valencia, A.G (1968) Response to the application of boron and
zinc in coffee plantation at Fredonia, Antioquia. Trop.
Abstr., 23(8):523.
Valencia, A.G (1968) Response to the application of boron and
zinc in coffee plantation at Fredonia, Antioquia. Trop.
Abstr., 23(8):523.
Patgiri, D.K (1995 Effect of boron, sulphur and molybdenum on
toria (Brassica compestris L.) in a typic haplaquept. J. Indian
Soc. Soil. Sc., 34(2):295-296.
Meena, M.C., Patel, K.P and Rathod, D.D (2006) Effect of Zinc
Iron and Sulphur on mustered in loamy sand soil. Indian
Journal Fertilizers, 2(5): 55-58.
Joshi, P.K., Bhatt, D.M. AND Kulkarni, J.H (1987) Groundnut root
nodulation as affected by micronutrients application and
Rhizobium inoculation. Intern. J. Trop. Agric., 34: 199-202.

46
Dongale, J.R. and Zende, G.K. (1976) Response of groundnut to
the application of Mn, B and S both in presence and
absence of FYM through soil and foliar spray. Indian J.
Agron., 21: 321-326.
Ali, S J and Chattopadhyay N.C. (2005) Influence of soil
application of micronutrients on tuber yield, dry matter
production and uptake of N, P and K under lateritic
condition of West Bengal. Indian Agric., 49 (1-2): 117-128.
Bozorgi, H.R., M. Pendashteh, F. Tarighi, H. Ziaei Doustan, A.K.
Keshavarz, E. Azarpour and M. Moradi, 2011. Effect of foliar
zinc spraying and nitrogen fertilization on seed yield and
several attributes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.).
world applied sci. J. 13(5): 1209-1217.
Malewar, G.U., B.S. Indulkar and V.G. Talankhar, 1993. Root
characteristics and yield attributes as influenced by Zinc
levels and groundnut varieties. Annals of Agricultural Res.,
14: 478-481.
Nahid Jafari, E. Masoud, F. Alireza, R. Gholam, A. Mohsen, K.G.
Ali, 2012. Effects of urea, zinc sulphate fertilizers and
azotobacter and azospirillum inoculant application on grain
yield and nitrogen use efficiency of rapeseed (Brassica
Napus L.). Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 43(4): 551-
560.
Pandey, N., G.C. Pathak and C.P. Sharma, 2006. Zinc is critically
required for pollen function and fertilization in lentil.
Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, 20: 89-
96.
Pendashteh, M., F. Tarighi, And H.R. Doustan, 2011. Effects of
foliar zinc spraying and nitrogen fertilizeration on seed yield

47
and several attributes of groundnut(Arachis hypogaea L.).
World Applied Sciences J., 13(5):1209-1217
Sukhija, P.S., V. Randhawa, K.S. Dhillon and S.K. Munshi, 1987.
The influence of zinc and sulphur deficiency on oil –filling in
peanut kernels. J. Plant and Soil, 109: 261-267.
Thalooth, A.T., N.M. Badr and M.H. Mohamed, 2005. Effect of
foliar spraying with Zn and different levels of Phosphatic
fertilizer on growth and yield of sunflower plants grown
under saline condition. Egypt. J. Agron., 27: 11-22.
Abdel – Wahab, A.M., G.M. Yakout, A.A. Mohmed and H.M. Abd
El –Motaleb, 1986. Effect of different levels of nitrogen,
phosphorus ,potassium and calcium on peanut II-yield and
quality. Egypt. J. Agron., 11(1-2):79-92.
T. N. V. K. V. Prasad, P. Sudhakar, Y. Sreenivasulu, P. Latha, V.
Munaswamy, K. Raja Reddy, T. S. Sreeprasad, P. R. Sajanlal
& T. Pradeep (2012): EFFECT OF NANOSCALE ZINC OXIDE
PARTICLES ON THE GERMINATION, GROWTH AND YIELD OF
PEANUT, Journal of Plant Nutrition, 35:6, 905-927
Anderson, W. B. 1972. Zinc in soils and plant nutrition. Advances
in Agronomy 24: 147–186.

effect of zinc sulphate on groundnut

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to effect of zinc sulphate on groundnut

Similar to effect of zinc sulphate on groundnut (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

effect of zinc sulphate on groundnut